Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1998-03-30

ADV BOOYENS: Not a single question from him.  You mentioned something, you said that when about the interrogation, that when Siebert and Snyman set off with their questioning, your impression was that they were a bit out of their depth, is that correct?

PETER JONES: That they didn't know much about the Black Consciousness Movement, they certainly had a serious attitude problem about themselves as the Headquarters of Security Police.  They couldn't understand how we could operate a national organisation in King William's Town, they found it absolutely disgusting that we could do what we were doing and why could the police not do what they would do to people as they would normally treat people in Port Elizabeth.  That is basically beat their brains out.

ADV BOOYENS: Let's confine ourselves to my questions Mr Jones, I am trying to finish this.
	I am talking about their knowledge of the Black Consciousness Movement, these two Snyman and Siebert?

PETER JONES: Not extensive.

ADV BOOYENS: Not extensive?  So you heard Mr Niewoudt's evidence that at a later stage when they were busy with Mr Biko, Siebert specifically was busy with Mr Biko, and he, that is Niewoudt got the impression that Mr Biko realised that they didn't exactly know what they were talking about, that is also consistent with what you thought was the case?

PETER JONES: Are you referring to the evidence?  I can't recall that evidence.

ADV BOOYENS: He basically said and I am trying to telescope it, he basically said that he got the impression that Mr Biko realised that Siebert didn't really know what he was talking about, he didn't have an indepth knowledge of the Black Consciousness Movement.  That is also consistent with what you found with the knowledge of Siebert and Snyman, not so?

PETER JONES: Yes, but that was also a general phenomena in Port Elizabeth.

ADV BOOYENS: So they really didn't know what was going on?

PETER JONES: No.

ADV BOOYENS: So your impression certainly was not, Mr Jones, that prior to questioning you, that they have made a study of the whole philosophy of Black Power and what was behind it and who the main people behind it was, and so on?

PETER JONES: I think they had a general understanding as was normal for most Security Police at the time.

ADV BOOYENS: But what was that general understanding, here is a Black Power Movement, it is a threat to the government, that is it?

PETER JONES: That is right.  And even silly things like why do we prefer white sugar to black sugar.

ADV BOOYENS: If the Commission would just bear with me.  Mr Chairman, it is one o'clock, may I suggest that we perhaps just take a short break.  I won't be long with this witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there any particular reason why you need the break?

ADV BOOYENS: I just want to first of all consider a few further aspects, like I say, I won't be long.

CHAIRPERSON: How long do you think you need to consider that aspects?

ADV BOOYENS: 15 to 20 minutes.
COMMISSION ADJOURNS

PETER JONES: (still under oath)

ADV BOOYENS: (continued)  Thank you Mr Chairman.  Mr Jones, the night of the 24th when Siebert and Snyman were asking you these questions that we were dealing with, how were you assaulted and by whom?

PETER JONES: Siebert who jumped up very briefly, he clapped me and he also took into his hand the green hosepipe, with which he hit me a few blows.

ADV BOOYENS: You said earlier on that the hosepipe was filled, but you don't know whether it was with something metallic?  Is that right?
MR JONES

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: In what was handed in as Exhibit P in the previous hearing, which is really - it is called the testimony of Mr Peter Jones and (indistinct), you know what document I am referring to?

PETER JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: You handed - it is correct, you handed that document in at the time, not so?

PETER JONES: Right.

ADV BOOYENS: It was Exhibit P in the previous hearing.  Mr Chairman, I don't know the Committee should probably have it, it is a photocopy of this printed thing.

CHAIRPERSON: Exhibit P is with us, I am asking whether we should mark it Exhibit E.

ADV BOOYENS: Page 304 Mr Jones, go to the paragraph counting from the top ...

PETER JONES: I have it, I have it in front of me.

ADV BOOYENS: Right, counting from the top excluding the first, which is part of the - the third paragraph, the one in the desk in front of Siebert.  Do you see that?

PETER JONES: Yes, I have that, I have that paragraph.

ADV BOOYENS: With what the hell it was filled, I cannot say but it was something metallic.

PETER JONES: That is right.

ADV BOOYENS: Do you want to comment in the light of what you ...

PETER JONES: Yes, it was completely subjective, it was more a reference to the weight that I felt when I of course eventually became entangled with these hosepipes.  That is why I said eventually something metallic.  But I can't tell you that it was metal.

ADV BOOYENS: Very well.  Snyman I understood, merely - it seems that the assaults that he perpetrated I am talking about the 24th, 25th, the assaults that Snyman perpetrated on you was once this mass assault took place, he was sort kicking and hitting you from the side as you put it, to hold you in line or keep you in line, or something like that?

PETER JONES: That is right.

ADV BOOYENS: Is that all Snyman did?

PETER JONES: Yes, he also did, I can't remember exactly when, also independently hit me at one or other occasion, I can't remember the occasions.

ADV BOOYENS: Go to page 387 please, the fourth paragraph, "when I repeated", have you got that?

PETER JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Snyman started calling me names and calling me a liar.  He got up from the chair and kicked me on the left leg, stumbled, the chairs came tumbling down, hitting him on the head and the other one landing on Siebert.  You see there you say it was Snyman, in your evidence here you said it was Siebert who did that.  Which one is it?

PETER JONES: It is as it is in the statement.

ADV BOOYENS: So your evidence here was wrong?

PETER JONES: If I said Siebert, it would have been a mistake.

ADV BOOYENS: When was this written?

PETER JONES: This was written, I was released in February of 1979.  I prepared this statement around April and May of 1979, the purpose of the statement was to explore whether we could get around the limitation at the time, or the restriction that you had to charge a police within six months of an incident and we were going to seek a legal opinion, so that statement was handed to my lawyer, who is now the Minister of Justice to this country, Dullah Omar and it was handed for opinion to Adv George Bizos and Kentridge, who was involved in the inquest, and as you know, Adv Bizos is still involved.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Jones, the evidence of Mr Niewoudt specifically, was that he do admit assaulting you and assaulting you quite seriously, but he denies as you have heard the assault described by you.
	I think we have dealt with that, your explanation is that he must be trying to protect somebody else.

PETER JONES: Indeed.

ADV BOOYENS: Oh yes, there is just one more aspect I want to deal with.  If we can just go through a few other aspects, page 382 - you say the group of Security Policemen that attacked you at the cells, were four in here.  At the top of page 382 you say there were six of them.  Which is the correct one?

PETER JONES: Can I just correct you, that was when I arrived, on the day I arrived.

ADV BOOYENS: Okay, very well.  Later on I say the Security Police, never less than four, would rush into my cell at any time, day or night.

ADV BOOYENS: Niewoudt present all the time?

PETER JONES: I can't accurately recollect, but he stands out as the brut of the lot.

ADV BOOYENS: You don't like Mr Niewoudt, Mr Jones is that correct?

PETER JONES: I have been asked many times over many years, what my feelings are, and I have made it very clear, I have got no feelings for these people.