CHAIRPERSON: Good morning everybody. We are proceeding today with the hearing that we started yesterday. When we adjourned yesterday, Mr Pienaar was being questioned by Mr Moerane.
FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: (s.u.o.)
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MOERANE: (cont)
Mr Pienaar, when we adjourned yesterday we were talking about the clothes of the deceased in the first incident.
MR PIENAAR: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR MOERANE: I am further told and instructed that the deceased were kept at the mortuary in conditions that were shocking to the parents and particularly Mr Naidoo and one of the female persons were kept together, one on top of the other. Any comments?
MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I would agree that any mortuary is not a pretty place to have a look at. I cannot recall whether Mr Naidoo was placed with one of the women, it may be possible.
MR MOERANE: Would I be correct in saying that you were expecting a second infiltration after the first one?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR MOERANE: Was that as a result of information that you had received from Lt Mose.
MR PIENAAR: Not Lt Mose, Mr Chairperson, from the informer.
MR MOERANE: Did Lt Mose not give you any report to the effect that if the first infiltration was successful, another infiltration was planned for the Sunday?
MR PIENAAR: It was discussed, but more by the informer self, the information came from there.
ADV GCABASHE: I'm sorry, I don't understand that answer. Are you saying both gave you that information?
MR PIENAAR: No Chairperson, that information came mainly from the source
CHAIRPERSON: Did Lt Mose give any information at all to you?
MR PIENAAR: I cannot recall that, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: What did you discuss with Lt Mose?
MR PIENAAR: It was probably actions, but the information did not come from him.
ADV GCABASHE: Sorry, but just to clarify finally, mainly from the informer, the other portion being from?
MR PIENAAR: It was all from the source. That is all where the information came from.
MR MOERANE: When did you receive this information from your source?
MR PIENAAR: It was with the first meeting where I received all the information from the group, or of the group, MK members who would infiltrate and the number of 36 was mentioned.
MR MOERANE: No, no Warrant Officer, I am talking about the information to the effect that if the first infiltration had been a success, there would be a further infiltration on the Sunday.
MR PIENAAR: That is correct, yes.
MR MOERANE: The question is, when did you obtain that information? It must obviously have been after the first incident.
MR PIENAAR: That is correct Chairperson. I am not entirely certain whether the source was there again. Whether Mr Theron saw the source, I am not certain.
MR MOERANE: And for that purpose it would have been important for you to see to it that news of the killing of the first group was not disseminated.
MR PIENAAR: That's correct, Chairperson. I also requested that the incident not be made known.
MR MOERANE: On the contrary, I suggest that positive steps were put in place to deceive the people in Swaziland, to send a message to the effect that the first group had arrived safely, not so?
MR PIENAAR: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR MOERANE: And how was that done?
MR PIENAAR: That would have been done by the source, that the infiltration was successful.
CHAIRPERSON: When you say the source, are you referring to the same informer?
MR PIENAAR: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR MOERANE: So she had to spin a yarn and tell the people in Swaziland that confirmation of the safe arrival of the first group had been obtained?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR MOERANE: And to your knowledge she did this?
MR PIENAAR: Yes.
MR MALAN: Mr Pienaar, the question is to your knowledge, not if you believe so.
MR PIENAAR: To my knowledge yes, because the second infiltration did take place.
MR MALAN: That is an inference that you draw, that is not on your knowledge whether she carried over the information. Did she tell you?
MR PIENAAR: Not to me, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: Did Theron tell you?
MR PIENAAR: I cannot recall whether he told me.
MR MALAN: So in other words it's not to your knowledge?
MR PIENAAR: I would accept that.
MR MOERANE: Mr Pienaar let's come now to the planning for the second operation. When was that done?
MR PIENAAR: I think it was the Sunday, Chairperson.
MR MOERANE: Do you remember that the people from Vlakplaas were at a place called Island Rock, where they were having a four day team-building workshop.
MR PIENAAR: I've heard of that Chairperson.
MR MOERANE: Now did this planning on the Sunday involve Vlakplaas people, or was it your planning commenced without their assistance?
MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, no, if I recall correctly and I speak under correction, discussions were held between myself and Mr de Kock that they would indeed return and he did maintain contact with me. As I said, the Sunday he arrived there again and we discussed the thing again. The Sunday afternoon, I think it was in the afternoon, I got hold of my direct Commander, Col Deetlefs and informed him about the possible infiltration.
MR MOERANE: You just informed him about the possible infiltration?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, Chairperson, and he also came down to Piet Retief.
MR MOERANE: Now was Maj Deetlefs part of the planning for the next operation?
MR PIENAAR: He was, Chairperson, I had to inform him. It was my duty, because he was my direct Commander he was involved.
MR MOERANE: What did this planning involve?
MR PIENAAR: It was the same planning as for the previous incident, setting up an ambush.
MR MOERANE: And obtaining this vehicle, obtaining the driver, Sgt Manzini.
MR PIENAAR: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Moerane, if I could just interpose. Was there any reason why Lt Mose wasn't used in the second plan, seeing that the first incident he performed, stopped the vehicle where it was meant to be stopped etc.?
MR PIENAAR: I cannot recall why we did not use him in the second instance. I'm not certain what it was about any more.
MR MALAN: Sorry, Mr Moerane. Mr Pienaar you said it was your duty to inform Deetlefs, as your direct Commander. Why did you not inform him with the first incident?
MR PIENAAR: He was informed Chairperson, but he was not available to come down to Piet Retief, he had some other duty to perform.
MR MALAN: But he had knowledge of the ambush at the fist instance?
MR PIENAAR: No, only that there would be an infiltration, but he was not involved with the first instance with particulars there and the discussions that were held there, not at all.
MR MALAN: So why was he involved in the second one?
MR PIENAAR: I found him before the time, Chairperson and I told him he must come down to Piet Retief, which he then did.
MR MALAN: And at the first instance you say you could not find him?
MR PIENAAR: I found him later. I only informed him that there may be a possible infiltration but he was not available to come down to Piet Retief, so he did not have any knowledge of the circumstances of what we would do there.
MR MALAN: So what did you inform him at the second instance?
MR PIENAAR: That there would be another infiltration. He did have the opportunity to come down to Piet Retief and we planned and discussed the thing there.
MR MOERANE: Who was present at the planning session?
MR PIENAAR: It was myself, Col Deetlefs who arrived a little later there, Col de Kock and I think Theron was also present. I cannot recall whether any of the other members were continually present, or whether they just were there once in a while, but actually I could say that Col de Kock and I did the whole planning by ourselves.
MR MOERANE: And obviously Sgt Manzini must have been there too?
MR PIENAAR: No, Chairperson, not with the planning beforehand. I later informed him of his duties.
MR MOERANE: Who showed him the ambush spot?
MR PIENAAR: I showed it to him, Chairperson.
MR MOERANE: When?
MR PIENAAR: It was later that same afternoon.
MR MOERANE: Who gave him his instructions?
MR PIENAAR: I spoke to him myself and I think Col de Kock delivered some input there, but I mainly spoke to him.
MR MOERANE: Did Maj Deetlefs give him any instructions?
MR PIENAAR: I cannot recall whether Col Deetlefs spoke to him.
MR MOERANE: What instructions was he given?
MR PIENAAR: That he would go to the place next to the border where he would stop with the kombi. People would approach him. He would pick up these persons and he would come back to the place where I pointed the ambush out to him. He would flicker his lights as a sign that it is he who is approaching. He would switch on his left indicator and turn off the road and if the persons were armed, he had to run away very quickly from the vehicle after he had stopped.
MR MOERANE: Was there any mention during the planning that he was to stop the vehicle, get off and pretend to be urinating?
MR PIENAAR: It may be possible that it was mentioned there Chairperson, that is possible.
MR MOERANE: You see I'm trying to find out which the correct story is, the one that you are telling the Honourable Committee now, or the story that you cooked up at the time of the inquest.
MR PIENAAR: At the inquest there were many untruths spoken, Chairperson.
MR MOERANE: Now was Sgt Manzini told that once the vehicle had come to a stop and after he has run away, shots will be fired at the vehicle?
MR PIENAAR: The possibility was mentioned to him, Chairperson. Specifically if these persons were armed, he would have expected shots to be fired.
MR MOERANE: Was he told that this was to be an ambush?
MR PIENAAR: Not as an ambush, Chairperson, it was not put to him as such and he was also not aware of the fact that we would have fired, once that vehicle had stopped, it was not put to him as such.
MR MOERANE: What was the purpose, as explained to him, of him stopping and running away?
MR PIENAAR: In case the people in the vehicle were armed then he should run away from the vehicle, because he would have been in the line of fire there, if any shots were fired.
MR MOERANE: And if they were not armed, what was he to do?
MR PIENAAR: Excuse me?
MR MOERANE: If they were not armed, what was he to do?
MR PIENAAR: That possibility was not discussed Chairperson. We expected that these persons who would be infiltrated would all be armed.
CHAIRPERSON: Why would you expect that seeing that the infiltrators in the previous incident were not armed?
MR PIENAAR: That's correct, Chairperson. We did not discuss unarmed people again, the plan just remained the same.
MR MALAN: Mr Pienaar, you said that you expected all of them to be armed?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, we expected them to be armed.
MR MALAN: But your experience with the first group was that they were not armed?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR MALAN: So why would one expect that they would once again be armed? Why could they not find their arms within the Republic?
MR PIENAAR: We felt the same, that is why we did not change anything in the planning.
MR MALAN: Mr Pienaar, is it not true that it did not matter whether they had arms or not? Mr de Kock said that he would have wiped them out anyway.
MR PIENAAR: That may have been so, Chairperson.
MR MOERANE: So the whole purpose of this ambush was to kill the so-called terrorists?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR MOERANE: Mr Pienaar, I notice that with regard to the second incident, your statement and the statements of Hayes, Barnard, Theron, Rorich, van Zweel, Deetlefs are identical, paragraph for paragraph, word for word, except the one paragraph where you mention who was present. In that paragraph each one obviously says "I" and mentions the others. Do you agree with that?
MR PIENAAR: It may be so, Chairperson.
MR MOERANE: You know that it is so. You got together.
MR PIENAAR: We were all together at our legal representative for consultation. We consulted one by one with our legal representatives and the documents were then drawn up by the legal representatives.
MR MOERANE: And for most of you this was at Delmas on the 13th December 1996.
MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.
MR MOERANE: And for some reason the Commissioner of Oaths was somebody from Pietermaritzburg with the surname of Prinsloo.
MR PIENAAR: There was a person, I cannot recall his surname, but I want to mention here, I don't believe that Mr Barnard was there with us that day because he is stationed in the Cape. I cannot recall that I saw him there that day.
MR MOERANE: You are probably right about one or two of the others.
MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Hayes also did not sign on this same day. Mr Barnard's was signed in Knysna.
MR PRINSLOO: But Chairman, with respect, if this is an issue, then we could clarify it, why this is. Is there any dispute about this? What is the problem? We haven't heard from the family as yet at this stage, on what grounds are they opposing this application, is this a side issue, or what is the purpose of these questions? This doesn't form part of the issues in dispute in this matter. Maybe Mr Moerane can elucidate and inform the Committee as far as this is concerned.
MR MOERANE: Mr Chairman, may I proceed with my cross-examination?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think there's nothing unfair about the questioning. I mean we've got all these statements that are the same, exactly the same.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, with respect, the applications were the same. The one confirms the others' application, I've explained this earlier and with respect, Mr Chairman. In one particular instance at Ermelo, there was an application where the applicants merely referred to one statement.
CHAIRPERSON: No, I'm not saying that there's anything sinister or necessarily wrong with it, there might be a good explanation, but I think all Mr Moerane's trying to find out is how did it come about. I can't see any difficulty ...(intervention)
MR PRINSLOO: Well, I can explain, Mr Chairman.
MR MOERANE: Well Mr Chairman, I'm busy cross-examining the witness, not Mr Prinsloo.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. No, I think you can carry on.
MR MOERANE: Thank you. Well, let me put it bluntly. I put it to you that the seven of you, that is yourself, Hayes, Barnard, Theron, Rorich, van Zweel, Deetlefs, conspired to put a particular version in your amnesty applications.
MR PIENAAR: No, Chairperson, as I have said, we consulted one by one with the legal representatives after which the documents were drawn up. I did not see Mr Hayes or Mr Barnard. I am certain of Mr Barnard because I know he is stationed in the Cape. That is not so.
MR MOERANE: Are you yourself in a position to explain why each of you seven, used exactly the same words to describe that incident?
MR PIENAAR: No, Chairperson, I believe during consultation and awaiting your turn, we must have discussed the matter, which would be normal, but word for word, I cannot tell you why it is so.
MR MOERANE: Let's come to the incident itself. Now, you took up position at the side of the road in a concealed fashion, I take it?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR MOERANE: And the vehicle approached and didn't stop at the predetermined spot.
MR PIENAAR: That was the second incident?
MR MOERANE: Yes, we are now talking about the second incident only.
MR PIENAAR: Yes.
MR MOERANE: It stopped at a distance which, at the Piet Retief inquest you estimated at between 20 and 30 metres. In your present application you estimate it about 30 to 40 metres.
MR PIENAAR: That is possible.
CHAIRPERSON: But could you point out a distance, or is there not enough space here?
MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, if I recall correctly, I would say approximately to the doors. It may be somewhat closer but it would be approximately that distance.
CHAIRPERSON: I don't know Mr Moerane, but that would probably be 30 to 40?
MR MOERANE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Would you say?
MR MOERANE: Yes, 30 to 40.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you agree Mr Prinsloo?
MR PRINSLOO: ...(indistinct) (microphone no on)
MR MOERANE: Then what happened?
MR PIENAAR: Col de Kock immediately ran to the vehicle. I followed him, so did the other members. Mr Theron had a light which followed afterwards, he didn't shine the light from the beginning. The front door of the kombi went open and a person emerged with an AK47 gun in his hands.
MR MOERANE: You saw this?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, I saw this.
MR MOERANE: Because of the light that was shining on him?
MR PIENAAR: No, the lights were not yet switched on. The lights of the vehicle were on and one could see it clearly.
When Mr Theron approached, he shone the light. This was all a matter of seconds and the shooting commenced.
MR MOERANE: Yes, well that is very vague, the shooting began. Col de Kock was right in front.
MR PIENAAR: If I recall correctly, yes.
MR MOERANE: He ran first?
MR PIENAAR: Yes.
MR MOERANE: Where was Mr Vermeulen?
MR PIENAAR: I cannot place where he was, I didn't stop to see where everybody was positioned.
MR MOERANE: Where was Mr Nortje?
MR PIENAAR: I cannot say at this stage.
MR MOERANE: What happened when this man came out of the vehicle?
MR PIENAAR: As I've already stated, Chairperson, if I recall correctly this person fired a shot. It may have been simultaneous with Mr de Kock's fire, after which the other members and I also began shooting at this person and at the other persons within the kombi.
MR MOERANE: Well, at whom was this person from the kombi firing?
MR PIENAAR: I cannot say. To me it appeared as if his gun was aimed at Manzini's side, but it may also have been more to Mr de Kock's side. I'm not entirely certain about that.
MR MOERANE: Where was Manzini at the time?
MR PIENAAR: He ran around the front of the vehicle. He must have been on the side of the plantation at that stage.
CHAIRPERSON: And could you give an estimate of the distance between Mr de Kock and the person who exited the vehicle with the AK47 when you heard the first shot?
MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I would then have to speak of and this would be speculation, perhaps 3 metres. It may have been closer, it may have been further, but I'm not certain of the exact distance.
MR MOERANE: This would have happened right in front of Col de Kock, not so?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, Chairperson.
MR MOERANE: So if it happened, he would have seen it?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, I believe he must have seen it.
MR MOERANE: Well, you've heard his evidence.
MR PIENAAR: Yes, I heard it.
MR MOERANE: I put it to you that this story of the person shooting is a fabrication.
MR PIENAAR: No, it isn't.
MR MOERANE: A fabrication which you have carried over from the Piet Retief inquest.
MR PIENAAR: It is not so.
ADV GCABASHE: Sorry Mr Moerane, before you move off this point, just a bit of clarity, Mr Pienaar. You say that this person shot towards Manzini's side, that's what you said?
MR PIENAAR: That is how it appeared to me.
ADV GCABASHE: Just help me with this. Manzini ran around the front of the vehicle and into the plantation. De Kock, I presume, approached from the back of the vehicle, because they had been travelling forwards, so you were behind them?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
ADV GCABASHE: And when this person got out, he shot towards Manzini, rather than towards de Kock, who was in front of him, is this what you're saying?
MR PIENAAR: I said that at that stage when Mr de Kock ran forward, there wasn't any light on the vehicle, so I cannot say whether the person was aware that Mr de Kock was approaching from the side, that is merely speculation. But certainly, when he drew near, he must have become aware of him, but I believe that his attention was fixed on Manzini who was suddenly running away.
ADV GCABASHE: Thank you. Just to finish this off. I thought that you had said that by the time the shooting started, Theron's light was on, that's the note I had, so by the time anybody, whoever started shooting, there was enough light, not just light from the front.
MR PIENAAR: That is correct. When the shooting began, when everybody began to shoot, Mr Theron shone the light on the vehicle, that is when all the members moved closer to the vehicle.
ADV GCABASHE: And yet this man shot backwards, rather than forwards, with the lights on?
MR PIENAAR: If my judgement was correct, he fired and then Mr de Kock fired and that is when the light went on. That is why I have said that I believed that this person's attention was fixed on Manzini and he didn't notice the members moving in from the side.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Moerane, there's just one point that I'm not clear on. You said that the instruction to Sgt Manzini was to get out the vehicle and run around it?
MR PIENAAR: Around the front.
CHAIRPERSON: Now why was that the instruction, because that would mean that he'd have to get out the right side of the vehicle, then run in front of the vehicle where the lights are shining on him and then across the road, whereas if he'd got out the vehicle and just ran at right-angles to the vehicle, as fast as he could into the bush, wouldn't that have been more efficient and safer?
MR PIENAAR: No, because then he would have been in the line of fire. If the members were on the left-hand side and they were firing towards the right, then he would have ended up straight in the line of fire.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR MOERANE: So shooting at this vehicle was definitely part of the planning?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, that's correct.
MR MOERANE: Is it correct that all the occupants of this vehicle were shot through their heads?
MR PIENAAR: I cannot recall where the shots were. There were various bullet wounds in everybody.
MR MOERANE: According to the post mortem examination report, they all died of head injuries, brain damage.
MR PIENAAR: That is possible.
MR MOERANE: Can't you remember that according to the post mortem reports and the finding of the Inquest Magistrate? Mr Chairman, this is in bundle 5 on page 279 to 280, in the middle of the page starting with,
"In the case of Nkosinati Bruce Mshwayo, the cause of death is destruction of skull and brain"...(intervention)
MR PRINSLOO: What page number?
CHAIRPERSON: It's 341 - 279 to 280, bundle 5.
MR MOERANE: Yes, there are three pages there. The typed one is page 80, then this page 341 and as far as our bundle is concerned, it's 279.
CHAIRPERSON: And it appears almost in the middle of the page, page 279.
MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
MR MOERANE: And as far as the second one is concerned, "Howard Sifiso Nxumalo...(indistinct) Fracture of the neck vertebrae"
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR MOERANE: And Jabulane Sibisi "Brain damage". The fourth one, Sam Thembu "Brain damage".
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR MOERANE: Was there a deliberate intention to shoot these people in their heads?
MR PIENAAR: No, these members fired automatic weapons. It wasn't said, "listen, aim for the chest, or the neck, or the head", every member fired at what he fired.
CHAIRPERSON: Was it not practice in those days that in a combat situation like this, one would make sure of death by shooting the victims once they had been incapacitated, just to make sure that they were dead?
MR PIENAAR: No, Chairperson, what I can say is that in our training it was said to us and it was taught to us, particularly with the penetration of homes in which the person may possibly make use of a hand grenade, the practice was to kill immediately in order to prevent the tossing of the hand grenade, but in this case there was never any talk of head wounds, or anything like that.
MR MOERANE: And just to put the matters beyond any doubt, you and Col de Kock and the people who were involved in this operation did not do it with the intention of arresting those people?
MR PIENAAR: No, Chairperson.
MR MOERANE: In other words, you're agreeing with me?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR MOERANE: So you agree with me that the findings of the inquest magistrate on the previous page, page 278, where he says,
"I am satisfied that this was a police action which had a legitimate objective, namely the arrest of persons with regard to whom there was more than a reasonable suspicion",
This was really based on what you had told the magistrate, that this was an attempt to arrest the people?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.
MR MOERANE: And also you had lied giving the following results, as far as the ruling was concerned,
"I am satisfied that the steps which were taken in preparation for the arrest, are proportional to the use of an ordered police force".
That finding was also based on the evidence that was presented to the magistrate.
MR PIENAAR: That's correct.
MR MOERANE: And of course on the eloquent address of the prosecutor, who told the magistrate at page 277 that
"The purpose of these police officers was to arrest the persons."
It was totally false, not so? It's on page 277. This is part of the address of Adv van der Walt.
CHAIRPERSON: It's about the 6th or 7th line.
MR MOERANE: The 9th and the 10th line. And also it was completely false what was argued, that
"they switched on a light."
MR PIENAAR: No, the light was switched on, the vehicle was not ready.
CHAIRPERSON: The translation's not coming through, if you could just correct that. I wonder if the interpreter could just say a word or two?
INTERPRETER: Check 1, 2.
CHAIRPERSON: Carry on. Sorry, if you could just repeat that answer please, Mr Pienaar.
MR PIENAAR: A light was used during the incident, but a light was not switched on with the pullover vehicle and there was no pullover vehicle in the road, that is entirely correct.
MR MOERANE: Now what is meant here when counsel is addressing the court with the words
"They switched on a light."
Is the "wentellig" the revolving light, the blue light?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, the blue light.
MR MOERANE: That was a lie.
MR PIENAAR: No, there wasn't one, that was a lie.
MR MOERANE: And going back to the judgment on page 278, line 23,
"There can be no doubt that an ambush was set to which the persons were lured and in which they were killed"
MR MOERANE: Now that is totally incorrect too. In fact it was an ambush.
MR PIENAAR: Yes, it was an ambush.
MR MOERANE: And you had all lied to the magistrate?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR MOERANE: We go on further.
"But that this was done during circumstances which were described here as a moving road-block".
There was no road-block at all.
MR PIENAAR: No, there was no road-block.
MR MOERANE: Was it correct, Warrant-Officer, that if the intention was to arrest those people, your planning would have been completely different?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.
MR MOERANE: Finally, I put it to you Warrant-Officer that you have not made full disclosure to this Committee.
MR PIENAAR: What I have said here is the truth.
MR MOERANE: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MOERANE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Moerane. Ms Lockhat, do you have any questions?
MS LOCKHAT: Yes, thank you, Chairperson.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: Mr Pienaar, you called in Vlakplaas, that is C1.
MR PIENAAR: Correct.
MS LOCKHAT: When you informed Vlakplaas as to assist your unit, your Security Branch, what were your instructions to them initially?
MR PIENAAR: I told Col de Kock that there would be possible infiltrations and that I required assistance from his side.
MS LOCKHAT: Did you inform him that, because these people were infiltrating into the country, that you wanted to arrest them, ambush them? What were your instructions? Whose idea was this, the ambush? Kindly explain.
MR PIENAAR: After Col de Kock arrived at Piet Retief, we discussed these matters there, and he and I discussed it together, so this came from both of us.
MS LOCKHAT: Did de Kock suggest it or did you suggest it?
MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I cannot say who suggested it, we discussed it, we agreed about it and I cannot say whose idea it was.
MS LOCKHAT: You are an old Koevoet member, Mr Pienaar, is that correct?
MR PIENAAR: No.
MS LOCKHAT: Did you know of C1's operations?
MR PIENAAR: Former operations?
MS LOCKHAT: Covert operations.
MR PIENAAR: I was aware of some of them, the others I was not aware of.
MS LOCKHAT: Did you call in C1 to actually come and eliminate these MKs?
MR PIENAAR: No.
MS LOCKHAT: At what stage did you inform Mr Deetlefs on the first incident?
MR PIENAAR: I contacted him on the day when the planning was undertaken at the office, but he was not available to come to Piet Retief. I cannot recall what the problem was with his affairs. After the incident he came to hear of the shooting of the persons.
MS LOCKHAT: If Mr Deetlefs is not there and he's not available to you, who is next in command?
MR PIENAAR: At this stage I cannot recall who it was. I think that it was Capt van Wyk de Vries who was also at Ermelo.
MS LOCKHAT: Did you inform him of this incident?
MR PIENAAR: No, I didn't.
MS LOCKHAT: Why not?
MR PIENAAR: I cannot recall why I didn't contact him.
MS LOCKHAT: Didn't you feel that you needed authorisation for this mission, especially where there was an elimination of persons?
MR PIENAAR: No, Mr de Kock was a senior officer from Head Office and that was sufficient for me to have him there.
MS LOCKHAT: Did you ask Mr de Kock whether he clarified this with Brig Schoon?
MR PIENAAR: No, I didn't.
MS LOCKHAT: Why not?
MR PIENAAR: I had no reason for that.
MS LOCKHAT: So Mr Deetlefs was then informed of the first incident, I can take it probably a day or two after the incident?
MR PIENAAR: Yes.
MR MALAN: Sorry, Ms Lockhat. Did you inform Mr Deetlefs?
MR PIENAAR: I think I did, yes, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: Because you said that Mr Deetlefs heard about the shooting, you didn't say that you informed him.
MR PIENAAR: No, I informed him.
MR MALAN: When did you notify him?
MR PIENAAR: I cannot recall if it was the next day or the next morning, or whether it was later that following day. I'm not certain about the exact time.
MR MALAN: And when you were looking for him before the first incident, by inference I heard that you did indeed speak to him, but that he could not come down?
MR PIENAAR: That's correct.
MR MALAN: So you did speak to him before the first incident and you told him about the insurgency?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, I told him about the infiltration.
MR MALAN: Thank you.
MS LOCKHAT: You were also the investigating officer. Were you the investigating officer of the first and the second incident, or only the second incident? Just clarify that for me.
MR PIENAAR: The first and the second incident but during the investigation into the second incident it was taken from me and handed over to Brig van Wyk and later to Brig Engelbrecht.
MS LOCKHAT: You said in your evidence that no-one told you to stop the investigation because you were involved in the first and second. Didn't Mr Deetlefs tell you to recuse yourself from that position?
MR PIENAAR: No, he didn't.
MS LOCKHAT: Did the two of you discuss the matter?
MR PIENAAR: I beg your pardon.
MS LOCKHAT: Did you discuss that you were going to be the investigating officer?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, he was aware of that, including the officer who was at Middelburg. They were both aware of it and nobody tried to stop me.
MS LOCKHAT: Let's just get back to the issue of the source. How long was this person the source of your Security Branch?
MR PIENAAR: It was quite some time. I'm not entirely certain of the time period, but it was quite a long period of time.
MS LOCKHAT: A couple of years, a couple of months? Kindly be a bit more specific.
MR PIENAAR: Various months, I wouldn't say years, but quite a few months.
MS LOCKHAT: And how many times did you meet the source?
MR PIENAAR: I cannot recall, it was a few times. I cannot recall the number of times.
MS LOCKHAT: Was it about 10 times, 15 times, 5 times?
MR PIENAAR: No, I wouldn't be able to say anything, that would be speculation, I really cannot recall.
MS LOCKHAT: Can you remember the name of the source?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, I can.
MS LOCKHAT: Can you please inform us of that name?
MR PIENAAR: No.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, must this name be disclosed in public? Surely any source of that nature's life will be in danger? Is there any need for it to be disclosed?
MS LOCKHAT: I shall leave it in your hands, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well, Mr Moerane what's your ...?
MR MOERANE: Mr Chairman, I know that the question of sources is a difficult one, particularly if the source is still a source at present, but if we are dealing with past incidents and past sources, I think the whole purpose of this inquiry is to get the truth and with specific reference to the facts of this particular case, those that I represent certainly are interested in the identity of the source. They do not intend taking any action against the source, but they would like the name of the source to be revealed, so that they leave these proceedings at peace, at least knowing who the person is that sold out their loved ones.
MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, if I may come in here. Not that I've got a direct interest but I seem to recall that this same issue arose at one of the hearings in Port Elizabeth more than a year ago and I think it was Judge Ngoepe when he was still there, but it might have been one of the other presiding officers that said on a previous occasion when the, I presume I can use the word the full bench, of the Amnesty Committee, the whole issue of sources did arise and that was before you were on that panel and so on and I speak subject to correction, I'm not suggesting that this Commission is bound by precedent, but I think it's important, it's my duty to you, that the full Committee on that occasion ruled that there was no necessity to disclose the identity of sources. I seem to recall that is the case, so I think that bit of information should also be placed before the Committee to enable you to make a proper decision.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I'm indebted to my colleague Mr Booyens in this regard. I respectfully submit, Mr Chairman, should the source's name be revealed, that person will be killed and we are dealing with the past, it is a matter of the past, Mr Chairman, and should it be essential for this name to be disclosed, I respectfully submit then the Committee should sit behind closed doors, exclude the public and hold an inquiry as to why it would be essential that the name be disclosed to the Committee only and not to the public or anyone else, Mr Chairman. There's no need, I respectfully submit, why that name should be disclosed. There is no dispute at this stage that there was a source that conveyed information to the police, which resulted in the people being picked up, conveyed and subsequently killed. That is not part of the issues as far as this particular issue is concerned.
I respectfully submit, Mr Chairman, this matter can be decided without the name being disclosed to the Committee or anyone else for that matter and the fact that the family wants to know the name of that person, will take the matter no further Mr Chairman, apart from knowing it and for what reason only, and the reason is obvious, that person will be eliminated afterwards.
CHAIRPERSON: From what we've heard and I just toss it in,
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.
CHAIRPERSON: Was this person not something more than just a source because we've heard that not only was information supplied, but that the source also played an active role in respect of the shooting that took place in Swaziland by going back and relaying false information.
MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct, the informer was very much involved in infiltrations.
CHAIRPERSON: So that person is, what I'm asking is, was that person more an implicated person rather than just an informer? It was not just a question of supplying information on request or getting it, but playing an active role which we know led to the death of one person in Swaziland and also probably to the death of the four people in the second incident.
MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, is that the Committee's view, that the source knew there would be an ambush and the person's would be killed?
CHAIRPERSON: Well, I'm just putting it to you, I'm not saying it's a finding, but Mr Prinsloo said that the source - Mr Pienaar said that when the first incident had to be kept quiet because it would otherwise upset the possibility of the second infiltration taking place and that was done by the source going back to the people in Swaziland and relaying false information about the success of the first incident, thereby prompting the second infiltration. Now is that just being an informer? What I'm asking, is that just being an informer or is it going somewhat beyond that and actually now playing an active role in the incident and thereby becoming, in terms of our Act, more an implicated person rather than just an informer?
MR PRINSLOO: ; Mr Chairman, I respectfully submit, in as far as the informer is concerned, the informer played a particular role depending on the circumstances of that of an informer and the manner to obtain information, to convey information and to ensure that the information supplied would be utilised by the police in the fashion in which it was done. I respectfully submit, Mr Chairman, as to whether that person is to be regarded as an implicated person, one will have to probe this matter further in order to establish that and if that is the case then I respectfully submit, Mr Chairman, other steps will have to be taken in order to inform that particular person so that that person can secure the proper representation, but at this stage it does not appear to be so, that that person knew that there would be a killing taking place, apart from facilitating the police that the people be assisted in infiltrating the country, in order for the police to apprehend these people, unless that person knew before hand, was part and parcel of a conspiracy to kill, but that is not the evidence of the applicant, Mr Chairman. That is my respectful submission.
CHAIRPERSON: Just before you proceed.
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it's just been pointed out to me, was it not also that the informer arranged the transport on the other side to get them close to the border where they would cross to the waiting vehicle, all that sort of thing? It was not only a question of supplying information, but of making various arrangements and also as I've mentioned earlier, supplying some misinformation, but also it would seem, and just from what I've heard here, that the identity of the informer may be known. I mean it's been mentioned that first of all, and it's been agreed in evidence by both Mr Pienaar and Mr de Kock, that the informer was a female, that she was arrested by the ANC, that she was then detained at a place called Sun City near Lusaka for approximately a year and later released etc. That information is known.
MR PRINSLOO: ; Mr Chairman, I respectfully submit, if that is the same person and upon the questioning of Mr Moerane, my learned colleague, that he might know who that person is, is there then any need for the name to be revealed? At this stage know one knows, or at least I don't know exactly where she is, will her life not be at risk if it's disclosed where she is? That's apart from Mr Chairman, your further suggestion to me with regard to the issue of implication, if she's not to be regarded as an implicated person. I respectfully submit then Mr Moerane, with respect, needs no further information for purpose of questioning. If he is aware who that person is, he is a member of the court and Mr Moerane no doubt will not disclose it to anyone else, like we won't do it. Now I respectfully submit, Mr Chairman, in the circumstances as already indicated to the Committee, there is not need for the name to be disclosed or revealed to the public at large.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, now what, I don't think Mr Moerane would argue that we, as a Committee, have to know the name of the informer in order to arrive at some decision in this matter. Whether the informer was X or Y isn't going to affect all the factual evidence that we have before us, to enable us to arrive at a decision one way or the other. However, and perhaps you can just make brief submissions of this, what would be the situation or how relevant would it be if it was a question of, to be taken into account in determining whether this particular application has made a full disclosure.
MR PRINSLOO: I respectfully submit, Mr Chairman, the applicant indicated that there was a source and the whole incident was arranged via a source and this information was arranged via a source and the evidence indicates that and the evidence of Mr de Kock, the first applicant, confirms that, with respect Mr Chairman. There's no suggestion that there was no source. There's no suggestion that the source did not facilitate this. That is not the case of the family or any other persons Mr Chairman, and I respectfully submit, the applicant Mr Pienaar at this stage, has made a full disclosure. He said he made use of a source and he even went further, from questioning by my learned colleague Mr Moerane and indicating who that person could be. In the circumstances, I respectfully submit, Mr Chairman, the only issue here is that the Committee must guard against disclosing the name of that particular person, as this is a very, very - a matter which must be regarded with great circumspection as far as that person's life is concerned. Will that person not be killed? She was already arrested by the ANC as you indicated Mr Chairman and that person was already questioned. What will the other people do, the public at large, when they know who that person is? That person might be living in this area, might be living elsewhere, we don't know and I respectfully submit, in the interests of that particular person, that name should not be revealed.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Moerane.
MR MOERANE: Thank you. Mr Chairman, we are involved here with a public inquiry into an application for amnesty by the various applicants. These applications involve the unlawful killing of certain people, of 9 people. The relatives of these people are here and they have come to find out how their loved ones were killed, why they were killed, by whom they were killed.
Now, what we have so far Mr Chairman, are the identities of the persons who actually pulled the trigger. We know why they were killed, if that will be the evidence of the rest of the applicants that these were ambushes. We do not know, from the side of people who under normal circumstances would have been sympathetic to the cause of the deceased, who were involved. I think it's important for the families to know who amongst the ranks of the ANC or their sympathisers was involved in the death of their loved ones. The identity of that person, from my questioning of Col de Kock and from my questioning of W/O Pienaar, is a person who has made a statement, a statement before this Honourable Committee. I haven't disclosed the name to those instructing me, but I don't think I should be privy to information to which those instructing me are not privy. I think they should know what I know. There's no reason for me to conceal from them information which they seek, information which is important to them, so that they also can begin the process of healing when they know the full facts surrounding the death of their loved ones. I do not believe that this person is still a source or an informer of the police and I submit, Mr Chairman, that her identity should be disclosed. Those I represent have no malicious intent against her, they just want to know, that is all. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Is it known whether this person is still an informer on the register of informers?
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I'll have to take instructions as far as that is concerned and I may also just at this stage indicate, with respect Mr Chairman, that in terms of Section 153 or the Criminal Procedure Act, when there is a trial taking place behind closed doors and a name is disclosed to members of the court and people represented various parties in that court, that member of the court cannot disclose that to anyone else. That could be an order of the court and if that person is still an informer, Mr Chairman, it makes it even more complicated. But at this stage my submission is that that person's life might be at stake. Even if the people represented by Mr Moerane have no intention of doing anything to that particular person, there may be people close to them who have bad blood as far as that is concerned. There is always that risk. It's only a risk that's required, Mr Chairman, not a reality, just a probability. Thank you, Mr Chairman. But I'll take instructions with regard to that particular person's whereabouts and whether that person is still an informer, if I'm given that opportunity, for a brief adjournment I'll request the Committee, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we'll have a short adjournment. We'd just like to discuss the matter amongst ourselves as well. Thank you. Just take a short adjournment.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR : (s.u.o.)
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: (cont)
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, the applicant has given me the name of the particular source. It's on this document written in my hand which I am prepared to give to the Committee, I will give to the Committee. I will however respectfully submit Mr Chairman that as far as that particular source is concerned, that source ought to be informed as to the intentions of the Committee to reveal its name, so that the source can at least secure legal representation and come and argue as to whether her or his name should be revealed to the Committee, but as far as full disclosure is concerned, the applicant is making full disclosure, the name is available and I'm going to give it to the Committee, but that I would respectfully submit that the Committee will have to make that decision as to whether this name should be revealed or not.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: ...(microphone not on) regarded as an implicated person maybe and for that reason the secretary should also be present and then at least with legal representation, first of all whether the name should be revealed, secondly as to whether that person will be regarded as an implicated person. The applicant I represent, Mr Pienaar, is not aware of the whereabouts of the particular source. He is no longer a member of the South African police force, he's been out of the force for quite a few years and my other submissions still stand. As it pleases. Mr Chairman, must I hand this up to the Committee?
CHAIRPERSON: No, I don't think at this stage. Do you wish to say anything Mr Moerane, or not?
MR MOERANE: Nothing further.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we are still discussing the matter and I must say one of the points that did come to mind was exactly the point raised by yourself that there should be some sort of notification, legal representation on the part of the person concerned and I think at this stage, if we could then just stand this aspect over for later and we would as a panel still like to discuss it and we'll make some sort of finding, perhaps tomorrow or something like that, but if we could then just continue with the hearing until then. But we take the point made by Mr Prinsloo.
MR PRINSLOO: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Lockhat.
MS LOCKHAT: Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS LOCKHAT
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, do you have any re-examination?
MR PRINSLOO: No re-examination thank you Mr Chairman.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO
CHAIRPERSON: Adv Gcabashe, do you have any questions you would like to ask?
ADV GCABASHE: Yes, thank you Chair. Mr Pienaar, I may have lost this somewhere in your evidence. The first incident occurred on the 8th of June.
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
ADV GCABASHE: How long before that did you receive your information about the infiltration generally?
MR PIENAAR: Mr Theron called me on the 8th while I was busy with a Circuit Court at Bethal and I went to Piet Retief where I received the information.
ADV GCABASHE: You were told on the 8th about the infiltration?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct as far as I can recall, Chairperson.
ADV GCABASHE: No other information prior to the 8th about this group that were going to be infiltrating over a period?
MR PIENAAR: There was information from sources of a possible-large scale infiltration from Swaziland because there was a pile up of MK members there but the dates were not known at that stage, not at all.
ADV GCABASHE: So you received this information, what, on the morning of the 8th?
MR PIENAAR: I cannot recall what time it was Chairperson. I came from Bethal and I don't remember what time it was.
ADV GCABASHE: I am just trying to understand the day because the shooting occurred roughly around 21h10 according to one of the documents we have here, yes?
MR PIENAAR: That's correct.
ADV GCABASHE: Now I understand how things unfolded that day because you received the information on that day, you contact Mr de Kock on that day, you talk to Mr Deetlefs on that day, you start making arrangements about a motor vehicle to be brought to you, the Corolla, which was not your Corolla, it belonged to a different division. Just take me through that in terms of the time scale.
MR PIENAAR: That's correct, Chairperson. The Toyota, if I could just mention here, was the detective branch at Piet Retief, they were in the same building where the Security Branch was, so it was not a matter of a long time to arrange that and after I arrived at Piet Retief and I made myself known with the information, I contacted Col de Kock and he came to Piet Retief. I contacted Col Deetlefs, he could not come and Col de Kock and I made arrangements.
ADV GCABASHE: May I stop you there? At what time did you phone Mr de Kock?
MR PIENAAR: I'm not certain of the time, Chairperson.
ADV GCABASHE: But he was in Pretoria at Vlakplaas at the time?
MR PIENAAR: Yes.
ADV GCABASHE: So another three-hour drive across to Piet Retief?
MR PIENAAR: That's correct yes.
ADV GCABASHE: And you discussed the matter, then he called on the rest of the troops to come up as well.
MR PIENAAR: No, there were members with Col de Kock who came down to Piet Retief with him.
ADV GCABASHE: Okay, so when he arrived he came with the unit that was used that evening.
MR PIENAAR: Yes, that's correct.
ADV GCABASHE: You got the information from Theron, Mr Theron.
MR PIENAAR: That's correct.
ADV GCABASHE: But you spoke to the source as well.
MR PIENAAR: That's correct.
ADV GCABASHE: And this would have been that morning, on the morning of the incident.
MR PIENAAR: That was the 8th yes, Chairperson.
ADV GCABASHE: Did you discuss with Mr Theron and your source, the possibility of weapons being carried by these people and what was the information you were given, as you were having this initial discussion?
MR PIENAAR: It would be trained MK members, armed, which would come into the RSA, that she had to arrange transport from the RSA side for them.
ADV GCABASHE: Now, that's another important point I was going to ask you about. Her task from the ANC had been to arrange this transport, you took over that function.
MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.
ADV GCABASHE: Did she indicate to you when she had been given this task?
MR PIENAAR: No, no she did not.
ADV GCABASHE: Because in one of the statements again in the bundle from one of Mr Naidoo’s friends, he says that on the 6th Mr Naidoo was already preparing to come across. Do you know anything at all about that from the information you were given by your source?
MR PIENAAR: No Chairperson, not at all.
ADV GCABASHE: This was the only consultation you had with your source?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.
ADV GCABASHE: You did not have a subsequent conversation just before the 12th, that's before the second incident?
MR PIENAAR: No, she was once again at the offices before the 12th.
ADV GCABASHE: From the 8th to the 12th is a very short space of time.
MR PIENAAR: I cannot recall which day exactly she was there, it may have been the 11th, it may have been the morning of the 12th, I am not certain.
ADV GCABASHE: When she came to talk to you she informed you that she had misled the ANC about how things had transpired, vis a vis the first incident.
MR PIENAAR: She did say that she reported back that the infiltration was successful.
ADV GCABASHE: And she told you that she was supposed to now arrange for a second group to come over and you again then took over that function.
MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.
ADV GCABASHE: So she was really quite central to the organisation of that transport for these people, both from the ANC's perspective and then from your perspective, in relation to what she went back to tell them on the other side?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.
ADV GCABASHE: You say she was not aware that you were going to eliminate these people?
MR PIENAAR: No Chairperson, not at all.
ADV GCABASHE: As far as she was concerned you were simply going to arrest them?
MR PIENAAR: Yes.
ADV GCABASHE: The first incident, again in the documentation here, there's reference to money being given to these operatives you know coming across, there's a R3 500 that was mentioned there's a R3 000 that was mentioned. Did you find any money on any one of the operatives?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, money was found Chairperson and the money was channelled to Head Office in Pretoria.
ADV GCABASHE: Did you recall how much was found on them?
MR PIENAAR: I cannot recall the amount Chairperson.
ADV GCABASHE: But would it be about R3 500 for each one of the operatives?
MR PIENAAR: I don't know if it was that much Chairperson, I cannot recall the amount.
ADV GCABASHE: Oh, that's the other aspect I was unclear about. We've got two incidents here. We have had a reference to the Houtkop road, we have also had in the documentation a reference to the Piet Retief Klein Vrystaat Potgietershoek Road, is this one road?
MR PIENAAR: It's the same road, Chairperson. I can also mention that close to the border, that is from Piet Retief to the border, close to the border, the road makes a fork, one goes to Houtkop, one goes to Bothashoop border post, but that's on the Small Free State Road, that's the same road there.
ADV GCABASHE: So you used the same ambush route for incident 1 and incident 2?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
ADV GCABASHE: Did you use the same ambush spot for incident 1 and 2?
MR PIENAAR: The same place.
ADV GCABASHE: The same place.
MR PIENAAR: Exactly the same spot.
ADV GCABASHE: Now tell me, the difference from the border, the pick-up point, and the ambush spot, 10 kilometres?
MR PIENAAR: Between - about 15 kilometres Chairperson.
ADV GCABASHE: About 15 kilometres.
MR PIENAAR: Yes, approximately.
ADV GCABASHE: And you say, by the time that car had come the 15 kilometres, the windows were misty?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.
ADV GCABASHE: Then there's just the document, I'm not sure, I don't know if you can help me with this. Let me find it. Yes, here we go. Volume 3(a). You know you've got these reports here, I don't know who submitted them, but if you look at page 140 to 143 of bundle 3(a), these look like work sheets, essentially time that people put in what they were doing, where they were. I'm not too sure, just tell me, what are these documents, I couldn't understand them.
MR PIENAAR: Chairperson I assume, if I have a look at the names it was members of Vlakplaas work sheets, it's not mine, I'm not conversant with this.
ADV GCABASHE: So none of these are your members?
MR PIENAAR: No Chairperson.
ADV GCABASHE: Are these documents that were submitted at the inquest, do you know?
MR PIENAAR: No, I don't know where this comes from.
ADV GCABASHE: And just within the context of this hearing, what would the relevance of these documents be? Maybe you can help.
MR PIENAAR: I don't know Chairperson.
ADV GCABASHE: Then, yes, if you go to page 133, that's just a quick example, you have a lot of material that's been blotted out in quite a few of the documents here. Chair thinks it's highlighting. I think it's blotting out. Which of the two is it? Would you be able to assist with this?
MR PIENAAR: If I recall correctly these were incidents, these were documents which were ...(indistinct) with by Brig Engelbrecht not to publicise certain aspects, for example if one looks at paragraph 9(ii), I see it says a hand-written note and I think that the contents of the note was there, which he deleted.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you confirm that these black marks on page 133, they're deliberate blotting out, they're not just highlights? Sometimes when you get a highlighting and then make a photocopy you get the same effect. This is censorship?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
ADV GCABASHE: And I didn't quite get your answer, you mentioned Mr Engelbrecht. Just repeat that again.
MR PIENAAR: That's correct. Brig Engelbrecht made these deletions on the document when he took over the investigation.
ADV GCABASHE: So he's responsible for every single, there are more 116 - 117, as you understand it he would be responsible for all of the blotting out on all these documents?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
ADV GCABASHE: Are these documents that were used at any one of the inquests, would you know?
MR PIENAAR: It was requested, I think Mr Moerane, he requested it and it was arranged by legal representatives that it could be censored and it was done as such.
ADV GCABASHE: Is this information that would assist us in this hearing, what has been blotted out? A couple of them are your documents you see, is this information that would be useful to us as a panel?
MR PIENAAR: I cannot recall what was there, Chairperson. I don't know whether it would be of assistance or not.
ADV GCABASHE: But you feel that on what you have said, you have given us full disclosure in relation to your understanding, exactly what happened on the 8th and on the 12th?
MR PIENAAR: That's correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think in response to, I don't know if it's an answer, but in response to one of the questions put to you by Adv Gcabashe it would seem that Mr Naidoo had the sum of R523-24. I don't know if it's an answer but that is what this says.
MR PIENAAR: I see that Chairperson, R523-24.
ADV GCABASHE: Yes, but you see this is part of my difficulty, just trying to account for what was found on people and what was submitted to Head Office, exactly what happened to whatever ..., the chain has been mentioned, it's also in the document, money has been mentioned and then of course the clothing, just what did happen to some of these items.
MR PIENAAR: That's correct Chairperson. As I have said, the chain that was requested of me, I have no knowledge of that, the clothing was burned, the money that was found was this amount that I wrote in here, R523-24 and that is why I mentioned it in the telex to Head Office.
ADV GCABASHE: Mr Manzini, where is he today?
MR PIENAAR: I'm not certain where he's stationed now, I think it's at Ermelo, Chairperson.
ADV GCABASHE: He's alive and well?
MR PIENAAR: Yes.
ADV GCABASHE: Has he applied for amnesty in respect of this incident?
MR PIENAAR: I don't know.
ADV GCABASHE: Thank you. Thank you, Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan, do you have any questions?
MR MALAN: Mr Pienaar, did you have any contact with Schoon during these incidents?
MR PIENAAR: No, Chairperson, not at all.
MR MALAN: So you also did not have information about his possible knowledge, or not?
MR PIENAAR: No, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: I don't have the reference before me, but somewhere there was evidence that two hand grenades were found during the second incident, one in each bag.
MR PIENAAR: Yes, that's correct Chairperson.
MR MALAN: Is that a pattern that people come in with one hand grenade?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, there were many instances where people had one single hand grenade with them.
MR MALAN: And then they only come in with one hand grenade?
MR PIENAAR: And as pistol, usually.
MR MALAN: What is the hand grenade for?
MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I don't know. I've never gone into that all that much. It was more for self defence if they should be apprehended. A hand grenade does more damage that a pistol.
MR MALAN: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Are there any questions arising out of questions that have been put by members of the panel? Any questions arising?
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MOERANE: Mr Chairman, just one or two questions. If you look at Bundle 3(a) the page to which you were referred, page 133, this was information furnished by you, not so?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.
MR MOERANE: Look at the first paragraph A(i). According to that and according to the information that the source gave, two persons were expected to infiltrate. Not so?
MR PIENAAR: I see that, yes.
MR MOERANE: Does that refresh your memory?
MR PIENAAR: I don't remember why I wrote two there, whether it was mentioned at some time I'm not certain.
MR MOERANE: Isn't that the factual position? The fact that Mr Naidoo and somebody else were originally supposed to infiltrate and then the plans were changed at the last minute and four persons infiltrated?
MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I never knew that Mr Naidoo would be one of the insurgents, I did not know.
CHAIRPERSON: I think what Mr Moerane is putting to you, from here, was it not your information originally that there would be two infiltrators?
MR PIENAAR: I see what I wrote there but I cannot recall for which reason I mentioned that there. I am not certain about it anymore.
CHAIRPERSON: It's not the sort of thing you would have deliberately misled Head Office about?
MR PIENAAR: No, I would not try to mislead Head Office.
MR MOERANE: Particularly Mr Pienaar that you furnished this report after the incident, on the very same day.
MR PIENAAR: No Chairperson, I sent it on the 9th of June, the date is there.
MR MOERANE: I beg your pardon. But everything was still fresh in your memory there?
MR PIENAAR: Yes Chairperson.
MR MOERANE: Is it correct that the information regarding the property of the deceased was not entered in any police document or record book, like an SAP 13 or any similar record book?
MR PIENAAR: No, I don't recall that. I don't know whether it was done or not, I doubt.
MR MOERANE: Well, at the Piet Retief Inquest, you testified that it was not done.
MR PIENAAR: Then it is so, Chairperson.
MR MOERANE: Paragraph 9, sub-paragraph 2, "A hand-written note", do you remember what that was about?
MR PIENAAR: I cannot recall whether it was an address or a message, or what it was, I'm not certain about it anymore Chairperson.
MR MOERANE: Do you remember a Parker pen that was supposed to be sent to an address?
MR PIENAAR: I later read in the book of Col de Kock of a pen that was sent to Swaziland.
MR MOERANE: Yes, to the address that was in that particular note.
MR PIENAAR: It may be possible.
MR MOERANE: The idea being that the recipient of that pen would be killed. In other words, the Technical Division of the South African Police would make it possible for the recipient of that pen, as soon as he tries to make use of it, to be killed.
MR PIENAAR: That is so, but it was not part of the operation.
MR MOERANE: One final question. Now this source of yours, was she involved in any other operations where people were killed?
MR PIENAAR: Besides these two, no Chairperson.
MR MOERANE: She was not involved in the Bane Molokwana incident?
MR PIENAAR: Which one?
MR MOERANE: Molokwana.
MR PIENAAR: No Chairperson, no.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MOERANE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Yes, Mr Pienaar, that concludes your testimony, you may stand down now and I think this would
then be an appropriate time to take the short tea adjournment.
WITNESS EXCUSED
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
