Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1998-03-30

PETER JONES: I don't know whether you and me understand politics the same way.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Jones I think you know a lot more about politics than I do, I must confess.

PETER JONES: That is exactly why I say I don't think we are agreed.

ADV BOOYENS: But it was based in a broader sense, if one used the word politics in its broadest sense, it was based on a political conflict, not so?

PETER JONES: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: I think one could, and Mr Jones could comment on it, wasn't our politics based on a racial basis all along in the past and wasn't the government run on a racial basis and wasn't politics as such, run on a racial basis which brought about conflict between whites and blacks?

PETER JONES: Mr co-chair that is commonly accepted, that is our history, yes, there is no dispute about that.

ADV DE JAGER: All right.

ADV BOOYENS: And it would then follow from that that the battle lines that were drawn in a manner of speaking, between the Security Branch on the one hand, and the liberation movements on the other hand, was exactly as a result of this policy racial separation?

PETER JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: That is what in Siebert's discussions with you, the racial thing came back, in other words that is really what you are saying?

PETER JONES: All the time, yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes.  This what you have written about here in Exhibit B Mr Jones, are these just the accounts of what the meeting was for and the why's and the how's and so, that was just pure fiction, is that correct?  These meetings never took place?
	The BPC and the talk about the BPC's problems, or did that happen as well during your Cape Town visit?

PETER JONES: Some of these visits did happen. If I can elaborate, at the time there were a number of problems around leadership individuals in the Black Peoples' Convention, these were friends of ours, comrades of ours.
	That was not the reason why Steve would have travelled in excess of 1 000 kilometres and put his life on risk to mend that rift, it could have been done by the organisation in its normal course of operation.  However, because we were going to be in Cape Town, and because we had members, senior members who were banned and prohibited from fully participating at national level, we of course made it known that we were willing to see some of these people, and we had made those arrangements.

ADV BOOYENS: So in fact what you described here was to some extent, the results of the secondary purpose, simply put it was to deflect the attention of the Security Police unto the secondary purpose of the visit, whereas the primary purpose was really not to settle BPC differences?

PETER JONES: That is right.

ADV BOOYENS: Fine.  Now, you say that during the night of the 24th, on the 25th you also wrote some other documentation which basically just gives a personal background of you, is that correct?

PETER JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: What did that basically contain Mr Jones, just give us a synopsis?

PETER JONES: In my statement which I made after my release in 1979, I referred to it as three to four pages, or three to five pages on my personal political history, which are very concise points of where I went to school, where I grew up, university, membership of organisations, what work I was doing and so on.
	Those notes and pages are not here.

ADV BOOYENS: Okay.  Siebert's main thrust of his questioning during the night of the 24th, what would you say was the main thrust of his questioning?

PETER JONES: It started off generally, then it started focusing on relationships with white people, he couldn't accept that we could be an independent black organisation, for example that there were people in the ecumenical sector, in the church, like Aldridge Stubbs who was constantly seen with us, moving internationally, that according to him must have had a much bigger role.
	I was questioned extensively on how we linked internationally in relation to money and so on.  As time went on, it became much more specific.

ADV BOOYENS: That is what I actually asked you Mr Jones.  What was the main thrust, what did he really want to know?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens, before we carry on, what is the main thrust of your cross-examination?

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, I've got a statement that was written on the night as a result of that questioning.
	That statement contains nothing about the pamphlet, that is what I want to know from the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens, I really thought that this enquiry entailed an enquiry into whether there was an assault on Mr Jones and the circumstances under which the assault occurred in terms of the Act of course.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, exactly Mr Chairman.  Very well, if the question is disallowed, I will leave it Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I am just trying to find out where we are going to.

ADV BOOYENS: Let me ask the question directly.

MR MTSHAULANA: Mr Chairman, if our learned friend has this additional statement, I am just wondering why we were not provided with this statement and if it is not possible to provide us with that statement?
	Unless my learned friend's line of questioning is that Mr Jones is telling lies, that he was assaulted and the statement that is going to be produced is going to disprove what he has said, I don't understand.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens, are you talking about an Exhibit.

ADV BOOYENS: I am talking about Exhibit B My Lord.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's get directly to the crux.

ADV BOOYENS: Did Siebert on the 24th, did Siebert ask you about the page 135 pamphlet?

PETER JONES: Yes.  About the pamphlet, I wasn't aware at the time it was the page 135 pamphlet.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, he asked about a pamphlet that you said that did certain things, is that correct?

PETER JONES: Yes, it was not specifically, if I can explain, specifically an interrogation about a pamphlet.  They maintained that we were in Port Elizabeth and the more I insisted that we were in Cape Town on another matter, the more they insisted that there were many, many confirmations independently obtained, that we had been in Port Elizabeth.

ADV BOOYENS: Had been in Port Elizabeth, doing what?

PETER JONES: Eventually it came out in bits and pieces, eventually it was about a pamphlet that we had come to deliver, that we were seen all kinds of bits and pieces, which I denied.

ADV BOOYENS: Did they say to you - I know you said they didn't show it to you - did they say to you what this pamphlet was supposed to have said?

PETER JONES: No.

ADV BOOYENS: So it was just a pamphlet hanging in the air?

PETER JONES: That is right.  They were telling me that they have the information, which I knew could not exist, it did not exist.
	In relation to our knowledge and experience of Police, we also know that it is normal habit of them, to suggest that they know what you have done, but they require you to admit it independently.  We've also come to accept that that is another method of them to admit that they in fact do not know, that they say that they know, but they don't know.
	Therefore they will try to extract the story from you and if they do not get it voluntarily, they will beat you up for it.  That means fabrication of a story, which many times led to people being convicted.  That is the truth.

ADV BOOYENS: Let's stay away from the generalisations, let's try to get to the specifics.

PETER JONES: That is the truth.

ADV BOOYENS: Let's try to get to the specifics of this matter.  So, am I right as far as the pamphlet is concerned, Siebert and company said to you that you and Biko were in PE, distributing a pamphlet?  They didn't tell you what the pamphlet said or what it was about or anything?

PETER JONES: That is right.

ADV BOOYENS: And the next day when you produced Exhibit B and the other document, which we haven't got, this assault that you have described to us, followed?

PETER JONES: That is correct.