amntrans AMNESTY HEARINGS 1999-07-27 DURBAN 2 https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/hearing.php?id=53566&t=&tab=hearings https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/originals/amntrans/1999/99072630_dbn_990727db.htm 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 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