Amnesty Hearings

ON RESUMPTION

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Pienaar will be the next witness, Mr Chairman. His application appears at pages 227 and follows.

FREDERICK JOHANNES PIENAAR: (sworn states)

MR LAX: Thank you, he is sworn in Chairperson. You may be seated.

EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Pienaar, you are also an applicant in this matter pertaining to the Nerston incident as it is now known?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I am.

MR PRINSLOO: And you have submitted an application which appears in Volume 1, page 227 to page 229, that is your formal application, and then the particular incident appears on page 230 to page 233?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And then from page 234 onwards up to and including page 241, your political motivation appears?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Pienaar, during these events which took place on the 14th of August 1986, you were a member of the South African Police Security Branch, and you occupied the rank of Warrant Officer and you were stationed at Piet Retief?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And you had the role of Branch Commander?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Pienaar, you were involved in the investigation into the matter of Maseko and Dladla?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And in as far as it effects this particular application, you handled this person known as Mr Sithole, who is also known during these proceedings as the informer?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Pienaar, could you tell the honourable Committee how it came to be that you came into contact with Mr Sithole?

MR PIENAAR: Primarily due to information which Mr Dladla had provided to me during his interrogation regarding a vehicle which was used by himself, but also by other persons, for the transportation and entry of trained persons from the ANC as well as weaponry which was connected to sabotage in the RSA.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Pienaar, during the investigation which you conducted with regard to Dladla and Maseko specifically, you obtained information as we have already heard from Mr Deetlefs, indicating that Dladla had travelled with this vehicle over the border at the border post?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And you confronted Dladla with this information?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And the specific vehicle which is relevant here, can be seen on Exhibit E which is before the Committee?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct, it was the same vehicle.

CHAIRPERSON: Exhibit E?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Mr Chairman, thank you Mr Chairman.

INTERPRETER: I beg your pardon Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Pienaar, how did you meet Mr Sithole, where did you see him?

MR PIENAAR: I am not entirely certain of the date. It was shortly before the shooting incident, a day or two, it may be three days, the Commander of the border post at Nerston contacted me and informed me that the vehicle that had been given up there, had to be monitored, that it was once again about to enter the RSA. I requested them to allow the vehicle into the RSA and to apprehend this vehicle some distance away from the border post and to detain this person for me there. They did so and once again contacted me, confirming that they had the person there with them, upon which - and I am not certain who travelled with me, I went to Nerston.

Some distance before the border post, we found the bakkie as well as Mr Sithole. This was my first meeting with him, I did not know him personally before the time. After this I took him to the office, my office at Piet Retief. There I interrogated him, I put certain things to him which initially he denied but later indeed conceded to, and conceded that he had assisted the ANC in Swaziland.

Furthermore there were threats, we made certain promises to him for his assistance, and he agreed with this. I allowed him to return to Nerston seeing as the gates closed at four o'clock at Nerston. I am not aware whether he went through immediately to Swaziland or whether he went elsewhere first.

On the morning of the 14th, that would be the morning directly after the abduction of Sidebe, someone from my office contacted me and told me that there was somebody that wished to see me. I went to the office where I found Mr Sithole. He informed me that there were arrangements that on this particular evening he was to pick up persons at Nerston who were carrying weaponry. He wasn't entirely certain about the exact number of persons which would be infiltrating, but the arrangements had been made, and the arrangement was for him to pick them up. He had come through on that day earlier, to undertake the reconnaissance along the border before the infiltration was to take place. As far as I know, he did not return to Swaziland on the 14th again, he remained in the RSA.

Mr de Kock and I, that I can recall, there may have been other persons as well, took this informer to Nerston where we arranged with him for a place where he would pick up the persons according to him. After that we also took him to a place on the Nerston/Amsterdam Road where he was supposed to stop under the pretence to his passengers, of needing to urinate after which an arrest would take place. He informed me that the persons were bringing weapons in and we also foresaw that these persons themselves may also possibly be armed. I told him that if he were to disembark under the pretence of needing to urinate, he should move quickly away from the vehicle, in the event of a shooting taking place. It was never said to him that a shooting would definitely take place. He understood it as such and undertook to cooperate.

Colonel de Kock and I returned to Piet Retief. Some of the members were at the safehouse where Mr Sidebe was interrogated. I am not entirely certain of everyone who was present there at that particular stage. We told them about the plans which had been formulated thus far. It was also decided there that these persons who would be coming in, would be killed. It was also arranged by Col de Kock with Capt van Dyk to take a group of Vlakplaas members to the T-junction near the Nerston border post, this was not on the border, it was approximately three kilometres away from the border post. The arrangement was for them to wait there and to see whether or not the persons actually did cross the border and then possibly kill those persons accompanying the group. We did not know how many persons there would be accompanying the group.

Furthermore, a person by the name of Dlamini had been mentioned by the informer, he would undertake the feedback to Swaziland. It was also arranged with van Dyk and the others to eliminate Dlamini in Swaziland. I know that at a certain stage Capt van Dyk voiced the objection that he wouldn't have known where the vehicle would be in Swaziland and furthermore he stated that they would possibly seize the person who performed the accompanying task and instruct him to show them where the vehicle in Swaziland, was waiting to pick him up again.

The fact materialised, on that evening we went out to the point that we had arranged with the informer. We took up position on the southern side of the road, the other members moved to the T-junction. All of us were positioned on the same side of the road, there were no other persons on the opposite or northern side of the road. Later the vehicle indeed arrived, it stopped, the driver jumped out immediately and moved away from the vehicle. All of us opened fire on the vehicle, today I cannot say who opened fire first. At that stage of the shooting, it might have been during the shooting or just before, it appeared to me as if the left door of the vehicle was opening and a man wanted to disembark from there. The person was shot back into the vehicle. After the shooting was completed, we found two persons in the front of the vehicle, both were dead. Diagonally at the back of the vehicle, the driver, Mr Sithole also lay, he was also dead. And I know that before the departure to the point, the order was issued to Mr Labuschagne to shoot the driver. I don't know whether he did so or who the person was that shot him. He was at the back of the vehicle, I didn't look at that part of the scene. In the front of the vehicle, with the two deceased persons, the left deceased, who was closest to the door, between his legs on the floor of the vehicle, there was a makarov pistol. The gun was damaged due to a gunshot, I could not open it to render it safe, it was left as such. Between the two persons in the front of the vehicle, there was also an F1 handgrenade with a detonator. I managed to secure this. In the back of the vehicle, there was an assortment of weapons in rucksacks and also outside the rucksacks. Col de Kock took an AK47 from the back of the vehicle and placed it next to Mr Sithole's body in the event of someone passing by, or in the event of the arrival of someone from the TIN Unit or the Defence Force which was operating in that area. Afterwards Mr van Dyk - contacted and stated that they had shot a person at their point. Furthermore he informed us that another person had escaped. Mr Botha went to where Mr van Dyk and the others were and the body of the deceased who later appeared to be Mr Sandile, was brought to where we were at the bakkie. This body was also placed there. All the deceased were transported to Piet Retief by Mr Botha himself after an officer had visited the scene. I took the autopsy report under the order of Col Deetlefs, we worked out the statements, had them typed and as these persons once again arrived at the offices, I got them to sign the statements in preparation of the dossier. On the following day, which was the 15th, I cannot recall precisely at what time, the TIN Unit came from the farm Trafford which is approximately ten kilometres away from the Nerston border post, they contacted me and informed me that they had arrested a person near a house somewhere in the vicinity where he had asked for food and directions, they stated that this person was injured. I went to Stafford immediately, I was accompanied by Mr Botha, where I found Mr Sindane at the base. He was blindfolded and the objection which was raised about the blindfold was that they didn't want this person to know what was going on at the base, nor did they want him to see the number of persons who were working at the base. Mr Sindane had suffered gunshot wounds, I do not know precisely how many, he was still able to walk independently, these were not very serious gunshot injuries as far as I can recall. We took him back to Piet Retief and on the way to Piet Retief, I removed his blindfold and took him to our offices where there were some of the other members as well. He immediately received medical treatment for his injuries at Piet Retief and then arrangements were made to transfer him to Bethal, due to the fact that the Section 29 detention cells in Piet Retief at that stage, were full, due to the detention of Mr Maseko and Dladla. Then he was indeed transferred to Bethal where the investigation against him was concluded later on.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Pienaar, Mr Sindane was later charged in the Regional Court in Ermelo?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And he was charged specifically for the weapons as it would appear in Exhibit A which has been served before the Committee?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Pienaar, these weapons which appear on Exhibit A, did you see and handle these weapons personally?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I did, I was with Mr de Kock.

MR PRINSLOO: Were you involved in the investigation into the matter pertaining to Mr Sindane?

MR PIENAAR: I did take certain statements there, but the Investigating Officer there was actually Col Deetlefs, due to the fact that Bethal was situated closer to Ermelo and I dealt with the matters of Messrs Dladla and Maseko, as well as the interrogation of Mr Sidebe which all took place at Piet Retief.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Pienaar, Mr Chairman, may I have sight of the original Exhibit A please, with your leave Mr Chairman, that is the photo's of the weapons. Mr Pienaar, if you study Exhibit A, the photo where the weapons appear, do you see the weapon you refer to, the pistol?

MR PIENAAR: I do see that Chairperson, it is on the extreme right on the photo, just below the magazines.

MR PRINSLOO: Is there anything wrong with that firearm?

MR PIENAAR: It is clear that this weapon had been damaged.

MR PRINSLOO: Which part had been damaged?

MR PIENAAR: The barrel, or I beg your pardon, the handle and the shifting mechanism.

MR PRINSLOO: Is this the firearm which you referred to which was in front of the van?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: As you see that pistol, could it have been damaged while it was laying on the floor of the vehicle?

MR PIENAAR: According to my judgement, no Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: What do you say, where would it have been damaged?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I would say in a person's hand or possibly on the dashboard in front, where it could have been damaged, possibly on the seat if it was on the side of the door.

CHAIRPERSON: The butt is damaged, isn't it?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So he couldn't have been holding it?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, it could be, maybe his hand, I don't know exactly where the deceased had been hit, I am not certain. It is possible.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Pienaar, during the shooting incident at the scene, did this happen very quickly, or what is the position?

MR PIENAAR: It happened extremely quickly Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Thereafter you dealt with the post mortem inquest and the statements which appear here, were drawn up by you and attested to?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And your own statement, is that the truth or not?

MR PIENAAR: There are certain parts of it which are true.

MR PRINSLOO: Would you briefly look at it, start with each paragraph. You refer to page 5 of the statement?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, page 5.

MR PRINSLOO: Volume 2?

MR PIENAAR: Paragraph 5, the observation service is not correct.

MR PRINSLOO: If I study paragraph 5 it says

"... on Thursday, the 14th of August, because of information which we received, I went along with Capt de Kock and Deetlefs as well as other members of the Security Branch to undertake reconnaissance or observation."

That is false?

MR PIENAAR: That is false, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: There was no observation?

MR PIENAAR: No.

MR PRINSLOO: And the other paragraph

"... on our arrival on the Nerston road, I parked my vehicle next to the road while the other persons took up positions 20 metres from me."

MR PIENAAR: My vehicle was parked next to the road Chairperson, but it was quite a way into the plantation. That is false.

MR PRINSLOO: And paragraph 7

"... at approximately half past nine, I noticed a vehicle came from the direction of Nerston border post in the direction, going in the direction of Amsterdam, in the direction of my vehicle."

MR PIENAAR: It was in our direction.

MR PRINSLOO

"... I waited until the oncoming vehicle was 80 metres from my vehicle, before I switched on my vehicle and drove into the road."

MR PIENAAR: That is not true, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO

"... I switched on my vehicle's headlights as well as a blue warning light which was mounted on the vehicle."

MR PIENAAR: That is not true Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO

"... I immediately climbed out and indicated with a torch to the driver to stop."

MR PIENAAR: That is not true.

MR PRINSLOO

"... The vehicle stopped approximately 35 to 40 metres from my vehicle."

Is that true?

MR PIENAAR: No.

MR PRINSLOO

"... I noticed that the driver of the vehicle climbed out."

MR PIENAAR: Yes, he did jump out after he stopped.

MR PRINSLOO: But not under these circumstances?

MR PIENAAR: No.

MR PRINSLOO

"... I immediately went closer and heard Capt de Kock shouting to someone to drop his weapon."

MR PIENAAR: No, that is not true.

MR PRINSLOO

"... I also noted that the driver of the vehicle had an AK47 in his hands."

MR PIENAAR: That is not true.

MR PRINSLOO: Paragraph 9

"... the black man did not listen to the command and Capt de Kock gave instruction to us to fire."

Did it happen as such under those circumstances?

MR PIENAAR: No.

MR PRINSLOO

"... After fire was ceased and I arrived at the vehicle, I noted that there were two other black men in the front of the vehicle."

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that was so, there were two of them.

MR PRINSLOO

"... I immediately went to the driver of the vehicle, where he lay in the road next to the van."

MR PIENAAR: That is so.

MR PRINSLOO: Was he laying in the road?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO

"... and under his body there was an AK47."

MR PIENAAR: No, at that stage, it wasn't there.

MR PRINSLOO

"... I picked up the firearm and saw that the firearm was already cocked and that there was a round in the barrel."

MR PIENAAR: That was no so.

MR PRINSLOO

"... I secured the firearm."

MR PIENAAR: No, that was not true.

MR PRINSLOO

"... Mr de Kock found a passport, a travelling document in his pocket."

MR PIENAAR: Yes, there was a document.

MR PRINSLOO: Can you recall whether the name Shadrack was there?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, as far as I know, because he came through the border with it.

MR PRINSLOO

"... Thereafter I went to the van where two black men were in the front of the vehicle."

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO

"... next to the person, left front of the vehicle, I found a Makarov pistol."

MR PIENAAR: It was laying by his feet, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: The firearm was of Russian origin?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO

"... I checked the weapon and found that it was damaged during the shooting."

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is so.

MR PRINSLOO

"... I could not open the chamber of the firearm."

MR PIENAAR: That is true.

MR PRINSLOO

"... under the body of the second black man who was laying behind the steering wheel (I beg your pardon for one moment Chairperson) underneath the body of the second black man, who lay behind the driving wheel, I found two handgrenades."

MR PIENAAR: It was one handgrenade Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO

"... both these handgrenades had already had detonators and they were ready for use."

MR PIENAAR: It was only the one Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO

"... I secured the handgrenades."

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: By the way, are you an Explosives Expert?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I am Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO

"... in the rear of the vehicle, in four rucksacks, I found the firearms."

Do you agree with that?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is true.

MR PRINSLOO: All mentioned items from Russian origin?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO

"... Warrant Officer Botha took the bodies to the mortuary at Piet Retief."

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO

"... On the 15th of August, the arrested terrorist identified the body as Shadrack, the body to me, the driver."

Can you recall who it was?

MR PIENAAR: It was Mr Sidebe.

MR PRINSLOO

"... He was identified as an ANC collaborator who smuggled in ANC trained terrorists and firearms into the RSA."

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: (No interpretation)

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO

"... The left front passenger who was identified as Bernard, a trained member of the ANC."

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO

"... The black man in the centre in front was identified as Tolman, a trained member of the ANC."

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Pienaar, on page 232 of your application, there you said the driver jumped out immediately and ran around the back of the vehicle, while the one passenger jumped out of the left front door, with a pistol in his hand.

MR PIENAAR: It appeared as such to me, Chairperson, that the left door of the vehicle started opening, and a person was in the process of climbing out. Thereafter immediately he was fired upon and he fell back into the vehicle and it appeared as if there was an object. I said it was a pistol, an object was in his hand when he wanted to climb out.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Pienaar, in so far it has regard to your application, or may I put it as follows - this post mortem inquest was informally completed?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Can you recall if any photo's of the corpses were taken?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I know we took photo's of Mr Sandile for the purposes of identification, but I am not certain whether photo's were taken of the persons who were killed at the vehicle. I cannot recall it as such.

MR PRINSLOO: But during the autopsy, were any identifications done?

MR PIENAAR: I was not present Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Can you recall whether you had in your possession any photo's for purposes of submission at a post mortem inquest?

MR PIENAAR: Not that I can recall, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Can you recall in this vehicle, Exhibit E, if there were any entry bullet holes on the right hand side?

MR PIENAAR: At this stage I cannot recall, there may have been possibly. But I do not know how they got there, because there was no one on the right hand side of the road.

MR PRINSLOO: And on your version, on which side were you?

MR PIENAAR: I was on the left hand side of the vehicle.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Pienaar, when you submitted this inquest to the Magistrate, did you know that the information entailed in this inquest is primarily false?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And it creates the impression that the persons there fired on you, or that you fired at the persons, or that you wanted to arrest them?

MR PIENAAR: That we wanted to arrest them and then from, out of self-defence, we killed these persons.

MR PRINSLOO: You personally, in Swaziland worked and managed sources and informants?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you give any money to Sithole beforehand?

MR PIENAAR: No, I did not.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Sithole, according to your knowledge that you could determine, was he a Swazi citizen?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, he was.

MR PRINSLOO: He was a person who lived in Swaziland?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Mention was made in one of the statements, you do not know what his career was?

MR PIENAAR: No, I do not. I know he had a piece of land that he used for agricultural purposes, but I don't know how large it was.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you have any information about Sidebe September as he is known before the shooting incident with regard to this infiltration?

MR PIENAAR: No Chairperson, not at all.

MR PRINSLOO: In this action that followed here, on this particular day, you were guilty of murder?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I am.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you do it for own personal gain?

MR PIENAAR: No, I did not.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you do it out of personal vengeance against those persons?

MR PIENAAR: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you regard them as your enemy?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I did.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you act in the execution of your duties, whether it be tacit or implicit?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Despite - besides the murder which you made yourself guilty of, did you realise that by submitting false facts, that you were committing perjury and obstructing the ends of justice?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I did.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you then request the honourable Committee that amnesty be granted to you for the murders which were committed there as well as possible charges of perjury and defeating the ends of justice?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I do.

MR PRINSLOO: As well as any other delict which might emanate from this?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Pienaar, you have already answered some of the questions that I wanted to ask you, maybe I should ask you just

to elaborate. You said that you did know that Mr Sithole owned a piece of land where he farmed mealies or he planted mealies, is that what he told you?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is what he told me.

MR HATTINGH : Did you know whether he was married and whether he had off-spring?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, according to him he had a wife, and I did not ask him about any children.

MR HATTINGH : He was then a person who was established in Swaziland?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR HATTINGH : And according to your information, had a set address?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH : According to your experience, is this the person who would be suitable for use as an askari, would he be willing to leave everything there and to go and live at Vlakplaas and be of assistance with the identification of terrorists?

MR PIENAAR: If it depended on me, no Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH : Did you know whether he was a member of the ANC?

MR PIENAAR: He was a collaborator and a supporter and in my eyes he was a member of the ANC.

MR HATTINGH : Did you know whether he had undergone any military training abroad?

MR PIENAAR: According to himself and information which we received later, he did not have training.

MR HATTINGH : With regard to the question of whether he had been involved in the ANC, maybe I should refer you to Bundle 2, page 73, that is the affidavit of Mr Dladla, paragraph 5 thereof. He said

"... on Monday, 11 August 1986, I was still being held in detention at the Piet Retief police station. On this day I was taken from my cell and I was confronted with Shadrack Msolwa Sithole who was part of the ANC Swaziland operation."

It would then appear as if this Mr Dladla regarded him as the Swazi ANC operation?

MR PIENAAR: That is possible Chairperson, but I may just add that I never took Mr Sithole to Mr Dladla, that would have been fatal, because they would have known that I had the person with me, and I wanted to recruit him as an informer.

MR HATTINGH : Very well then. On page 75 the statement of Mr Sindane, paragraph 2

"... I am a member of the African National Congress. In 1986 I worked for the ANC in Swaziland."

And then paragraph 3 -

"... I worked with Shadrack Msolwa Sithole, Mzwandile and others under the leadership of Paul Dikeledi who was the Commander of the Transvaal region of the ANC based in Swaziland."

According to this it is clear that Mr Sithole was involved in the ANC?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH : Very well then, you have already testified that you moved around much in Swaziland. Did you have any sources in Swaziland who supplied you about ANC activities within Swaziland?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I had informers there.

MR HATTINGH : A few or many?

MR PIENAAR: I had a few Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH : Were they reliable?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, they were.

MR HATTINGH : According to your knowledge, were they established within ANC structures?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH : So they gave you inside information?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I would just like to mention furthermore that the Ermelo Branch of the Security Police actually handled the most sources or informers in Swaziland, that was Col Deetlefs and his staff there.

MR HATTINGH : The information which they obtained, was also brought to your attention, was that not so?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH : So then may I say that the Security Police Eastern Transvaal had many informers who gave them information about ANC activities?

MR PIENAAR: Yes Chairperson. There were members of Soweto as well, who had sources in Swaziland and no guideline was laid down that they should not have it. Much information came from Swaziland.

MR HATTINGH : And because of this many informers that you had, you were up to speed with which of the ANC persons found themselves in Swaziland and what they did there?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH : If Mr Sithole after the shooting incident, had been released, who do you think that the finger would have been pointing, who would have supplied the information about these infiltrations?

MR PIENAAR: Immediately to him.

MR HATTINGH : You were also involved in two similar shooting incidents close to the Piet Retief area, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR HATTINGH : These two incidents had already been heard by an Amnesty Committee in Durban, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH : And you also applied there and you testified there?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH : Which of these incidents, the Nerston and the two Piet Retief incidents, occurred first?

MR PIENAAR: I think the Nerston one was the first one.

MR HATTINGH : And in the Piet Retief incident, you also received information from a source, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH : Also a person who was a member of the ANC?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH : And that person, we know that it was a female, she was responsible for the arrangement of transport for persons who were brought into the country?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH : On the RSA side?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, on the RSA side.

MR HATTINGH : Was she your informer?

MR PIENAAR: No, her handler was Mr Theron.

MR HATTINGH : But she only made the arrangements for the transport, she did not accompany the persons who came into the country?

MR PIENAAR: No, she did not.

MR HATTINGH : She only supplied information about when and where they would enter the country?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH : And after the second incident, the shooting incident in which let us call it, both those incidents were also ambushes?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH : In which you decided beforehand that the occupants of the vehicle would be killed?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH : And that is how it was done?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR HATTINGH : And did you receive information as to what happened to this source of yours?

MR PIENAAR: She was abducted by the ANC to Zambia where she was detained for 13 months in a shipping container in the ground. She was raped several times according to her and was questioned and was abused before she was released later.

MR HATTINGH : So in that case the finger of suspicion was immediately pointed at her?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH : Do you know what information she supplied to the ANC during this interrogation?

MR PIENAAR: I don't know Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH : One of the persons, one of the applicants testified there that after her release from the ANC, he had contact with her, was it you?

MR PIENAAR: No, it was Mr Theron.

MR HATTINGH : And that she had supplied this information to Mr Theron?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH : Very well then. That informer, she would not have been able to tell the ANC who was involved in the ambushes, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: No, she did not know.

MR HATTINGH : So she would not be able to finger any of the police officers?

MR PIENAAR: No.

MR HATTINGH : You say no money was paid to Mr Sithole before the incident, was money promised to him?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, there was a promise of money.

MR HATTINGH : What was the amount?

MR PIENAAR: If I recall correctly, it was R10 000-00.

MR HATTINGH : Was he willing to assist you for payment of this money?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH : One of the questions which has been asked here today to a previous applicant was whether the firearms which we see on Exhibit A, the two photo's there, whether it had indeed been found in the vehicle or if it was just not planted there because of at Stratcom operation?

MR PIENAAR: No, it was definitely found in the vehicle.

MR HATTINGH : When you found it there, was it still in the four carry bags that we see in the photo's?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, it was still in there and if one goes to page 66 of Bundle 2, once again it is the statement of Mr Sindane, paragraph 8 thereof he says

"... Mzwandile, Bernard, Tolman and I each carried a rucksack containing arms and ammunition."

It is in other words four bags that he mentions there, not so?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR HATTINGH : And four were found in the vehicle, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH : He says

"... the exact details of which I cannot remember. I do remember that there was an AK47 rifle in one of the rucksacks. I carried a sub-machine gun for self-defence. The other three were not armed."

And then in paragraph 10 he says -

"... we loaded the rucksacks into the back of the bakkie and I then bid farewell to Sithole. He seemed unusually tense."

There is confirmation of the fact that four carry sacks with firearms and ammunition were loaded into the van?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH : Could all these arms have fitted into these bags, or were some of them laying around loose, I refer to this RPG launcher, it doesn't appear from the photo if it would fit into one of the bags?

MR PIENAAR: No, it wouldn't.

MR HATTINGH : So some of it were outside the bags?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH : Mr Pienaar, then in so far as your version of what happened at the scene, differs from Mr de Kock, you have heard his version that no person climbed out of the vehicle on the left hand side, and immediately after the vehicle had stopped, he started firing. Is it possible that you may be mistaken, according to your version, that a person did not climb out or attempted to climb out?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, as far as I can recall, and imagine, a person tried to climb out.

MR HATTINGH : How far did he progress with this attempt?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I would not be able to say that he climbed out outside the vehicle. He tried to, he was on his way climbing out, when the shooting ensued.

MR HATTINGH : Are you saying that he was on his - climbing out because you saw the door opening?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct, it happened so quickly, that one cannot exactly say how far he was out of the vehicle or whatever.

MR HATTINGH : You did not see any part of his body outside the vehicle?

MR PIENAAR: His hands were on the door, or his hand was on the door. I cannot specifically recall of any other part of his body.

MR HATTINGH : And then a further aspect please, the decision which you took that the infiltrators would be eliminated, was this only connected to the incident during which a tractor driver was injured or killed, I cannot recall, and where a young boy lost his leg, or were this attached to other incidents?

MR PIENAAR: There were many other incidents, Chairperson, specifically the tractor incident. The one tractor incident, there were actually two, in one, no one was injured, and in the other, persons were injured, and where this boy lost his leg, that was Mr Maseko and Dladla. They had already been arrested by then.

MR HATTINGH : And do I understand you correctly that the injury to the tractor driver and the explosion which led, was the tractor driver injured or killed?

MR PIENAAR: He was only injured Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH : That incident and the incident during which the young boy was injured, were those two separate incidents?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, they were separate incidents.

MR HATTINGH : Days apart or on the same day?

MR PIENAAR: No, it was apart. The one incident of the tractor where the person was injured, was the same day as the kid who lost his leg.

MR HATTINGH : But the tractor driver was not injured?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct, yes. As I have said, it was approximately, these farms were approximately five kilometres apart. In the Volksrust incident, the other tractor incident was at Breyton, as well as a vehicle incident where a person lost his leg. That was also at Breyton, it was also the same day that those two incidents happened.

MR HATTINGH : And your information was that it was the same cell, ANC activists, who were responsible for all these explosions?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH : Not necessarily the same members all the time, but various combinations of members of that cell?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH : Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Pienaar, could I just take you back to the point where the bakkie stopped. I just want to understand your evidence correctly, do you say that you clearly saw the left front door of the bakkie opening?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Pienaar, can you recall whether this took place before the shooting ensued or afterwards?

MR PIENAAR: As I have stated, everything happened very quickly, I would have to speculate quite extensively as to whether or not it was a second before or a second after or during the shooting. Everything happened too quickly for me to recall.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. As I have understood your evidence in terms of what Mr Hattingh has put to you, the man had not yet disembarked from the vehicle?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: He was in the process of disembarking?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: In other words, could we accept that his leg had not yet reached the ground?

MR PIENAAR: No, not as far as I can recall, not at all.

MR DU PLESSIS: And as I understand you, or let me put it as such, what did you see in his hand?

MR PIENAAR: To me it seemed to be a firearm or a pistol.

MR DU PLESSIS: Because you testified that it appeared as if he had an object in his hand and then you stated a pistol in his hand, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: In your amnesty application, you were quite certain that it was indeed a pistol?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, at that stage.

MR DU PLESSIS: Well, can you recall whether or not you saw a pistol in his hand?

MR PIENAAR: This is another one of those things.

MR DU PLESSIS: Or is it possible that you may have been mistaken?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is also possible, because everything happened so quickly. One would look and then open fire, everything happened very quickly. There wasn't enough time to identify every single thing at that stage.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Mr Pienaar, I just want to put it to you that if he was seated on the left hand side, by nature of the situation, and if he had had a pistol in his hand, then in all probability if you had seen the pistol, it would have been in his left hand, and he would also have had to open the door with his left hand, so it appears quite improbable to me that you would have seen him opening the door and wielding a pistol in his left hand, at the same time.

MR PIENAAR: Yes, it is speculative.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, then we agree. Mr Chairman, if you will just bear with me, I am nearly finished. If you look at Exhibit E, do you have it, that would be the photograph of the bakkie, do you see it?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do you see that there are various bullet marks on the left side of the left front door?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: In other words if we look at this, would you agree with me that that door in all probability had to have been closed when those bullets hit it?

MR PIENAAR: No, not necessarily.

MR DU PLESSIS: Then how do you say it could have happened differently?

MR PIENAAR: I never said that the door was completely open.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, then in other words do I understand you correctly, do you say that those bullet holes could still have been shot into the door if the door was only slightly ajar?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Chairperson, nothing further.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS

MR ROSSOUW: Rossouw, Mr Chairman, I have no questions.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR ROSSOUW

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Pienaar, can you recall at which stage and where the order was issued to Labuschagne to shoot the informer?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, if I can recall correctly, I think it was at the house where all of us were. That is as far as I can recall, I am not one hundred percent certain. That is as far as I can recall.

MR LAMEY: So you are not entirely certain?

MR PIENAAR: No, I am not completely certain of which stage it was.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall whether this was after a discussion between you and Capt Deetlefs and the then Capt de Kock?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, Capt Deetlefs and Capt de Kock and I never went aside and made any plans by ourselves. Things were handled quite openly before other persons who were also present.

MR LAMEY: You see because as I understand Mr Deetlefs' evidence, he was not at the Security office, but he understands that there was a discussion at the Security office and he was informed about it at the safehouse or at the place outside Piet Retief, and as I understand his evidence, a discussion then ensued pertaining to the driver and that is when the other members, who were also present, were informed?

MR PIENAAR: No, I think it was that Mr de Kock and I took the informer and there already began making plans and upon our return, we conveyed these plans to him with regard to what we thought about the whole story that far. There was never any real meeting or discussions which were held at the office itself as far as I can recall.

MR LAMEY: You see Mr Fourie recalls a discussion which took place at the Security offices and he states that at that stage from time to time, he had been at the safehouse, but he says that the discussion took place at the Security offices and at that stage, it came to his knowledge with regard to the shooting of the informer, now I want to ask you whether you can recall independently whether or not Mr Fourie was at the place outside Piet Retief, where this matter was discussed.

MR PIENAAR: I don't know whether he was there. I wasn't present during that discussion. I know that Mr Fourie was busy with identification which were conducted by Mr Dladla and Maseko, so I wouldn't be able to tell you precisely whether or not at that point, he was at the safehouse. I would have to guess.

MR LAMEY: Very well. And then Mr Fourie does not know and he does not deny it either, it is just beyond his field of knowledge, this is with regard to the meeting that you had with Sithole at Nerston, did you tell him that you brought him to the Security Branch offices?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Can I just tell you what Mr Fourie's recollection is, he saw this person for the first time at the Security offices?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And that is where a discussion took place with him, during which it came to Mr Fourie's knowledge that this man was transporting MK soldiers over the border?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is entirely possible.

MR LAMEY: Furthermore his recollection was with regard to that occasion that mention was made to him, that he had to bring people through?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, he said that there were orders, but he wasn't sure about the date upon which he would bring these persons through.

MR LAMEY: And then Mr Fourie also recalls that you also wanted to know from him how many persons there would be, what weapons they would have and as he understood, he had to obtain that further information and return with it?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: And upon that occasion as well, the first time that he saw him there, he also states that a reward was promised to him.

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: And his recollection is that he was then registered as some sort of an informer?

MR PIENAAR: No. He was never registered, no documentation was ever completed which would contain his particulars and so forth.

MR LAMEY: Very well, but his impression is that he was some new form of an informer?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, it was the first time that we had seen him upon that day.

MR LAMEY: The second time when he returned, he brought this further information?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And Mr Fourie's recollection is that he would bring three or four persons through?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, he wasn't certain of the precise number of persons, but he did mention three or four, it may also have been four or five, I am not completely certain, but he was not sure of the number of persons.

MR LAMEY: Very well. And that they would also have weapons on them?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And then Mr Fourie states that you mentioned to him at a particular point that you knew this person and that you knew that he had previously undertaken infiltrations, this is after he had been there for the first time, you stated this to him and furthermore you also stated - let me just find the specific place - that you didn't trust him completely.

MR PIENAAR: That is correct, because he told me, this is Mr Sithole, that he had previously transported persons into the Republic and also that he and the vehicle had been applied for landmine incidents and when the vehicle was not used by Mr Dladla.

MR LAMEY: Now what Mr Fourie also recalls is that the second time that he came, Mr Fourie was with you. He says that there was also another third person who was present, in his written application he states that he isn't certain, but that he would imagine that it may have been Mr Botha, however, he isn't certain and we will not put this to Mr Botha as a definite fact, but you and he and another person then went with Sithole to this place on the Nerston road?

MR PIENAAR: That is entirely possible Chairperson, I have stated in my evidence that Col de Kock and I travelled with him. There may have been another person who was present, but I am no longer certain, but it is entirely certain that he went with us. But Mr Botha was not present, it was Mr de Kock.

MR LAMEY: At which stage was this place where Paul van Dyk and the others were supposed to take up positions, identified and how did they know that they were supposed to go there?

MR PIENAAR: Mr van Dyk had previously a number of years before, been stationed at the Nerston border post, he knew the place very well, and by nature of his work, he also knew the vicinity very well. That is why he acted in this incident.

MR LAMEY: Whatever the case may be, Mr Fourie was present during this occasion and you went along to this place on the Nerston road, which you then showed to Sithole as the place where he was supposed to stop?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And Mr Fourie also states that Sithole didn't know definitely what the plan was?

MR PIENAAR: No, he did not. He did not know what the planning was.

MR LAMEY: But it is so that it was stated to him that a possible shooting could ensue?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct, that is why I told him to move away from the vehicle.

MR LAMEY: And what Mr Fourie also recalls is that Sithole was informed that the excuse for stopping would be that he needed to urinate?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And that he was supposed to disembark from the vehicle on the right side and move out to the right in a diagonal direction?

MR PIENAAR: Yes. He was the driver, so he would have to climb out on the right hand side and move away from the vehicle to the back.

MR LAMEY: You see this movement to the back, Mr Fourie doesn't have any recollection about this?

MR PIENAAR: That would be in the event of a shooting.

MR LAMEY: You see if he moved to the back, he would be moving on the road, and that was no place to be moving about, not on the road, one would have to move right over the road?

MR PIENAAR: Well, I didn't tell him where he was supposed to go and urinate. This was at night, and I suppose one could have stood anywhere.

MR LAMEY: But did you tell Sithole to move to the back?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, in the event of any problems arising or a shooting ensued.

MR LAMEY: Did you tell him to move away to the right of the vehicle to urinate?

MR PIENAAR: No, he could have gone anywhere that he wanted. I told him to move away to the back in the event of a shooting taking place, but he understood that an arrest would be conducted.

MR LAMEY: Very well, I am just putting it to you that Mr Fourie does not recall that the order was to move to the back.

MR PIENAAR: That was put to him.

MR LAMEY: Mr Fourie's recollection is that the instruction was to move to the right across the road.

MR PIENAAR: No, right would still have been in the line of fire, where the shooting was taking place. It would not have served any purpose to say this, he would have known that if there was a shooting, he would have been able to witness this.

MR LAMEY: Then at the scene, it is my instructions, that Mr Fourie, as Mr Deetlefs instructed, took up his position from where he would shoot and that this was part of a straight line which all the members formed, and that there were no other members on the other side, only on the one side of the road, in a single file?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: He was the first person at the front side of the bakkie?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is possible, I cannot recall precisely where everybody was. I cannot indicate everyone's position to the Committee today.

MR LAMEY: And then Mr Fourie also states that ...

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry before you go on, where were you?

MR PIENAAR: I don't know where I was in the line. After the vehicle stopped, the men opened fire and I assume that I moved up to the vehicle, but I cannot recall whether I was second, third or fourth in line, I am not completely certain.

MR LAX: Sorry Mr Lamey, just to follow up, you said you moved up to the vehicle?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR LAX: What do you mean by that?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, we were in a line along the road, but the vehicle did not stop at the front near the mark where it was supposed to stop, and not everybody was in front of that mark. When the shooting ensued, all of us moved up to the front of the vehicle where the persons were then ultimately shot. Some of the persons remained behind, I think it was Mr Labuschagne and Mr Botha, if I recall correctly. They remained at the vehicle and Mr Labuschagne's order was then to shoot the driver.

MR LAX: Besides Labuschagne, did no one else stay at the back of the vehicle?

MR PIENAAR: I think Mr Botha was with him at the back of the vehicle, I am not entirely certain. As I have stated, I cannot recall the position of every person during this shooting. There may also have been other persons, but I am afraid that I cannot recall.

MR LAX: Because you were expecting more than just two people to be with Sithole?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct yes.

MR LAX: And the others would have presumably been in the back in the bakkie?

MR PIENAAR: And that is why shots were also fired into the back of the bakkie. Although we did not want this initially, because we were afraid of the explosives detonating due to the gunfire.

MR LAX: Thank you, sorry Mr Lamey.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Mr Fourie also states furthermore that he agrees that the driver or the informer then, was situated more to the back of the vehicle after he was shot?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Then Mr Fourie states and I don't know whether you know anything about this, he states that to him it was strange that the person disembarked and moved to the back. He said that he subsequently heard someone said that he wanted to open the canopy, do you know anything about such a discussion?

MR PIENAAR: No, I don't know anything about that.

MR LAMEY: Very well. And then, did I understand your evidence correctly that the person who was shot dead at the other side, where the T-junction was, was he brought to the scene, his body?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, he was brought to the bakkie.

MR LAMEY: So ultimately there were four deceased at the scene?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: But there was no one in the back, in the canopy?

MR PIENAAR: No.

MR LAMEY: Very well, my instructions are that although Mr Fourie was under that impression in his written application, in response to the other evidence here, he states that he will not dispute it, because he is not certain about that, and that it is possible that the fourth person that he has recalled at the scene, may have been confused with someone in the back of the bakkie?

MR PIENAAR: No, there was no one else in the back of the bakkie.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson, I've got no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RAMAWELE: Thank you Mr Chair, just one question. Mr Pienaar, did Mr van Dyk tell you who shot that person at the T-junction?

MR PIENAAR: No, he did not tell me specifically who shot him, I think he told me that he himself shot him, I am not entirely certain, but I think so.

MR RAMAWELE: Mr Nofomele will say that Mr van Dyk never shot that person, he was actually, that person and the person who escaped was shot by Mr Nofomele and the other two white members who were with Mr Nofomele.

MR PIENAAR: That is possible Chairperson, I am not entirely certain.

MR RAMAWELE: That is all.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RAMAWELE

MR LAMEY IN FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION: Chairperson, I apologise, there is one aspect that I just want to put to Mr Pienaar, which I have just omitted. Mr Pienaar, Mr Fourie's recollection is also that Sithole, and that would be with regard to the discussion at the Security offices when he was there, stated that he had to transport these persons that he was bringing through to the East Rand?

MR PIENAAR: He did transport persons to the East Rand and with this particular case, if I recall correctly, he said that he had to take them to Johannesburg, but I don't know precisely where.

MR LAMEY: Somewhere on the Rand?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: And then just in conclusion, you confirm what Col Deetlefs has already testified to, that although Mr Fourie was at C2, while he was working in the area with photo identifications and so forth, pertaining to other ANC members who had been arrested, that he was under your command?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson, I've got no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Pienaar, I have seen here in Mr Maseko's statement on page 71, paragraph 8 that Mr Maseko states that on the 11th of August 1986 at 20H00, he saw this relevant bakkie on Exhibit E, at the police station which was driven in by Mr Tina, a police officer?

MR PIENAAR: No, if it was the 11th upon which I saw it for the first time, it couldn't have been that late in the day, because as I said the border post gates at Nerston closed at four o'clock and he would have had to return to Swaziland before four. I did not have the bakkie at the police station.

MS VAN DER WALT: I also see that Mr Dladla states on page 74 something to a similar effect?

MR PIENAAR: No, that is not correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And the police officer would not have been driving the bakkie at that stage?

MR PIENAAR: No, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Deetlefs gave evidence regarding the weapons which were withdrawn to eliminate these persons, was this at the Security Branch offices?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, it was in my office in the safe.

MS VAN DER WALT: And your office is how far from the police station?

MR PIENAAR: Approximately one and a half kilometres from the police station.

MS VAN DER WALT: So therefore it is not in the same building?

MR PIENAAR: No.

MS VAN DER WALT: Then I also want to refer you to Mr Maseko's affidavit on page 71, paragraph 12 where he says that when he was at the police station, he saw members of the Security Police who were supplied with weapons there. That can also not be correct?

MR PIENAAR: No, no member of the Security Branch drew any weapons from the police station itself.

MS VAN DER WALT: He also states specifically that there was someone by the name of Badenhorst?

MR PIENAAR: No, there was a Badenhorst with us Chairperson, but as I have stated, we did not draw weapons from the police themselves.

MS VAN DER WALT: Nothing further, thank you Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT

MR LAX: Sorry, just while we are on this point, was Badenhorst involved in this operation?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I can recall that he was there. I took his statement for the PMI, so he was there. I cannot recall everybody, but I saw that he was there.

MR LAX: Is it not possible that he might have got weapons somewhere else?

MR PIENAAR: No Chairperson, we had our own weapons. He and I specifically had been issued with a personal set, apart from the weapons in the safe, one had one's own weapons as a person.

MR LAX: Yes, but I am talking about say the R1, that he would have used?

MR PIENAAR: He was issued with an R1, all of us were.

MR LAX: Do you remember which group Badenhorst was part of?

MR PIENAAR: With Mr van Dyk if I remember correctly.

MR LAX: Because it has just struck me that Mr de Kock's evidence was that those people had silenced weapons?

MR PIENAAR: I beg your pardon?

MR LAX: Those people had silenced weapons according to Mr de Kock? Those people didn't have normal issue weapons?

MR PIENAAR: I heard what he said yes.

MR LAX: He spoke about handguns and he spoke about HMCs?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct, yes. If Badenhorst was there, it is possible that he may have obtained a weapon from Vlakplaas members to be there.

MR LAX: Well, is it not possible that those weapons might have been kept in the safe in the charge office?

MR PIENAAR: No, we would not have obtained weapons fitted with silencers in the safe at the police station.

MR LAX: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I take it from that that you wouldn't want the police station to know what you people were doing?

MR PIENAAR: No Chairperson.

MR LAX: Mr Nthai?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NTHAI: Mr Pienaar, is it normal that the ANC operatives if they were coming outside of the country, was it normal that they would carry things like RPG7s with them?

MR PIENAAR: It has happened previously yes Chairperson, not always. There were cases where they didn't have anything except for a pistol or a handgrenade.

MR NTHAI: Would you agree with me that in most cases, such kind of weapons would be buried somewhere in the DLBs, you agree with that, with your experience?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, it would be in a DLB that had already been established, yes.

MR NTHAI: So, this particular case where these arms were found with the RPG7s, it is an exception to what would happen normally, not so?

MR PIENAAR: No Chairperson, I have had instances where things were brought in, so I would not say that it was an exception. We have found RPG7s that had already been established in DLBs, that is so, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: But before they could be established in DLBs, they would have to be brought into the country, not so?

MR PIENAAR: That is entirely correct Chairperson.

MR NTHAI: And you did check, you did check this photo, these weapons that appear in the photo?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I did check it along with Mr de Kock.

MR NTHAI: And you are quite certain that everything that was there, is here?

MR PIENAAR: Yes Chairperson. I have a suspicion that the one AK which was planted with the deceased Sithole, is not on this photo, because it was not part of according to our post mortem statements, it was not part of the load in the back of the van.

MR NTHAI: No, let's get something clear. Let's differentiate where you lie about the inquest and what actually happened. The AK47 that was placed next to the driver, was part of these things that were gotten in the bakkie, is that not so?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: But later, as I understand it, the investigators, apart from you, arrived on the scene and they took the photograph of the weapons?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: They wouldn't have known nothing about the AK being taken out of the bakkie?

MR PIENAAR: No, they did not know of it.

MR LAX: Maybe you can explain for me in the light of that, sorry Mr Pienaar, maybe in the light of the answer you have just given to the Chairperson that the AK47 wasn't part of the load in the bakkie, why is the Makarov appearing then?

MR PIENAAR: This was because of the damage to the weapon there.

MR LAX: Yes, but the Makarov was in the possession of the one deceased?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR LAX: And the AK was in possession of the other deceased?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct Chairperson.

MR LAX: So why aren't they all part of the same bundle then?

MR PIENAAR: The person or the driver of the vehicle jumped out and just moved away from the vehicle, and we said he had an AK in his hands, and he was shot there and that is why this firearm was ...

MR LAX: Yes, but you also said that the one passenger had a weapon in his hand?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR LAX: And you found it right there?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAX: And the same thing applied to the handgrenades that you said the other passenger had?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR LAX: In his possession?

MR PIENAAR: They were still in the vehicle Chairperson, and that is why it was kept there.

MR LAX: But why are you then not differentiating between the load of weapons being brought in and the personal weapons each person had?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR LAX: It just does not make sense to me.

MR PIENAAR: We mentioned it in the statements of the post mortem inquest, that this AK was found with the driver of the vehicle, that he had climbed out with that firearm and it was not at the back of the vehicle as was indeed the truth.

MR LAX: Yes, but you said the same thing about the weapons that were in the front of the car?

MR PIENAAR: Correct yes.

MR LAX: Why is the distinction drawn, it doesn't make sense to me?

MR PIENAAR: I cannot say why, but that is how I have it.

CHAIRPERSON: Was the driver photographed at the scene, laying there with the AK47?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I think photo's were taken there, yes. I am not certain whether photo's were taken of all the bodies, I cannot recall.

MR LAX: Surely you would have taken or had photographs taken of the other deceased with the Makarov at his feet, the one with the handgrenades behind his body?

MR PIENAAR: That is entirely possible Chairperson, as I said I cannot recall exactly.

MR LAX: Because at that stage, you wouldn't have known that it was going to be an informal inquest?

MR PIENAAR: Exactly.

MR LAX: So you would have done the necessary forensic work?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct, yes.

MR LAX: Please carry on.

MR NTHAI: I still come back to that question that I asked, in your normal experience, the ANC operatives who were going to do the actual fighting, I am not talking about people who transport the arms, normally they wouldn't be carrying things like RPG7s, not so? There will be people who transport arms, there will be people who are going to do the actual fighting, is that not the case?

MR PIENAAR: There were various incidents Chairperson, as I have already said, there were no guidelines there. I cannot speak on behalf of the ANC, as I have said. We have already had incidents where people came in with various types of weapons.

MR NTHAI: I am not talking about the ANC, I am talking about your experience. If you rate them in terms of percentage, which cases did you find more, did you find cases where the fighters would be having things like RPG5s and a lot of ammunition with them, or you will have rate the ones that normally the people who are not involved in the fighting, would be the ones who were going to transport the firearms, in terms of your experience?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I would say the incidents where the DLBs had already been established in the country, would be found were in the majority.

MR NTHAI: Is it also correct that it is part of the operation that the people who put the firearms, should not be known to the people who are going to do the actual fighting, is that not correct?

MR PIENAAR: No, there were various incidents where trained persons had established the DLBs, where they send a map back to the Commander or hand it over to him, and then other people come there and take it out again. It is so, but I would not say in all cases.

MR NTHAI: Now what other firearms are not on this photo which you can recall, which were there, except the AK47?

MR PIENAAR: All the firearms are there, Chairperson.

MR NTHAI: I am asking you ...

CHAIRPERSON: Before we go on, something struck me suddenly in the light of what my colleague asked you that I was under the impression that the firearm whose name I don't recollect, the one with the, the automatic weapon with the long thin barrel, long thin butt ...

MR PIENAAR: VZ25, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Hm?

MR PIENAAR: The VZ25 Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: That that had been brought back from the shooting at the border?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And it was not in the bakkie?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct Chairperson.

MR NTHAI: So this, okay maybe you will explain, this photo, where is this place? In other words where were these things assembled and the photo taken?

MR PRINSLOO: Could we have the original please Mr Chairman, Exhibit A?

CHAIRPERSON: It is quite clearly taken in an office somewhere, because the first photo with the carrier bags has a carpet under it?

MR PIENAAR: That would be the Security offices at Piet Retief Chairperson. It is in the office in Piet Retief.

MR NTHAI: While you are still holding that original, does it indicate when those photo's were taken?

MR PIENAAR: This was used in a case Chairperson, as far as I can recall ...

MR PRINSLOO: In the Ebrahim Maseko trial.

MR PIENAAR: In the Ebrahim Maseko matter, but I didn't have it.

MR NTHAI: Well, no, no is it not written there, that is why you've got the original, is it not written? Normally they will write, no, next to the photo's there, it is either at the back of the photo when the photo was taken or somewhere to assist whoever, the photographer has to do that?

MR PIENAAR: The key to the photo's is not in here.

MR NTHAI: It is not in there?

MR PIENAAR: No.

MR NTHAI: And that is not normal if it is going to be used for a trail, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: Yes. I don't know where it is.

MR NTHAI: It is very strange that this document is supposed to have been used in such a high trial, not so?

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think you can say it was supposed to be used, it was used.

MR NTHAI: That is what I am saying.

MR PIENAAR: Much was made of these, copies of these photo's, Chairperson, because at a High Court trial, eight copies were needed, so the others might have had keys to it, I don't know. That should have been done.

MR NTHAI: Did you testify in that trial of Maseko?

MR PIENAAR: Of Maseko, yes, I did.

MR NTHAI: What were you testifying about? Well, did you testify about these firearms?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, where it was found, yes.

MR NTHAI: Did you testify, when you testify, you should remember that, when you testified, was there a key that was guiding you?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I believe there was one, in the album that was there, I am sure of it.

MR NTHAI: Okay. You know I am raising all these things because if you go to page 76, that is VusImusi’s affidavit, that is paragraph 8 which was read to you by my learned friend, about the backs confirming that it appears that the bags were four and what bothers me is that there is no mention of the RPG7 and it is such a big firearm which one would have expected him to mention?

MR PIENAAR: I see that Chairperson. I would agree that the RPG7 launcher wouldn't have fitted into the bags, but Mr Sindane also says that

"... arms and ammunition, the exact details of which I cannot remember,"

so he also had a vague memory as to what was in the bag.

MR NTHAI: Well, we were told that you were the one telling Mr Deetlefs about the detention of Mr Maseko and Dladla is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: As the questioning and the investigation continued, I regularly gave reports to him, as well as Head Office.

MR NTHAI: Was it in writing or it was both verbal and in writing?

MR PIENAAR: No, it was always typed when it was sent to the Regional Office, Col Deetlefs and from there, to Middelburg the Regional Office and from there to Head Office. There were certain instances where I contacted him telephonically, that might be possible.

MR NTHAI: Before the 11th of August, in other words before you came into contact with Mr Sithole who you have heard from Dladla and Maseko, you had already heard about the name of Paul Dikeledi, not so?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I have.

MR NTHAI: So you had information about that, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, Paul Dikeledi was a well-known ANC figure in Swaziland, he had been well known for a long time, it was not a matter of suddenly here was information about Paul. Regularly new information was obtained about him, but he had been known about for a long time.

MR NTHAI: What new information did they tell you which you did not know at the time?

MR PIENAAR: I said regularly new information came in as to where he was moving and what he was doing, what he was being connected to. It was a continuous report about persons in Swaziland Chairperson.

MR NTHAI: I am talking about Maseko and Dladla, what new information did they give you which you did not know at the time?

MR PIENAAR: Paul Dikeledi did not give me any information about Dladla and Maseko.

MR NTHAI: Dladla and Maseko you interrogated them?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I did.

MR NTHAI: What new information you did not know at that stage, which they told you?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, what stage is now being referred to, information from whom? It is not quite clear.

MR LAX: Sorry there is a bit of confusion here. You are being asked about what information about Dikeledi did you get from Maseko and Dladla. Are you saying Maseko and Dladla or Maseko and Sindane?

MR NTHAI: No, Dladla and Maseko.

MR LAX: Dladla and Maseko?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, there was much information. I worked with Mr Dladla and Maseko for about four months or so with interrogation and pointings out and all those types of things, so the time period that they were with me, there was no new information. The information that they gave to me, were of the landmines which they had planted in the RSA under instruction of Mr Paul Dikeledi, all the arrangements he had made. These were all things that were said there, it was not a matter of suddenly there was brand new information now.

MR NTHAI: Did they give you any information about Glory Sidebe?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson yes, during the identification which was actually done by Mr Fourie, there was information about Mr Sidebe but at that stage I had Mr Sidebe with me any way, but before that, it was usual information about where Sidebe was, where he was last seen and all those types of information.

MR NTHAI: Mr Pienaar, I just want you to confine you between for now, let's talk about June and July, Maseko and Dladla were arrested on the 21st of June, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR NTHAI: Let's confine ourselves there. Did they tell you about Sidebe during that time, before you had Sidebe with you any how?

MR PIENAAR: His name was probably mentioned Chairperson. My initial investigation, but the most important at that stage was that the landmine incidents in the Eastern Transvaal, and that is what I focused on. I do not believe that there was much talk about Mr Sidebe and whether information was given about him.

MR NTHAI: So his abduction did not arise from the interrogation of Maseko and Dladla, is that what you are saying?

MR PIENAAR: No, not at all.

MR NTHAI: Did you know about this plan to abduct him?

MR PIENAAR: I was present, yes.

MR NTHAI: And this plan came with de Kock?

MR PIENAAR: No Chairperson, Col de Kock did not formulate the plan to abduct Sidebe. In any case the matter will be heard before the Committee next week, Chairperson.

MR NTHAI: Now I want to take you to the recruitment of the driver. I mean he was recruited as an informer, it is as simple as that, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct, yes.

MR NTHAI: He was not threatened, he was recruited and promised money?

MR PIENAAR: He was also threatened, Chairperson.

MR NTHAI: So it was a combination of threats and promises?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct yes.

MR NTHAI: So it is not correct for Deetlefs to deny that he was promised some money?

MR PIENAAR: I don't know if Deetlefs knew about that.

MR NTHAI: So he heard about the threats from you?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR NTHAI: Did you tell him about the promises for money?

MR PIENAAR: I could have and I could not have, I am not certain.

MR NTHAI: Well you were here, you were here this morning, not so? You were here, he didn't know about the money story?

MR PIENAAR: That is entirely possible yes.

MR NTHAI: Why didn't you tell him?

MR PIENAAR: I didn't have to tell him. It was an attempt to recruit this man, there were no costs attached to it, it was just a promise to the man, that did not render any damage to anything or anyone.

MR NTHAI: What do you mean there were no costs, you were going to pay him, not so?

MR PIENAAR: I would have, yes.

MR NTHAI: So what do you mean there were no costs?

MR PIENAAR: At that stage, there was only a promise to him, there were no costs at that stage.

MR NTHAI: But ultimately you were going to pay him, is that not correct?

MR PIENAAR: It could have been possible, yes.

MR NTHAI: And for an informer to be paid, he doesn't have to be registered, not correct? You can pay an unregistered informer?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, unregistered informers also received payment.

MR NTHAI: According to you, you interacted with him. Did he agree to work with you because of force that you, or because of threats that you directed against him, or it was because of the promise of money, a big sum of money, R10 000-00?

MR PIENAAR: I think it was a combination of the monetary gain and probably the fear itself.

MR NTHAI: What fear, what fear? This man you say was a Swazi citizen, what fear?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, he came to the RSA to do many things. We could have also informed the Swazi police of his activities, which would have made life very difficult for him thereafter.

MR NTHAI: What would they have done, the Swazi police? He committed no crime, what would they have done?

MR PIENAAR: He worked with the ANC in Swaziland. That would have created problems for him.

MR NTHAI: But it was not a crime that he worked with the ANC in Swaziland, not so? It is not a crime?

MR PIENAAR: No, but the transport of goods in Swaziland was indeed a crime.

MR NTHAI: This man, you told us he was established in Swaziland, he had a family, he had a piece of land which according to you, he was tendering or ploughing?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct yes.

MR NTHAI: If indeed he gave in to your threats, he could have just stayed in Swaziland and not come to South Africa any more, he had nothing to loose, not so?

MR PIENAAR: He could have probably Chairperson, but I think the monetary advantage prompted him to want to work.

MR NTHAI: It took you some time for you to agree that it was monetary, that that really prompted him, is that not correct?

MR PIENAAR: Please repeat that.

MR NTHAI: I say I have been asking you questions, it took you some time just to accept that it is the monetary part of it that ...

MR PIENAAR: I said that I think ...

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I submit he did answer the question.

MR LAX: I am now puzzled, in that interaction, I couldn't hear the answer myself. Please would you just repeat the answer.

MR PIENAAR: On the last question?

MR LAX: Yes.

MR PIENAAR: I said that I think it could be possible that it was the monetary advantage that prompted him.

MR NTHAI: You are saying on the morning of the 14th, the driver, de Kock and yourself were together to go and pin-point this spot, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: Where we showed the points to him, yes.

MR NTHAI: You drove to that place?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct, yes, to Nerston.

MR NTHAI: How far was it from where you were driving from?

MR PIENAAR: It is approximately 45 kilometres Chairperson, where we are from the border post.

MR NTHAI: And what kind of a vehicle were you using?

MR PIENAAR: I cannot recall whose vehicle we used.

MR NTHAI: But it was a private vehicle, you were all in the same car the three of you?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, yes.

MR NTHAI: And on the way you were conversing about this incident that is supposed to take place?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct yes.

MR NTHAI: And in the presence of Mr de Kock, Sithole did talk about these people who were supposed to come in, is that not correct?

MR PIENAAR: Correct yes.

MR NTHAI: And you are saying he was not sure as to how many people were going to come in?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct yes.

MR NTHAI: Was he sure that the people would be armed?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct yes.

MR NTHAI: Where did he get the information?

MR PIENAAR: I don't know.

MR NTHAI: When he told you, what did he tell you, what made him to believe that they would be armed?

MR PIENAAR: He said he was bringing in people and weapons, that was what the information was, but not how many persons, he was not certain about that.

MR NTHAI: So it is not correct for Mr de Kock to say that nothing was discussed during the time when you were transporting this person to show out the place, nothing was discussed about him bringing people?

MR PIENAAR: No, we did speak about it.

MR NTHAI: During your discussion did he inform you who was actually sending these people?

MR PIENAAR: No, he only said it was of the Transvaal Machinery, Chairperson. I knew that it was Paul Dikeledi’s division. I cannot remember whether he mentioned Paul Dikeledi’s name, but the Transvaal people.

MR NTHAI: Now maybe you will help us here, there is something that is not very clear to us here as to you know, why was this man killed.

MR PIENAAR: It would have served no purpose to send Mr Sithole back to Swaziland after this operation. He could only have been a danger to us and no advantage. It could have caused an international scandal which the ANC back then, used, to say that now they have a man here, he was present where trained ANC persons were killed in cold-blood. It could have had international repercussions. He would have been a danger to us who worked in Swaziland, because the ANC would definitely have not believed him. Everybody shot, except for him, so this would not have gone down well with the ANC. That is my opinion Chairperson.

MR NTHAI: Mr Pienaar, when was the decision that the driver will also be killed, taken?

MR PIENAAR: That day of the 14th, after we took him to Nerston. Col de Kock returned and we dropped him off again and joined the other people. If the thing was realised, then he would also have been shot.

CHAIRPERSON: Was the decision taken after you dropped him off, before you dropped him off, when? You were asked when?

MR PIENAAR: No, after the time Chairperson.

MR NTHAI: At that time, were you not worried that the change of plan which did not involve the driver, may endanger the whole ambush plan, were you not worried about that?

MR PIENAAR: I don't understand the question.

MR NTHAI: This man did not know that he was going to be killed, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct yes.

MR NTHAI: This man was under the impression that he was just supposed to according to you, jump out and go away so that people could be arrested, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct yes.

MR NTHAI: Now when you and Mr de Kock changed the plan that he must also be killed, were you not worried that it may endanger the whole plan, because here is an extra person who is supposed to be killed?

MR PIENAAR: He was not aware of it. In other words Mr Sithole did not know that he was going to be shot.

MR NTHAI: Let me come back to that later, because I still cannot understand why he was killed. If you were afraid of the international repercussions as you were saying, in your opinion, right?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR NTHAI: The ambush could have been planned the other way around, not so, you could have planned that these people could be dropped somewhere else and he disappears, he goes back and you use him again and ambush these people when he is not there, there wouldn't be any repercussions, not so? Is that not correct?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I did not know where these persons were going to, so no arrangements could have been made that the person who would be picked up, would be dropped off in another place where one does not know where and he doesn't know certainly, so I cannot see that it would have made any difference there in any case.

MR NTHAI: Your plan had no regard about this driver who was going to help you, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR NTHAI: Is that what I am hearing from you?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR NTHAI: I just want to come to the ...

CHAIRPERSON: How much longer do you think you are going to be?

MR NTHAI: Well, it will definitely be, I am still going to be longer.

CHAIRPERSON: So we should take the adjournment now, we have passed four. What time tomorrow morning gentlemen and lady?

MS LOCKHAT: Preferably half past nine, Chairperson, in order for us to get the Doctor ...

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, the doctors, yes, we want to start with the doctors tomorrow, we have agreed that already. Half past nine tomorrow morning.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS