CHAIRPERSON: This is the application of Mr Niewoudt in respect of the death of Mr Biko and an assault on Mr Jones. Yes, Mr Booyens?

ADV BOOYENS: Thank you Mr Chairman and members of the Committee, I appear on behalf of the applicant Mr Niewoudt, instructed by Van der Merwe and Bester. I call the applicant.

ADV BIZOS: May it please you Mr Chairman and members of the Committee. I appear on behalf of the Biko family, to oppose the application for amnesty, together with my learned friend, Mr Patric Mtshaulana and instructed by the Legal Resources Centre.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY ADV BOOYENS: Mr Niewoudt, please refer to your application. Do you confirm page 1?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Page 2?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Page 3?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Page 4.

ADV DE JAGER: I beg your pardon, are you referring to the bundle of documents, bundle 1 page 24, is that what you are referring to?

ADV BOOYENS: Chairperson, unfortunately we were never placed in possession of the official bundle, so that is why I am referring to Mr Niewoudt's application, when I refer to page numbers, I am referring to the typed page numbers at the top of his application.

On page 4 paragraph 7, there you are referring to John McEwan, something which was conveyed to you, can you please tell us where that was? That is page 4, paragraph 7 Chairperson.

MR NIEWOUDT: Chairperson, this was during lectures and training courses where this extract was conveyed to us.

ADV BOOYENS: Do you then confirm page 5?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Niewoudt, may I read it to you and I want you to tell us how it influenced you. Winning a revolutionary war will take mass organisation, dedication sacrifice and time. The government must decide early if it is willing to pay the price. Half measures lead only to protected costly defeats.

What did you understand by this and how did it affect or influence you?

MR NIEWOUDT: The way I understood it is the following that all measures should be used to protect the government of the Republic of South Africa and to keep them in power, and whatever methods would be used, would be justifiable, that is what I thought at that stage.

And that one could use all methods at one's disposal.

CHAIRPERSON: To do what?

MR NIEWOUDT: To protect the government especially in its fights against the total onslaught and the overthrow of the government which was a threat at the time.

ADV BOOYENS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Page 5, 6, 7 and 8 up to paragraph 9(a), do you confirm that?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Just briefly, the incident that we are dealing with here, took place in 1977?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And what was your rank in 1977?

MR NIEWOUDT: I was a junior Sergeant at the Branch Mr Chairperson.

ADV BOOYENS: Just for the sake of completeness, in your application you said that your immediate superior or immediate Commanding Officer was Major Fisher, is that correct?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: And he was the Commanding Officer of the so-called black desk?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is right.

ADV BOOYENS: Could you please tell us what was the size of the Eastern Cape Security Police and where did you fit into the hierarchy of that Branch at the time?

MR NIEWOUDT: As far as my white colleagues are concerned, I was the lowest in rank in my particular section, and even as far as the Security Branch in Port Elizabeth as a whole is concerned, it was the Commanding Branch of the entire Eastern Cape, Cradock, Grahamstown and Uitenhage.

At that stage we didn't deal with the border area and our Commanding Officer was Colonel Goosen, he was the Divisional Commander. Major Fisher was in charge of the black affairs desk, he was the head of that desk.

Then there was the white affairs section or desk, a Captain was in charge of that section. Then there was the coloured and Asian desk. Major Snyman was in charge of that. And then there was also an administrative affairs section, it was a small branch.

ADV BOOYENS: You said that you were the lowest ranking Officer or member in the white component. Were there any white Constables in that Branch?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, only black colleagues.

ADV BOOYENS: So you were the lowest ranking white person at that stage?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Paragraph 9(a), there you give particulars of the acts for which you request amnesty?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: The paragraphs are numbered there as well. Some of the other applicants have already had their applications finalised, and you refer to Marx and Beneke who were Warrant Officers. Snyman and Siebert, where did they fit in?

MR NIEWOUDT: They were attached to the coloured and Asian desk and Snyman was in charge of that.

ADV BOOYENS: What was Snyman's rank at that stage?

MR NIEWOUDT: He was a Major.

ADV BOOYENS: Siebert?

MR NIEWOUDT: Siebert was a Captain.

ADV BOOYENS: Paragraph 2 on page 9 of your application, there you deal with the issue of unrest in the country. Please in your own words, sketch for us what the situation was on the ground as from 1976 onwards, and specifically referring to the situation in the Eastern Cape by 1977, that is more or less the time of the detention of the deceased, Mr Biko, that is August 1977?

MR NIEWOUDT: Mr Chairperson, on the 16th of June 1976, that is the day when the unrest and the riots erupted as a result of the issue of Afrikaans as medium of instruction in the schools in Soweto.

On the 17th of August of 1976, the riots started in Port Elizabeth, and that led to total anarchy. Schools were burnt down, vehicles were burnt, police vehicles were burnt out and black police members had their homes attacked. Delivery vehicles entering the black areas were robbed, burnt and the beer halls belonging to the administration boards were totally burnt down and robbery took place there as well.

The riots started as a result of the fact that Afrikaans was the medium of instruction as part of the so-called Bantu Education policy, and it was a defiant action against the Education system of the State and it led to total anarchy. Everything was orientated towards black power at that stage, and the ANC and the SACP played a very minimal role at that stage.

Black power was at that stage the leading internal revolutionary organisation.

The situation escalated and people who had done certain building operations to their homes, found that their homes were also attacked and burnt because the inference was drawn that those people had to have received money from the State to be able to build and renovate their homes.

Innocent people were burnt, and their homes attacked, there was a total boycott and that spilt over right down to 1978 after the banning of all black power organisations, BPC, SASO and all related organisations.

ADV BOOYENS: For the record, BPC is Black Persons' Convention, and there is also the South African Students' Organisation, that you have referred to, is that correct?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: The black power organisations that you have referred to, BBC and SASO etc, the deceased in this matter Mr Biko and the other affected person, to call him that, Mr Jones, did they play any role in those actions at all?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, in the riots, that was the information at our disposal.

ADV BOOYENS: Could you please tell us what the information was that was conveyed to you? What role did they play personally and what role did the organisations to which they were attached, play?

MR NIEWOUDT: On the 18th of August 1977, there was the commemoration of the breaking out of the riots and inflammatory pamphlets were distributed in the black townships.

The information at our disposal at that stage was that Mr Biko was responsible for the drafting of that pamphlet and that the BBC was responsible for the distribution of the pamphlet.

CHAIRPERSON: The contents of that pamphlet, did that give rise to the unrest and riots?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, it further activated the riots because it started in 1976, and in 1977 there was the commemoration service and they once again conditioned to continue with the violence.

ADV BOOYENS: If I could refer you to my Annexure 7, Mr Chairman. In front of you you've got the document headed August 18, Commemoration Day.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens, we are just looking for the particular page.

ADV BOOYENS: Page 135, Mr Chairman.

MR NIEWOUDT: Could I refer you Mr Chairman, to the last paragraph, wherever you are, organise yourself into groups to deal with those who do not heed this appeal, beat them, burn their books, burn their cars and shops, show no mercy to informers and other collaborators, they must be all killed.

CHAIRPERSON: You are saying that this came into your hands at some stage?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, it was distributed in the black townships.

CHAIRPERSON: What year?

MR NIEWOUDT: 1977.

CHAIRPERSON: And your information was that the author of this document was Mr Biko?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, that he had drafted it and his organisation was responsible for distributing it in Port Elizabeth.

CHAIRPERSON: What was his organisation?

MR NIEWOUDT: Black Peoples' Convention, BPC.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you give us a date when this document came into your hands?

MR NIEWOUDT: It was approximately the 12th, if I remember correctly.

CHAIRPERSON: The 12th?

MR NIEWOUDT: The 12th of August, it could have been later Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: But it was before the 18th?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes. It had already been distributed at that stage before the deceased, Mr Biko, was arrested.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

ADV BOOYENS: I think we all know that Mr Biko was arrested on the 17th and he was detained in Port Elizabeth from the 18th.

So, the document on page 135 was in your possession before that date?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Niewoudt, I am now referring to the stage before you became involved in the interrogation of Mr Jones and Mr Biko.

The information which you got regarding the involvement in the drafting of the document, was that information which you got yourself or was it obtained by your colleagues and conveyed to the Branch?

MR NIEWOUDT: It came from our colleagues and it was conveyed to us.

ADV BOOYENS: If we can go back to your application, page 10, there you say in paragraph 3 that considerable pressure was exerted on the Security Branch. Please tell us in your own words what do you mean by that?

MR NIEWOUDT: Our Commanding Officers placed pressure on us, we who were actually in the field, to gather information and to identify the ring leaders who were involved in the riots and unrest, and we had to prioritise them. The deceased Mr Biko was the leading figure at the time responsible for fermenting the violence.

There was pressure from higher levels on us.

ADV BOOYENS: Do you confirm paragraph 4?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, that is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: And the definition which is given to drastic action, in other words it was drastic action within the framework of the security legislation then valid?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Paragraph 6, you were not present when Mr Biko and Mr Jones were arrested, is that correct?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: In fact they were arrested by the Security Branch in Grahamstown and they were then transferred to you?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, that is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Booyens, are documents are differently numbered, Annexure 4, what is the heading of that?

ADV BOOYENS: That is a newspaper report Mr Chairman of the Sunday Times, of 05-01-1979, page 117 apparently.

ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.

MR NIEWOUDT: What is important there, is the first paragraph, apparently that was obtained from the archives of the old State Security Council resolutions. I had no knowledge of those.

ADV BOOYENS: I think to some extent you have already dealt with the importance of Mr Biko?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, that is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: In paragraph 7 on page 11, you give further information that he went to Cape Town to have discussions with Dr Neville Alexander, to have contact with him. Did you know anything about Mr Neville Alexander?

MR NIEWOUDT: From reports which we received, I gathered something about Mr Neville Alexander's actions, and also as a result of Mr Jones' interrogation.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Niewoudt, how many pamphlets were confiscated and which were similar to the one appearing on page 135?

MR NIEWOUDT: I would like to help the Commission as far as that is concerned, but I have no independent recollection of that, but there were quite a few pamphlets which had been intercepted by informants and conveyed to us and which we also picked up in the black townships.

There were quite a few. If I had to wager a guess ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, before you do that, I am talking about pamphlets which according to your information had been written by Mr Biko, or had something to do with Mr Biko?

MR NIEWOUDT: If I understand you correctly, that is the pamphlet which I referred to in Annexure 7, on page 135.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the only one which you had at that stage?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes. And as I said, if I had to estimate then number, well quite a few pamphlets were seized in the black townships.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but that is a different kind of pamphlet?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, I am talking about this specific one.

ADV DE JAGER: So you are talking about copies of this particular pamphlet?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, they were photocopied pamphlets.

ADV DE JAGER: Was there also another pamphlet with a different content of which you were aware or was it only this one pamphlet of which there were hundreds or thousands of copies?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, it was only the one.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you, after his death, get hold of any pamphlet which allegedly had been drafted by Mr Biko?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, not as far as I know.

CHAIRPERSON: So the only pamphlet which you knew about and which had been allegedly drafted by Mr Biko, was this particular one headed 18th of August?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Booyens?

ADV BOOYENS: Thank you Mr Chairman. If you can go back to page 11, paragraph 6, I know you weren't present at the arrest, but the information given to you was to the effect that there were pamphlets in the possession of Mr Biko and Mr Jones, similar to the pamphlet on page 135, that is when they were apprehended at the roadblock or what was the situation?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, as it said in my application, one could interpret it in that way, but it was in fact not that case. No pamphlets were found in their possession.

Those pamphlets had already been seized or confiscated.

ADV BOOYENS: So what you are actually saying is that upon their arrest the pamphlets had already been confiscated, that is correct.

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Page 12, paragraph 8, there you refer to a special investigation team which was established by Dr Alexander.

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: And you were once again the junior member?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: You then make the statement in the last sentence of paragraph 8, our instruction was to concentrate on Peter Jones. Initially from whom did this instruction come?

MR NIEWOUDT: From Goosen.

ADV BOOYENS: What did Goosen say to you, what was the actual idea behind this, what was your objective with the interrogation and detention of Mr Biko and Mr Jones?

MR NIEWOUDT: We had to obtain information with which to charge them in a court and thereby to neutralise the unrest.

ADV BOOYENS: In your own words please tell us, you do deal with it in paragraph 9 and 10, that is the incident relating to Mr Jones, but I would like you to tell us in your own words, what happened between yourself and Mr Jones?

MR NIEWOUDT: Mr Chairman, I unfortunately don't have the date when he was brought to our offices for interrogation. It was only afterwards when the documents were handed in, I have refreshed my memory, those are the Exhibits H and O that I am referring to.

ADV BOOYENS: Exhibits H and O handed in during the previous amnesty applications?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Chairperson, I don't know how you want to deal with this, perhaps you can give me an indication. These documents had already been handed in, I don't know whether it is necessary to once again burden the record with readmission into evidence of these documents, we could perhaps try and make copies of those documents?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, what is your attitude?

ADV BIZOS: We would submit that this is a Committee that has to come to an independent decision of the other Committee.

There would be nothing wrong in incorporating the contents of the documents by reference, but then it must be done properly. The Committee's attention must be brought to the document placed before the other Committee so that this Committee can take notice of it, but not necessarily to be read out and it is a matter on which I think my colleague must exercise his own discretion in relation to the matter, but I think that we should avoid any possibility of any irregularity by having regard to matters which have not been specifically drawn to this Committee's attention, which appear in the previous proceedings.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you feel uncomfortable with the following suggestion, that the documents referred to by Mr Booyens, be handed in, given annexure numbers, without being formally proved or whatever?

ADV BIZOS: Yes, we have taken the general attitude that unless a specific objection is raised, no formal proof is required, the documents are a matter of record, either particularly the 1977 inquest and we can accept that they are what they purport to be without necessarily admitting the truth contained in the document.

CHAIRPERSON: I thank you Mr Bizos.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, Mr Chairman, my query was actually a lot simpler than this. It is simply, these documents had already been referred to and handed in under different numbers, in the other hearing. All I want to know is the witness is going to refer to the documents now, I would submit that it will be in order purely for the sake of not burdening the record unnecessarily, if we refer to them as the document handed in as Exhibit H in the other hearing and the document handed in as Exhibit O in the other hearing.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Booyens, the evidence leader kindly supplied us with copies of Exhibit H in the previous hearing, and Exhibit O. Is that the handwritten documents you are referring to?

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, those are the two documents I am referring to Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think it is going to be too cumbersome by marking it Exhibit A, after all it is a new hearing, a separate hearing, a new hearing.

ADV BOOYENS: Very well Mr Chairman, for identification purposes, can we then, may I then suggest that we mark for the purpose of this hearing as Exhibits A and B and I would suggest that the one that should be marked A, would be the one that has got on top Peter Jones, 15 Leipoldt Street, King William's Town, that is A, and the one to be marked as Exhibit B then, should be the one with 25/8/77 in the top corner, and Cape Town just below it.

You referred to the two documents Mr Niewoudt?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct, it only refreshed my memory regarding the date.

ADV BOOYENS: There is a date on the top of the document, 25/8/77?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: You were telling us that Mr Jones were at your offices. What was it that you wanted to say?

MR NIEWOUDT: This was the 24th and the 25th, he was taken to our offices for the two days, and he was interrogated there.

ADV BOOYENS: I asked you to tell us about the incident that happened on the 24th and 25th?

MR NIEWOUDT: On the 25th. That is the same day as the document.

ADV BOOYENS: Continue please.

CHAIRPERSON: Before we come to that point, something else I wish to establish. You were instructed to gather evidence and because of this, they had to be charged criminally. Who gave this instruction?

MR NIEWOUDT: Goosen.

CHAIRPERSON: Was this Captain?

MR NIEWOUDT: He was then Colonel, at that time he was Colonel, he was the Divisional Commander.

CHAIRPERSON: Listen to the question carefully, how did you interpret this? Did you have to gather that evidence or did you have to try to gather such information?

MR NIEWOUDT: I had to use all methods to gather such information.

CHAIRPERSON: And what did you have to do to gather such evidence?

MR NIEWOUDT: At that stage I understood it as that I had to use any and all methods to break down this person's resistance and to put him through a softening process so that he could give evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Legally or illegally?

MR NIEWOUDT: Legally or illegally, as long as I did not embarrass the State or the Security Branch.

CHAIRPERSON: This instruction, assume that Mr Jones had information that could lead to criminal prosecution, what would have happened if he did not have such information?

MR NIEWOUDT: I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: That is why I wish to establish, where would you have stopped between using legal and illegal methods to gather this information?

MR NIEWOUDT: Mr Chairperson, I just followed my instructions.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand that, I wish to know how did you understand this, where would it have stopped, or where would you have stopped?

MR NIEWOUDT: One would have used all channels to gather such evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Even if it was a fabrication?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is possible, it is possible.

CHAIRPERSON: I ask this because I do not understand what was your actual instruction.

MR NIEWOUDT: At that stage it was stated to us that we had to use any method to gather information and gather evidence, whether it was legally or illegally, and we had to use this, that is how I interpreted it.

ADV DE JAGER: Let's assume that this person had no information, he was innocent, and you assault him and he cannot give you any information, and you assault him again and he cannot give you any information, not because he doesn't want to, but because he doesn't have it. When do you decide that you have to stop?

MR NIEWOUDT: I would have decided myself, I would have decided if he gave me no information, I would have known it and then I would have stopped.

ADV DE JAGER: How do you come to this point, does it give you an indication that this man does not have any information? What indicates to you that he withholds information because he does not want to tell on his other colleagues?

MR NIEWOUDT: From other resources and informants.

ADV BOOYENS: Just to join what questions came from the Commission, was there any other person previously detained with regard to this document?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is right. Patrick Titi was detained, this was on the 12th, and I can refer to Exhibit G in the previous amnesty application.

ADV BOOYENS: In other words, can you just identify the document, is that the document marked G in the previous application, it is a handwritten statement from one Patric Titi?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is right.

ADV BOOYENS: This was dated 26 August 1977, is that correct?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is right.

ADV BOOYENS: That will be Exhibit C, Mr Chairman. From when was Titi detained?

MR NIEWOUDT: From about the 12th.

ADV BOOYENS: If you refer to a date, is it the 12th of August?

MR NIEWOUDT: The 12th of August 1977.

ADV BOOYENS: What information did you have already when you got to Mr Jones, that we have established was on the 24th, 25th? What information did you gather from Mr Titi?

MR NIEWOUDT: Who was responsible for the drafting of this pamphlet, my Annexure 7, page 135.

CHAIRPERSON: Is this the same aspect as which you interrogated Mr Jones?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And you state according to your statement that you hit him to get that information?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: But you already had that information from Mr Titi?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct, but he was a single person Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I see, and Mr Jones, would he have given evidence against Mr Biko?

MR NIEWOUDT: At that stage I believed it.

CHAIRPERSON: Was your instruction not to gather evidence that would incriminate him?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is right, but he was not such a leaders' figure, if I could refer to the difference between Mr Biko and Mr Jones. It would have been better to build up a case against Mr Biko than against Mr Jones, that is how I interpreted it at that stage.

ADV BOOYENS: Just following on the Chairperson's question, the final decision to whom is to be charged, was that in your hands?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, this was the decision of the senior officer.

ADV BOOYENS: Let's start again, on the 25th or on the 24th of August, did you deal with Mr Jones?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is right.

ADV BOOYENS: Previously, before the 24th of August, did you deal with Mr Jones?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, I did not.

ADV BOOYENS: Any other opportunity, did you visit or assault Mr Jones where he was held between 18th and 24th of August?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, the only time that I visited him at the cell was when I went to fetch him, fetched him and took him to the Security office.

ADV BOOYENS: Tell us, let's start with the interrogation on the 24th, who was doing the questioning, who is questioned, what happened?

MR NIEWOUDT: The interrogation team under leadership of Major Snyman, Captain Siebert, Warrant Officer Marx and myself were busy with Mr Jones.

The interrogation was done by Captain Siebert and Mr Jones did not cooperate, he was very arrogant, he did not want to answer our questions.

CHAIRPERSON: How did you feel about his arrogance?

MR NIEWOUDT: He was full of himself. I did not venture any opinion.

CHAIRPERSON: I just want to know how did you feel about his arrogance? Were you angry?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, I was not angry.

ADV BOOYENS: Did you question him yourself?

MR NIEWOUDT: I was just there, I did not ask any questions.

ADV BOOYENS: You were of junior rank?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is right.

ADV BOOYENS: How long would you say was this interrogation session?

MR NIEWOUDT: It was the whole day, eight hours according to me.

ADV BOOYENS: On the 24th?

MR NIEWOUDT: We are still on the 24th, Your Worship. We are still coming to the 25th.

ADV BOOYENS: Were you there the whole day on the 24th, can you remember?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, I moved in and out Mr Chairman, but most of the time I was there.

ADV BOOYENS: On the 24th, did you do anything physically to Mr Jones?

MR NIEWOUDT: No.

ADV BOOYENS: Do you have any knowledge of anybody else who did anything to Mr Jones?

MR NIEWOUDT: No Mr Chairperson.

ADV BOOYENS: The interrogation of the 24th, did you gather anything substantial from that?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, Mr Chairman.

ADV BOOYENS: Did Mr Jones spend the night at Sanlam Building?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, he was taken back.

ADV BOOYENS: By whom?

MR NIEWOUDT: By myself and Captain Siebert.

ADV BOOYENS: Tell us about the 25th.

CHAIRPERSON: At the end of the 24th, the Security Police were not any further with their interrogation, with reference to Mr Jones?

MR NIEWOUDT: No.

ADV BOOYENS: Tell us about the 25th.

MR NIEWOUDT: On the 25th he was taken from Algoa Park by myself and Captain Siebert and taken to the interrogation office.

CHAIRPERSON: How long was he in the interrogation on the 24th?

MR NIEWOUDT: As I have stated previously, approximately eight hours.

ADV BOOYENS: Continue on the 25th.

MR NIEWOUDT: The 25th was the same procedure, all of us were present.

ADV BOOYENS: Everybody meaning the interrogation team?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is right, Major Snyman, Captain Siebert, Warrant Officer Marx and myself.

At some stage I was alone with him. I interrogated him.

CHAIRPERSON: What time of the day would that have been?

MR NIEWOUDT: This was about ten o'clock. I am guessing now.

CHAIRPERSON: I can understand that. How long would he have been at the offices?

MR NIEWOUDT: He was already there from eight o'clock the morning.

ADV DE JAGER: In which language did the interrogation take place on the 24th, and in which language did it take place on the 25th?

MR NIEWOUDT: It was in English. Once in a while it would have been Afrikaans.

ADV DE JAGER: What was Mr Jones' language?

MR NIEWOUDT: It was English, but he can speak Afrikaans.

ADV BOOYENS: At about ten o'clock on the 25th?

MR NIEWOUDT: I interrogated him and he was evasive, he gave evasive answers.

ADV BOOYENS: What do you mean evasive answers?

MR NIEWOUDT: He did not answer my questions directly.

ADV BOOYENS: Okay, he gave evasive answers and then?

MR NIEWOUDT: There was a green hose that was in the office. I took it and I hit him several times with this hose on his back, and I hit him very hard. He even cried and according to me, it was painful, he was suffering from a lot of pain.

CHAIRPERSON: Approximately how many times did you hit him?

MR NIEWOUDT: If I have to guess, approximately between five and ten lashes. I am guessing again.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it only on his back?

MR NIEWOUDT: Mostly on his back because he was standing bent over and I assume most of the lashes were on his back.

CHAIRPERSON: At which stage in terms of the hitting, did he start to cry?

MR NIEWOUDT: It was about after five to six hits that I gave him.

CHAIRPERSON: And you hit him after he cried?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, I still hit him.

ADV SIGODI: What was the purpose of the green hose to be there, why was it there?

MR NIEWOUDT: The hose was to remove fuel. The person was doing coast duty, coast patrolling and it was to take along extra fuel.

CHAIRPERSON: Is your evidence that this hose was there by accident in that office at that stage?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV SIGODI: Do you still remember how long it was?

MR NIEWOUDT: It was approximately if I have to guess, it is about one meter.

ADV DE JAGER: Whose office was this?

MR NIEWOUDT: It was Warrant Officer Coetzee's office, he did coast patrol. After I hit him, Mr Jones was prepared to explain to me his part and what he had seen and heard and his visit to Cape Town with reference to a visit to Dr Neville Alexander of the unity movement, and also the unity that Mr Biko wanted to establish with the ANC military wing, Umkonto We Sizwe to establish that unity.

I gave him a piece of paper, several pages so that he could sketch his whole background and thereafter I explained to Mr Siebert and the others that he was prepared to talk and that he was busy writing.

Thereafter, after he gave us the information, we went through to King Williams' Town where we went to his office in Leipoldt Street in King Williams' Town, we searched the office and we confiscated typewriters and we arrested some other persons afterwards, and he was once again supplied by writing material by Siebert and he continued writing about the unity incident, and that was with regard to Mr Jones ...

ADV BOOYENS: Just for the record, these documents Mr Jones wrote on, that was Exhibit A and B, was that in his own handwriting?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Was this both on the 25th, they both dated the 25th?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, both on the same day.

CHAIRPERSON: I haven't read through to documents yet, what is written in there, could this lead to criminal prosecution?

MR NIEWOUDT: Mr Chairman, I am sure it could have.

CHAIRPERSON: Was Mr Jones criminally prosecuted?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, not with reference to the drafting of the pamphlet.

CHAIRPERSON: You were asked the reason why you interrogated him and why you hit him is to gather information and evidence, that would lead to criminal prosecution. Isn't that so?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: All that I want to know is after you hit him, he wrote two documents. Was he prosecuted?

MR NIEWOUDT: At that stage I believe that there was, because his liaison with Dr Neville Alexander and his activities, and because of that it wouldn't have been questioned.

CHAIRPERSON: Was he charged?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, he was detained.

CHAIRPERSON: Why was he not charged?

MR NIEWOUDT: I don't know.

ADV SIGODI: When Mr Jones was detained on the 24th, did you hit him on the 24th?

MR NIEWOUDT: No.

ADV SIGODI: You only started hitting him on the 25th?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is right.

ADV SIGODI: And what made you to decide to hit him on the 25th?

MR NIEWOUDT: To extract that information and to get him cooperation.

ADV SIGODI: But I mean you hadn't been getting any cooperation from him and what was the deciding point that you, I mean what caused you to decide to hit him in order to get the information?

MR NIEWOUDT: As I have said previously, that as a result of the pressure that was placed on us from a higher level and to neutralise the unrest, and I used all methods legally or illegally, I used it to generate that information, and I used it as long as I did not embarrass the State.

ADV SIGODI: Were you angry with him when he was not giving you the information?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, I was not angry.

ADV BOOYENS: Let's put it in a simple manner, before you assaulted Mr Jones, did he give you information that you could use?

MR NIEWOUDT: No.

ADV BOOYENS: And after you assaulted him, he gave you the information?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: You mentioned afterwards you went to his office in King Williams' Town?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Did you get any other information with regard to this pamphlet?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: You mention at the end of paragraph 10, that you received further information from Peter Jones and arrests followed. Who was arrested as far as you can remember?

MR NIEWOUDT: As far as I recall it was Mrs Nomhle Mohapi, Nozepo Kepi, Elizabeth Nkabeni. They were all typists who worked under Mr Jones in Leipoldt Street, with the Black Community Programmes.

Can I just explain with regard to that organisation, it was part of the black movement organisation. They dealt with all the administration, and the printing of pamphlets and the publication of Black Review where certain statements which was given to the publishers, other administrative matters with regard to the Council of Churches, and certain projects of the Zanapilo Hospital in King Williams' Town. It was a sub-division of the black movement, front organisation. That is just in short.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Niewoudt, can we just come back to the 25th. Snyman, Marx and Siebert are present during the morning when you initiated the interrogation?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: You are not successful?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: They leave the office, you continue with the interrogation?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Did they tell you where they were going, or why they left, did they leave any instructions with you when you stayed behind?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, I think they went and did further research or went to drink tea, or had further discussions, I don't know. But someone had to be present with the detainee, you could not leave him alone. I was instructed just to be there and to question him.

ADV DE JAGER: And you questioned him further, for how long was this?

MR NIEWOUDT: For about 20 minutes I interrogated him.

ADV DE JAGER: And then you assaulted him?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: And he was prepared to start writing or give verbal statements?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct. Basically he told me verbally and then I provided him with writing implements.

ADV DE JAGER: And you went back to your Commanding Officer?

MR NIEWOUDT: Well, they came back while he was busy writing.

ADV DE JAGER: What was their attitude about this "success" that you had achieved?

MR NIEWOUDT: They were, if I can recall, they were impressed.

ADV DE JAGER: Did they ask you how you went about this being successful?

MR NIEWOUDT: I cannot remember if they pertinently asked me, I could have mentioned it to them. I don't know, I cannot recall.

ADV DE JAGER: Would you have told them that you had assaulted him?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, I would not admit to a senior officer.

ADV DE JAGER: So at that stage you did not tell them but I assaulted him because I wanted to get this information?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, I did not mention the method, how I extracted the information. I cannot recall if I mentioned it.

CHAIRPERSON: How long after your assault did they return?

MR NIEWOUDT: I would, it was about half an hour, I am guessing again. It was a long time ago, if I could guess, approximately half an hour.

CHAIRPERSON: After you assaulted him?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, after I hit him.

CHAIRPERSON: And when did he start writing, after they returned?

MR NIEWOUDT: Before they returned.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he stop crying at that time?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, he had stopped crying.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, that is the evidence which I intend leading with regard to Mr Jones. I want to now turn to the incident of Mr Biko. This is perhaps then a good chance to take the short adjournment.

ON RESUMPTION:

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: (still under oath)

EXAMINATION BY ADV BOOYENS: (continued) Thank you Mr Chairman, page 14 of the application, paragraph 11. On Tuesday, the 6th of September 1977, you received instructions from Major Snyman to fetch Biko at the Walmer police station and to take him to the Sanlam Building for interrogation. Please continue from there, you were accompanied by Captain Siebert and Warrant Officer Marx?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Biko was then taken to the Sanlam Building, please take it from there and tell the Chairperson and the other members of the panel what happened there?

MR NIEWOUDT: Mr Chairperson, he was handcuffed from Walmer police station. We accompanied him, myself, Captain Siebert and Warrant Officer Marx.

He was taken to the Sanlam Building to the interrogation room, and he immediately sat down on a chair in this office. At that stage, what I can recall is that Captain Siebert told him you will sit down when we tell you to do so, and you are here in our area, and I will tell you when to sit.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that the same office or room where Mr Jones had been interrogated?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: I wanted to ask you the same question, so please continue.

MR NIEWOUDT: Afterwards, Mr Biko got up, I removed his handcuffs on the instruction of Siebert and Major Snyman arrived there and the interrogation then took place conducted by Mr Siebert.

My observation at that stage was that Mr Biko was arrogant, aggressive and he didn't answer the questions at all, these were the questions put to him by Siebert.

And on my own observation I can say that the questions put to him, were in my view, not relevant. He immediately realised, Mr Biko immediately realised from the type of questions put to him, that Captain Siebert had absolutely no information about him.

My office was next to this interrogation room, and in the door, I saw Warrant Officer Beneke taking up position. Siebert then confronted him at some point with this pamphlet, this is the pamphlet in Annexure 7. Biko once again got down, sat down on the chair.

ADV BOOYENS: I think, please use the names Mr Niewoudt, who is the he who sat down?

MR NIEWOUDT: The deceased, Mr Biko, once again sat down on the chair. Mr Siebert actually got annoyed and grabbed him by the chest and pulled him to his feet. Mr Biko then grabbed the chair and pushed it forwards in the direction of Mr Siebert and he also lunged at Mr Siebert with his fist, but I don't think the blow actually hit.

CHAIRPERSON: Why was it necessary for all these people to be present during the interrogation?

MR NIEWOUDT: Mr Marx and myself had information about black power or black consciousness activities and Siebert and Snyman weren't quite so familiar with black affairs and that was the one reason Mr Chairperson.

And it was also to enable us to question him during a routine interrogation by people, there is no point in bringing in other people to start questioning him and so on. It was just a method.

CHAIRPERSON: To achieve what exactly?

MR NIEWOUDT: To gather the information from him.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

ADV BOOYENS: The purpose of confronting him with the issue of the pamphlet was to ultimately charge him with that and to neutralise his involvement in the unrest.

Siebert had to admonish him on several occasions, because he simply refused to answer any questions.

ADV BOOYENS: You said that Mr Biko pushed the chair in the direction of Mr Siebert, and aimed a blow at him, you are not sure if it actually hit. What happened then?

MR NIEWOUDT: Mr Beneke who was in the door leading to the next office, then came charging towards Mr Biko and he tackled him by means of a rugby tackle and he connected with him in the stomach area and they landed up against the wall. Mr Biko resisted quite severely and several blows were aimed at each other, and efforts were made to restrain him, but they weren't successful, nobody could actually grab hold of him.

CHAIRPERSON: How many policemen were present when this happened?

MR NIEWOUDT: May I just explain, at some stage Mr Marx had left the office and when Mr Beneke came in, it was only myself, Mr Beneke who had just joined in and Snyman and Siebert.

CHAIRPERSON: So there were four of you?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct. I couldn't manage to grab hold of him and I then grabbed the piece of hose, cut off hose and I hit Mr Biko several blows and that immediately stopped him in his tracks and he turned towards me.

And then Siebert and Beneke then had the opportunity to grab him. I then joined in and I think at that stage Mr Marx had also joined in. We then moved, we grabbed Mr Biko and we struggled and as a result of our momentum, Mr Biko's head hit the wall. He fell onto the floor, and at that stage he seemed to me to be confused and dazed.

He lay up against the wall.

ADV BOOYENS: I beg your pardon, please just give us a better description. You say he was laying against the wall, was he still on his feet?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, he was sitting.

ADV BOOYENS: Continue.

MR NIEWOUDT: After a while Siebert gave me the order to handcuff him and also to cuff his feet.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that whilst he was sitting there against the wall?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, correct. After a while when he recovered, Siebert told me to chain him to the bars of the security gate with his hands in an outstretched position. Mr Beneke and I lifted him up from the floor, and we cuffed his hands by means of two sets of handcuffs and his hands were cuffed on either side of his body. The bars were horizontal and we cuffed him to these and the leg irons or footcuffs were also attached to these bars and that is the position in which we cuffed him, he was in a standing position.

ADV BOOYENS: What was the position of his arms, were the arms stretched on either side of his body?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: At what height?

MR NIEWOUDT: At shoulder height.

ADV BOOYENS: The leg irons were woven through the bars of the security gate?

MR NIEWOUDT: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: This banging of his head against the wall, was it a hard blow?

MR NIEWOUDT: I would say it was a hard blow, because if you take into consideration what his weight was, Mr Biko was a fairly well-built man and added to that, our weight and the momentum of that, that means it must have been a considerable impact.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you not as a result of that surprised by the fact that he was possibly unconscious?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, he seemed to me almost like a boxer that had been knocked out, but he was not totally unconscious to the point that he didn't know what was going on around him. CHAIRPERSON: He would have been counted out on his feet, it would have been a knock out?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, he seemed very dazed, very confused.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the reason why you and somebody else had to actually lift him up onto his feet just before you cuffed him to the bars?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: He couldn't get up himself?

MR NIEWOUDT: I think that he probably would have been able to get up himself, but we lifted him up to be able to hold him in that position.

CHAIRPERSON: Why didn't you just ask him to get up?

MR NIEWOUDT: I didn't.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I know you didn't, but I am asking you why not, isn't it because he was unconscious?

MR NIEWOUDT: It is possible, but I would rather have said that he had showed some reaction, that is how I interpreted it at that stage, and that he might once again resort to violence.

ADV BOOYENS: Perhaps just to complete the picture, more or less how long after falling down onto the ground, did Siebert give you the instruction to chain him to the bars, just approximately?

MR NIEWOUDT: Approximately 10 minutes, if I have to estimate it now.

ADV BOOYENS: So for 10 minutes he was on the floor in this half sitting and half laying position?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Siebert then gave you the instruction to cuff him as you described, please continue.

MR NIEWOUDT: Snyman then left the room after more questions had been put to him by Siebert and he not reacted in any way. Snyman then left and as far as I know, reported what had happened to Colonel Goosen.

I observed that his upper lip was swollen and that he had a sort of chafe mark above his left eye.

ADV BOOYENS: Was it on the eye itself?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, above the eye.

ADV BOOYENS: Please indicate where?

MR NIEWOUDT: The speaker is indicating on the forehead, just above the eyebrows.

ADV BOOYENS: Continue.

MR NIEWOUDT: Goosen later returned with Snyman and Goosen spoke to him, and Biko didn't answer him at all. Goosen then said that he should be left in that position to break down his resistance.

ADV BOOYENS: Goosen was then ...

MR NIEWOUDT: A Colonel. He told Beneke and myself to guard him.

ADV DE JAGER: That position in which he was cuffed to the bars, if one can describe it as such, he was virtually crucified against the bars?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, one could say that, but he was able to lift his hands and to move them up and down, because the bars were horizontal.

ADV DE JAGER: How far away were his feet from the ground?

MR NIEWOUDT: His feet were on the ground. We put leg irons on him to cuff his feet and this chain of the leg irons would be the same length as a person's entire leg, in other words you hold it in the middle of your body so that you can walk normally. So it would be about two metres, the chain itself.

ADV SIGODI: What was the room number where he was interrogated?

MR NIEWOUDT: I think it was 619 if I remember correctly. I think it was 619.

ADV SIGODI: And how big was this room?

MR NIEWOUDT: It was very small, a lot of the offices there were very small. It only contained a table and two chairs and a cabinet.

ADV SIGODI: But approximately what would be the length of the room and the width of the room?

MR NIEWOUDT: I would estimate about 2 x 10.

ADV SIGODI: Two meters wide and ten meters long?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, I would say approximately 2 meters in width and approximately ten meters in length, but I may be wrong.

ADV SIGODI: Where was the table situated, was it in the middle of the room?

MR NIEWOUDT: It was in the middle, yes.

ADV SIGODI: So when you and your colleagues were dragging him from one point to the wall, from which side were you dragging him? Were you dragging him along the width of the room, or along the length of the room?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, it would have been the width.

ADV SIGODI: So you pulled him about two meters away to the wall?

MR NIEWOUDT: He wasn't dragged. There was a struggle between us, and after we had grabbed hold of him, our momentum carried us in the direction of this wall on the north side of the room.

ADV BOOYENS: Goosen entered the room and gave the order that you should leave him there. Approximately what time was that?

MR NIEWOUDT: Once again if I have to estimate, it was about ten o'clock?

ADV BOOYENS: In the morning?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And Beneke and yourself were instructed to guard him?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: To guard him?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: What happened during the rest of the day?

MR NIEWOUDT: In the course of the afternoon, it became clear to me that there was something wrong with Mr Biko, because he asked me for some water at some point and he was speaking very incoherently, almost as if he was slurring his words, like a person under the influence of liquor.

I could see rather clearly that there was something wrong with Mr Biko.

CHAIRPERSON: How long after the banging of his head against the wall, was that?

MR NIEWOUDT: This was in the afternoon, and approximately three hours afterwards.

ADV DE JAGER: I still don't know what the time was, you say three hours afterwards?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, if I have to estimate it would have been between one and two o'clock Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You knew for a fact that his condition wasn't due to drunkenness?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, I am trying to simply describe what my observations were in my layman's terms Mr Chairperson. I went and reported this to Colonel Goosen. He then came and told me that he would arrange for the necessary medical examination.

At approximately four o'clock, just before four that afternoon Mr Beneke and myself, untied Mr Biko from the bars and just before that I noticed that he had urinated, he had wet himself. I then untied him from the bars, I placed him on a mat, a cell mate. His feet were still attached to the grill.

CHAIRPERSON: When you realised that something drastic was wrong with this man, why didn't you remove him, untie him from these bars?

MR NIEWOUDT: I was simply following the instructions from Goosen. He told me that that man would stand there so that his resistance would be broken down, and I was simply following orders.

CHAIRPERSON: You never questioned that, that order?

MR NIEWOUDT: No I wouldn't have dared to question that.

CHAIRPERSON: Why not?

MR NIEWOUDT: I was only a Sergeant, a junior person. I wouldn't never have told a Colonel or questioned a Colonel, I would never have dared to do that.

ADV BOOYENS: At about four o'clock that afternoon, you untied his arms from the bars?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And you placed him on a mat?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: In that same office?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: You then went the office, you went off duty?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, I went of duty - the evening staff then came on duty.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you remove him from the bars?

MR NIEWOUDT: Because he was wet at that stage, and I could see that he was ill according to my observation, I wanted to give him a chance to rest.

CHAIRPERSON: What about the orders?

MR NIEWOUDT: I then handed it over to Wilken who was a Lieutenant.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Niewoudt, I am not trying to trap you, I am simply trying to understand what happened. You said that when you realised that something was drastically wrong with Mr Biko, you still did not untie him from the bars, because your instructions were to keep him there?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Later on you however did so, without having the necessary orders to do so, and I am simply trying to find out why you did that if your instructions and orders were so important to you?

MR NIEWOUDT: I took it upon my shoulders, I assumed responsibility for that because he was tied to those bars from ten o'clock that morning, I was going off duty and a new team had arrived to guard him, they took over from me. I took him off from the bars so that he could rest. That is how I can explain it.

Beneke was the senior, he was my senior in any event, he was a Warrant Officer and he agreed. It is not as if I did it on my own initiative.

ADV BOOYENS: I can't recall whether you said that the afternoon when he was speaking in a slurred way, whether you mentioned this to anybody?

MR NIEWOUDT: I did, I mentioned it to Goosen yes.

ADV BOOYENS: I remember now, you reported that to Goosen. You then went off duty ...

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens, I think that is when Mr Goosen said leave him there to break down his resistance.

ADV BOOYENS: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Niewoudt, the next morning, did you report for duty at about seven o'clock, seven thirty in the morning?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Did you go back to that office?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, I went there directly.

ADV BOOYENS: Was Mr Biko still there?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, he was still lying on the mat.

ADV BOOYENS: What happened there in the course of the day?

MR NIEWOUDT: It was the Wednesday, approximately nine thirty, between nine and ten o'clock when Dr Lang arrived there with Goosen.

ADV BOOYENS: Lang was the District Surgeon for Port Elizabeth?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes. I can recall that Dr Lang offered Mr Biko some water and he instructed me to remove Mr Biko's clothes because they were wet.

CHAIRPERSON: Tell me, was that the first time that the Doctor had visited him?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: From the time that he had his head banged against the wall?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct. That was the Wednesday.

ADV BOOYENS: It was about twenty four hours later?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes. I undressed Mr Biko and gave him some blankets.

ADV BOOYENS: Did Lang examine him?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, he did. On the 8th, I was guarding him again, Dr Lang had left.

ADV BOOYENS: Did he stay in the office all day?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, I moved in and out of the office, and on the 8th ...

ADV BOOYENS: Is that the next day?

ADV DE JAGER: The Thursday?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, that is the Thursday, the 8th I reported for duty again on that morning.

CHAIRPERSON: Before we go to the 8th, what did the Doctor say after he had examined Mr Biko?

MR NIEWOUDT: The Doctor and Colonel Goosen entered the room and I went to my office which was the one immediately adjoining, I wasn't present during the examination after Dr Lang told me to take off his clothes, I did that and left.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but as I understand your evidence, he was still detained there for interrogation?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Did nobody tell you look, you may continue with the interrogation, or you must stop it immediately or whatever the position was?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, I was given an order to guard him throughout the day.

ADV BOOYENS: By whom?

MR NIEWOUDT: By Colonel Goosen. Afterwards Dr Lang and Dr Tucker arrived there.

ADV BOOYENS: Was that on the third day, the Thursday?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, that is right.

ADV BOOYENS: Tucker is also a District Surgeon in Port Elizabeth?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, he was the Senior District Surgeon.

ADV BOOYENS: Very well, continue.

MR NIEWOUDT: I then went off duty. I went off duty at four o'clock.

CHAIRPERSON: What are you saying about Tucker?

MR NIEWOUDT: Dr Lang and Tucker visited him again that morning. I then went off duty at four o'clock and the next day I heard that Mr Biko had been taken to the North End Prison on the evening of the 8th, the Thursday evening for medical examination.

ADV BOOYENS: Did you have any further dealings with him?

CHAIRPERSON: What did the two Doctors say about Mr Biko that morning?

MR NIEWOUDT: I don't know. They once again arrived there in the company of Goosen and they had a look at him, and then they left.

On Sunday, the 11th, on the instructions of Colonel Goosen, Lieutenant Wilken and myself and Captain Siebert went and fetched Mr Biko at the North End prison. I waited at the vehicle and Mr Siebert and Wilken went inside and they received him.

They came out, they supported him, helped him to get in the vehicle. We took him to Walmer police cells where he was further detained in terms of security legislation.

ADV BOOYENS: What was his condition like, according to you at that stage?

MR NIEWOUDT: According to me, he was ill.

ADV BOOYENS: Right, you took him to Walmer, what happened?

MR NIEWOUDT: At Walmer I removed his clothes on the instruction of Goosen. Detainees were not allowed to be detained wearing their clothes.

CHAIRPERSON: Why was that?

MR NIEWOUDT: That was an instruction which apparently came from Head Office to try and prevent suicides by political detainees at the time, that is how I understood it.

But there are other ways to commit suicide. I think the instruction per se is not a strong enough preventative measure.

CHAIRPERSON: We now know that there were very few suicides of political detainees, or am I wrong?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, I can only think of Mr Mohapi actually, so that is one of which I am personally aware. I am talking about political detainees - there have have been others in the country.

CHAIRPERSON: What I would like to find out is this, there weren't so many political suicides to justify such a rule that their clothes should be taken away from them, is that not so?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is so Chairperson, as I have already said, but I simply carried out the order, that is how I understood it. There were many other ways to commit suicide if the person really wanted to.

ADV BOOYENS: What you are actually trying to say to the Chairperson is that you personally don't think it was a very logical reason?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is so.

ADV BOOYENS: His clothes were removed on the instructions of Goosen at Walmer police station, that was the Sunday morning?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Did you leave Walmer police station?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, and late that afternoon I was contacted to go to Walmer police station and I had to take the necessary clothes because we were going to transfer Mr Biko to the Central Prison in Pretoria.

ADV BOOYENS: When you arrived at Walmer, tell us what happened?

MR NIEWOUDT: On my arrival at Walmer Captain Siebert was there already. I speak under correction, but I don't know whether Major Snyman was there, but I could imagine that he was. Dr Tucker was there, Colonel Goosen was there, Fouche was there.

ADV BOOYENS: We haven't heard about Fouche, who was he?

MR NIEWOUDT: He was a Warrant Officer who was at the Security Branch at that stage and he was with White Affairs, and Wilken was there too.

We placed Mr Biko on a cell mat, we carried him to a Land Rover, the back seats were removed, the cell mats were placed in the back of the Land Rover. Those were closed Land Rovers, not the opened one.

ADV BOOYENS: A station wagon type vehicle?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct. He was carried to the vehicle on the cell mat, loaded in and he was covered in a blanket and we left for Pretoria.

ADV BOOYENS: Who was this?

MR NIEWOUDT: Captain Siebert, Lieutenant Wilken, Warrant Officer Fouche and myself.

ADV DE JAGER: Was he conscious or was he unconscious?

MR NIEWOUDT: According to my opinion he was not fully conscious. I don't know, I don't know any - I couldn't even hear what he was saying. It is difficult for me to say whether he was...

ADV BOOYENS: He did not give any indication that he was fully conscious?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: He did not move or anything like that?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is right.

CHAIRPERSON: How did you see Tucker, was he worried?

MR NIEWOUDT: Again speculation Mr Chairperson, it did not seem like he was worried.

ADV BOOYENS: Let me ask you the following question. Was Tucker there when you loaded the deceased in the back of the vehicle? Did you hear Tucker say that it would be dangerous to take him to Pretoria in a Land Rover, you should not transport him?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, he did not mention any of this. What I can remember was that Captain Siebert told Goosen is there no aeroplane available. Apparently there was no aircraft available to transfer him. Indication was that according to the medical people he could be transported by road.

ADV BOOYENS: You drove to Pretoria, to Central Prison?

MR NIEWOUDT: I remained at the vehicle and Warrant Officer Fouche, Wilken and Siebert handed Mr Biko over to the prison authorities.

CHAIRPERSON: How did he get from the vehicle to the Central Prison?

MR NIEWOUDT: It has changed now. At that time, at the entrance to reception we stopped there, and they supported him, and they carried him in.

CHAIRPERSON: What kind of support?

MR NIEWOUDT: Meaning he was in between them, and he was leaning on them. The two of them on either side of him.

CHAIRPERSON: And his feet?

MR NIEWOUDT: Well, he was dragging his feet according to me.

ADV BOOYENS: He was taken inside. You remained at the vehicle, you did not go inside the prison and when they returned, you returned to Port Elizabeth?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: And later you heard that Mr Biko had died?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: On your arrival at Port Elizabeth, on page 23, paragraph 28, what happened then?

MR NIEWOUDT: It was on a Saturday.

ADV BOOYENS: When did you hear Mr Biko had died?

MR NIEWOUDT: This was the following day.

ADV BOOYENS: When you had returned to PE?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, after our arrival because we left immediately for Port Elizabeth, and the following day when I arrived at the office, I heard the report that Mr Biko had died.

ADV BOOYENS: You mentioned something about a Saturday?

MR NIEWOUDT: On Saturday, not long after the death of Mr Biko, we were called together.

ADV BOOYENS: By whom?

MR NIEWOUDT: By Colonel Goosen. Where he stated that we cannot make public what had happened there, because it would put the government in a bad light. We must make our statements a day later of what happened.

ADV BOOYENS: I don't think you are putting it clearly. You had to change the date of the incident to a day later?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And these false statements were made, affidavits were made?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And this was perpetuated at the inquest?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: There is a gap of a day, it looked like the man was hurt a day later?

MR NIEWOUDT: It appeared that this incident happened on the 7th instead of the 6th.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Niewoudt, you made this false affidavit - why?

MR NIEWOUDT: It was on instruction of Goosen.

ADV BOOYENS: What was Goosen's motivation?

MR NIEWOUDT: His motivation was that the government of the day should not be embarrassed and they would - the recall of the security legislation would be effected by this.

ADV BOOYENS: And to cover up that the man did not receive medical attention?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Do you confirm, you have given verbal evidence, but do you confirm what appears in your amnesty application regarding the Jones and Biko incidents?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Niewoudt, here are two incidents here. Firstly an assault and secondly an involvement with manslaughter and perjury?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: What was the motives behind this, why did these incidents happen?

MR NIEWOUDT: Firstly with regard to both the assaults with regard to myself, on Mr Jones and Mr Biko, this was in connection with interrogation of the person to gather information from the persons, to neutralise the unrest of the Black Power Movement, that was the main motivation.

ADV BOOYENS: You have dealt with it previously, but during 1977, your personal belief then with regard to the policy of apartheid, the whole policy of the security legislation, what was your personal belief with regard to this?

MR NIEWOUDT: I believe that it was justified. My Dutch Reformed minister held sermons with regard to this.

ADV BOOYENS: The policy of the government then, were approved of?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: What did they say - just the policy of apartheid ...

MR NIEWOUDT: They identified with the policy of apartheid, they never said that it was wrong, that one should not do this, one should not do that.

CHAIRPERSON: But I am sure they did not mention that the methods of the apartheid policy had to be guarded, did they agree to that?

MR NIEWOUDT: As long as we did not embarrass them, they did not say that you must go about illegally.

ADV BOOYENS: What the Chairperson wants to ask you Mr Niewoudt is, are you saying that the Dutch Reformed Synod approved that people were to be assaulted? I think that was the question. The principle of the policy was approved, but the fact of assaults - we are just talking about the church now.

MR NIEWOUDT: No.

ADV DE JAGER: Just to join up here, what was the attitude with what we called terrorism at that time?

MR NIEWOUDT: They were opposed to that, to the terrorism and they prayed for us spiritually to fight against this terrorism.

CHAIRPERSON: Was this terrorism in general or just black terrorism?

MR NIEWOUDT: It was terrorism, general terrorism against the State or the government of the day.

ADV DE JAGER: At that stage the attacks on the State it was mainly by black nationalists, so they did not speak out and say fight also white terrorism, they said fight terrorism?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct. They were propagating the survival of the white State.

ADV BOOYENS: Just to continue with the political motivation that you mentioned before. Why does a country have Security Police?

MR NIEWOUDT: To protect the State.

CHAIRPERSON: Does this include the government of the day?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you sure, according to you?

MR NIEWOUDT: In the present circumstance he cannot survive if there was an attack on him, and he does not have the security network, it needed the security network to survive.

ADV BOOYENS: The Security Branch, the work that you did, was this directed to keep the National Party in government at that time?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: The intention of the Black Power Movement was amongst others to overthrow the government and put in place another government?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct, with force.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Niewoudt, we are just coming back to what you mentioned about the Synod, the background how you were brought up, the political talks that you heard, propaganda and so forth.

Were you at peace with this that what you were doing was necessary, did you feel it was wrong or right?

MR NIEWOUDT: I believed it was correct to protect that order, and I was loyal to this cause.

ADV BOOYENS: At that stage you were a Sergeant, how do you feel with reference to the death of Mr Biko and the assault of Mr Jones, how do you feel about that today?

MR NIEWOUDT: I am sorry that it happened. I just wish to say further that I hope that in future it wouldn't happen again with any other Police instance, that it would not happen again - these incidents would not take place again and there would be reconciliation in the country and that everybody would work together to establish a beautiful South Africa.

ADV BOOYENS: At page 24 paragraph 10(a), you summarise your political objectives?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Do you confirm this?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Do you confirm the whole contents of your application?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Is there anything else you wish to add?

MR NIEWOUDT: No Mr Chairperson.

ADV BOOYENS: Just a moment Mr Chairperson. This is the evidence Mr Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV BOOYENS.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV BIZOS: Thank you Judge. I want to take you back to the Saturday morning after Mr Biko's death, at the meeting presided over by Colonel Goosen when it was decided that all of you would commit perjury in order to protect the State. Are you there?

MR NIEWOUDT: I am there.

ADV BIZOS: The fact that Mr Biko suffered a serious injury to his head by knocking his head against the wall, was that mentioned at this meeting where the perjury was planned?

MR NIEWOUDT: What I can remember is that we never mentioned any of this that Mr Biko had knocked his head against a wall, but at the OC it was mentioned that he knocked his head.

ADV BIZOS: Listen to the question please and don't anticipate the question and question thereafter. At the meeting on that Saturday morning where the perjury was planned, did anyone mention to Colonel Goosen that Mr Biko had smashed his head against the wall?

MR NIEWOUDT: No.

ADV BIZOS: Why would that very simple explanation of the catastrophic position that the government and the country found themselves in, kept from Mr Goosen during that meeting at which the story was being fixed up?

MR NIEWOUDT: I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: Why didn't you tell him?

MR NIEWOUDT: At that stage Mr Chairperson, I was lowest rank at that time, there were other persons - I don't know if Mr Snyman already mentioned this to him. All that I know is that not one of the affidavits at the inquest, at the death inquest that was handed in, mentioned that his head was knocked against the wall.

And nobody mentioned the mark above his left eyebrow. That is how I remember nobody mentioned it, we just omitted to mention it.

CHAIRPERSON: I am not asking you to answer for anybody else. My question is why did you not inform Mr Goosen that Mr Biko had knocked his head against the wall during the planning of this perjury?

MR NIEWOUDT: I did not.

CHAIRPERSON: Why not, is there any reason?

MR NIEWOUDT: There is no specific reason, I just did not.

ADV BIZOS: You are correct that no one of the numerous affidavits that were filed at the 1977 inquest, mentioned that Mr Biko had knocked his head against the wall.

Do you agree that if in fact Mr Biko knocked his head against the wall, and if an innocent or less blameworthy explanation was being sought for the tragic results and the great embarrassment to the country, the self inflicted injury by Mr Biko against a wall, would have been if not a perfect explanation, most certainly one that would have gone a long way in letting the government and the Security Police off the hook?

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, I don't think my learned friend did it deliberately, I don't think it was the witness' evidence at any stage that Mr Biko's injury was self inflicted.

ADV BIZOS: I will change that, that the injury was as a result of his knocking his head against the wall. It would have been a much better explanation than anything that the Security Police had to offer to explain the tragic results?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct Mr Chairperson, I don't know but Goosen read through our affidavits.

ADV BIZOS: Would you not agree that the most likely explanation that we would urge the Committee to accept is that the reason why nobody mentioned that he knocked his head against the wall, was because it did not happen, and the inciters to perjury and conspirators to perjury didn't have enough sense at that time, to make it up.

MR NIEWOUDT: No, I deny this strongly. What happened in truth, and what I am explaining now, is what happened there truthfully Mr Chairperson.

ADV BIZOS: Would you agree that - or rather let me put it this way, can you suggest to the Committee any other explanation for your failure and the failure of all your colleagues to mention anything about a knocking of the head against the wall at that meeting or in any affidavit, can you suggest any other explanation?

MR NIEWOUDT: If I think about it now, I can just draw the inference that we had to hide this in our initial affidavit. CHAIRPERSON: You see Mr Niewoudt, then there was no mechanism like we have now. At that time all police officers present or responsible for Mr Biko, you answer now that this is what Mr Goosen decided that you had to say, but I think the question, the objective of the question is what was your attitude, or what was your attitude supposed to be with regard to the death of Mr Biko, why did you yourself not take your future into your hands and say no, but this is what happened?

MR NIEWOUDT: I believed that I had the necessary protection from the government or from my Commanding Officers at that stage, I believed it. That is why the affidavit was changed and that we did not have to go to court and be charged, that is how I felt.

ADV BIZOS: I will try for the last time on this point. We were told that the reason for the purged version was in order not to embarrass the government. How did hiding the fact that Mr Biko knocked his head on the wall, help the government? Did it not in fact make its position worse because there was no reasonable explanation given out to the world as to how Mr Biko came to meet his death?

MR NIEWOUDT: Again as I have said previously, it was put to me that we should not embarrass the Security Branch or the government or that the security legislature would be repealed. We had to - that is how Mr Goosen decided, that is why we changed the date and it was not mentioned.

ADV DE JAGER: What the Advocate puts to you, here you had a nice explanation to the world, it could look like you did nothing, Biko knocked his head himself, you were not to blame for it, why at that stage, did you not use it as an excuse?

MR NIEWOUDT: I cannot tell you. I hear what you say, but at that stage I did not think of it in that manner. It is easy now when one thinks back, at that stage during the inquest, it was hammered upon that nobody mentioned the injury.

I am still under the impression that it was possibly Goosen that covered this up. I do not know what was his objective with this.

ADV BIZOS: Let's try another one. You saw Dr Lang coming to see the smashed up Mr Biko, yes, is that the answer, you saw him?

MR NIEWOUDT: Please repeat the question Mr Bizos?

ADV BIZOS: Did you see Dr Lang come to examine the smashed up Mr Biko on the morning of the 7th of September 1977?

MR NIEWOUDT: Could you just explain Mr Bizos, with regard to smashed up?

ADV BIZOS: Injured, seriously injured. He had become semi-unconscious, he was incoherent, he was incontinent, he was wetting his pants as a result of his injuries. Did you see Dr Lang examining Mr Biko?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, they visited him.

ADV BIZOS: In your presence?

MR NIEWOUDT: In my presence they were there as I said, and afterwards I left the room.

ADV BIZOS: Just listen to me for a moment please. Don't say they were there, was Dr Lang there, was the injured Mr Biko there and you there?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct and Goosen.

ADV BIZOS: Right. Did Dr Lang ask you and Goosen why did you call me, what has happened to this man?

MR NIEWOUDT: Lang did not speak to me.

ADV BIZOS: Did he speak to Goosen or did he ask Biko what had happened to him, you know like Doctors always do - if you call them in, they say what is the matter? They ask.

MR NIEWOUDT: Possibly he could have asked, I did not hear this.

ADV BIZOS: Well, did you tell Dr Lang that Mr Biko knocked his head against the wall?

MR NIEWOUDT: I didn't. I didn't tell Dr Lang that.

ADV BIZOS: Was the injury to his lip and the injury on his forehead visible when Dr Lang came there?

MR NIEWOUDT: I believe he would have seen it.

ADV BIZOS: Did he ask you as the person who was guarding the detainee, the injured detainee how did these injuries come about?

MR NIEWOUDT: He didn't.

ADV BIZOS: Did you volunteer, were you concerned about Mr Biko's well-being at that time?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, I wasn't.

ADV BIZOS: Were you not concerned that an adult appeared to be confused and incoherent and incontinent, was it not a matter of concern to you?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, because the Doctor was there and the Officer was there, they were dealing with the situation. I actually ...

ADV BIZOS: Why didn't you tell the Doctor that this person wet his pants, he appears not to be able to control himself?

MR NIEWOUDT: He could see it.

ADV BIZOS: He is confused, why didn't you tell him he knocked his head against the wall?

MR NIEWOUDT: He saw that his trousers were wet, but I didn't tell him that his head had banged against the wall. I am disciplined - I don't speak out of turn. Who am I?

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know what is a stethoscope?

MR NIEWOUDT: I beg your pardon.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you remember whether the Doctor had a stethoscope, do you know what it is?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, I do.

CHAIRPERSON: Did Dr Lang have a stethoscope?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he examine Mr Biko?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, he examined him but I then left the office.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I am talking about the time when you were present.

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, he did.

CHAIRPERSON: Didn't he ask anybody there what had happened to this man?

MR NIEWOUDT: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Didn't he ask why is this man in such a condition or what have you done to him?

MR NIEWOUDT: I don't know. He left me with Goosen, what the two of them discussed, I really don't know.

ADV BIZOS: Goosen who got promoted after this event, is no longer with us, he has passed away, is that correct?

MR NIEWOUDT: He was only promoted much later.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, but he is dead?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: Now, were you present when Dr Lang gave a piece of paper to Mr Goosen to the effect that there was nothing wrong with Mr Biko?

MR NIEWOUDT: I know nothing about that.

ADV BIZOS: Do you know that Dr Lang gave Mr Goosen a piece of paper which said that there was nothing wrong with Mr Biko?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BIZOS: When did it come to your notice that such a note had been extracted from Dr Lang?

MR NIEWOUDT: During the inquest.

ADV BIZOS: Did you try to find out why Dr Lang gave a false certificate to Mr Goosen, when to your knowledge, there was plenty wrong with Biko?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, I didn't.

ADV BIZOS: When did you for the first time learn that it was given out and pretended that there was nothing wrong with Biko, but that he was not ill or injured, but that he was feigning illness or disability, when did you learn that?

MR NIEWOUDT: During the inquest.

ADV BIZOS: You must have learnt long before that, because your minister, Mr Kruger had made that publicly known. Firstly that there was nothing wrong with him, he was on a hunger strike and alternatively he was feigning illness. Didn't you hear your Minister say that on a matter on which you were so vitally involved?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct yes.

ADV BIZOS: No, where did your Minister get the information that Mr Biko was feigning illness, that there was nothing wrong with him, or that he was on a hunger strike?

MR NIEWOUDT: Probably from the Commanding Officer of the Security Branch.

ADV BIZOS: Or probably he got the information from you, because Mr Goosen was not there in the room to see what had happened?

MR NIEWOUDT: He didn't hear it from me. I had no channel of communication to the Minister. I was only a Sergeant, it is ridiculous.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, but I am talking about Mr Goosen. Mr Goosen wasn't in the room, he must have got the information from you and your colleagues in order to pass it on to his Minister, to your Minister and his Minister?

MR NIEWOUDT: As I have said in my evidence in chief, Mr Snyman went to Goosen. Siebert spoke to him, they were senior officers. He also came to visit him himself, that is Goosen.

I also went to Goosen and told him what Mr Biko's condition was, how his condition was that afternoon.

ADV BIZOS: Did you tell Mr Goosen that you had beaten up Mr Biko with a hosepipe?

MR NIEWOUDT: I don't think I mentioned it to him. But I could have done so, I am not sure. I have no recollection of doing that.

CHAIRPERSON: If you had mentioned it to him, when would you have done so?

MR NIEWOUDT: It could have been on the Saturday, if I had done so, but I don't think I did. It would have been the Saturday when we were all together.

CHAIRPERSON: So you discussed the whole matter?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BIZOS: Didn't you discuss on the Saturday morning you know tram lines imposed with a hosepipe on the back of a person's body, are visible when he is dead to the District Surgeon who does the post-mortem examination, didn't you discuss that on Saturday morning?

MR NIEWOUDT: It is possible, but I have no independent recollection of that.

ADV BIZOS: How come, how come or perhaps I should ask you another question first before I put this one. Do you feel or believe that you personally contributed to Mr Biko's death?

MR NIEWOUDT: I believe that by not giving him the necessary medical care immediately, I suppose that contributed to it.

ADV BIZOS: Is that all that you feel any responsibility for?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes. I think that if he had been given immediate medical attention, then Mr Biko might have been alive today.

CHAIRPERSON: If you were sufficiently ranked, you would have obtained that medical assistance for him?

MR NIEWOUDT: If I was in charge at that stage, I think I would have done that.

CHAIRPERSON: I want to understand your evidence correctly that the only reason you never obtained this assistance for him, was because you were so lowly ranked and you didn't think it your place to dictate to your superiors?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: Is that the only contribution that you think that you might have made to Mr Biko's death?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BIZOS: Nothing else?

MR NIEWOUDT: No.

ADV BIZOS: You never felt that the half a dozen or so blows with your hosepipe had anything to do with contributing to Mr Biko's death?

MR NIEWOUDT: No. If I recall the inquest report by Dr Laubscher or the post-mortem report by Dr Laubscher, there were not there many blows from the hosepipe. I may be wrong, but those blows would not have caused any damage. That is according to my opinion.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, we will accept that for the purposes of my next question.

Did you see anybody throwing punches in the room in which Mr Biko was being interrogated?

MR NIEWOUDT: Mr Chairman, yes. Blows were aimed backwards and forwards and that is why I at that stage took the initiative of hitting him with the hosepipe, to distract him.

Yes, there were. Whether the blows actually found their target I don't know. It is like in a rugby scrum.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, without a referee. Did you see Mr Siebert throwing punches?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, he did.

ADV BIZOS: How many punches did you see him throw?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is impossible for me to say, it is impossible for me to say.

ADV BIZOS: Did you see Mr Snyman throwing punches?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, I don't think Mr Snyman was part of that struggle when we were trying to restrain Mr Biko.

ADV BIZOS: Did you see Mr Beneke throwing punches?

MR NIEWOUDT: It is possible, but I have no independent recollection of that.

ADV BIZOS: Did you see Mr Marx throwing punches?

MR NIEWOUDT: I don't know.

ADV BIZOS: Now, we know how Mr Biko died and why he died, because a tremendous blow was administered, was what the leader of your Branch used in a telegram, that force was applied to one side of his head of such intensity that it threw the head back, so that the soft matter of the brain smashed on the opposite side of his skull.

Can you tell us whether one or other of the punches thrown by Mr Siebert, may have caused that injury that led to Mr Biko's death?

MR NIEWOUDT: Mr Chairman, from what I can remember of the post-mortem or the inquest, even the two Doctors, Dr Laubscher and I think Dr Procter could not agree on what exactly caused Mr Biko's death.

It is difficult for me who is a layman, to try and explain what happened.

CHAIRPERSON: The question is, is it possible that Mr Biko's head was injured as a result of his head slapping back with great force because he had been hit by a fist?

MR NIEWOUDT: It is possible, but from a layman's point of view I would rather say that it was more probable when he fell against the wall.

I didn't see anybody who did that, because in any case if anybody planted a blow like that, his hand would have been terribly swollen.

ADV BIZOS: Well, we don't know whether Mr Siebert's hand was in fact swollen or not, and having regard to the degree of perjury that you all indulged in after the event, hiding that fact would have been a matter of not great concern, would it?

MR NIEWOUDT: Chairperson, I am here to tell the truth. I believe or I can remember that I actually hit Mr Beneke by mistake and he mentioned this afterwards.

ADV BIZOS: Yes.

MR NIEWOUDT: So, one would immediately have noticed that, so no, I don't think so.

ADV BIZOS: We will deal with Mr Beneke and how you hit him and we will argue who might have gone bezerk there, you or Mr Biko, having regard that you finished up beating your colleague.

Let's leave that aside for the moment. You made an affidavit in your application. Where can we find anywhere in your application that punches were thrown? Show us where you mentioned that punches were thrown in your affidavit, you've come here to tell the truth.

MR NIEWOUDT: Mr Chairman, may I please have a moment to look for the particular place? Page 17, I don't know how your bundle of documents has been paginated. It says there that blows were exchanged backwards and forwards, and people were shunted around.

ADV BIZOS: Yes.

MR NIEWOUDT: That is page 17, paragraph 17.

ADV BIZOS: That is the passage that we put to your colleagues who didn't speak about it in their applications.

Now what was the purpose of the punches being thrown?

MR NIEWOUDT: According to my observation, it was to defend themselves and to restrain Mr Biko, because Mr Biko was also dishing out blows.

ADV BIZOS: There were four of you, at least four and possibly five. How do you restrain a person by throwing punches at him when there are four or five of you?

Let me put the question that I put to your colleagues. Each one takes a hand or a foot and you've got one to spare - that is how to restrain a person. Not to throw punches, nor to beat him with a hosepipe? Do you agree with the general proposition that I have made to you?

MR NIEWOUDT: It is not that simple, it is not as simple as Mr Bizos has put it now. Mr Biko was a fairly well-built man, and to just restrain him by grabbing hold of him would have been a totally different matter. If wouldn't then have been necessary to trade blows or to restrain him, but nobody actually could succeed in grabbing hold of him, after he got to his feet after the incident at the wall.

There was a whole struggle and how do you then grab hold of somebody and when blows are exchanged and in that struggle it is very difficult to actually restrain somebody. I am not exactly sure, but that is how I saw it at the time.

ADV BIZOS: Even if we were to confine ourselves to the evidence that you have given in this case, having regard to the fact that you beat up Mr Jones with a hosepipe and you used a hosepipe on Mr Biko, it would appear that the hosepipe was an instrument of choice for your torturing people?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, not as far as Mr Biko was concerned. It was to distract him because I was scared that this struggle would become out of control - and it actually worked.

ADV BIZOS: Do you think that your beating Mr Biko with a hosepipe on a number of occasions, actually helped the situation?

MR NIEWOUDT: I think so because my other colleague immediately got the chance to grab hold of him, that is how I saw it.

ADV BIZOS: You and your colleagues were in what we may describe as a self defence situation?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: So that the infliction of the blows by the hosepipe is nothing that you have to apologise for, or feel responsible for?

MR NIEWOUDT: It may be.

ADV BIZOS: It is more than may be. It is a logical conclusion from your own evidence.

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, it is a method which I used to try to restrain Mr Biko.

ADV BIZOS: You used no unlawful force whatsoever on Mr Biko on your version?

MR NIEWOUDT: This was only during this struggle, this was the violence which I applied then, and whether I exceeded my limits, I don't know, that is debateable.

ADV BIZOS: I am talking about whether it is your case that you were entitled in the circumstances, to attempt to subdue Mr Biko together with your colleagues and that you acted in self defence and that you had done nothing wrong, in that regard?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, but Chairperson what about when we handcuffed him to the bars. That was also part of the assault.

ADV BIZOS: We will deal with your putting him up crucifixion style in due course. The question was whether you feel any responsibility whatsoever for having beaten him up with a hosepipe?

MR NIEWOUDT: I hit him with this hosepipe.

ADV BIZOS: We know that, but do you persist that you were in the circumstances, entitled to do that because you were really associating yourself with your colleagues in order to subdue him, because he had gone bezerk?

MR NIEWOUDT: Once again, interpretation was important here, maybe we exceeded our bounds.

ADV BIZOS: But you don't feel that you have exceeded your bounds?

MR NIEWOUDT: Maybe I did.

ADV BIZOS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: If it wasn't for this rugby scrum as you put it, that took place there, I don't know how many rugby scrums we still have left in the country, but that is irrelevant, if it hadn't been for this rugby scrum situation you wouldn't have taken up the hosepipe?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, that is correct.

ADV BIZOS: If in fact you acted in self defence and leaving aside now the hanging up of Mr Biko, even though his feet may have been on the ground, leaving that aside for the moment, you actually believe that you did no wrong?

MR NIEWOUDT: I wouldn't say that. Once again, I must say that interpretation is important. Maybe I exceeded the limits of restraining a person, but that is a debateable point. According to me, I might have exceeded my limit and then I did do something wrong.

ADV BIZOS: How many blows did you strike on Mr Biko?

MR NIEWOUDT: Approximately three to five blows, not many.

ADV BIZOS: And we know that two of the blows landed on Mr Beneke, if he is to be believed?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, or I think one blow. I am not aware that two blows landed on Mr Beneke's body.

ADV BIZOS: One? Yes. Why three to five on Mr Biko?

MR NIEWOUDT: As I have already said, I did it because nobody was succeeding in restraining him, and that is why I grabbed the hose and hit him with it, and he immediately reacted to that.

His attack was halted. We thereby succeeded in grabbing hold of him.

ADV BIZOS: You see I am going to put to you that your version, and your colleagues' version of what happened there, is a fabrication which was first offered at the inquest and now amended because it was shown at the 1977 inquest that your version as then told, was false because it did not fit with the medical evidence. Do you agree with that?

MR NIEWOUDT: No.

ADV BIZOS: Well, let's take it in two parts. Do you agree that the evidence of the Doctors was that there must have been unconsciousness or very low level of consciousness and that your story as told to the inquest court, that Mr Biko struggled to the end and it took you some time after he knocked his head on the wall, for you to subdue him, that that evidence was shown to be false at the inquest on the evidence of Dr Procter, Dr Jonathan Gluckman and Professor Laubscher, that this blow was like a knockout blow by a heavy weight in the boxing ring, and that the person would have been out for at least ten minutes to half an hour. Do you recall that evidence?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BIZOS: And is that the reason why in making the new version for the purposes of this new application, the amendment to the version was made that he was confused and possibly unconscious and that he wasn't able to put up the continued struggle that you had spoken about previously. Wasn't that the reason why it was amended?

MR NIEWOUDT: No.

ADV BIZOS: What was the reason because it was amended?

MR NIEWOUDT: The date is one point. I am referring only to myself. The date on which the incident was supposed to have occurred, that was an issue, it happened on the 6th.

Secondly nowhere in my affidavit which was submitted to the inquest, did I refer to his injuries which was sustained after his contact with the wall.

ADV DE JAGER: That was not the question. The question was why, not in which aspects, but why was there an amended evidence or amended story of how he came to these injuries?

MR NIEWOUDT: We just came to tell the actual truth now Mr Chairperson.

ADV BIZOS: You see, people tell lies for a purpose, do you agree?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BIZOS: The fact that evidence was given by your colleagues that there was this struggle to contain him which took place over quite a long time, and no mention of unconsciousness, why was that lie told?

MR NIEWOUDT: When was this, in the inquest or do you mean the amnesty hearing?

ADV BIZOS: In the inquest, why was this there this false version given that there was this struggle after the knock of the head on the wall, and that it took you a long time to subdue him, why was that lie told?

MR NIEWOUDT: I don't know Mr Chairman. I have already submitted my statement, I never gave evidence to that effect.

What my colleagues and my Commanding Officer said during the death inquest, I do not know.

ADV BIZOS: But wasn't it discussed at the Saturday meeting where the perjury was planned that you were going to say that there was a struggle and he had gone bezerk and it took you quite some time to subdue him, and that you would keep out that there was any confusion or semi-consciousness or unconsciousness or low level of consciousness?

Why was that fact left out at the Saturday morning meeting, how would that in any way have embarrassed the government?

MR NIEWOUDT: As I said previously, I don't know what Goosen's objective was. It was discussed that the blow of his head was mentioned. In later statements, if I can remember correctly, Lieutenant Wilken was the only one who saw the mark above his eyebrow, he was the only one.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Niewoudt, when you made this statement, you didn't know that you were not going to testify at the inquest?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: If you were called to testify, is it wrong if I said that your version would have fitted with the other versions?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you not give Mr Bizos an answer to his question. Why would this version by so?

MR NIEWOUDT: Because Mr Chairperson, it was to hide all of it, what happened there, not to put the government of the day in a bad light. The date was changed, there was no mention ...

ADV DE JAGER: If he did not knock his head, what did he die of, why was he unconscious? What would you have told at the inquest, how did it come about that this man was unconscious if nothing happened to him?

MR NIEWOUDT: I don't know. If I think about it now, I could probably give an explanation, but at that stage the statement was put that way.

CHAIRPERSON: But Mr Niewoudt, the question of my colleague is during the planning of this perjury, what did you plan, what would be said at the inquest about this unconscious man?

MR NIEWOUDT: It was about the injury to his head. We had to hide that.

CHAIRPERSON: How would the injury be explained then according to your plans?

You must remember you were a possible witness at the inquest, and you had to prepare during the planning what would be said about this injury. How would we as policemen explain this.

MR NIEWOUDT: That he was himself responsible for this injury.

ADV BIZOS: Let us turn to the question of the date?

CHAIRPERSON: Are you going to a new point Mr Bizos.

ADV BIZOS: Yes Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Can we take our half an hour's break now?

ADV BIZOS: Yes, thank you.

ON RESUMPTION:

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: (still under oath)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV BIZOS: (continued) On the morning of the 6th, did Mr Biko make any admissions of having committed any unlawful acts?

MR NIEWOUDT: No.

ADV BIZOS: Was he shown any documents or confronted with any documents?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, he was.

ADV BIZOS: Which document was he confronted with?

MR NIEWOUDT: The pamphlet.

ADV BIZOS: Could you identify the pamphlet that he was shown or he was confronted with?

MR NIEWOUDT: It was the pamphlet that was confiscated.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, and he did he deny that he had anything to do with it?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: (Speaker's microphone is not on)

MR NIEWOUDT: Annexure 7, it is so.

ADV BIZOS: Did he say that he had absolutely nothing to do with it?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: Was he confronted with anything else?

MR NIEWOUDT: I cannot remember, it is possible.

ADV BIZOS: Try and think.

MR NIEWOUDT: I don't know if he was confronted with statements from other detainees.

ADV BIZOS: Was there any discussion at the Saturday morning meeting where the perjered version was discussed as to whether Mr Biko made any damaging admissions or not?

MR NIEWOUDT: I cannot remember that.

ADV BIZOS: Try and remember, it is rather important, was it or wasn't it?

MR NIEWOUDT: I don't know.

ADV BIZOS: If you have a look at page 136 of your affidavit, paragraph 5, the middle of the paragraph.

MR NIEWOUDT: Excuse me is that page 10?

ADV BIZOS: Page 136.

MR NIEWOUDT: Of my application Mr Chairman, is it page 10?

ADV DE JAGER: It is your affidavit dated 17 September 1997.

ADV BIZOS: That is so Mr Chairman.

MR NIEWOUDT: I have it in front of me Mr Chairperson.

ADV BIZOS: If you have a look in the middle of paragraph 5, (own translation - he also admitted to another detainee, one Patric Titi, was directly involved with the compiling of an undermining pamphlet that was on the night of the 17/18-08-1977 in Port Elizabeth distributed.

Now, you put up your right hand and you swore that that was the truth when you made this affidavit.

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: This was false?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: Therefore it must have been discussed on the Saturday morning gathering to commit perjury, not so, otherwise it wouldn't have, a false statement like this wouldn't have found itself in your affidavit?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct, but as I sit here I do not have any independent recollection of that, but it is possible.

ADV BIZOS: Well, on your own version, you wouldn't have made up this lie on your own, you must have heard it at the conspiratorial meeting to commit perjury and this is how it comes to be in your affidavit?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: But you see, I am going to put to you that there was more than one reason for having that meeting and in order to change the date.

MR NIEWOUDT: Mr Chairperson, I am sorry I cannot hear, there is something wrong with this earphones. Sorry Mr Bizos. Thank you.

ADV BIZOS: You see, you had to, you thought that you had to change the date to the 7th, because you wanted - you and your colleagues, and it must have been discussed at this meeting - you needed a whole day and a whole night in order to make up a credible story that Mr Biko had condemned himself into admissions that he was planning violence?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is so.

ADV BIZOS: Is that so?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, that is correct.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, so it wasn't a simple thing of just avoiding the criticism of the Doctor. You and your colleagues decided to make the injuries on the morning of the 7th, so that you and your colleagues could describe at great length in their attempts to defeat the ends of justice, that during the period, a full day of interrogation on the 6th, and a full night's interrogation during the night of the 6th and 7th, Mr Biko was confronted with affidavits and with documents and with real evidence and he went bezerk the next day because he had admitted his complicity in violence. Isn't that what was worked out at that meeting?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, that is correct.

ADV BIZOS: You see there you are, even though none of us were there, we can work things out.

An attempt was made at the inquest to persuade the court that Mr Biko had admitted that he had committed violence, and then he decided to go bezerk the next morning, is that correct?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct. As I have said previously, it is all false which is stated there.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, but then your counsel, Mr Van Rooyen, produced a batch of affidavits that was supposed to have been shown to Mr Biko, that made him collapse to the power of the Security Police, that here they had him, because they had affidavits from other people to show that he had taken part in violence, do you remember that?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: Unfortunately neither your counsel, nor your colleagues checked the dates of the affidavits. They were executed after Mr Biko's death, do you recall that?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, that is correct. I think it was put to Mr Snyman. That was the typed version, not the written version. The written version was already on the 12th or the 26th or the 25th, this was made of Exhibit C, it was already made on the 26th of August.

Exhibit A and B was already drawn up on the 25th.

ADV BIZOS: Well, you know that is an explanation that was attempted to be given at the inquest, but we now know that that explanation is nonsense, because you told us that in truth and in fact, Mr Biko never admitted anything and he was not confronted with any affidavits, because he was seriously injured on the morning of the 6th?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: So even the purported explanation to explain the dates of the affidavits, was part of the perjered version?

MR NIEWOUDT: Th