CHAIRPERSON: Mr Pienaar what language would you prefer to use?
MR PIENAAR: Afrikaans please.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Pienaar, do you have any objection to taking the oath?
FREDERICK JOHANNES PIENAAR: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you may be seated.
EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Chairperson.
Mr Pienaar, your application appears on page 138 of the bundle and the incident is described on page 141 of this bundle, is that correct?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Pienaar, you are applying for amnesty in connection with the matter pertaining to Mr Glory Sedibe, who was also known by the MK name of September, is that correct?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: And you have also applied for abduction, assault and the illegal transgression of the border from Swaziland to South Africa, and there was also the charge of perjury.
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: What is the charge?
MR PRINSLOO: The charge is abduction, assault, illegal crossing of the border and the final charge is perjury.
CHAIRPERSON: How do we get to perjury?
MR PRINSLOO: I will address you on this matter during the evidence. He gave evidence during the trial of Mr Ebrahim Maseko and he gave false evidence with regard to how September came from Swaziland to South Africa. The evidence was not disclosed that he was abducted, instead it was presented that he had independently moved from Swaziland to South Africa. We shall then continue.
Mr Pienaar ...(intervention)
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Mr Prinsloo.
MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon?
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Was this offence of ...(indistinct - no microphone)
INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Was the offence of perjury stated in Mr Pienaar's written application? That is Form B.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, no, it was not stated in the written application and I'll ask leave ...(intervention)
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes. Do we have jurisdiction to hear it?
MR PRINSLOO: I respectfully submit Mr Chairman, that in view of the offences listed or any other offence that originates from this, that the application can hear this application.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes, shouldn't you be moving a formal application?
MR PRINSLOO: Madam, in the circumstances I will then make a formal application to lead evidence, but at page 138 of the applicant's application he states
"Murder or any other offence or unlawful act based upon my involvement in these matters"
But I move in the circumstances, Mr Chairman, I'm making application to lead evidence about this incident.
CHAIRPERSON: What is the connection between this incident and perjury?
MR PRINSLOO: With respect, Chairperson, the connection lies in the fact that Mr September's abduction from Swaziland and the subsequent evidence which was led with this witness at a subsequent trial indicates that there's a direct course.
CHAIRPERSON: How so?
MR PRINSLOO: With respect, Honourable Chairperson, Mr Sedibe gave evidence in the matter of Ebrahim and Mr Pienaar gave evidence knowing that the evidence was false.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that is correct, I accept that, it couldn't have been different because otherwise it wouldn't be perjury, but the question is that the abduction and the assault and the crossing of the border form one set of charges, the perjury took place during other circumstances and at another time. How does the perjury emanate from the activities pertaining to Mr Sedibe's abduction?
MR PRINSLOO: With respect I will submit to you, Chairperson that this is consistent or continuous, Mr Sedibe's abduction is a continuous event.
CHAIRPERSON: But how so, it was completed? By the time that he committed perjury all the other activities were complete.
MR PRINSLOO: With respect, Chairperson, it emanates from this entire action of the ANC against the former government, it emanates from that because Mr Sedibe gave evidence before the State as a continuation of the struggle. He testified in a Court about this.
CHAIRPERSON: But isn't that a different charge?
MR PRINSLOO: It is a separate charge, with respect Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: There is no nexus between what took place with Mr Sedibe's incident and his evidence during a Court trial. Do you follow my line of argument?
MR PRINSLOO: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Then I will reiterate my question. How is it possible that he could apply now? I understand the apparent difficulty of your position and your argument, but one should know what one's argument is going to be.
MR PRINSLOO: With respect, there must be a full disclosure of the facts and part of that disclosure will be the disclosure of the facts of the aspect of perjury before the Committee. I do not wish to conceal this from the Committee, the fact that he lied before a Court of law regarding this.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: May I?
CHAIRPERSON: But firstly, would you accept, would you agree that these are two different charges, two separate charges?
MR PRINSLOO: Separate actions, with respect Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but it does not form part of the action of abduction and assault and crossing of the border.
MR PRINSLOO: If one examines the applications of the various applicants, some of them indicate that ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: What is the position with regard to this case? I'm referring to this case.
MR PRINSLOO: I am referring to this case as well, Chairperson. At times Fourie says that there was an assault here in the Republic and others say that an assault took place in Swaziland.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but the others applied for assault and we are referring to an assault which took place during the activities pertaining to the abduction and the subsequent dealings with Mr Sedibe.
MR PRINSLOO: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And at the time of this trial, when the perjury was committed, all those events had already occurred, so how can the perjury then emanate from those events?
MR PRINSLOO: It emanates from the abduction, it is about the abduction. It emanates from the information provided by Sedibe.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but what he did in Court did not contribute to the successful abduction.
MR PRINSLOO: I would argue that it did contribute to this aspect. It also explains how he arrived in the Republic.
CHAIRPERSON: But didn't he testify during this matter?
MR PRINSLOO: Yes, he did.
CHAIRPERSON: So he was already an askari at that point?
MR PRINSLOO: I wouldn't say that he was an askari, I don't know when he became an askari. This is an aspect which ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Well I would be surprised if he was not yet an askari at the time of the commission of perjury.
MR PRINSLOO: It is possible that he may have been an askari.
CHAIRPERSON: He must have been, isn't that so Mr Prinsloo? He wouldn't have testified if he wasn't yet an askari at that point.
MR PRINSLOO: If an askari is regarded as a person who has already been taken into service, then I would have to concede to that.
CHAIRPERSON: In either event then do you maintain that the application pertaining to the perjury is a reasonable application?
MR PRINSLOO: Yes, with respect, that is my humble request to you.
CHAIRPERSON: Very well.
MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Chairperson.
Mr Pienaar - may I continue? Thank you, Sir.
Mr Pienaar, you have heard the evidence of Mr Deetlefs.
MR PIENAAR: I did yes, Chairperson.
MR PRINSLOO: And insofar as it has regard to your involvement as to how this aspect emanated, do you support the evidence of Mr Deetlefs?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, I do.
MR PRINSLOO: And were you called to Swaziland and did you arrive at the hotel as he had testified?
MR PIENAAR: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: And was it decided that Mr Sedibe would be abducted ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, he's already confirmed, you don't have to go through the whole evidence.
MR PRINSLOO: I will not repeat it, I will go to the following point.
Mr Pienaar, what was your part at the police station?
MR PIENAAR: I was in the charge office where Mr de Kock and I detained the two police officials where the other two went to the cells and removed Mr Sedibe from there and took him outside. I still remained in the office and locked the policeman up in one of the cells.
CHAIRPERSON: How many police officers?
MR PIENAAR: There were two, Chairperson, that I can recall, a student and then a member of the uniform branch. They were both placed into a cell.
CHAIRPERSON: And during the same time the other detainees were asked to run away?
MR PIENAAR: Yes. We left the key on the desk, we disconnected the telephones and we took along the G3 rifle which was taken from the one police officer. Outside Mr Sedibe was already placed into the vehicle ...(intervention)
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: May I interrupt you, Mr Pienaar. We have already heard a lot of evidence around what happened at the police station, Mankanyane Police Station, we want you to confine yourself to what you particularly did at the police station. Don't talk in terms of plural, "we", we want you to tell us what you personally did, what was your particular involvement.
MR PIENAAR: I assisted in locking up the two members in the cell. I assisted with the disconnecting of the telephone lines. We cut the lines, after which I went outside. I climbed into the vehicle where the other members were, as well as Mr Sedibe.
I understood that on our way back to the RSA, while we drove, of the resistance which Mr Sedibe offered on his being loaded into the vehicle.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you hit him?
MR PIENAAR: No, I did not.
CHAIRPERSON: Were you part of the group that assaulted him?
MR PIENAAR: I never assaulted Mr Sedibe at any point in time.
CHAIRPERSON: Are you then guilty of assault?
MR PIENAAR: This was done in my presence, I was part of that group who assaulted him although I did not participate.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you agree with the assault.
MR PIENAAR: There was no vote taken.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you not tell them that they should not assault him?
MR PIENAAR: No, I did not.
CHAIRPERSON: So in that sense you are part of the group that assaulted him.
MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.
We returned to the RSA where Mr Sedibe was detained in a safehouse which was rented by myself, close to Piet Retief. He had some injuries which I can recall because I worked a long time with him. His fact was injured, he also had several bruises on his body that I knew of.
CHAIRPERSON: Did he wear clothing?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, he did. After a while when he was detained as a Section 29 ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Was he detained?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, he was. I think it was the fourth day, I'm not entirely certain, the third or the fourth day after the abduction he was detained as a Section 29 detainee?
CHAIRPERSON: But why?
MR PIENAAR: In the police cells in Piet Retief.
CHAIRPERSON: But why?
MR PIENAAR: This was to grant time for interrogation. We could not detain him indefinitely.
CHAIRPERSON: You have heard Mr Deetlefs' evidence.
MR PIENAAR: Yes, that's correct.
CHAIRPERSON: He did not mention it, but over and above that he testified that in two days this man agreed to cooperate.
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And I gain the impression that because he agreed to cooperate he was not sent back to Swaziland and he was not detained under Section 29. I do not know if I am correct, but that is the impression that I gleamed from his evidence.
MR PIENAAR: No, Chairperson, Mr Sedibe was indeed detained as a Section 29 detainee.
CHAIRPERSON: You're saying round about the fourth day?
MR PIENAAR: I think it was then, I'm not entirely certain, it could have been the third or fourth day after his abduction.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: May I before you proceed, Mr Pienaar, just to be on the same wavelength with your evidence right now on this point, which to me is critical. You've stated that you detained him in terms of Section 29 of the Internal Security Act because you wanted to buy time for his interrogation.
MR PIENAAR: That's correct, yes.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes. Now why did you need to buy time for his interrogation? What was it that you wanted to extract through his interrogation and through detaining him under Section 29? Because we know what the effect of Section 29 was as draconian law.
MR PIENAAR: If I have to give you my opinion I would have said that I would never question the man within the first hour after abduction. This was a highly trained ANC member and within an hour or two I would believe everything that the man tells me, even the following day one probably has to determine certain things to see whether he was really co-operating. And then there was a process of questioning about several ANC members who may possibly be in the Republic, who were sent by him, possible weapons cache places as well as structures in Mozambique and other places. The questioning cannot take place over one or two days.
And then I also have to add that the day or the night after Mr Sedibe's abduction, the Nerston incident took place, people were shot dead there. There was the - attention had to be diverted from there and then he had to be detained as a Section 29 detainee. It was also an instruction from head office, it was not my instruction.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: ...(indistinct - no microphone)
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: If I comprehend your evidence you need time before you can properly question a person, particularly after he has been abducted.
MR PIENAAR: That is correct, yes.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes. In that line, can a person's co-operation be secured within a day or two of his abduction?
MR PIENAAR: One could believe so, he could pose that he wants to help, but I do believe that in the back of one's mind there is always something that nags and says that he may turn back. He had 10 years training and to turn him within an hour or two would definitely be difficult, after 10 years of intensive training. And he was highly placed in the ANC hierarchy.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: And he was an intelligent man, do you agree?
MR PIENAAR: Definitely, yes.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes. So in your view, you wouldn't trust a person who appeared or who gave you the signal that he was co-operating, to you that would simply be some kind of pretence, you would have to continue with your interrogation just to make sure that indeed this person was giving you his genuine and true co-operation.
MR PIENAAR: Correct, yes.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Thank you.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Pienaar, after the instruction came that Mr Sedibe be detained in terms of Section 29, was he detained in a police cell?
MR PIENAAR: He was detained the correctional facility at Piet Retief.
MR PRINSLOO: And did you question him?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, I questioned him. We fetched Mr Sedibe in the morning from the correctional facility, brought him to the office at Piet Retief, held him there the whole day, he ate there and then we took him back to the correctional facility during the afternoon.
MR PRINSLOO: Was there a good relationship or bad relationship between yourself and Mr Sedibe?
MR PIENAAR: I said it was very good.
MR PRINSLOO: And for how long was Mr Sedibe detained in terms of Section 29?
MR PIENAAR: I cannot recall exactly but it was quite a few months. While under Section 29 detention he also asked me to make a plan with his wife and the one child, to bring them in from Mozambique and I discussed it with Col de Kock and then he brought in Mrs Sedibe and her child from Mozambique to the RSA.
MR PRINSLOO: Can you recall how long after this abduction of Mr Sedibe his spouse was brought over?
MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I shall not tie myself to a time but I would say approximately two or three weeks after the abduction.
MR PRINSLOO: And when Mrs Sedibe arrived here with her child, was she allowed to see Mr Sedibe?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, she was. I may also add that the child was approximately a year or two. We bought a small bicycle that the child rode around on in the office "waar Mev Sedibe gesit het, partykeer allenig, ander kere saam met mnr Sedibe, maar wanneer ek met hom gesels het dan was sy nie teenwoordig gewees nie".
MR PRINSLOO: Did she otherwise have access to her spouse?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, except at the correctional facility, she was not allowed there.
MR PRINSLOO: And otherwise his movements, did you care for him?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, care was taken of him. He never went out alone, there was always someone with him but he had freedom of movement as well as Mrs Sedibe, she had freedom of movement.
MNR PRINSLOO: "En nadat mnr Sedibe onthef is van die bepalings van Artikel 29, wat het toe met hom gebeur?"
MR PIENAAR: He was transferred to Vlakplaas. I also asked Brig Visser to attempt to arrange with head office for Mr Sedibe not to be transferred as an askari. We could not succeed in this, head office wanted him and he left there.
There were several occasions after he was at Vlakplaas that he visited Piet Retief and spoke to me. Later he left Vlakplaas for the Defence Force and it was during that time that he was with the Defence Force that he also used to visit me with his wife and children. He came to show his youngest child to me there.
MR PRINSLOO: And is it correct that Mr Sedibe provided much information to the Security Branch, which led to the evidence against Mr Ebrahim in the trial?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: And that there was a lot of information in a comprehensive which stretched over a lengthy period of time pertaining to the ANC and its activities and structures.
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: And after Mr Sedibe became an askari so to speak, did he have freedom of movement?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, he enjoyed freedom of movement. And also later when he was with the Defence Force he drove alone in a vehicle with his family.
MR PRINSLOO: In the matter of Mr Ismail Ebrahim, Mr Sedibe gave evidence.
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: And there he testified that he defected freely to the RSA.
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: And you supported him in that evidence.
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: And that evidence was false.
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: And that is what you're also applying for amnesty for.
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: At any stage during the interrogation of Mr Sedibe, did you assault him?
MR PIENAAR: No, not at all. I never assaulted Mr Sedibe.
CHAIRPERSON: That matter was - the abduction of Sedibe, was this abduction the core of the case?
MR PIENAAR: No, it was to be put that we abducted Mr Sedibe and we denied this.
CHAIRPERSON: So what he testified about did not pertain to his abduction?
MR PIENAAR: No, it was something completely different.
MR PRINSLOO: And in that matter it was, Mr Pienaar, on the side of the Defence that maintained that they had been set free and did not defect freely.
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: Under the circumstances, Mr Pienaar, did you entertain any feelings of malice or revenge against Mr Sedibe?
MR PIENAAR: No.
MR PRINSLOO: Did you participate in this incident out of financial benefit?
MR PIENAAR: No.
MR PRINSLOO: Do you apply to this Committee for amnesty with regard to your involvement in the matter as well as for any offences or delictual accountability that may emanate from the facts of this case?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HUGO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Mr Pienaar, did you have the opportunity to study Mr de Kock's amnesty application with regard to this incident?
MR PIENAAR: No, I did not.
MR HUGO: Let me then put it to you very briefly. Mr de Kock maintains that before the operation was launched in Swaziland there was a so-called intelligence meeting and that you among others were present during this meeting, along with Mr Visser and so forth. Was there such an intelligence meeting?
MR PIENAAR: No, I was contacted telephonically by Brig Visser and instructed to go to Swaziland where we would meet Mr Deetlefs. There was no such meeting.
MR HUGO: May I put it to you that Mr de Kock has studied documents and that in retrospect has discovered that he was mistaken and that this so-called intelligence meeting is something that he confused with the incident which we will be dealing with tomorrow or the day after, and that you are indeed correct.
MR PIENAAR: I do not know about the following incident, but as I have stated there was no intelligence meeting.
MR HUGO: Very well. May I ask you, when Brig Visser contacted you, was Mr Paul van Dyk already in Piet Retief?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, as far as I can recall.
MR HUGO: And he was occupied with a routine deployment on behalf of Vlakplaas.
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR HUGO: And Mr de Kock, at which stage did he arrive there?
MR PIENAAR: I think that he was there, but I don't believe that when Brig Visser called he was aware that Col de Kock was going to visiting his people, that is why Col de Kock went along when he heard about the operation in Swaziland.
MR HUGO: And then, you will also have noted if you had read Mr de Kock's application and affidavit, that there were guns which were taken from the policeman and that he does not know what happened to this gun.
MR PIENAAR: This G3 gun was later returned to the Swaziland Police under the table, so to speak. There was no official return of the weapon.
MR HUGO: You have just testified that directly after the abduction, in fact on the following day, the so-called Nerston incident took place. Now your recollection is probably better than mine, but the Nerston incident would be the incident during which ANC cadres were ambushed and shot dead.
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR HUGO: And Col de Kock has just told me that he recalls that shortly after this Nerston incident there were indeed rumours which circulated and indicated that Mr Sedibe was the person who had provided the information which gave rise to the fact that you killed these ANC cadres during the Nerston incident.
MR PIENAAR: Yes, those were indeed rumours.
MR HUGO: And if that had been so, I'm sure that you would agree with me that it would have made Mr Sedibe's position unbearable.
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR HUGO: And that he would have had virtually no other choice but to cooperate with the Security Police.
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR HUGO: And that it would have been inconceivable for him to return to the ANC under such circumstances.
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR HUGO: And Mr de Kock says in fact that he recalls that these rumours appeared in the press.
MR PIENAAR: I cannot recall, I'm not completely certain about that.
MR HUGO: And then just a minor aspect, I don't know whether or not there's much to be made about this, but Mr de Kock recalls that the arrangements that he made for Sedibe's wife and child to be returned from Mozambique to South Africa were for longer than the three to four week period that you spent there. He recalls that it may have been three to four months.
MR PIENAAR: I am not certain of the exact period of time, I do not wish to bind myself to a time. It may have been two months, I'm not completely certain. It may have been two to three to four weeks, but I'm not completely certain of these facts.
MR HUGO: I will not take it any further than this. No further questions thank you, Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HUGO
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: I'll be very short, Chairperson, thank you.
Mr Pienaar, just a few minor aspects. I don't know whether or not these are very significant, but in as far as it is Mr Koole's version I will put these to you briefly. Mr Koole states that before Sedibe came to Vlakplaas, he at a certain stage met Sedibe, his wife and children at Ermelo once again. This is when he and de Kock weren't there. This was to welcome Sedibe's wife. Do you know anything about this, that they had a meal at the Holiday Inn in Ermelo?
MR PIENAAR: It is possible, I cannot recall this. It is possible.
MR LAMEY: Would he then still have been detained in terms of Section 29?
MR PIENAAR: Yes.
MR LAMEY: Did he enjoy such freedom?
MR PIENAAR: One could book a Section 29 detainee out for investigative purposes and perhaps as with that case it would be for him to have a meal. I cannot recall exactly what the circumstances would have been.
MR LAMEY: I will depart from that point. Mr Koole's recollection is that there in the police station you peeped through the keyhole when you came to fetch the keys from the guard, one of the doors of the detention cells - you apparently stated that you recognised someone or something.
MR PIENAAR: No, I was nowhere near the cells, I was in the office. I think that he is confusing me with somebody else.
MR LAMEY: That is possible. Then after the cell door was unlocked and opened he recalls that you pointed out a person and stated "Yes, Glory, you thought I wouldn't find you, today the boers have you".
MR PIENAAR: No, that isn't so. The idea was for people to think that it was the ANC who had conducted the abduction and if you were to arrive there and say "Today the boers have you", then that would defeat the purpose. I saw him for the first time after he had been loaded into the vehicle.
MR LAMEY: Is it possible that those words may have been uttered to Sedibe at any other stage, because my client recalls that those words were uttered to him.
MR PIENAAR: I may have said this to him in the vehicle, but I cannot recall this.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: I don't understand your response to that, Mr Pienaar. You say that you might have said to Mr Koole that you said something to that effect to Mr September, is that what you are trying to say?
MR PIENAAR: No, what I'm saying is that I may have uttered the words in the vehicle during the journey back to the RSA, but at no stage during our presence in the police station.
MR LAMEY: So what you are saying is that it's a question of place.
MR PIENAAR: Yes, I cannot recall.
MR LAMEY: You did not participate in the assault as they took him to the vehicle.
MNR PIENAAR: "Glad nie, Voorsitter".
CHAIRPERSON: And all those inmates who ran away knew that it definitely wasn't the ANC who had seized the man.
MR PIENAAR: I don't know what they thought.
CHAIRPERSON: But you would have to be foolish to think that.
MR PIENAAR: I think that they were foolish because they came back, woke the policeman up and surrendered themselves.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that may be so, but they must have known for certain that it had not been the ANC who had been involved in this action.
MR PIENAAR: Yes, I would assume so.
ADV BOSMAN: I beg your pardon, may I ask you the following. When Mr Sedibe was loaded into the vehicle, didn't you help to control him?
MR PIENAAR: No, I was in the front of the vehicle, Mr de Kock and the others were in the back with Sedibe and van Dyk, there wasn't place or room for all of us in the back. I wasn't seated in the back of the vehicle.
ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.
MR LAMEY: Very well. And you state that you were also not present during the struggle which ensued while he was being brought to the vehicle.
MR PIENAAR: No, I only heard of it.
MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson, I have nothing further.
MS VAN DER WALT: No questions, thank you Chairperson.
NO QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Leopeng.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LEOPENG: Chairperson, I will be brief.
Mr Pienaar, you said in your evidence-in-chief that you observed several bruises on Mr Sedibe's body, is that correct?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR LEOPENG: Were those bruises as a result of the abduction or the assault during the abduction?
MR PIENAAR: No, I never participated in the assault, I was part of the group who abducted him though.
MR LEOPENG: My question is, were those bruises that you observed on his body as a result of the abduction, not specifically you, but one of your team's?
MR PIENAAR: It's possible, Chairperson, there was no other opportunity for it, it was during the abduction from Swaziland.
MR LEOPENG: Did you personally observe Mr Sedibe being assaulted by one of the team which went to abduct him?
MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I did not see any assault of Mr Sedibe during the abduction at the police station. In the vehicle on the way there was a struggle, someone must have hit him, I don't know who, but there was no assault at the police station that I observed.
MR LEOPENG: Now where he was detained, did you observe any assault on him? - when you arrived in South Africa at Piet Retief.
MR PIENAAR: In Piet Retief he was not assaulted. I can recall the mark on his nose remained quite long there. There was a cut in-between his eyes. I can recall that his one eye was swollen shut and he also had some bruises to his body. He complained that he was quite stiff. And I saw this during the examination of the district surgeon after he was detained under Section 29.
MR LEOPENG: Now did you hear the evidence of Mr Deetlefs, who said that he co-operated with him two days?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, Chairperson, that is indeed so. He agreed to cooperate and give information, - this is my point of view, it was not a total surrender "I will work with you". At that stage it could have been fear, although he was told that "Listen you do not have to be afraid", but just as little as I trusted him initially, by the same token he trusted me just as little. So I am not able to say that he said everything immediately because during his whole Section 29 detention regularly new information came about as one continued working with him.
MR LEOPENG: In your evidence-in-chief you said he was detained as a Section 29 detainee on the fourth day of his abduction.
MR PIENAAR: Approximately, Chairperson. I will not bind myself to a date here, it could have been the fourth day, it could have been the fifth day, I am not entirely certain, but it was shortly after the abduction, it was not a month.
MR LEOPENG: Which means that he did not cooperate within the two days that Mr Deetlefs said he co-operated.
MR PIENAAR: No, Chairperson, he did cooperate. It was superficial co-operation, he says something, you ask something of him, he gives you an answer, he tells you which houses would be used as safehouses, he gave the address of Mr Paul Dikiledi, his commander. But one cannot be certain within two days that this man can be trusted entirely. That was my viewpoint of the whole matter.
MR LEOPENG: I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LEOPENG
ADV BOSMAN: Mr Chairperson, may I just clear up one matter here.
Mr Pienaar, Mr Deetlefs said in his evidence that at some stage he handed Mr Sedibe to you and I gleamed the impression that he disappeared from the scene.
MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I would not say "hand over" entirely, we spoke to him but after the worst dust had settled, Mr Sedibe remained behind with me at Piet Retief. I questioned him and sometimes people would come from head office, amongst others members of Section C2, Mr Fourie ...(intervention)
ADV BOSMAN: I do not want to interrupt you here, I would just like to get to my question. How long after he was abducted did Mr Deetlefs disappear from the picture?
MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I would say and I will take a chance, I would say approximately two or three days. This was after the Nerston incident when Mr Deetlefs returned to Ermelo, but I am not entirely certain.
ADV BOSMAN: Where was Mr Deetlefs at the stage when you arranged the Section 29 detention?
MR PIENAAR: I think he was in Ermelo. If I am correct, I think Brig Visser - I'm not entirely correct, but I think Brig Visser arranged this from Middelburg, this Section 29 detention.
ADV BOSMAN: Would Mr Deetlefs have known of the Section 29 detention?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, he would have. Definitely, yes.
ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.
Just for completeness sake Sir, can you tell us after he was abducted and taken to Piet Retief, were you present during the interrogation of Mr Sedibe from day one as it were, up until he was detained in terms of Section 29 and thereafter?
MR PIENAAR: I was present, it was my office area. There were times when I was not there, but the majority of the time I was present when he was questioned. As I have said, it was my office area, I received instructions from Brig Visser as well as Col Deetlefs, to continue with the interrogations, so it my responsibility.
MS PATEL: Do I understand you correctly that you and Mr Deetlefs took turns in terms of who would be there during the interrogation, so either he would be in charge or your would be in charge of the interrogation? Do I understand you correctly?
MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, where senior members were present I was never in command or in control of the interrogation, I was in control of the man but if Brig Visser would for example ask a question he would ask a question, there was no such thing as him asking me if he could ask a question. I don't know whether Col Deetlefs and I were removed from each other during the interrogation, I cannot recall. As I have said, it was primarily my task to continue with the interrogation.
MS PATEL: Can you tell us who else was present during the interrogation for the period that you were there?
MR PIENAAR: Mr Fourie was there, he was a member of Section C2, they primarily understood questioning. After the primary questioning was done by the branch they came in with identifications and the photo album, identification of persons. There were many people later. Because Mr Sedibe in my eyes was a very important cog of the ANC machinery, everybody came in and wanted to hear what was going on in their area and to see whether he could assist them, and he usually could.
MS PATEL: Was Mr Sedibe handcuffed to the bed as stated by Mr Fourie in his application, whilst you were there?
MR PIENAAR: That was just precaution, Chairperson. If one abducts a person from Swaziland you cannot just leave him there. There were members standing around, they were armed. Mr Sedibe was a large man, anything could happen, he could have escaped. It was just a precaution.
MS PATEL: Can you tell us more-or-less at what stage those handcuffs were removed from his arms and the foot-cuffs removed from his legs.
MR PIENAAR: I cannot recall, I think it was removed when we questioned him while we were sitting there with him, but if some of the people went to rest and one or two persons were with him, it would be reapplied.
MS PATEL: Would it have been a day or two or just the morning of ...(intervention)
MR PIENAAR: It's possible that it was a day or two, yes.
MS PATEL: Okay. And he was never assaulted in your presence.
MR PIENAAR: He was assaulted in the vehicle in Swaziland and I heard that he was assaulted whilst they took him to the vehicle, but in the Republic where I detained him, he was never assaulted in my presence by anyone.
MS PATEL: Was he not assaulted in the vehicle as well at some stage, while he was being brought to ...(intervention)
MR PIENAAR: That's what I said, yes.
MS PATEL: Alright. And regarding Nofomela, where was he whilst Mr Sedibe was at Piet Retief?
MR PIENAAR: I cannot recall, honestly I really cannot recall where he was.
MS PATEL: You don't know whether he was present or not?
MR PIENAAR: He may have been there, I'm not entirely certain.
MS PATEL: Then just to go back, you said in your evidence-in-chief that there were two policemen present at the police station in Swaziland.
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MS PATEL: In your application to us on page 142, you state that
"There was only policeman on duty and he did not offer any resistance."
MR PIENAAR: That's correct, Chairperson, the other person while we were in the office, he was a young man, he did not wear any uniform and initially we thought that it might have been a visitor of this police officer. That's what I thought. And when we detained him he said he doesn't know much "I'm only a student" and I assumed that he was a student Constable who was still learning the ropes at the police station. But there was only one police officer in uniform at the office.
MS PATEL: Alright. And then just one thing that I would like clarity on. You say that the G3 rifle that was taken was later handed back to the Swazi Police and you sort of intimated that it was done under the table.
MNR PIENAAR: "Dit is korrek".
MS PATEL: By whom would it have been handed back?
MR PIENAAR: It was done by the Ermelo branch. I'm not certain whether it was Mr Botha or who it was, or de Vries, but one of them took the firearm back to the Swazis.
MS PATEL: And to who exactly would it have been handed over, do you know?
MR PIENAAR: I'm not certain.
MS PATEL: I'm a bit at a loss here, could you explain why it would have been returned if the idea initially was that you didn't want the Swazi Police to know that you had in fact been responsible for the abduction of Mr Msibi? - Sedibe, sorry.
MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, the firearm was taken back to the Swazi Police. There was some discussion at the Ermelo branch. I don't know whether it was an instruction from head office, I am not able to say. This is all what I heard amongst the members of how the firearm went back to the Swazi Police.
MS PATEL: Can you give us an indication as to more-or-less how long after abduction the firearm was returned?
MR PIENAAR: I have no idea, not at all.
MS PATEL: Alright. Thank you, Honourable, Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Chairperson, may I just ask one question here which I have omitted to ask Mr Pienaar.
Mr Pienaar, Mr Fourie also worked in that area, is that correct?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, he was there, Chairperson. I don't know what he did there, but he was present during the interrogation of Mr Sedibe.
MR LAMEY: What I am trying to determine is, when he became involved in the interrogation, was this before he was officially detained in terms of Section 29?
MR PIENAAR: Mr Fourie briefly after the abduction was there, but the official questioning with the photo album took place a long time after the serious side of the interrogation had been completed, only then he was approached with a photo album. Because the interrogation usually takes place over the course of two or three weeks.
MR LAMEY: Because in his statement he says he was there when members of the various security branches were there and wanted information.
MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct. As I have said, many members came there to hear what went on in their areas that they did not know of. They were very curious to hear what Mr Sedibe could say.
MR LAMEY: But how long after the abduction did the photo album identification begin?
MR PIENAAR: I cannot recall.
MR LAMEY: Are we referring to a day or two?
MR PIENAAR: No, it was longer.
MR LAMEY: Would Mr Fourie then have returned?
MR PIENAAR: He was there initially, he departed from there. I think Col Buchner was also there during that time, he also visited the office there. But the questioning with the photo album took place long after the other questioning was completed.
MR LAMEY: I need to gain instructions about this, I'm not entirely certain about this, therefore I have no further questions. Thank you, Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
MR PRINSLOO: No re-examination, thank you Chairperson.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Mr Pienaar, you've already stated that Mr Sedibe was assaulted inside the vehicle in your presence.
MR PIENAAR: That's correct, Chairperson.
MS PATEL: Do you know who assaulted him in the vehicle?
MR PIENAAR: I don't know Chairperson. He started struggling in the back and the persons who were in the back with him were all on top of him. I don't know who struck him and who did not strike him, it was dark, I could not see.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: How do you know then that he was assaulted at all?
MR PIENAAR: You could hear it.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: And you also were unable to observe who assaulted him with a view to containing his struggle before being made to enter inside the vehicle.
MR PIENAAR: I did not go out with the group to the outside with Mr Sedibe, I remained in the office. We disengaged the phone, Col Deetlefs and I, we locked the people in the cells and only after that did we join the others as they were already in the vehicle.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Mr Koole says that Mr van Wyk(sic) at one stage tried to use his tie on Mr Sedibe's neck, are you aware of that?
MR PIENAAR: I'm not aware of that. Is that Mr van Dyk?
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes.
MR PIENAAR: I don't know about that.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Now you are applying for amnesty for participating in the assault of Mr Sedibe.
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Had it been preplanned that if Sedibe offered any resistance in your attempts to abduct him, that violence would have to be used?
MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, it was not planned prior to the incident, but I do believe that all of us who were present there were aware that if the man resisted we would have to apply violence.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Whilst Mr Sedibe was held in the house in Piet Retief it was of utmost importance for you and your members to get his co-operation.
MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.
MS PATEL: And you would have used whatever means to get his co-operation.
MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I think with the calibre of man that Mr Sedibe was, fear would have been the best option. He feared for his life, he feared that he could be killed and those may have been his thoughts. Subsequently we discussed it at length and he said that on the evening that he was removed from the police station he believed that evening to be his last on earth. And violence was never applied during the interrogation at Piet Retief.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes. Now if one uses the operative word you've used "fear", were there no attempts by any members who were present there to put the fear of God in him by assaulting him to try and cooperate?
MR PIENAAR: No, never, not by me or anybody else in my presence, but I do believe that Mr Sedibe thought that he could be killed if he did not cooperate. That is a possibility. He also stated at a later stage that he thought that this was the final night of his life. But he was never physically threatened by me and I never threatened him with death if he did not cooperate.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: So no-one tried to put any fear physically and psychologically in Mr Sedibe, you just obtained ultimately his co-operation without any such kind of fear having been instilled in him.
MR PIENAAR: No, Chairperson, as far as I know, not.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: It is one of the strange incidents where somebody's co-operation and this person being such an important person in the hierarchy of MK, who was involved in the intelligence work and this is the military intelligence work, that you simply are able to get one's co-operation without any attempt whatsoever being made to put some kind of fear in him.
MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is what I have said, I think that Mr Sedibe was intelligent enough to realise independently without being told anything, he believed it, I'm sure ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: You believe that he would think that.
MR PIENAAR: That he would possibly what?
CHAIRPERSON: You thought that he might possibly believe that?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, I thought something to that effect.
CHAIRPERSON: And you relied upon that, upon the eventual provision of information by him.
MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And as far as you knew or thought, it was highly possible that he was afraid.
MR PIENAAR: Yes.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Thank you.
MR PIENAAR: Thank you, Chairperson.
MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Chair. May the applicant be excused? Thank you, Chairperson.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: Any objection to commencing tomorrow morning at nine thirty?
MR PRINSLOO: No objection.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
