CHAIRPERSON: Who do we go to now?
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairperson, the following witness is Mr Pienaar. This is Prinsloo on the record.
F J PIENAAR: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Mr Pienaar, you are the applicant in this matter with regard to McFadden and Zweli Nyanda.
MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: Your application appears on page 63 and goes until page 65 of the bundle, do you have this before you?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, I do.
MR PRINSLOO: And the facts with regard to this specific case, are contained in Annexure A which goes from page 66 to 68, is that correct?
MR PIENAAR: That’s correct.
MR PRINSLOO: And then your political background appears on page 69 and 70.
MR PIENAAR: That's correct.
MR PRINSLOO: And do you confirm those sections?
MR PIENAAR: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: And, along with this, we have documentation which you have already studied, that is Exhibit A which is the General Background to Amnesty Applications.
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: Do you reconcile yourself with this?
MR PIENAAR: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: Apart from the section that deals with Botswana?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Pienaar, at the time of these events, you were a warrant-officer stationed at Piet Retief.
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: And you were primarily involved in actions in the Eastern Transvaal and in Swaziland.
MR PIENAAR: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: And your period of service there, in the SAP security branch, also indicated that you had to deal with certain informers.
MR PIENAAR: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: And the persons who are referred to here as Lawrence and Lawrence Fear and so forth, was he an informer of yours?
MR PIENAAR: No.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Pienaar, did you by means of informers, gather information which had to do with Zweli Nyanda and did you provide this information to your command structure in the Eastern Transvaal and was this information then sent through to Head Office in Pretoria.
MR PIENAAR: That’s correct.
MR PRINSLOO: With regard to Zweli Nyanda, did you have specific information with regard to his structure in Swaziland and his capacity there?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, I did.
MR PRINSLOO: Did you provide such information to your command structure and to the Head Office?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, I did.
MR PRINSLOO: Zweli Nyanda’s position, what was it?
MR PIENAAR: He was the commander of the ANC in Natal from Swaziland.
MR PRINSLOO: Did that involve the planning of acts of terrorism in Natal?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, among others, that is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: And in Eastern Transvaal?
MR PIENAAR: Not as much in Eastern Transvaal, Chairperson. It also involved the insurgency of trained persons into the Republic.
MR PRINSLOO: Was a person by the name of McFadden known to you at that point?
MR PIENAAR: At a later stage, he became known to me.
MR PRINSLOO: And this person called Lawrence, was he known to you?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, he was very well known to me.
MR PRINSLOO: And what position did he occupy in Swaziland?
MR PIENAAR: He was with Mr Nyanda and he was involved in the Natal Machinery.
MR PRINSLOO: And was he also one of the persons who was sought after by the security branch?
MR PIENAAR: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: According to information which you provided to the security police head office, is it correct that during 1983, you were given an order to report to the Oshoek border post?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: And which transport did you use?
MR PIENAAR: I used my own State vehicle.
MR PRINSLOO: Was it a Mercedes Benz or a bakkie?
MR PIENAAR: It was a Cortina.
MR PRINSLOO: Was there any person who made use of a bakkie or a Mercedes Benz?
MR PIENAAR: No, there was nobody like that.
MR PRINSLOO: Did you have access along with these other person, as you have heard, with regard to the evidence of Mr de Kock, who along with Brigadier Cronje entered Swaziland?
MR PIENAAR: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: Did you enter by means of a border post?
MR PIENAAR: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: Did you use your legal passport?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, I used my own legal passport.
MR PRINSLOO: And was this specific house in which Zweli Nyanda would have been pointed out to Brigadier Cronje?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, it was pointed out to Brigadier Cronje. I was with Deetlefs.
MR PRINSLOO: And Colonel Deetlefs, was he in any way involved in the planning of the attack and the obliteration of these persons in Swaziland?
MR PIENAAR: When there was nobody at the house, Mr Deetlefs went through to Ermelo but he was no longer involved in anything.
MR PRINSLOO: The order and planning surrounding this action in Swaziland against this person, Zweli Nyanda, was this undertaken at a hotel in Swaziland?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, that’s correct.
MR PRINSLOO: And at that stage, was the planning according to your application the elimination of Zweli Nyanda and was the plan, as it appears on page 66 or your application, according to Lawrence?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, that’s correct.
MR PRINSLOO: What was that order?
MR PIENAAR: That the persons had to be eliminated.
MR PRINSLOO: And if there were other persons in the house?
MR PIENAAR: They should also be taken out.
MR PRINSLOO: And that house, according to the information that you had, was it a house which was generally used by the ANC or not?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, it was generally used by the ANC.
MR PRINSLOO: And was it clear to you that this was a transit house?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, that's correct.
MR PRINSLOO: And were any visits paid to this particular house. You have heard the evidence given by Mr de Kock that the premises were visited periodically during that evening to see who was there and who wasn’t.
MR PIENAAR: Yes, Colonel De Kock was correct, it did take place that way.
MR PRINSLOO: And, with the action at the house itself, did you enter the house?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, I also entered the house.
MR PRINSLOO: And, before you entered the house, how did you obtain access to the house?
MR PIENAAR: Originally the plan was that Brigadier Cronje and Mr van Zweel would break the door open in order to obtain access. However they could not succeed in this, Colonel De Kock moved around from his position to the door and assisted with that. He managed to kick the door open and access was then obtained.
MR PRINSLOO: And, with regard to the rest of your planning after access had been obtained to the house?
MR PIENAAR: I moved with Brigadier Cronje into a room where there was a person who was standing next to the wall. It was quite dark in the room, we immediately opened fire on this person after which he fell down. I went out of the room upon which I found Mr de Kock. I also fired shots in the lounge after which we returned and then Colonel De Kock told me that there was blood leading to a bathroom. He moved in that direction. Somebody joined him there, I cannot recall who it was. I went to another bedroom where I began to search cupboards in which I also found a number of documents which I later handed over to Brigadier Cronje. Once again a shooting ensued, I moved outside, I found Colonel De Kock outside with a person who had collapsed on the sidewalk, the sidewalk which lead to the gate. The person was struggling to breathe. I shot him, I fired one shot to his head, just to ensure that he had died. I cannot imagine that I took any form of case or briefcase from the person at that stage. Everything was quite chaotic because things had not gone according to plan, the AKs had been used and they were not fitted with silencers and this created quite a noise. We then left.
MR PRINSLOO: The person who lay there, on the sidewalk which lead to the gate, who was that?
MR PIENAAR: That was Zweli Nyanda.
MR PRINSLOO: Could you identify him as he lay there?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, I could.
MR PRINSLOO: How was he known to you?
MR PIENAAR: He was known to me by photos and also by means of my own observation that I had undertaken on a previous occasion.
MR PRINSLOO: And these documents which you took from the cupboard, did you hand them over to Brigadier Cronje?
MR PIENAAR: I did.
MR PRINSLOO: Did you later receive any feedback about what the nature of those documents were?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, I received feedback that there had been very important documents among those papers which contained certain plans for attacks in Natal.
MR PRINSLOO: Now, this person that you shot inside the house along with Brigadier Cronje, did you know who that person was?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, the following day I was informed that it had been Mr McFadden. Mr McFadden was known to me by means of information, he was a known conspirator of the ANC, he was also involved in the transportation of trained MK members from Mozambique to Swaziland and from there to the RSA.
MR PRINSLOO: And did you notice a woman in the house at all?
MR PIENAAR: No, I did not notice any woman in the house.
MR PRINSLOO: Just a moment, please Chairperson. Now, Mr Pienaar, you have already given evidence that Lawrence was not an informer. But on that specific evening, the evidence has been that a person ran away, did you have any information about who that person was?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, on the following day I received information that among others, Mr Lawrence had run away from the house. He had been naked upon which he had run to a police station to go and report these events.
MR PRINSLOO: Now, this person who was known as Lawrence, according to a document which was submitted here, apparently by the family of Nyanda, there is a reference to the idea that Lawrence was an informer or would have given information. Do you have any knowledge of that?
MR PIENAAR: No, I have no such knowledge.
MR PRINSLOO: Now Mr van Zweel, did he enter the house at all?
MR PIENAAR: As far as I know Mr van Zweel did not enter the house.
MR PRINSLOO: Did he fire any shots?
MR PIENAAR: According to my knowledge, no, but I’m not entirely certain about that.
MR PRINSLOO: Now, at the time of this action of yours, you were a member of the South African Police Force?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, that’s correct.
MR PRINSLOO: And you were a member of the National Party?
MR PIENAAR: That’s correct.
MR PRINSLOO: And did you at that stage, act within the execution of your duties whether that be express or sworn, as a member of the South African Police?
MR PIENAAR: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: Did you, in any way, fire shots or attempt to fire shots at those persons for any financial benefit or gain?
MR PIENAAR: No.
MR PRINSLOO: And you are applying for the two murders of McFadden and Nyanda respectively?
MR PIENAAR: That’s correct.
MR PRINSLOO: And you also submit that you did not convey the true facts about the incident at that stage?
MR PIENAAR: That’s correct.
MR PRINSLOO: And you are also applying for malicious damage to property of the house.
MR PIENAAR: Yes
MR PRINSLOO: Or any other omission or offence which may emanate from this situation?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: And for any unlawful deed which may emanate from this situation.
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman, Hattingh on record. Mr Pienaar, you now tell us about incidents which took place about 16 years ago. Isn’t that correct?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: And, this was the type of action where, at several other instances you were also involved with during your career?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: When one is involved with an operation such as this, especially with the execution thereof, then one’s attention would be directed at what one is busy with?
MR PIENAAR: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: One may be aware of the people around or that there are other people shooting elsewhere. You may see who it is but your attention is not drawn to the members of your unit but rather to the people whom you have to attack.
MR PIENAAR: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: And with the passage of time one’s memory becomes vague, is it not true?
MR PIENAAR: In certain instances, yes.
MR HATTINGH: And certain instances can be confused with other ones, isn’t that correct?
MR PIENAAR: That’s correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: The action takes place quite quickly, it’s not very slow, it’s a fast moving incident, isn’t it?
MR PIENAAR: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: One can almost say that at times chaos reigns because shots are fired and stun grenades are thrown and all these type of things, not true?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: This is all activities which are not progressive for reliable observation under the circumstances.
MR PIENAAR: That’s correct.
MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH
MR KNIGHT: Thank you, Mr Chairman, similarly I have no questions on behalf of Nofomela.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR KNIGHT
MS VAN DER WALT: Louisa Van Der Walt for the record, no questions, thank you.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT
MR WAGENER: Jan Wagener, Mr Chairman, I have no questions.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WAGENER
MR VISSER: Louis Visser, Chairperson, I have no questions, thank you.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MOHLABA: Thank you, Chairman, B Mohlaba, I’ve got a few questions.
Were you present at the hotel when this operation was planned? We heard evidence by Mr de Kock that part of the operation was planned in Pretoria and also in Swaziland, were you present when any planning was done in Swaziland?
MR PIENAAR: I was present during the planning in Swaziland, Chairperson.
MR MOHLABA: Could you remember specifically who was to be wiped out in that particular house?
MR PIENAAR: Our knowledge was that the house was occupied by Mr Nyanda as well as Mr Lawrence. They would have been killed but, as well as any other person who was present in the house because it was regarded as a transit house for trained MK members to come to South Africa.
MR MOHLABA: And was Mr de Kock present when this discussion took place?
MR PIENAAR: He was present, Chairperson.
MR MOHLABA: Was Lawrence specifically mentioned by name to be a target, to be eliminated on that particular day?
MR PIENAAR: Definitely, Chairperson. As I say, it was known that Mr Lawrence and Mr Nyanda occupied the house together. He was definitely one the targets there.
MR MOHLABA: So the known occupants of that particular house was Mr Nyanda and Mr Lawrence according to the information you had at that moment?
MR PIENAAR: That’s correct, Chairperson.
MR MOHLABA: And these two people were the people who you intended to wipe out, is that correct?
MR PIENAAR: That’s correct, Chairperson.
MR MOHLABA: And there was a mention of a woman who was in that house at the time of the attack who was left unharmed. Do you know anything about that?
MR PIENAAR: As I have said, I did not see the woman. I only heard later that there was a woman who was in the house.
MR MOHLABA: And that you heard the debriefing meeting at the hotel, is that correct?
MR PIENAAR: I don’t believe it was in the hotel, Chairperson, it might have been but I think I only heard this the following day during the session where we heard that Mr Lawrence went to the police station and about Mr McFadden who was killed in the house.
MR MOHLABA: And can you remember who gave you the information about this woman?
MR PIENAAR: I cannot recall specifically whom it was, I’m not sure.
MR MOHLABA: Was there any reason furnished why this woman was not killed?
MR PIENAAR: No reason was furnished, Chairperson.
MR MOHLABA: Did it appear strange to you that there was somebody who clearly witnessed this incident, who could come out and identify the attackers as Whites and, didn’t you make any enquiries why was she left out?
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, is this question with retrospect, the witness’s evidence is clear that he never saw a woman in that house at the time. So how can he answer that? That the person had to be wiped out if he didn’t see that person?
CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct)are you asking whether he raised the question at this meeting?
MR MOHLABA: Certainly, Chairperson. Why was this...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: And to why the person...(intervention)
MR MOHLABA: ...person left out. Didn’t you enquire then? Didn’t you enquire from where you were, from the source who told you about the woman, why was this woman left out?
MR PIENAAR: I did not ask anybody why she was left out, Chairperson.
MR MOHLABA: Yes, the question was why didn’t you ask? Didn’t you find it strange that she left out?
MR PIENAAR: Because I did not see the woman, and I did not ask any questions about her.
MR MOHLABA: You also mentioned that you subsequently learned that a person ran away from that house and you later learned that that person could be Lawrence, did I get you correctly?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct. I knew that somebody had run away from the house and the following day I established that it was indeed Mr Lawrence.
MR MOHLABA: And did you see this person running away?
MR PIENAAR: I did not see him, Chairperson because I was inside the house. I could not see what was going on outside from where I was.
MR MOHLABA: And who told you of this person running away? That there was somebody who ran away? Can you remember?
MR PIENAAR: It was later discussed at the hotel and, as I say, the following morning, I established that it was Mr Lawrence who had run away from the house.
CHAIRPERSON: Was that one of the reason why you all left the hotel that evening and got away? That you’d realised that somebody had run away and could have gone to the police?
MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, that was one of the reasons. And the others were as I’ve said, things did not go as planned, the shots were fired with the AKs and they were not supplied with silencers, it made quite a noise. And the premises where Mr Nyanda stayed was not far from a Swaziland Defence Force base and that is why we left Swaziland that same evening.
MR SIBANYONI: Excuse me, Mr Mohlaba. How were you able to establish on the following morning that the person who ran away was Lawrence?
MR PIENAAR: It was in co-operation with the Swaziland police where we discovered that it was Mr Lawrence who arrived at the police station and told them about an attack on a house.
MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, Mr Mohlaba.
MR MOHLABA: Thank you, Chairperson. I’ve just been handed a note by my client here. If the Chairperson can bear with me a moment.
MR SIBANYONI: Maybe let me take this opportunity. Mr Pienaar, the person who was your informer, without mentioning his nationality, was he staying in Swaziland or was that person staying the Republic of South Africa?
MR PIENAAR: He lived in Swaziland, Chairperson.
MR SIBANYONI: Thank you.
ADV SANDI: Just one thing which did not sound very clear to me, you say the Swaziland police told you that the person who had escaped was Lawrence?
MR PIENAAR: That’s correct, Chairperson.
ADV SANDI: How did they communicate that information to you?
MR PIENAAR: Telephonically, Chairperson. I called a person who informed me.
ADV SANDI: Was that person a member of the Swaziland police, I take it?
MR PIENAAR: He was a member of the police, yes.
ADV SANDI: How would you describe the relationship and the Swaziland police and the SA police where you were stationed?
MR PIENAAR: I would say it was very good, Chairperson.
ADV SANDI: Would it have gone as far as the South African security police having informers within the ranks of the Swaziland police?
MR PIENAAR: It is indeed so, Chairperson.
ADV SANDI: This person you were contacting from the Swaziland police, in what capacity was he or she talking to you?
MR PIENAAR: As a friend.
ADV SANDI: Was he or she your informer?
MR PIENAAR: No, Chairperson, it was an acquaintance of mine which I built up with some time but, it was not a source.
ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you, Mr Mohlaba.
MR MOHLABA: Thank you, Chairperson. There was a mention of some planning having been done in Pretoria. Were you part of the Pretoria planning or you only participated in the second part in Swaziland?
MR PIENAAR: I only participated in Swaziland, Chairperson.
MR MOHLABA: Could you remember who provided information about the exact location of the house where this attack was to be carried out?
MR PIENAAR: Colonel Deetlefs pointed this house out to myself and Colonel Cronje.
MR MOHLABA: And, do you by any chance know how the Colonel got that information?
MR PIENAAR: No, unfortunately I do not.
MR MOHLABA: Thank you, Chairperson, I’ve got no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MOHLABA
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Ramula Patel.
Sir, can you tell us at the meeting in Swaziland where you were present, the planning meeting, how many targets were specifically identified?
MR PIENAAR: There were two persons, namely Mr Nyanda and Mr Lawrence. And as well as any other person who might have been in the house. It could not be determined how many people there would be, it might have been four or five but, mention was made specifically of Mr Nyanda and Mr Lawrence.
MS PATEL: Okay, I’m slightly confused now because if my memory serves me correctly, Mr de Kock, in his re-examination stated that the Lawrence that he mentions in his application was the person who was killed. And you are saying that this Lawrence was in fact the person who went to the police station, the person who was naked, who had gotten away from...(intervention)
MR HATTINGH: Hattingh on record, Mr Chairman. Mr de Kock’s evidence was that Mr Lawrence was subsequently, later killed. And he even expressed the opinion that he was killed by the ANC.
MS PATEL: All right, yes. No, then I misunderstood his evidence. Sorry, I withdraw that. Was there any mention made of Mr McFadden at that planning meeting?
MR PIENAAR: As far as I know, no.
MS PATEL: The information about Mr McFadden, according to your memory, was that only gained after the operation?
MR PIENAAR: No, Mr Chairperson, it was known that Mr McFadden was a conspirator and assisted the ANC but, after the operation I heard that Mr McFadden had indeed been killed in the house.
MS PATEL: But you didn’t expect him there at the time though?
MR PIENAAR: No, Chairperson.
MS PATEL: And your information about Lawrence, was that conveyed to Brigadier Cronje?
MR PIENAAR: All information which was received was sent through the correct channels to head office and, amongst others, Brigadier Cronje might have had insight to this information.
MS PATEL: Once again, honourable Chairperson, I speak under correction but, I don’t believe that Brigadier Cronje when he testified to the Amnesty Committee on this incident had mentioned that Lawrence was specifically foreseen as a target.
MR PIENAAR: I was not present when Brigadier Cronje gave evidence so I would not know.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, if you want his evidence, I’ve got an extract from his evidence here.
CHAIRPERSON: We’ll lend it overnight. Ms Patel, we will be proceeding tomorrow.
MS PATEL: It was faxed to me late today, honourable Chairperson, so I’ve had a cursory glance at it. I wouldn’t want to put something to the applicant that might be incorrect. So, in fairness to him, I’d like to hold that over and I put my question to him on that basis.
MR PRINSLOO: But, Ms Patel is quite correct. Cronje didn’t talk about McFadden. She’s quite correct.
MS PATEL: Or questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL
CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Chairperson.
You in the reports that you sent up mentioned Lawrence in the report. The report that was sent to Eastern Transvaal which was sent through to Head Office.
MR PIENAAR: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR PRINSLOO: No further questions, thank you, Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO
CHAIRPERSON: In your application you say, at page 68, paragraph 7
"Ek het later verneem dat behalwe Zweli Nyanda, nog ‘n ANC medewerker, McFadden, nou dood is. AG Lawrence was ook in die huis maar hy het daarin geslaag om te ontsnap. Ek het later verneem dat die ANC RG Lawrence verdink het van spionasie op die ANC en dat hy te Lusaka deur die ANC aangehou was en onder verdagte omstandighede oorlede is."
MR PIENAAR: That’s correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Can you remember where you got that information from?
MR PIENAAR: This was through information which several sources conveyed as well as later persons who were arrested and how were interrogated who gave us this information. I was never certain thereof.
CHAIRPERSON: It is quite clear from the document we got and from what you learnt that the ANC suspected him of being the traitor, a double agent.
MR PIENAAR: That’s correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: One other matter, we have had it in other applications as I think you have raised it again here. Was the position that if you raided a transit house, you had to expect that there would be armed men in it?
MR PIENAAR: That was always the case. Any attack which was launched at a base or a transit house, it would be expected that the occupants will be armed.
CHAIRPERSON: So you would naturally enough shoot anyone you saw? You’d shoot on sight?
MR PIENAAR: That’s correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: And that was the normal practice either way?
MR PIENAAR: That’s correct, Chairperson.
ADV SANDI: No questions, Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: (Microphone not switched on) We will adjourn till 9h30 tomorrow morning.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
