CHAIRPERSON: Good morning to you all. Today is the 9th November 1999. We shall be proceeding with the amnesty application of Mr Pienaar. We adjourned yesterday prior to Mr Pienaar being cross-examined. We shall now afford Mr Hattingh an opportunity to put any questions to Mr Pienaar. Mr Pienaar, you are reminded that you are still under your former oath.
FREDERICK JOHANNES PIENAAR: (s.u.o.)
MR HATTINGH: Thank you Chairperson, I have no questions for this witness.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Before I come to Mr du Plessis, Mr du Plessis, can you indicate to the Committee whether you have been able to locate Mr Beeslaar?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes Madam Chair, might I perhaps just initially hand up an affidavit of my attorney, Mr Swart, setting out exactly what steps were taken to locate Mr Beeslaar? That affidavit was done in the meantime during the course of last evening. Mr Koch of the Truth Commission managed to get hold of Mr Beeslaar. Mr Beeslaar spent the last two weeks with his father. His stepmother died two weeks ago and he was there in Potchefstroom and that's why it was very difficult for us to get hold of him. I consulted with him this morning and I haven't consulted - I wanted to consult with him but I have consulted with him to the extent that I am able to cross-examine and to proceed with the proceedings.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I am glad we now have located Mr Beeslaar because if we hadn't it would have been very difficult for this Committee to proceed with Mr Beeslaar as an applicant on the basis that his affidavit would have formed part of the papers before us for us to be able to consider and dispose of his application. As you aware the Act is very specific with regard to an act, omission or offence which relates to a gross violation of human rights. In that situation a public hearing must be held and by a public hearing one interprets that an applicant must be available to be cross-examined by all the parties involved in that particular incident in particular by the implicated persons who would in this case be an equivalent of the other co-applicants as well as the victims.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. May I place on record, Madam Chair, yes I agree with you and that was my concern yesterday in respect of that, however I know of similar situations where applications were dealt in this in the way we spoke about yesterday but in any event the matter has been resolved. I will lead evidence of Mr Beeslaar about his whereabouts in the last six weeks. My attorney didn't state that in the affidavit but he informed me that approximately three weeks ago he started looking for Mr Beeslaar and you will see that he contacted various persons. Apparently Mr Beeslaar was located yesterday evening through the assistance of a neighbour of Mr Beeslaar who Mr Koch contacted, a neighbour apparently had knowledge of Mr Beeslaar's whereabouts and he contacted Mr Beeslaar.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: And on that basis he was contacted.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Before proceeding with you, Mr du Plessis, whilst we are attending to these formal matters, yesterday we were informed that Mr Ramawele was going to take instructions from Mr Nofomela to establish whether Mr Nofomela intends to proceed with his application or to withdraw. What is the position, Mr Steenkamp?
MR STEENKAMP: Madam Chair indeed, Masa Ramawele yesterday didn't come back to me but Mr Ramawele was here early this morning. He left. The position is the following, according to our information it seems that Mr Nofomela did testify in this matter. Subsequent to confirmation apparently, with respect Madam Chair, apparently he testified while you were the Chairperson in one of the matters. The only information we have on the transcript and I'm waiting for the transcript, it's currently being faxed to me, he did make mention of a PAC member killed while under the command of Mr de Kock. According to Mr Ramawele he couldn't find any confirmation whether or not Mr Nofomela did testify or not on that matter. Mr Ramawele has asked me that what he is doing now, he is not here now, but what he will do is he is busy going through all his documents in his office. He will probably be here at 11 o'clock. So what I'm asking, Madam Chair, is that this might be decided at 11 o'clock while the transcript and the information is being copied to me right now, so that we can check the record and see exactly what happened that day and whether or not Mr Nofomela or not did testify that day. Our information indicates that he actually did testify on this matter but certain decisions were made on Mr Nofomela's amnesty application but according to my information only this specific matter is still standing down. There's no decision on this matter whatsoever, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Have we been able to establish this fact from our offices in Cape Town?
MR STEENKAMP: Yes Madam Chair, I've checked last night, on the internet, I've checked the transcripts and I've asked for transcripts to be faxed to me, it's only a few pages apparently and I've asked for those specific pages to be faxed to me. They're busy doing it now.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR STEENKAMP: Thanks, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: You will bring us up to speed after we adjourn for tea?
MR STEENKAMP: I will do so, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Du Plessis you may proceed.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Madam Chair.
Mr Pienaar, as I understand your evidence Mngomezulu was first questioned at Moolman at Piet Retief, is that correct?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: And thereafter you went to the farm Leeuspoort?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: And that is the place at the Josini dam that Mr Beeslaar refers to?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: During the interrogation at both places was he assaulted?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: Can you recall what Mr Beeslaar's involvement was in the assault?
MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I cannot specifically recall what every person did, whether every person hit him I cannot say that with certainty at this stage.
MR DU PLESSIS: You will agree with me that Mr Beeslaar was not part of the interrogation team.
MR PIENAAR: He did not question but he was present.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes but I mean he did not participate in the interrogation as such, he did not put questions to the person, he was not the person who was responsible for putting questions?
MR PIENAAR: As far as I know, no.
MR DU PLESSIS: And you will agree with me that Mr Beeslaar's function amongst others was to deal with all the paperwork and administrative work with regard to Mr Mngomezulu if he should become an askari?
MR PIENAAR: I don't know what his function was at that stage.
MR DU PLESSIS: If he testifies as such would you be able to dispute it?
MR PIENAAR: No I won't.
MR DU PLESSIS: And furthermore if he testifies that he was sometimes used when other persons were not available for operations would you be able to dispute that?
MR PIENAAR: No I cannot.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Pienaar, you then testified if I could have a look at your statement that you loaded Mngomezulu into a vehicle and covered it with a tarpaulin to take to Swaziland?
MR PIENAAR: That was the initial speculation.
MR DU PLESSIS: What was his condition when he was loaded onto the vehicle and covered with the tarpaulin?
MR PIENAAR: I would say that at stage he was in a coma, Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, can you recall whether you and anyone else discussed it with Mr Beeslaar, this plan to take him to Swaziland?
MR PIENAAR: No.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Beeslaar says in his statement and he will also testify that while he was questioned at the Josini dam on the farm you drove a patrol and you went to where the army tested missiles, do you know anything of that?
MR PIENAAR: No, I don't know anything about that.
MR DU PLESSIS: Can you recall that?
MR PIENAAR: No I cannot.
MR DU PLESSIS: On page 138, the final paragraph he says
"While the Black members of the police remained behind with the terrorist I went along with the White members, amongst other also in the no go area where the army tested their missiles. The operation members went along and I was not present all the time."
What do you say of the missiles, was he present or what do you say?
MR PIENAAR: The place where we disposed of the body was in the vicinity of where the air missiles were launched.
MR DU PLESSIS: Can you recall whether they drove around there in that area during the interrogation?
MR PIENAAR: No I cannot recall that.
MR DU PLESSIS: Because that is what Mr Beeslaar will testify?
MR PIENAAR: No I cannot recall that.
MR DU PLESSIS: Are you saying you cannot recall it?
MR PIENAAR: No I was definitely not there.
MR DU PLESSIS: But are you saying that it is possible that it could be so?
MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I doubt it.
MR DU PLESSIS: You were not in contact with Mr Beeslaar when you drew up your statement?
MR PIENAAR: No I was not.
MR DU PLESSIS: You were in contact with Mr van Dyk and Mr Schoon?
MR PIENAAR: Yes that is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: And your statements are about the same, word for word?
MR PIENAAR: That is so, yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: And you will probably not have an explanation as to why Mr Beeslaar said that you went on a patrol in a no go area where missiles were tested?
MR PIENAAR: No I cannot explain that.
MR DU PLESSIS: Because I will tell you that his testimony will be clear and specific that he can recall it because it had left a great impression with him?
MR PIENAAR: I don't know what impression he had, I cannot recall.
MR DU PLESSIS: Very well and as I understood your evidence you went to Gert Schoon's house, is that correct?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct, it was at the office, as we said it previously the house and the office were next to each other.
MR DU PLESSIS: And who opened the tarpaulin?
MR PIENAAR: I lifted it up as far as I can recall. The other members were present, Mr van Dyk and Lieutenant Schoon.
MR DU PLESSIS: And you then said that he had died?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: Why did you lift up the tarpaulin there?
MR PIENAAR: To give the man air. As I have said, Josini is quite a hot place and he was covered under the tarpaulin.
MR DU PLESSIS: And how did you see he was dead?
MR PIENAAR: It was quite clear Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: But how?
MR PIENAAR: One could see if a person is dead.
MR DU PLESSIS: But you said he was unconscious, he was in a coma?
MR PIENAAR: Yes he was in a coma, that is correct according to me.
MR DU PLESSIS: Did you just have a look at him and accept that he was dead?
MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, one stood next to the man, he was lying on the back of a bakkie, one could see clearly that he was dead, there was no doubt about it.
MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, you did not feel any pulse or anything in that manner?
MR PIENAAR: No I did not.
MR DU PLESSIS: And not any of the other members?
MR PIENAAR: As far as I know, no.
MR DU PLESSIS: Because you see, why I ask you this, is because Mr Beeslaar says in his statement on page 139, on a day, the top paragraph, he says the terrorist was loaded on the back of what he suspected to be Gert Schoon's bakkie and he, you, Dow Willemse or Van Dyk and Gert Schoon went with two vehicles from the premises and then he said he knew that the terrorist would be eliminated. He will say that he cannot recall that you went by Gert Schoon's house but he will not dispute it and furthermore he says in his statement you went into Sodwana Bay and drove in a southerly direction to a point unknown to him. He will confirm this and he says he stayed behind in Paul van Dyk's vehicle and then he says in the fourth paragraph Paul van Dyk, Gert Schoon, Frick Pienaar later left with the terrorist. I don't know what they took with them. He says however that his inference was that the terrorist would be eliminated, his evidence would be Mr Pienaar, that Mr Mngomezulu was still alive at that stage and indeed that he was fully conscious at that stage?
MR PIENAAR: That is not so, Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: So are you saying that Mr Beeslaar is lying?
MR PIENAAR: Definitely. He did not look at the corpse, we did not show it to him so he cannot say that the person was still alive.
MR DU PLESSIS: Well he says that as far as he can recall Mgomeluzu went along and walked along with yourself, Gert Schoon and Paul van Dyk?
MR PIENAAR: That is entirely not true Chairperson, the place where we went to, to destroy the corpse with explosives, we drove there, it was quite a way from there, we did not walk we drove with the vehicle with the body on the back of the vehicle still under the tarpaulin. We did not open it up until the point where we stopped at the point where we wanted to blow him up.
MR DU PLESSIS: There where you blew him up did you drive to the point where you blew him up?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: And he was blown up there?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: And Mr Beeslaar remained behind in Paul van Dyk's vehicle?
MR PIENAAR: Yes he remained behind. The actual idea why Beeslaar and the other person, as I said I thought it was Dow Willemse, was to remain behind was to see if any other vehicles from the Park's Board would approach and then they would let us know that vehicles were approaching.
MR DU PLESSIS: And how far away was the place where he was blown up and the vehicle that Beeslaar had remained behind, what was the distance?
MR PIENAAR: Chairperson I would have to guess, it was quite a time ago, I would say not less than two kilometres.
MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, because you see Mr Beeslaar goes
further and says in the last paragraph on page 139 he says: "Because it was quite cold and the wind was blowing I had remained in the vehicle. After approximately an hour they returned because I heard voices. I cannot recall if anybody said what happened to the Black man, as far as I can recall I did not hear any explosion but as far as I know the terrorist was killed."
And on page 140 he says:
"The following morning they walked in the same direction where they went with the terrorist the previous evening and they stood at the point and looked around and from their discussion I heard that this was the point where he was blown up."
MR PIENAAR: We did indeed go back to the place where the person was blown up. We did not walk there we drove there.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes and? And what happened there, did you discuss it there?
MR PIENAAR: Yes we went and had a look there, if any remains had left behind and nothing was there.
MR DU PLESSIS: Are you saying that that it what Mr Beeslaar refers to there in the first paragraph on page 140?
MR PIENAAR: Possibly, yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. You see, Mr Beeslaar will also testify that when he applied for amnesty he tried to contact Mr van Dyk.
MR PIENAAR: I am not aware of that.
MR DU PLESSIS: To try and speak to him and determine what Mr van Dyk can recall of the incident and the answer that he received was that Mr van Dyk would not apply for amnesty. Do you know anything of it, Mr van Dyk would not apply for amnesty?
MR PIENAAR: No, I don't know anything about that, Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Pienaar, Mr Beeslaar will also testify that he contacted you as well when he drew up his amnesty application. Can you recall that?
MR PIENAAR: No.
MR DU PLESSIS: And he will testify that you told him that you cannot recall anything of this incident?
MR PIENAAR: No, definitely not, Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, you see you have now heard what Mr Beeslaar will testify and what his situation is with regard to this incident. Can you give us any probable explanation why Mr Beeslaar who drew up this application would make up this whole episode at Sodwana?
MR PIENAAR: I don't think his memory is quite that strong there.
MR DU PLESSIS: Do you ascribe this to his memory?
MR PIENAAR: Possibly, yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: Because what I find quite strange and what I would argue eventually is that Mr Beeslaar had independently from you and the others placed his version in writing and that it differs from the other three applications, yourself and the other two that is just about similar word for word.
MR PIENAAR: I cannot find it so strange because it is also mentioned in a statement that he never saw that Mr Mngomezulu was assaulted and it was quite clear that the man was severely assaulted.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, I ask you about the Sodwana episode, I am specifically referring to that issue. You and the others say one thing and he says something else. You know you and the other two apparently spoke to each other and consulted to and fro with each other before you drew up your application?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, we spoke about the incident before our consultation.
MR DU PLESSIS: So Mr Beeslaar did not discuss this matter with you before he drew up his application and the only thing he did was he spoke to you and you said that you could not recall?
MR PIENAAR: He did not speak to me that I could recall.
MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, but I find it strange that Mr Beeslaar's version vehemently differs from yours?
MR PIENAAR: Yes that is quite strange.
MR DU PLESSIS: Is it not possible that you and Mr van Dyk and Mr Schoon are trying to colour in the elimination of Mr Mngomezulu at Sodwana?
MR PIENAAR: No.
MR DU PLESSIS: Because as I read your statements it appears to me that you are saying that you don't know why Mr Mngomezulu died, why he had died?
MR PIENAAR: Yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: Why did he die?
MR PIENAAR: I don't know what he died of.
MR DU PLESSIS: Correct, you don't know what he died of?
MR PIENAAR: I suspect it was possibly bleeding in the brain, internal injuries because of the assault, I would speculate about this.
MR DU PLESSIS: But you never had any intention to eliminate him?
MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, as I have already said in my evidence in chief I never agreed with Mr Schoon to release this man. It would have been futile, the man had been abducted from Swaziland, Mr Mngomezulu, because of his activities with the ANC. To release such an important link would have been futile, that link had to be removed.
MR DU PLESSIS: You see, this brings me to the following point of the improbability of yourself and Mr van Dyk and the other's versions. Why would one want to release this person. There is so much evidence before this Committee indeed about the problems that would emanate if one would question such a person and release him and how many times have we heard evidence of persons who were eliminated in a situation as this, why would you want to release him?
MR PIENAAR: It was never my intention to release him, Mr Schoon proposed it, he wanted to do so, it was his area, that. He wanted to use the man as an informer and I did not agree with it.
MR DU PLESSIS: May I just ask you, Mr Pienaar, what do you apply for amnesty for, for which offences?
MR PIENAAR: A copy that I have here, Honourable Chairperson, is vague, I cannot read it clearly. I will mention that I don't have the whole thing in front of me. It is abduction, the death of Mr Mngomezulu and the destruction of the corpse and perjury.
MR DU PLESSIS: What I would like to ask is, do you apply for murder?
MR PIENAAR: Yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: Because you see what I find strange from your version and that is my point, Mr Pienaar, is that it does not appear to me as if in your statement that you had the intention to kill him?
MR PRINSLOO: Honourable Chairperson, if Mr Du Plessis had listened to the evidence yesterday, Mr Pienaar clearly stated that he foresaw that this assault could lead to this man's death and he associated himself with it and this is a legal argument with regard to what the cause of death was and what should be applied for in terms of amnesty, whether it be culpable homicide or whether it be murder.
MR MALAN: I think, Mr Prinsloo, you are correct but the question is something else, the question is if he had an intention to kill the person?
MR PIENAAR: Right from the start I never had the intention of killing the person.
MR DU PLESSIS: And the evidence of Mr van Dyk and Mr Schoon is the same, that they never had any intention of killing this person?
MR PIENAAR: Yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: You see, shall I put it to you what it appears to me? It is as if you had to some extent tried to soften the elimination of Mr Mngomezulu, if I may say so and to try and explain it in such a manner as if it appears that this person, without you having the direct intention of killing him, that he had coincidentally died and in that manner you wanted to mitigate your evidence?
MR PIENAAR: No, Chairperson, I shall put it as follows. After the assault of Mr Mngomezulu and the condition he was in there was only one way for me and in my mind I am not saying what the others thought at that stage, is that this man had to be removed entirely, in other words he had to be killed, he could not be released or used as an informer or possible informer.
MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, Mr Du Plessis?
May I ask you, why did you not mention this in your application?
MR PIENAAR: I did not describe it as completely there Chairperson.
MR MALAN: But you write to the contrary there, you say that three of your decided to release the man on the border?
MR PIENAAR: That was the initial idea that Mr Schoon proposed.
MR MALAN: Mr Pienaar listen to me, you say in your statement that the three of you took a decision and you went according to your statement to release him?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR MALAN: That was not so?
MR PIENAAR: No that was never my intention.
MR MALAN: And it was never a decision?
MR PIENAAR: It was Mr Schoon's decision and it was his proposal.
MR MALAN: It was his proposal but never a decision?
MR PIENAAR: No it was never a decision.
MR MALAN: It was an attempt to speak and you were against it?
MR PIENAAR: Yes I was entirely against it.
MR MALAN: And Mr van Dyk was also against it?
MR PIENAAR: As far as I know, yes he was.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Madam Chair, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr du Plessis. Mr Williams?
MR WILLIAMS: Thank you Madam Chair, I've got no questions.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR WILLIAMS
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson.
Mr Pienaar, from the moment that the Vlakplaas group came into your territory did you know that they were there for work?
MR PIENAAR: No, I did not.
MR LAMEY: Weren't you contacted as commander as it was practice that when Vlakplaas was in operation in that territory that you would have knowledge of it?
MR PIENAAR: Sometimes it happened that they only arrived there and then I was informed but usually they contacted at Middleburg the sectional office there.
MR LAMEY: Now when did you hear for the first time they were in the area?
MR PIENAAR: That was on the morning that Mr Dyk came into my office and informed me that they had a man that they were detaining.
MR LAMEY: In other words did you then go to Moolman?
MR PIENAAR: Yes I went with Van Dyk to him.
MR LAMEY: Was that in the morning?
MR PIENAAR: It was in the morning, I can't say exactly what time.
MR LAMEY: I want to put it to you that Mr Koole's recollection is that when they came from Swaziland that you were there with Van Dyk to get them at a specific point?
MR PIENAAR: No I think he's incorrect.
MR LAMEY: Are you sure?
MR PIENAAR: No, I wasn't there.
MR LAMEY: Mr Mogai says that after he arrived there - I will just put in context for you, he came there the afternoon and later Paul van Dyk and yourself also arrived there and then later the Black members also arrived with the man that he then determined was Mngomezulu.
MR PIENAAR: I don't know when Mr Mogai got there, whether he was there when I was there I'm not quite sure but Mr van Dyk informed me the morning in my office and then we left there together.
MR LAMEY: You were there when the interrogation started?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, not right at the start, I just want to correct that, I came there in the morning. Mr Mngomezulu was already at Moolman the evening, when I got there he had already been assaulted and I asked the members there that they had to question Mr Mngomezulu concerning ANC and PAC people in Swaziland who had infiltrated to the R.S.A.
MR LAMEY: Mr Mogai's recollection was that you had already been there when the man got there, that was at the place near Piet Retief when the interrogation started?
MR PIENAAR: No, that is not correct.
MR LAMEY: He says because he was informed by you that Mngomezulu was a PAC member who moved between Mamzini and Babaan and that he had contact with PAC members?
MR PIENAAR: I told them that after I got there that they had to question him concerning ANC and PAC members.
MR LAMEY: So concerning you that would be accurate but the time is not correct?
MR PIENAAR: No.
MR LAMEY: According to Mogai, he says that you also wanted that Mngomezulu had to be questioned concerning his discussions with senior PAC members and whether PAC members were sent to his own home, who had to infiltrate to R.S.A?
MR PIENAAR: Yes that is correct, the PAC and ANC members.
MR LAMEY: I want to ask you something else. With regard to your amnesty application did you have contact with Mr de Kock? MR PIENAAR: No.
MR LAMEY: Didn't you talk to him concerning incidents where you were involved directly or by means of legal representatives?
MR PIENAAR: No Chairperson, I was in fact charged for a specific incident with Mr de Kock, I in fact was represented.
MR LAMEY: You were also a client at that stage?
MR PIENAAR: Yes I was.
MR LAMEY: So you were part of the same legal team, it was concerning one incident that has served before the Committee?
MR PIENAAR: Yes that is correct.
MR LAMEY: That is the Japie Maponya incident?
MR PIENAAR: Yes.
MR LAMEY: But since then you and Mr de Kock had worked for a long time together, you were colleagues?
MR PIENAAR: Yes.
MR LAMEY: In your time?
MR PIENAAR: Yes.
MR LAMEY: You did many operations together?
MR PIENAAR: Yes.
MR LAMEY: You were confidantes for one another?
MR PIENAAR: Yes.
MR LAMEY: You didn't find it necessary to refresh your memory or anything of this nature to contact Mr de Kock?
MR PIENAAR: No.
MR LAMEY: For amnesty?
MR PIENAAR: No, I never contacted Mr de Kock or his legal representatives for amnesty, no.
MR LAMEY: Why didn't you find it necessary to do that?
MR MALAN: Mr Lamey, could you just tell us why you're following this direction?
MR LAMEY: Do I have to give you the relevance of the questioning?
MR MALAN: What is the relevance of Mr de Kock and Mr Pienaar's relationship? Can you just get to the point?
MR LAMEY: As it pleases you.
You also testified that Mr de Kock wasn't there?
MR PIENAAR: No, I never say him, Chairperson, no.
MR LAMEY: Never? Were you there the whole time?
MR PIENAAR: Not always there but he was most definitely not there that I could see him, no never.
MR LAMEY: What was the length of period of times that you were away from the interrogation?
MR PIENAAR: I would say two and a half, three hours, sometimes shorter, perhaps longer sometimes.
MR LAMEY: That was at Piet Retief and Josini?
MR PIENAAR: Yes. But no one ever mentioned that I know of that Mr de Kock was ever there.
MR LAMEY: So he was definitely not there? Okay.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, have you now advanced into your line of cross-examination with regard to the relationship Mr Pienaar had with Mr de Kock?
MR LAMEY: I've went to this point to indicate why I was asking these questions it's obviously against the background of my client's version in this regard that I took that line.
In this period you also didn't have a discussion with Mr de Kock?
MR PIENAAR: No.
MR LAMEY: In all the other incidents where there were abductions from Swaziland performed by Vlakplaas members and you were also involved was Mr de Kock there?
MR PIENAAR: No not in all the incidents.
MR LAMEY: In the case of Mr Mosiane which is going to serve shortly Mr de Kock wasn't there, the case of Mr Sedebe, he was there but Mosiane was taken to Vlakplaas?
MR PIENAAR: Yes later on, yes that is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, I'm still trying to ascertain the import of this line of cross-examination, where are you heading to?
MR LAMEY: I must say I'm at a loss at that question also, Chairperson, I ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: I don't understand the relevance.
MR LAMEY: I thought that it's perfectly relevant in regard to the background of my client's version in this regard.
CHAIRPERSON: What version, Mr Lamey?
MR LAMEY: The version that Mr de Kock was present during interrogation on Mngomezulu.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but what has that to do with other incidents before which we know very little about?
MR LAMEY: The relevance is that, Chairperson, that against the background of many previous operations of Vlakplaas and by members of Vlakplaas, Mr de Kock was the type of leader that exercised very much control over and was very well informed as to what transpired at all times by his colleagues and especially with serious operations he made it his task to supervise it himself and to take an active part in it. That has been the pattern throughout and that is actually the line of questioning here, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: But in this case isn't it Mr de Kock’s evidence that he was not present, he didn't supervise?
MR LAMEY: Well it's my client's version that he was so it is unfortunately from that point of view I did not take it that that is necessarily correct and therefore I've got to, I feel duty bound to investigate this further.
CHAIRPERSON: Well I hope your investigation is not going to be a very protracted one because I don't find it completely material to the incident in question.
MR PRINSLOO: Madam Chair, I respectfully submit at this stage that what Mr Lamey is embarking upon is matter for argument. As to the side issues with regard to other matters Mr Pienaar has already answered he was present at the interrogation, Mr de Kock was absent, he was not present so it's not going to take it any further by resorting to other issues how well he knows Mr de Kock or not. It's not being suggested unless at least that he's covering up for Mr de Kock but that's not the line of cross-examination.
CHAIRPERSON: I think, Mr Prinsloo, I've already dealt with this matter. Mr Lamey you may proceed.
MR LAMEY: I will move onto another question, thank you Chairperson.
Mr Pienaar, let's refer to Josini dam, did it come to your attention that Mr Mngomezulu, that there was a barbed wire that was used, you've heard the evidence of Mr de Kock in this regard?
MR PIENAAR: No, I have no knowledge of that.
MR LAMEY: At Josini specifically were you there throughout?
MR PIENAAR: As far as I can remember, yes.
MR LAMEY: If something like that had taken place you were in the immediate vicinity?
MR PIENAAR: Yes I would have known about it. I have no knowledge of that.
MR MALAN: I'm sorry to interrupt you. Mr Pienaar, wasn't the evidence that De Kock was never there, that was on a question of Mr Lamey that you were absent at times, two, three hours, sometimes longer, sometimes shorter at Piet Retief and Josini? As I said at times you were not there?
MR PIENAAR: It could be that I could have been away for some times but not for long period of time because I took my things from Piet Retief to Josini some distance from Piet Retief but at Piet Retief I was not present the whole time because as I've already said ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: But the question is, on previous question you answered that at Josini you were also not there at times, now you say at Josini that you were there continuously. I just want to know what is the position.
MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, if I could just put it correctly, the question was pertaining to the missile patrol, I don't agree with that, I was never there, I didn't drive there with them.
MR MALAN: Mr Pienaar, I'll leave it there but there were three, four questions ago you were asked whether Mr de Kock was never present and you said never, you said there were times that you were not there and you were asked for how long, you said for two to three hours, sometimes longer, sometimes shorter, both at Piet Retief and at Josini?
MR PIENAAR: It was actually at Piet Retief that I referred to.
MR MALAN: So Josini you were there the whole time?
MR PIENAAR: Yes as far as I can recall.
MR LAMEY: Was there any bleeding where one would expect it to be if something like that had occurred?
MR PIENAAR: Not that I can recall Chairperson, there could have been blood perhaps on other parts but I cannot recall.
MR MALAN: Mr Lamey. You could say there could be blood on other parts?
MR PIENAAR: I'm referring to other wounds.
MR MALAN: Where?
MR PIENAAR: Perhaps on his clothing but there wasn't a big specific pool of blood on his private parts.
MR LAMEY: Would you have observed that if it had been there?
MR PIENAAR: I believe so yes.
MR LAMEY: Thank you Chair, I don't have any other questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Relating to the cross-examination on behalf of Mr Beeslaar, it was pertinently put to you that Mr Beeslaar's statement of your and Mr van Dyk's statements, well it differs from that specifically relating to driving patrol and you then said based on a question that it must most definitely be Mr Beeslaar's memory failing him, do you remember that?
MR PIENAAR: Yes.
MS VAN DER WALT: Can you tell this Committee what was Mr
Beeslaar's state in terms of being sober at that point?
MR PIENAAR: At Sodwana, Mr Beeslaar and I think another person, Willemse, he was under the influence.
MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Pienaar, what do you mean when you say Mr Beeslaar and Mr Willemse were under the influence?
MR PIENAAR: Chairperson what I'm saying, I think it was Mr Beeslaar and Mr Willemse where we left them on the beach, at that point Mr Beeslaar had a lot to drink.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you witness him drinking?
MR PIENAAR: No, I suspect that it was during the part that we drove from Leeuspoort up to the point where we left them on the beach.
CHAIRPERSON: From what could you infer that he was under the influence, was it his speech? From what could you infer that he was under the influence?
MR PIENAAR: I know Mr Beeslaar, Chairperson, I could see that he had something to drink.
CHAIRPERSON: Just by looking at him?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, we talked that he had to stay there but I could clearly see that he had been drinking.
CHAIRPERSON: Was his speech slurred?
MR PIENAAR: Yes Chairperson. As I, who know him well, I could immediately see without any doubt that the man had been drinking.
MR MALAN: Did you say him and Willemse?
MR PIENAAR: No, not Mr Willemse, perhaps that he had taken something I won't dispute that but he wasn't drink.
MR MALAN: Mr Pienaar, didn't you say just now that you're not quite sure whether Willemse was present?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct, I suspect that it was Willemse, I'm not quite sure.
MR MALAN: If you say a person that you can't remember that his drunk?
MR PIENAAR: I suspect that it was Willemse because he was driving but he was not drunk.
CHAIRPERSON: Wasn't your earlier evidence when you were question by Ms van der Walt that Beeslaar and Willemse were under the influence of?
MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, what I said was that where we left Mr Beeslaar and I suspect Willemse where we left them that Mr Beeslaar was under the influence, I did not say Mr Willemse had been drinking.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think the translation didn't come up that clear.
MR MALAN: My notes also indicate that you referred to Beeslaar and Willemse, that was where we left them. Could I perhaps just ask you, who drove the vehicle in which Beeslaar was in, didn't he drive it?
MR PIENAAR: No.
MR MALAN: Are you sure?
MR PIENAAR: I'm quite sure. I'm very sure.
MR MALAN: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nel?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NEL: Thank you Madam Chair.
Mr Pienaar, in brief, my client's version would be, that is Mr Mogade, that at no stage he was present during the assault and that he didn't assault Mr Mngomezulu and Mr van Dyk conceded that he possibly could have made an error when he said that Mr Mogade also assaulted the deceased. My question is, you said in your evidence in chief and you relied on Mr van Dyk's application, is it a possibility that you could also have made an error that Mogade had assaulted the man?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct, Chairperson, I can't recall all the other persons and then I also referred to Mr van Dyk who knew the people better than I did.
MR NEL: Thank you Madam Chair, I've got nothing.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NEL
CHAIRPERSON: Is that all Mr Nel?
MR NEL: That is all.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Kgasi?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR KGASI: Thank you Madam Chair.
Mr Pienaar, at a time when you were asked to assist, did you know the deceased?
MR PIENAAR: From reports I knew of Mr Mngomezulu, Chairperson, but I never knew him personally.
MR KGASI: Alright and when you went to where he was is it your testimony that when you arrived he had already been assaulted?
MR PIENAAR: Yes he was assaulted, Chairperson.
MR KGASI: How severe were the assaults?
MR PIENAAR: I would say at that stage not so severe that he could not answer questions normally.
MR KGASI: How do you mean that he could not answer the questions normally?
MR PIENAAR: No, that he could answer it normally, he could still answer at that point. The questions that were put to him he did have answers for them.
MR KGASI: Okay but did he answer any of your questions?
MR PIENAAR: What I put to him, yes Chairperson. The others I left to the members who were there for further questioning.
MR KGASI: Did you get what you want from him?
MR PIENAAR: No.
MR KGASI: And tell us your role in the assault?
MR PIENAAR: As I've already testified Chairperson, I also assaulted Mr Mngomezulu. I must have become angry because he did not want to answer the questions put to him and the urgency which made it necessary for me to assault him.
MR MALAN: I beg your pardon Mr Kgasi. Was that both at Moolman and Josini?
MR PIENAAR: Actually at Moolman.
MR MALAN: You know that in your application you say you were not involved in the interrogation at Moolman?
MR PIENAAR: Not the whole time, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: No, in your application in paragraph 1 you say that you were not involved in the interrogation at all?
MR PIENAAR: That is not correct.
MR MALAN: No, that is entirely incorrect, Mr Pienaar.
MR PIENAAR: I was involved in the ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: Okay, you can continue, Mr Kgasi.
MR KGASI: When did you stop with your assaults?
MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I can't say exactly when I ceased entirely, as I said I did assault the person several times, I cannot say exactly when I ceased everything. As far as I can recall it was actually only at Moolman where I actively participated in the assault.
MR KGASI: But now can you recall the reason why you stopped assaulting him?
MR PIENAAR: At Josini or at Leeuspoort the intention was that Mr Schoon would take over the interrogation because he had more knowledge of Mr Mngomezulu's activities since he was a person who came from his area and there at a Josini they had a complete file about him.
MR KGASI: Now when did you realise that he cannot break, he cannot divulge any information that you want from the interrogation?
MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I saw that at Piet Retief already. Mr Mngomezulu was a hardened man, he would not have broken down, I realised it and I think it was more pride that kept him, withheld him because he was being assaulted by younger men of his own race.
MR KGASI: Was it perhaps one of the reasons why you did not agree that he must be taken back to Swaziland?
MR PIENAAR: Yes because of the severe assaults and as I have said it would have served no purpose to place him back where one would have wanted to remove that link.
MR KGASI: Alright, during this assault was Mr Mngomezulu blindfolded?
MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I cannot really call this. I've listened to Mr van Dyk's evidence and I can really not recall it as such.
MR KGASI: But you've seen him, didn't you?
MR PIENAAR: Yes I did see.
MR KGASI: You really didn't see whether he was blindfolded or not?
MR PIENAAR: No, I cannot recall it as such.
MR KGASI: Alright Mr Pienaar, I find it very strange that you have seen Mr Mngomezulu and you took part in the assault, in your words you slapped him several times but you did not see whether the guy was blindfolded. Are you covering up something here?
MR PIENAAR: No Chairperson, I would have told you if he was blindfolded or if he was not blindfolded but I cannot recall it, I can really not recall it.
MR KGASI: And can you tell us why Gerhard did not agree with the idea of turning him in?
MR PIENAAR: In the first instance as I said he was severely assaulted and in the second instance this man did not tell us anything we didn't want to know. In other words we would return a person to Swaziland where he can continue with his activities so the whole operation would have served no purpose and it would have had international repercussions if he went and said that he had been abducted by the police or members of the police, that he had been abducted from Swaziland, had been interrogated, tortured and then returned.
MR KGASI: Mr Pienaar, it is the wish of the family of the victim to go to the scene of the assault and to the scene where his body was destroyed. If you would be asked to take them there, would you do so?
MR PIENAAR: I can understand their wishes there, I am not familiar with Sodwana. The person who would do it the best would be Mr Schoon and this because this was in his area.
MR KGASI: But Mr Pienaar, it was your testimony that the day after you destroyed the corpse you went back to the scene to check on whether there were any traces of explosives or remains, isn't it so?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct, Chairperson, I should just put it clearly, we arrived at Sodwana that evening, it was dark, we destroyed the corpse. We slept, we woke up, we went and had a look if everything was fine and then we returned home. It was not that we drove to and fro to Sodwana. We stayed there, as I have said I do not that area all that well. I can speculate, certainly, but I have no idea what the distance was, how far we drove and that is why I say the appointed person who would possibly be able to do this would be Mr Schoon, he knew the area there.
MR KGASI: Alright. You said that when the deceased was loaded in a van he was in a coma, is that so?
MR PIENAAR: That is what I can recall, yes.
MR KGASI: And that you personally lifted up the tarpaulin to give him air. As you said Josini was hot place, isn't it so?
MR PIENAAR: Yes I did lift up the tarpaulin.
MR KGASI: And at that stage is it the time when you realised that Mr Mngomezulu was dead?
MR PIENAAR: Yes that is correct, Chairperson.
MR KGASI: And what did you do afterwards, what did you do?
MR PIENAAR: It was actually a shock to see that the man was already deceased and then we decided, Mr Schoon, van Dyk and I, that we had to dispose of the corpse and we took a joint decision there to go and blow it up next to the sea.
MR KGASI: Mr Pienaar, you have earlier testified that during the interrogation and the torture you had foreseen that Mr Mngomezulu might die and that you reconciled yourself with that eventuality?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct, yes.
MR KGASI: Now what really shocked you when found him dead?
MR PIENAAR: Because the man was still alive when he was loaded onto the van and when we stopped he was dead.
MR KGASI: So that's where the shock came in?
MR PIENAAR: Yes it was a shock.
MR KGASI: Was it your testimony that you had never had an intention of killing Mr Mngomezulu from the beginning?
MR PIENAAR: I said my intention was never to kill him right from the start.
MR KGASI: But during the interrogation you'd foreseen that death may result and you reconciled yourself with that possibility?
MR PIENAAR: Yes that is correct.
MR KGASI: In your answer to a question by Mr Lamey you had testified that you only heard of a presence of the Vlakplaas operatives in your area in the morning that Mr Van Dyk came to your office, is that so?
MR PIENAAR: Yes that is correct.
MR KGASI: Was it the same morning when they asked you to come assist?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR KGASI: One last question, Mr Pienaar, were you present at all times during the assault except for the first occasion when you arrived the scene?
MR PIENAAR: No Chairperson, as I have said at Piet Retief because I arrived there quite soon, I moved away from the scene at times, at Piet Retief to make the necessary arrangements at the office for my departure in my absence. I was not present there all the time, that is why I gave instruction to the people there to question Mr Mngomezulu with regard to his activities with the ANC and PAC's insurgency and his activities in Swaziland and so forth.
CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose Mr Kgasi? When you gave the Black members instructions to question Mr Mngomezulu and when you gave them instructions on how to question him, where was Mr van Dyk?
MR PIENAAR: I think he was present, Chairperson, I'm not entirely certain where he was, whether he was present with me, whether he was outside or whether he was away but I was there and I'm not entirely sure where he was. He could have been there with me, I'm not sure.
CHAIRPERSON: The reason why I'm asking this question is Mr van Dyk was in command of this operation?
MR PIENAAR: Yes that is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And from your evidence you are also acting under his instructions. You come in, you are requested to conduct the interrogation, you then give instructions to people who would come with Mr van Dyk on what to question MR Mngomezulu and also giving them instructions to question him to start with?
MR PIENAAR: That is normal practice, Chairperson, because we had more information about Mr Mngomezulu that then Mr van Dyk had.
CHAIRPERSON: What information did you possess which Mr van Dyk did not have in his possession.
MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, as I have said our office received reports from various branches about persons and Mr van Dyk had access to those files at head office but he will not check it there because there are just too much. The whole country's reports goes to head office. I had more information because our area reached over into Swaziland where I worked. I had more information about the movements of persons in Swaziland.
CHAIRPERSON: With regard to the interrogation of Mr Mngomezulu, what pertinent information did you possess?
MR PIENAAR: About his activities with the assistance of trained persons and infiltrating these persons and bringing weapons into the country.
CHAIRPERSON: Did Mr van Dyk say to you you didn't have possession of that information at the time when you were instructed to assist in Mr Mngomezulu's interrogation?
MR PIENAAR: That was not discussed as such Chairperson, he only asked me to assist in the interrogation of the person.
I did not ask him what information he had and he did not ask me what information I had. It is not done in that manner.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kgasi?
MR KGASI: Thank you Madam.
Mr Pienaar, in the light of the fact that when you first arrived at the scene Mr Mngomezulu was already assaulted and also in the light that at some point you left him with other members of the group. Would I be right in concluding that?
You did not witness any other gruesome methods of torture that may have been employed on Mr Mngomezulu?
MR PIENAAR: No, the usual assault, the kicking, striking, hitting, I did see that but specifically if you're referring to the incident with the wire, I do not have any knowledge about that.
MR KGASI: Thank you. Thank you Madam Chair, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR KGASI
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Kgasi. Mr Steenkamp?
MR STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you Madam Chair.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR STEENKAMP
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?
MR MALAN: Thank you Chairperson.
Mr Pienaar, a few questions. The Moolman facility where he was interrogated, this is a facility of Piet Retief's sub-branch?
MR PIENAAR: Yes Chairperson, it was usually used by Vlakplaas members. They found it themselves I did not arrange it for them.
MR MALAN: Who was in control there?
MR PIENAAR: It was an EVKOM old caravan, EVKOM's people who were parked at the sub-station, that is where they accommodated themselves.
MR MALAN: You have confused me now. Does Moolman only mean that there was a caravan there, is it not a farm or a place or a plot?
MR PIENAAR: May I explain, Moolman is about 20 kilometres from Piet Retief, there is an old garage that is no longer in use and there is a hotel with a bar and then there is a sub-station, the power station of EVKOM which diverts all the power from Transvaal to Natal, it's a very important sub-station and at this sub-station there is a caravan that is sometimes used by members of EVKOM. At that stage the security people of EVKOM sometimes came there and they did some inspections and other times Vlakplaas arranged for their members to stay at this place.
MR MALAN: This sub-station and caravan, is it visible to everyone when one passes there?
MR PIENAAR: No it's quite a way from the road.
MR MALAN: Is there controlled access to the place?
MR PIENAAR: Yes.
MR MALAN: Who controls the access?
MR PIENAAR: Members of the guard duty of EVKOM.
MR MALAN: Did you arrange with them that the security branch could enter and exit as they pleased?
MR PIENAAR: Yes they knew us.
MR MALAN: And knew that you were busy with an action?
MR PIENAAR: I did not tell them of it, I don't know whether they knew.
MR MALAN: So what did you tell them why you were there?
MR PIENAAR: Many times we visited this place.
MR MALAN: Moolman, how big was it?
MR PIENAAR: Moolman was an area.
MR MALAN: No, the place where you rendezvoused, how large is this plot?
MR PIENAAR: The power station is very big, quite a few hectares.
MR MALAN: With trees?
MR PIENAAR: No there are trees in the area but surrounding the area there are trees.
MR MALAN: Did you meet there in the open?
MR PIENAAR: No, it was inside the sub-station itself.
MR MALAN: You cannot see the caravan from the road?
MR PIENAAR: No at all, you see the sub-station but not the caravan and the quarters there.
MR MALAN: Very well, was it not practice that you give notice before you enter the area by Vlakplaas?
MR PIENAAR: That was normal practice Chairperson as I have said, I don't know whether they contacted Middleburg where one had to get the actual permission. Not from myself, this was from head office, the regional office in Middleburg.
MR MALAN: Because it appears very strange that Mr van Dyk goes there and sleeps there the whole evening and only the following morning arrives at your office and you don't know the operation that he is busy with?
MR PIENAAR: No, he did not tell me about it.
MR MALAN: You say in the statement that you were not involved in the interrogation is incorrect?
MR PIENAAR: Yes that is incorrect, I was involved in the assault.
MR MALAN: And furthermore you say in paragraph 3 that you had discussed the matter and the three of you decided not to question him further but to take him to Mac's farm to release him, is that incorrect?
MR PIENAAR: Yes that is wrong.
MR MALAN: That was just a suggestion or proposal from Schoon?
MR PIENAAR: Yes.
MR MALAN: But you never had any plans of releasing him, there was no decision taken?
MR PIENAAR: No, not my idea.
MR MALAN: You did not go along to release him?
MR PIENAAR: Mr Schoon had the idea but not I.
MR MALAN: But the question I am putting to you is when you drove with him from Josini, did you not drive to go and release him? No decision was taken?
MR PIENAAR: No, no decision was taken.
MR MALAN: You only loaded him into the van and drove with him?
MR PIENAAR: Mr Schoon still had the idea of releasing him and recruiting him as a source but I opposed the idea.
MR MALAN: You at that stage did not give him any reasons why you did not agree?
MR PIENAAR: I did, we spoke about it.
MR MALAN: That he was severely assaulted and we could not release him.
MR PIENAAR: Yes I knew that, that the person will continue his activities and we did not glean anything from this, that it would cause an international incident and I'm quoting you because members of the police had abducted, tortured and questioned him.
MR MALAN: So there was no possibility that you could return him?
MR PIENAAR: No there was no possibility.
MR MALAN: What was Schoon's reaction to this?
MR PIENAAR: He still had the idea of releasing and using him.
MR MALAN: Did he have the power to execute such a thing while you and Van Dyk were present?
MR PIENAAR: Yes Chairperson because it was his area, he probably could have done so.
MR MALAN: And you would have allowed him to?
MR PIENAAR: I did not have a say in the matter but I did oppose the idea.
MR MALAN: Did Van Dyk not have a say as a senior in rank?
MR PIENAAR: Still, Chairperson, he worked in the area of Mr Schoon, decisions that are taken there.
MR MALAN: So this could cause and international incident and you were opposing it entirely not whether Mr van Dyk had contacted your senior at Middleburg or Mr van Dyk's senior at Vlakplaas and tell them you'd have to do something, because in spite of our opposition Mr Schoon wanted to still release this man.
MR PIENAAR: I did not call anybody.
MR MALAN: You see the probability, according to your evidence and according to the whole incident, is that you had never taken any decision to release the man. You might have discussed it and considered it and eliminating him I never had any idea of releasing him, I was opposed to the idea. The standard idea that we received at eliminations and this is the pattern, it is told to us that we consider all options. We could not release him because he was too severely assaulted, we could not return him across the border because it would cause an international incident, we could not release him because he would continue with his activities, we could not recruit him as a source and he had seen people and those people were in danger, he would know all the informers. You know the pattern, that is how you went about your work and in spite of all these things that were present here you are telling me that Schoon wanted to release him and you and Van Dyk readily go along with your opposition on your way to release him?
MR PIENAAR: It was Schoon's proposal, I entirely opposed him from the time he said that he wanted to recruit the man as a source and release him, I opposed him.
MR MALAN: You are not listening to my question. My question is not whether you opposed it, I accept that you opposed it, indeed I accept that you probably more vehemently opposed it because there would be much trouble if he was released, according to your judgement? I am saying in spite of this you go along with all your vehement opposition to release him?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR MALAN: And Paul van Dyk in his senior rank goes along with all his opposition to release this man?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct, yes.
MR MALAN: Very well, the following question then, paragraph 4 you say
"Beeslaar and the other member"
that we suspect is now Willemse
"they drove in another vehicle and this was Van Dyk's vehicle?"
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR MALAN: That was a 4X4?
MR PIENAAR: Yes.
MR MALAN: You told them we'll meet you at the turn off at the dam wall?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR MALAN: While you go to Schoon's house?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR MALAN: Now that turn off to the dam wall, where is that located relative to the house of Mr Schoon or the offices at Josini and the eventual place which you stopped to dispose of the corpse?
MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I would say approximately 5 kilometres, roughly estimated. At this dam wall the one road crosses the dam wall it goes to the Umovuso area and the one that turns right goes to Sodwana and they had to wait for us there at that junction.
MR MALAN: Why did they have to wait there?
MR PIENAAR: It was the easiest place to find them again.
MR MALAN: And then you turned in the direction of Sodwana?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR MALAN: This is not where Schoon wanted to release him?
MR PIENAAR: No it was not.
MR MALAN: Now is it not strange that they had to wait specifically at that point that it was more probable that the agreement was to eliminate him.
MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I would say this turn off is out of town from Josini, it's right out of the town. It was on the one side of the town, there was not much movement there regularly.
MR MALAN: So are you saying that there is no better place on the way to Ngwavuma?
MR PIENAAR: No, there were too many kraals that way.
MR MALAN: And you are saying that the three of you decided to dispose of the corpse, this was after you saw he was dead?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
MR MALAN: I would like to quote two statements about this that you gave in your evidence. On one stage you say that right from the start you never had the intention to kill him?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct, yes.
MR MALAN: And at another stage you said
"It was never my intention to release him."
MR PIENAAR: Yes that is correct, after the severe assaults.
MR MALAN: From the time he was severely assaulted there was no chance of releasing him in your view point?
MR PIENAAR: In my mind, no.
MR MALAN: And according to your evidence when you saw him the first time the morning when you went out with Van Dyk to Moolman you immediately started assaulting him and you assaulted him severely?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, I struck him hard.
MR MALAN: And that was the start of your involvement with Mngomezulu, you then knew that you would not release him?
MR PIENAAR: I am saying because of the severe assault at a later stage when he was severely assaulted there was no doubt that this man could not be released.
MR MALAN: Yes. No, you knew from Moolman you knew that this man could not be released at a certain stage at Moolman because this is specifically in your evidence where you seriously participated in this assault?
MR PIENAAR: Yes I did.
MR MALAN: So thereafter you knew he would be eliminated?
MR PIENAAR: That was my thoughts, yes.
MR MALAN: Your experience and that's the pattern that happened in other instances?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: And then a final question, you say you have no recollection that he was blindfolded?
MR PIENAAR: No, I cannot recall that.
MR MALAN: So with regard to you he was there as usual?
MR PIENAAR: Yes, I cannot recall any blindfold.
MR MALAN: You would probably have recalled if you assaulted him and he could not see?
MR PIENAAR: Yes.
MR MALAN: Because if you can recall that he did not have any blood on his pants then you will indeed recall whether he had a blindfold over his eyes?
MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I shall put it as follows, if a wire was put up in Mr Mngomezulu's private parts and as Mr de Kock had said, a barbed wire, which in my eyes is entirely impossible, it would have caused tremendous bleeding and there would have been much blood in front there by his private parts and I cannot imagine that the man was blindfolded, I cannot really not recall.
MR MALAN: Thank you Chairperson, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MALAN
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Malan. Mr Motata?
ADV MOTATA: Just one, Madam Chair.
Mr Pienaar when you loaded Mr Mngomezulu on the bakkie or van, had he already lost consciousness or was he in a coma at that stage?
MR PIENAAR: I would say more of a coma, not entirely unconscious. I would say in a coma.
ADV MOTATA: Now because the evidence this far other than what you had in your mind was that to release the man, how could you when he was in a coma release him?
MR PIENAAR: Therefore Chairperson, still I was entirely opposed to the entire proposal of releasing him.
ADV MOTATA: And the other aspect which I'm not very clear on is that the man is now in a coma, you still want to tell him as a source, how would you achieve that?
MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, the man could have been revived. As I have said I never even had the idea to recruit Mr Mngomezulu as a source, I was entirely opposed to it and I was entirely opposed to his release and there was only one direction that Mr Mngomezulu had to be released.
ADV MOTATA: There's not discussion among the three of you where with the body that look, it is not feasible or plausible that we could do something with this man, rather turn him as a source in this state? There's no discussion of that nature but you all just take him and you listen to the people who were with, probably Van Dyk and say we would either release him or turn him as a source?
MR PIENAAR: That was the discussion in the vehicle on the way to Josini. That is why I say I was entirely opposed to the idea of releasing this man. There was no fixed decision taken according to me that we will drive from here and we will definitely release the man. It was discussed all the time and I opposed it and as far as I know Mr van Dyk as well, we could not allow it.
ADV MOTATA: Lastly, are you positive that as you said that this area is very hot, that it was hot on this day because Beeslaar, if I'm not mistaken, says it was a cold day, it was very cold?
MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I cannot imagine that Josini can get cold. The climate at Josini next to the sea differs much because the sea brings the wind but Josini is a tremendously hot place but I think Mr Schoon would be able to shed more light on that issue because Mr Schoon lived there for quite some time.
ADV MOTATA: We could say take Durban or Pietermaritzburg, very hot there but there are days when it is cold?
MR PIENAAR: I cannot recall the climate that specific day.
ADV MOTATA: Are you just going by the idea that you know the climate of that area that it is hot? You cannot recall on this particular day whether it was hot or not?
MR PIENAAR: Yes that is correct, I'm not entirely certain whether it was hot or very hot.
ADV MOTATA: Thank you Madam Chair, I've got no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV MOTATA
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Motata.
Mr Pienaar, the tarpaulin that was used on Mr Mngomezulu, can you just describe to us how it was used around him?
MR PIENAAR: The what Chairperson? The tarpaulin?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR PIENAAR: The tarpaulin was thrown over him it was a large tent tarpaulin, it was thrown over him so that he could not be visible to other persons who saw into the open van.
CHAIRPERSON: The intention of using the tarpaulin was to make him not to be visible?
MR PIENAAR: Yes that is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Listening to your evidence and noting that your assessment of Josini is that it's a very hot place. Why was a tarpaulin used in those circumstances?
MR PIENAAR: It was more a ground sheet where one sleeps, it was more of a ground sheet.
CHAIRPERSON: Was there nothing that could have been used other than that tarpaulin?
MR PIENAAR: Not at that time, Chairperson. Not where we came from and went back to Josini, no.
CHAIRPERSON: During the times that you were present when Mngomezulu was interrogated and I take it that you were actively involved in his interrogation in Piet Retief than you were when he was later moved to Leeuspoort?
MR PIENAAR: I was more actively involved in the interrogation at Piet Retief, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Were you present when Mr Schoon was interrogating him at Leeuspoort?
MR PIENAAR: Yes I was present.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you recall whether there were attempts made by him at that stage to turn him?
MR PIENAAR: There was an attempt yes but at that stage it was not successful.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you know at whose instance such an attempt was made by Lieutenant Schoon to turn Mngomezulu?
MR PIENAAR: No Chairperson, I don't know.
CHAIRPERSON: How do you know about this attempt?
MR PIENAAR: I know because I was present during interrogation and spoke to Mr Mngomezulu and I know that there was a proposal put to him to become a source by Mr Schoon but I think he directly refused there because of the presence of other persons. That was my viewpoint, I might be incorrect there.
CHAIRPERSON: Your evidence was that when you initiated the interrogation at Moolman he was a very difficult person to break?
MR PIENAAR: According to me, yes Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Did he pose the same difficulty for Mr Schoon in your presence?
MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, may I put it as follows, Mr Schoon had a good knowledge of the language and of the persons and this type of older persons, the older Zulus, one commands more respect from him by addressing him in his own language, speaking to him in his own manner as that the younger people would.
CHAIRPERSON: What language did Lieutenant Schoon speak?
MR PIENAAR: Zulu.
CHAIRPERSON: Was Mr Mngomezulu Zulu speaking?
MR PIENAAR: As far as I know, yes. He was a Zulu, Chairperson, if I recall correctly.
CHAIRPERSON: When this proposal was made to him was it in Zulu?
MR PIENAAR: Mr Schoon's whole discussion and interrogation of Mr Mngomezulu was in Zulu.
CHAIRPERSON: So you were later informed by Mr Schoon that he made that proposal?
MR PIENAAR: I understand Zulu in my own manner but not as well as Mr Schoon.
CHAIRPERSON: So you were able to deduce from listening to the interrogation that a proposal had been made by Mr Schoon?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Can you recall what Mngomezulu said to turn down the proposal?
MR PIENAAR: Excuse me Chairperson?
CHAIRPERSON: Can you recall Mr Mngomezulu's response to the proposal put to him by Mr Schoon?
MR PIENAAR: He denied all knowledge Chairperson. If I recall correctly many names of persons were mentioned but he never conceded any direct involvement in infiltrations or the stockpiling of firearms to us, he denied everything entirely but he did give a name to Mr Schoon that had to be followed up because I know at a later stage, I cannot recall how long afterwards, Mr Schoon told me that this name that he received from Mr Mngomezulu was of no use at all, in other words we did not reach anything with the whole interrogation in my eyes.
CHAIRPERSON: During the interrogation of Mr Mngomezulu by Lieutenant Schoon where was Mr van Dyk?
MR PIENAAR: I cannot recall where he was all the time Chairperson. As I have said we were at the house together, I don't know whether he was there all the time or whether he had departed for a short while. I cannot recall who were all present all the time. I don't even know whether Mr Beeslaar was present all the time.
CHAIRPERSON: When you left Leeuspoort for Mr Schoon's house was it your intention still to turn Mr Mngomezulu notwithstanding the fact that all these other interrogations had failed to extract useful information from Mr Mngomezulu?
MR PIENAAR: It was still discussed, Chairperson, as I have already said I suspect or it is a suspicion that the fact that Mr Mngomezulu refused any co-operation whatsoever and refused to become an informer was that he was humiliated by the interrogation and by the people there and as far as I can recall and this is under correction, Mr Schoon never assaulted Mr Mngomezulu that I can recall, not at all. I think there, Mr Schoon had the idea that taking him to one side and to try and turn the man.
CHAIRPERSON: Are you suggesting that the idea of removing Mr Mngomezulu from Leeuspoort and putting him inside the bakkie heading for Josini via his house was intended by him to further interrogate Mr Mngomezulu in the absence of the Black members?
MR PIENAAR: That was Mr Schoon's proposal Chairperson. As I have said it was discussed, there was never a fixed, definite decision taken. I opposed it as I have said previously, several times, but Mr Schoon persevered. I believe that he had the background knowledge of Mr Mngomezulu, he had more knowledge than I had and he also had more knowledge because he lived there as a Zulu person himself than I had.
CHAIRPERSON: So this proposal was discussed amongst the three of you?
MR PIENAAR: Yes that is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And the decision ultimately taken by the three of you to leave for Josini?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct, the three of us drove together.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Pienaar had you had an occasion to discuss your reservation about having to release Mr Mngomezulu back to Swaziland with any of the White members who were there, in particular with Mr Beeslaar?
MR PIENAAR: No, not I.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR MALAN: Thank you Chairperson.
Mr Pienaar, I think if I heard your evidence or Mr van Dyk's correct, then Beeslaar and Willemse were never informed about the matter of releasing this person. You said the whole matter of releasing this person was discussed in the van?
MR PIENAAR: I never informed him.
MR MALAN: So why did Beeslaar and Willemse have to accompany you, what was their role?
MR PIENAAR: They were in the group there.
MR MALAN: No, I mean Schoon decides they will release him, he will pose it, you would load him onto the vehicle and you put this tarpaulin over him, I assume that it would be a heavy tarpaulin so that the wind would not blow it away, I assume it was heavy?
MR PIENAAR: Yes it was heavy.
MR MALAN: And there were other things on the van that you placed on top of it?
MR PIENAAR: No, on the sides so that the tarpaulin would not move.
MR MALAN: But my question is why did Willemse and Beeslaar take part from Leeuspoort to Josini?
MR PIENAAR: I don't know, I don't know what the purpose thereof was, we went and they drove with us.
MR MALAN: Because it would not have served any purpose that they drove along, if your only objective was to take him to the border post and release him there then they would not have played a role?
MR PIENAAR: As I have said I have no idea why they went along.
MR MALAN: Is the idea not possible that they had to go along so that they could wait and see if the Parks Board people arrived while you were busy blowing the body up?
MR PIENAAR: No.
MR MALAN: Is that not a possible inference that one could draw, you cannot give me any reason why they went along?
MR PIENAAR: I cannot, they were members of Vlakplaas under Van Dyk's command, I don't know why they came along.
MR MALAN: And you have said that seeing that Willemse's evidence was that when they left from Leeuspoort to Josini he already said that he knew that this person would be eliminated?
MR PIENAAR: It was Beeslaar's evidence, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: I apologise, Beeslaar.
MR PIENAAR: I don't know.
MR MALAN: But clearly according to his statement he had no idea whatsoever that Mngomezulu would be released?
MR PIENAAR: As I understand it, yes. He said that he that he had an idea that this person would not be released, that he would be eliminated. I don't know whether somebody told him, I cannot tell you how we came to this idea.
MR MALAN: Were you present when he was told that meet us at this turn off there at the dam wall?
MR PIENAAR: I must have been there.
MR MALAN: Did you not tell him where you were on your way to?
MR PIENAAR: I cannot recall Chairperson, I cannot imagine so.
MR MALAN: Thank you. Thank you Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Malan. Mr Prinsloo, do you wish to re-examine?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Mr Pienaar, Mr Beeslaar refers on page 138, he says that
"while the Black members remained at the terrorist activist I drove patrol with the White members."
He doesn't say who the white members were. Was there any reason for you in that area which was not yours to have a patrol there?
MR PIENAAR: No.
MR PRINSLOO: Were you in any way involved with the patrol?
MR JAMIE: No, not at all.
MR PRINSLOO: Now at this point where the road makes a fork or at the crossing where Beeslaar and Willemse were waiting, I'm referring to Willemse, now does the road there go to Induna which is also the road to Mac's Pass?
MR PIENAAR: Yes that is correct, that is the road that crosses the dam wall that goes to Induna, that is to the Ingwavuma and the road to the right, next to the river that goes to Sodwana and Kosi Bay.
MR PRINSLOO: No further questions, thank you Chair.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Steenkamp and Ms van der Walt, do you wish to be excused in order to conduct your conversation?
MR STEENKAMP: I apologise Madam Chair, I apologise.
CHAIRPERSON: We don't take kindly to such an interruption taking place during these proceedings.
MR STEENKAMP: I do apologise, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Are you through, Mr Prinsloo?
MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Pienaar, you are excused as a witness.
MR PRINSLOO: May he be excused, Madam Chair, as I discussed with you yesterday? Would it be possible?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Madam Chair.
MR PIENAAR: Thank you Chair.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: We'll have a tea adjournment for ten minutes.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
