CHAIRPERSON: Gentlemen, we have a lot of applicants to get through in the next two days, and I don't know about you, but I do know about members of the Committee, that they hope to get home sometime tomorrow, in which circumstances, I would suggest subject to your availability, that we may perhaps sit a little later than usual today. If any of you have problems that you cannot cope with, let me know, otherwise we may sit, but I don't propose to sit till midnight or anything like that, we may sit an hour or so longer, if that is all right.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I perhaps just in that regard mention one thing, my client has discussed this matter with a forensic and ballistic expert and the information obtained from this ballistic expert, especially about burning marks around the wounds, apparently differs considerably from the evidence that you have heard of the medical doctors who gave evidence. I don't want to protract these proceedings, and therefore I wish to place on record that I have such a witness available and perhaps request from you an indication if you would want to hear further evidence around those issues or not, Mr Chairman. I don't at this point in time, I don't know what kind of weight you might want to give to that evidence and I don't know if it would be necessary to call this witness, however, he does say that, or the gist of what he told me, or what he told my client, was that the kind of ammunition that was used, would cause burning marks on the skin, so it differs directly from the evidence of the doctor.
CHAIRPERSON: We had two somewhat different versions from the doctors, haven't we? We had Dr van der Wouden and Dr or Prof Saayman and they differed as to, not as to what was seen, that was accepted, Dr Wouden was the only one who could testify as to that, but as I recollect the evidence, and I looked at it again yesterday, there were differences of opinion and I think there, I speak here without having consulted my colleagues on this precise aspect, and subject to further evidence we may hear, at the moment there doesn't seem to be any convincing evidence either way. The matter is one for your decision, it may differ as the day goes on.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman. Thank you Mr Chairman. The witness may be made available, so if at any time the Committee feels that it may be necessary to hear evidence ...
CHAIRPERSON: I think not only the Committee, if our Evidence Leader or counsel appearing for the victims or anyone else, I think you could discuss it with them and tell them in perhaps greater detail than you have told us what it is.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, I will do so Mr Chairman, thank you very much.
MR RAMAWELE: Mr Chairman, may I say that, Mr Chairman, may I say that my client is not yet available at this stage, but I have informed the Evidence Leader that we can proceed in his absence, and I hope that she is going to make arrangements that he join us later during the proceedings.
CHAIRPERSON: He will be available, will he?
MR RAMAWELE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Who do we proceed with now?
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Pienaar is under cross-examination by Mr Nthai, Mr Chairman.
MR LAX: Just before you proceed, Mr Nthai, Mr Pienaar, just to remind you that you are still under oath?
FREDERICK JOHANNES PIENAAR: (s.u.o.)
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NTHAI: (Cont) Mr Pienaar, you have already referred to your affidavit, the affidavit that you prepared for the inquest. You have already told us that most of the information that is contained, is not correct?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct Mr Chairperson.
MR NTHAI: Will you confirm, you are the one that took these affidavits, all these affidavits, is that correct?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct, yes.
MR NTHAI: Will you explain to me, is it normal procedure that a person who is involved in an incident, would take affidavits of this nature?
MR PIENAAR: No, it is not normal procedure.
MR NTHAI: In this particular case, why did you do it that way?
MR PIENAAR: I was told by Col Deetlefts to continue with the investigation of the case and to get the necessary statements, it also had the authorisation of the office in Middelburg.
MR NTHAI: Were you not sceptical of it, I mean as an Officer of your rank at the time, were you not sceptical about that?
MR PIENAAR: I did not ask any questions concerning that.
MR NTHAI: You didn't see anything wrong with that?
MR PIENAAR: It was wrong.
MR NTHAI: Did you tell Mr Deetlefts that the instruction that you are giving me, it is wrong?
MR PIENAAR: No, I didn't.
MR NTHAI: Why didn't you do so?
MR PIENAAR: I did not say anything against the senior officers, I just continued and got the necessary statements.
MR NTHAI: Now, maybe you should explain to us exactly what you did with these affidavits, what happened, how did you compile them? Who came with this story?
MR PIENAAR: I went to go and meet with the members, I got rough copies, or statements of them, afterwards it was typed by a secretary and before the people left Piet Retief, they signed these statements.
MR NTHAI: Who told you to fabricate lies?
MR PIENAAR: It was a meeting there, nobody specifically said what had to be said. We all had part in it, when we took the statements.
MR NTHAI: And Mr Deetlefts was also there?
MR PIENAAR: Mr Deetlefts?
MR NTHAI: Yes, was he there also when you ...
MR PIENAAR: Yes, Mr Chairperson.
MR NTHAI: And then after that meeting, who was taking notes?
MR PIENAAR: I myself wrote it down.
MR NTHAI: So you took notes of what was being said there?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct yes.
MR NTHAI: And on the basis of that, you compiled the affidavits?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR NTHAI: So none of the members compiled affidavits, draft affidavits themselves?
MR PIENAAR: No. We talked about it, I had the notes with me and then got it typed.
MR NTHAI: Now, if there is something that appears here which was not discussed at the meeting, that would be from you, is that correct?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, I cannot really remember everything that was said, it could possibly be said so.
MR NTHAI: So, am I correct to say that you were then the main architect and perhaps to say the "Makulu-baas" of fabricating these lies, is that correct?
MR PIENAAR: I won't say that I was the "Makulu-baas", but it was a joint decision that was taken.
MR NTHAI: But you were in charge of writing and fine tuning the affidavits?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, I wrote it and also got it typed.
MR NTHAI: And at the time you did not hesitate to fabricate evidence against the dead?
MR PIENAAR: No.
MR NTHAI: And you also fabricated evidence against the living at the time, is that correct?
MR PIENAAR: What living?
MR NTHAI: Well, you fabricated lies against the people who died, not so, when you compiled the affidavit?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct Chair.
MR NTHAI: Now the next question is, the next question is, you could also fabricate evidence against the people who were living at the time?
MR PIENAAR: No, not at all.
MR NTHAI: Should I take it that you fabricated because they were dead, they couldn't talk for themselves, is that correct?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct yes, Mr Chairperson. We saw the whole matter as an embarrassment for the government and for the police and that is why the statements were taken down in such a way.
MR NTHAI: Mr Pienaar, I don't know, how can it be an embarrassment when you planned it, executed it, fully appreciating that you were - how can it all of a sudden become an embarrassment?
MR PIENAAR: If that ambush were leaked out to the international community, it would have been a big scandal for the government and for the police.
MR NTHAI: But even if the plan was leaked to the international community, it would be a scandal, not so?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct, it would have been a scandal in any way.
MR NTHAI: Did you inform your seniors that you are now protecting the government?
MR PIENAAR: No Mr Chairperson, I did not discuss anything with the senior members, they were present there, they knew what the state of affairs were.
MR LAX: Sorry, just if I may interpose Mr Nthai, which seniors were present, which seniors are you referring to specifically?
MR PIENAAR: It was Col Deetlefts and de Kock at that stage, Mr Chairperson.
MR LAX: How can you say you didn't discuss it with them, they were part of the meeting, they were part of the agreement?
MR PIENAAR: No, they did know about it Mr Chairperson, but I didn't continue to go to other seniors, for example to the District's office in Middelburg. But they did know about it, Col de Kock and Deetlefts.
MR LAX: But Mr Pienaar, I have just asked you wish seniors you were talking about and you spoke about de Kock and Deetlefts?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct, yes.
MR LAX: He said to you, did you discuss it with your seniors and you said no? I clarified which seniors?
MR PIENAAR: I said they knew about it Mr Chairperson, but I did not discuss it any further.
MR LAX: With the greatest of respect, with the greatest of respect Mr Pienaar, you didn't just, they didn't just have notice of it, they were part of your meeting?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR LAX: That is their evidence already?
MR PIENAAR: Yes.
MR LAX: And it is your evidence?
MR PIENAAR: Yes.
MR LAX: So why did you answer Mr Nthai by saying you didn't discuss it with your seniors, when you in fact did discuss it with them, they were party to it, they were party to the planning of the whole thing in the first place?
CHAIRPERSON: He had said that already?
MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, what I actually meant with that is that Col Deetlefts and de Kock who were seniors, were present there, but the discussion with other seniors, I did not do, but de Kock and Deetlefts knew about it, that is correct so, yes.
MR LAX: Those other seniors weren't present, were they?
MR PIENAAR: No Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: As I understand the practice in the Police Force, you would not go above the heads of the officers who were immediately responsible, would you?
MR PIENAAR: No, I wouldn't have.
MR LAX: Please continue, Mr Nthai.
MR NTHAI: Now, you fabricated these lies?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct yes.
MR NTHAI: You didn't want to embarrass the government?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR NTHAI: What assurance do we have that you are now not fabricating more lies, in order to protect yourself?
MR PIENAAR: I have no reason to tell any lies, that is why I am here today, to apply for amnesty or possible amnesty. There is no reason now for me to tell any more lies or stories.
MR NTHAI: But you know of a saying which says "once a liar, always a liar", do you know about it?
MR PIENAAR: There is a saying like that, but I do not agree with it, Mr Chairperson.
MR NTHAI: Mr Pienaar, I want you to help me with something here. It appears from the documents that were submitted here, that there was no inquest into the death of Zandile or Mzwandile, is that correct?
MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, all the documents were handed over to the Magistrate as far as I know, but there was not a distinct identification of who the person who died, was.
MR NTHAI: What do you mean by that, the Magistrate had to know, the people had to be identified?
MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, no, Col Deetlefts also testified that photographs and fingerprints from Zandile was taken and was provided to the Swazi police for a possible identification of Zandile. It was also done in the same way on this side, but there was never a positive identification of this person.
MR LAX: Sorry, may I just interpose, Mr Nthai, page 66 is the J56, in the inquest of Zandile, so there was actually an inquest held and there was a finding made in that. I cannot say the same for the other person you referred to, but definitely for Zandile there was such a thing done.
MR NTHAI: No, thank you. Related to that, there is no indication as to who identified the body of Zandile in the documents, I didn't see that?
MR PIENAAR: The identification was also done by Glory Sidebe the next morning after the incident took place.
CHAIRPERSON: Aren't there other reports of inquests in the papers before us? Did they not relate to this?
MR LAX: Mr Nthai, which two are you referring to, Zandile and ...
MR NTHAI: Well, we are talking about, in the documents here, in the post-mortem report, this person is referred as Zandile. Vusimusi Sandani refers him as Mzwandile, so I take it we are talking about one and the same person. It is actually one and the same person, that is the person who was killed the other side.
MR LAX: Correct.
MR NTHAI: Now, what I don't actually see here is what I actually want to arrive at is, I don't see as to what happened to the body of Zandile. There is no document which indicate that any family member came to identify him there or what happened?
MR PIENAAR: As I said, Mzwandile was not officially identified. We could not find out who he was. As far as I know, he was buried in Amsterdam.
MR NTHAI: He was buried in Amsterdam?
MR PIENAAR: I believe so, I cannot remember what happened there with the body, but he wouldn't be in the mortuary, he is buried, and if they could not find any of the next-of-kin, he would then be buried as a needy person by the State.
MR NTHAI: But I mean you are saying he was identified by Sidebe, he knew him?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, Sidebe and I also believe Mr Sandani.
MR NTHAI: Perhaps while we are still on that, there is something that I want to ask you because, so you believe the body of Zandile was buried there in that area?
MR PIENAAR: I believe so, Mr Chairperson.
MR NTHAI: There is something, if you go to page 70 of Bundle 2, that would be the, no, I am sorry, the affidavit, it appears on page 75, the affidavit of Sandani.
MR PIENAAR: Yes, I do have it in front of me.
MR NTHAI: If you check paragraph 23, he says
"... during my interrogation I was taken to a cell in the police station where I was made to look through the peep hole in the cell door. There was a prisoner in the cell, he stood facing me with his hands behind his back, I was asked if I recognised him, I did not."
Who was this person?
MR PIENAAR: I do not know anything about that, at that stage there were two people according to Section 29, that was Mr Maseko and Dladla, but I cannot remember this incident.
MR NTHAI: Go to page, paragraph 26 of Mr Sandani. He says
"... approximately two weeks later, I was taken to the Ermelo office of the Security Police. In the course of my interrogation there, I was shown a photograph of two bodies. I recognised one of them as Mzwandile, the other person in the photograph was the person I had seen through the peep hole. I was asked to identify both bodies. I identified Mzwandile and told the police that I could not identify the other person."
MR PIENAAR: No, I do not know anything about that at all.
MR NTHAI: Could it be, could it be there was another person who was killed, and that is why some of the affidavits talk about five people having been killed in that incident?
MR PIENAAR: No, there were not five people killed in that incident.
MR NTHAI: This appeared in the application of Mr de Kock, he talked about five people, he later on of course changed his version, and it also appears in the submission by someone else, I don't remember, but they are talking about five people. Were they referring to this specific person?
MR PIENAAR: No, five people were not killed there, three people at the pick-up truck, Mr Mdlandile that was found at the T-junction by Mr de Kock.
MR NTHAI: You know why I am asking you this is because Sandani is going to come and testify here and he is going to say that you are the one who showed him that person.
MR PIENAAR: That is not the truth, Mr Chairperson, he can come, it is his right to come and testify.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, what is he going to say?
MR NTHAI: Well, to say that the person who he saw peeping through the window, he was shown that person by Mr Pienaar. He was being asked to identify this person when he was still alive.
MR PIENAAR: Mr Chairperson, as I said, at that stage it was only Mr Maseko and Dladla who was held according to Section 29, it could be that one of them indicated or identified Mr Sandani, but they both are still alive today.
MR NTHAI: The person we are talking about, died, he later identified him, two weeks later, on a photo?
MR PIENAAR: I do not know anything about that.
MR LAX: Mr Pienaar, is it a question that you don't remember it and it might have happened, or are you saying without a doubt, it could not have happened?
MR PIENAAR: No, I cannot remember it at all. According to what I know, it did not happen. The person who were detained and then died, it never happened.
MR LAX: Thank you, no, I just wanted to clarify between whether it may have happened, but you just don't remember it at all, or you are absolutely certain it did not happen.
MR PIENAAR: Mr Chairperson, maybe there is a misunderstanding. What I cannot remember what was said is that the incident where I identified a person to Sandani, somebody who stood in the prison cell, it could have happened, but the person who died two weeks later, not at all, there is nothing like that.
MR NTHAI: Okay. I am now taking you to the scene, we are forgetting about the inquest now, we are getting to the scene now. There is a sketch that was drawn by Mr de Kock, but I am sure you have seen it?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, I did.
MR NTHAI: You agree with that more or less, that is the sketch of that incident?
MR PIENAAR: All that I do not agree though is that people were on the opposite side of the road, I do not agree with that, Mr Chairperson. In other words on the sketch, where Mr de Kock wrote according to my recollection, with the three question marks on the northern side, there were no people there.
MR NTHAI: So Mr de Kock did not tell us the truth when he said that there were people on that side?
MR PIENAAR: What Mr de Kock said according to his recollection, he could have made a mistake, but I am very sure that there were not people on the northern side of the road.
MR NTHAI: Isn't his evidence that there were people on the other side, also consistent with where the driver ultimately ended up, just on the other side of the van, I am talking about Mr de Kock's evidence, is that not consistent with that?
MR PIENAAR: Mr Chairperson, no. Mr de Kock also said that he gave instructions to Mr Labuschagne to shoot the informant or the driver of the pick-up. He then says in this sketch that Mr Labuschagne and according to him, two other people, but I do not agree with him there, because there were no other people on the northern side of the road, although he did say that.
MR NTHAI: Mr Pienaar, if you look at Mr de Kock's sketch and the point where he is saying the driver ended up, do you see that?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct, yes.
MR NTHAI: That is very consistent with the version that there were some people from the other side, who shot him, is that not correct?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, it seems like that, but the body did not lay as Mr de Kock drew it there, it was further back, further back behind the vehicle, and as Col Deetlefts testified earlier on.
MR NTHAI: Are you not now fabricating lies again?
MR PIENAAR: No, there is no need for that.
CHAIRPERSON: Isn't that what Mr Deetlefts indeed testified? He is saying the body lay further back, behind the vehicle as Mr Deetlefts testified. Are you saying that is a lie because that is my note of what Mr Deetlefts said?
MR NTHAI: Well, I am saying that is a lie.
CHAIRPERSON: So Mr Deetlefts is lying?
MR NTHAI: Yes.
MR PIENAAR: No Chairperson, it is correct as Mr Deetlefts said it, the body was further back, behind the vehicle.
CHAIRPERSON: Diagonally out behind the right rear of the vehicle? Is that where the body was lying, sorry I don't understand what is being said. You dispute that?
MR NTHAI: There are two points.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR NTHAI: There is a point by Mr de Kock which says the body was laying just next to the door on the right hand side, and there is another one which says it has gone a bit backwards, so ...
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but this witness said that the body was laying further behind the vehicle, as Mr Deetlefts testified, and you then said that is a lie. Are you saying it is a lie that Mr Deetlefts testified to that affect or are you saying that Mr Deetlefts' evidence to this affect, was a lie?
MR NTHAI: Well, I am saying Mr Deetlefts' evidence to this affect which the witness is confirming, is a lie, it is counterposed by the evidence of Mr de Kock. That is why I want the witness, the witness agrees with Mr Deetlefts, so I take it that is his evidence also, that is why I am putting the question to him.
MR PIENAAR: That is correct Mr Chairperson, I do agree with Mr Deetlefts. I think Mr de Kock was slightly wrong with what the position of the body was. It is not as he drew it on that sketch, and I do agree with Mr Deetlefts concerning that.
MR NTHAI: Do you remember the point where you were on the other side, where you were laying, can you remember next to who were you?
MR PIENAAR: I already testified that I cannot remember who was laying next to me. I did not really give attention to that.
MR NTHAI: Do you remember how many shots you fired?
MR PIENAAR: I cannot remember.
MR NTHAI: Can you remember at which point of the bakkie, you fired?
MR PIENAAR: Towards the left front door of the vehicle.
MR NTHAI: I want you to look at the photo's, the photo's of the firearms.
MS LOCKHAT: That is Exhibit C Chairperson.
MR NTHAI: Is it C?
MR LAX: There are two, there is A and there is C.
MR NTHAI: Let's look at A, I am more interested, A is the rucksacks, I think, I am interested in A. Mr de Kock indicated that there was also TNT blocks there, do you see that?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct yes.
MR NTHAI: Are you aware that at the time the ANC was no longer using the TNT, in 1986, are you aware of that fact?
MR PIENAAR: They sent it in this case, and the ANC definitely did sent it in from Swaziland into the Republic of South Africa.
MR NTHAI: No, the question is, are you aware that at the time the ANC was no longer using the TNT, are you aware of that?
MR PIENAAR: They did use it, that was sent in from Swaziland into the Republic.
MR NTHAI: I am not talking about this specific one, I am saying are you aware that at the time the ANC was not using the TNT, as such at the time (indistinct) carrying the TNT, are you aware of that?
MR PIENAAR: That is what I am saying Chairperson, what the ANC stopped doing, I do not know but this explosives and weapons were sent by the ANC from Swaziland to the Republic, so it was still used at that stage.
MR NTHAI: Mr Pienaar, that is what Mr Sandani is going to say and he was part of the Command Structure of the Swaziland Machinery, that the TNT was not in use at the time at all, are you going to dispute that?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, I would dispute it, because why was the TNT then sent through by the ANC, so they still had?
MR NTHAI: You are aware that Mr Sandani was part of the Command Structure?
MR PIENAAR: Yes Chairperson, he was there with Paul Dikaledi.
MR NTHAI: Now, you are saying that these photo's were used in the trial of Maseko and Dladla, is that correct?
MR PIENAAR: I do not believe that these photographs were used there, this is as far as I can remember.
MR NTHAI: But we have been given these photographs by your legal representative?
MR PIENAAR: It could be, I am not quite sure, it could possibly be so, I am not sure.
MR NTHAI: Mr Pienaar, you were there, the other day I was asking you questions around these photo's.
MR PIENAAR: Yes, I was there, but I cannot remember everything that was submitted with my case, it was a very long case, and various evidence pieces were ...
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, with respect, may the witness be shown Exhibit A, Mr Chairman, the original please and then he can refresh his memory from the photo album.
MR NTHAI: Are you saying that you don't recall that those photo's were used in the Maseko and Dladla trial?
MR PIENAAR: I said they could have been used, they were used in the case of Mr Sandani.
MR NTHAI: You also gave evidence in that trial, is it correct?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct, yes.
MR NTHAI: And you cannot recollect seeing those photo's? The other day I was even asking you whether they were given dates or something like that, do you remember?
MR PIENAAR: No, you asked me about the key of the photo's.
MR NTHAI: Yes.
MR PIENAAR: I cannot remember where that was.
MR NTHAI: And that day you were not saying you were not sure that the photo's were used, you were just telling me that you don't see the key?
MR PIENAAR: That was in the case of Maseko and Dladla, but in Sandani, I know for definite that it was used. But if you look at the exhibit number on the original album, it was also used in the case of Maseko and Dladla.
MR NTHAI: Yes. If these firearms were carried by the deceased, and also Mr Maseko was tried about this, why were these firearms then used for Dladla and Maseko, because they were arrested before the firearms were brought into the country?
MR PIENAAR: It was a claim by Mr Maseko and Ebrahim and Dladla concerning structures and instructions from Mr Ebrahim that was set up by the Government Advocate in the case. It was a very long charge sheet with an extensive information or detail.
MR NTHAI: You see, why I am asking you this question, it is because Sandani doubts whether all these firearms were there when they were crossing the border. I am asking you this question as to whether some of the firearms that are here, are not the firearms that were found in possession of Maseko and other people, and they were used in the trial of Maseko and Dladla later on?
MR PIENAAR: I can give you the assurance that these weapons on this photo in Exhibit A before the Committee, were definitely the weapons which were found in the bakkie. Chairperson, and while we are on this point, I would just like the opportunity to go to my statement on page 6. I would just like to make an amendment which I have thought about and I have made an error, paragraph 10, the second line there I stated, or rather the third line
"... below the body of the black man there was an AK47",
that was false. This AK47 which was there below the body, was placed there by Mr de Kock. Then we proceed to paragraph 13, where I compiled a list of the weapons which were found in the back of the bakkie, and you will see that no AK is mentioned there in that list, which to me is a definite indication now, in retrospect, that only one AK was in the vehicle and not two, as I have stated, that Mr de Kock was correct when he stated that there was one AK, perhaps two. If there had been two, I would have mentioned the other AK in paragraph 13 in the list of what was found in the back of the bakkie.
MR NTHAI: When you compiled this submission, you were trying to recollect everything, not so?
MR PIENAAR: Yes Chairperson.
MR NTHAI: Why this omissions now, why now you are correcting things here, you corrected the affidavit of the inquest, now you are correcting what you have submitted?
MR PIENAAR: As I have said, I was mistaken when it came to the two AKs, and there I agree with Mr de Kock that he was indeed correct when he stated that there was one AK, that perhaps there might have been two, but if I look at my affidavit, there was definitely only one AK, and then Mr Sandani was also correct in his affidavit when he stated that there was only one AK.
MR NTHAI: You are now fine tuning your evidence after listening to what Mr de Kock said?
MR PIENAAR: No, directly after I gave evidence, I discussed the fact that I had made a mistake, with my legal representative, he would have corrected this during re-examination, but seeing as we are on the point right now, I have mentioned it myself here.
MR NTHAI: But you gave evidence-in-chief, why didn't you correct that in your evidence-in-chief?
MR PIENAAR: I wasn't sure at that stage, subsequently I sat down and thought about it, and read my affidavit once again, and realised that I had made a mistake regarding the two AKs, that is why I have amended it now.
MR NTHAI: Mr Pienaar, when did you do that? When did you read your affidavit again and realised that it was wrong?
MR PIENAAR: I studied the affidavit.
MR NTHAI: When?
MR PIENAAR: After I had completed my evidence here.
MR NTHAI: So that is when you realised that you had made a mistake?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, it bothered me and I re-examined my affidavit and realised that it was a mistake.
MR NTHAI: And at the time when Mr de Kock was giving evidence, there was nothing wrong as far as you were concerned? You didn't realise that there was something wrong in what you submitted and what Mr de Kock was saying?
MR PIENAAR: As I have stated Mr Chairperson, Mr de Kock stated that there was one AK and that there could perhaps have been two, but that he wasn't completely certain. If I recall correctly, that was what Mr de Kock stated, and I now agree with him that there was only one AK and not two.
MR NTHAI: You have also stated that Sithole was part of the ANC Swaziland Machinery, is that correct?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, he assisted them, the Transvaal Machinery.
MR NTHAI: Are you also saying he was a member of the ANC?
MR PIENAAR: If he had assisted them, if he had transported persons and weapons, then he was a member of the ANC, yes, but as I have stated, I don't know whether he was a recorded member of the ANC as such, I don't know about that.
MR NTHAI: What about Knox Dlamini?
MR PIENAAR: Knox Dlamini was the same. As far as I know, Knox Dlamini was never military trained abroad by the ANC, however he was a collaborator, he assisted them, he was a sympathiser of the ANC.
MR NTHAI: What about Zandile?
MR PIENAAR: The same with Zandile, if he assisted the ANC with the transportation with weaponry, if he was a collaborator, then he was also a member of the ANC.
MR NTHAI: Did you ever receive information whether Zandile was trained or not?
MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I spoke to Mr Sandani as well as Mr Sidebe and they didn't know whether Zandile was a trained member of the ANC, however they knew that he was a collaborator in Swaziland and Mozambique.
MR NTHAI: Mr Pienaar, Sandani told you that Zandile was not a member of the ANC, didn't he tell you that?
MR PIENAAR: No. He was a collaborator, but he did tell me that they were not certain, they didn't know whether the man had received military training. They were not certain about this aspect.
MR NTHAI: Sandani also told you that Zandile was just an acquaintance of Bernard Shange, is that correct? Did he tell you about that?
MR PIENAAR: He may have said so, yes. But if that was the case Chairperson, then Mr Bernard's people would also have identified Zandile, and nobody could identify him.
MR NTHAI: Of course, because he was an acquaintance of Bernard Shange, I am telling you, he was not an active supporter of the ANC?
MR LAMEY: Chairperson, may I come here, I know it is not my client or so, but I must point out that what is stated to this applicant is not in line with paragraph 3 of Sandani's affidavit on page 75.
MR LAX: Paragraph 3 does not talk about Sandani at all, Mr ...
MR LAMEY: No, it is Sandani's statement and the version is put on behalf of Sandani, relating to Mzwandile.
MR LAX: Yes, I see what you are saying.
MR NTHAI: Mr Chairman ...
MR LAX: What Mr Lamey is in fact saying is it is evident from paragraph 3 that Mzwandile, who you have already put to the witness is the same person as Zandile?
MR NTHAI: Correct.
MR LAX: From here it appears that he is a member of the ANC who worked with these people as contra-distinction to Sithole who they say just helped on occasion.
MR NTHAI: Well, Mr Chairman, what I am putting here is what Mr Sandani is going to say.
CHAIRPERSON: That is he is going to say that his affidavit was untruthful, is that so?
MR NTHAI: Well, Mr Sandani is going to when he gives evidence, he is going to put certain corrections on some of the things that are contained in that affidavit.
CHAIRPERSON: The same as the other people have?
MR NTHAI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: That it wasn't true? The corrections he is going to make is because there were things that were not true in the affidavit?
MR NTHAI: Yes, the way the affidavit was taken, he will be able to explain that. Now, I am putting to the witness because I want the witness to answer that.
MR LAX: Well, don't you think you should put it to the witness on the basis that at the very least, Mr Sandani is going to explain certain changes in his evidence, for example in relation to this, that is putting it fairly to the witness, otherwise there are two contradictory statements by the same person?
MR NTHAI: Yes, I will do it that way. Well, you see Mr Sandani is going to correct some of the things that are put here.
MR PIENAAR: I understand.
MR NTHAI: Especially about the exactness of the area and stuff like that, the measurements and distance which he was not even aware of it, in other words he could not have said those things because he was coming to that area for the first time, so there are things that he is going to correct. What I am putting to you now is that one of the things that he is going to say is that Mzwandile was just an acquaintance of Bernard Shange.
MR PIENAAR: I don't know that Chairperson, what I said was indeed that Mr Mzwandile was a collaborator and someone who assisted the ANC in Swaziland with the Transvaal Machinery. This was said by Messrs Sidebe and Sandani, but they were not certain of his military training.
MR LAX: Can I just interpose for a moment, Mr Pienaar, surely as a person who was trying to understand and analyse these different people, you would have distinguished between people who you knew were trained guerrillas and people who you knew were supporters, people you knew who were Swazi citizens but who were just helpers, you would have made those distinctions at the time in the way you began to try and develop an understanding of what was going on in Swaziland? The sort of impression you are giving now, well, these were all just people, we regarded them all as ANC. Isn't that a bit of a false impression you are creating?
MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, what I mean by this in terms of the question which was put to me, that Mr Mzwandile was not a member of the ANC, whether or not I know that he was actually a member of the ANC, if a person assisted the ANC with infiltrations and collaborated in the transportation of weaponry, I would have regarded this person as a member of the ANC, that he was favourably inclined towards them, that he was one of them. But a military trained person was something completely different.
I didn't know whether or not Mzwandile had received military training. This was asked of Sidebe as well as Sandani and neither of them could confirm this, that he had received military training and was as such a member of the ANC. The same applies to Knox Dlamini, as the question was put to me. I knew that Knox Dlamini had never received military training, but he was a great ANC supporter, sympathiser, collaborator in Swaziland which created the same dangers as a member of the ANC would have.
MR LAX: Yes, but my point is really a simple one. You were busy with an analysis of the Transvaal Machinery, the Natal Machinery, all these different people, and in your files you would have distinguished between people who were known cadres of MK on the one hand, trained cadres, you would have distinguished between administrators, you would have distinguished between Swazi citizens who were assisting the ANC, you would have made all those distinctions, isn't that so?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR LAX: And therefore you wouldn't have just regarded them as ANC members, you would have known the difference because it was quite crucial to your understanding of the scenario?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct Chairperson. If one compiled a report about the activities of a certain person, then one would have stated that this was an ANC collaborator or sympathiser or a trained person who had a number. They would be allocated numbers, S-numbers according to the photo albums, there was a distinction, yes.
MR LAX: Please continue Mr Nthai.
MR NTHAI: And you wouldn't regard a person who just assist trained people say in the country as an ANC person, not so, who just assist them with transport without even knowing where they were going?
MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, once again, this is what I said earlier. An ANC collaborator or assistor, was an ANC member in my opinion, but if one discussed such a person or wrote about such a person, the distinction would be made, otherwise this person would be regarded as a member of the ANC.
CHAIRPERSON: As I understood your evidence, you said people who collaborated with the ANC by transporting weapons, and things of that nature?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: As I understand the question that was just put to you, counsel is saying well, you wouldn't consider people who merely gave ANC people transport, not knowing where they were going to, as collaborators, you wouldn't, would you, if they didn't know that it was for ANC purposes?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, then it would boil down to the person taking a taxi and the taxi wouldn't know where this person was going, or who this person was, so yes, that is correct Chairperson.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, may I ascertain from Mr Nthai, is Mr Sandani going to change his statement in paragraph 4 where it says in line 2
"... they would be escorted across the border by Mzwandile and I"?
CHAIRPERSON: He said some more later.
MR PRINSLOO: Correct Mr Chairman. I assume he is going to change all his references to Mzwandile. Paragraph 6, paragraph 7.
MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Mr Chairman, paragraph 8 it clearly says
"... Mzwandile, Bernard, Tollman carried a rucksack containing certain arms and ammunition, the exact details of which I cannot remember."
So it implies clearly Mr Chairman, that Mzwandile assisted in carrying weapons and ammunition, he wasn't just an innocent person assisting people across the border.
MR NTHAI: Well, Mr Chairman, carrying weapons does not make one an ANC Member? Is that what my learned friend is trying to say?
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, with respect, Mr Nthai put it to the witness that Mr Mzwandile would just be an innocent person, not knowing about where these people were going, but clearly from what is stated in paragraph 8 and the preceding paragraphs, is that Mzwandile carried weapons across the border.
CHAIRPERSON: Is this, I take it, this is all going to be denied if he is just a social acquaintance of Bernard's?
MR NTHAI: Well, the carrying is not going to be denied.
CHAIRPERSON: So he did assist the ANC carrying weapons illegally across the border?
MR NTHAI: Of course.
CHAIRPERSON: And you say that doesn't make him a collaborator of the ANC?
MR NTHAI: Well, it doesn't make him an ANC member, that is what I am saying.
CHAIRPERSON: The test is being laid out that anybody who collaborated with the ANC in the armed struggle carrying weapons and things of that nature, was regarded as ANC? Is that not what you have been saying, Mr Pienaar, this was the test you applied?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct Chairperson.
MR NTHAI: You see Mr Sandani is going to say that he regarded Mr Sithole and Knox as active supporters of the ANC, not necessarily members of the ANC, he is going to explain because to be a member of the ANC, you had to be under the permanent support of the ANC at the time.
MR PIENAAR: I understand that.
MR NTHAI: And in your gathering of evidence, you were not able to get this, that people who are regarded as ANC people, are people who are under the permanent support of the ANC, you couldn't get that information?
MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, the collaboration from Mzwandile was clear, it was confirmed by Sidebe who was considerably higher up in the ANC ranks than Mr Sandani. It was also confirmed by Sandani himself, but what I maintain is that they could never tell me precisely or with certainty, whether Mzwandile had received military training or not, they didn't know this.
MR LAX: Mr Deetlefts, while Mr Nthai is busy with his papers, was it usual that Swazi citizens would have been sent for training, surely they would have been used in different ...
MR PIENAAR: No, Mr Chairperson. Not at all.
MR LAX: surely that would have then put the matter to a certain extent, beyond doubt in your mind. This man was a Swazi citizen, the same position as Sithole, they were in a different category of person from cadres who would have been South African citizens who had left the country, who had gone for training and come back to work in Swaziland?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct Mr Chairperson, but as I said earlier on, there was never a positive identification of who Mzwandile was, if he was a citizen of Swaziland, if he was from Mozambique or if he was from South Africa. We could not find that out.
MR LAX: Okay, that is much more helpful for me, because up until now, the assumption certainly in all the evidence was that he was a Swazi person who was just helping? If it is clear now that you didn't know that, well, that is a different story.
MR PIENAAR: That is correct Mr Chairperson.
MR NTHAI: You want to tell me, are you trying to say that when September told you about Mzwandile, he didn't tell you that he was a Swazi citizen, he didn't tell you that?
MR PIENAAR: No Mr Chairperson, he saw him in Swaziland regularly, he worked there, but he did not know exactly what this person was or where his people were or if received military training, he could not say that.
MR NTHAI: I want to take you to paragraph number 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22, 23, 24 of Mr Sandani's affidavit. May I also indicate to you that Mr Sandani is definitely not going to change paragraph 18 of the affidavit, he is also not going to change paragraph 19 of the affidavit, he is not going to change paragraph 20, he is not going to change paragraph 21, he is not going to change paragraph, no paragraph 22, the only thing that he is going to change there was that he never told the person who was taking the statement that he overheard one of the policemen mentioning September, so that he is going to change.
He is going to say that he was aware that he was September from the information that you were asking him, he became aware that the person you were consulting with on the other side, was September, but he is going to say that it is not to say that he overheard, he made a conclusion that the person you were dealing with on the other side, was September.
He is also not going to change paragraph 23, there is not going to be any change in paragraph 24 and we can take it from there. Do you dispute that at the camp, Zandile was assaulted, I am on paragraph 18 now?
MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, after we received the message that a person was detained at the Stafford Camp, I went there, I met Mr Zandile in the base. He was blindfolded, he did have wounds. I then transported him from there and away from the camp, I took the blindfold off. Mr Botha who was with me there, we never assaulted Mr Sandani, at no stage.
MR NTHAI: No, no, Mr Pienaar, I think you need to understand ...
MR LAX: Sorry Mr Nthai, can I just correct something here, the interpretation is talking about Zandile, we are talking about Sandani here?
MR PIENAAR: Mr Sandani yes.
MR LAX: Just so that there is no confusion.
MR PIENAAR: That is correct yes.
MR NTHAI: No, no, I am just saying that he was saying, he is saying on paragraph 18 he was severely assaulted, I am going to come to you assaulting him, I am not at that stage. What I am trying to say is you cannot dispute this?
MR PIENAAR: I did not assault him, I do not know of an assault on him.
MR NTHAI: Number 19, he is referring your name there in particular and he is saying that he believes that you were one of the people who assaulted him.
MR PIENAAR: He may believe so, he is not sure and I can give you the certainty that myself or Mr Botha did not at any stage, assault Mr Sandani. He was also not assaulted in my presence, by any other person.
MR NTHAI: Number 20, you also dispute that, he was not even assaulted by Warrant Officer Botha?
MR PIENAAR: No, not at all. Not in my presence.
MR LAX: Was he taken to a nearby farm from that base?
MR PIENAAR: No Mr Chairperson, he was taken to the Security offices in Piet Retief, there is no farm close by.
MR LAX: So this thing about you chaps stopping at a farm before he was taken to the offices?
MR PIENAAR: That is not true.
MR NTHAI: Number 23, you are saying, he is coming back to that person who was peeping, and you are saying you know nothing about that, is that correct?
MR PIENAAR: He could be correct in paragraph 23, I cannot remember.
MR NTHAI: Paragraph 24, there he is talking about being de medical treatment?
MR PIENAAR: He was taken to the doctor in Piet Retief, and afterwards he was transferred to the Bethal prison where he also received medical attention.
MR NTHAI: But is it correct that he only received medical treatment on the evening of the 15th, is that correct?
MR PIENAAR: No Mr Chairman. After we arrived at Piet Retief, Mr Sandani was then taken to the District Surgeon and if I remember correctly, I cannot remember, I think that same day, he was transferred to the Bethal prison, but as I have already said, there was no space available for another detainee that was according to Section 29. The closest there was the Bethal prison where he was detained.
MR NTHAI: What time did he receive that medical treatment?
MR PIENAAR: I cannot remember what time that was, I am not sure.
MR NTHAI: You can remember whether it was in the morning or in the afternoon?
MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I think if I remember correctly, it was in the afternoon. So it could have been late in the afternoon or earlier, I am not quite sure.
MR NTHAI: When you say late afternoon, it could be early evening, is that not correct?
MR PIENAAR: No, I am saying earlier in the midday or late in the afternoon, if I remember it was during that time, I am not quite sure. It could have been later, it is possible.
CHAIRPERSON: Were you going to go onto something else now?
MR NTHAI: Yes, I am through with the affidavit, just something that I may need clarity on. Sandani on paragraph 28, he does talk of affidavits, but he was, he could not remember this affidavit, what is not very clear to me was whether these are affidavits for this present application or these were affidavits for something, this affidavit of Sandani was taken in 1990.
I am not sure whether this affidavit he is talking about here were the affidavits for the Harms Commission or - it was not very clear to me.
MR LAX: Does your client not know why he signed this affidavit, what purpose?
MR NTHAI: Well, he was not very clear as to why he signed this affidavit. What he said was that "someone came to me", to him there and then said he wanted an affidavit about that incident. At the time he was already convicted.
MR LAX: Ms Lockhat, can you help us in that regard?
MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson, this was found basically during our investigation in terms of the dockets and so forth and the inquest reports, so I cannot give you any other information in relation to this.
MR LAX: Maybe at the tea adjournment you can try and get some clarity as to where the origin of this affidavit is and for what purpose it may have been taken and where our Investigators or Evidence Analysts found it.
MS LOCKHAT: I will do so.
CHAIRPERSON: We will take the short adjournment now.
MS LOCKHAT: All rise.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
FREDERICK JOHANNES PIENAAR: (s.u.o.)
MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson, just in relation to those affidavits that I was asked about, Ms Tanya Hoskins, our Evidence Analyst, she informed me that it was part of the docket that we obtained, but she is going to speak to Mark Killian, one of our other Investigators, just to clarify, maybe he has some details regarding this, Chairperson, so I will get back to you again after that, thank you.
MR NTHAI: Mr Chairman, before we start, I just want to put certain issues on record. During tea time, tea break, I managed, I got a message actually from Sandani on my cellphone and apparently he has been making some enquiries about some of the things that I discussed with him. He managed to get hold of Brig-Gen Shokwe, who at the time in Swaziland worked with Gen Nyanda, I mean by then he was known as Siphiwe, Siphiwe Nyanda, Gubuza, the name was Gubuza, is that not so Mr Pienaar?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR NTHAI: Yes, Gubuza. Now Brig-Gen Shokwe, his name was Jabu, I am sure Mr Pienaar would have known him, but there are certain things that we must remove from dispute so that we get to the bottom of the matter. He, Brig Shokwe is actually confirming that Paul Dikaledi came to him to borrow the firearms and other things that we are talking about for this operation.
He is confirming that contrary to what I put to Mr Pienaar, that TNT was not in use at the time, he is confirming that indeed he did give amongst the things that he gave to Paul Dikaledi, he did give him the TNT and AK47s, so I mean that is no longer in dispute, Mr Chairman. I put it to Mr Pienaar because that is the information I got from Sandani.
CHAIRPERSON: So Mr Sandani gave you information which you put, which you now say is incorrect?
MR NTHAI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: So Mr Sandani can perhaps when he comes, explain how he came to give you incorrect information?
MR NTHAI: Yes. The other issue Mr Chairman, which also may be helpful is that he has also been making enquiries about Mzwandile. He also got information again from Brig-Gen Shokwe that Mzwandile was a South African. He went into exile, but he spent most of his time in Swaziland, to an extent that he was, some people regarded him as a Swazi citizen.
He is apparently also confirming that his body, his body was apparently exhumed from where Mr Pienaar was talking about, during the TRC investigations. I have requested him to find more information with regard to the membership of Mr Mzwandile, membership of the ANC of Mr Mzwandile, Knox Dlamini and Sithole. He will be able to clarify that information for sure for us, from the people who worked very closely with these people.
I had promised that I would call him around lunch time, hopefully by that time, he would have got the correct information.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, we are obliged to you for the trouble you have taken.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NTHAI: (continued) Just to complete Mr Chairman, my questions to Mr Pienaar. Mr Pienaar, you are aware that the family members of Tollman and Bernard were actually not present during the informal inquest, you are aware of the fact?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, as far as I know, that is correct.
MR NTHAI: Yes. And again you are saying that you cannot help us as far as the photo's of the bodies, is concerned, you don't know?
MR PIENAAR: No Chairperson, unfortunately not.
MR NTHAI: I have no further questions, Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NTHAI
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: Thank you Chairperson. I have just a few questions. Mr Pienaar, just in relation to the people at the Swaziland border, that is in relation to van Dyk and others, what was their instructions, was this an ambush? What did you tell them this operation was about?
MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I did not issue any orders to Mr van Dyk and the others, the orders were issued collectively by Mr de Kock and Mr Deetlefts, they consulted about it, it was about an ambush, but I know that Mr van Dyk later, I don't know at which stage, spoke about seizing the man and getting him to tell us where the man in Swaziland was. The original order was however, to set up an ambush.
MS LOCKHAT: Because van Dyk in his application talks about an arrest, and that is at page 216 of Bundle 1, Chairperson. Are you saying that that is untrue?
MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, he did mention possibly seizing the man so that he could show us where the man was in Swaziland, but his orders from Mr de Kock were to set up an ambush as far as I know.
MS LOCKHAT: And do you know who was all part of van Dyk's group?
MR PIENAAR: It was Mr van Dyk himself, Mr Willemse was there, Mr Nofomela was also there, I think Badenhorst was also there.
MS LOCKHAT: And Mngadi?
MR PIENAAR: And Mngadi as well, yes.
MS LOCKHAT: And others that you can remember?
MR PIENAAR: I cannot remember any others.
MS LOCKHAT: There were askaris with them as well, do you know their names?
MR PIENAAR: No Chairperson, I did not know all the persons.
MS LOCKHAT: And then Mr Badenhorst, to which group was he linked, which Branch did he belong to?
MR PIENAAR: He was in the Piet Retief Security Branch at that stage.
MS LOCKHAT: So he fell under Deetlefts' command?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct, yes.
MS LOCKHAT: Were there any other members from that Branch, that is not mentioned?
MR PIENAAR: From Piet Retief?
MS LOCKHAT: From Piet Retief, yes?
MR PIENAAR: Mr Botha was there, but he was with the vehicle, not with Mr van Dyk.
MS LOCKHAT: And then just in relation to the source, was it decided beforehand to eliminate the source?
MR PIENAAR: Yes Chairperson.
MS LOCKHAT: Did Mr Labuschagne know about this beforehand?
MR PIENAAR: I do not know at which stage precisely Mr Labuschagne was informed regarding the shooting of the person, but he was aware that the informer would also be eliminated.
MS LOCKHAT: Just in your opinion, did you think that all of these members that were part of this operation, that in their minds, that this was definitely an ambush?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct, yes Chairperson.
MS LOCKHAT: Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions for this applicant.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS LOCKHAT
MR LAX: Just one aspect Chairperson. Mr Pienaar, isn't it correct that you made arrangements beforehand to cover this thing up, for example the placing of the vehicles, you knew that you would need to show that this was in fact not an ambush, but some other sort of incident that happened, and you had planned to cover it up from the word go?
MR PIENAAR: Yes Chairperson.
MR LAX: And just in terms of, sorry, in the light of that, it was pretty logical that if you were going to arrest these people, there would be nothing to cover up?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR LAX: And so from that, one can conclude that this must have been an ambush?
MR PIENAAR: Yes.
MR LAX: Thank you Chair, I have no further questions.
CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Pienaar, Exhibit A and C, those are the exhibits pertaining to the weapons, and you have viewed the original which is currently in the possession of the honourable Chairperson, where the exhibit number appears as Exhibit EC and you have also seen the name of a Mr Aspeling, I will give to you the record of the State's case, and you see that the Assessor there was Mr Aspeling as well?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Which State case?
MR PRINSLOO: That is the case of S v Maseko, Dladla & Ebrahim, Mr Chairman, and that is the case I referred to earlier in evidence. It is case number CC319/87, of which I have a copy of the judgement, Mr Chairman, which I have quoted from.
I may also mention at this stage Mr Chairman, that Ms Lockhat had instructed the police as well to check on the record and the police confirmed to her and myself, that a photo of the bakkie, Exhibit B as well as a photo of Exhibit AC appears in that same Bundle of the judgement of the case I am presently referring to, Mr Chairman. The photo's are in the archives.
MS LOCKHAT: That is correct Chairperson, there were 28 boxes of exhibits and, but in relation to the bodies, pictures of the bodies, that they could not find Chairperson, just the bakkie and what we have.
MR LAX: Just, while we are on this issue, perhaps you can clarify this for us, Mr Prinsloo.
MR PRINSLOO: Certainly Mr Chairman.
MR LAX: Were Maseko and Dladla convicted of the possession or importation of the weapons in that photograph?
MR PRINSLOO: Not of the same weapons, Mr Chairman, there were other weapons involved as far as Maseko and Dladla were concerned, but in as far as the indictment is concerned, I have a copy available, I obtained it this morning, and I can make it available to the Committee. The Committee will then see from the indictment as well as the judgement, the weapons as well as what was referred to as that particular unit, was laid before the door of Mr Ebrahim, Ismail Ebrahim, as he was in charge at the original Political Military Committee at the time, of the ANC in Swaziland at that stage, and there were a number of other units, as well as other instances of the various structures of the ANC, which all operated from Swaziland at that stage.
MR LAX: Yes, I understand that broad conspiracy.
MR PRINSLOO: Yes.
MR LAX: What I am talking about is the specific weapons in Exhibit A, were they not charged or convicted of the possession of those weapons?
MR PRINSLOO: No Mr Chairman, they were convicted, Mr Maseko was convicted of treason, as he was a South African citizen, as well as Ebrahim and Mr Dladla was not a South African citizen, he was convicted of terrorism. But not of those specific weapons, that was the broad outline of the case itself.
MR LAX: Yes, that is the only aspect I wanted to clear up, whether there had been a miscarriage of justice there or not?
MR PRINSLOO: No Mr Chairman. Mr Pienaar, reference is made in the statement of Mr Sandani, paragraph 26, to the fact that a person looked through the cell peep hole and if a person was held in a cell at the police station, his name would be recorded in the register?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: And if a person was discharged from the cells, or booked out from the cells, it would be recorded in the very same register as well as the case book?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: So one would be able to determine quite easily who had been in the cells, who had been discharged and whether or not this person was still alive?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: And the persons in control of the cells, were these the uniformed staff or the Security Staff?
MR PIENAAR: The uniformed staff.
MR PRINSLOO: And you had no control over this?
MR PIENAAR: None, whatsoever.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Pienaar, with regard to the evidence of the doctor who had testified here, as well as the Professor, Saayman, your order was to shoot to kill?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: Would there have been any reason to give any other evidence if people were shot from close range, because that was your order to begin with?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct, there would have been no reason to cover it up.
MR PRINSLOO: But your evidence is that you fired from a certain point?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: And with regard to the exhibit containing the sketch made by Mr de Kock, that is Exhibit B, in this case, it is indicated that there were persons on the opposite side from where you were positioned. If shots were fired as such, you would have shot each other dead?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, that would have been a definite risk.
MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Chairperson, nothing further.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR LAX: Sorry Mr Pienaar, just arising from these questions of Mr Prinsloo, something has occurred to me and that is, did no one possibly after the firing had started, get up and approach the vehicle and carry on firing?
MR PIENAAR: No.
MR LAX: And find themselves at a much closer range, just as part of the operation?
MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I would say that everybody fired from approximately two to three metres away. No one would have moved closer to the vehicle and then have moved into the line of fire. That is highly improbable.
MR LAX: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: As I understand the evidence, the driver, if the driver had come down, got out, moved down the right hand side of the vehicle, he would have come into range of the person on the extreme right of your group as soon as he reached the end of the vehicle?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: And his body was found, you say I think the same as Mr Deetlefts, laying diagonally away from the right rear corner of the vehicle?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
WITNESS EXCUSED
MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson, the next amnesty applicant is Mr Labuschagne.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, may Mr Pienaar be excused from attendance, his wife is ill in hospital, Mr Chairman?
CHAIRPERSON: As long as you are able to contact him, I don't see that there is any objection. Have any of you got any objection? Right, Mr Pienaar is released.
WITNESS EXCUSED
