Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-08-30

MR GORDHAN: Are you aware of the fact that that assault amongst other things during the detention led to the development of high blood pressure, hypertension?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: I will not know when your high blood pressure started.

MR GORDHAN: I put it to you that your questions were only to a very limited extent about The Owl phenomenon that you referred to.  That in fact much of your questions were in respect of the so-called Tongaat Conference?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: That is possible that other questions were asked which formed part of the main purpose of the interrogation.

MR GORDHAN: I also put it to you that you spent a fair amount of your time questioning me about who else was involved in the underground structures that I was involved in?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: It is possible that I may have asked those questions, yes.

MR GORDHAN: So a substantial amount of time, Mr Botha, was actually spent asking about issues that were already public knowledge at that point in time.  Who was involved in the underground structure by your own admission you knew from documentation taken from one place or the other and by then most of them were arrested.  The Tongaat Conference was public knowledge and so information that was already well known was being "extracted" from the detainee using this reasonably harsh method of assault?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Chairperson, there was an introductory piece to the interrogation in order to determine the state of mind of the detainee at that stage.

MR GORDHAN: Were you aware of the fact that by that time I had already in detention been shown copies of newspapers by the Black policemen so I was fully aware of what newspapers like the Citizen and so on already had to say about the Tongaat Conference, about the arrests and about the negotiations process?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: No, I'm not aware of that.

MR GORDHAN: I also put it to you that when you say in your more recent statement that the assault lasted for ten minutes that is not true that in fact it lasted between 30 and possibly 50 minutes?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Chairperson, then I don't understand.  A short while ago it was said that I spent a total of three minutes there.

MR GORDHAN: No well let me help you ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think - sorry, just correct me if I'm wrong Mr Gordhan, that what Mr Gordhan says that initially when you came in you were only initially there for about three minutes or for a very short while before the assault started.

MR GORDHAN: There were two interactions on Mr Botha, Chairperson, as you correctly point out.  The first was the visit and working with as he calls it in his statement and the second was the assault itself.

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Yes, that makes sense, that is correct.

MR GORDHAN: Okay, so the 30 to 50 minutes makes sense as well?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: No, negative, my recollection is approximately 10 minutes in total.

MR GORDHAN: You then say that this assault took place by virtue of a decision you made on your own and from no higher order?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Gordhan, if I may just intervene?
	You say the whole process took ten minutes from the time that you first went into the room where Mr Gordhan was until you decided to stop suffocating him?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Which means that you must have arrived at your decision to apply force in a very short time?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now why did you arrive at that decision in such a short while, I mean surely any interrogator couldn't arrive at a final decision in three or five minutes, decide whether a person is going to cooperate or not?  Why didn't you give it longer, why didn't you carry on questioning him for an hour or two or two days even before you resorted to violence?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Chairperson, perhaps the questioner to whom this aspect has been allocated could examine this better but my understanding is that he did not want to offer any cooperation voluntarily and that is why I came to that decision rather swiftly.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed.

MR GORDHAN: Chairperson, you'll note that I actually spent three and a half months in detention subjecting myself to the so-called persuasion of the security branch and here Mr Botha you are saying that within split seconds you made a decision to assault as opposed to leave it to the gentlemen who are dealing with me to extract through persuasion this information.  Are you saying that they were ineffective in the way they interrogated me?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: No Chairperson, once again the reason why I did this was to obtain information with regard to the identity of the mole, it was necessary, it was vital for me to obtain such information quickly.

MR GORDHAN: Did you finally get that information?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Who would want to know?

MR GORDHAN: We'll tell you sometime.  Why did you actually commit those assaults when on the 14th July in your previous evidence you indicated that you were told by headquarters that no prosecutions will be pursued in respect of these arrests?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Chairperson, once again I will reiterate.  The reason was to obtain information with regard to the identity of the informer or mole within the security branch.

MR GORDHAN: A slight variation of an earlier question, the information about Tongaat Conference etc. etc., apart from the mole story, was already in the public domain and yet, I mean that you could have asked in the three minutes that you were with me.  Why use the assault as the mechanism through which you wanted to explore those questions?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Chairperson, with any interrogation there would be an introductory section.  The types of questions and Mr Gordhan has reminded me of the types of questions which were asked or at least the subject of interrogation which served as the introductory aspect.  The purpose of his interrogation by me on that day was in order to determine the identity of the informer.

MR GORDHAN: When did you report to your seniors that you had committed this assault?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: I never reported it to them.

MR GORDHAN: So neither your commanders within your so-called region or at headquarters were told that you had committed the assault?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: No.

MR GORDHAN: Was this common practice?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Well in terms of assault I would say yes.

MR GORDHAN: Would you not consider the mode of assault as excessive compared to the kind of information that you actually wanted to extract but you could you have well tried the route of persuasion?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: No, Chairperson.

MR GORDHAN: I put it to you that your assault was committed as a result of a culture that developed amongst some of the policemen at that time that it was as a result of almost an habitual practice as opposed to a well thought out decision?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: No Chairperson, I cannot agree with that statement.

MR GORDHAN: Were you surprised by the fact that there was some weeks later a court application brought by my family to restrain the police from assaulting me?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: No Chairperson, at that stage it was already general practice.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, what was general practice?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Approximately all Section 29 detainees families would as a standard practice bring about such an application.

MR GORDHAN: I put it to you that this was no standard practice, that this was as a result of information that I sent out from Bethlehem notwithstanding the fact that I was there so far from Durban that in fact I had been assaulted?