CHAIRPERSON: We will now go on with today's hearing.

The first of them is one which I feel I should apologise to you all about, and that is that my colleague Mr Lax was phoned from our Cape Town office late last night and told that the hearing on Monday won't be going on on Monday it will be going on on Thursday, and not in Nelspruit but in Johannesburg, subject to your approvals. Can you rearrange your lives? Yesterday I asked you all to arrange, those of you appearing to be available, not sit on Monday now our offices have finally discovered that the arrangement is somewhat different. Will you gentlemen be able, those of you who are engaged in the Monday matter, can you make arrangements.

I am very much obliged to all of you for that.

And the second is a matter which Mr Rossouw wishes to raise with us.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman I represent Mr Douw Willemse and last night after the proceedings yesterday I was contacted by the family of my client who informed me that he has experienced some problems and that the psychologist who treated him in the past has also been contracted. He has consulted with Mr Willemse and as a result thereof the psychologist has expressed the opinion that Mr Willemse is not at this point in time in a position to testify or to be subjected to cross-examination in these proceedings.

Mr Chairman I have handed to everybody a letter that was faxed to me last night by the psychologist, Dr van der Merwe, in which that opinion is expressed.

Mr Chairman I also place on record that in previous hearings it has been recorded and letters by Dr van der Merwe have also been handed in to other panels of the Committee and Mr Chairman my application is at this stage that the application of Mr Willemse be adjourned, partly-heard, and that it be completed Mr Chairman either in the sense of a finding on the facts after these proceedings, or if there is some aspect that the Committee needs to clear with Mr Willemse then after he has received treatment and he is in a position to testify Mr Chairman, we can make the necessary arrangements for that to take place.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rossouw have you been completely frank with the members? I understand that this happened not after the proceedings yesterday, but after a subsequent (microphone not on)

MR ROSSOUW: Yes Mr Chairman that was my subsequent consultation with Mr Willemse again. So I do have to take responsibility for that Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: It seems to me it's a perfectly reasonable request, Gentlemen. We have heard the evidence already of - the different versions, nothing further there, and it seems -I don't want to pre-judge the matter in any way but from what we have had before us he seems to have been one of the foot-soldiers and his absence here will not materially affect the application in respect of any of the other applicants. If there's any point they wish to raise specifically they could mention it now.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman may I perhaps just also place on record that there is a precedent for this in what happened to Brigadier Cronje when he had his heart attack at the beginning of the year it was exactly the same situation.

MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson can we mark this letter, should we mark it Exhibit D, the letter from Dr van der Merwe. Exhibit D.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you Mr Chairman. If there's no opposition to that application for the adjournment of Mr Willemse's application, Mr Chairman I have also instructions from my client to place certain things on record at this point in time, while he is still present here and Mr Chairman my instructions are that after Mr Willemse had the opportunity of listening to the testimony by Mr de Kock yesterday, and the cross-examination that his recollection, having listened to the testimony, is that there was indeed a final instruction that all the persons infiltrating the country had to be eliminated.

Secondly, Mr Chairman, as far as the aspect of the arrest is concerned my instructions are that he is experiencing some difficulty and uncertainty in that regard and my instructions are that he has got a recollection of such a plan and it might have taken place during the discussion prior to the final decision that the cadres all had to be eliminated.

CHAIRPERSON: Right.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman may I then ask that Mr Willemse be excused from these proceedings.

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly. (microphone not switched on) I trust you will advise him to listen carefully to what his medical advisor tells him to do.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you Mr Chairman.

MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson the next amnesty is Mr Christo Deetlefs.

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Mr Deetlefs you are the applicant in this particular incident which refers to the Nerston incident?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: You have applied for amnesty for the death of these persons who are mentioned in the application?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And your application appears on page 117 up to page 119, that is the formal part, and then with regards to the incident itself this goes from page 120 to page 123.

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Deetlefs at the time of the event as the date appears to be, it was the 14th of August 1989, and at this stage you were stationed at Ermelo and you were the branch commander and you occupied the rank of captain?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Pienaar, your fellow applicant, was stationed at Piet Retief and occupied the rank, at that stage, of warrant officer and he was also the branch commander of that branch?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And he was your subordinate?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And did you work with him?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Deetlefs in this particular case what was the order, what was supposed to take place at the scene of this Nerston incident?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson it was that the infiltrators, in this case the persons occupying the bakkie, would be eliminated.

MR PRINSLOO: Was there any talk of arrest?

MR DEETLEFS: No Chairperson it may be so because this took place a long time ago but under normal circumstances one would consider arrest against the death of such persons, so it is possible that at some stage there may be talk of arrest but ultimately we decided that these persons would be eliminated.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Deetlefs as the evidence appears use was made of an informer?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Now in your application, on page 120, the following appears in paragraph 2, and this is approximately the fourth line from the bottom.

Did you agree on this with the informer or what was the case?

MR DEETLEFS: No this was according to what Mr Pienaar had told me regarding what he had agreed with the informer what the informer would have said after the bakkie came to a standstill the arrest would have been conducted. So that refers to what the informer had said.

MR PRINSLOO: And in your application itself you do not state directly that a shooting would ensue but that at the scene itself shots were fired and after that the persons were shot. Could you state this expressly to the Committee.

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson the application was submitted at a very late stage. Everything had to be completed hastily in order to reach the cut-off date. Everything was compiled rather cryptically so there is a lot of semantics, nonetheless the order was for the persons to be killed.

MR PRINSLOO: On page 122 of your application Mr Deetlefs in the first paragraph the third line from the top, Chairperson, it says:

You heard that Mr de Kock testified there was no such person who jumped out wielding a pistol. What is your recollection?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson this took place a long time ago and for the purposes of the post mortem inquest at that stage we said that a person had jumped out wielding this hand-gun. But I could not say later with certainty whether it was so or not. It was my recollection but I would concede if some of the other applicants say that the person did not disembark but this is indeed possibly so. My recollection is that he attempted to disembark and that he held a hand-gun.

MR PRINSLOO: Was it true that a pistol was found on the left side?

MR DEETLEFS: On the floor of the bakkie near the person who was seated on the extreme left a weapon was found, but this was on the floor of the bakkie between his legs.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman I have handed to the evidence leader an album which contains one photo. It's referred to on the document as "Bewysstuk AO" if I recall correctly. I only have a photocopy in my hand of the photo itself.

I also have in my possession the judgment of his Lordship Mr Justice Daniels, and that is in the matter of S v Maseko and 2 others which included Ebrahim, Ismail Ebrahim, and also one Dladla, and this particular case of Dladla and Maseko and Ebrahim they were charged also with the infiltration and also of the deceased in this matter. It's referred to in the judgment. The judgment is available. It's a very lengthy judgment Mr Chairman, but I have it available. I only looked at this last night and I haven't had the chance to photocopy it.

CHAIRPERSON: You can tell us what page to look at.

MR PRINSLOO: I will do that Mr Chairman, if necessary. May I then refer to the ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You are not handing that in as an exhibit, but the photograph will be Exhibit E.

MR PRINSLOO: As you please Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: You didn't manage to get one of the others - the driver's side?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman the purpose of that photo when it was handed in to court, if my memory serves me correctly, I perused the judgment very quickly, one could probably locate the court record of the Ebrahim saga. The reason for that was it was alleged that Dladla made use of this particular bakkie, and for that reason it was handed in. It is also referred to in the judgment of his Lordship Mr Justice Daniels at page 70 of the judgment where it is stated there -

and I am omitting the others and get to point 1.5.3 -

And the reason for that photograph was handed in to show which bakkie was used Mr Chairman. So it wasn't to do with the actual shooting or an inquest or anything of the kind. That pertains to a charge against the accused at that stage.

CHAIRPERSON: And we still don't know where the bakkie is?

MR PRINSLOO: No Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR PRINSLOO: That's the best we could do in the circumstances.

CHAIRPERSON: We are obliged to you for having managed to do that.

MR PRINSLOO: As I say Mr Chairman, I haven't checked the court record itself, maybe we could find something else in there because it was a long time ago when this trial was conducted.

MS LOCKHAT: I will check that.

CHAIRPERSON: I can assure you that it will be done. Thank you Lynn.

MR PRINSLOO: May I proceed Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman may I have sight of the original document as I would like to show that to the witness, the applicant, please Mr Chairman. As you please Mr Chairman.

Mr Deetlefs Exhibit E before you is the original photo, do you see the bakkie on the photo?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you recognise that bakkie or not?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes I recognise it.

MR PRINSLOO: What do you have to say about it?

MR DEETLEFS: It is the same bakkie that we fired at during the ambush.

MR PRINSLOO: If one looks at the photograph it would appear that there are marks on the left side of the vehicle.

MR DEETLEFS: Those are bullet marks.

MR PRINSLOO: And then if one also looks at the rear of the vehicle, on the panel itself, near the rear lights, what do you see there?

MR DEETLEFS: Those are also bullet holes.

MR PRINSLOO: And it appears as if the back window of the canopy has been shot to pieces.

MR DEETLEFS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Can you see whether or not the front window has been shot out?

MR DEETLEFS: I cannot really make out very clearly with the photograph. I can see that the side window on the door has been shot up. I cannot see properly. It would appear as if the front window has been shot out, but I cannot say for certain.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Deetlefs, on this particular evening when this ambush was set up which position did you occupy, can you recall?

MR DEETLEFS: I was next to the road, against the shoulder of the road on the left side, as the vehicle would approach us from the right, I lay on the left. If one looks at the vehicle I would say that I was more-or-less just behind the left front door, just opposite that pillar the vehicle stopped from me.

MR PRINSLOO: You have heard Mr de Kock's evidence and his application, and you have also seen a plan that was submitted by him, Exhibit B, in which it was alleged that persons were positioned on both sides of the road. What is your recollection?

MR DEETLEFS: No Chairperson, it is possible that during the planning we discussed the possibility of placing others on the other side of the road. We always discussed all possibilities but when we went to occupy our positions on that night we all lay in one straight line along one side of the road.

MR PRINSLOO: Now if one would drive from Nerston, the border post itself, there is a road which turns out to the left in the direction of Amsterdam?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Now if one turns left from Nerston on which side of the road was this place?

MR DEETLEFS: I cannot say for certain at this stage but it was approximately five to six kilometres from the point where one turns off left to Amsterdam or in the direction of Amsterdam.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Deetlefs, on this particular evening did you fire any shots?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: With which firearm did you shoot?

MR DEETLEFS: I was armed with an R1 rifle.

MR PRINSLOO: And can you recall in which direction or how many shots you fired?

MR DEETLEFS: If one looks at the bakkie I would say that it would be some of the shots on the side of the door and at the pillar section, possibly if I recall correctly I had the "tap-tap" habit of firing two shots after each other.

MR PRINSLOO: Now the weapon that you made use of was this your own weapon or the weapon that you received? What was the position?

MR DEETLEFS: I received or borrowed the weapon from Piet Retief Security Branch. It was the custom that Security Branches always kept a quantity of weapons in their safes for possible actions.

MR PRINSLOO: And this particular Security Branch at Piet Retief was this building which was situated quite far away from the police station itself?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct?

MR PRINSLOO: Was it a private building?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes it was a privately rented building.

MR PRINSLOO: And the police station was situated in a completely different street?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Deetlefs furthermore, a photo was submitted, and this is referred to as Exhibit A, and the marked one is Exhibit C, which Mr de Kock has marked. The photos in the carry bags according to you can you remember if these are the same?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, it appears to be the weapons which were found in the back of the vehicle.

MR PRINSLOO: Now in this vehicle, according to the evidence, there were two persons and a third person who was shot, one Sithole.

MR DEETLEFS: Yes that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Where was he shot? Where was he when he was shot can you recall?

MR DEETLEFS: My recollection is that he fell approximately a metre to the right at the back of the bakkie, from the right back point of the bakkie, a metre diagonally away from that point, that is where he fell.

MR PRINSLOO: Was he merely a passenger or was he the driver of the vehicle?

MR DEETLEFS: He was the driver.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you fire at him?

MR DEETLEFS: No, because when the vehicle stopped he jumped out rather hastily and ran around the bakkie. From my point I could not observe him and I did not shoot at him.

MR PRINSLOO: And there's also a person who is referred to as one Sindane, do you know anything about his later arrest?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes I do know about it.

MR PRINSLOO: And do you know that he was wounded?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Were you responsible for his wound?

MR DEETLEFS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman at page 66 of the judgment of his Lordship Mr Justice Daniels, at paragraph 1.10.5, it is referred to by that honourable judge in his judgment -

Now this person who is known as Mahlaba Nkosi or Stan, did you know him by those names?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes that is Mr Sindane's MK name.

MR PRINSLOO: And is it correct that Mr Sindane was charged in the regional court at Ermelo for this particular cache of weapons and other charges and that he was found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Now you personally, were you involved in the investigation into the matter of Dladla and Maseko?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson I was overall. I had knowledge but Mr Pienaar was the one who conducted the procedure or the investigation, but because I was his commander I had insight into the dossier and I was constantly in touch with him with regard to the progress of the matter.

MR PRINSLOO: And do you know how the tracks of the bakkie were taken in Exhibit E or not, do you know anything about that?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes with the interrogation of Dladla and Maseko it appeared that this vehicle had been used to transport people from Swaziland to the RSA to infiltrate them in order for them to plant landmines in the Eastern Transvaal. We obtained border post records and determined that this was indeed the case that the bakkie had upon various occasions upon which such incidents of terror had taken place in the country, entered the country from Swaziland and returned via the border post into Swaziland, that this had been driven by Dladla. And we also had the name of Sithole with Dladla as another driver of the vehicle.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, do I understand from this that you got dates from the border post as to when they had noted the bakkie passing through and these dates coincided with when they had or - when I say "coincided" they might not have been identical, they might have been the day before or the day after, but they were at the same time as there had been terrorist attacks in the country.

MR DEETLEFS: In the Eastern Transvaal.

CHAIRPERSON: In the Eastern Transvaal, ja.

MR PRINSLOO: Now Mr Deetlefs during that period, which preceded, were there various landmine explosions in the Eastern Transvaal?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And Maseko and Dladla, as well as Ebrahim were prosecuted due to those explosions, is that correct?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: With the exception of an explosion which took place near Balfour on a farm where a landmine had been planted where one Sindane and another person were killed.

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And for that incident Dladla and Maseko were not prosecuted.

MR DEETLEFS: No they were not.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Deetlefs, did you also work closely with informers and so forth in Swaziland and did you have knowledge regarding the activities of the ANC from Swaziland to the Republic?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: In this particular action was there at that stage in time a high incidence of incidents in Natal and in the Eastern Transvaal as they were then known?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And there were also similar incidents on the Rand.

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, with regard to landmines particularly.

MR PRINSLOO: And there were charges brought against Dladla, Maseko and Ebrahim pertaining to infiltrations to the Rand.

MR DEETLEFS: Yes that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And consequent actions there.

MR DEETLEFS: Yes that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And on this particular point in time, when the action was launched, according to your opinion the situation was explosive or not for the police and society?

MR DEETLEFS: It was so, it was quite clear at that stage that the ANC had sharpened its armed struggle and it was a very critical situation for the police.

MR PRINSLOO: And the consideration that you gave, along with the person who was in command, Mr de Kock, did it include these aspects? Did you consider these aspects?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes we did.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, can I interrupt again. I am afraid I haven't got the papers before me so I am uncertain about the dates, but we have heard in another application, about a - they had divided the country, there was a uMkhonto military commander for Natal and there was an application I think we are going to hear next week, an uMkhonto commander for the Transvaal, that they were organised to that extent. They had definite people responsible for the areas in the Republic. Is that so? Had you got such information?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct, Chairperson. From Swaziland, for example, the Natal machinery operated as well as the rural Transvaal machinery and the urban Transvaal machinery.

MR PRINSLOO: Were you familiar with what was known in Swaziland at that stage as the Regional Politico Military Committee.

MR DEETLEFS: Yes that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Of which Ebrahim was a member and various others such as Paul Dikeledi and others.

MR DEETLEFS: That is so.

MR PRINSLOO: Were there any actions launched from Swaziland about which you know which executed special operations?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes there were various such attacks which were launched by them, amongst others two attacks on Sasol and so forth during which they were indeed involved.

MR PRINSLOO: And according to your knowledge was the import of the weapons were any groups used who would conduct the import and other groups who would conduct the explosions?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct. There were various occasions, with certain occasions they made use of trained groups who would establish DLBs and others employed collaborators or favourably inclined persons who would then assist with the establishment of DLBs, thereafter the actual persons who would conduct the actions of terrorism would fetch the weapons in order to conduct such actions.

MR PRINSLOO: Now these persons who were shot dead in the bakkie, known as Bernard and Tolman, they also had other names, did you fire at them as a result of malice or any grudge that you bore against them or any sense of personal gain?

MR DEETLEFS: None at all.

MR PRINSLOO: And at that stage, with regard to them, did you act in the execution of your duties, whether express or implied?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Well there's obviously no personal malice, but it has always caused me some little difficulty you see how you don't have malice to enemies of your country whom you are engaged in fighting and killing.

MR PRINSLOO: I take the point Mr Chairman. What do you say Mr Deetlefs?

MR DEETLEFS: Definitely from that perspective, Chairperson, I would agree with you, but this was the objective because they were the enemy. I regarded them as soldiers as my opponents, in that case, and I definitely had the intention and the objective to kill them but I did not draw any personal advantage from this.

MR PRINSLOO: And inasfar as it pertains to the other person, that would be Sithole, the person who drove the vehicle, according to you for which reason was he shot?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson I regarded it, and this was my perception, as the situation that such a person could not really be trusted if he was allowed to return to Swaziland. The ANC would most definitely have taken him as the prime suspect and they would have taken him to Zambia for interrogation and then his role in this whole situation would have been exposed and then different things could have happened. It could have threatened our position in Swaziland. It could have placed our persons working in Swaziland at a disadvantage. They could have been lured into traps. So I couldn't trust them and I had experience of similar cases where informers were attempted to be recruited but they ended up turning against us and this created very dangerous situations for us.

So with regard to me we certainly could not allow this person to return to Swaziland.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Deetlefs there was also another person who was shot in the environment but not by you, do you associate yourself with this, with this action?

MR DEETLEFS: It was part of this very same action although they took place at different places it was all part of one and the same action. The one followed on the other.

MR PRINSLOO: And do you also associate yourself with the death of the driver of the vehicle, Mr Sithole?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes that is so.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Deetlefs under those circumstances you then apply for amnesty for the death of these persons, their murder, is that correct?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And there was also a post mortem inquest which was led informally, is that correct?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And during that application you submitted an affidavit for the PMI?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct?

MR PRINSLOO: Just a moment please Chairperson.

MR LAX: Page 1 and 2.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Deetlefs, in this particular affidavit to which you deposed is the truth embodied or not?

MR DEETLEFS: No there are a number of untruths.

MR PRINSLOO: Very briefly which paragraphs would you say are not true?

MR DEETLEFS: Paragraph 2, the word "observation service", I would rather have stated that "an ambush was set up".

In paragraph 4 everything is incorrect.

Paragraph 6 the second sentence -

that is incorrect.

And the last sentence -

As I have stated that was a perception. It appears that in all probability it cannot be correct. That was my perception so I would prefer to be led by others in that regard.

Paragraph 7 is incorrect in its entirety.

Paragraph 8 the first sentence is not correct.

The rest appears to me to be correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And inasfar as it affects the investigation into the PMI Mr Pienaar also made a statement.

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: So under the circumstances you also request amnesty for perjury because there were false statements that you made as well as defeating the ends of justice?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Because you did not present the true facts of what really took place.

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Or any other offence which may emanate from the evidence which will be presented before the honourable Committee.

MR DEETLEFS: Yes I do so.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Well he can't ask for amnesty for any offence that he hasn't applied for amnesty within the time limit. If some completely new offence emerges during the evidence, that does not fall under his application.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

But for the offences that you have requested, which is put forward before this Committee as well as any other delict which might emanate from the evidence of persons who were killed or damage done to vehicles.

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr Deetlefs if I ask questions of you which might be directed at Mr Pienaar you must tell me what knowledge if any did you have of the driver of the bakkie, Mr Sithole.

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson I did not deal with him myself. I left it to Warrant Officer Pienaar.

MR HATTINGH: So you think I should ask him questions about it.

And may I just ask you in general, did you have a relatively elaborate network of informers who supplied you with information as to what was happening in Swaziland?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And did you, because of the information which you obtained from these informers, know who the MK members were who were in Swaziland and what their activities were?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, to a great extent we knew who was in Swaziland, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: For example a Kaledi is mentioned, did you know of him?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Who and what was he, according to the information which you had?

MR DEETLEFS: At that stage he was the commander of the so-called Transvaal Machinery, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And did you know who the other members of that cell were who served under him?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes that is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Arising from that it appears that the driver was questioned at the Piet Retief police station on a previous occasion. Do you know anything about that?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes Chairperson, I have to depend on hearsay here, what Mr Pienaar told me, but it is so that after when we arrived at the border post with regard to the bakkie when he came through the border post again the border post informed W/O Pienaar that the person had come through the border and W/O Pienaar detained the person for questioning. It was not really an arrest. I would rather call it detention for purposes of questioning, and then I would want to say, threatened the person that if he would bring persons through once again that he supply information to W/O Pienaar about it otherwise we would cease his visits to the RSA and would detain him if he would enter the RSA again. And that is how I have it, that he was basically threatened to supply us with information if he wanted to infiltrate more people.

CHAIRPERSON: And I think he was - well this I don't know if you were told about, he was also asked about certain ANC members that they had in detention. He was in fact taken into a cell to confront one.

MR DEETLEFS: I don't know but I think that is probably so, that he was questioned about Dladla and Maseko because they were part of the same group.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know anything about any money offered?

MR DEETLEFS: No Chairperson, I don't know about that.

CHAIRPERSON: And this is the sort of information that he knew who was in custody; he knew that you were now tightening up on the border; that you didn't want to go back to Swaziland. You didn't want him to go back and to tell the MK people there that two of their members were in detention being questioned and that they knew all about the trans-border visits?

MR DEETLEFS: That was part of it, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Deetlefs I represent Mr Labuschagne. Can we have a look at the post mortem inquest page 1 of Bundle 2.

MR DEETLEFS: I do have it before me.

MR DU PLESSIS: I made a clear note of what you had said of what is correct there and what is not correct there. There are some things that do not make sense to me. I would just like to clear that up.

On paragraph 6 you testified, if you would study paragraph 6 please, as I understand your evidence you said that the second sentence there is not correct. And then the last sentence we shall arrive at momentarily.

The second sentence are the words "he struggled to cock the weapon". May I just ask you about the first sentence. If we read it you say -

are you saying that is correct?

MR DEETLEFS: No Chairperson. Unfortunately I missed that sentence. That is not correct. He jumped out. Unfortunately I missed the AK there. He did not have a weapon in his hands when he jumped out.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. And if we go on the same point to paragraph 10 you will see there -

is that correct?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson, no. I know that the firearm was either placed next to him by Mr de Kock or by Mr Pienaar. So at the time when I came around the back it could be that the firearm was with him at that stage, but originally he did not have a firearm with him. The firearm was planted on him and I cannot say at which stage the planting took place.

MR DU PLESSIS: So if this paragraph wants to purport that he had been shot with an AK47 in his possession, you are saying that is not correct?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes that is not correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: If we return to the final sentence of paragraph 6 I would just like to find out from you what is your evidence exactly. You say -

I understood you to say that this was a perception - that you cannot recall it correctly, you are not certain, is that correct?

MR DEETLEFS: That is so Chairperson. I would want to half imagine that the door was in the process of opening. With regard to the pistol, I know we mentioned it as such in the request document. I can really not recall that when the door opened whether the person had a pistol in his hand or not. That is why I concede, that I accept if the other person said that he did not have it then I will accept it as such because I cannot recall it directly.

MR DU PLESSIS: So if I understood your evidence correctly you are saying that you cannot recall that you saw a person jumping out with a pistol in his hand on the left-hand side of the van?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes I cannot recall a pistol.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you are saying you saw the door opening slightly?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes it appeared to be that he was trying to get out but with the shots he fell back into the bakkie. He could not get out.

MR DU PLESSIS: Was this before the shots or after the shots that he tried to get out?

MR DEETLEFS: It happened so quickly that it could have been simultaneously with the shots or a fraction of a second before the shots were fired, or a fraction of a second after the shots were fired. It just happened in a fraction of a second.

MR DU PLESSIS: Your evidence is very cryptic about this. In your evidence-in-chief when - or when you drew up your amnesty application, may I ask you as follows, did you attempt to have it - adjust so it would fit in with the post mortem document?

MR DEETLEFS: No.

MR DU PLESSIS: If we study your amnesty document then if I can take you to, or if I may refer you to page 122, the second sentence of the sixth paragraph there the words -

Now we know, from your evidence, and that is what you have testified, and that is correct, while the one passenger jumped out on the left-side of the vehicle with a pistol in his hand, where did you come by this when you drew up your amnesty application?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson as I have said up to this morning I still have this perception of the door opening and still I want to imagine seeing this person jumping out with this pistol, but after I heard the evidence yesterday I may concede that I might have imagined that, but it is still my perception that this person could have jumped out of the vehicle with a pistol in his hand. As I have said this is a long time ago.

MR DU PLESSIS: Is that a perception that he jumped out?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes that is so.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Deetlefs you realise that you are under oath?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: And your evidence is that up to this morning you were still under that perception.

MR DEETLEFS: Yesterday or this morning, during Mr de Kock's evidence.

MR LAX: Sorry, Mr Deetlefs either it was till you heard Mr de Kock's evidence or it was till this morning. You can't have it both ways.

MR DEETLEFS: Up to this morning. To put it as such Chairperson I imagine that this person wanted to jump out with this firearm in his hand, so that was my perception let us say till this morning.

MR LAX: It's your perception even till now.

MR DEETLEFS: Yes it is still so but I concede that I may be wrong.

MR LAX: Yes, yes, sorry Mr du Plessis.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, thank you. Because I just understood that you said that you could not recall it.

MR DEETLEFS: I did not say that I could not recall it. I said that it was a long time ago. I concede that it might have been different because I cannot recall it quite clearly. I do concede that it could not be so.

MR DU PLESSIS: What does it mean when you say "this is your perception"?

MR DEETLEFS: That is how I saw it and that is how I still see it Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: But then if you see it and you still see it then you recall it.

MR DEETLEFS: No, it is as I have said this was a long time ago, that is why I call it a perception. I do concede that I may be incorrect, that is why I say I do not put it as a fact, I state it as a perception.

MR LAX: Sorry Mr Deetlefs, surely this is your recollection? You are playing semantics here using the word "perception". Either you have a memory of something or you don't. If you remember that that's what happened, and even if you concede that your memory might be wrong, that's your memory of the thing.

MR DEETLEFS: I shall concede that, yes, then.

MR LAX: Yes, so let's not play word games here. That's what you remember.

MR DEETLEFS: Ja.

MR LAX: But you acknowledge that you might be wrong.

MR DEETLEFS: Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You use the word "perception" as meaning "that is what I remember".

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, yes we could say so, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Right. Now Mr Deetlefs you also discussed it as such with your legal representative when you made preparations for this application.

MR DEETLEFS: That is probably so, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: If that is what you recall can you please explain to us why Mr Prinsloo, your legal representative, did not put this to Mr de Kock when Mr de Kock specifically testified that no-one jumped out of the left-side of the vehicle, why was your version not put to him?

MR DEETLEFS: I cannot answer on behalf of my legal representative.

MR DU PLESSIS: Is the conclusion that we draw from your evidence not that you could not recall it?

MR PRINSLOO: With respect Mr Chairman the witness testified and said his memory, he used the word "perception" at first and he has now conceded it means his memory, he has cleared this up in evidence and he said de Kock might even be correct. So what was there for me to put to Mr de Kock if that was his instructions to me, with respect Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman his evidence this morning first was that he couldn't remember it, that he didn't remember it, then he testified after cross-examination that he did remember it, that perception is what he remembers and my question is, if that is so, if it is so that he does remember this and it is part of his amnesty application why wasn't that put to Mr de Kock? And I made a specific note of that Mr Chairman. You don't even have to go back, with respect, to your records. I knew this was going to be a problem and I listened specifically to what was put. It was not put.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman I respectfully submit what my recollection is to his evidence he did not say he did not remember. He explained it with regard to the perception as to what it was. I particularly led him on that point.

CHAIRPERSON: My note here, and I don't really see that it makes a great difference, the person - he was asked by his counsel -

And the answer was -

MR DU PLESSIS: That's what he testified in-chief, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And that's what he's testifying to now.

MR DU PLESSIS: Well not when I started with cross-examination. He changed his version and then he changed it back to that Mr Chairman. But the fact of the matter is it was never put to Mr de Kock.

CHAIRPERSON: No.

MR DU PLESSIS: It was never put to Mr de Kock, this version.

But you are saying you don't have an explanation for this Mr Deetlefs?

MR DEETLEFS: I beg your pardon will you repeat that?

MR DU PLESSIS: You say you did not have an explanation as to why this recollection of this person who jumped out of the vehicle was not put to Mr de Kock?

MR DEETLEFS: As I have said I cannot answer on behalf of my legal representative.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you told him that you would testify to that effect?

MR DEETLEFS: That is in my application as such, but I do believe, and I do not want to speak on behalf of my legal representative, but it is because I conceded that it is possible that my memory might fail me and it is because of this that, or my version or Mr de Kock's version could be correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well then, if we have regard for the facts, if we accept that your memory is that this man jumped out with a pistol then I accept, as it says on page 122 that he jumped out.

And then the second paragraph on page 122 -

So he jumped out with a pistol in his hand and then you started shooting, is that correct?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson no, when I mean he jumped out I think I said he attempted to jump out and then at that stage I cannot recall whether Mr de Kock started firing first or who started firing but I know that we all started firing at approximately the same time.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well then. Because as I understand it, as I read the amnesty application the shooting ensued after the man jumped out, that has to be.

MR DEETLEFS: No it was just about simultaneously. As I have said we are referring to fractions of seconds here.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do you recall now that he jumped out or that the door just opened slightly?

MR DEETLEFS: I cannot say with certainty whether he jumped out. It appeared to me as if the door was opening and he attempted to jump out and then he fell back into the van.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Deetlefs if you study the second paragraph on page 122 you say -

Do you stand by that statement? Is that correct?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson the words here might not be entirely correct. As I have said my recollection is that he attempted to jump out and my inference that I draw was that he might fire at us.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did you see him with a pistol in his hand?

MR DEETLEFS: My recollection is to that effect Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Then I put it to you that the door could not have been open slightly, it had to be open almost entirely for you to see him, this pistol in his hand.

MR DEETLEFS: Well then slightly ajar might just be the words I might be using incorrectly.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. You say that you fired at him because you thought that he was going to fire at you, and I put it to you, is that the only inference we can draw is that you fired at him after you saw him climbing out with a pistol in his hand?

MR DEETLEFS: No Chairperson as I have said this was an inference I drew. We knew that these people would be armed and the recollection is that he had a firearm and the moment the door started opening I started firing, not only at him but also at the other passenger as well.

MR DU PLESSIS: Because you see Mr Deetlefs if we accept that this man, when you stopped there had jumped out of the bakkie and that you fired at him then, then the question arises, in my mind, for which or for what reason would this man there, in that position, why would he climb out of the vehicle with a pistol in his hand? Do you have an explanation for it? I will still put questions about it to you but please you now have an opportunity to explain.

MR DEETLEFS: I want to put it clearly because the man did not jump out of the vehicle, then he would be outside the vehicle.

MR DU PLESSIS: But he had a pistol in his hand?

MR DEETLEFS: That is my recollection, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Let's go back to the plan. The plan was that the informer would stop at this pre-arranged point, he would climb out and make as if he was urinating and then you would fire shots. Do you agree with that?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: If that was so and the informer did not let anything appear about this ambush and then would you agree with me is that the only inference one could draw is that the other two, who remained behind in the vehicle, while the other man went to urinate would not know anything about you people around there?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And if that was so then the question arises why this man had a pistol in his hand and also started climbing out.

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson why he climbed out I don't know. Maybe he also wanted to urinate at that stage and the fact that he had a pistol in his hand at that stage I think he found himself in enemy territory. And I can only place myself in such a situation if you climbed out of a vehicle in enemy territory and you have a pistol with you you will keep the pistol with you for eventualities.

MR DU PLESSIS: You agree that this is speculation?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes that is speculation.

MR DU PLESSIS: Let us have a look at your statement in the post mortem inquest, this is paragraph 9, the paragraph you said that was incorrect. Paragraph 9 says the following, and you stood by this when you were asked what was correct and what was not the words were -

That is how I understood your evidence, that this man climbed out and it was clear that he would not surrender without a fight. Or am I not correct?

MR PRINSLOO: With respect Chairperson there is no such evidence.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman he was asked what was wrong in this affidavit and what was not wrong and this paragraph, paragraph 9 was specifically not corrected by him.

MR LAX: He went a bit further, he said he agrees with the rest of it.

MR DU PLESSIS: Correct. So he agreed with that paragraph. But now I am asking on the basis of that what does he say about that.

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson I agree. If we read the sentence as such, "from the black man's attitude...." then it is not correct. I have just studied this briefly. What I meant by that is that the fact that weapons were found with them was a clear indication, the firearm and the handgrenade in front of the van, and because of this I would concede that as it is put here it is not entirely correct, Chairperson.

MR LAX: The sentence says -

not from the context of finding things after the event. You are talking about their conduct here. The whole context, if you read the thing in its totality, is you are justifying your actions in this affidavit. Isn't that so?

MR DEETLEFS: That is so, Chairperson.

MR LAX: So it's not about drawing conclusions from after the event, finding of explosives and so on, you are talking about a consistent pattern of conduct from which you drew the conclusion. And that pattern of conduct, which you are relying on in this affidavit is to justify your shooting these people. Isn't that so?

MR DEETLEFS: That is so.

MR LAX: Isn't that the same conduct as appears from your amnesty application?

MR DEETLEFS: That is so Chairperson.

MR LAX: So - please let's not play games here. That is what Mr du Plessis is putting to you.

MR DEETLEFS: That is so Chairperson, but I would say the word "attitude" here could lead to incorrect perceptions.

MR DU PLESSIS: But the question is simple Mr Deetlefs. You will recall that this man jumped out, that is your recollection or your perception, you can recall with a pistol in his hand; you can recall whether it appeared as if he wanted to fire at some people there or whether he wanted to urinate or can you not recall?

MR DEETLEFS: According to my recollection he attempted to climb out of the vehicle with a pistol.

MR DU PLESSIS: You will then agree that paragraph 9, in this post mortem inquest is not correct, do you agree with that?

MR DEETLEFS: That is so, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Now Mr Deetlefs if we accept that the informer did not tell these MK members that there is an ambush in front, I will stop in the middle of this ambush, I ask you again why would this man climb out of the vehicle with a pistol? That is simply improbable.

MR DEETLEFS: That is so Chairperson, I cannot speculate about that.

MR DU PLESSIS: If we accept that the informer told them that there was an ambush before them then they would not have allowed him to stop there, is that correct?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: And according to all permutations and versions this story about the man who jumped out of the vehicle read to attack you with a pistol, is entirely improbable Mr Deetlefs.

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson I conceded that my memory might have failed me.

MR DU PLESSIS: But Mr Deetlefs would you not like to go further and concede that the black man on the left side of this van did not jump out, would you not like to do that?

Let us get to the truth.

MR DEETLEFS: It appeared to me as if he wanted to climb out and the door was opening. As I said it is my recollection. I do concede that it could have been my imagination but if I would say that it was not so then it comes down to the same that if I would say that it was so, because I can really not....

MR DU PLESSIS: But Mr Deetlefs this process is about the truth and full disclosure.

MR DEETLEFS: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you have heard what was put to Mr de Kock in my cross-examination, that my client, Mr Labuschagne whose application word-for-word is the same as yours, will come to tell this Committee that this man did not climb out of the van, that this man was shot in the van, and that he never attempted to climb out. And my client Mr Labuschagne will tell the truth before this Committee.

Now I ask you once again, can we not get to the truth, here is what Mr Labuschagne will say is not the truth.

MR DEETLEFS: What Mr Labuschagne and I say we differ with what we say according to our perceptions and our recollections but I cannot state it as a fact that my recollection is that the door opened and the man tried to climb out, that that is the truth. I say it is possible that I may have imagined this because everything happened very quickly.

It could be that the man did not have a pistol in his hand and it is my imagination. I do concede that any of the versions could be true. I see my version as the truth.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well Mr Deetlefs when you drew up your application who was your legal representative?

MR DEETLEFS: Mr Prinsloo.

MR DU PLESSIS: And the other applicants whose applications served before the Committee, Mr Greyling, his application, who managed his application?

MR DEETLEFS: It was by the same person, Mr Prinsloo.

MR DU PLESSIS: And Mr van Dyk?

MR DEETLEFS: The same legal representative.

MR DU PLESSIS: Is this Mr Prinsloo and Advocate van der Walt present here?

MR DEETLEFS: That's correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Pienaar as well?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes that's correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Botha?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: And Mr Labuschagne at that stage was also represented by them, he was with them?

MR DEETLEFS: If I recall correctly on one occasion he was there but originally he was there with us.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Labuschagne changed legal representatives last year in July of 1998, are you aware of it?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes I am aware of it.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Deetlefs I shall not ask you about the contents of your discussion with your legal representative, but I do want to ask you, were you consulted about this incident when the amnesty application was drawn up?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can you recall how long it was?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson as I have said at that stage it was at the late stage. I cannot really recall how long we consulted because we were a whole group of persons. As I have said originally it was drawn up very quickly and it was a hasty process, so it was not a long discussion that we had.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did you consult individually?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: And did you sign statements on the same day that you consulted?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson I cannot recall whether it was the same day or a day or two later, I am not entirely certain.

MR DU PLESSIS: And do you know who drew up the statements of these persons, the persons we mentioned who were present there?

MR DEETLEFS: I don't know which parts Mr Prinsloo and which parts Advocate van der Walt wrote. As far as I am aware Advocate van der Walt did the typing work.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. And you saw that the statements are all just about the same?

MR DEETLEFS: I did not study all the other applications.

MR DU PLESSIS: Except for small differences they all look the same, I shall put that to you.

MR DEETLEFS: It is possible, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: And can you explain to us how it came about that everyone's factual versions are virtually the same?

MR DEETLEFS: I have to speculate because my legal representative may be able to give a better answer, but because it was in such a brief time, we had to complete it in such a brief time and we were a large group of people, that we actually delivered the same versions and it was done on the same word processor by the same advocate, it is probable that many of these statements would be similar.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you all decided beforehand that you would say the same thing?

MR DEETLEFS: No we did not caucus as to what we would say.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did you not speak to any of the other applicants beforehand as to what you would say?

MR DEETLEFS: No Chairperson, everyone just gave his own version. We did not decide beforehand about a joint statement.

MR DU PLESSIS: So how shall we accept that this exact wording of this one basic statement arises?

MS VAN DER WALT: Chairperson may I interrupt. I find it very strange, Mr du Plessis has been involved in various applications along with us and the honourable Chairperson is one who had said previously that it is so that there are - if various applicants have the same legal representative then the same things are put on a computer and if it's the same story it would have the same wording.

I think if Mr du Plessis has something against the legal representatives of the applicants he must have the professional decency to ask for an adjournment and then place it before the Committee, because I wish to place it here that the applicants must not be prejudiced because of Mr du Plessis' feelings towards a legal representative.

I have had many times where in applications where the one would say I refer to the statement of this general and I asked that this be incorporated in my evidence and I just ask the question to myself, is this not exactly the same as - the same word-for-word. If Mr du Plessis wants to tell something to the applicant that anybody had done anything wrong he must say it directly so. I would request that the honourable Committee give a finding about this because I believe that we will never complete this application. I ask this out of fairness towards the applicant. It is not about me. It is about whether it is fair towards the applicants who here attempt to try and reconcile and not start a civil war.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman all I am doing is I am presenting my client's case and I am guarding my client's interests. As you would have noted up to now my client and his evidence is going to differ substantially from what is contained in his written application, because he told me what happened at the scene and that is the evidence that we will present to this Committee.

I, however, Mr Chairman may I just please - I, however, have to explain to the above honourable Court how it came about that my client did sign this affidavit. I have got nothing, absolutely nothing against Mrs van der Walt or Mr Prinsloo even though they may think that I have. It is a question of fighting for my client and fighting for his rights. And I intend to place the true facts before this Committee and to do that I have to ask my client to differ substantially from the evidence in his written application and I have to lay a basis for the reason why he did so, Mr Chairman.

My client told me that he cannot remember, and that is the reason why I am exploring this, he cannot remember if the applicants themselves, beforehand, decided on this version and did not tell Mrs van der Walt or Mr Prinsloo the true facts, or if they had told them the true facts and that this affidavit, however, was then drawn irrespective of the true facts. Now I don't believe and I never believed the latter mentioned was the probable one, but Mr Deetlefs testified in his evidence, when I asked him, that they never sat together and decided on a specific version. Now my client's evidence will be that he was consulted with for 15 minutes by Mrs van der Walt. He was not consulted in detail on the true facts of this matter and thereafter he signed the affidavit, this affidavit and he signed it on the same day as the consultation took place.

I have got nothing against Mrs van der Walt and Mr Prinsloo, and I do not want to believe that anything untoward was done and I have got no motive or malice or anything in this regard, but the fact of the matter is, Mr Chairman, my client cannot remember if there was an agreement between the applicants beforehand to give the facts to Mrs van der Walt and Mr Prinsloo on this basis, or how this affidavit came about. And that is what I am exploring.

If there's an ethical or a professional problem here Mr Chairman it is not for you or for this Committee to deal with it. That is a totally different situation and believe me I don't intend to explore anything in that regard and I have no intention to do so. All I want to do is I want to be able to explain to you why my client's evidence is going to differ substantially from this.

If you want me to leave the questions I have been asking around this issue then I will do so.

CHAIRPERSON: Well it is clear, I think, that there basically is a great deal in common between the various applications. There are variations as well where one of the people said, "but as regards the incident itself a version was accepted and put forward", and that I think is quite clear they are word-for-word the same, but there are, as I have said, differences where one or other of the applicants indicated he did something different from the others, not as the incident itself perhaps, but that is something we have found in a number of other applications haven't we Mr du Plessis?

MR DU PLESSIS: I know Mr Chairman, and you yourself has mentioned that, and I am not making anything of that Mr Chairman. What I am trying to explore is the reason why my client signed an affidavit which he now says contains fact that are not correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Well isn't that something your client will have to tell us. Can this witness tell us the reason why your client signed an affidavit?

MR DU PLESSIS: Well Mr Chairman what this witness can do is he can tell us the circumstances surrounding the signing of these affidavits. That is what I am exploring.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, he's done that.

MR DU PLESSIS: Then I will leave it and I won't ask further questions on this issue Mr Chairman.

Very well. Mr Deetlefs you would probably agree with Mr de Kock's evidence that no-one was on the back of the bakkie?

MR DEETLEFS: No not on the back of the bakkie, there was no-one.

MR DU PLESSIS: And can you recall who the persons were who lay in the line of ambush with you?

MR DEETLEFS: Well I cannot recall all of them but I know as we lay from the front point of the bakkie and onwards, first it was Mr Fourie, then it was me, then Mr de Kock and if I recall correctly the next person was W/O Pienaar. I cannot recall the succession in possession of all the other persons there. I know that Mr Labuschagne was there. Mr Greyling was also there. The other persons from Vlakplaas and other persons I cannot recall precisely all the persons who were there and I cannot recall their precise positions either.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well let me just put to you what Mr Labuschagne will testify. He will give evidence that the persons who were present there were Mr Pienaar, Mr Botha, you, Mr Fourie, Mr de Kock, Mr Greyling and then he is not certain of Mr Bosch.

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct so, Chairperson. I also cannot recall Mr Bosch nor Mr Willemse. It was only here that I realised that they were also involved, but I really couldn't even recall them any longer.

MR DU PLESSIS: And Mr Labuschagne will also give evidence that he was responsible for shooting the informer, that he shot the informer. Do you have anything that you recall about that?

MR DEETLEFS: I cannot say definitely but if he maintains that I would not find fault with it at all.

MR DU PLESSIS: Then I want to ask you, page 120 of Bundle A, the second paragraph, in the final sentence of the second paragraph there you gave evidence that it was your intention actually to say that it was agreed with the informer that an arrest would ensue. Did I understand your evidence correct?

MR DEETLEFS: That is how I stated. This is what I heard from Mr Pienaar. I never had a personal discussion with the informer as such.

MR DU PLESSIS: And I understand your evidence to indicate that the order was that everyone had to be shot during the ambush.

MR DEETLEFS: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: And at the border post?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson I cannot say for certain but as I have it, it was decided that the persons who would come through also had to be eliminated but that we would leave this over to Mr van Dyk's judgement in order to see how things would develop on ground level, because we were not completely certain who would lead these people in and how many people there would be.

So according to the current situation we had to make our decisions. Our viewpoints, however, was that if possible these persons also had to be eliminated.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. And if you look at the third paragraph on page 120 you will see the second sentence states that one group would take up position at the T-junction in an attempt to arrest the person who had led the other persons across the border before returning to Swaziland. That would not be entirely correct.

MR DEETLEFS: No it is not entirely correct. The arrest was not exactly correct. Shooting would have been better.

MR LAX: Can I just ask a question here, sorry, would you allow me to intervene.

Mr Deetlefs the intention was to kill those people, to eliminate them, I am talking about the people at the border if it was possible.

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR LAX: Well how on earth would they be arrested because to arrest somebody means you get them in your hands? If the intention is to kill them then you kill them rather than arrest them, surely?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct ...(intervention)

MR LAX: So how could arrest have been an option in that circumstance?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson because, as I have stated, we left it over to Mr van Dyk's judgement. The objective was to shoot but we knew that there were certain cases where the ANC made use of cattle shepherds to help them find the route across the border, and if something like that were to happen then Mr van Dyk would have to allow himself to be led by the situation because one could not simply shoot a child for example. The idea was for he, himself, to take these decisions at ground level.

MR LAX: But if the decision was to eliminate everybody, and that was the order, where does arrest come into it at all? Because either you would eliminate them or they would escape. You wouldn't get somebody in the hand thereafter, isn't that so?

MR DEETLEFS: That is probably so.

MR LAX: Thank you.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Deetlefs this PMI report ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry before you go on, as I understand what you are saying now and what you've said in answer to Mr Lax, was that if the people who came back were ANC or were thought to be ANC agents or members they should be eliminated?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: If it appeared they were not, they were shepherds or some innocent party who had only been involved in this incident, they should not be eliminated?

MR DEETLEFS: That was left over to Mr van Dyk.

CHAIRPERSON: Van Dyk then had a discretion not to eliminate. But if they were ANC he had no discretion.

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAX: Sorry Mr Deetlefs, and how would he exercise this discretion?

MR DEETLEFS: It would have been very difficult because it was dark, but as I have stated this was an option that was left over to him. We could not prescribe to him how he was supposed to act.

MR LAX: Wasn't his instruction to lay an ambush?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR LAX: And how do you differentiate when you lay an ambush?

MR DEETLEFS: Well I don't suppose one could differentiate, especially not in the dark.

MR LAX: So I mean to all practical purposes this question of determining who was leading them back, surely that's really a long shot?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes I suppose it is so, because our order was to shoot, but I would imagine that an option was left over to Mr van Dyk and he would probably be able to testify much better about this.

MR LAX: Isn't the other question this, that you actually had information that there would be people guiding them, people you knew about? Your information was these people had come across the border on many occasions, not so?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes Chairperson, as far as I can recall the information was that one Knox would drop these persons off and that Sithole would pick them up on this side. As far as I can recall there was no information indicating precisely who would have led them over the border.

MR LAX: Yes but you knew the modus operandi. These were people who were carrying weapons for them and guiding them at the same time.

MR DEETLEFS: No it wasn't like that in all cases ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Weren't they bearers and guides?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes in many cases there were such incidents but there were also other cases where the ANC would make use of shepherds to indicate the route to these trained persons. So there wasn't a determined modus operandi as such.

MR LAX: Wasn't the issue that you didn't know how many people were being brought into the country, not that you didn't know who would be leading them?

MR DEETLEFS: I beg your pardon I didn't hear you.

MR LAX: Wasn't the only issue in doubt as to the number of people who might be brought into the country?

MR DEETLEFS: There was talk of three or four I think, who would have entered, and I cannot recall that we had any notion of who precisely would accompany them over the fence. We had information that Knox Dlamini would take them to the fence and that Sithole would fetch them on this side, but we didn't know who was accompanying them.

MR LAX: But let's get back to the real point in issue here. Their instructions weren't to arrest people.

MR DEETLEFS: Our instructions in the first instance was to eliminate them, that's correct.

MR LAX: So, the question is, your instructions were to them were not to arrest people. You didn't give them instructions to arrest people, you gave them instructions to eliminate people.

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR LAX: Well then why does your papers here talk about arresting them?

MR DEETLEFS: Because as I have said, we gave Mr de Kock the idea that he had to take an independent decision. We gave him the order that people had to be shot. But I could not expect of him, for example, if it appeared that there was a young child involved to shoot this person. So there was always room for his own discretion to decide about this himself. That was left open to him.

MR LAX: Well if there were children in that vehicle, together with these MK people you guys didn't even worry about that. You just opened fire.

MR DEETLEFS: Yes we would have probably.

MR LAX: Well so you didn't even make that consideration in your minds at that time. Isn't that so?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes it is, if they were in the bakkie then that would have been so.

MR LAX: So what difference would it have made if there were children leading them or not? Your object was to stop this cell. That was Mr de Kock's evidence. Stop this cell and anyone who supported it. Make sure their activities did not continue. That was his evidence. That was your intention.

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR LAX: So if there were children working with the cell you would have stopped them.

MR DEETLEFS: If they were in the vehicle themselves, yes.

MR LAX: Or if they were leading them in?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson I don't know, that would have been speculation. I cannot speak on behalf of Mr van Dyk.

MR LAX: Yes I am wanting to know what was in your mind.

MR DEETLEFS: I myself, if there was an unarmed child I don't know if I would have gone through with it, it would have been against my nature to shoot at such a person. I don't know how I would have acted.

MR LAX: But it wouldn't have made any difference with regard to the main ambush because you wouldn't have known.

MR DEETLEFS: No that is so, then you probably wouldn't have known and it wouldn't have made any difference.

MR LAX: Sorry, I interrupted you.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr Deetlefs in your PMI statement, and you do not have to consult it specifically, there is evidence or facts which have been incorporated to the effect that the driver had an AK47 in his hand and that the other black man wielded a pistol. And if we ask the question for the reason why those facts were incorporated in the statement would you agree with me that it is quite clear that this was done in order to create the scenario of self-defence for the purposes of the statement which was submitted to you, the PMI?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Then you agree with me. Then I would also like to put it to you, the reiteration of the fact that the one passenger on the left side jumped out wielding a pistol in his hand, this fact that was reiterated in your amnesty application, is exactly the same, it is just another attempt to create self-defence for yourself in a case that may be made against you if you were not to obtain amnesty?

MR DEETLEFS: No, this is just for the purposes of my amnesty application. I am not trying to justify myself in any way otherwise I could have added many other facts. I am admitting here that we acted unlawfully, that we committed murder and in no way am I trying to justify our actions during that incident.

CHAIRPERSON: Who prepared the affidavits for the post mortem?

MR DEETLEFS: It was W/O Pienaar.

CHAIRPERSON: For all of you?

MR DEETLEFS: As far as I am aware, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: And then I just omitted to put this to you as well Mr Deetlefs. Mr Labuschagne will give evidence that the references to "arrest", as it appears on page 120 of your application - just a moment please, where it appears on page 180 of his statement, are simply not correct, and that the simple facts are that the decision was taken to eliminate everyone at the point of ambush as well as at the border.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman is Mr du Plessis' question is wherever the word "arrest" appears it is incorrect? It also refers to the informer as well?

MR DU PLESSIS: Chairperson I am putting the evidence of my client. His evidence will be that a decision was taken previously that everyone would be shot dead during the ambush, including the informer, and that an attempt would also be made at the border to eliminate everyone who was involved on the MK side.

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson Mr Labuschagne probably has his own recollection and I cannot say what he saw or what he heard and what he didn't hear, therefore he is entitled to his own opinion.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. May I then ask you, from the objection raised by Mr Prinsloo now, I infer, and I did not understand your evidence as such, I infer that you say that there was no previous decision to shoot the informers?

MR PRINSLOO: No, no, no, Mr Chairman I never said that. I merely asked for clarity, with respect, is Mr du Plessis putting it to the witness wherever the word "arrest" appeared it's incorrect. Because if you read paragraph 2 Mr Chairman, with respect, on page 120 of the applicant's application he is clearly referring as to what was told to the informer, where the word "arrest" appears on the last line of paragraph 2.

MR DU PLESSIS: Well that was not what I was putting Mr Chairman.

Can I just get some certainty Mr Deetlefs. Your evidence was that there was a decision beforehand to shoot the informer as well?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: You agree with that?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Chairperson, nothing further.

CHAIRPERSON: You see what appears, as I understand it, on page 120 at paragraph 2, is what the informer was told, not what the intent was.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, no I understand it. But Mr Labuschagne will say that whichever way you want to interpret that, that any reference to a decision that there should have been an arrest that was never ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: What you are saying is that was a decision amongst the police officers was that there would never be an arrest?

MR DU PLESSIS: Correct, correct. So we are not disputing ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: What was said to the informer was a different matter. It wasn't a decision taken amongst them.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, yes, and Mr Labuschagne wasn't present when the informer was spoken to, so he can't testify about that.

Sorry if there was any misunderstanding there. Thank you Mr Chairman I have no further questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Mr Deetlefs there is just something that I wish to clarify with you pertaining to the points where the T-junction was where Mr van Dyk and the others were located, why wasn't the entire ambush set up there?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson I cannot recall why the decision was taken as such, but if I have to speculate about it now it would be because the persons had to come from Swaziland on foot and we were not completely certain how many of them there would be and exactly what route they would use to approach the vehicle. So we may have occupied the incorrect position. That is why we wanted everyone in the vehicle first, so that we could bring the vehicle to a standstill in a controlled place.

MR LAMEY: But why not at the point where they would climb into the vehicle?

MR DEETLEFS: Because we didn't know whether or not they would arrive earlier and approach the vehicle from another direction and when we have taken up the incorrect position they could have approached us from behind instead of approaching us from in front.

MR LAMEY: Very well. You have testified that you knew about Dlamini on the Swaziland side, Dlamini who would drop them off.

MR DEETLEFS: Yes.

MR LAMEY: And then on the RSA side Cedric Sithole would pick them up.

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: You did not know who would bring them through as such?

MR DEETLEFS: No, we did not know who the person would be.

MR LAMEY: And is it so that from general experience, I am not saying in all cases but sometimes from within your security police experience with regard to border work local population members would act as guides for these persons?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: And is it also correct that you anticipated that armed members, and we refer to MKs, armed ANC members, you anticipated that all of them would enter in the vehicle. The persons who would be in the vehicle would be armed MKs and it wasn't expected that armed MKs would return to Swaziland.

MR DEETLEFS: No, we didn't know that.

MR LAMEY: Is it correct to assume that it would have been important if, for example, a guide was to bring these persons through and all the armed members climbed into the vehicle with just one guide who was unarmed, to have to find his way back to Swaziland, that in such a case van Dyk and the others would arrest the man in order to obtain further information from him regarding who he was, how many persons he had infiltrated; which infiltration route they had followed and so forth, because that information would have been vital to you?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes that is probably so.

MR LAMEY: But the situation was flexible. If there were other armed members they would have to be shot.

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, that is so.

MR LAMEY: And then with regard to the situation of command, in Piet Retief there was a sub branch of Ermelo.

MR DEETLEFS: Yes that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Mr Pienaar was in command of the sub-branch.

MR DEETLEFS: Yes that is correct.

MR LAMEY: And you as commander of Ermelo was also then the overall commander of Piet Retief?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: If you can recall correctly was Mr Fourie, at that stage, assisting with photo identification from head office for the Piet Retief sub-branch?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Is it also correct to say that he, while he was working there, was under the command of Pienaar?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes Chairperson, for disciplinary purposes it usually operated as such.

MR LAMEY: Yes, and with regard to daily activities and assistance and security work.

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And then when you arrived at the scene with regard to the operation, were you then the commander if one could put it as such, of the Eastern Transvaal members?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes that is correct.

MR LAMEY: And then also members who were assisting Piet Retief or Eastern Transvaal, members such as Mr Fourie?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, under those circumstances.

MR LAMEY: And then ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Fourie was under the command of Mr de Kock ...(intervention)

MR LAMEY: No, no, no, no ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Wasn't he normally?

MR LAMEY: No, no, no, no, Chairperson at that - he was previously a member of Vlakplaas ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LAMEY: ...but at that specific point in time he was a member of C2 of head office.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, C2, yes.

MR LAMEY: Not C1.

CHAIRPERSON: C2, okay.

MR LAMEY: So where Mr Fourie then states in his application that he regarded you as the commander, the commander of the operation would this be incorrect?

MR DEETLEFS: No, I believe that if he regarded me as such, if that was his interpretation, he would most probably have been correct.

MR LAMEY: One could accept that Mr de Kock with his operational experience on ground level in any combat situation or operational situation would have played the primary role.

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, for the purposes of the operation Mr de Kock would be the commander.

MR LAMEY: But in the overall sense, in your area, the primary information came from you and so therefore you would have been the commander of Eastern Transvaal in the overall sense, is that correct?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, at that stage it was the arrangement that when head office people worked in a certain region they would then subject themselves to the decisions of the local commander and then carry out their actions in terms of this.

MR LAMEY: Very well. The decision pertaining to the elimination of the driver, Shadrack Sithole, Mr de Kock testified that this decision was taken in the circle of the planners of which you and Pienaar and he were all members.

MR DEETLEFS: Yes as far as I can recall.

MR LAMEY: Including Labuschagne?

MR DEETLEFS: I cannot recall that Labuschagne was specifically issued with an order. It is probable that Colonel de Kock did so, but I cannot recall that any specific order was issued to him. However the decision was taken within our group.

MR LAMEY: But Mr Fourie states that he, specifically, was a subordinate officer and one of the members on ground level and that this decision did not reach him before Mr Labuschagne informed him that he was to eliminate the driver.

MR DEETLEFS: Well I cannot put it that Mr Fourie was present when the decision was taken and the order was issued as such, so therefore I don't know whether he may or may not have heard about it.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Thank you Chairperson I have got no further questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RAMAWELE: Thank you Mr Chairman, just a few questions.

Mr Deetlefs is it your evidence that you show where W/O Paul van Dyk was situated?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, he would have been positioned at the point or near the point where the vehicle would pick up the persons for the first time.

MR RAMAWELE: I am asking you this because I thought you said that Paul van Dyk was at a T-junction.

MR DEETLEFS: Yes in that vicinity. I myself was not at the scene. I did not drop them off nor did I pick them up so I don't know precisely where he was situated. All I know is that the plan was for him to be in the vicinity of the T-junction. That is where he would have taken up position.

MR RAMAWELE: So you are not in a position to tell the hearing where Paul van Dyk or Almond Nofomele was?

MR DEETLEFS: No I cannot say.

MR RAMAWELE: I have got no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RAMAWELE

CHAIRPERSON: Would this be a convenient stage? We will take a short adjournment now.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you Chairperson.

Mr Deetlefs on behalf of Mr van Dyk I would just like to put it to you that are you aware that there was more than one group that was involved in the elimination of these persons?

MR DEETLEFS: At the bakkie itself?

MS VAN DER WALT: No in the whole operation.

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr van Dyk was in command of the other two groups who were not at the bakkie.

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And he received this instruction from Colonel de Kock.

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: He also, during that time he was under the command of Colonel de Kock.

MR DEETLEFS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr van Dyk will testify that he was at the T-junction, that is the road that joins the road that goes from Amsterdam to Nerston, that's the T-junction with the Nerston road.

MR DEETLEFS: I understood that he would be there, Chairperson. I was not physically at the scene myself.

MS VAN DER WALT: But you have knowledge of the T-junction there?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes I do.

MS VAN DER WALT: And are you also aware of a dirt road that makes a kind of short-cut that comes from the border to the Amsterdam/Nerston road?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And then there are bushes there, some black wattle trees and eucalyptus trees.

MR DEETLEFS: Yes that is so.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr van Dyk will also testify that there was a discussion before the operation and he decided that the persons who would come in - he was not aware of how many persons would accompany them, but he would have to "arrest the person because he needed this person to take him across the border to determine where the vehicle or the other person was". Do you have any knowledge of that?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson that is how I testified. Earlier Colonel de Kock gave the command to him so I cannot recall verbally what exactly the instruction was, but I know there was talk of the in-between elimination and "arrest" was also mentioned.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you were already asked by Mr Lamey, it was not always trained persons who brought the persons in?

MR DEETLEFS: No Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And just a further point. The person that was shot by Mr van Dyk it was later determined that that was Sandile, is that correct?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes that is correct, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you make any enquiries in Swaziland in order to determine this friend's identity?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson I had a photo and fingerprints of the deceased which I handed over to the Swazi police and asked their assistance in the identification of the person and they could not establish any identification.

MS VAN DER WALT: Just a further aspect following on a question from the honourable Committee with regard to this bakkie, what usually happens with such a van because it would appear that Dladla and Maseko said that they saw the bakkie at the police station, what happens usually with such a bakkie? Is it placed in the SAP 13 camp?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes it is usually placed in the 13 camp and after a while if no owner could be traced or ownership cannot be determined it is sold at a public auction.

MS VAN DER WALT: Do you know whether this bakkie was placed in the 13 camp?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes it was Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Following on a question with regard to children who may have been in such a vehicle, do you bear knowledge of children that were ever sent in with MK fighters?

MR DEETLEFS: No I don't know of any children.

MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions thank you Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NTHAI: Mr Deetlefs, did your legal advisor inform you that you are supposed to give full disclosure of all relevant facts here?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR NTHAI: Did your legal advisor inform you that full disclosure cannot be perception, it must be facts of what happened? Did he tell you that?

MR DEETLEFS: That is so, Chairperson.

MR NTHAI: Now I am going to ask you questions, I don't want you to give me perceptions. You must give me what happened. Are you going to do that?

MR DEETLEFS: That is so, Chairperson.

MR NTHAI: Now just before I start with my questioning, there was a judgment involving Maseko and Dladla which has been referred to here, are you aware of that judgment?

MR DEETLEFS: I am aware of that matter.

MR NTHAI: Did you attend the trial?

MR DEETLEFS: No I did not.

MR NTHAI: But you are quite conversant with the facts?

MR NTHAI: To a reasonable extent. I did not have insight into the records and I wasn't at the hearing so I would not know everything. I am just aware of the facts in general.

MR NTHAI: Your legal representative mentioned here about the - in that particular case, the talk of people who were placing bombs in the Eastern Transvaal, did you hear him saying that?

MR DEETLEFS: Correct, Chairperson.

MR NTHAI: Are you aware of those facts?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes.

MR NTHAI: Is that Maseko and Dladla were placing the bombs in the Eastern Transvaal?

MR DEETLEFS: Not in all instances Chairperson, in certain landmine explosions they planted the landmines and that is why they were charged and found guilty later.

MR NTHAI: Are you - let me refer you specifically to the incident which almost all of you referred to here. There is talk of a tractor driver who was injured; there is talk of a schoolboy who lost his leg; you recall that in some of the ...(intervention)

MR DEETLEFS: Yes that is correct.

MR NTHAI: Who was involved in that incident? Is it Dladla and Maseko?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct, yes.

MR NTHAI: Now you agree with me that on the 14th of August Dladla and Maseko were already arrested, is that correct?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR NTHAI: According to the documents that I have here they were arrested on the 21st of June, is that correct?

MR DEETLEFS: I cannot recall the date any longer but that was before this incident.

MR NTHAI: Well there is an affidavit here by Maseko, which I am going to refer to you later, where he talked about being arrested in June. Is that correct?

MR DEETLEFS: That could be, I cannot comment to that. He was arrested in Johannesburg.

MR NTHAI: Now if Mr Pienaar is going to tell us that the people who ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Sorry, can you try not to bang on the table, what it does is it bangs in our earphones, unfortunately.

MR NTHAI: If Mr Pienaar is going to come here and testify that the people who came on the 14th in the bakkie were the people who placed the bombs that injured the truck driver and the boy, that is incorrect, is that not so?

MR DEETLEFS: That will not be correct.

MR NTHAI: Well which means even the plan that you had, the plan that these people must be eliminated was based on wrong facts, not correct?

MR DEETLEFS: No Chairperson, because I don't believe it emanated quite like that, not as I saw it. There was never a connection with these persons who would come through in a bakkie and specific incidents. They were just connected with the machinery of Paul Dikeledi who was responsible for landmine incidents in, amongst others the Eastern Transvaal, and that is why we assumed that they were in a mission to commit acts of terror in the Eastern Transvaal.

MR NTHAI: Mr Chairman I am just trying to check the portion, I don't know whether it appears in Mr de Kock's but there is a portion which says that one of the reasons why there was a plan to eliminate these people was that the two ANC fighters had placed the bombs. I just can't locate it immediately.

MR LAX: It wasn't just in his application Mr Nthai, it was in his viva voce evidence yesterday as well. So you can accept - he was very clear that that was the reason.

MR NTHAI: Yes. Now Mr de Kock, I mean one of the reasons why these people had to be eliminated was this incident in particular which, I mean there were other incidents, but this incident in particular, which according to Mr de Kock could not be allowed to continue.

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson I cannot comment about what Mr de Kock testified. I cannot really recall what he said yesterday, but the fact remains that these people who infiltrated, we did not know who they were so we could not connect them with specific incidents.

MR NTHAI: So if I put it to you you can't deny that one of the reasons why these people had to be eliminated was because of the injuries of these people that sustained, the two people I talked about, you can't deny that?

MR DEETLEFS: This was part of, because of all the incidents in the Transvaal, and amongst others those incidents as well.

MR NTHAI: But the young schoolboy losing his leg, and the tractor driver being injured was really a spark which led to this plan to eliminate these people, is that not correct?

MR DEETLEFS: Amongst others it was considered, yes.

MR NTHAI: Now you already told me that you are quite aware of part of what happened in the trial of Maseko and Dladla though you don't have all the details, is that correct?

MR DEETLEFS: It's correct, yes.

MR NTHAI: You are also aware that this decision, this decision that your legal representative is referring to, was ultimately overturned by the Appellate Division, you are aware of that?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, with respect, I think my learned friend should inform the court properly. The reason for that particular judgment and the Appellant Division argument was because of jurisdiction. It was alleged that Ebrahim was abducted, he was not properly before the court, and for that reason the judgment was given in favour of Ebrahim with regard to jurisdiction. It did not pertain to Maseko and Dladla. They were legally before the court.

So my learned friend, Mr Chairman, with respect, must specify what part of the judgment was overturned.

MR NTHAI: Well Mr Chairman I am quite aware of my learned - I was coming to that. I am quite aware that the judgment of the Appellant Division involved Ebrahim, I am aware of that. I was coming to that. I don't really understand why.....

CHAIRPERSON: Well didn't you put to him that the judgment was overturned on appeal, indicating that the whole judgment was thrown out, and that is what the objection is.

MR NTHAI: Mr Chairman I didn't say the whole judgment, I didn't say the whole judgment ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You said the judgment.

MR NTHAI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You didn't indicate that it was any specific legal grounds and that is why there has been objection taken. Carry on now, but confine yourself to what actually happened.

MR NTHAI: Yes. You are aware that I was coming to that, that was going to be my next question. You are aware that Ebrahim was ultimately released because he was not brought properly before the court?

MR DEETLEFS: I know that on certain legal grounds he was released, Chairperson.

MR NTHAI: I want to bring you to the affidavit by Dladla and Maseko, I am sure whether you have had a look at that?

MR DEETLEFS: No I haven't.

MR NTHAI: The one of Maseko appears on page 70 of Bundle 2.

MR DEETLEFS: Correct.

MR NTHAI: You will realise that on paragraph 4 there he is confirming that he was actually arrested on the 21st of June?

MR DEETLEFS: That could be so, Chairperson.

MR NTHAI: And you realise that he is also saying that on the 17th of July already he was being asked about the colour of this bakkie which was used, you realise that?

MR DEETLEFS: It is possible.

MR NTHAI: And paragraph 7 there he goes on to indicate that he was actually confronted with a photo of Sithole, do you see that?

MR DEETLEFS: I do see that Chairperson.

MR NTHAI: Now did you at any stage, as the person who was in overall command come to know about the facts around the detention of Maseko?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes I was aware of the detention.

MR NTHAI: And you were aware of his interrogation?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR NTHAI: And you were aware of what he was telling his interrogators?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes I was informed by Mr Pienaar from time-to-time about the information which emanated from that questioning.

MR NTHAI: And he was giving you written reports, is that correct?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR NTHAI: And from what you read in your reports Mr Maseko did give information about cells that were operating in Swaziland is that correct?

MR DEETLEFS: That was usually standard procedure that he would be questioned about that Chairperson, so it is probably so.

MR LAX: Well the question wasn't what was normally asked, the question was were you aware that that is what information he gave to Pienaar, and did Pienaar report it to you?

MR DEETLEFS: I cannot now remember what information precisely "en alles" deur ......

MR NTHAI: Mr Deetlefs, you were in charge, correct

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct, yes.

MR NTHAI: And there were these incidents that were giving you a lot of problems in the Eastern Transvaal, is that correct?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR NTHAI: And obviously if you had a person like Maseko detained, who was part of this ANC operation you would be very interested, is that correct?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes that is correct.

MR NTHAI: I would take it that you would read those reports with much concentration and some intensity, is that correct?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes that is so.

MR NTHAI: And you did exactly that, not correct?

MR DEETLEFS: That is so, yes.

MR NTHAI: Now just tell me what you recall about what was reported about what Maseko said.

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson I cannot, it was a long time ago. We dealt with many questionings and detentions. I can really not recall each and everyone in detail as to what had emanated from the questioning there. As I have said this was standard practice that one would question him about his movements from the time he left the country and in his instance one would question him about who were the other cell members and that is where the information about the bakkie came out. But at this stage I cannot recall in detail what each and every one of Dladla and Maseko's questioning emanated. It was just too long ago, I cannot recall.

MR NTHAI: So you had knowledge of the information about the bakkie before Sidele was abducted, is that correct?

MR DEETLEFS: We had information about the bakkie, yes Chairperson.

MR LAX: Who was abducted, sorry?

MR NTHAI: Before Sidele, September, before Sidele was abducted.

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR NTHAI: Now while I am still on that, when did Mr de Kock come into your area?

MR DEETLEFS: I cannot say with certainty. The evening before this incident I met him in Swaziland. I don't know whether he came from head office before that time or whether that same day on the 13th, whether on that he came through.

MR NTHAI: So you only saw Mr de Kock, only you say on the 9th of - which date?

MR DEETLEFS: No on the 13th.

MR NTHAI: Yes. I will now like to take you to the affidavit of Dladla. It appears on page 73. You will realise that on paragraph 4 he is also confirming that he used the bakkie on the 10th of June.

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR NTHAI: You also realise that on paragraph 5 he is confirming that he was confronted with Sithole and he says that he initially denied and that Sithole also denied, but later on they admitted that they knew each other, do you realise that?

MR DEETLEFS: I see that, that is the allegation which is made in his statement.

MR NTHAI: Now, on the 11th, on the 11th, or a day after that, where - Mr Pienaar did he report to you in particular this incident where Dladla was confronted with Sithole?

MR DEETLEFS: No, he did not mention anything like that to me.

MR NTHAI: You were not aware that Sithole was already, on the 11th, being handled by the Security Branch, you were not aware of that?

MR DEETLEFS: Not before the 11th.

MR NTHAI: On the 11th?

MR DEETLEFS: At a stage between the 11th and the 14th, I cannot recall exactly when, on which date it was, whether it was the day before the 13th or when it was, W/O Pienaar did mention to me that the person with the bakkie had once again come through and that the person was Sithole and that he had attempted to recruit this man as an informer.

MR NTHAI: Did he tell you that he succeeded in recruiting him?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson as I have testified earlier there was no certainty, but through a process of threatening him he sent the man back and told him that if he once again becomes involved in ANC activities and he had to bring people through then he had to report it. So there was no given that he would do it. At that stage it was only an attempt at recruitment and it would later appear if he would do so or not.

MR NTHAI: On the 14th was he already recruited, on the morning of the 14th was he already successfully recruited?

MR DEETLEFS: Not as far as I now. It stood as I have mentioned it now.

MR NTHAI: So you are telling us that this man who complied with the requests that he would bring people, he would stop at a particular point, and carry out the request as put to him, would only do that because he was threatened, is that correct?

MR DEETLEFS: As I have said this was a method of recruitment, for which reason he returned, or whether he decided to betray the ANC I would not know. I can only say what W/O Pienaar told me how he had tried to attempt to recruit the man, but it is indeed so that the man came back on the 14th with information.

MR NTHAI: Just while we are - I want to refer you to page 75, that is the affidavit of Vusimusi Sindane. I want to take you to paragraph 3. You will realise he confirms that he worked with Shadrack and others.

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR NTHAI: They were under the command of Paul Dikeledi.

MR DEETLEFS: Yes I see that.

MR NTHAI: And Sithole has been helping them transport guerrillas on the other side of the South African border.

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR NTHAI: And paragraph 4 there you will realise that he is now talking about the plan of Bernard and Tolman coming into the country, and he was supposed to be escorted by him and one Zwandele, you realise that?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR NTHAI: And they were going to meet Sithole who would then transport them with the bakkie, is that correct?

MR DEETLEFS: That is so.

MR NTHAI: Paragraph 5, which I want you to pay particular attention to, he then goes on to say that on the 11th Sithole drove his bakkie on a reconnaissance trip to check whether there were any other funny activities and then to return to report to Paul Dikeledi and the other members who were involved in the operation, do you realise that?

MR DEETLEFS: I see that here.

MR NTHAI: On the 11th, that is the day when you were informed by Mr Pienaar that they were already handling, that's the day when they got hold of Sithole, is that correct?

MR DEETLEFS: If the date is correct, then that is the date upon which W/O Pienaar attempted his recruitment, Chairperson.

MR NTHAI: Now he goes further to say in paragraph 6 that he saw Sithole on the morning of the 15th at the house of Paul Dikeledi and Paul Dikeledi questioned Sithole as to why he returned late. And Sithole explained by saying that no, look, I was buying some spare parts for my tractor. And then he mentions that the final agreements were made. Do you realise that?

MR DEETLEFS: I see that here, Chairperson.

MR NTHAI: So it looks like on the 11th Sithole went back to Swaziland, is that correct?

MR DEETLEFS: That is how I have it.

MR NTHAI: And also that on the morning of August, that could be most probably before he met with de Kock to show them the spots and stuff like that, he was also in Swaziland, is that correct?

MR DEETLEFS: That's correct.

MR NTHAI: And you will realise from this affidavit that Paul already was becoming suspicious of him, is that correct?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR NTHAI: Now if that is the case, and in some way he was even confronted, do you still insist that this man was working for the Security Branch because he was threatened or because he was given the money, or promised the money?

MR DEETLEFS: I don't know what his motivations were Chairperson. I can only say what W/O Pienaar told me about his discussion with this man. What his motivation was to supply the information to us, whether it be for money or for any other reason I am not able to say.

MR NTHAI: Okay. Now let's go to your affidavit of the inquest. And you are also confirming that this affidavit was taken by Mr Pienaar?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR NTHAI: Is that normal? Is that how it's normally done, that a person involved in an incident would they want to take an affidavit?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson not in all instances, but at that stage during those years it was practice that the Security Police handles its own post mortem inquests. In this case it was probably not correct but W/O Pienaar started with the investigation and nobody higher up in the hierarchy stopped him so we just went through with it.

MR NTHAI: So are you trying to tell us that Mr Pienaar was investigating himself, is that what you are saying?

MR DEETLEFS: Amongst others, yes, Chairperson, that is what it would boil down to.

MR NTHAI: But didn't you question that this is unusual Mr Pienaar, why should you be the one because we are together to take the affidavit, did you question that?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson no, because we in the inquest in this case the statements, wanted to compile the statements in such a manner that it would be a normal post mortem inquest so that there could be no issue of subsequent prosecution afterwards, so that no prosecution of any police official would continue, and it was regarded as a normal inquest.

MR LAX: Isn't it so Mr Deetlefs you were the one, you were his commander, Pienaar's?

MR DEETLEFS: His direct commander, yes.

MR LAX: So obviously no-one higher up would have raised it. It was for you to raise it.

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson no, because we served under the regional commander of the Eastern Transvaal and it was his prerogative, because he was also aware of it so he could have stopped it.

MR LAX: Yes but the fact of the matter is that you were wanting to cover this thing up anyway?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes that is so.

MR LAX: I mean no prosecutor picked it up. No magistrate who ran the inquest picked it up.

MR DEETLEFS: No.

MR NTHAI: Mr Deetlefs if indeed it was your intention to cover up what had happened didn't you foresee that having Mr Pienaar, who was part of the incident taking the affidavit that might create problems for you, didn't you see that? As a man of that rank at the time.

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson not during those years because it was abnormal circumstances and I did not foresee that this would create any problems because it was an informal inquest.

CHAIRPERSON: Did it in fact create any problems, or was a verdict brought that was the one you wanted?

MR DEETLEFS: No Sir, not at all.

CHAIRPERSON: You mean you agree that there were no problems and the verdict was that the police had committed no wrong?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes that is correct, Chairperson.

MR NTHAI: Tell me when you decided, the rest of you, when you decided to set up an ambush for these people, at the time you didn't feel that that was illegal. You felt you were justified to set an ambush, is that correct?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes I think Chairperson that we were indeed aware that where one goes and shoots an informer it would naturally be illegal but we felt that it was justifiable under the circumstances.

MR NTHAI: I am talking about the whole group. I am not talking about the informer, I will come to that. I am just talking about when you decided to set an ambush for these ANC people, at the time you did not feel that it was illegal what you were doing? You didn't feel that the ambush was not justified. In other words there was nothing wrong as far as you were concerned at the time, is that correct?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes I felt that our action was justifiable.

MR NTHAI: You were merely executing your duty to protect by then what you called the security of the Republic of South Africa, is that correct?

MR DEETLEFS: That was my opinion, yes.

MR NTHAI: Now if that was the case, if that was the case, paragraph 2 of your affidavit, you already indicated that the question of observation was not correct.

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR NTHAI: If at the time you felt you were justified in protecting the interests of the country why didn't you just use the word "ambush", that we set up an "ambush"? What was wrong with it? In the affidavit why didn't you use the word "ambush"? What was wrong with that because it was legal, it was justified.

MR DEETLEFS: I think that if we used the word "ambush" in the inquest that would have given off wrong connotations.

MR NTHAI: What wrong connotations, because you will explain that you were involved in a just war, you were going to explain not so? What connotations are you talking about?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson when one refers to an ambush one speaks of a war situation where one waits for someone and then what we refer to as a death anchor(?) where the opposition has absolutely no chance and that he be summarily killed. That is why we wanted to create the impression as we said in the statement that there was a supposed blue light and we were waiting for these people and according to the statement we said that we had the roadblock rules there and if we used the word "ambush" it would have an entirely different connotation to it and it could have jeopardised the post mortem inquest.

MR NTHAI: So which means clearly, that at the time when you were now fabricating lies in this affidavit for the purpose of the inquest you had doubt already in your mind that what you did was illegal.

MR DEETLEFS: Yes we know it was illegal because at that stage we knew what the circumstances were.

MR NTHAI: Another question. Did you make this affidavit or this affidavit was written for you by Mr Pienaar and you just signed? What happened?

MR DEETLEFS: I cannot recall any longer. If I can recall correctly I sat down and W/O Pienaar wrote it out and I signed it. I cannot imagine that he had written it first and I later signed. If my recollection is correct he wrote it out in my presence, Chairperson.

MR LAX: Sorry, this is a typed affidavit, all of these affidavits are typed. They have clearly all been prepared. If one reads them they are all literally word-for-word but for a few different vantage differences.

MR DEETLEFS: What we usually did Chairperson is one would write it out and the investigative official would go out and type it and you check it with what was said originally and you sign it, and I think that is what happened in this case.

MR NTHAI: Did I hear you say that normally you write it out, did you write it out this one in particular?

MR DEETLEFS: No I said usually the investigative official would write it out. He had an interview with you, he writes it out, he has it typed and then he gives it back to you to be signed.

MR NTHAI: Then will I be correct to say that the lies that are contained in this affidavit are not your lies, they are Mr Pienaar's lies, is that correct?

MR DEETLEFS: No Chairperson it would be my lies along with W/O Pienaar's. I think we worked together on this statement, but this is what I told him and as we had agreed that it what we would write down and it was written down as such.

MR NTHAI: Obviously in your position you heard about the abduction of Sidebe, is that correct?

MR DEETLEFS: It is correct.

MR NTHAI: You were also given written reports about what he was telling his interrogators, is that correct?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR NTHAI: What did he tell them, do you recall?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, with respect, what is the relevance at this stage of Mr Sidebe detention? There is an amnesty application pending, which will be heard by this Committee, unless my learned friend can indicate to the honourable Committee what the relevance is with regard to this question.

MR LAX: There is lots of relevance Mr Prinsloo. If a man was interrogated for information some of that information may well have been relevant to this matter. It was canvassed yesterday. There was no objection yesterday by you on this matter.

MR PRINSLOO: With respect Mr Chairman Mr Deetlefs, none of my clients gave evidence yesterday, and I would just like to ascertain what the relevance is.

MR LAX: Well the relevance is quite plain. Isn't it self-evident? If Sidebe was interrogated and your client knew about it there may have been information about things he was involved in that were relevant to this operation.

MR PRINSLOO: Inasfar as that is concerned I will leave it at that Mr Chairman, thank you.

MR NTHAI: Were you informed, were you given reports about what Mr Sidebe told his interrogators? You heard, by the way Mr Sidebe was a very - Mr de Kock said yesterday he treated him with respect, he was a very high ranking official of the ANC and as such you will be interested in what - he is not like Maseko, he is not like Dladla, you were interested in what he was saying, so you did get reports. Did you read those reports?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR NTHAI: What information, what information did he give? I am asking you this question because it is not very clear from Mr de Kock as to where the information that these people would be coming on that day came from - whether it came from Dladla, whether it came from Maseko, whether it came from Sithole. What information did Sidebe give?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson if I may put it as follows. Over a period of detention he provided much information to us regarding ANC structures, persons and so forth.

But to get to Mr Nthai's point, this specific information regarding this incident, the incident was on the same evening after Sidebe had been abducted. In other words Sidebe was abducted on the evening or the night of the 13th and this incident took place on the evening of the 14th. On the morning of the 14th I personally was consistently involved with Glory Sidebe. At no stage did he provide any information to us pertaining to this incident. He was quite clearly not aware of it, or at that stage it was a few hours after his abduction, he was not co-operating, but he definitely did not give us any information. This information came clearly from Sithole.

MR NTHAI: He did not even give you information about who planted the bombs at, the ones that injured the tractor driver and a schoolboy?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson no, I don't even think that at that stage we put it to him specifically because it was shortly after his abduction. We did not question him about it. And in either event at that stage Dladla and Maseko were already in detention and we knew that they were responsible for those deeds. It wasn't necessary to involve Sidebe in this.

MR NTHAI: Mr Chairman I just want the witness to be shown the sketch, the sketch that was drawn by Mr de Kock and I just want to know whether he agrees that more-or-less he agrees that this was the position of the vehicle.

MR LAX: Are you referring to Exhibit B?

MR DEETLEFS: I have it.

MR NTHAI: Mr de Kock has indicated there by means of seconds, that is on the ...(indistinct) side, and he has indicated that more-or-less that is the place where you, the group was hiding, is that correct?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR NTHAI: And he has indicated that more-or-less that would have been the position of the vehicle, is that correct?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR NTHAI: And he has also put a dot there on the side of the vehicle which he indicates that that is where the driver fell after he was shot.

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson yes, I see it here. My recollection is that I would place the person further back. He was past the back of the vehicle. In other words if we look at the sketch I would say approximately a centimetre to the right, according to the scale of the sketch diagonally opposite the back rear point of the vehicle.

MR NTHAI: So on that aspect you disagree with Mr de Kock?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR LAX: Mr Deetlefs can I just clarify that, just for my own benefit. Are you saying that on your version, on this little diagram of Exhibit B, the figure of the man lying there should be in the same line but a centimetre beyond the end of the vehicle?

MR DEETLEFS: To the right, ja, to the right, yes to the back of the vehicle, yes.

MR LAX: Yes, okay, thank you. But the same distance away from the side of the vehicle, roughly?

MR DEETLEFS: Ja that's speculating but roughly ja, I would say so Sir.

MR NTHAI: Were you informed before, either by Mr Pienaar or Mr de Kock as to where - you see the arrangement with Mr Sithole was that he was supposed to stop here and go and - he would pretend as if he was going to urinate, is that correct?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR NTHAI: Were you informed, were you informed where he was supposed to go and urinate? Was he supposed to cross the road and go the other side, or was he supposed to go behind the vehicle and come to the side where you were, what was the agreement?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson as I understood it they told him that he had to jump out and then run to the right. In other words past the bakkie in the same direction as what he has done here, so that in the event of a shooting to get him out of the line of fire. I don't know exactly what the conversation was between him and Mr Pienaar, but those were the basic words, that he had to run to the back to the right.

MR NTHAI: But if that was the case that would be totally inconsistent with the plan, not so? Because then the other people with him would realise that there is something wrong, is that correct? Is that not correct?

CHAIRPERSON: That is exactly what is shown on the plan. He did run to the right.

MR NTHAI: Mr Chairman I am not sure whether Mr Chairman understands the point I am trying to pursue. The point I am pursuing is that if indeed what the witness is saying it's correct that he jumped and ran that would be inconsistent with the plan because then the people in the bakkie would then realise that there is something wrong immediately. My understanding was that he was supposed to come out of the bakkie normally and walk to go and urinate at the agree place, Mr Chairman. I don't know whether I am out of the way Mr Chairman.

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson yes, I cannot say precisely what the agreement was, I can only testify according to what I saw, because when the bakkie stopped he jumped out very quickly. I don't know whether it was ever discussed with him at what speed he should disembark from the vehicle, that is why he must have used his own judgment.

MR NTHAI: Mr Deetlefs you also say so that he should be out of the line of shooting.

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, that would be my view as I have said. As I had it it was never put to the informer that shots would be fired. He was under the impression that arrests would take place. So what exactly the explanation was which was given to him as to why he should run in that direction could possibly be explained by Mr Pienaar, the reason why he had to run to the right to the back.

MR NTHAI: You are saying that the impression that he was given that he should be out of the line of shooting but ...(intervention)

MR DEETLEFS: Yes that would be the normal case. One would tell someone to make sure that they would get out of the line of fire. I don't know whether Mr Pienaar put this to the informer that if an arrest was to be conducted there may be a shooting. The impression they gave him was that an arrest would be carried out.

MR NTHAI: Let's leave the issue of the driver for a moment. According to that sketch, according to Mr de Kock there were other people on the other side of the road. There was a slope, according to him, which is a high ground, and there was another group that was there.

MR DEETLEFS: No Chairperson, my recollection is that all of us were on the same side of the road, in other words where these points are indicated on the left side of the road all of us lay there in a line.

MR NTHAI: Why would all of you be all on one side?

MR DEETLEFS: If I recall correctly we examined all the possibilities and if there was a group of persons on the other side of the road, and a shooting ensued, we would have been directly in line with each other and either group would have been in the line of fire of the other. So that is why we decided ultimately to lay in one line all together. Because it was also the arrangement that the bakkie would in either event stop where we were.

MR NTHAI: And I mean you confirmed that Mr de Kock at the time was in charge of this operation?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, for the operational aspect.

MR NTHAI: Yes, so I mean he was the one who was going to give the order of shooting and stuff like that.

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR NTHAI: And he would know the details of planning better than you do, is that correct?

MR DEETLEFS: For this sort of action, yes.

MR NTHAI: Why will you dispute his evidence that there were other people that he placed the other side?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson that wasn't about the plan, it was about what I saw. If Mr de Kock had a different perspective then we will have to hear from the other persons who still need to testify. Perhaps then we will get to the truth. I can only say what I saw and according to my observation we were all in one line. Mr de Kock sees another group of people on the opposite side of the road. This is about recollection and my recollection is that all of us lay in one line.

MR NTHAI: Now how many people do you recall that were involved in this operation, in this group, how many people were there?

MR DEETLEFS: At the bakkie itself as I have said, there was Eugene Fourie, me, Mr de Kock, Mr Pienaar, Mr Greyling, Mr Labuschagne, Mr Botha. I cannot recall whether there were other Vlakplaas members who were at this scene or whether they were at the other scene with van Dyk. These are the members that I can recall. I cannot recall precisely where the others were.

MR NTHAI: So according to you there were eight people, not so?

MR DEETLEFS: Eight, there may have been one or two other Vlakplaas members as well. I cannot recall everybody but that would be the approximate number of persons.

MR NTHAI: Okay. Now where you were ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Sorry I get six people, where do you get eight from?

CHAIRPERSON: My note is seven. He says Fourie, himself, de Kock, Pienaar, Greyling, Labuschagne and Botha.

MR NTHAI: Ja, I may have made a mistake, I was trying to count as he was talking Mr Chairman. It could have been seven.

I want to come back to where you were hiding. How far were you from the vehicle? In other words how far were you from where you were hiding and where the vehicle came to a standstill?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson it stopped where we were. Now at night it would be difficult to estimate but I would say approximately two to three metres possibly.

MR NTHAI: So according to you the driver, Sithole, was shot by the people on your side, not by the people on the other side, is that correct?

MR DEETLEFS: No, as I have it, I did not see it, but as I would have it, it would have been the person on the extreme right, from the back of the vehicle. There were no other persons on the other side of the road.

MR NTHAI: Now I just want you to help us here. Your legal representative has brought a photo of the bakkie. What happened to the photos that were taken of the bodies themselves?

MR DEETLEFS: I assume that it must have been admitted with the PMI. I cannot comment on that, I don't know what happened to that eventually. It would have been submitted with the post mortem inquest, normally.

MR NTHAI: Now since Mr Pienaar was the one who was initially investigating the matter he would have handled those photos in preparation of the inquest.

MR DEETLEFS: Yes he would have.

MR NTHAI: Do you know whether there were photos or not?

MR DEETLEFS: I cannot recall. Mr Pienaar would have to testify about that, I cannot recall whether there was a photographer there.

MR NTHAI: If you go to that picture of the bakkie just immediately after the door there you see there are quite a number of bullet holes there, do you see that?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes I see this.

MR NTHAI: It appears that even the windows there on the side of the canopy were also shattered.

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR NTHAI: Now from what you are saying, from what your evidence is, is that the way you were actually positioned, the most likelihood is that your shots landed there, is that correct?

MR DEETLEFS: Me personally?

MR NTHAI: Ja, yours, the ones that you were firing.

MR DEETLEFS: Yes that is correct.

MR NTHAI: And you say you only fired two shots?

MR DEETLEFS: No I never said two shots ...(intervention)

MR NTHAI: How many, how many ...(intervention)

MR DEETLEFS: I said two-two after each other, so I would estimate about six to eight shots. I cannot recall any longer.

MR NTHAI: Did you check after the shooting how many you shot?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes I assume so, I cannot recall, but we had to make a report to the officers who visited the scene who had to compile the shooting report. Usually we would have to report to these officers how many shots were fired.

MR NTHAI: Yes. You didn't happen to see that report thereafter after it was compiled?

MR DEETLEFS: No I did not see it.

MR NTHAI: You also mentioned, when you were giving evidence, that various attacks, including the Sasol attacks ...(intervention)

MR DEETLEFS: Yes Chairperson there were various incidents.

MR NTHAI: Do you still recollect as to when was the Sasol attack?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson no, I think there were two or three, or three attacks and these were during various years. I think one was in '81 and there was another one in '84, '85. I cannot recall anymore but it was during the early eighties.

MR NTHAI: I want to bring you now to the question of the killing of Shadrack Sithole. It was not very clear to me yesterday when Mr de Kock was giving evidence as to why Shadrack was killed.

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson it was about the following. This man, in my opinion, had not really been recruited as an informer. This was the first time that he conveyed information. We didn't know whether we could trust him or not, and I knew that if under these circumstances he were to escape there would be no reasonable explanation that he could offer to the ANC as to how he succeeded in escaping. And the conclusion was simply that he would definitely have been detained for interrogation, and then our activities would have been exposed. He had identified some of our members. He could identify some of our members who could later act in Swaziland. He could identify these persons to the ANC which would lead to traps for our own members. This could have impeded our activities in Swaziland completely. So he definitely presented a risk to us.

Furthermore, and I have stated this, perhaps I could just qualify, I don't wish to waste the Committee's time with regard to Dlamini, but a few months before the incident, among others, we dealt with Knox Dlamini under the same circumstances. We knew that he was a collaborator and that he was transferring persons. I apprehended him at the border post, he was brought to my office and I also put it to him that we were aware of his activities and I went as far, among others, as buying him a beer and I had a photo taken of the two of us together. I had him sign a receipt for money which he would have received, and I led him to understand that if he returned to Swaziland and continued with his activities without informing us I would take this photo and the receipt and make it end up in ANC hands so that they would be able to eliminate him.

Later we met again in Swaziland. But with first meeting because I didn't trust him I had him under observation and we determined that one Musi Mbatha, who was an MK cache(?) had dropped him off the rendezvous point and picked him up again after the meeting and I realised immediately that this man presented a clear and present danger to me and I didn't know whether I would walk into a trap with any further meeting with him, therefore I broke off all contact with him. That is why I was thoroughly aware that one couldn't simply trust such a person after one incident of information which was conveyed, and that is why I believed that Sithole could return and sell us out. Therefore I had no other idea than his elimination because he could only cause damage for us at a later stage.

MR NTHAI: From what - that's very interesting what you are telling us now. From what you are saying is that Knox Dlamini at least you gave him some time, you observed him until you were satisfied that he cannot be trusted, is that correct?

MR DEETLEFS: No, it wasn't time, it was just with the meeting. When he made an appointment with me at a rendezvous point, because I didn't trust him at that particular stage I had him observed, and then it was determined that he had been dropped off by an ANC MK member, so there was no lengthy period of observation as such.

MR NTHAI: But Shadrack was never given - he was never observed, is that correct?

MR DEETLEFS: No there wasn't any opportunity for that.

MR NTHAI: This meeting that you had with Knox, when was that?

MR DEETLEFS: I cannot recall precisely, it was several months before this incident. It was during 1985 I think, but some time before this incident.

MR NTHAI: And between 11985 and since you met him, were you having contact with him?

MR DEETLEFS: With Knox?

MR NTHAI: With Knox, yes.

MR DEETLEFS: After the incident where I broke off contact with him I didn't have any further contact with him because I knew that he posed a danger.

MR NTHAI: We were informed that he was the one who dropped the people that were ultimately killed on the Swaziland side.

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR NTHAI: You were not aware that he would be amongst the people who would drop those people?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson if I recall correctly we knew indeed that he would be dropping the persons off, but we didn't know who would accompany these persons over the fence.

MR NTHAI: And will I be correct then to say that according to what you are explaining you were not linking Shadrack Sithole to the bombs that were going on around there, not at all? The only reason that led you to agree with his killing was that you were afraid he would betray you, is that correct?

MR DEETLEFS: No Chairperson he was a member of the group which had come through. He associated himself with persons who were bringing weapons and explosives over the border. So it wasn't merely about the question that he could betray us but because he was also a member of the ANC MK group and he associated himself with their ideas. In other words he was also a member of our enemy at that stage.

MR NTHAI: Was he a member of the ANC?

MR DEETLEFS: I cannot comment whether he was a recorded member of the ANC, but in my opinion if you were a collaborator and if you assisted them with their activities you were a member of the ANC and that was all that there was to know about it.

MR NTHAI: Now just - I don't want to go into details about what my learned friend was putting about the version, your version that would differ from the version of Labuschagne, I don't want to go into details about that, the version that you are giving now to us here, is that not a version that you fabricated as you did when you fabricated the affidavit for the inquest?

MR DEETLEFS: No Chairperson, definitely not.

MR NTHAI: At some point you mentioned that it would be against your nature - there was a question if there was a child, would you have killed a child in the bakkie and you said that would be against your nature to kill a child, is that correct?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes that is correct. It is speculative Chairperson but I am sure that any person wouldn't be able to shoot an innocent child just like that. It would have been completely against my nature.

MR NTHAI: Is it in your nature to fabricate lies and put them in the affidavit for the purpose of inquest, is that in your nature?

MR DEETLEFS: No it is not my nature but at that stage we lived under unnatural circumstances and one would make certain adjustments in order to justify one's actions. We regarded it in that light that all is fair in love and war.

MR NTHAI: You were afraid of prosecution by then, is that correct?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR NTHAI: That is why you fabricated lies, is that correct?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR NTHAI: Now you know that your application may be refused here, are you aware of that?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes that is correct.

MR NTHAI: If your application is refused what will happen to you?

MR DEETLEFS: Well then it would be free to the prosecuting authorities to initiate a prosecution.

MR NTHAI: So you may be prosecuted?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR NTHAI: So there is a danger even here, not so?

MR DEETLEFS: No Chairperson as I have it the evidence which I have delivered here is not applicable to later prosecution. If it were to happen that I be charged it would be in the hands of my legal advisors.

MR NTHAI: But you may also fabricate facts so that you should not be prosecuted, is that not correct? Create an impression that you are giving full disclosure, is that not correct?

MR DEETLEFS: No, not during these proceedings.

MR NTHAI: But if you have done it before what would prevent you from doing it now?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson we are working with an amnesty process here which has been established in order to achieve reconciliation and it is under that understanding that we have applied in the first instance. If I was not prepared to make a full disclosure here I could just as well have remained silent and taken the chance of being prosecuted or not. But I preferred to disclose the truth and that is the reason why I am here today.

MR NTHAI: You know I am going to argue that you did not disclose the truth, what are you going to say to that?

MR DEETLEFS: That is your good right.

MR NTHAI: And I am also going to argue that the killing of Shadrack Sithole was definitely out of ill-will and spite. It had nothing to do with what was going on.

MR DEETLEFS: No that is definitely not the case, but once again you are entitled to your own opinion.

MR NTHAI: I have no further questions Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NTHAI

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: Mr Deetlefs how many ambushes were you involved in with Mr de Kock?

MR DEETLEFS: It was two.

MS LOCKHAT: Was that the Piet Retief incident ...(intervention)

MR DEETLEFS: Yes that is correct, the one that has already been heard before the Committee.

MS LOCKHAT: Is the general definition and part of the definition of an ambush to eliminate and kill?

MR DEETLEFS: That is my interpretation, yes.

MS LOCKHAT: Because I can remember Mr de Kock also stating at the Piet Retief hearing that that was the definition, to eliminate and kill.

MR DEETLEFS: In my vocabulary if we refer to an ambush, because I was trained as such, if one refers to an ambush one refers to an ambush and not of arrest.

MS LOCKHAT: So the other members that were part of you in this group would you say that their definition of an ambush would also be to eliminate and kill?

MR DEETLEFS: I cannot reason on their behalf but I do believe that most of them did receive counter-insurgency training and I think the same interpretation would be applicable.

MS LOCKHAT: Mr Fourie stated that you had this planning meeting in Piet Retief.

MR DEETLEFS: No, I don't know of that. The entire planning took place on a premises outside Piet Retief. I did not go to the offices at Piet Retief that day and that late planning did not take place at the Security Branch offices.

MS LOCKHAT: Because he says you were present at the Security Branch in Piet Retief, with Mr de Kock himself, Freek Pienaar, Douw Willemse, Lappies Labuschagne, and that's on page 104 of the bundle, bundle 1 Chairperson, at paragraph 7. He says you were also there.

MR DEETLEFS: No that is definitely not so. At that stage I was still busy with Mr Glory Sidebe and that was at an entirely other premises.

MS LOCKHAT: So did you - were you part of any planning session with any of the members ...(intervention)

MR DEETLEFS: Yes the planning before this action along with Mr de Kock and Mr Pienaar, but this did not take place at the Security offices, it took place at these other premises. That is where the other members were also informed about this operation.

MS LOCKHAT: So you say Mr Fourie is mistaken then?

MR DEETLEFS: I think he has confused the premises.

CHAIRPERSON: So that one can ask him about it, can you describe the premises better than merely saying they were outside Piet Retief?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson it was on a farm. It was a secure premises as we called it at that stage, in other words a house that was rented under false pretences by the Security Branch but usually the owner did not know what we used the premises for. But this was to protect informers. Instead of taking persons to the Security Branch offices one would meet with them at these premises so it would appear more clandestine. And I don't know if you want me to describe exactly where it was, and if my information is correct it's approximately five kilometres ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Just a general idea for my benefit.

MR DEETLEFS: It's approximately five kilometres outside the town in the direction of Amsterdam.

MS LOCKHAT: Tell me who was your commander at the time?

MR DEETLEFS: At that stage it was Brigadier Visser.

MS LOCKHAT: Did you inform your commander of this incident?

MR DEETLEFS: After the incident, yes.

MS LOCKHAT: Informing him that it was an ambush?

MR DEETLEFS: No, Chairperson, I did not. What I conveyed to him and the telex that I sent to head office had the facts as it appeared in the inquest, namely that the person had jumped out of the vehicle with a firearm and so forth and so forth. The real facts were not conveyed to him.

MS LOCKHAT: Why didn't you convey the real facts to him? Were you acting outside your mandate?

MR DEETLEFS: No, but I also did not want him, because I realised that our action was not entirely within the ambit of the law and if I informed him that we had acted illegally then he would have been an accomplice and I did not want to do that.

Secondly, if I informed him and even head office of the real facts they could have turned around and lodged a complete investigation which could have been to our detriment. That is why I did not give him the full facts.

MS LOCKHAT: And Mr de Kock was under your control at that time?

MR DEETLEFS: No, no, Mr de Kock was from Vlakplaas, we were of equal rank.

MS LOCKHAT: You were of equal rank.

MR DEETLEFS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: But when he was operating, as I understand it, in the area that you were the commander of, then he was under you.

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, under those circumstances, yes Chairperson.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you Chairperson.

Did you inform Brigadier Schoon, who was his commander at the time, of this incident?

MR DEETLEFS: No, my line was to my commander at Middelburg and him, on his behalf, would then go to head office.

MS LOCKHAT: And then Mr Fourie was from C2.

MR DEETLEFS: Yes that is correct.

MS LOCKHAT: And who was his commander at that time?

MR DEETLEFS: At head office I think at that stage it was Colonel Naude, but while he was at Piet Retief it was also the instance that he would serve under W/O Pienaar, and then directly thereafter under my command while he was in the Eastern Transvaal.

MS LOCKHAT: And it wasn't necessary for you to report to his commander of any acts or incidents that he was involved in at the time that he was under your command?

MR DEETLEFS: No, through my channel it would automatically get to his commander but my line of command was to my head office and that was Middelburg and from there they went to head office.

MS LOCKHAT: And just one last question in relation to Vusimusi Sindane, after he was arrested, this is after the incident, he was taken to a camp, do you know which camp he was taken to first?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson as far as I know he was taken to the counter-insurgency unit base, that is the counter-insurgency unit which was stationed along our borders and they had different places where they had bases and he was taken to their base and from there he was taken to Piet Retief Security Branch.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS LOCKHAT

ADV SIBANYONI: Mr Deetlefs did you notice when de Kock placed an AK47 next to the driver?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson no, I cannot say with certainty because I concentrated on the people in front of me and I went and had a look at what was in front of the vehicle. I cannot recall the moment when he placed the weapon there.

ADV SIBANYONI: But at a later stage you noticed it?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, there was definitely a weapon afterwards.

ADV SIBANYONI: I would like to ask you about the amount of weaponry which was found in the bakkie, and my questioning you about that is my understanding was that the ANC was infiltrating weapons separately with people. In other words the people wouldn't carry such an amount of weaponry in the bakkie, at the back of the van, weapons would be infiltrated through DLBs created on the, on ...(indistinct), was that not the position?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson in many instances persons who came in intent on acts of terror came along with their weaponry or in other cases collaborators and other persons and supporters would bring the weapons through and hide it for later use. There was nothing abnormal about these circumstances here, about the supply in the back of the vehicle. This concurs with their actions from time to time.

ADV SIBANYONI: Was it not perhaps part of what we were told Stratcom to plant also these weapons?

MR DEETLEFS: No I can assure you no weapons were planted here.

ADV SIBANYONI: Now coming to the affidavit you said you remember Pienaar sitting with you taking the affidavit, but we have heard from Mr de Kock last week, in another incident, that in the past it used to happen that you will be requested to sign an affidavit which you were not part of drafting it.

MR DEETLEFS: It could have been, because for example in Mr de Kock's case he was in Pretoria and I was aware in certain instances that the person had just cleared out the facts with him telephonically and he would then draw up the statement and if the person passes there at some other point in time, he would just sign it.

ADV SIBANYONI: And it was usual for one police official to be appointed to draft affidavits for everybody who was involved in the incident?

MR DEETLEFS: No, it was not a rule, but usually the investigative official took all the statements himself, but if he could not arrive at all of it, it was up to him to incorporate someone to assist him with the taking of statements.

ADV SIBANYONI: My colleague, Mr Lax, asked you whether the Prosecutor or Magistrate wouldn't pick it up if the affidavit was sort of a cover-up - I would like to ask you further than that to say was it usual also maybe for District Surgeons, Doctors, to be part of the cover-up like it was alleged or said in the Steve Biko matter?

MR DEETLEFS: No, I don't have any knowledge, I am aware of the allegations in the Steve Biko incident, but I personally do not have any knowledge of any other matter, where the surgeon was involved in the cover-up.

ADV SIBANYONI: You are aware that those doctors who were involved in the Steve Biko matter were subpoenaed before the Disciplinary Committee of the Medical Council?

MR DEETLEFS: In the Biko matter? That is correct Chairperson.

ADV SIBANYONI: In this operation where there are no askaris, were there only police from Vlakplaas, Ermelo and Piet Retief, were you not assisted by askaris?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson, as I understood it, Mr Nofomele, I cannot recall him, but as I understood from yesterday, he is also mentioned here, so I assume he was involved here somewhere, although I cannot recall him. That was Mr de Kock's prerogative as to which people he would use.

ADV SIBANYONI: Thank you Mr Chairperson, no further questions.

MR LAX: Thank you Chair. I have just checked all the affidavits of all the policemen that we have before us, it relates to the inquest, they were all signed on the 15th and 16th, so before anyone had a chance to disappear, everybody signed their affidavits and this matter was cleared up, is that right?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes.

MR LAX: Did you all get together and discuss how you were going to say this story should go?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson, yes. If I recall correctly, just after the incident we decided what we would say, for example that the man did indeed jump out with a firearm and so forth, and so forth, as it appears from the inquest docket, and we agreed that that would be the story.

MR LAX: The point I am making is you did it immediately the next day and the day after that?

MR DEETLEFS: I cannot say exactly when, but it was briefly after the incident.

MR LAX: Because this happened during the night of the 14th?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct Chairperson.

MR LAX: Now with regard to Mr de Kock placing the AK47 with the driver, he didn't just place it there, before he could do that, he had to take the bags out of the back of the car, because he said that he took it from amongst that weaponry?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes.

MR LAX: Didn't you see him doing that?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson, I cannot because as I said I was in front, busy with checking the front of the van. It is possible that I could have seen, but as I have said earlier, I cannot recall whether it was Mr de Kock or Mr Pienaar who placed the firearm there. Mr de Kock said it was him, so I assume it was him, but I cannot recall that I for sure saw that he placed the weapon there. I only recall that I did see the weapon.

MR LAX: Did you see all the other stuff being taken out of the back of the car?

MR DEETLEFS: No, I cannot recall. I must have been present, but I cannot recall what was specifically taken out. I know all of us inspected it and they secured the firearms and so forth, but I cannot recall exactly at which stage the things were taken out.

MR LAX: Didn't you help check and make sure that all that stuff was safe?

MR DEETLEFS: No, that was Col de Kock and Mr Pienaar's job.

MR LAX: Now, you were the commander of that area?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct Chairperson, yes.

MR LAX: If this man had been promised R10 000-00, you would have had to make the arrangements to ensure that that money was obtained?

MR DEETLEFS: No, only at a later stage if application is made for such an amount, it would have to come through me. But if there was only a promise made to him, it is not necessarily that I would be aware of it.

MR LAX: And you bear no knowledge whatsoever that that was the arrangement made?

MR DEETLEFS: No, I cannot recall that it was ever mentioned to me, but it is possible.

MR LAX: Unfortunately I was just checking something else when Mr Lockhat asked you about the meetings, so I am going to traverse stuff that you may already have answered, and you will forgive me for that, but would you kindly just go over again for me, as best you can recall, what, how did the planning of this thing go as far as you are aware? Let's start right at the beginning, when did you first become aware that this operation was going to happen at all?

MR DEETLEFS: This was the 14th Chairperson, I cannot recall the time exactly, but it would have to be late afternoon, or afternoon in any case. If I may commence by saying that Sidebe was taken, was fetched the evening of the 13th and we arrived at these premises at Piet Retief the next morning. I spoke to Sidebe and at a stage I went to sleep because I had been on my feet for 36 hours and it was at that stage that Mr Pienaar and Mr de Kock drove and said and Mr Pienaar mentioned to me, that he had an appointment with this informer or that this informer had come to the RSA again. I was at the premises with Sidebe.

MR LAX: So they drove out to the farm where you were?

MR DEETLEFS: No, they were with me, I think telephonically he was informed from his office that this man wanted to speak to him, and from there, they drove, from the premises they went to see him. Where exactly they met with him, I don't know, but from those premises where we were with Sidebe, they drove away. Later that afternoon, they returned and then I was informed that this informer had information, had given information that that evening he would bring people through and that they had already identified the certain points with the informer and told him where he should stop, and then the planning was from there, where the stopper groups had to be placed. Mr van Dyk and his group, and that is where we did the planning amongst the three of us and we informed the other people later and told them what would happen.

MR LAX: You have spoken about stopper groups, you have used the plural term? Was that?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson, I think it is a term, one speaks of stopper groups, although it can only be one group. In most cases it is one group, but one refers to it as stopper groups, but if I recall correctly, then it did arise that at the T-junction from Nerston, one road continues straight through and connects with Lothair, and the other one turns left from the Amsterdam Road and that is where we were and I want to recollect that at some stage there was talk as to what would happen if this informer gets cold feet and he drives directly in the direction of Lothair with these people and I think there was talk that a third group, part of Mr van Dyk's group would lay alongside the road, who would inform us if the informer took the other road, instead of taking the road in our direction, but that was left in Mr van Dyk's hands to take the decision.

MR LAX: As far as you were aware, there was one stopper group, that was van Dyk's group?

MR DEETLEFS: Correct yes.

MR LAX: You see normally in an ambush you have two stopper groups, because what if the people drive straight through your ambush, you have another stopper group on the other side?

MR DEETLEFS: That is what usually, but in this case we didn't do it as such.

MR LAX: Well, why?

MR DEETLEFS: I think in the first instance, a lack of man power because one had to forward along the line, deploy more men and this could, because the whole idea of eliminating these people, would have been ruined, because it was the idea that the vehicle would come along that route and stop, but I don't think there was any talk that at any further point, another ambush would be set up. We would have just followed them and then used another tactic.

MR LAX: You see, what is very interesting in what you are saying is this, it is that you trusted this man would bring them to a stop at that point, you trusted it so much that you didn't even make another back-up plan to have another stopper group further away?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, we trusted that he would stop there, but there is a difference between him indeed stopping there and whether at a later stage, he would sell us out again.

MR LAX: Well, you see that is what we find strange with respect. Here is a man who you didn't trust enough that you planned to kill him, and yet on the other hand you trusted him enough to believe that he would deliver these people to you at the place, so much so that you didn't even make contingencies?

MR DEETLEFS: As I have said from the one side, because Warrant Officer Pienaar spoke to the man and we trusted that he would indeed stop there, but if later, if he was willing so sacrifice these people, but that he could turn later and work against us and sell us out ...

MR LAX: We will deal with that later, I am coming to that.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, before you go on, my recollection and I could be hopelessly wrong here is that somebody spoke about having made arrangements that if they didn't stop, the police would drive them off the road? Is that not somewhere in this Bundle?

MR DEETLEFS: I cannot recall.

CHAIRPERSON: I may be wrong, I may have - I have been reading so many incidents lately, carry on.

MR LAX: I think we all suffer from the same melody sometimes. Just getting back ...

MR ROSSOUW: Sorry, Mr Chairman, I think you are referring to page 73, which is the application of Mr Bosch, there is mention to that effect, towards the end of that paragraph on page 73.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. That is what I was thinking of -

That was part of the planning according to him.

MR LAX: Your comment on that?

MR DEETLEFS: That can probably be true, I do not recall it specifically, but because we did not put a stopper group there, that would have been our solution if they did not stop and we would then force them off the road.

MR LAX: Do you now recall that that might have been part of the plan?

MR DEETLEFS: It is possible, as I have said, I cannot recall it like that exactly, but it is entirely possible.

MR LAX: Let's move on to the question of this man selling you out, and the threat that he posed to you and the threat that he posed to your whole operation in Swaziland as you put it. Who had he come into contact with at this stage?

MR DEETLEFS: Are you asking whom he had been in contact with?

MR LAX: yes.

MR DEETLEFS: Well, he had contact with Paul Dikeledi and then the Transvaal Machinery.

MR LAX: Yes, but Paul Dikeledi wasn't your operation, I am talking about your operation. Which of your members had he come into contact with, Sithole?

MR DEETLEFS: As far as I know, Mr Pienaar and some of his persons, I cannot comment whom, but I know some of his members at the Piet Retief offices were also tasked with this person, Mr de Kock himself was present. Those are the people with whom he definitely could identify.

MR LAX: What was stopping you arresting the man and charging him with stuff you knew you were able to convict him of, in the same way you did with Mr Sindane?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson, because in the first instance I don't believe where he came through with these people under these circumstances, it would be, we could shoot two people and then arrest him, then questions would emanate there, and before the time, everything was allegations that he had brought people through although we checked the vehicle but he based everything on information which was gleaned from collaborators, amongst others Dladla and Maseko, upon whom one could not depend to deliver evidence, so we did not have real evidence against him, and we also did not have enough to detain him according to Section 29, in my opinion there was no sufficient information to convince a Magistrate to authorise a Section 29 detention.

MR LAX: Please Mr Deetlefs, you had his car, it was full of explosives and weapons, what are you talking about? And you convicted Sindane who wasn't even found at the scene of the very same items, so what are you talking about you couldn't have prosecuted him?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson, I speak of the information we had before that. We refer to the bakkie incident, it would not have made any sense, we would then have had to arrest all of them or otherwise if we shot the other two persons and arrested only him, then he most probably would have placed the blame on those persons. He would have received a very light sentence and according to us, that would have not been just, so it made more sense to us ...

MR LAX: But you had the information, you had Sindane, you had him, you could have done anything?

MR DEETLEFS: Sindane was only arrested the day afterwards, we did not know what happened to him.

MR LAX: You see the fact that I am trying to point out to you is that killing him was not your only alternative. Surely you will concede that?

MR DEETLEFS: That is probably so at that stage, but now one can speculate about it, but at that stage, it seemed to be the only alternative.

MR LAX: I want to put it further to you and suggest to you that in fact this man wasn't untrustworthy as you are trying to make him out to be, he had been into Swaziland, he had come back, he had reported his movements, he then went back and then he delivers the goods. Surely that is a sign of how trustworthy he was?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson, I can really not on one occasion describe or regard this man as entirely trustworthy. He could have delivered once to mislead us and afterwards turn around, so I think one has to establish trust over a period of time, or he has to prove his trustworthiness over a period of time, specifically in the case of an informer.

MR LAX: The fact of the matter is though that you weren't prepared even to give him the chance, you just had him killed?

MR DEETLEFS: That was so Chairperson, I saw it as the only alternative at that stage, because he held a danger for us.

MR LAX: Now, de Kock and Pienaar came out to the farm, they told you about this proposed operation and the information, what planning did you sit down and do together?

MR DEETLEFS: We did the planning as we have sketched it here.

MR LAX: Listen, you are being very vague, I want you to try and tell us what planning you actually did.

MR DEETLEFS: It was about, at that stage, they informed me that they had already spoken to the informer and had established the point where the vehicle would stop as well as the point where the persons would meet with the bakkie, so the planning from there was only about where we would take up position, the group who was responsible for the bakkie, and where Mr van Dyk and his group would take up position, and then what would happen if the driver jumped out, which was decided that he would be shot and we then would, the moment the bakkie came to a stop, we would fire on the persons in the front of the bakkie. I don't know if there is ...

MR LAX: Well, that doesn't sound like planning to me, that simply sounds like they reported to you that this was their plan and you probably approved it?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct, part of the planning had already been made where the informer was and I was not present.

MR LAX: Precisely.

MR DEETLEFS: And then they came and confirmed and conveyed it to me and we just discussed it furthermore.

MR LAX: And had they already decided what personnel should be used for this operation?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson, yes, because there was a group of people there at that stage and I think a decision was taken to bring in some of the other Piet Retief people, but most of the persons were already at the premises there.

MR LAX: And they already had been informed what they were supposed to do?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, before we departed yes, they were informed.

MR LAX: Were you present when they were informed?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes.

MR LAX: That must have been an additional meeting after you approved the plan?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes.

MR LAX: You then sat down with the rest of the guys and you told them "this is the plan, this is what we are going to do"?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Were they already there for other reasons, nothing to do with the plan?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes Chairperson, because I think the fact that Sidebe was there, he was regarded as a prominent ANC person. I think most of them came out of curiosity, but everybody wanted to hear what he had to say and most of them were there, so for example afterwards, I cannot recall when Mr Fourie arrived there, whether he was at the Branch offices and when Mr Botha and the others from the Piet Retief Branch arrived there, but most of the persons were already on the premises.

MR LAX: And then one final thing, when did you arrange to draw all the weapons?

MR DEETLEFS: It was with the planning there, when Mr Pienaar returned, he arranged that we would bring weapons from the offices.

MR LAX: So the members would go back to that office and then draw the weapons?

MR DEETLEFS: I don't know whether everybody went back. I know for example my firearm was brought to me, I did not go to the offices, I don't know which firearms were brought to them and whether one person went there or whether a global went to fetch firearms there.

MR LAX: And then finally, the Vlakplaas people would have had their own weapons?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, they had their own weapons, Chairperson.

MR LAX: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I wanted to finish my questioning, but looking at the time, I think we better take the adjournment now. We will adjourn until two o'clock.

ON RESUMPTION:

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: ... incident occurred?

MR DEETLEFS: That is so Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Another police vehicle was supposed to arrive on the scene with blue lights and make it all look very efficient and official?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And what you all said in your inquest affidavits were part and parcel of the cover-up that had been planned?

MR DEETLEFS: That is so.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright. The next one is about Sindane, do you know what injuries he had?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson, I am aware of one shot-wound that he had in the buttock, but I cannot recall any other injuries. There may have been one or two further injuries, but I can recall this specific injury in the buttock.

CHAIRPERSON: Because he says in his affidavit that he was shot in the right forearm, the left upper elbow, the right hip and through both thighs?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson, no. I do not wish to argue, I just know of this one injury, but I know that during interrogation I referred him for medical treatment and I really cannot recall that he had incurred that many injuries, I cannot recall anything like that.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you take part in the questioning?

MR DEETLEFS: From to time, at a later stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Because he says he was assaulted severely?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson, no. Apparently it was only during his arrest or just after his arrest, I only came to deal with him much later and in my presence, at that stage, he was not assaulted.

CHAIRPERSON: You are the person who referred him for medical treatment?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct Chairperson. It may be that immediately after his arrest, he also received medical treatment in Piet Retief, but when I came to deal with him later at Ermelo, I also referred him to a Physician for medical treatment and as far as I can recall, in the Bethal prison, he also received ongoing medical treatment.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you said you were hiding near the road where this vehicle eventually stopped?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, I don't know if I said that we were hiding, but I suppose it boils down to that, that on the side of the road, we were laying among the grass, so we were hiding.

CHAIRPERSON: And did you open fire from where you were laying?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Did any of you had torches or any other sort of light?

MR DEETLEFS: No Chairperson, I cannot recall anything like that.

CHAIRPERSON: Just bear with me for one moment. You cannot help us with how Sithole got shot, you just assume it was the person on the extreme right?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR LAX: Just one small thing Mr Deetlefs, that I overlooked, you were sort of positioned as I understood it, third from the left, so to speak?

MR DEETLEFS: I was second from the left.

MR LAX: Second from the left?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR LAX: You didn't see anyone get up and fire from the front of the car at the vehicle?

MR DEETLEFS: No, not from the front of the vehicle. Mr Fourie was next to me on the left, and he fired, but I didn't see someone firing from the front of the vehicle.

MR LAX: Nobody stood up and ran round and started firing through the front windscreen for example?

MR DEETLEFS: No, not that I saw or noticed.

MR LAX: And did anyone run round and fire from the back of the vehicle?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson, I didn't see anything like that, because my attention was fixed on the front for the passengers, so I don't know whether anyone further down in the row moved round to the back of the bakkie, I wouldn't be able to tell you.

MR LAX: Yes, thank you.

ADV SIBANYONI: Was this bakkie ever damaged on the right hand side?

MR DEETLEFS: No Chairperson, not as far as I can recall. There may have been exit holes, but as far as I am aware, from no point on the opposite side of the road, were any shots fired at the bakkie, and I am not aware of any damage which was incurred to the right side of the bakkie.

ADV SIBANYONI: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Sorry, re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Deetlefs, in your evidence you referred and I think you may have confused the names, you put Mr de Kock in Mr van Dyk's place. You may have mistakenly said that he was the person who was at the border?

MR DEETLEFS: If I said that, then I was confused, it was Mr van Dyk who was at the border.

MR PRINSLOO: And then there was a question which was put by the honourable Committee member, Mr Lax, that you could have charged Mr Sithole as was the case with Mr Sindane. Now, if you had charged Mr Sithole who was a witness who led these persons into a death trap and witnessed the killing of these persons, what would the consequences have been of him giving evidence in court?

MR DEETLEFS: He could have testified against us, he could have exposed that there was a prior agreement which was reached with him to bring these persons through and that we had broken the agreement by charging him and as I have said, he could have distanced himself from the content of the bakkie and said that he was simply the one undertaking the transport work, which would have led to a much lighter sentence for him. That would have been the motivation.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Sindane, he was a trained member of the ANC's MK?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Was his position different from that of Mr Sithole?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And in as far as it effects Mr Sindane, he was arrested by persons who were not attached to Security Branch?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct. As I have it, he was arrested by the TIN Unit.

MR PRINSLOO: So he couldn't be eliminated because he was already known to other persons?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And he was only arrested on the following day?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: No further questions, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

ON RESUMPTION:

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Pienaar will be the next witness, Mr Chairman. His application appears at pages 227 and follows.

FREDERICK JOHANNES PIENAAR: (sworn states)

MR LAX: Thank you, he is sworn in Chairperson. You may be seated.

EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Pienaar, you are also an applicant in this matter pertaining to the Nerston incident as it is now known?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I am.

MR PRINSLOO: And you have submitted an application which appears in Volume 1, page 227 to page 229, that is your formal application, and then the particular incident appears on page 230 to page 233?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And then from page 234 onwards up to and including page 241, your political motivation appears?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Pienaar, during these events which took place on the 14th of August 1986, you were a member of the South African Police Security Branch, and you occupied the rank of Warrant Officer and you were stationed at Piet Retief?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And you had the role of Branch Commander?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Pienaar, you were involved in the investigation into the matter of Maseko and Dladla?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And in as far as it effects this particular application, you handled this person known as Mr Sithole, who is also known during these proceedings as the informer?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Pienaar, could you tell the honourable Committee how it came to be that you came into contact with Mr Sithole?

MR PIENAAR: Primarily due to information which Mr Dladla had provided to me during his interrogation regarding a vehicle which was used by himself, but also by other persons, for the transportation and entry of trained persons from the ANC as well as weaponry which was connected to sabotage in the RSA.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Pienaar, during the investigation which you conducted with regard to Dladla and Maseko specifically, you obtained information as we have already heard from Mr Deetlefs, indicating that Dladla had travelled with this vehicle over the border at the border post?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And you confronted Dladla with this information?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And the specific vehicle which is relevant here, can be seen on Exhibit E which is before the Committee?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct, it was the same vehicle.

CHAIRPERSON: Exhibit E?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Mr Chairman, thank you Mr Chairman.

INTERPRETER: I beg your pardon Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Pienaar, how did you meet Mr Sithole, where did you see him?

MR PIENAAR: I am not entirely certain of the date. It was shortly before the shooting incident, a day or two, it may be three days, the Commander of the border post at Nerston contacted me and informed me that the vehicle that had been given up there, had to be monitored, that it was once again about to enter the RSA. I requested them to allow the vehicle into the RSA and to apprehend this vehicle some distance away from the border post and to detain this person for me there. They did so and once again contacted me, confirming that they had the person there with them, upon which - and I am not certain who travelled with me, I went to Nerston.

Some distance before the border post, we found the bakkie as well as Mr Sithole. This was my first meeting with him, I did not know him personally before the time. After this I took him to the office, my office at Piet Retief. There I interrogated him, I put certain things to him which initially he denied but later indeed conceded to, and conceded that he had assisted the ANC in Swaziland.

Furthermore there were threats, we made certain promises to him for his assistance, and he agreed with this. I allowed him to return to Nerston seeing as the gates closed at four o'clock at Nerston. I am not aware whether he went through immediately to Swaziland or whether he went elsewhere first.

On the morning of the 14th, that would be the morning directly after the abduction of Sidebe, someone from my office contacted me and told me that there was somebody that wished to see me. I went to the office where I found Mr Sithole. He informed me that there were arrangements that on this particular evening he was to pick up persons at Nerston who were carrying weaponry. He wasn't entirely certain about the exact number of persons which would be infiltrating, but the arrangements had been made, and the arrangement was for him to pick them up. He had come through on that day earlier, to undertake the reconnaissance along the border before the infiltration was to take place. As far as I know, he did not return to Swaziland on the 14th again, he remained in the RSA.

Mr de Kock and I, that I can recall, there may have been other persons as well, took this informer to Nerston where we arranged with him for a place where he would pick up the persons according to him. After that we also took him to a place on the Nerston/Amsterdam Road where he was supposed to stop under the pretence to his passengers, of needing to urinate after which an arrest would take place. He informed me that the persons were bringing weapons in and we also foresaw that these persons themselves may also possibly be armed. I told him that if he were to disembark under the pretence of needing to urinate, he should move quickly away from the vehicle, in the event of a shooting taking place. It was never said to him that a shooting would definitely take place. He understood it as such and undertook to cooperate.

Colonel de Kock and I returned to Piet Retief. Some of the members were at the safehouse where Mr Sidebe was interrogated. I am not entirely certain of everyone who was present there at that particular stage. We told them about the plans which had been formulated thus far. It was also decided there that these persons who would be coming in, would be killed. It was also arranged by Col de Kock with Capt van Dyk to take a group of Vlakplaas members to the T-junction near the Nerston border post, this was not on the border, it was approximately three kilometres away from the border post. The arrangement was for them to wait there and to see whether or not the persons actually did cross the border and then possibly kill those persons accompanying the group. We did not know how many persons there would be accompanying the group.

Furthermore, a person by the name of Dlamini had been mentioned by the informer, he would undertake the feedback to Swaziland. It was also arranged with van Dyk and the others to eliminate Dlamini in Swaziland. I know that at a certain stage Capt van Dyk voiced the objection that he wouldn't have known where the vehicle would be in Swaziland and furthermore he stated that they would possibly seize the person who performed the accompanying task and instruct him to show them where the vehicle in Swaziland, was waiting to pick him up again.

The fact materialised, on that evening we went out to the point that we had arranged with the informer. We took up position on the southern side of the road, the other members moved to the T-junction. All of us were positioned on the same side of the road, there were no other persons on the opposite or northern side of the road. Later the vehicle indeed arrived, it stopped, the driver jumped out immediately and moved away from the vehicle. All of us opened fire on the vehicle, today I cannot say who opened fire first. At that stage of the shooting, it might have been during the shooting or just before, it appeared to me as if the left door of the vehicle was opening and a man wanted to disembark from there. The person was shot back into the vehicle. After the shooting was completed, we found two persons in the front of the vehicle, both were dead. Diagonally at the back of the vehicle, the driver, Mr Sithole also lay, he was also dead. And I know that before the departure to the point, the order was issued to Mr Labuschagne to shoot the driver. I don't know whether he did so or who the person was that shot him. He was at the back of the vehicle, I didn't look at that part of the scene. In the front of the vehicle, with the two deceased persons, the left deceased, who was closest to the door, between his legs on the floor of the vehicle, there was a makarov pistol. The gun was damaged due to a gunshot, I could not open it to render it safe, it was left as such. Between the two persons in the front of the vehicle, there was also an F1 handgrenade with a detonator. I managed to secure this. In the back of the vehicle, there was an assortment of weapons in rucksacks and also outside the rucksacks. Col de Kock took an AK47 from the back of the vehicle and placed it next to Mr Sithole's body in the event of someone passing by, or in the event of the arrival of someone from the TIN Unit or the Defence Force which was operating in that area. Afterwards Mr van Dyk - contacted and stated that they had shot a person at their point. Furthermore he informed us that another person had escaped. Mr Botha went to where Mr van Dyk and the others were and the body of the deceased who later appeared to be Mr Sandile, was brought to where we were at the bakkie. This body was also placed there. All the deceased were transported to Piet Retief by Mr Botha himself after an officer had visited the scene. I took the autopsy report under the order of Col Deetlefs, we worked out the statements, had them typed and as these persons once again arrived at the offices, I got them to sign the statements in preparation of the dossier. On the following day, which was the 15th, I cannot recall precisely at what time, the TIN Unit came from the farm Trafford which is approximately ten kilometres away from the Nerston border post, they contacted me and informed me that they had arrested a person near a house somewhere in the vicinity where he had asked for food and directions, they stated that this person was injured. I went to Stafford immediately, I was accompanied by Mr Botha, where I found Mr Sindane at the base. He was blindfolded and the objection which was raised about the blindfold was that they didn't want this person to know what was going on at the base, nor did they want him to see the number of persons who were working at the base. Mr Sindane had suffered gunshot wounds, I do not know precisely how many, he was still able to walk independently, these were not very serious gunshot injuries as far as I can recall. We took him back to Piet Retief and on the way to Piet Retief, I removed his blindfold and took him to our offices where there were some of the other members as well. He immediately received medical treatment for his injuries at Piet Retief and then arrangements were made to transfer him to Bethal, due to the fact that the Section 29 detention cells in Piet Retief at that stage, were full, due to the detention of Mr Maseko and Dladla. Then he was indeed transferred to Bethal where the investigation against him was concluded later on.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Pienaar, Mr Sindane was later charged in the Regional Court in Ermelo?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And he was charged specifically for the weapons as it would appear in Exhibit A which has been served before the Committee?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Pienaar, these weapons which appear on Exhibit A, did you see and handle these weapons personally?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I did, I was with Mr de Kock.

MR PRINSLOO: Were you involved in the investigation into the matter pertaining to Mr Sindane?

MR PIENAAR: I did take certain statements there, but the Investigating Officer there was actually Col Deetlefs, due to the fact that Bethal was situated closer to Ermelo and I dealt with the matters of Messrs Dladla and Maseko, as well as the interrogation of Mr Sidebe which all took place at Piet Retief.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Pienaar, Mr Chairman, may I have sight of the original Exhibit A please, with your leave Mr Chairman, that is the photo's of the weapons. Mr Pienaar, if you study Exhibit A, the photo where the weapons appear, do you see the weapon you refer to, the pistol?

MR PIENAAR: I do see that Chairperson, it is on the extreme right on the photo, just below the magazines.

MR PRINSLOO: Is there anything wrong with that firearm?

MR PIENAAR: It is clear that this weapon had been damaged.

MR PRINSLOO: Which part had been damaged?

MR PIENAAR: The barrel, or I beg your pardon, the handle and the shifting mechanism.

MR PRINSLOO: Is this the firearm which you referred to which was in front of the van?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: As you see that pistol, could it have been damaged while it was laying on the floor of the vehicle?

MR PIENAAR: According to my judgement, no Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: What do you say, where would it have been damaged?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I would say in a person's hand or possibly on the dashboard in front, where it could have been damaged, possibly on the seat if it was on the side of the door.

CHAIRPERSON: The butt is damaged, isn't it?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So he couldn't have been holding it?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, it could be, maybe his hand, I don't know exactly where the deceased had been hit, I am not certain. It is possible.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Pienaar, during the shooting incident at the scene, did this happen very quickly, or what is the position?

MR PIENAAR: It happened extremely quickly Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Thereafter you dealt with the post mortem inquest and the statements which appear here, were drawn up by you and attested to?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And your own statement, is that the truth or not?

MR PIENAAR: There are certain parts of it which are true.

MR PRINSLOO: Would you briefly look at it, start with each paragraph. You refer to page 5 of the statement?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, page 5.

MR PRINSLOO: Volume 2?

MR PIENAAR: Paragraph 5, the observation service is not correct.

MR PRINSLOO: If I study paragraph 5 it says -

That is false?

MR PIENAAR: That is false, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: There was no observation?

MR PIENAAR: No.

MR PRINSLOO: And the other paragraph -

MR PIENAAR: My vehicle was parked next to the road Chairperson, but it was quite a way into the plantation. That is false.

MR PRINSLOO: And paragraph 7 -

MR PIENAAR: It was in our direction.

MR PRINSLOO:

MR PIENAAR: That is not true, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO:

MR PIENAAR: That is not true Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO:

MR PIENAAR: That is not true.

MR PRINSLOO:

Is that true?

MR PIENAAR: No.

MR PRINSLOO:

MR PIENAAR: Yes, he did jump out after he stopped.

MR PRINSLOO: But not under these circumstances?

MR PIENAAR: No.

MR PRINSLOO:

MR PIENAAR: No, that is not true.

MR PRINSLOO:

MR PIENAAR: That is not true.

MR PRINSLOO: Paragraph 9 -

Did it happen as such under those circumstances?

MR PIENAAR: No.

MR PRINSLOO:

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that was so, there were two of them.

MR PRINSLOO:

MR PIENAAR: That is so.

MR PRINSLOO: Was he laying in the road?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO:

MR PIENAAR: No, at that stage, it wasn't there.

MR PRINSLOO:

MR PIENAAR: That was no so.

MR PRINSLOO:

MR PIENAAR: No, that was not true.

MR PRINSLOO:

MR PIENAAR: Yes, there was a document.

MR PRINSLOO: Can you recall whether the name Shadrack was there?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, as far as I know, because he came through the border with it.

MR PRINSLOO:

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO:

MR PIENAAR: It was laying by his feet, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: The firearm was of Russian origin?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO:

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is so.

MR PRINSLOO:

MR PIENAAR: That is true.

MR PRINSLOO:

MR PIENAAR: It was one handgrenade Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO:

MR PIENAAR: It was only the one Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO:

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: By the way, are you an Explosives Expert?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I am Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO:

Do you agree with that?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is true.

MR PRINSLOO: All mentioned items from Russian origin?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO:

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO:

Can you recall who it was?

MR PIENAAR: It was Mr Sidebe.

MR PRINSLOO:

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: (No interpretation)

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO:

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO:

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Pienaar, on page 232 of your application, there you said the driver jumped out immediately and ran around the back of the vehicle, while the one passenger jumped out of the left front door, with a pistol in his hand.

MR PIENAAR: It appeared as such to me, Chairperson, that the left door of the vehicle started opening, and a person was in the process of climbing out. Thereafter immediately he was fired upon and he fell back into the vehicle and it appeared as if there was an object. I said it was a pistol, an object was in his hand when he wanted to climb out.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Pienaar, in so far it has regard to your application, or may I put it as follows - this post mortem inquest was informally completed?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Can you recall if any photo's of the corpses were taken?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I know we took photo's of Mr Sandile for the purposes of identification, but I am not certain whether photo's were taken of the persons who were killed at the vehicle. I cannot recall it as such.

MR PRINSLOO: But during the autopsy, were any identifications done?

MR PIENAAR: I was not present Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Can you recall whether you had in your possession any photo's for purposes of submission at a post mortem inquest?

MR PIENAAR: Not that I can recall, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Can you recall in this vehicle, Exhibit E, if there were any entry bullet holes on the right hand side?

MR PIENAAR: At this stage I cannot recall, there may have been possibly. But I do not know how they got there, because there was no one on the right hand side of the road.

MR PRINSLOO: And on your version, on which side were you?

MR PIENAAR: I was on the left hand side of the vehicle.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Pienaar, when you submitted this inquest to the Magistrate, did you know that the information entailed in this inquest is primarily false?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And it creates the impression that the persons there fired on you, or that you fired at the persons, or that you wanted to arrest them?

MR PIENAAR: That we wanted to arrest them and then from, out of self-defence, we killed these persons.

MR PRINSLOO: You personally, in Swaziland worked and managed sources and informants?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you give any money to Sithole beforehand?

MR PIENAAR: No, I did not.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Sithole, according to your knowledge that you could determine, was he a Swazi citizen?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, he was.

MR PRINSLOO: He was a person who lived in Swaziland?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Mention was made in one of the statements, you do not know what his career was?

MR PIENAAR: No, I do not. I know he had a piece of land that he used for agricultural purposes, but I don't know how large it was.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you have any information about Sidebe September as he is known before the shooting incident with regard to this infiltration?

MR PIENAAR: No Chairperson, not at all.

MR PRINSLOO: In this action that followed here, on this particular day, you were guilty of murder?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I am.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you do it for own personal gain?

MR PIENAAR: No, I did not.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you do it out of personal vengeance against those persons?

MR PIENAAR: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you regard them as your enemy?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I did.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you act in the execution of your duties, whether it be tacit or implicit?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Despite - besides the murder which you made yourself guilty of, did you realise that by submitting false facts, that you were committing perjury and obstructing the ends of justice?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I did.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you then request the honourable Committee that amnesty be granted to you for the murders which were committed there as well as possible charges of perjury and defeating the ends of justice?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I do.

MR PRINSLOO: As well as any other delict which might emanate from this?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Pienaar, you have already answered some of the questions that I wanted to ask you, maybe I should ask you just

to elaborate. You said that you did know that Mr Sithole owned a piece of land where he farmed mealies or he planted mealies, is that what he told you?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is what he told me.

MR HATTINGH : Did you know whether he was married and whether he had off-spring?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, according to him he had a wife, and I did not ask him about any children.

MR HATTINGH : He was then a person who was established in Swaziland?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR HATTINGH : And according to your information, had a set address?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH : According to your experience, is this the person who would be suitable for use as an askari, would he be willing to leave everything there and to go and live at Vlakplaas and be of assistance with the identification of terrorists?

MR PIENAAR: If it depended on me, no Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH : Did you know whether he was a member of the ANC?

MR PIENAAR: He was a collaborator and a supporter and in my eyes he was a member of the ANC.

MR HATTINGH : Did you know whether he had undergone any military training abroad?

MR PIENAAR: According to himself and information which we received later, he did not have training.

MR HATTINGH : With regard to the question of whether he had been involved in the ANC, maybe I should refer you to Bundle 2, page 73, that is the affidavit of Mr Dladla, paragraph 5 thereof. He said -

It would then appear as if this Mr Dladla regarded him as the Swazi ANC operation?

MR PIENAAR: That is possible Chairperson, but I may just add that I never took Mr Sithole to Mr Dladla, that would have been fatal, because they would have known that I had the person with me, and I wanted to recruit him as an informer.

MR HATTINGH : Very well then. On page 75 the statement of Mr Sindane, paragraph 2 -

And then paragraph 3 -

According to this it is clear that Mr Sithole was involved in the ANC?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH : Very well then, you have already testified that you moved around much in Swaziland. Did you have any sources in Swaziland who supplied you about ANC activities within Swaziland?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I had informers there.

MR HATTINGH : A few or many?

MR PIENAAR: I had a few Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH : Were they reliable?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, they were.

MR HATTINGH : According to your knowledge, were they established within ANC structures?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH : So they gave you inside information?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I would just like to mention furthermore that the Ermelo Branch of the Security Police actually handled the most sources or informers in Swaziland, that was Col Deetlefs and his staff there.

MR HATTINGH : The information which they obtained, was also brought to your attention, was that not so?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH : So then may I say that the Security Police Eastern Transvaal had many informers who gave them information about ANC activities?

MR PIENAAR: Yes Chairperson. There were members of Soweto as well, who had sources in Swaziland and no guideline was laid down that they should not have it. Much information came from Swaziland.

MR HATTINGH : And because of this many informers that you had, you were up to speed with which of the ANC persons found themselves in Swaziland and what they did there?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH : If Mr Sithole after the shooting incident, had been released, who do you think that the finger would have been pointing, who would have supplied the information about these infiltrations?

MR PIENAAR: Immediately to him.

MR HATTINGH : You were also involved in two similar shooting incidents close to the Piet Retief area, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR HATTINGH : These two incidents had already been heard by an Amnesty Committee in Durban, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH : And you also applied there and you testified there?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH : Which of these incidents, the Nerston and the two Piet Retief incidents, occurred first?

MR PIENAAR: I think the Nerston one was the first one.

MR HATTINGH : And in the Piet Retief incident, you also received information from a source, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH : Also a person who was a member of the ANC?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH : And that person, we know that it was a female, she was responsible for the arrangement of transport for persons who were brought into the country?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH : On the RSA side?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, on the RSA side.

MR HATTINGH : Was she your informer?

MR PIENAAR: No, her handler was Mr Theron.

MR HATTINGH : But she only made the arrangements for the transport, she did not accompany the persons who came into the country?

MR PIENAAR: No, she did not.

MR HATTINGH : She only supplied information about when and where they would enter the country?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH : And after the second incident, the shooting incident in which let us call it, both those incidents were also ambushes?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH : In which you decided beforehand that the occupants of the vehicle would be killed?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH : And that is how it was done?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR HATTINGH : And did you receive information as to what happened to this source of yours?

MR PIENAAR: She was abducted by the ANC to Zambia where she was detained for 13 months in a shipping container in the ground. She was raped several times according to her and was questioned and was abused before she was released later.

MR HATTINGH : So in that case the finger of suspicion was immediately pointed at her?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH : Do you know what information she supplied to the ANC during this interrogation?

MR PIENAAR: I don't know Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH : One of the persons, one of the applicants testified there that after her release from the ANC, he had contact with her, was it you?

MR PIENAAR: No, it was Mr Theron.

MR HATTINGH : And that she had supplied this information to Mr Theron?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH : Very well then. That informer, she would not have been able to tell the ANC who was involved in the ambushes, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: No, she did not know.

MR HATTINGH : So she would not be able to finger any of the police officers?

MR PIENAAR: No.

MR HATTINGH : You say no money was paid to Mr Sithole before the incident, was money promised to him?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, there was a promise of money.

MR HATTINGH : What was the amount?

MR PIENAAR: If I recall correctly, it was R10 000-00.

MR HATTINGH : Was he willing to assist you for payment of this money?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH : One of the questions which has been asked here today to a previous applicant was whether the firearms which we see on Exhibit A, the two photo's there, whether it had indeed been found in the vehicle or if it was just not planted there because of at Stratcom operation?

MR PIENAAR: No, it was definitely found in the vehicle.

MR HATTINGH : When you found it there, was it still in the four carry bags that we see in the photo's?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, it was still in there and if one goes to page 66 of Bundle 2, once again it is the statement of Mr Sindane, paragraph 8 thereof he says -

It is in other words four bags that he mentions there, not so?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR HATTINGH : And four were found in the vehicle, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH : He says -

And then in paragraph 10 he says -

There is confirmation of the fact that four carry sacks with firearms and ammunition were loaded into the van?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH : Could all these arms have fitted into these bags, or were some of them laying around loose, I refer to this RPG launcher, it doesn't appear from the photo if it would fit into one of the bags?

MR PIENAAR: No, it wouldn't.

MR HATTINGH : So some of it were outside the bags?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH : Mr Pienaar, then in so far as your version of what happened at the scene, differs from Mr de Kock, you have heard his version that no person climbed out of the vehicle on the left hand side, and immediately after the vehicle had stopped, he started firing. Is it possible that you may be mistaken, according to your version, that a person did not climb out or attempted to climb out?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, as far as I can recall, and imagine, a person tried to climb out.

MR HATTINGH : How far did he progress with this attempt?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I would not be able to say that he climbed out outside the vehicle. He tried to, he was on his way climbing out, when the shooting ensued.

MR HATTINGH : Are you saying that he was on his - climbing out because you saw the door opening?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct, it happened so quickly, that one cannot exactly say how far he was out of the vehicle or whatever.

MR HATTINGH : You did not see any part of his body outside the vehicle?

MR PIENAAR: His hands were on the door, or his hand was on the door. I cannot specifically recall of any other part of his body.

MR HATTINGH : And then a further aspect please, the decision which you took that the infiltrators would be eliminated, was this only connected to the incident during which a tractor driver was injured or killed, I cannot recall, and where a young boy lost his leg, or were this attached to other incidents?

MR PIENAAR: There were many other incidents, Chairperson, specifically the tractor incident. The one tractor incident, there were actually two, in one, no one was injured, and in the other, persons were injured, and where this boy lost his leg, that was Mr Maseko and Dladla. They had already been arrested by then.

MR HATTINGH : And do I understand you correctly that the injury to the tractor driver and the explosion which led, was the tractor driver injured or killed?

MR PIENAAR: He was only injured Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH : That incident and the incident during which the young boy was injured, were those two separate incidents?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, they were separate incidents.

MR HATTINGH : Days apart or on the same day?

MR PIENAAR: No, it was apart. The one incident of the tractor where the person was injured, was the same day as the kid who lost his leg.

MR HATTINGH : But the tractor driver was not injured?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct, yes. As I have said, it was approximately, these farms were approximately five kilometres apart. In the Volksrust incident, the other tractor incident was at Breyton, as well as a vehicle incident where a person lost his leg. That was also at Breyton, it was also the same day that those two incidents happened.

MR HATTINGH : And your information was that it was the same cell, ANC activists, who were responsible for all these explosions?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH : Not necessarily the same members all the time, but various combinations of members of that cell?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH : Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Pienaar, could I just take you back to the point where the bakkie stopped. I just want to understand your evidence correctly, do you say that you clearly saw the left front door of the bakkie opening?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Pienaar, can you recall whether this took place before the shooting ensued or afterwards?

MR PIENAAR: As I have stated, everything happened very quickly, I would have to speculate quite extensively as to whether or not it was a second before or a second after or during the shooting. Everything happened too quickly for me to recall.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. As I have understood your evidence in terms of what Mr Hattingh has put to you, the man had not yet disembarked from the vehicle?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: He was in the process of disembarking?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: In other words, could we accept that his leg had not yet reached the ground?

MR PIENAAR: No, not as far as I can recall, not at all.

MR DU PLESSIS: And as I understand you, or let me put it as such, what did you see in his hand?

MR PIENAAR: To me it seemed to be a firearm or a pistol.

MR DU PLESSIS: Because you testified that it appeared as if he had an object in his hand and then you stated a pistol in his hand, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: In your amnesty application, you were quite certain that it was indeed a pistol?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, at that stage.

MR DU PLESSIS: Well, can you recall whether or not you saw a pistol in his hand?

MR PIENAAR: This is another one of those things.

MR DU PLESSIS: Or is it possible that you may have been mistaken?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is also possible, because everything happened so quickly. One would look and then open fire, everything happened very quickly. There wasn't enough time to identify every single thing at that stage.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Mr Pienaar, I just want to put it to you that if he was seated on the left hand side, by nature of the situation, and if he had had a pistol in his hand, then in all probability if you had seen the pistol, it would have been in his left hand, and he would also have had to open the door with his left hand, so it appears quite improbable to me that you would have seen him opening the door and wielding a pistol in his left hand, at the same time.

MR PIENAAR: Yes, it is speculative.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, then we agree. Mr Chairman, if you will just bear with me, I am nearly finished. If you look at Exhibit E, do you have it, that would be the photograph of the bakkie, do you see it?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do you see that there are various bullet marks on the left side of the left front door?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: In other words if we look at this, would you agree with me that that door in all probability had to have been closed when those bullets hit it?

MR PIENAAR: No, not necessarily.

MR DU PLESSIS: Then how do you say it could have happened differently?

MR PIENAAR: I never said that the door was completely open.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, then in other words do I understand you correctly, do you say that those bullet holes could still have been shot into the door if the door was only slightly ajar?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Chairperson, nothing further.

MR ROSSOUW: Rossouw, Mr Chairman, I have no questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Pienaar, can you recall at which stage and where the order was issued to Labuschagne to shoot the informer?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, if I can recall correctly, I think it was at the house where all of us were. That is as far as I can recall, I am not one hundred percent certain. That is as far as I can recall.

MR LAMEY: So you are not entirely certain?

MR PIENAAR: No, I am not completely certain of which stage it was.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall whether this was after a discussion between you and Capt Deetlefs and the then Capt de Kock?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, Capt Deetlefs and Capt de Kock and I never went aside and made any plans by ourselves. Things were handled quite openly before other persons who were also present.

MR LAMEY: You see because as I understand Mr Deetlefs' evidence, he was not at the Security office, but he understands that there was a discussion at the Security office and he was informed about it at the safehouse or at the place outside Piet Retief, and as I understand his evidence, a discussion then ensued pertaining to the driver and that is when the other members, who were also present, were informed?

MR PIENAAR: No, I think it was that Mr de Kock and I took the informer and there already began making plans and upon our return, we conveyed these plans to him with regard to what we thought about the whole story that far. There was never any real meeting or discussions which were held at the office itself as far as I can recall.

MR LAMEY: You see Mr Fourie recalls a discussion which took place at the Security offices and he states that at that stage from time to time, he had been at the safehouse, but he says that the discussion took place at the Security offices and at that stage, it came to his knowledge with regard to the shooting of the informer, now I want to ask you whether you can recall independently whether or not Mr Fourie was at the place outside Piet Retief, where this matter was discussed.

MR PIENAAR: I don't know whether he was there. I wasn't present during that discussion. I know that Mr Fourie was busy with identification which were conducted by Mr Dladla and Maseko, so I wouldn't be able to tell you precisely whether or not at that point, he was at the safehouse. I would have to guess.

MR LAMEY: Very well. And then Mr Fourie does not know and he does not deny it either, it is just beyond his field of knowledge, this is with regard to the meeting that you had with Sithole at Nerston, did you tell him that you brought him to the Security Branch offices?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Can I just tell you what Mr Fourie's recollection is, he saw this person for the first time at the Security offices?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And that is where a discussion took place with him, during which it came to Mr Fourie's knowledge that this man was transporting MK soldiers over the border?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is entirely possible.

MR LAMEY: Furthermore his recollection was with regard to that occasion that mention was made to him, that he had to bring people through?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, he said that there were orders, but he wasn't sure about the date upon which he would bring these persons through.

MR LAMEY: And then Mr Fourie also recalls that you also wanted to know from him how many persons there would be, what weapons they would have and as he understood, he had to obtain that further information and return with it?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: And upon that occasion as well, the first time that he saw him there, he also states that a reward was promised to him.

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: And his recollection is that he was then registered as some sort of an informer?

MR PIENAAR: No. He was never registered, no documentation was ever completed which would contain his particulars and so forth.

MR LAMEY: Very well, but his impression is that he was some new form of an informer?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, it was the first time that we had seen him upon that day.

MR LAMEY: The second time when he returned, he brought this further information?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And Mr Fourie's recollection is that he would bring three or four persons through?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, he wasn't certain of the precise number of persons, but he did mention three or four, it may also have been four or five, I am not completely certain, but he was not sure of the number of persons.

MR LAMEY: Very well. And that they would also have weapons on them?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And then Mr Fourie states that you mentioned to him at a particular point that you knew this person and that you knew that he had previously undertaken infiltrations, this is after he had been there for the first time, you stated this to him and furthermore you also stated - let me just find the specific place - that you didn't trust him completely.

MR PIENAAR: That is correct, because he told me, this is Mr Sithole, that he had previously transported persons into the Republic and also that he and the vehicle had been applied for landmine incidents and when the vehicle was not used by Mr Dladla.

MR LAMEY: Now what Mr Fourie also recalls is that the second time that he came, Mr Fourie was with you. He says that there was also another third person who was present, in his written application he states that he isn't certain, but that he would imagine that it may have been Mr Botha, however, he isn't certain and we will not put this to Mr Botha as a definite fact, but you and he and another person then went with Sithole to this place on the Nerston road?

MR PIENAAR: That is entirely possible Chairperson, I have stated in my evidence that Col de Kock and I travelled with him. There may have been another person who was present, but I am no longer certain, but it is entirely certain that he went with us. But Mr Botha was not present, it was Mr de Kock.

MR LAMEY: At which stage was this place where Paul van Dyk and the others were supposed to take up positions, identified and how did they know that they were supposed to go there?

MR PIENAAR: Mr van Dyk had previously a number of years before, been stationed at the Nerston border post, he knew the place very well, and by nature of his work, he also knew the vicinity very well. That is why he acted in this incident.

MR LAMEY: Whatever the case may be, Mr Fourie was present during this occasion and you went along to this place on the Nerston road, which you then showed to Sithole as the place where he was supposed to stop?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And Mr Fourie also states that Sithole didn't know definitely what the plan was?

MR PIENAAR: No, he did not. He did not know what the planning was.

MR LAMEY: But it is so that it was stated to him that a possible shooting could ensue?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct, that is why I told him to move away from the vehicle.

MR LAMEY: And what Mr Fourie also recalls is that Sithole was informed that the excuse for stopping would be that he needed to urinate?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And that he was supposed to disembark from the vehicle on the right side and move out to the right in a diagonal direction?

MR PIENAAR: Yes. He was the driver, so he would have to climb out on the right hand side and move away from the vehicle to the back.

MR LAMEY: You see this movement to the back, Mr Fourie doesn't have any recollection about this?

MR PIENAAR: That would be in the event of a shooting.

MR LAMEY: You see if he moved to the back, he would be moving on the road, and that was no place to be moving about, not on the road, one would have to move right over the road?

MR PIENAAR: Well, I didn't tell him where he was supposed to go and urinate. This was at night, and I suppose one could have stood anywhere.

MR LAMEY: But did you tell Sithole to move to the back?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, in the event of any problems arising or a shooting ensued.

MR LAMEY: Did you tell him to move away to the right of the vehicle to urinate?

MR PIENAAR: No, he could have gone anywhere that he wanted. I told him to move away to the back in the event of a shooting taking place, but he understood that an arrest would be conducted.

MR LAMEY: Very well, I am just putting it to you that Mr Fourie does not recall that the order was to move to the back.

MR PIENAAR: That was put to him.

MR LAMEY: Mr Fourie's recollection is that the instruction was to move to the right across the road.

MR PIENAAR: No, right would still have been in the line of fire, where the shooting was taking place. It would not have served any purpose to say this, he would have known that if there was a shooting, he would have been able to witness this.

MR LAMEY: Then at the scene, it is my instructions, that Mr Fourie, as Mr Deetlefs instructed, took up his position from where he would shoot and that this was part of a straight line which all the members formed, and that there were no other members on the other side, only on the one side of the road, in a single file?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: He was the first person at the front side of the bakkie?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is possible, I cannot recall precisely where everybody was. I cannot indicate everyone's position to the Committee today.

MR LAMEY: And then Mr Fourie also states that ...

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry before you go on, where were you?

MR PIENAAR: I don't know where I was in the line. After the vehicle stopped, the men opened fire and I assume that I moved up to the vehicle, but I cannot recall whether I was second, third or fourth in line, I am not completely certain.

MR LAX: Sorry Mr Lamey, just to follow up, you said you moved up to the vehicle?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR LAX: What do you mean by that?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, we were in a line along the road, but the vehicle did not stop at the front near the mark where it was supposed to stop, and not everybody was in front of that mark. When the shooting ensued, all of us moved up to the front of the vehicle where the persons were then ultimately shot. Some of the persons remained behind, I think it was Mr Labuschagne and Mr Botha, if I recall correctly. They remained at the vehicle and Mr Labuschagne's order was then to shoot the driver.

MR LAX: Besides Labuschagne, did no one else stay at the back of the vehicle?

MR PIENAAR: I think Mr Botha was with him at the back of the vehicle, I am not entirely certain. As I have stated, I cannot recall the position of every person during this shooting. There may also have been other persons, but I am afraid that I cannot recall.

MR LAX: Because you were expecting more than just two people to be with Sithole?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct yes.

MR LAX: And the others would have presumably been in the back in the bakkie?

MR PIENAAR: And that is why shots were also fired into the back of the bakkie. Although we did not want this initially, because we were afraid of the explosives detonating due to the gunfire.

MR LAX: Thank you, sorry Mr Lamey.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Mr Fourie also states furthermore that he agrees that the driver or the informer then, was situated more to the back of the vehicle after he was shot?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Then Mr Fourie states and I don't know whether you know anything about this, he states that to him it was strange that the person disembarked and moved to the back. He said that he subsequently heard someone said that he wanted to open the canopy, do you know anything about such a discussion?

MR PIENAAR: No, I don't know anything about that.

MR LAMEY: Very well. And then, did I understand your evidence correctly that the person who was shot dead at the other side, where the T-junction was, was he brought to the scene, his body?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, he was brought to the bakkie.

MR LAMEY: So ultimately there were four deceased at the scene?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: But there was no one in the back, in the canopy?

MR PIENAAR: No.

MR LAMEY: Very well, my instructions are that although Mr Fourie was under that impression in his written application, in response to the other evidence here, he states that he will not dispute it, because he is not certain about that, and that it is possible that the fourth person that he has recalled at the scene, may have been confused with someone in the back of the bakkie?

MR PIENAAR: No, there was no one else in the back of the bakkie.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson, I've got no further questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RAMAWELE: Thank you Mr Chair, just one question. Mr Pienaar, did Mr van Dyk tell you who shot that person at the T-junction?

MR PIENAAR: No, he did not tell me specifically who shot him, I think he told me that he himself shot him, I am not entirely certain, but I think so.

MR RAMAWELE: Mr Nofomele will say that Mr van Dyk never shot that person, he was actually, that person and the person who escaped was shot by Mr Nofomele and the other two white members who were with Mr Nofomele.

MR PIENAAR: That is possible Chairperson, I am not entirely certain.

MR RAMAWELE: That is all.

MR LAMEY IN FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION: Chairperson, I apologise, there is one aspect that I just want to put to Mr Pienaar, which I have just omitted. Mr Pienaar, Mr Fourie's recollection is also that Sithole, and that would be with regard to the discussion at the Security offices when he was there, stated that he had to transport these persons that he was bringing through to the East Rand?

MR PIENAAR: He did transport persons to the East Rand and with this particular case, if I recall correctly, he said that he had to take them to Johannesburg, but I don't know precisely where.

MR LAMEY: Somewhere on the Rand?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: And then just in conclusion, you confirm what Col Deetlefs has already testified to, that although Mr Fourie was at C2, while he was working in the area with photo identifications and so forth, pertaining to other ANC members who had been arrested, that he was under your command?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson, I've got no further questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Pienaar, I have seen here in Mr Maseko's statement on page 71, paragraph 8 that Mr Maseko states that on the 11th of August 1986 at 20H00, he saw this relevant bakkie on Exhibit E, at the police station which was driven in by Mr Tina, a police officer?

MR PIENAAR: No, if it was the 11th upon which I saw it for the first time, it couldn't have been that late in the day, because as I said the border post gates at Nerston closed at four o'clock and he would have had to return to Swaziland before four. I did not have the bakkie at the police station.

MS VAN DER WALT: I also see that Mr Dladla states on page 74 something to a similar effect?

MR PIENAAR: No, that is not correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And the police officer would not have been driving the bakkie at that stage?

MR PIENAAR: No, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Deetlefs gave evidence regarding the weapons which were withdrawn to eliminate these persons, was this at the Security Branch offices?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, it was in my office in the safe.

MS VAN DER WALT: And your office is how far from the police station?

MR PIENAAR: Approximately one and a half kilometres from the police station.

MS VAN DER WALT: So therefore it is not in the same building?

MR PIENAAR: No.

MS VAN DER WALT: Then I also want to refer you to Mr Maseko's affidavit on page 71, paragraph 12 where he says that when he was at the police station, he saw members of the Security Police who were supplied with weapons there. That can also not be correct?

MR PIENAAR: No, no member of the Security Branch drew any weapons from the police station itself.

MS VAN DER WALT: He also states specifically that there was someone by the name of Badenhorst?

MR PIENAAR: No, there was a Badenhorst with us Chairperson, but as I have stated, we did not draw weapons from the police themselves.

MS VAN DER WALT: Nothing further, thank you Chairperson.

MR LAX: Sorry, just while we are on this point, was Badenhorst involved in this operation?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I can recall that he was there. I took his statement for the PMI, so he was there. I cannot recall everybody, but I saw that he was there.

MR LAX: Is it not possible that he might have got weapons somewhere else?

MR PIENAAR: No Chairperson, we had our own weapons. He and I specifically had been issued with a personal set, apart from the weapons in the safe, one had one's own weapons as a person.

MR LAX: Yes, but I am talking about say the R1, that he would have used?

MR PIENAAR: He was issued with an R1, all of us were.

MR LAX: Do you remember which group Badenhorst was part of?

MR PIENAAR: With Mr van Dyk if I remember correctly.

MR LAX: Because it has just struck me that Mr de Kock's evidence was that those people had silenced weapons?

MR PIENAAR: I beg your pardon?

MR LAX: Those people had silenced weapons according to Mr de Kock? Those people didn't have normal issue weapons?

MR PIENAAR: I heard what he said yes.

MR LAX: He spoke about handguns and he spoke about HMCs?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct, yes. If Badenhorst was there, it is possible that he may have obtained a weapon from Vlakplaas members to be there.

MR LAX: Well, is it not possible that those weapons might have been kept in the safe in the charge office?

MR PIENAAR: No, we would not have obtained weapons fitted with silencers in the safe at the police station.

MR LAX: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I take it from that that you wouldn't want the police station to know what you people were doing?

MR PIENAAR: No Chairperson.

MR LAX: Mr Nthai?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NTHAI: Mr Pienaar, is it normal that the ANC operatives if they were coming outside of the country, was it normal that they would carry things like RPG7s with them?

MR PIENAAR: It has happened previously yes Chairperson, not always. There were cases where they didn't have anything except for a pistol or a handgrenade.

MR NTHAI: Would you agree with me that in most cases, such kind of weapons would be buried somewhere in the DLBs, you agree with that, with your experience?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, it would be in a DLB that had already been established, yes.

MR NTHAI: So, this particular case where these arms were found with the RPG7s, it is an exception to what would happen normally, not so?

MR PIENAAR: No Chairperson, I have had instances where things were brought in, so I would not say that it was an exception. We have found RPG7s that had already been established in DLBs, that is so, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: But before they could be established in DLBs, they would have to be brought into the country, not so?

MR PIENAAR: That is entirely correct Chairperson.

MR NTHAI: And you did check, you did check this photo, these weapons that appear in the photo?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I did check it along with Mr de Kock.

MR NTHAI: And you are quite certain that everything that was there, is here?

MR PIENAAR: Yes Chairperson. I have a suspicion that the one AK which was planted with the deceased Sithole, is not on this photo, because it was not part of according to our post mortem statements, it was not part of the load in the back of the van.

MR NTHAI: No, let's get something clear. Let's differentiate where you lie about the inquest and what actually happened. The AK47 that was placed next to the driver, was part of these things that were gotten in the bakkie, is that not so?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: But later, as I understand it, the investigators, apart from you, arrived on the scene and they took the photograph of the weapons?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: They wouldn't have known nothing about the AK being taken out of the bakkie?

MR PIENAAR: No, they did not know of it.

MR LAX: Maybe you can explain for me in the light of that, sorry Mr Pienaar, maybe in the light of the answer you have just given to the Chairperson that the AK47 wasn't part of the load in the bakkie, why is the Makarov appearing then?

MR PIENAAR: This was because of the damage to the weapon there.

MR LAX: Yes, but the Makarov was in the possession of the one deceased?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR LAX: And the AK was in possession of the other deceased?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct Chairperson.

MR LAX: So why aren't they all part of the same bundle then?

MR PIENAAR: The person or the driver of the vehicle jumped out and just moved away from the vehicle, and we said he had an AK in his hands, and he was shot there and that is why this firearm was ...

MR LAX: Yes, but you also said that the one passenger had a weapon in his hand?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR LAX: And you found it right there?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAX: And the same thing applied to the handgrenades that you said the other passenger had?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR LAX: In his possession?

MR PIENAAR: They were still in the vehicle Chairperson, and that is why it was kept there.

MR LAX: But why are you then not differentiating between the load of weapons being brought in and the personal weapons each person had?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR LAX: It just does not make sense to me.

MR PIENAAR: We mentioned it in the statements of the post mortem inquest, that this AK was found with the driver of the vehicle, that he had climbed out with that firearm and it was not at the back of the vehicle as was indeed the truth.

MR LAX: Yes, but you said the same thing about the weapons that were in the front of the car?

MR PIENAAR: Correct yes.

MR LAX: Why is the distinction drawn, it doesn't make sense to me?

MR PIENAAR: I cannot say why, but that is how I have it.

CHAIRPERSON: Was the driver photographed at the scene, laying there with the AK47?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I think photo's were taken there, yes. I am not certain whether photo's were taken of all the bodies, I cannot recall.

MR LAX: Surely you would have taken or had photographs taken of the other deceased with the Makarov at his feet, the one with the handgrenades behind his body?

MR PIENAAR: That is entirely possible Chairperson, as I said I cannot recall exactly.

MR LAX: Because at that stage, you wouldn't have known that it was going to be an informal inquest?

MR PIENAAR: Exactly.

MR LAX: So you would have done the necessary forensic work?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct, yes.

MR LAX: Please carry on.

MR NTHAI: I still come back to that question that I asked, in your normal experience, the ANC operatives who were going to do the actual fighting, I am not talking about people who transport the arms, normally they wouldn't be carrying things like RPG7s, not so? There will be people who transport arms, there will be people who are going to do the actual fighting, is that not the case?

MR PIENAAR: There were various incidents Chairperson, as I have already said, there were no guidelines there. I cannot speak on behalf of the ANC, as I have said. We have already had incidents where people came in with various types of weapons.

MR NTHAI: I am not talking about the ANC, I am talking about your experience. If you rate them in terms of percentage, which cases did you find more, did you find cases where the fighters would be having things like RPG5s and a lot of ammunition with them, or you will have rate the ones that normally the people who are not involved in the fighting, would be the ones who were going to transport the firearms, in terms of your experience?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I would say the incidents where the DLBs had already been established in the country, would be found were in the majority.

MR NTHAI: Is it also correct that it is part of the operation that the people who put the firearms, should not be known to the people who are going to do the actual fighting, is that not correct?

MR PIENAAR: No, there were various incidents where trained persons had established the DLBs, where they send a map back to the Commander or hand it over to him, and then other people come there and take it out again. It is so, but I would not say in all cases.

MR NTHAI: Now what other firearms are not on this photo which you can recall, which were there, except the AK47?

MR PIENAAR: All the firearms are there, Chairperson.

MR NTHAI: I am asking you ...

CHAIRPERSON: Before we go on, something struck me suddenly in the light of what my colleague asked you that I was under the impression that the firearm whose name I don't recollect, the one with the, the automatic weapon with the long thin barrel, long thin butt ...

MR PIENAAR: VZ25, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Hm?

MR PIENAAR: The VZ25 Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: That that had been brought back from the shooting at the border?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And it was not in the bakkie?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct Chairperson.

MR NTHAI: So this, okay maybe you will explain, this photo, where is this place? In other words where were these things assembled and the photo taken?

MR PRINSLOO: Could we have the original please Mr Chairman, Exhibit A?

CHAIRPERSON: It is quite clearly taken in an office somewhere, because the first photo with the carrier bags has a carpet under it?

MR PIENAAR: That would be the Security offices at Piet Retief Chairperson. It is in the office in Piet Retief.

MR NTHAI: While you are still holding that original, does it indicate when those photo's were taken?

MR PIENAAR: This was used in a case Chairperson, as far as I can recall ...

MR PRINSLOO: In the Ebrahim Maseko trial.

MR PIENAAR: In the Ebrahim Maseko matter, but I didn't have it.

MR NTHAI: Well, no, no is it not written there, that is why you've got the original, is it not written? Normally they will write, no, next to the photo's there, it is either at the back of the photo when the photo was taken or somewhere to assist whoever, the photographer has to do that?

MR PIENAAR: The key to the photo's is not in here.

MR NTHAI: It is not in there?

MR PIENAAR: No.

MR NTHAI: And that is not normal if it is going to be used for a trail, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: Yes. I don't know where it is.

MR NTHAI: It is very strange that this document is supposed to have been used in such a high trial, not so?

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think you can say it was supposed to be used, it was used.

MR NTHAI: That is what I am saying.

MR PIENAAR: Much was made of these, copies of these photo's, Chairperson, because at a High Court trial, eight copies were needed, so the others might have had keys to it, I don't know. That should have been done.

MR NTHAI: Did you testify in that trial of Maseko?

MR PIENAAR: Of Maseko, yes, I did.

MR NTHAI: What were you testifying about? Well, did you testify about these firearms?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, where it was found, yes.

MR NTHAI: Did you testify, when you testify, you should remember that, when you testified, was there a key that was guiding you?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I believe there was one, in the album that was there, I am sure of it.

MR NTHAI: Okay. You know I am raising all these things because if you go to page 76, that is VusImusi’s affidavit, that is paragraph 8 which was read to you by my learned friend, about the backs confirming that it appears that the bags were four and what bothers me is that there is no mention of the RPG7 and it is such a big firearm which one would have expected him to mention?

MR PIENAAR: I see that Chairperson. I would agree that the RPG7 launcher wouldn't have fitted into the bags, but Mr Sindane also says that -

so he also had a vague memory as to what was in the bag.

MR NTHAI: Well, we were told that you were the one telling Mr Deetlefs about the detention of Mr Maseko and Dladla is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: As the questioning and the investigation continued, I regularly gave reports to him, as well as Head Office.

MR NTHAI: Was it in writing or it was both verbal and in writing?

MR PIENAAR: No, it was always typed when it was sent to the Regional Office, Col Deetlefs and from there, to Middelburg the Regional Office and from there to Head Office. There were certain instances where I contacted him telephonically, that might be possible.

MR NTHAI: Before the 11th of August, in other words before you came into contact with Mr Sithole who you have heard from Dladla and Maseko, you had already heard about the name of Paul Dikeledi, not so?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I have.

MR NTHAI: So you had information about that, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, Paul Dikeledi was a well-known ANC figure in Swaziland, he had been well known for a long time, it was not a matter of suddenly here was information about Paul. Regularly new information was obtained about him, but he had been known about for a long time.

MR NTHAI: What new information did they tell you which you did not know at the time?

MR PIENAAR: I said regularly new information came in as to where he was moving and what he was doing, what he was being connected to. It was a continuous report about persons in Swaziland Chairperson.

MR NTHAI: I am talking about Maseko and Dladla, what new information did they give you which you did not know at the time?

MR PIENAAR: Paul Dikeledi did not give me any information about Dladla and Maseko.

MR NTHAI: Dladla and Maseko you interrogated them?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I did.

MR NTHAI: What new information you did not know at that stage, which they told you?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, what stage is now being referred to, information from whom? It is not quite clear.

MR LAX: Sorry there is a bit of confusion here. You are being asked about what information about Dikeledi did you get from Maseko and Dladla. Are you saying Maseko and Dladla or Maseko and Sindane?

MR NTHAI: No, Dladla and Maseko.

MR LAX: Dladla and Maseko?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, there was much information. I worked with Mr Dladla and Maseko for about four months or so with interrogation and pointings out and all those types of things, so the time period that they were with me, there was no new information. The information that they gave to me, were of the landmines which they had planted in the RSA under instruction of Mr Paul Dikeledi, all the arrangements he had made. These were all things that were said there, it was not a matter of suddenly there was brand new information now.

MR NTHAI: Did they give you any information about Glory Sidebe?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson yes, during the identification which was actually done by Mr Fourie, there was information about Mr Sidebe but at that stage I had Mr Sidebe with me any way, but before that, it was usual information about where Sidebe was, where he was last seen and all those types of information.

MR NTHAI: Mr Pienaar, I just want you to confine you between for now, let's talk about June and July, Maseko and Dladla were arrested on the 21st of June, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR NTHAI: Let's confine ourselves there. Did they tell you about Sidebe during that time, before you had Sidebe with you any how?

MR PIENAAR: His name was probably mentioned Chairperson. My initial investigation, but the most important at that stage was that the landmine incidents in the Eastern Transvaal, and that is what I focused on. I do not believe that there was much talk about Mr Sidebe and whether information was given about him.

MR NTHAI: So his abduction did not arise from the interrogation of Maseko and Dladla, is that what you are saying?

MR PIENAAR: No, not at all.

MR NTHAI: Did you know about this plan to abduct him?

MR PIENAAR: I was present, yes.

MR NTHAI: And this plan came with de Kock?

MR PIENAAR: No Chairperson, Col de Kock did not formulate the plan to abduct Sidebe. In any case the matter will be heard before the Committee next week, Chairperson.

MR NTHAI: Now I want to take you to the recruitment of the driver. I mean he was recruited as an informer, it is as simple as that, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct, yes.

MR NTHAI: He was not threatened, he was recruited and promised money?

MR PIENAAR: He was also threatened, Chairperson.

MR NTHAI: So it was a combination of threats and promises?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct yes.

MR NTHAI: So it is not correct for Deetlefs to deny that he was promised some money?

MR PIENAAR: I don't know if Deetlefs knew about that.

MR NTHAI: So he heard about the threats from you?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR NTHAI: Did you tell him about the promises for money?

MR PIENAAR: I could have and I could not have, I am not certain.

MR NTHAI: Well you were here, you were here this morning, not so? You were here, he didn't know about the money story?

MR PIENAAR: That is entirely possible yes.

MR NTHAI: Why didn't you tell him?

MR PIENAAR: I didn't have to tell him. It was an attempt to recruit this man, there were no costs attached to it, it was just a promise to the man, that did not render any damage to anything or anyone.

MR NTHAI: What do you mean there were no costs, you were going to pay him, not so?

MR PIENAAR: I would have, yes.

MR NTHAI: So what do you mean there were no costs?

MR PIENAAR: At that stage, there was only a promise to him, there were no costs at that stage.

MR NTHAI: But ultimately you were going to pay him, is that not correct?

MR PIENAAR: It could have been possible, yes.

MR NTHAI: And for an informer to be paid, he doesn't have to be registered, not correct? You can pay an unregistered informer?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, unregistered informers also received payment.

MR NTHAI: According to you, you interacted with him. Did he agree to work with you because of force that you, or because of threats that you directed against him, or it was because of the promise of money, a big sum of money, R10 000-00?

MR PIENAAR: I think it was a combination of the monetary gain and probably the fear itself.

MR NTHAI: What fear, what fear? This man you say was a Swazi citizen, what fear?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, he came to the RSA to do many things. We could have also informed the Swazi police of his activities, which would have made life very difficult for him thereafter.

MR NTHAI: What would they have done, the Swazi police? He committed no crime, what would they have done?

MR PIENAAR: He worked with the ANC in Swaziland. That would have created problems for him.

MR NTHAI: But it was not a crime that he worked with the ANC in Swaziland, not so? It is not a crime?

MR PIENAAR: No, but the transport of goods in Swaziland was indeed a crime.

MR NTHAI: This man, you told us he was established in Swaziland, he had a family, he had a piece of land which according to you, he was tendering or ploughing?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct yes.

MR NTHAI: If indeed he gave in to your threats, he could have just stayed in Swaziland and not come to South Africa any more, he had nothing to loose, not so?

MR PIENAAR: He could have probably Chairperson, but I think the monetary advantage prompted him to want to work.

MR NTHAI: It took you some time for you to agree that it was monetary, that that really prompted him, is that not correct?

MR PIENAAR: Please repeat that.

MR NTHAI: I say I have been asking you questions, it took you some time just to accept that it is the monetary part of it that ...

MR PIENAAR: I said that I think ...

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I submit he did answer the question.

MR LAX: I am now puzzled, in that interaction, I couldn't hear the answer myself. Please would you just repeat the answer.

MR PIENAAR: On the last question?

MR LAX: Yes.

MR PIENAAR: I said that I think it could be possible that it was the monetary advantage that prompted him.

MR NTHAI: You are saying on the morning of the 14th, the driver, de Kock and yourself were together to go and pin-point this spot, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: Where we showed the points to him, yes.

MR NTHAI: You drove to that place?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct, yes, to Nerston.

MR NTHAI: How far was it from where you were driving from?

MR PIENAAR: It is approximately 45 kilometres Chairperson, where we are from the border post.

MR NTHAI: And what kind of a vehicle were you using?

MR PIENAAR: I cannot recall whose vehicle we used.

MR NTHAI: But it was a private vehicle, you were all in the same car the three of you?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, yes.

MR NTHAI: And on the way you were conversing about this incident that is supposed to take place?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct yes.

MR NTHAI: And in the presence of Mr de Kock, Sithole did talk about these people who were supposed to come in, is that not correct?

MR PIENAAR: Correct yes.

MR NTHAI: And you are saying he was not sure as to how many people were going to come in?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct yes.

MR NTHAI: Was he sure that the people would be armed?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct yes.

MR NTHAI: Where did he get the information?

MR PIENAAR: I don't know.

MR NTHAI: When he told you, what did he tell you, what made him to believe that they would be armed?

MR PIENAAR: He said he was bringing in people and weapons, that was what the information was, but not how many persons, he was not certain about that.

MR NTHAI: So it is not correct for Mr de Kock to say that nothing was discussed during the time when you were transporting this person to show out the place, nothing was discussed about him bringing people?

MR PIENAAR: No, we did speak about it.

MR NTHAI: During your discussion did he inform you who was actually sending these people?

MR PIENAAR: No, he only said it was of the Transvaal Machinery, Chairperson. I knew that it was Paul Dikeledi’s division. I cannot remember whether he mentioned Paul Dikeledi’s name, but the Transvaal people.

MR NTHAI: Now maybe you will help us here, there is something that is not very clear to us here as to you know, why was this man killed.

MR PIENAAR: It would have served no purpose to send Mr Sithole back to Swaziland after this operation. He could only have been a danger to us and no advantage. It could have caused an international scandal which the ANC back then, used, to say that now they have a man here, he was present where trained ANC persons were killed in cold-blood. It could have had international repercussions. He would have been a danger to us who worked in Swaziland, because the ANC would definitely have not believed him. Everybody shot, except for him, so this would not have gone down well with the ANC. That is my opinion Chairperson.

MR NTHAI: Mr Pienaar, when was the decision that the driver will also be killed, taken?

MR PIENAAR: That day of the 14th, after we took him to Nerston. Col de Kock returned and we dropped him off again and joined the other people. If the thing was realised, then he would also have been shot.

CHAIRPERSON: Was the decision taken after you dropped him off, before you dropped him off, when? You were asked when?

MR PIENAAR: No, after the time Chairperson.

MR NTHAI: At that time, were you not worried that the change of plan which did not involve the driver, may endanger the whole ambush plan, were you not worried about that?

MR PIENAAR: I don't understand the question.

MR NTHAI: This man did not know that he was going to be killed, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct yes.

MR NTHAI: This man was under the impression that he was just supposed to according to you, jump out and go away so that people could be arrested, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct yes.

MR NTHAI: Now when you and Mr de Kock changed the plan that he must also be killed, were you not worried that it may endanger the whole plan, because here is an extra person who is supposed to be killed?

MR PIENAAR: He was not aware of it. In other words Mr Sithole did not know that he was going to be shot.

MR NTHAI: Let me come back to that later, because I still cannot understand why he was killed. If you were afraid of the international repercussions as you were saying, in your opinion, right?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR NTHAI: The ambush could have been planned the other way around, not so, you could have planned that these people could be dropped somewhere else and he disappears, he goes back and you use him again and ambush these people when he is not there, there wouldn't be any repercussions, not so? Is that not correct?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I did not know where these persons were going to, so no arrangements could have been made that the person who would be picked up, would be dropped off in another place where one does not know where and he doesn't know certainly, so I cannot see that it would have made any difference there in any case.

MR NTHAI: Your plan had no regard about this driver who was going to help you, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR NTHAI: Is that what I am hearing from you?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR NTHAI: I just want to come to the ...

CHAIRPERSON: How much longer do you think you are going to be?

MR NTHAI: Well, it will definitely be, I am still going to be longer.

CHAIRPERSON: So we should take the adjournment now, we have passed four. What time tomorrow morning gentlemen and lady?

MS LOCKHAT: Preferably half past nine, Chairperson, in order for us to get the Doctor ...

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, the doctors, yes, we want to start with the doctors tomorrow, we have agreed that already. Half past nine tomorrow morning.