CHAIRPERSON: Good morning everybody. We are proceeding today with the hearing that we started yesterday. When we adjourned yesterday, Mr Pienaar was being questioned by Mr Moerane.

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MOERANE: (cont)

Mr Pienaar, when we adjourned yesterday we were talking about the clothes of the deceased in the first incident.

MR PIENAAR: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: I am further told and instructed that the deceased were kept at the mortuary in conditions that were shocking to the parents and particularly Mr Naidoo and one of the female persons were kept together, one on top of the other. Any comments?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I would agree that any mortuary is not a pretty place to have a look at. I cannot recall whether Mr Naidoo was placed with one of the women, it may be possible.

MR MOERANE: Would I be correct in saying that you were expecting a second infiltration after the first one?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: Was that as a result of information that you had received from Lt Mose.

MR PIENAAR: Not Lt Mose, Mr Chairperson, from the informer.

MR MOERANE: Did Lt Mose not give you any report to the effect that if the first infiltration was successful, another infiltration was planned for the Sunday?

MR PIENAAR: It was discussed, but more by the informer self, the information came from there.

ADV GCABASHE: I'm sorry, I don't understand that answer. Are you saying both gave you that information?

MR PIENAAR: No Chairperson, that information came mainly from the source

CHAIRPERSON: Did Lt Mose give any information at all to you?

MR PIENAAR: I cannot recall that, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: What did you discuss with Lt Mose?

MR PIENAAR: It was probably actions, but the information did not come from him.

ADV GCABASHE: Sorry, but just to clarify finally, mainly from the informer, the other portion being from?

MR PIENAAR: It was all from the source. That is all where the information came from.

MR MOERANE: When did you receive this information from your source?

MR PIENAAR: It was with the first meeting where I received all the information from the group, or of the group, MK members who would infiltrate and the number of 36 was mentioned.

MR MOERANE: No, no Warrant Officer, I am talking about the information to the effect that if the first infiltration had been a success, there would be a further infiltration on the Sunday.

MR PIENAAR: That is correct, yes.

MR MOERANE: The question is, when did you obtain that information? It must obviously have been after the first incident.

MR PIENAAR: That is correct Chairperson. I am not entirely certain whether the source was there again. Whether Mr Theron saw the source, I am not certain.

MR MOERANE: And for that purpose it would have been important for you to see to it that news of the killing of the first group was not disseminated.

MR PIENAAR: That's correct, Chairperson. I also requested that the incident not be made known.

MR MOERANE: On the contrary, I suggest that positive steps were put in place to deceive the people in Swaziland, to send a message to the effect that the first group had arrived safely, not so?

MR PIENAAR: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: And how was that done?

MR PIENAAR: That would have been done by the source, that the infiltration was successful.

CHAIRPERSON: When you say the source, are you referring to the same informer?

MR PIENAAR: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: So she had to spin a yarn and tell the people in Swaziland that confirmation of the safe arrival of the first group had been obtained?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: And to your knowledge she did this?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR MALAN: Mr Pienaar, the question is to your knowledge, not if you believe so.

MR PIENAAR: To my knowledge yes, because the second infiltration did take place.

MR MALAN: That is an inference that you draw, that is not on your knowledge whether she carried over the information. Did she tell you?

MR PIENAAR: Not to me, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Did Theron tell you?

MR PIENAAR: I cannot recall whether he told me.

MR MALAN: So in other words it's not to your knowledge?

MR PIENAAR: I would accept that.

MR MOERANE: Mr Pienaar let's come now to the planning for the second operation. When was that done?

MR PIENAAR: I think it was the Sunday, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: Do you remember that the people from Vlakplaas were at a place called Island Rock, where they were having a four day team-building workshop.

MR PIENAAR: I've heard of that Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: Now did this planning on the Sunday involve Vlakplaas people, or was it your planning commenced without their assistance?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, no, if I recall correctly and I speak under correction, discussions were held between myself and Mr de Kock that they would indeed return and he did maintain contact with me. As I said, the Sunday he arrived there again and we discussed the thing again. The Sunday afternoon, I think it was in the afternoon, I got hold of my direct Commander, Col Deetlefs and informed him about the possible infiltration.

MR MOERANE: You just informed him about the possible infiltration?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, Chairperson, and he also came down to Piet Retief.

MR MOERANE: Now was Maj Deetlefs part of the planning for the next operation?

MR PIENAAR: He was, Chairperson, I had to inform him. It was my duty, because he was my direct Commander he was involved.

MR MOERANE: What did this planning involve?

MR PIENAAR: It was the same planning as for the previous incident, setting up an ambush.

MR MOERANE: And obtaining this vehicle, obtaining the driver, Sgt Manzini.

MR PIENAAR: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Moerane, if I could just interpose. Was there any reason why Lt Mose wasn't used in the second plan, seeing that the first incident he performed, stopped the vehicle where it was meant to be stopped etc.?

MR PIENAAR: I cannot recall why we did not use him in the second instance. I'm not certain what it was about any more.

MR MALAN: Sorry, Mr Moerane. Mr Pienaar you said it was your duty to inform Deetlefs, as your direct Commander. Why did you not inform him with the first incident?

MR PIENAAR: He was informed Chairperson, but he was not available to come down to Piet Retief, he had some other duty to perform.

MR MALAN: But he had knowledge of the ambush at the fist instance?

MR PIENAAR: No, only that there would be an infiltration, but he was not involved with the first instance with particulars there and the discussions that were held there, not at all.

MR MALAN: So why was he involved in the second one?

MR PIENAAR: I found him before the time, Chairperson and I told him he must come down to Piet Retief, which he then did.

MR MALAN: And at the first instance you say you could not find him?

MR PIENAAR: I found him later. I only informed him that there may be a possible infiltration but he was not available to come down to Piet Retief, so he did not have any knowledge of the circumstances of what we would do there.

MR MALAN: So what did you inform him at the second instance?

MR PIENAAR: That there would be another infiltration. He did have the opportunity to come down to Piet Retief and we planned and discussed the thing there.

MR MOERANE: Who was present at the planning session?

MR PIENAAR: It was myself, Col Deetlefs who arrived a little later there, Col de Kock and I think Theron was also present. I cannot recall whether any of the other members were continually present, or whether they just were there once in a while, but actually I could say that Col de Kock and I did the whole planning by ourselves.

MR MOERANE: And obviously Sgt Manzini must have been there too?

MR PIENAAR: No, Chairperson, not with the planning beforehand. I later informed him of his duties.

MR MOERANE: Who showed him the ambush spot?

MR PIENAAR: I showed it to him, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: When?

MR PIENAAR: It was later that same afternoon.

MR MOERANE: Who gave him his instructions?

MR PIENAAR: I spoke to him myself and I think Col de Kock delivered some input there, but I mainly spoke to him.

MR MOERANE: Did Maj Deetlefs give him any instructions?

MR PIENAAR: I cannot recall whether Col Deetlefs spoke to him.

MR MOERANE: What instructions was he given?

MR PIENAAR: That he would go to the place next to the border where he would stop with the kombi. People would approach him. He would pick up these persons and he would come back to the place where I pointed the ambush out to him. He would flicker his lights as a sign that it is he who is approaching. He would switch on his left indicator and turn off the road and if the persons were armed, he had to run away very quickly from the vehicle after he had stopped.

MR MOERANE: Was there any mention during the planning that he was to stop the vehicle, get off and pretend to be urinating?

MR PIENAAR: It may be possible that it was mentioned there Chairperson, that is possible.

MR MOERANE: You see I'm trying to find out which the correct story is, the one that you are telling the Honourable Committee now, or the story that you cooked up at the time of the inquest.

MR PIENAAR: At the inquest there were many untruths spoken, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: Now was Sgt Manzini told that once the vehicle had come to a stop and after he has run away, shots will be fired at the vehicle?

MR PIENAAR: The possibility was mentioned to him, Chairperson. Specifically if these persons were armed, he would have expected shots to be fired.

MR MOERANE: Was he told that this was to be an ambush?

MR PIENAAR: Not as an ambush, Chairperson, it was not put to him as such and he was also not aware of the fact that we would have fired, once that vehicle had stopped, it was not put to him as such.

MR MOERANE: What was the purpose, as explained to him, of him stopping and running away?

MR PIENAAR: In case the people in the vehicle were armed then he should run away from the vehicle, because he would have been in the line of fire there, if any shots were fired.

MR MOERANE: And if they were not armed, what was he to do?

MR PIENAAR: Excuse me?

MR MOERANE: If they were not armed, what was he to do?

MR PIENAAR: That possibility was not discussed Chairperson. We expected that these persons who would be infiltrated would all be armed.

CHAIRPERSON: Why would you expect that seeing that the infiltrators in the previous incident were not armed?

MR PIENAAR: That's correct, Chairperson. We did not discuss unarmed people again, the plan just remained the same.

MR MALAN: Mr Pienaar, you said that you expected all of them to be armed?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, we expected them to be armed.

MR MALAN: But your experience with the first group was that they were not armed?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR MALAN: So why would one expect that they would once again be armed? Why could they not find their arms within the Republic?

MR PIENAAR: We felt the same, that is why we did not change anything in the planning.

MR MALAN: Mr Pienaar, is it not true that it did not matter whether they had arms or not? Mr de Kock said that he would have wiped them out anyway.

MR PIENAAR: That may have been so, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: So the whole purpose of this ambush was to kill the so-called terrorists?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: Mr Pienaar, I notice that with regard to the second incident, your statement and the statements of Hayes, Barnard, Theron, Rorich, van Zweel, Deetlefs are identical, paragraph for paragraph, word for word, except the one paragraph where you mention who was present. In that paragraph each one obviously says "I" and mentions the others. Do you agree with that?

MR PIENAAR: It may be so, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: You know that it is so. You got together.

MR PIENAAR: We were all together at our legal representative for consultation. We consulted one by one with our legal representatives and the documents were then drawn up by the legal representatives.

MR MOERANE: And for most of you this was at Delmas on the 13th December 1996.

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: And for some reason the Commissioner of Oaths was somebody from Pietermaritzburg with the surname of Prinsloo.

MR PIENAAR: There was a person, I cannot recall his surname, but I want to mention here, I don't believe that Mr Barnard was there with us that day because he is stationed in the Cape. I cannot recall that I saw him there that day.

MR MOERANE: You are probably right about one or two of the others.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Hayes also did not sign on this same day. Mr Barnard's was signed in Knysna.

MR PRINSLOO: But Chairman, with respect, if this is an issue, then we could clarify it, why this is. Is there any dispute about this? What is the problem? We haven't heard from the family as yet at this stage, on what grounds are they opposing this application, is this a side issue, or what is the purpose of these questions? This doesn't form part of the issues in dispute in this matter. Maybe Mr Moerane can elucidate and inform the Committee as far as this is concerned.

MR MOERANE: Mr Chairman, may I proceed with my cross-examination?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think there's nothing unfair about the questioning. I mean we've got all these statements that are the same, exactly the same.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, with respect, the applications were the same. The one confirms the others' application, I've explained this earlier and with respect, Mr Chairman. In one particular instance at Ermelo, there was an application where the applicants merely referred to one statement.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I'm not saying that there's anything sinister or necessarily wrong with it, there might be a good explanation, but I think all Mr Moerane's trying to find out is how did it come about. I can't see any difficulty ...(intervention)

MR PRINSLOO: Well, I can explain, Mr Chairman.

MR MOERANE: Well Mr Chairman, I'm busy cross-examining the witness, not Mr Prinsloo.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. No, I think you can carry on.

MR MOERANE: Thank you. Well, let me put it bluntly. I put it to you that the seven of you, that is yourself, Hayes, Barnard, Theron, Rorich, van Zweel, Deetlefs, conspired to put a particular version in your amnesty applications.

MR PIENAAR: No, Chairperson, as I have said, we consulted one by one with the legal representatives after which the documents were drawn up. I did not see Mr Hayes or Mr Barnard. I am certain of Mr Barnard because I know he is stationed in the Cape. That is not so.

MR MOERANE: Are you yourself in a position to explain why each of you seven, used exactly the same words to describe that incident?

MR PIENAAR: No, Chairperson, I believe during consultation and awaiting your turn, we must have discussed the matter, which would be normal, but word for word, I cannot tell you why it is so.

MR MOERANE: Let's come to the incident itself. Now, you took up position at the side of the road in a concealed fashion, I take it?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: And the vehicle approached and didn't stop at the predetermined spot.

MR PIENAAR: That was the second incident?

MR MOERANE: Yes, we are now talking about the second incident only.

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR MOERANE: It stopped at a distance which, at the Piet Retief inquest you estimated at between 20 and 30 metres. In your present application you estimate it about 30 to 40 metres.

MR PIENAAR: That is possible.

CHAIRPERSON: But could you point out a distance, or is there not enough space here?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, if I recall correctly, I would say approximately to the doors. It may be somewhat closer but it would be approximately that distance.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know Mr Moerane, but that would probably be 30 to 40?

MR MOERANE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you say?

MR MOERANE: Yes, 30 to 40.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you agree Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: ...(indistinct) (microphone no on)

MR MOERANE: Then what happened?

MR PIENAAR: Col de Kock immediately ran to the vehicle. I followed him, so did the other members. Mr Theron had a light which followed afterwards, he didn't shine the light from the beginning. The front door of the kombi went open and a person emerged with an AK47 gun in his hands.

MR MOERANE: You saw this?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I saw this.

MR MOERANE: Because of the light that was shining on him?

MR PIENAAR: No, the lights were not yet switched on. The lights of the vehicle were on and one could see it clearly.

When Mr Theron approached, he shone the light. This was all a matter of seconds and the shooting commenced.

MR MOERANE: Yes, well that is very vague, the shooting began. Col de Kock was right in front.

MR PIENAAR: If I recall correctly, yes.

MR MOERANE: He ran first?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR MOERANE: Where was Mr Vermeulen?

MR PIENAAR: I cannot place where he was, I didn't stop to see where everybody was positioned.

MR MOERANE: Where was Mr Nortje?

MR PIENAAR: I cannot say at this stage.

MR MOERANE: What happened when this man came out of the vehicle?

MR PIENAAR: As I've already stated, Chairperson, if I recall correctly this person fired a shot. It may have been simultaneous with Mr de Kock's fire, after which the other members and I also began shooting at this person and at the other persons within the kombi.

MR MOERANE: Well, at whom was this person from the kombi firing?

MR PIENAAR: I cannot say. To me it appeared as if his gun was aimed at Manzini's side, but it may also have been more to Mr de Kock's side. I'm not entirely certain about that.

MR MOERANE: Where was Manzini at the time?

MR PIENAAR: He ran around the front of the vehicle. He must have been on the side of the plantation at that stage.

CHAIRPERSON: And could you give an estimate of the distance between Mr de Kock and the person who exited the vehicle with the AK47 when you heard the first shot?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I would then have to speak of and this would be speculation, perhaps 3 metres. It may have been closer, it may have been further, but I'm not certain of the exact distance.

MR MOERANE: This would have happened right in front of Col de Kock, not so?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: So if it happened, he would have seen it?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I believe he must have seen it.

MR MOERANE: Well, you've heard his evidence.

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I heard it.

MR MOERANE: I put it to you that this story of the person shooting is a fabrication.

MR PIENAAR: No, it isn't.

MR MOERANE: A fabrication which you have carried over from the Piet Retief inquest.

MR PIENAAR: It is not so.

ADV GCABASHE: Sorry Mr Moerane, before you move off this point, just a bit of clarity, Mr Pienaar. You say that this person shot towards Manzini's side, that's what you said?

MR PIENAAR: That is how it appeared to me.

ADV GCABASHE: Just help me with this. Manzini ran around the front of the vehicle and into the plantation. De Kock, I presume, approached from the back of the vehicle, because they had been travelling forwards, so you were behind them?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: And when this person got out, he shot towards Manzini, rather than towards de Kock, who was in front of him, is this what you're saying?

MR PIENAAR: I said that at that stage when Mr de Kock ran forward, there wasn't any light on the vehicle, so I cannot say whether the person was aware that Mr de Kock was approaching from the side, that is merely speculation. But certainly, when he drew near, he must have become aware of him, but I believe that his attention was fixed on Manzini who was suddenly running away.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you. Just to finish this off. I thought that you had said that by the time the shooting started, Theron's light was on, that's the note I had, so by the time anybody, whoever started shooting, there was enough light, not just light from the front.

MR PIENAAR: That is correct. When the shooting began, when everybody began to shoot, Mr Theron shone the light on the vehicle, that is when all the members moved closer to the vehicle.

ADV GCABASHE: And yet this man shot backwards, rather than forwards, with the lights on?

MR PIENAAR: If my judgement was correct, he fired and then Mr de Kock fired and that is when the light went on. That is why I have said that I believed that this person's attention was fixed on Manzini and he didn't notice the members moving in from the side.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Moerane, there's just one point that I'm not clear on. You said that the instruction to Sgt Manzini was to get out the vehicle and run around it?

MR PIENAAR: Around the front.

CHAIRPERSON: Now why was that the instruction, because that would mean that he'd have to get out the right side of the vehicle, then run in front of the vehicle where the lights are shining on him and then across the road, whereas if he'd got out the vehicle and just ran at right-angles to the vehicle, as fast as he could into the bush, wouldn't that have been more efficient and safer?

MR PIENAAR: No, because then he would have been in the line of fire. If the members were on the left-hand side and they were firing towards the right, then he would have ended up straight in the line of fire.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR MOERANE: So shooting at this vehicle was definitely part of the planning?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that's correct.

MR MOERANE: Is it correct that all the occupants of this vehicle were shot through their heads?

MR PIENAAR: I cannot recall where the shots were. There were various bullet wounds in everybody.

MR MOERANE: According to the post mortem examination report, they all died of head injuries, brain damage.

MR PIENAAR: That is possible.

MR MOERANE: Can't you remember that according to the post mortem reports and the finding of the Inquest Magistrate? Mr Chairman, this is in bundle 5 on page 279 to 280, in the middle of the page starting with,

MR PRINSLOO: What page number?

CHAIRPERSON: It's 341 - 279 to 280, bundle 5.

MR MOERANE: Yes, there are three pages there. The typed one is page 80, then this page 341 and as far as our bundle is concerned, it's 279.

CHAIRPERSON: And it appears almost in the middle of the page, page 279.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: And Jabulane Sibisi "Brain damage". The fourth one, Sam Thembu "Brain damage".

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: Was there a deliberate intention to shoot these people in their heads?

MR PIENAAR: No, these members fired automatic weapons. It wasn't said, "listen, aim for the chest, or the neck, or the head", every member fired at what he fired.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it not practice in those days that in a combat situation like this, one would make sure of death by shooting the victims once they had been incapacitated, just to make sure that they were dead?

MR PIENAAR: No, Chairperson, what I can say is that in our training it was said to us and it was taught to us, particularly with the penetration of homes in which the person may possibly make use of a hand grenade, the practice was to kill immediately in order to prevent the tossing of the hand grenade, but in this case there was never any talk of head wounds, or anything like that.

MR MOERANE: And just to put the matters beyond any doubt, you and Col de Kock and the people who were involved in this operation did not do it with the intention of arresting those people?

MR PIENAAR: No, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: In other words, you're agreeing with me?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: So you agree with me that the findings of the inquest magistrate on the previous page, page 278, where he says,

This was really based on what you had told the magistrate, that this was an attempt to arrest the people?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR MOERANE: And also you had lied giving the following results, as far as the ruling was concerned,

That finding was also based on the evidence that was presented to the magistrate.

MR PIENAAR: That's correct.

MR MOERANE: And of course on the eloquent address of the prosecutor, who told the magistrate at page 277 that

It was totally false, not so? It's on page 277. This is part of the address of Adv van der Walt.

CHAIRPERSON: It's about the 6th or 7th line.

MR MOERANE: The 9th and the 10th line. And also it was completely false what was argued, that

MR PIENAAR: No, the light was switched on, the vehicle was not ready.

CHAIRPERSON: The translation's not coming through, if you could just correct that. I wonder if the interpreter could just say a word or two?

INTERPRETER: Check 1, 2.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on. Sorry, if you could just repeat that answer please, Mr Pienaar.

MR PIENAAR: A light was used during the incident, but a light was not switched on with the pullover vehicle and there was no pullover vehicle in the road, that is entirely correct.

MR MOERANE: Now what is meant here when counsel is addressing the court with the words

"They switched on a light."

Is the "wentellig" the revolving light, the blue light?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, the blue light.

MR MOERANE: That was a lie.

MR PIENAAR: No, there wasn't one, that was a lie.

MR MOERANE: And going back to the judgment on page 278, line 23,

MR MOERANE: Now that is totally incorrect too. In fact it was an ambush.

MR PIENAAR: Yes, it was an ambush.

MR MOERANE: And you had all lied to the magistrate?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: We go on further.

There was no road-block at all.

MR PIENAAR: No, there was no road-block.

MR MOERANE: Was it correct, Warrant-Officer, that if the intention was to arrest those people, your planning would have been completely different?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR MOERANE: Finally, I put it to you Warrant-Officer that you have not made full disclosure to this Committee.

MR PIENAAR: What I have said here is the truth.

MR MOERANE: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MOERANE

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Moerane. Ms Lockhat, do you have any questions?

MS LOCKHAT: Yes, thank you, Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: Mr Pienaar, you called in Vlakplaas, that is C1.

MR PIENAAR: Correct.

MS LOCKHAT: When you informed Vlakplaas as to assist your unit, your Security Branch, what were your instructions to them initially?

MR PIENAAR: I told Col de Kock that there would be possible infiltrations and that I required assistance from his side.

MS LOCKHAT: Did you inform him that, because these people were infiltrating into the country, that you wanted to arrest them, ambush them? What were your instructions? Whose idea was this, the ambush? Kindly explain.

MR PIENAAR: After Col de Kock arrived at Piet Retief, we discussed these matters there, and he and I discussed it together, so this came from both of us.

MS LOCKHAT: Did de Kock suggest it or did you suggest it?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I cannot say who suggested it, we discussed it, we agreed about it and I cannot say whose idea it was.

MS LOCKHAT: You are an old Koevoet member, Mr Pienaar, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: No.

MS LOCKHAT: Did you know of C1's operations?

MR PIENAAR: Former operations?

MS LOCKHAT: Covert operations.

MR PIENAAR: I was aware of some of them, the others I was not aware of.

MS LOCKHAT: Did you call in C1 to actually come and eliminate these MKs?

MR PIENAAR: No.

MS LOCKHAT: At what stage did you inform Mr Deetlefs on the first incident?

MR PIENAAR: I contacted him on the day when the planning was undertaken at the office, but he was not available to come to Piet Retief. I cannot recall what the problem was with his affairs. After the incident he came to hear of the shooting of the persons.

MS LOCKHAT: If Mr Deetlefs is not there and he's not available to you, who is next in command?

MR PIENAAR: At this stage I cannot recall who it was. I think that it was Capt van Wyk de Vries who was also at Ermelo.

MS LOCKHAT: Did you inform him of this incident?

MR PIENAAR: No, I didn't.

MS LOCKHAT: Why not?

MR PIENAAR: I cannot recall why I didn't contact him.

MS LOCKHAT: Didn't you feel that you needed authorisation for this mission, especially where there was an elimination of persons?

MR PIENAAR: No, Mr de Kock was a senior officer from Head Office and that was sufficient for me to have him there.

MS LOCKHAT: Did you ask Mr de Kock whether he clarified this with Brig Schoon?

MR PIENAAR: No, I didn't.

MS LOCKHAT: Why not?

MR PIENAAR: I had no reason for that.

MS LOCKHAT: So Mr Deetlefs was then informed of the first incident, I can take it probably a day or two after the incident?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR MALAN: Sorry, Ms Lockhat. Did you inform Mr Deetlefs?

MR PIENAAR: I think I did, yes, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Because you said that Mr Deetlefs heard about the shooting, you didn't say that you informed him.

MR PIENAAR: No, I informed him.

MR MALAN: When did you notify him?

MR PIENAAR: I cannot recall if it was the next day or the next morning, or whether it was later that following day. I'm not certain about the exact time.

MR MALAN: And when you were looking for him before the first incident, by inference I heard that you did indeed speak to him, but that he could not come down?

MR PIENAAR: That's correct.

MR MALAN: So you did speak to him before the first incident and you told him about the insurgency?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I told him about the infiltration.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MS LOCKHAT: You were also the investigating officer. Were you the investigating officer of the first and the second incident, or only the second incident? Just clarify that for me.

MR PIENAAR: The first and the second incident but during the investigation into the second incident it was taken from me and handed over to Brig van Wyk and later to Brig Engelbrecht.

MS LOCKHAT: You said in your evidence that no-one told you to stop the investigation because you were involved in the first and second. Didn't Mr Deetlefs tell you to recuse yourself from that position?

MR PIENAAR: No, he didn't.

MS LOCKHAT: Did the two of you discuss the matter?

MR PIENAAR: I beg your pardon.

MS LOCKHAT: Did you discuss that you were going to be the investigating officer?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, he was aware of that, including the officer who was at Middelburg. They were both aware of it and nobody tried to stop me.

MS LOCKHAT: Let's just get back to the issue of the source. How long was this person the source of your Security Branch?

MR PIENAAR: It was quite some time. I'm not entirely certain of the time period, but it was quite a long period of time.

MS LOCKHAT: A couple of years, a couple of months? Kindly be a bit more specific.

MR PIENAAR: Various months, I wouldn't say years, but quite a few months.

MS LOCKHAT: And how many times did you meet the source?

MR PIENAAR: I cannot recall, it was a few times. I cannot recall the number of times.

MS LOCKHAT: Was it about 10 times, 15 times, 5 times?

MR PIENAAR: No, I wouldn't be able to say anything, that would be speculation, I really cannot recall.

MS LOCKHAT: Can you remember the name of the source?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I can.

MS LOCKHAT: Can you please inform us of that name?

MR PIENAAR: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, must this name be disclosed in public? Surely any source of that nature's life will be in danger? Is there any need for it to be disclosed?

MS LOCKHAT: I shall leave it in your hands, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well, Mr Moerane what's your ...?

MR MOERANE: Mr Chairman, I know that the question of sources is a difficult one, particularly if the source is still a source at present, but if we are dealing with past incidents and past sources, I think the whole purpose of this inquiry is to get the truth and with specific reference to the facts of this particular case, those that I represent certainly are interested in the identity of the source. They do not intend taking any action against the source, but they would like the name of the source to be revealed, so that they leave these proceedings at peace, at least knowing who the person is that sold out their loved ones.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, if I may come in here. Not that I've got a direct interest but I seem to recall that this same issue arose at one of the hearings in Port Elizabeth more than a year ago and I think it was Judge Ngoepe when he was still there, but it might have been one of the other presiding officers that said on a previous occasion when the, I presume I can use the word the full bench, of the Amnesty Committee, the whole issue of sources did arise and that was before you were on that panel and so on and I speak subject to correction, I'm not suggesting that this Commission is bound by precedent, but I think it's important, it's my duty to you, that the full Committee on that occasion ruled that there was no necessity to disclose the identity of sources. I seem to recall that is the case, so I think that bit of information should also be placed before the Committee to enable you to make a proper decision.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I'm indebted to my colleague Mr Booyens in this regard. I respectfully submit, Mr Chairman, should the source's name be revealed, that person will be killed and we are dealing with the past, it is a matter of the past, Mr Chairman, and should it be essential for this name to be disclosed, I respectfully submit then the Committee should sit behind closed doors, exclude the public and hold an inquiry as to why it would be essential that the name be disclosed to the Committee only and not to the public or anyone else, Mr Chairman. There's no need, I respectfully submit, why that name should be disclosed. There is no dispute at this stage that there was a source that conveyed information to the police, which resulted in the people being picked up, conveyed and subsequently killed. That is not part of the issues as far as this particular issue is concerned.

I respectfully submit, Mr Chairman, this matter can be decided without the name being disclosed to the Committee or anyone else for that matter and the fact that the family wants to know the name of that person, will take the matter no further Mr Chairman, apart from knowing it and for what reason only, and the reason is obvious, that person will be eliminated afterwards.

CHAIRPERSON: From what we've heard and I just toss it in,

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: Was this person not something more than just a source because we've heard that not only was information supplied, but that the source also played an active role in respect of the shooting that took place in Swaziland by going back and relaying false information.

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct, the informer was very much involved in infiltrations.

CHAIRPERSON: So that person is, what I'm asking is, was that person more an implicated person rather than just an informer? It was not just a question of supplying information on request or getting it, but playing an active role which we know led to the death of one person in Swaziland and also probably to the death of the four people in the second incident.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, is that the Committee's view, that the source knew there would be an ambush and the person's would be killed?

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I'm just putting it to you, I'm not saying it's a finding, but Mr Prinsloo said that the source - Mr Pienaar said that when the first incident had to be kept quiet because it would otherwise upset the possibility of the second infiltration taking place and that was done by the source going back to the people in Swaziland and relaying false information about the success of the first incident, thereby prompting the second infiltration. Now is that just being an informer? What I'm asking, is that just being an informer or is it going somewhat beyond that and actually now playing an active role in the incident and thereby becoming, in terms of our Act, more an implicated person rather than just an informer?

MR PRINSLOO; Mr Chairman, I respectfully submit, in as far as the informer is concerned, the informer played a particular role depending on the circumstances of that of an informer and the manner to obtain information, to convey information and to ensure that the information supplied would be utilised by the police in the fashion in which it was done. I respectfully submit, Mr Chairman, as to whether that person is to be regarded as an implicated person, one will have to probe this matter further in order to establish that and if that is the case then I respectfully submit, Mr Chairman, other steps will have to be taken in order to inform that particular person so that that person can secure the proper representation, but at this stage it does not appear to be so, that that person knew that there would be a killing taking place, apart from facilitating the police that the people be assisted in infiltrating the country, in order for the police to apprehend these people, unless that person knew before hand, was part and parcel of a conspiracy to kill, but that is not the evidence of the applicant, Mr Chairman. That is my respectful submission.

CHAIRPERSON: Just before you proceed.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it's just been pointed out to me, was it not also that the informer arranged the transport on the other side to get them close to the border where they would cross to the waiting vehicle, all that sort of thing? It was not only a question of supplying information, but of making various arrangements and also as I've mentioned earlier, supplying some misinformation, but also it would seem, and just from what I've heard here, that the identity of the informer may be known. I mean it's been mentioned that first of all, and it's been agreed in evidence by both Mr Pienaar and Mr de Kock, that the informer was a female, that she was arrested by the ANC, that she was then detained at a place called Sun City near Lusaka for approximately a year and later released etc. That information is known.

MR PRINSLOO; Mr Chairman, I respectfully submit, if that is the same person and upon the questioning of Mr Moerane, my learned colleague, that he might know who that person is, is there then any need for the name to be revealed? At this stage know one knows, or at least I don't know exactly where she is, will her life not be at risk if it's disclosed where she is? That's apart from Mr Chairman, your further suggestion to me with regard to the issue of implication, if she's not to be regarded as an implicated person. I respectfully submit then Mr Moerane, with respect, needs no further information for purpose of questioning. If he is aware who that person is, he is a member of the court and Mr Moerane no doubt will not disclose it to anyone else, like we won't do it. Now I respectfully submit, Mr Chairman, in the circumstances as already indicated to the Committee, there is not need for the name to be disclosed or revealed to the public at large.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, now what, I don't think Mr Moerane would argue that we, as a Committee, have to know the name of the informer in order to arrive at some decision in this matter. Whether the informer was X or Y isn't going to affect all the factual evidence that we have before us, to enable us to arrive at a decision one way or the other. However, and perhaps you can just make brief submissions of this, what would be the situation or how relevant would it be if it was a question of, to be taken into account in determining whether this particular application has made a full disclosure.

MR PRINSLOO: I respectfully submit, Mr Chairman, the applicant indicated that there was a source and the whole incident was arranged via a source and this information was arranged via a source and the evidence indicates that and the evidence of Mr de Kock, the first applicant, confirms that, with respect Mr Chairman. There's no suggestion that there was no source. There's no suggestion that the source did not facilitate this. That is not the case of the family or any other persons Mr Chairman, and I respectfully submit, the applicant Mr Pienaar at this stage, has made a full disclosure. He said he made use of a source and he even went further, from questioning by my learned colleague Mr Moerane and indicating who that person could be. In the circumstances, I respectfully submit, Mr Chairman, the only issue here is that the Committee must guard against disclosing the name of that particular person, as this is a very, very - a matter which must be regarded with great circumspection as far as that person's life is concerned. Will that person not be killed? She was already arrested by the ANC as you indicated Mr Chairman and that person was already questioned. What will the other people do, the public at large, when they know who that person is? That person might be living in this area, might be living elsewhere, we don't know and I respectfully submit, in the interests of that particular person, that name should not be revealed.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Moerane.

MR MOERANE: Thank you. Mr Chairman, we are involved here with a public inquiry into an application for amnesty by the various applicants. These applications involve the unlawful killing of certain people, of 9 people. The relatives of these people are here and they have come to find out how their loved ones were killed, why they were killed, by whom they were killed.

Now, what we have so far Mr Chairman, are the identities of the persons who actually pulled the trigger. We know why they were killed, if that will be the evidence of the rest of the applicants that these were ambushes. We do not know, from the side of people who under normal circumstances would have been sympathetic to the cause of the deceased, who were involved. I think it's important for the families to know who amongst the ranks of the ANC or their sympathisers was involved in the death of their loved ones. The identity of that person, from my questioning of Col de Kock and from my questioning of W/O Pienaar, is a person who has made a statement, a statement before this Honourable Committee. I haven't disclosed the name to those instructing me, but I don't think I should be privy to information to which those instructing me are not privy. I think they should know what I know. There's no reason for me to conceal from them information which they seek, information which is important to them, so that they also can begin the process of healing when they know the full facts surrounding the death of their loved ones. I do not believe that this person is still a source or an informer of the police and I submit, Mr Chairman, that her identity should be disclosed. Those I represent have no malicious intent against her, they just want to know, that is all. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it known whether this person is still an informer on the register of informers?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I'll have to take instructions as far as that is concerned and I may also just at this stage indicate, with respect Mr Chairman, that in terms of Section 153 or the Criminal Procedure Act, when there is a trial taking place behind closed doors and a name is disclosed to members of the court and people represented various parties in that court, that member of the court cannot disclose that to anyone else. That could be an order of the court and if that person is still an informer, Mr Chairman, it makes it even more complicated. But at this stage my submission is that that person's life might be at stake. Even if the people represented by Mr Moerane have no intention of doing anything to that particular person, there may be people close to them who have bad blood as far as that is concerned. There is always that risk. It's only a risk that's required, Mr Chairman, not a reality, just a probability. Thank you, Mr Chairman. But I'll take instructions with regard to that particular person's whereabouts and whether that person is still an informer, if I'm given that opportunity, for a brief adjournment I'll request the Committee, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we'll have a short adjournment. We'd just like to discuss the matter amongst ourselves as well. Thank you. Just take a short adjournment.

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR : (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: (cont)

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, the applicant has given me the name of the particular source. It's on this document written in my hand which I am prepared to give to the Committee, I will give to the Committee. I will however respectfully submit Mr Chairman that as far as that particular source is concerned, that source ought to be informed as to the intentions of the Committee to reveal its name, so that the source can at least secure legal representation and come and argue as to whether her or his name should be revealed to the Committee, but as far as full disclosure is concerned, the applicant is making full disclosure, the name is available and I'm going to give it to the Committee, but that I would respectfully submit that the Committee will have to make that decision as to whether this name should be revealed or not.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: ...(microphone not on) regarded as an implicated person maybe and for that reason the secretary should also be present and then at least with legal representation, first of all whether the name should be revealed, secondly as to whether that person will be regarded as an implicated person. The applicant I represent, Mr Pienaar, is not aware of the whereabouts of the particular source. He is no longer a member of the South African police force, he's been out of the force for quite a few years and my other submissions still stand. As it pleases. Mr Chairman, must I hand this up to the Committee?

CHAIRPERSON: No, I don't think at this stage. Do you wish to say anything Mr Moerane, or not?

MR MOERANE: Nothing further.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we are still discussing the matter and I must say one of the points that did come to mind was exactly the point raised by yourself that there should be some sort of notification, legal representation on the part of the person concerned and I think at this stage, if we could then just stand this aspect over for later and we would as a panel still like to discuss it and we'll make some sort of finding, perhaps tomorrow or something like that, but if we could then just continue with the hearing until then. But we take the point made by Mr Prinsloo.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Lockhat.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS LOCKHAT

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, do you have any re-examination?

MR PRINSLOO: No re-examination thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Adv Gcabashe, do you have any questions you would like to ask?

ADV GCABASHE: Yes, thank you Chair. Mr Pienaar, I may have lost this somewhere in your evidence. The first incident occurred on the 8th of June.

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: How long before that did you receive your information about the infiltration generally?

MR PIENAAR: Mr Theron called me on the 8th while I was busy with a Circuit Court at Bethal and I went to Piet Retief where I received the information.

ADV GCABASHE: You were told on the 8th about the infiltration?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct as far as I can recall, Chairperson.

ADV GCABASHE: No other information prior to the 8th about this group that were going to be infiltrating over a period?

MR PIENAAR: There was information from sources of a possible-large scale infiltration from Swaziland because there was a pile up of MK members there but the dates were not known at that stage, not at all.

ADV GCABASHE: So you received this information, what, on the morning of the 8th?

MR PIENAAR: I cannot recall what time it was Chairperson. I came from Bethal and I don't remember what time it was.

ADV GCABASHE: I am just trying to understand the day because the shooting occurred roughly around 21h10 according to one of the documents we have here, yes?

MR PIENAAR: That's correct.

ADV GCABASHE: Now I understand how things unfolded that day because you received the information on that day, you contact Mr de Kock on that day, you talk to Mr Deetlefs on that day, you start making arrangements about a motor vehicle to be brought to you, the Corolla, which was not your Corolla, it belonged to a different division. Just take me through that in terms of the time scale.

MR PIENAAR: That's correct, Chairperson. The Toyota, if I could just mention here, was the detective branch at Piet Retief, they were in the same building where the Security Branch was, so it was not a matter of a long time to arrange that and after I arrived at Piet Retief and I made myself known with the information, I contacted Col de Kock and he came to Piet Retief. I contacted Col Deetlefs, he could not come and Col de Kock and I made arrangements.

ADV GCABASHE: May I stop you there? At what time did you phone Mr de Kock?

MR PIENAAR: I'm not certain of the time, Chairperson.

ADV GCABASHE: But he was in Pretoria at Vlakplaas at the time?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

ADV GCABASHE: So another three-hour drive across to Piet Retief?

MR PIENAAR: That's correct yes.

ADV GCABASHE: And you discussed the matter, then he called on the rest of the troops to come up as well.

MR PIENAAR: No, there were members with Col de Kock who came down to Piet Retief with him.

ADV GCABASHE: Okay, so when he arrived he came with the unit that was used that evening.

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that's correct.

ADV GCABASHE: You got the information from Theron, Mr Theron.

MR PIENAAR: That's correct.

ADV GCABASHE: But you spoke to the source as well.

MR PIENAAR: That's correct.

ADV GCABASHE: And this would have been that morning, on the morning of the incident.

MR PIENAAR: That was the 8th yes, Chairperson.

ADV GCABASHE: Did you discuss with Mr Theron and your source, the possibility of weapons being carried by these people and what was the information you were given, as you were having this initial discussion?

MR PIENAAR: It would be trained MK members, armed, which would come into the RSA, that she had to arrange transport from the RSA side for them.

ADV GCABASHE: Now, that's another important point I was going to ask you about. Her task from the ANC had been to arrange this transport, you took over that function.

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: Did she indicate to you when she had been given this task?

MR PIENAAR: No, no she did not.

ADV GCABASHE: Because in one of the statements again in the bundle from one of Mr Naidoo’s friends, he says that on the 6th Mr Naidoo was already preparing to come across. Do you know anything at all about that from the information you were given by your source?

MR PIENAAR: No Chairperson, not at all.

ADV GCABASHE: This was the only consultation you had with your source?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: You did not have a subsequent conversation just before the 12th, that's before the second incident?

MR PIENAAR: No, she was once again at the offices before the 12th.

ADV GCABASHE: From the 8th to the 12th is a very short space of time.

MR PIENAAR: I cannot recall which day exactly she was there, it may have been the 11th, it may have been the morning of the 12th, I am not certain.

ADV GCABASHE: When she came to talk to you she informed you that she had misled the ANC about how things had transpired, vis a vis the first incident.

MR PIENAAR: She did say that she reported back that the infiltration was successful.

ADV GCABASHE: And she told you that she was supposed to now arrange for a second group to come over and you again then took over that function.

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: So she was really quite central to the organisation of that transport for these people, both from the ANC's perspective and then from your perspective, in relation to what she went back to tell them on the other side?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: You say she was not aware that you were going to eliminate these people?

MR PIENAAR: No Chairperson, not at all.

ADV GCABASHE: As far as she was concerned you were simply going to arrest them?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

ADV GCABASHE: The first incident, again in the documentation here, there's reference to money being given to these operatives you know coming across, there's a R3 500 that was mentioned there's a R3 000 that was mentioned. Did you find any money on any one of the operatives?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, money was found Chairperson and the money was channelled to Head Office in Pretoria.

ADV GCABASHE: Did you recall how much was found on them?

MR PIENAAR: I cannot recall the amount Chairperson.

ADV GCABASHE: But would it be about R3 500 for each one of the operatives?

MR PIENAAR: I don't know if it was that much Chairperson, I cannot recall the amount.

ADV GCABASHE: Oh, that's the other aspect I was unclear about. We've got two incidents here. We have had a reference to the Houtkop road, we have also had in the documentation a reference to the Piet Retief Klein Vrystaat Potgietershoek Road, is this one road?

MR PIENAAR: It's the same road, Chairperson. I can also mention that close to the border, that is from Piet Retief to the border, close to the border, the road makes a fork, one goes to Houtkop, one goes to Bothashoop border post, but that's on the Small Free State Road, that's the same road there.

ADV GCABASHE: So you used the same ambush route for incident 1 and incident 2?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: Did you use the same ambush spot for incident 1 and 2?

MR PIENAAR: The same place.

ADV GCABASHE: The same place.

MR PIENAAR: Exactly the same spot.

ADV GCABASHE: Now tell me, the difference from the border, the pick-up point, and the ambush spot, 10 kilometres?

MR PIENAAR: Between - about 15 kilometres Chairperson.

ADV GCABASHE: About 15 kilometres.

MR PIENAAR: Yes, approximately.

ADV GCABASHE: And you say, by the time that car had come the 15 kilometres, the windows were misty?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: Then there's just the document, I'm not sure, I don't know if you can help me with this. Let me find it. Yes, here we go. Volume 3(a). You know you've got these reports here, I don't know who submitted them, but if you look at page 140 to 143 of bundle 3(a), these look like work sheets, essentially time that people put in what they were doing, where they were. I'm not too sure, just tell me, what are these documents, I couldn't understand them.

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson I assume, if I have a look at the names it was members of Vlakplaas work sheets, it's not mine, I'm not conversant with this.

ADV GCABASHE: So none of these are your members?

MR PIENAAR: No Chairperson.

ADV GCABASHE: Are these documents that were submitted at the inquest, do you know?

MR PIENAAR: No, I don't know where this comes from.

ADV GCABASHE: And just within the context of this hearing, what would the relevance of these documents be? Maybe you can help.

MR PIENAAR: I don't know Chairperson.

ADV GCABASHE: Then, yes, if you go to page 133, that's just a quick example, you have a lot of material that's been blotted out in quite a few of the documents here. Chair thinks it's highlighting. I think it's blotting out. Which of the two is it? Would you be able to assist with this?

MR PIENAAR: If I recall correctly these were incidents, these were documents which were ...(indistinct) with by Brig Engelbrecht not to publicise certain aspects, for example if one looks at paragraph 9(ii), I see it says a hand-written note and I think that the contents of the note was there, which he deleted.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you confirm that these black marks on page 133, they're deliberate blotting out, they're not just highlights? Sometimes when you get a highlighting and then make a photocopy you get the same effect. This is censorship?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: And I didn't quite get your answer, you mentioned Mr Engelbrecht. Just repeat that again.

MR PIENAAR: That's correct. Brig Engelbrecht made these deletions on the document when he took over the investigation.

ADV GCABASHE: So he's responsible for every single, there are more 116 - 117, as you understand it he would be responsible for all of the blotting out on all these documents?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: Are these documents that were used at any one of the inquests, would you know?

MR PIENAAR: It was requested, I think Mr Moerane, he requested it and it was arranged by legal representatives that it could be censored and it was done as such.

ADV GCABASHE: Is this information that would assist us in this hearing, what has been blotted out? A couple of them are your documents you see, is this information that would be useful to us as a panel?

MR PIENAAR: I cannot recall what was there, Chairperson. I don't know whether it would be of assistance or not.

ADV GCABASHE: But you feel that on what you have said, you have given us full disclosure in relation to your understanding, exactly what happened on the 8th and on the 12th?

MR PIENAAR: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think in response to, I don't know if it's an answer, but in response to one of the questions put to you by Adv Gcabashe it would seem that Mr Naidoo had the sum of R523-24. I don't know if it's an answer but that is what this says.

MR PIENAAR: I see that Chairperson, R523-24.

ADV GCABASHE: Yes, but you see this is part of my difficulty, just trying to account for what was found on people and what was submitted to Head Office, exactly what happened to whatever ..., the chain has been mentioned, it's also in the document, money has been mentioned and then of course the clothing, just what did happen to some of these items.

MR PIENAAR: That's correct Chairperson. As I have said, the chain that was requested of me, I have no knowledge of that, the clothing was burned, the money that was found was this amount that I wrote in here, R523-24 and that is why I mentioned it in the telex to Head Office.

ADV GCABASHE: Mr Manzini, where is he today?

MR PIENAAR: I'm not certain where he's stationed now, I think it's at Ermelo, Chairperson.

ADV GCABASHE: He's alive and well?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

ADV GCABASHE: Has he applied for amnesty in respect of this incident?

MR PIENAAR: I don't know.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan, do you have any questions?

MR MALAN: Mr Pienaar, did you have any contact with Schoon during these incidents?

MR PIENAAR: No, Chairperson, not at all.

MR MALAN: So you also did not have information about his possible knowledge, or not?

MR PIENAAR: No, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: I don't have the reference before me, but somewhere there was evidence that two hand grenades were found during the second incident, one in each bag.

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that's correct Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Is that a pattern that people come in with one hand grenade?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, there were many instances where people had one single hand grenade with them.

MR MALAN: And then they only come in with one hand grenade?

MR PIENAAR: And as pistol, usually.

MR MALAN: What is the hand grenade for?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I don't know. I've never gone into that all that much. It was more for self defence if they should be apprehended. A hand grenade does more damage that a pistol.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Are there any questions arising out of questions that have been put by members of the panel? Any questions arising?

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MOERANE: Mr Chairman, just one or two questions. If you look at Bundle 3(a) the page to which you were referred, page 133, this was information furnished by you, not so?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: Look at the first paragraph A(i). According to that and according to the information that the source gave, two persons were expected to infiltrate. Not so?

MR PIENAAR: I see that, yes.

MR MOERANE: Does that refresh your memory?

MR PIENAAR: I don't remember why I wrote two there, whether it was mentioned at some time I'm not certain.

MR MOERANE: Isn't that the factual position? The fact that Mr Naidoo and somebody else were originally supposed to infiltrate and then the plans were changed at the last minute and four persons infiltrated?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I never knew that Mr Naidoo would be one of the insurgents, I did not know.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what Mr Moerane is putting to you, from here, was it not your information originally that there would be two infiltrators?

MR PIENAAR: I see what I wrote there but I cannot recall for which reason I mentioned that there. I am not certain about it anymore.

CHAIRPERSON: It's not the sort of thing you would have deliberately misled Head Office about?

MR PIENAAR: No, I would not try to mislead Head Office.

MR MOERANE: Particularly Mr Pienaar that you furnished this report after the incident, on the very same day.

MR PIENAAR: No Chairperson, I sent it on the 9th of June, the date is there.

MR MOERANE: I beg your pardon. But everything was still fresh in your memory there?

MR PIENAAR: Yes Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: Is it correct that the information regarding the property of the deceased was not entered in any police document or record book, like an SAP 13 or any similar record book?

MR PIENAAR: No, I don't recall that. I don't know whether it was done or not, I doubt.

MR MOERANE: Well, at the Piet Retief Inquest, you testified that it was not done.

MR PIENAAR: Then it is so, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: Paragraph 9, sub-paragraph 2, "A hand-written note", do you remember what that was about?

MR PIENAAR: I cannot recall whether it was an address or a message, or what it was, I'm not certain about it anymore Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: Do you remember a Parker pen that was supposed to be sent to an address?

MR PIENAAR: I later read in the book of Col de Kock of a pen that was sent to Swaziland.

MR MOERANE: Yes, to the address that was in that particular note.

MR PIENAAR: It may be possible.

MR MOERANE: The idea being that the recipient of that pen would be killed. In other words, the Technical Division of the South African Police would make it possible for the recipient of that pen, as soon as he tries to make use of it, to be killed.

MR PIENAAR: That is so, but it was not part of the operation.

MR MOERANE: One final question. Now this source of yours, was she involved in any other operations where people were killed?

MR PIENAAR: Besides these two, no Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: She was not involved in the Bane Molokwana incident?

MR PIENAAR: Which one?

MR MOERANE: Molokwana.

MR PIENAAR: No Chairperson, no.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Yes, Mr Pienaar, that concludes your testimony, you may stand down now and I think this would

then be an appropriate time to take the short tea adjournment.

NAME: CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Deetlefs you are an applicant in this specific application which has been submitted to the Honourable Committee with regard to the 2nd incident which took place on the 12th June 1988 outside Piet Retief, is that correct?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And in that incident four persons were killed?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Deetlefs, during that period from June 1988 you were stationed at Ermelo?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And you were connected to the Security Branch in Ermelo?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And Piet Retief would have fallen indirectly below your command?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And the Commander of Piet Retief was Pienaar?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: What was your rank at that stage?

MR DEETLEFS: At that stage I was a major in the South African Police.

MR PRINSLOO: And you were directly responsible for the office in Middelburg which was the Regional Office of the Eastern Transvaal?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, I reported to them.

MR PRINSLOO: And Piet Retief would also have resided under Middelburg?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Evidence has been given that an incident took place on the 8th June 1988. Did you hear that evidence?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, I did.

MR PRINSLOO: Were you in any way directly involved in that incident?

MR DEETLEFS: Not directly, but I do know about it.

MR PRINSLOO: The knowledge that you had, what was it?

MR DEETLEFS: On the day before the incident I was contacted by W/O Pienaar, upon which he informed me that they expected an infiltration of armed MK members from Swaziland. I had responsibilities in Pretoria and I could not travel to the place and he told me that he had enough people who would be able to handle the matter. I was satisfied with that and after the incident, I cannot recall whether it was that same night or the following morning, he contacted me and informed me that the persons had come through, that there had been a shooting incident and that four people had been killed.

MR PRINSLOO: Were any reports submitted by the Piet Retief office to Head Office?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Were you aware that Mr Pienaar at that stage was investigating the death of the persons with regard to a post mortem inquest?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, I was.

MR PRINSLOO: Did it come to the knowledge of the office in Middelburg who was in control of the Eastern Transvaal?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, they knew about it.

MR PRINSLOO: Was there any objection from that side?

MR DEETLEFS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: To return to the 12th of June and the events of that day, you were called or informed that an action was being considered in the Piet Retief area on the 12th?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, on the 12th of June I was contacted by W/O Pienaar with this information.

MR PRINSLOO: And did you then go to his offices in Piet Retief?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, I then went to Piet Retief.

MR PRINSLOO: And was that where you met your co-applicant, Mr de Kock?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Were you informed regarding the information that they had which would precede the insurgency?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Were you satisfied with the information which was given to you that the persons who were going to enter the country were members of a specific party, or not?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, I was satisfied with the information.

MR PRINSLOO: That which persons would come in?

MR DEETLEFS: Trained ANC members, in other words Umkhonto weSizwe members.

MR PRINSLOO: And just on this point, at that stage you were involved with contacts and investigations in Swaziland regarding insurgents into the Republic who were members of the ANC, trained MK members.

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Were you familiar with their actions, their modus operandi?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, as far as the information was concerned, I was familiar with it.

MR PRINSLOO: Before that period were you familiar with various incidents of terrorism which took place specifically in the then Eastern Transvaal region?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Acts which were committed by members of the ANC or MK?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: After the discussions with Col de Kock and Mr Pienaar, did you have any other discussion with Mr Manzini, a member of the Detective Branch at Piet Retief?

MR DEETLEFS: I held joint discussions with him as well.

MR PRINSLOO: Was Mr Manzini involved in any aspect of exactly what you were going to do?

MR DEETLEFS: No, he was not informed fully.

MR PRINSLOO: As far as you were involved in any discussion with him, to what extent was he informed?

MR DEETLEFS: He was informed that the persons who wanted to enter the country according to all available information, were going to be armed and that this would present a situation of danger for him, that is why I wanted to know from him whether he was prepared to continue with it, because this was completely on a voluntary basis. I wanted to ensure that he knew exactly what his task was, so that everything would go according to plan.

MR PRINSLOO: And according to you, was he a reliable person in terms of his work performance?

MR DEETLEFS: I was not that familiar with Manzini, but Pienaar assured me that he was reliable and I believed him as such.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon Mr Prinsloo. Mr Deetlefs were you aware that the first incident or insurgency which took place on the 8th involved people who were not armed?

MR DEETLEFS: No.

MR MALAN: This was never reported to you?

MR DEETLEFS: No.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Deetlefs did you go to the place where the trap was set, if I might put it that way?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, at the stage when all of us moved out, but not before the time.

MR PRINSLOO: Were you aware, or did you have direct knowledge of persons who went ahead to the Swaziland border?

MR DEETLEFS: When I arrived at Piet Retief I was informed by Col de Kock and Mr Pienaar that people had gone ahead to Swaziland. That they were already on their way there or that they had been there already.

MR PRINSLOO: At that stage Col de Kock was your senior?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you go to the scene armed?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, I did. I had an R1 gun on me.

MR PRINSLOO: And were you fully informed regarding how the action there would function at the scene?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: You were under the command of Col de Kock?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And while you were there at the scene did any vehicle approach from Swaziland or from the border of Swaziland?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Is this on the road which is known as the Houtkop Road?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And while you were waiting there what happened, can you tell the Committee?

MR DEETLEFS: When the vehicle approached, a distance from us, it's lights dimmed. That would simply have been the signal for us to confirm that this was indeed the correct vehicle. When it approached our point, it switched on its left indicator light and drew off the road to the left side and Manzini jumped out of the right front door and ran around the front of the vehicle. At that stage he stopped when he was past the point where we had told him to stop.

In other words the point where we were in position and we had to run closer to the vehicle.

MR MALAN: Continue.

MR PRINSLOO: Is it correct, Colonel, that in this area there are bluegum trees on either side of the road, it's a plantation area.

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: So was the vehicle on the left side of the road?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, as he had approached from the border he was on the left side of the road, in other words the same side that we were in position and that is where he stopped.

MR PRINSLOO: So he would run to the closest side of the plantation by going past the front of the vehicle?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, that was towards the side of the road where we were in position.

MR PRINSLOO: Continue. What happened next? Was there any shooting or not?

MR DEETLEFS: Col de Kock jumped up immediately and ran closer and all of us jumped up and followed him. As we approached the vehicle, it was probably 5 metres according to my estimation, a person jumped out of the left front side of the vehicle. He had an AK47 in his hands and I am convinced that he fired a shot because I could quite clearly see the flame coming from the front of the barrel. It appeared to me as if the barrel was aimed in the direction of Manzini. I was also under the impression that he had not noticed us immediately and the moment when he fired the shot he became aware of us and he began to turn in the direction of Col de Kock, who at that stage was very close to him. Col de Kock immediately fired at him and he fell. At that stage W/O Theron stood behind us with a sharp light and in the light I could see quite clearly that there were other barrels in the kombi. I immediately fired at the person in the kombi and so also the other members. After a short shooting incident, I think it was Col de Kock who shouted for us to cease fire and all of us ceased fire and determined that all the passengers were dead.

MR PRINSLOO: Were any weapons found in the possession of these persons?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, there was a loaded AK47 gun with an extra magazine. The weapons were cocked, ready to shoot and there were also carry bags in which we found hand grenades,

MR PRINSLOO: Was this of Russian origin?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: These persons after they were killed, was a service officer called in?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, if I recall correct it was a Capt Combrink from Piet Retief.

MR PRINSLOO: And was the scene then visited by him?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And were the deceased taken to the state mortuary at the police station?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And according to the coroner reports, which can be found in bundle 5, if I can refer you to certain aspects of bundle 5, page 105 for example. The injuries which the persons had. If we look at this case on page 105 were there any body wounds?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, there were body wounds.

MR PRINSLOO: And that also appears to be the case on page 106?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: On page 113.

MR DEETLEFS: Yes there are also chest wounds and injuries to the ribs.

MR PRINSLOO: So there were body wounds as well as head injuries?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, that's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And were various shots fired at that vehicle?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, a great number.

MR PRINSLOO: Colonel, on that day you were not in command of the action, on the 12th June, Mr de Kock was in command, is that correct?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And why did you act as the person who would have been in command and not Mr de Kock, for the purposes of the post mortem inquest.

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson after the incident, I cannot recall precisely when this happened, there was an instruction. I cannot connect it to a specific person, I don't know whether it came via Middelburg or directly from Head Office, but someone gave me an instruction that they wanted to scrap Mr de Kock's name from the 2nd incident because this could make the 2nd inquest problematic if there was information indicating that he was involved in two very similar incidents so shortly after each other and that is why the statement was submitted that indicated that I was the Commander.

MR MALAN: Excuse me Mr Prinsloo, could this request have come from Mr de Kock himself?

MR DEETLEFS: No, I think I would have remembered that if he himself had issued the request. I have it that it came from Head Office but as I have stated I cannot recall precisely who issued the instruction.

MR MALAN: What makes you think that you would have remembered it if it came from Mr de Kock? Why wouldn't you have remembered it if it had been somebody else at Head Office?

MR DEETLEFS: Because later a dispute arose and I would have been able to indicate to him that it was him who gave me the instruction. I am not saying that I would have remembered it, but I am saying that in all probability if he had given me the instruction I would have remembered that it was him.

CHAIRPERSON: Would such an instruction go directly from Head Office to yourself, or would it go to Middelburg and then down to you?

MR DEETLEFS: That is why I have said that I am not very certain. Usually it would probably have gone through Middelburg, but I would have to speculate to put that as a genuine fact.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Deetlefs, bundle 5, page 23, the paginated page 23, there is Christo Petro Deetlefs until page 26, which is the last page of your statement.

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And according to the statement, it was made on the 17th June 1998.

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And in this statement you stated that you were in command of that operation?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Was that true or false?

MR DEETLEFS: No, that was not correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And without having to study the entire statement, was any use made of a revolving light to indicate the presence of a road-block?

MR DEETLEFS: No, not before the incident.

MR PRINSLOO: And in the statement itself, you state in paragraph 11 on page 24 that you immediately began to shoot at the black man and heard that other members also opened fire, is that correct?

MR DEETLEFS: No. Because I had to stand in for Mr de Kock there had to have been somebody who shot at the black man who climbed out, so that is why I stated that it was me.

MR PRINSLOO: And you also gave evidence in the subsequent inquest where Mr Polman was the magistrate?

Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And there you also told lies to certain aspects with regard to that evening?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, those very same lies which we have just pointed out in the statement were also told there.

MR PRINSLOO: And you yourself applied for amnesty on the 13th of December 1996?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And questions have already been put about this, why did you apply for amnesty on the 13th of December 1996?

MR DEETLEFS: I think it is common knowledge that among all the members of the Security Force, I think at that stage there was a great level of mistrust in the amnesty process. We didn't really know where we stood. In the process there was a dispute whether we would be provided with legal representation. Those were all matters which still had to be cleared up. Early in December of that year, a meeting was held in Pretoria during which some of the generals and staff addressed us among others the former Commissioner van der Merwe and at that stage everybody was encouraged to make use of the process and to apply for amnesty. After that I returned to Eastern Transvaal, I went to all the members under my command and informed them as such and encouraged them and told them that we should continue with the process and after that only was it confirmed to us that we would obtain legal representation and all these things contributed to the fact that we applied for amnesty, but that is why we only applied at such a very late stage.

MR PRINSLOO: Many of the applications are worded in the same way. Did you consult with other members or what was the nature of the consultation?

MR DEETLEFS: We consulted separately with the legal representatives, but I presume that the facts must be by and large the same and for that reason the legal representatives may have used similar wording. I haven't read any of the other applications, so I cannot tell you where there are similarities or where there are points of opposition. If there are similarities I believe that it must be because the legal representatives typed the applications themselves and they possibly have used the same choice of words.

MR PRINSLOO: Your application appears in bundle 1 as paginated on page 356. Your application number is 5001.97 and this is on page 368 and the incident begins on page 369. This is the Piet Retief incident on the 12th June which is relevant here.

MR DEETLEFS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And there are only the names of those involved, de Kock, yourself, Rorich, Theron, Hayes, Vermeulen, van Zweel.

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And it ends on page 371, very briefly put, to the middle of the page.

MR DEETLEFS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And then there's also your motivation for your actions which begins on page 372 to page 379. And do you confirm the correctness of the content of the pages?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: At the time of this action Mr Deetlefs, did you act out of personal gain or out of vengeance?

MR DEETLEFS: No, not at all.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you act within your general capacity as a member of the South African Police in protection of the Republic and the police?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And in this case, 4 persons were shot dead, they were murdered, is that correct?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And are you applying for amnesty for the four charges of murder?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And you also committed perjury in court, so therefore you are also applying for perjury?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And that you defeated the ends of justice. Are you also applying for that?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Or any other judgment emanating from this evidence.

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Any other illegal deed which may be charged against you emanating from the events in which you were involved.

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Prinsloo. Ms van der Walt, do you have any questions?

MS VAN DER WALT: No questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius, do you have any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Deetlefs, you were W/O Pienaar's senior, is that correct?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you also work on a need to know basis?

MR DEETLEFS: We all did.

MR CORNELIUS: So when you requested the services of Section C1, did you convey the necessary information to them?

MR DEETLEFS: I may just say - do you mean in general or with this specific incident?

MR CORNELIUS: With this specific incident.

MR DEETLEFS: I did not request C Section 1, W/O Pienaar contacted them.

MR CORNELIUS: But were you present during the planning stage?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, I was.

MR CORNELIUS: And was the necessary information conveyed to Col de Kock and his team?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius when you say Mr Pienaar got hold of you the day before, informing you that there was going to be an infiltration, did he make mention of calling in C1 at that stage?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, he did, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you have any reason to doubt the information that Mr Pienaar gave you that he obtained from his source?

MR DEETLEFS: No, I knew Mr Pienaar and I trusted him completely.

MR CORNELIUS: You did not consult with the source yourself?

MR DEETLEFS: No I did not, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: The persons who infiltrated the country, did you regard them as the enemy of the then State?

MR DEETLEFS: That is so, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And did you feel that it was your duty to stop them?

MR DEETLEFS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Was there any other method except for eliminating them?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson, it's difficult to speculate about that, there could have been arrests, but one would never know that, if circumstances were different.

MR CORNELIUS: Very well. Did you feel that these insurgents were a danger to the public?

MR DEETLEFS: That is so, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: The information which you gave to de Kock and his team was to stop these people.

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And this was done?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: In a successful ambush?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: Was there any specific reason why W/O Pienaar did not report the first incident to you or was it just a matter of time?

MR DEETLEFS: I think I have mentioned it, that he did report the first incident to me, but not the detail, which I assume was on a need to know basis.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Cornelius. Mr Hattingh.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Deetlefs you were then aware that C1 that was stationed at Vlakplaas were the Security Police's operational unit, is that correct?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And that is the reason why they were requested to be of assistance in this regard?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct, because they were the people who were trained to deal with such operations.

MR HATTINGH: That is the point, they were specifically trained and probably better equipped than the normal branches of the Security Police were to deal with such events.

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Not that it is very important but Mr de Kock has sent a note which says that the Police Act and Regulations made provision for the fact that where two police officers of similar rank were involved in an operation, that the one in whose area the operation takes place would technically speaking be in command even though in seniority he was the junior of the other one.

MR DEETLEFS: I don't have any knowledge of such regulations, I think it was more a case of etiquette.

MR HATTINGH: Is it just here that you allowed Mr de Kock to take control over the operation because you thought he was better equipped to be successful.

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct Chairperson because I know he is highly trained in this type of action and he could execute the operation better than I could.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Hattingh. Mr Booyens.

MR BOOYENS: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen.

MR JANSEN: Thank you Mr Chairman, no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Deetlefs how long after the incident did you receive the request from Head Office should not figure in the second incident?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson, I cannot recall exactly, but it may have been within a day or two. It was between the time period of the 12th and the 17th when I handed in the statement. I don't know how long afterwards though. But it was definitely a day or two after.

MR LAMEY: Could it have been discussed possibly after the incident at the scene before the time?

MR DEETLEFS: It could have but I cannot recall. It is a possibility.

MR LAMEY: Between yourself and Mr de Kock?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, it's possible.

MR LAMEY: Just another issue. The question of shots by the MK member who came out of the left of the minibus, is your recollection clear that a firearm was pointed at somebody specific?

MR DEETLEFS: It seemed that way to me because the firearm was directed in the direction of Manzini and I am certain that a shot was fired. A shell was picked up at the scene and I am very certain that nobody, not me or any of my other members fired an AK there.

MR LAMEY: No what I am trying to determine is, are you sure as you visualised with your eyes or is it an inference that you draw? Is it a bit of a reconstruction, a deduction that you make? Do you accept that a shot was fired beforehand, before Mr de Kock started shooting, or how do you recall it?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson, there is such a hurly-burly during such an operation, I would not want to say that I would have imagined myself, but in my heart I am convinced that a shot was fired.

MR LAMEY: I would just like to tell you what Mr Nortje’s recollection is, that the left door of the bus opened and the person, the AK came out in the same movement as the person came out, because the AK was seen immediately, but he was shot before his feet reached the ground or before he could train that weapon on anybody specifically and Mr de Kock shot him.

MR DEETLEFS: No, Chairperson, that is not how I have it. I say it happened very quickly but I am convinced that when he opened the door he jumped out. He was on the ground and the weapon was aimed in the direction of Manzini. If it was in the direction of Col de Kock it was so close to him that he would have shot him.

MR LAMEY: No, that is not what I am saying, my instructions are that the weapon was not aimed at anybody specifically. Your inference is that it was aimed at Manzini because Manzini ran in that direction. Do you understand? And he also climbed out of the vehicle in the direction which Manzini ran away. I can understand that, but it's not necessarily that he had the opportunity to train it on anybody. Would you agree with that?

MR DEETLEFS: I can concede that, yes.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Moerane, any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MOERANE: Just to take over from where my colleague has left off. At the inquest, that is the second inquest at which the representatives of the families didn't take part, you were committed to a particular version, not so?

MR DEETLEFS: That's correct.

MR MOERANE: And the version that you put up there was in a sense one of self-defence or necessity.

MR DEETLEFS: I think it may have seemed so. We were setting on that issue Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: And it was necessary for that particular defence or version to have this person shooting, the person who got out of the kombi?

MR DEETLEFS: That would be reasonably important, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: Is it not true that the first person to arrive at the vehicle was Col de Kock?

MR DEETLEFS: He was there first, but we were directly behind him. It was a matter of a step or two that we were behind him.

MR MOERANE: Where was Mr Nortje in relation to you?

MR DEETLEFS: I cannot place all the members, where all of them were at that stage. I think Mr Pienaar was directly next to me but I cannot place the others.

MR MOERANE: Now this incident happened at night. Was it dark in the vicinity of that vehicle?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson, no, there was a light. One of the members had a strong light there and the vehicle's lights were also switched on.

MR MOERANE: Was the person who had the light Mr Theron?

MR DEETLEFS: That's correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Moerane, besides that, can you recall what the state of the moon was, or the stars or whether it was a clear or overcast night?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson as I can recall it was not clouded and there was no moon, so it was dark.

MR MOERANE: Was the light shone on this vehicle before any shots had been fired?

MR DEETLEFS: I am not entirely certain about that Chairperson because everything happened so quickly. Shots were fired, the light was switched on, I don't know which one was first. It was all in parts of a second, I cannot say with certainty.

MR MOERANE: You have heard the evidence of Col de Kock that he was about a metre or two from this person.

MR DEETLEFS: I heard that yes, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: Would you agree with me that he was in the best position to observe whether or not a shot had been fired?

MR DEETLEFS: It's possible. We were directly almost next to him, there was not such a great difference in distance.

MR MOERANE: Yes, but he was in front of you.

MR DEETLEFS: Diagonally in front of me. If I say in front of me, diagonally in front of me, about a metre to 2 metres to my left.

MR MOERANE: And you must have had this person under observation.

MR DEETLEFS: The person who jumped out? I think when he jumped out everybody was looking at him.

MR MOERANE: And you obviously must have been watching the person to see how this person will react, or what this person would do?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, I was looking at him myself.

MR MOERANE: Because he was right in the front, he was sort of in the front line position, not so?

MR DEETLEFS: That is probably so.

MR MOERANE: His evidence, if one has to take it in totality, is that that person didn't fire.

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson, I am convinced that that person fired. If other persons did not see it, then it might be disputed, but I am convinced that he did indeed fire.

MR MOERANE: Are you able to venture a reason why Col de Kock might have not seen this person firing, taking into account all the circumstances that existed at the time?

MR DEETLEFS: No, except for the fact that it happened so quickly and there was such a hurly-burly, that it is possible that at that moment certain things were not probably observed. As I say, everybody has his own perceptions, so I cannot speculate about that.

MR MOERANE: How well do you know Col de Kock?

MR DEETLEFS: Reasonably well.

MR MOERANE: You must be aware that he was involved in operations in South West Africa as it was then called.

MR DEETLEFS: I am aware that he came from South West, from Namibia.

MR MOERANE: That he was a member of Koevoet?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: That he must have been involved in numerous shooting incidents.

MR DEETLEFS: I cannot comment on that. He never discussed that with me, specific instances, I just know that he was attached to Koevoet.

MR MOERANE: But it is reasonable to assume or accept that he must have been involved in numerous shooting incidents, from the degree of knowledge that you know of.

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, according to press reports and if I go along with that it is indeed so.

MR MOERANE: Not only that but from your knowledge of him. You say you know him very well.

MR DEETLEFS: I know him, I got to know him after he returned, but we never discussed his previous operations in Namibia or with Koevoet, so I'm not really aware of what he did there and with what actions he was involved there.

CHAIRPERSON: He said that he knows him reasonably well.

MR MOERANE: Have you been involved in shooting incidents in the past, or before that occasion?

MR DEETLEFS: Before this incident yes, I was involved with an incident Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: A shooting incident involving trained MK members?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, that is correct Chairperson. It was in the Amsterdam vicinity Chairperson. I cannot recall the exact date.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, what is the relevance of this particular question? This is another incident, what's the relevance?

CHAIRPERSON: I think is would seem reasonable that the relevance is talking about recollection of what occurred during a fighting situation, but that's as far as I can see. Am I correct?

MR MOERANE: Yes, Chairman, at the end of this inquiry a judgment will have to be made if necessary as to which version to accept, that of the witness or that of Col de Kock with regard to...

CHAIRPERSON: Whether or not there was a shot fired, yes.

You may continue.

MR MOERANE: Yes, I've asked you when was this Amsterdam incident?

MR DEETLEFS: I cannot recall. I would have to consult again. I think it was in 1986 some time.

MR MOERANE: What happened in that incident as far as the shooting ...(intervention)

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman with respect...

CHAIRPERSON: We didn't get full details of the other incident but perhaps - sorry.

MR PRINSLOO: With respect Mr Chairman, the applicant made an application for amnesty. That matter has not been heard, it's still pending. Why must that matter be canvassed now? It's never been done before. If you want to test his reliability to see shots and that you could ask him about target shooting and many other ways to test his ability to recognise shots at night, or rather when people fired at him, did he act as a policeman.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think we need to know the details of the Amsterdam incident, Mr Moerane, particularly seeing that it is going to be the subject matter of another application.

MR MOERANE: Yes Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: We do know that there was shooting there. Perhaps you can just go in broad terms, but we don't want to know who was involved and where and how.

MR MOERANE: No, no Mr Chairman, I didn't want him to canvas the details of that incident and obviously if that is the subject matter of another inquiry, I'll ask him even less about that, all I just wanted to find out was whether he was shot on, in other words whether somebody shot at him in that incident.

MR DEETLEFS: No, shots were not fired at me.

MR MOERANE: Well, is there any incident in which somebody shot on you, or shot at you?

MR DEETLEFS: No, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: Mr Deetlefs, when did you report this incident, that is the second incident, for the first time?

MR DEETLEFS: The same evening just after the incident I contacted my Commander in Middelburg and I sent a telex with the facts to him.

MR MOERANE: In other words on the 12th June?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, that is correct Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: Did you mention Col de Kock in the original reports?

MR DEETLEFS: I did mention him, yes Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: So there was a document existing on the 12th of June wherein you had involved Col de Kock?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, that is correct.

MR MOERANE: And that was known to the District Head, Middelburg?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, that is correct.

MR MOERANE: Who was the Head in Middelburg at that time?

MR DEETLEFS: At that stage it was Brig Visser.

MR MOERANE: Did you make a subsequent report?

MR DEETLEFS: No, the first one was complete and had the complete particulars, so I don't think there was any follow-up report except to report the progress of the death inquest.

MR MOERANE: Well that report was not placed before the Inquest Court, the first one from the 12th June.

MR DEETLEFS: No not that I am aware of Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: It couldn't have been because the whole object of subsequent reports and information placed before the Inquest Magistrate, was to deliberately conceal the involvement of Col de Kock.

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: Why did you do it? Why did you submit a false statement to the Inquest Court?

MR DEETLEFS: Because I was requested, I cannot recall by whom, but the request did come from head office that Col de Kock's name not be mentioned because it would jeopardise the second investigation.

MR MOERANE: But you see you were not the first, you were not the only person who might have done that. There were people involved in the first incident who were also involved in the second incident, not so?

MR DEETLEFS: That is true, but we are speaking of the person in command, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: But were those people also required to conceal the involvement of Col de Kock, the people who were involved in the second incident, who had been involved in the first incident?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, that is so we all knew that we should not mention his name.

MR MOERANE: So for that purpose, it was necessary to put your heads together to come up with a particular version?

MR DEETLEFS: I cannot recall that we met, it was just the statements of the members. The facts which were entailed in those reports. The only thing that differed from the statements was that Col de Kock's name was substituted by my name.

CHAIRPERSON: I see that, just on this point, I see that the statement that was referred to earlier, I think it's this one here on page 23 of bundle 5, that that statement was made by yourself on the 26th May, it doesn't say what year. Sorry, it's June, sorry 17th June and it was attested to by Mr Pienaar, this Commissioner of Oaths. Did you write this statement yourself? Did you have it typed out, did you write it out or did somebody else do it?

MR DEETLEFS: Mr Pienaar wrote it out Chairperson, I just confirmed the facts.

MR MOERANE: Well W/O Pienaar was the investigating officer of both incidents.

MR DEETLEFS: He was originally. He commenced with the second investigation but it was taken away from him.

MR MOERANE: Yes, but that was done at a much, much later stage. The following year when the first inquest had started and as a result of objections from the representatives of the families.

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, that is correct.

MR MOERANE: But W/O Pienaar was the investigating officer for both incidents.

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: And he was taking statements from the people who were involved.

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, that is so.

MR MOERANE: Well, back where this all started, it was important to reconcile your versions so that you present one consistent version, not so?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson, no, not really. That was W/O Pienaar, he took the statements and I assume he would have seen to it that the explanations be the same, but at no stage did we come together and agree on a specific version.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what Mr Moerane is putting to you, do you agree with the notion that it was important that the versions be consistent?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, I agree with that Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: The people who were involved in that second incident and who are applicants for amnesty, are the following, W/O Pienaar, who has already testified, yourself, W/O Hayes, Mr Barnard, Theron, Rorich and van Zweel?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: And these seven persons are not attached and were not attached at that time, to Vlakplaas?

MR DEETLEFS: No Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: They were serving in what then was the Eastern Transvaal?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: And as I pointed out earlier on, these are the persons whose versions of the second incident are identical, word for word.

MR DEETLEFS: I have not seen the applications of the other applicants, so I cannot comment on that.

MR MOERANE: Well hasn't there been an attempt also in these proceedings, to try and present the consistent version with regard to the second incident, in fact with regard to both incidents?

MR DEETLEFS: No.

MR MOERANE: When did you consider for the first time applying for amnesty?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson, I think that it was right at the beginning when the amnesty process was announced. All of us had to consider it automatically but as I put it initially, there were certain obstacles which prevented us from applying because we were not certain about the fairness of the process, whether or not we would enjoy legal representation, these were all matters which were cleared up much later.

MR MOERANE: Well, can you give us a time, a year and a month?

CHAIRPERSON: A time for what, that they first considered ...(indistinct)

MR MOERANE: That he first considered making an application.

MR DEETLEFS: From the very beginning when the amnesty process was announced, Chairperson, I realised that we would have to apply for amnesty and so therefore from the very beginning it was a consideration.

MR MOERANE: I beg your pardon. When did you become aware of the fact that the lies that you had told to the Inquest Magistrate, Piet Retief, had been exposed as such?

MR DEETLEFS: I really cannot say that I became aware that it had been exposed. I really don't know if somebody else has another version of that.

MR MOERANE: When did you become aware that Col de Kock was, so to speak, spilling the beans?

MR DEETLEFS: I think that it was during his trial but I am not certain, however, I would venture to say that it was during his trials that he stated that he was involved in the incident and that the facts are not similar to the way that they were presented to the Inquest.

MR MOERANE: Do you recall when that was?

MR DEETLEFS: No I cannot remember when that was.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know when the trial was, was it 1994.

MR HATTINGH: I think it started in 1995.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

MR MOERANE: And you say that the only reason that you made this application at the 11th hour was because there hadn't been a certainty or an assurance that you'd receive legal representation?

MR DEETLEFS: Among others yes, that was one of our motivations.

MR MOERANE: What are the other reasons?

MR DEETLEFS: Because we didn't know what the process would involve at that stage, there was a great measure of uncertainty. It appeared to me at that stage that it would only be Security Force members who would be applying and that other parties such as the ANC and the PAC and so forth would not be applying and to me it created the impression of a biased process and it was only much later that I was persuaded that it would be in our best interests to apply for amnesty.

MR MOERANE: And you say that you only received that assurance at the beginning of December?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, that was the final assurance. That was when the generals and staff addressed us and told us that it would be in all of our best interests to apply for amnesty and that led to the final decision then.

MR MOERANE: Are you implying therefore that because of those considerations, you couldn't have brought your application a few months earlier?

MR DEETLEFS: That would be the major motivation.

MR PRINSLOO: With respect, what is the relevance of these questions? There are a number of people that applied for amnesty even after this cut-off date was extended.

CHAIRPERSON: And also we've heard in previous hearings, there was this address by the Generals, there was - it was sort of like a, many, many policemen, in fact I think just about all of them, held back until there was this address given by the Generals and then it started, so it would be extremely difficult for us, Mr Moerane, to find that there's any huge significance in the fact that the application was late. It was after all in time and I'm certainly aware of the fact that many of them waited for this assurance to come from the Generals.

MR MOERANE: Yes, Mr Chairman, I wasn't aware of those developments and in any event as far as that issue is concerned I don't have any further questions.

Mr Deetlefs, with regard to the planning for the operation of the 12th, you were involved with Col de Kock?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, I was.

MR MOERANE: And this particular vehicle that was to be used, did you have to give any approval or blessing to that?

MR DEETLEFS: No Chairperson when I arrived there the vehicle was already at Piet Retief. It had been arranged through Middelburg by W/O Pienaar.

MR MOERANE: But you were involved together with Col de Kock in the briefing of Sgt Manzini.

MR DEETLEFS: When I arrived at the scene let me just say it was already dark. I arrived late that night and the major proportion of the planning had already been finished off. They simply discussed it with me and we went through it again to confirm all aspects and to determine whether or not there were any loose threads but at that stage Manzini had already been thoroughly briefed and I simply confirmed with him that he understood exactly what this was about.

MR MOERANE: Incidentally, where did you find them, Manzini and the others?

MR DEETLEFS: At W/O Pienaar's office in Piet Retief.

MR MOERANE: Had you been to the scene with Manzini?

MR DEETLEFS: Not before the incident.

MR MOERANE: Now from W/O Pienaar's office, did you then move to the scene?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: What happened at the scene?

MR DEETLEFS: That is when the incident as I have sketched it took place.

MR MOERANE: No, no, I'm talking about going to the scene with Manzini.

MR DEETLEFS: I did not visit the scene before the incident with Manzini separately. The only way that I arrived at the scene was with the actual operation, I did not visit the scene with Manzini before the time or discuss any points regarding the scene with him before the time.

MR MOERANE: So do you know whether or not anybody went to the scene with Manzini beforehand?

MR DEETLEFS: W/O Pienaar informed me that he had accompanied him to the point.

MR MOERANE: You do not know what transpired there, what he was told, what he was shown?

MR DEETLEFS: As I understand it, Chairperson, and I can only rely on hearsay here, it was pointed out exactly where he should bring the vehicle to a standstill and where we would then have taken up positions.

MR MOERANE: You were a senior officer there.

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: Why did you decide to go along with that plan to ambush?

MR DEETLEFS: At that stage it appeared to me to be the proper plan.

MR MOERANE: I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MOERANE

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: Mr Deetlefs, you say you were the Commander of Mr Pienaar. Were you also the Commander of Barnard, Theron and Hayes?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MS LOCKHAT: You said that you had spoken to Pienaar regarding that first incident, that was the 8th June incident, and he informed you regarding the infiltration of the MKs and he also said that he had enough people to handle the matter, is that correct?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MS LOCKHAT: So you did not know of any plan or ambush for the 8th June?

MR DEETLEFS: No, I didn't know what method he was going to follow.

MS LOCKHAT: Did you ask him?

MR DEETLEFS: No, I simply trusted him and he told me at that stage that he had approached Col de Kock or that he would approach him for his assistance and I believed that Col de Kock would be able to carry out the operation thoroughly.

MS LOCKHAT: Before the second incident, the 12th June, did Mr Pienaar report that incident to you and all the facts relating to the 8th June incident?

MR DEETLEFS: He did report the incident of the 8th June, but he did not report the full facts as they have emanated from this hearing. I was not aware of the fact that no weapons were found on the persons.

MS LOCKHAT: Mr Cornelius,...(intervention)

ADV GCABASHE: When did you find that out, that no weapons were found on the persons?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Deetlefs.

MR DEETLEFS: I only came to hear of that with the amnesty applications.

ADV GCABASHE: And that would have been in December of 96?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, that is correct.

MS LOCKHAT: Would you have participated in the 2nd incident, the 12th June, if you had known that the MKs were not armed on that instance on the 8th June?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson, I cannot speculate how we would have acted if they had not been armed because one had to be led by circumstances. The information was that they would be armed and we prepared ourselves for that. I really cannot say whether we would have shot them or not, it would probably have happened that way.

MR MALAN: Yes but Mr Deetlefs the question is something else. The questions is, had you known before the 12th that on the 8th there would have been the shooting of 8 unarmed people, would you still have participated in the incident?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, I probably would have because it was in my area, but then I may have formulated other plans to ensure that something like that would not take place again.

ADV GCABASHE: But could you influence that decision? I thought that really decisions had been made, you just came in at the tail end, endorsed all of it and really you were not going to change anything?

MR DEETLEFS: Probably not, but one could have said "if the people are unarmed, try not to shoot left and right because it may have criminal consequences" so possibly we may have planned things different but I can only speculate about that because the information or the facts that we had at out disposal indicated that they would be armed and we had to prepare ourselves for that.

ADV GCABASHE: I still don't understand that because as I understand the evidence, this was going to be an elimination. Ambush equals elimination. There was no intention to arrest them and interrogate or whatever else.

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, that is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: The only thing you could have changed was change that decision to eliminate to one of lawfully dealing with people once they had entered the country legally.

MR DEETLEFS: Yes.

ADV GCABASHE: And you say you would have done that had you known what the circumstances of the first incident were?

MR DEETLEFS: I cannot say. Possibly, because one would have been led by the consequences. If it had emerged earlier there may have been suspensions among the members

there may have been action from Head Office, so the entire process may have been influenced differently and we may have acted differently, but it's very difficult to say what would have happened if this was known. But based upon the information that we had at that stage, the planning was simply to eliminate the people.

MS LOCKHAT: When Mr Cornelius in cross-examination asked you specifically about the details, you said that Pienaar reported the details to you regarding the incident because it was on a need-to-know basis and he didn't give you the complete picture of that incident. Can you explain the need to know basis?

MR DEETLEFS: What I meant by that Chairperson was that he gave me the facts as he presented it to Head Office that the people had indeed been armed and that there had been a shoot-out. He did not report that the people were not armed because he must have operated on the need to know basis and he did not want to involve me or any other person in the incident.

ADV GCABASHE: Mr Deetlefs, the need to know basis worked upwards in terms of hierarchy and downwards and sideways. So a superior officer would not be told the true facts of a situation because of the need to know principle. Is this what you are saying?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, certain facts were withheld, as it has been in this case.

ADV GCABASHE: Who would determine that? I would have thought that the need to know basis might operate laterally, sideways, going down, but in terms of accountability you must tell your superior officer what the basic facts were, the essence of what you had done and the why. You are accountable to somebody surely?

MR DEETLEFS: Not necessarily, if you had committed an illegality then usually it was only the group that was involved and of that group certain members would be informed and other members would not be informed and a certain selection of facts would be put through as the true version of the story.

ADV GCABASHE: No, I've understood it to be important particularly where you had committed an illegality. I'll give you a quick example. We sat in the Bopape matter,. He was interrogated and killed. The officers who interrogated him talked to their superior officer about it, who in turn talked to Erasmus who was Divisional Head, who in turn talked to van der Merwe who was again the Head, who then assisted in the cover-up and the idea around what to do with this because it had been an unlawful, illegal killing, but you're saying to me that those officers were just doing something because they though they might as well inform, not that it is the correct thing to co as you understand your duties, that you must inform your superior officers, that we have a real problem here, this is what we did.

MR DEETLEFS: No not necessarily. My understanding was that if you required assistance from above, you would have to tell them "listen I've got big problems, I need help", but if that senior officer couldn't do anything for you in any case you didn't inform him, otherwise you would give him knowledge which could create problems for him later. In this case there was no necessity to inform anybody else, because the scene was solved by the members who were present at that scene and it wasn't necessary to obtain sanction from anybody else because I think it depended from case to case. In the other cases they may have required assistance from above to cover up an incident and that is why they handled the matter as such.

ADV GCABASHE: So really there was no real accountability in the police force, this is what you're saying, not really. It depended, if it was convenient yes, if it was not convenient you kept quiet.

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, you would have the real facts, but in a case like this where it wasn't necessary to implicate senior persons and involve them in an illegality, you simply didn't do that.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you, I'll digest that.

MR MALAN: So therefore it wasn't necessary to make any excuses either?

MR DEETLEFS: Not from my side.

MR MALAN: Or from anybody's side because you did not inform your immediate superiors and as far as we know, nobody else did either.

MR DEETLEFS: The incident had to be reported, but the actual facts that the persons were unarmed, was not necessary to report because we had solved the problem ourselves.

MR MALAN: Mr Deetlefs I don't wish to generalise this, but if I understand Mr de Kock correctly, he said that he had a certain impression regarding his work and his capacities and according to that he acted and that included illegal actions to him. But according to your evidence, and this is also my impression in general, it may be a prejudiced opinion, illegal actions were not reported but it was simply accepted, this is the ends which justifies the means. Is that a correct summary?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson, the incidents were reported, and this is only my personal perception, that where there had been an illegality such as with this case, I would for example not have wanted to implicate more senior people, I would simply have confined it to our group on ground level, but one would have had to report the incident itself. However, I would not have reported to the higher levels that there had not been any weapons and that weapons had been planted.

MR MALAN: You would have changed the facts of the matter in order to present a legal incident to the others when it came to reporting the matter itself?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes.

MR MALAN: And an illegal actions would not have been reported by you to any person?

MR DEETLEFS: Depending upon whether you required help from above, one didn't want to unnecessarily involve other persons.

MR MALAN: And you would not have asked permission to commit illegal acts?

MR DEETLEFS: Well, no-one would be able to give permission for such illegal acts.

ADV GCABASHE: And yet you are saying that the reason that you committed these illegal acts was because you were protecting the State, you were protecting the police, the State as it was then and yet you would not account to the same State you were protecting?

MR DEETLEFS: We were accountable to the State. As I have said, we reported the incidents because you could not cover up the incidents. However one would simply withhold certain information sometimes in order to make the incident legally acceptable, but this was about the best interests of the country and the police and the former government.

MR MALAN: That definition of State interest was your own definition, it wasn't a definition that you had received from above to commit illegalities and to cover these illegalities up?

MR DEETLEFS: No, there weren't any such orders.

MR MALAN: And there weren't any such prescriptions either according to your knowledge, so this is simply what took place on ground level. People would have a certain task, that being to combat the ANC SACP Alliance and all the other heathens and you would do anything within the execution of this broader more general order and you believed that you were doing what was necessary to combat the struggle, but you didn't think that it was sanctioned by the State or that such guidelines or orders existed in order to promote illegalities or the reporting of such illegalities?

MR DEETLEFS: No.

ADV GCABASHE: I understand you answer in relation to direct instructions from above. Indirectly in terms of the environment you operated in, is this what you believe that your superiors would condone, should they find out about it, especially with you being in such a senior position?

MR DEETLEFS: Certain incidents may have been that way, I cannot say, but no-one would issue a specifically illegal order, that was our perception, we believed it, or at least I believed it, or let me put it like this, at that stage I was tired of terrorism, I was tired of the pressure from above to prevent people from infiltrating and committing acts of terror. Eventually one to began to believe that any method was justifiable, just to combat the enemy.

ADV GCABASHE: And to keep the pressure off your backs?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MS LOCKHAT: So Mr Deetlefs, let me just get this straight. Do you disassociate yourself as the Commander of Piet Retief Security Branch, from the first incident, the 8th June, because it is - well do you disassociate yourself with that? You didn't give instructions for that?

MR DEETLEFS: In so far as it affects the facts, I was aware that there would be an infiltration and later I was informed that it had taken place, but I didn't know about any weapons that were planted or the facts as they have appeared now. In that regard, I do not associate myself with it.

MS LOCKHAT: But you were quite comfortable with the idea that they could have the ambush in a sense, whether the persons had - let's exclude the fact - let's say they had weapons, so you would then associate yourself with that, if you had known it was the ambush?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, I probably would have gone along with it because in the second case I went along with it, so I probably would have done the same in the first incident.

MS LOCKHAT: Regarding the second incident, the 12th June, who was your Commander at that time?

MR DEETLEFS: It was Brig Visser, he was the Provincial Commander of the Eastern Transvaal.

MS LOCKHAT: Did you inform him of this operation?

MR DEETLEFS: I contacted him before the time and told him that there was the possibility of an infiltration.

MS LOCKHAT: Did you report back to him after the persons were eliminated?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes I did.

CHAIRPERSON: That same evening, he reported that.

MS LOCKHAT: Just one other aspect. Regarding the jurisdiction of this incident, if an incident happens in Piet Retief and you were the Commander there, would you say that you have jurisdiction over that incident and that you have the final say as Commander in that area?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, to a certain extent.

MS LOCKHAT: So in essence you were the Commander for this operation and not really de Kock, because it fell into your jurisdiction?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, if one wants to approach it from that perspective, but in the police it was based upon your date of promotion, whether - this was the thing that determined you seniority, not a certain area. He and I shared the same rank, so I wouldn't want to say that I was in command, maybe we shared command, but he had more specialist knowledge of what we were going to do there.

MS LOCKHAT: But if an incident occurs in your area, people would obviously come to you because you're the Commander in that area, isn't that so?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, that is correct.

MS LOCKHAT: Just in relation to de Kock's Commander. Did you inform Brig Schoon regarding this incident?

MR DEETLEFS: No, Chairperson, I would assume that Col de Kock did. I simply reported to my Commander.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS LOCKHAT

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: No re-examination thank you Mr Chairman.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO

CHAIRPERSON: Adv Gcabashe, any questions?

ADV GCABASHE: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?

MR MALAN: No thanks.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, may I just ask a question, in-between questions from the Committee?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Just one question Mr Deetlefs, with the second incident, the fact that it was your information that these persons would be armed, did that add another dimension with regard to the planning and the decision-making for the elimination as opposed to an arrest?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, Chairperson, I suppose one could put it that way, but we went from the supposition that they would be armed and all the planning was undertaken within that context.

MR LAMEY: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Deetlefs, that concludes your testimony. You may stand down. I see that it's now 1 o'clock so we'll take the lunch adjournment. I just remind the legal representatives that we'll be finishing at 3 o'clock this afternoon, so if we can have lunch as quickly as possible to make up a bit of time and let's see if we can start, if it's convenient, as close as possible to half past 1, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Before we commence, we'd just like to mention something relating to the question that was raised just before the tea adjournment and immediately after the tea adjournment, relating to the identity of the source. We have now had opportunity to discuss the matter and what we've decided is that we will ask Mr Prinsloo for that piece of paper with the name on, that we will not reveal the name until such time as we have received and considered representation made on behalf of the person mentioned therein, that the person mentioned therein will be given notification in terms of Section 30 of the Act and will be requested in terms of that section to exercise his/her option to make representations within a specified period. We though that perhaps 14 days would be reasonable time for such representation to be made and then if representations are being made, we'll again have an opportunity to hear argument, we might have to reconvene for that, and then only after hearing the representations will a decision be made as to whether or not the name should be revealed. I think in that way we will be acting properly in giving the person concerned the right of representation, or the right to make representations.

MR PRINSLOO: Allocate an Exhibit number to this Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: It will be B and then also, I would also advise that the name contained on that piece of paper will not be revealed save through, if it is at all, through the Committee. Thank you.

MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson, the next amnesty applicant is Mr van Zweel.

JAMES EMIEL WILHELM VAN ZWEEL: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman. The application commences at page 264 Bundle 1, Mr Chairman, of this applicant.

Mr van Zweel, you are an applicant in this application for amnesty which has regard to the incidents which took place on the 12th June 1988 on the Piet Retief Houtkop Road.

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And four persons were killed during a shooting incident on that road?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr van Zweel at the time of these events you were stationed at Ermelo attached to the Security Branch, is that correct?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: What rank did you have at that time?

MR VAN ZWEEL: I was a Warrant-Officer.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr van Zweel you were also tasked with investigations which had regard to insurgents from Swaziland to the Republic of South Africa, specifically Natal and Eastern Transvaal, is that correct?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And that was members of the ANC, Umkhonto weSizwe?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: On the 12th June of 1988, you received instruction and you accompanied the previous applicant Mr Deetlefs to Piet Retief?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And at Piet Retief you received further instructions as to what would happen that evening?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And this entailed that certain person who illegally entered the country through the border would be transported by a member of the Detective Branch, a Mr Manzini?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And that that person would be led into an ambush at a specific place?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: What was the information that you had, were those people to be armed?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, they would be armed.

MR PRINSLOO: Would they be trained MK members?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And from your experience in the Security Branch, have you visited scenes and tasked with situations where it was well-trained MK members?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And Mr van Zweel, on this specific evening after these instructions were given, did you accompany the members to a point on the Houtkop, Piet Retief Road,?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you take up specific places where the incident would take place?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you realise beforehand that shots would be fired at these persons?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And that if persons were killed there, that you would be guilty of murder?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you act out of own interest or was it an instruction?

MR VAN ZWEEL: It was an instruction in the interest of the South African Police and the South African government.

MR PRINSLOO: Have you executed previous similar acts for which you have applied for amnesty?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And was it also on instructions from above?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: This particular evening where you took up position, did a vehicle approach from the Swaziland side on that road?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Was there any indication given by that vehicle on it's arrival there?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, the lights were dimmed and then put on bright again. The left indicator was switched on and it pulled off the road.

MR PRINSLOO: And the left indicator that was switched on, what indication would that be?

MR VAN ZWEEL: It would be that the persons would be armed.

MR PRINSLOO: Did this vehicle stop at the pre-appointed place?

MR VAN ZWEEL: No, it passed that point, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And after this vehicle stopped, did you hear any gunfire or see?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, we ran closer and shots were fired. Bullets hit the ground, hit the tar road between myself and Rorich. I fell down behind the vehicle and it was a few seconds and everything came to an end.

MR PRINSLOO: Just one moment, you say a bullet hit the tar road where you and Mr Rorich, a fellow applicant who still has to give evidence, were?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Could you determine where the shot came from?

MR VAN ZWEEL: From the kombi's side.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you see a person?

MR VAN ZWEEL: I suspected that it was the person who had jumped out of the left side of the vehicle.

MR PRINSLOO: Would that be an occupant of the kombi?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And was there a mark on the tar surface which was visible for later investigation?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And was it indicated during later investigations?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: You say you ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Excuse me, just one moment before you continue. The bullet mark, did you see it or how do you have knowledge of it?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Later we found the place on the surface of the tar road. I cannot recall how long afterwards, a few days afterwards, I cannot recall, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: You say we, did you go back to the place?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Excuse me, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Did you go back to the place?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, later a reconstruction was held and we went back to the place.

MR MALAN: And when the reconstruction was held, was that not a long time after the incident?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes.

MR MALAN: And you still found the mark in the tar road?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Clearly, Sir.

MR MALAN: Was that the first time that you saw the mark in the road?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes.

ADV GCABASHE: Sorry, can I just get clarity on that? You say the shot hit the ground between you and Rorich, you saw that and then later on when you came to reconstruct, you found that same mark?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes.

ADV GCABASHE: I just wanted to understand that. Thank you.

MR PRINSLOO: Besides what you saw with reconstruction, but that evening you saw the bullets hitting the surface of the tar?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And you, when you fired on that vehicle, did you fire, shoot to kill?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: With which weapon did you fire?

MR VAN ZWEEL: With an R1, my official weapon.

MR PRINSLOO: And you say after the shots ceased, which happened seconds, it was determined that people were killed there in the vehicle?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: How many people were there?

MR VAN ZWEEL: There were four people.

MR PRINSLOO: And were those four persons armed?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Those persons were armed with AK47 rifles and they all had magazines, the weapons were cocked. Hand grenades were also found, two.

MR PRINSLOO: And the specific action this evening, did you see this as an execution of your general duties?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, it was in the execution of my duties.

MR PRINSLOO: And you, at a later stage, I refer the Committee , Chairperson, to bundle 5 page 53 as it is paginated, there is a statement.

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Is that your statement?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: The date is not very clear but it seems to be 1989, it seems like the 14th. I cannot make out the month Chairperson, maybe somebody could assist us here?

Can you recall in which month this statement was made?

MR VAN ZWEEL: I cannot recall Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: This statement was made for the purpose of a death inquest.

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And in that statement you indicated that Maj Deetlefs was the person who was in command?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: While Col de Kok's name was omitted from this statement.

MR VAN ZWEEL: That's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: No mention is made of him?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Not at all, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And mention is also made of a blue light.

MR VAN ZWEEL: There was no such thing, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Is that part of your statement false where Col de Kock is not mentioned, what his role was and you have heard what his role was in this application.

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And you omitted that?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And you created the impression that there was a road-block in which the people were killed?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And that was false?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And you knew by submitting a false statement, and you give evidence afterwards, it would be perjury?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And you knew it was defeating the ends of justice?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Can you recall whether you gave evidence at the inquest?

MR VAN ZWEEL: No, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Who, or let me ask you as follows, why did you omit Col de Kock's presence?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Because it came to light that we should not mention Col de Kock.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you receive such an instruction?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: From whom?

MR VAN ZWEEL: I cannot recall, possibly from Maj Deetlefs.

MR PRINSLOO: Was Maj Deetlefs your Commander at that stage in Ermelo?

MR VAN ZWEEL: He was my direct Commander, that's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: So you served under his command?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr van Zweel, your application is embodied in the volume as indicated to the Committee, it's page 264 to 266, it's the application itself which you have signed, and then the specific incident for which you apply for amnesty in this instance appears on page 269 at the centre of the page and runs up to page 271 with regard to the incident and then the general background which you sketched and forms part of your motivation, appears on page 275 and runs up to the end of your application?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you confirm the correctness thereof?

MR VAN ZWEEL: I do, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And you apply for amnesty on four counts of murder, because of the four people that were killed there that evening?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: As well as charges of defeating the ends of justice and perjury?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And any other competent finding which might emanate from the facts which are placed before this Committee?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And for any delict which you are guilty of, any civil action which may be instituted against you?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Prinsloo. Ms van der Walt, do you have any questions you'd like to ask?

MS VAN DER WALT: No questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius?

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: No questions, thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens?

MR BOOYENS: No questions, thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen?

MR JANSEN: No questions, thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson. Mr van Zweel, the person who fired the shots, was he on his feet outside the kombi or in which position was he?

MR VAN ZWEEL: I suspected it was the person who jumped out left, I cannot be 100% certain but the bullet came from that vicinity.

MR LAMEY: So you don't know whether it was that person?

MR VAN ZWEEL: I cannot confirm that.

MR LAMEY: Is it possible that shots could have gone off while you were firing, that you inferred that that bullet hit the road there and that was the spark and you assumed that, the recollection is that it came from that direction?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, it may be a bullet that must have ricocheted from somewhere.

MR LAMEY: So you cannot say with clear certainty that he fired the shot before Mr de Kock fired at him?

MR VAN ZWEEL: No, I cannot be certain, it happened very quickly.

MR LAMEY: No further questions, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Moerane, any questions you'd like to put to the witness?

MR MOERANE: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MOERANE: Mr van Zweel, for how many years before this incident were you a member of the Security Police at Ermelo?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Since 1983 I have been a member of the Security Branch at Ermelo. I started in '83 at Ermelo.

MR MOERANE: And as a member of the Security Branch, particularly in those years, the 80's, was it one of your main duties to investigate ANC related matters?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: And for that purpose I take it you had to have contact with Middelburg, with Piet Retief?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: And was there general co-operation between the Security Police in the Eastern Transvaal?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: From time to time from the 80's did you make use of the people from Vlakplaas, de Kock's people, for operations?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, we did make use of them.

MR MOERANE: From that time, from the 80's did you believe that you could do things that were illegal in discharging your functions as a member of the Security Police, against the ANC?

MR VAN ZWEEL: I believed that one could act against the ANC because they were illegal.

MR MOERANE: So was it ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think the question was, sorry Mr Moerane, it didn't seem to be a correct answer. What Mr Moerane was asking you is did you believe that you as police could become involved in illegal acts when acting against the ANC?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, I believed so.

MR MOERANE: And would I be correct to say that was the general culture of the Security Branch in the Eastern Transvaal?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Please repeat.

MR MOERANE: Was that part of the general culture amongst the Security Branch in the Eastern Transvaal?

MR VAN ZWEEL: No, I wouldn't say that Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: Where did you get that impression from therefore that you could engage in unlawful activities when you were pursuing the ANC or acting against the ANC?

MR VAN ZWEEL: In that instance at Piet Retief, we acted illegally. We killed the people there.

MR MOERANE: Yes, but what I am trying to find out from you is whence came this idea that you could act unlawfully when acting against the ANC?

MR VAN ZWEEL: No.

ADV GCABASHE: No, Mr van Zweel, maybe it will assist you to use the translators because the answer you have just given doesn't make sense in relation to the question. I'm sure it's a language, either language or you can't hear.

MR VAN ZWEEL: I don't hear him properly, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Just try with the earphones Mr van Zweel, it might facilitate your hearing. Could you please, Mr Moerane, repeat the question again?

MR MOERANE: Yes. Mr van Zweel, where did you get the idea from that you could act illegally when acting against the ANC?

MR VAN ZWEEL: With the incident in Piet Retief.

MR MOERANE: No, but before that, before the 12th June 1988, I understood you to be saying that you could act illegally against the ANC.

MR VAN ZWEEL: I cannot recall if this was the incident in Swaziland, whether it was before or after.

MR MOERANE: I'm talking about an incident that you have mentioned in the present application. That incident was in 1984.

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, that is correct.

MR MOERANE: Yes, so by the time 1988 came, 12th June, you knew or at least you believed that you could engage in illegal acts against the ANC?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, that is correct.

MR MOERANE: Now my question is, where did you get that idea from?

MR VAN ZWEEL: I observed it myself that we had to act against the ANC because they infiltrated the country illegally, committed illegal acts and so forth.

MR MALAN: Sorry, Mr Moerane. Mr van Zweel, let me speak to you in Afrikaans. The question is, did you believe that you may commit illegal acts against the ANC, in other words that rules were not applicable, or that you did not have to adhere to prescriptions when you acted against the ANC? Now why did you think...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: What was the answer?

MR VAN ZWEEL: No.

CHAIRPERSON: No. Okay.

MR MALAN: The question was put to you in English whether you thought that you could use illegal methods in actions against the ANC and you said that you believed so.

MR VAN ZWEEL: I misunderstood there, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: But you also said on a further question that you observed illegal actions being used against the ANC. You referred to the incident at Piet Retief.

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes.

MR MALAN: And I think you also referred to a matter in Swaziland in 1984.

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, that's correct Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: Thank you, Mr Malan. So you did appreciate the question. You knew what the question was about. The question was about illegal acts that you performed in your fight against the ANC. Not so?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, that is correct.

MR MOERANE: I ask you again, where did you get the idea from that you could employ illegal methods when fighting the ANC?

MR VAN ZWEEL: I received the order to do so.

MR MOERANE: So are you telling this Honourable Committee that whenever you employed illegal methods in your fight against the ANC, it was on instructions?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: Instructions from your seniors?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That's correct.

MR MOERANE: And in particular Maj Deetlefs?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes.

MR MOERANE: Why are you hesitating?

MR VAN ZWEEL: The order was from Piet Retief and Vlakplaas.

MR MOERANE: Is your case, Mr van Zweel, that in all the illegal activities in which you engaged, you were simply following instructions? You were following orders?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: And that went to the extent where you had to lie and commit perjury, were you still following instructions then?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, the perjury was upon instruction. It was upon instructions.

MR MOERANE: So when you made that statement under oath in anticipation of inquest proceedings arising out of the events of the 12th June 1988, you were following instructions?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, I've already told the Committee that it was a false statement, or that at least aspects of the statement were false.

MR MOERANE: Yes. And is it correct that the lying there, the following of instructions there was a concerted effort on the part of your seniors? By that I mean that not only you, but other persons in a lower rank, had to toe the line and tell the same lie?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, all of us told the lie.

MR MOERANE: Yes, but it was something that was organised by your seniors, that you should lie?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: Now with regard to...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Sorry, Mr Moerane, if I may, on this point. The preparation of the statements, did you ever have any interviews with Pienaar, or did he prepare the statement and give it to you to sign?

MR VAN ZWEEL: I don't believe that this statement was taken by Mr Pienaar. I cannot see who took that statement.

MR MALAN: The question is whether you were interviewed? The statement was made under oath, can you recall whether any interview was held with you regarding this statement or were you simply given the statement?

MR VAN ZWEEL: The statement was written, I was given the statement to read and I signed it.

MR MALAN: Was the statement taken from you, in other words in your presence?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes.

MR MALAN: Are you sure of that?

MR VAN ZWEEL: I'm almost 100% certain of that. I cannot recall precisely, it's quite a long time ago, but I am almost certain of it.

MR MALAN: Sorry, Mr Moerane, if I may just proceed on this point. Were all of you called in to agree on a version or how did it come to be that everybody could lie about exactly the same thing in this statement?

MR VAN ZWEEL: I can no longer recall.

MR MALAN: Isn't it probable that somebody compiled these statements for everybody and gave it to them to sign?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is possible.

MR MALAN: It doesn't seem to me that there is any other possibility.

MR VAN ZWEEL: I cannot say.

MR MALAN: And you cannot recall who presented the statement to you?

MR VAN ZWEEL: No.

MR MALAN: Mr Pienaar gave evidence that he was the investigating officer. Isn't it probable that it was he who compiled it?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is possible.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR MOERANE: The investigating officer of that intended inquest was W/O Pienaar.

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: Yes. Now coming to the statement that you made in connection with your amnesty application.

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes.

MR MOERANE: You made that statement on the 13th December 1996 at Delmas.

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: Would I be correct in saying that, present at the same place and the same time, was W/O Pienaar?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: And also Mr Theron?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: And Mr Hayes?

MR VAN ZWEEL: I cannot recall. I don't believe that Mr Hayes was there.

MS VAN DER WALT: I think you should consult the documents Mr Moerane because that is not correct.

MR MOERANE: I beg your pardon, Mr Chairman, that is correct. The statement of Mr Hayes was completed in Pietermaritzburg on the 13th December, I beg your pardon.

The statement of Mr Deetlefs was completed in Delmas on the same day.

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: Tell me, how did it come about that all of you were at Delmas, those that I've mentioned and those that you have confirmed, were at Delmas on the same day?

MR VAN ZWEEL: We were consulting with our Advocates, person to person, in Delmas. I'd already left the force. Somebody took me there. I cannot recall who the person was that took me there.

MR MOERANE: When did you leave the force?

MR VAN ZWEEL: 1992.

MR MOERANE: I see. As far as the attesting of the affidavit that you made on the 13th December 1996 is concerned, how did that come about?

MR VAN ZWEEL: It took place in Delmas in Mr Prinsloo's offices.

MR MOERANE: And did you know that the affidavit that you made was in identical words with that made by the other people I have mentioned? Pienaar, Hayes, Barnard, Theron and others too who were not there, Rorich and Deetlefs.

MR VAN ZWEEL: I haven't read any one of the statements made by any of the other persons.

MR PRINSLOO: That's not quite correct that it's identical words. If you look for instance at page 271 in the fifth paragraph,

CHAIRPERSON: Compared with?

MR PRINSLOO: Or am I mistaken about that?

CHAIRPERSON: Compared with what, Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: I'm sorry, I made a mistake there, Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it's also a question for argument.

MR MOERANE: In any event it's exactly the same, page 117, identical and it's the same paragraph. They all consist of six paragraphs and each paragraph is exactly the same. The only difference, as I've pointed out, are the names. Obviously the person can't say that so-and-so, for instance you couldn't say van Zweel, you say myself, and then you mention the others.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, is the suggestion, with respect, that these statements ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: We seem to go through this with each and every witness. I think we can leave it for argument. We know, it's been pointed out that they are the same, except for that one aspect which is different. We know that they were taken all at Delmas on the same day. I think it's fair that you ask how it happened that they got there the same day, but I think we can deal with this in argument, if you want to raise it in argument.

MR MOERANE: That is so, I will raise it in argument, but I think in fairness, I have to put it to each of the witnesses, particularly, Mr Chairman, in the light of the statements that were prepared for the inquest, I do not want to be accused of not having put it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I'm not disallowing the questions, I'm just saying that each time we get the objections and there's the same interjections, we're just losing time.

MS VAN DER WALT: I beg your pardon, these are my clients who are also being implicated. This is my greatest problem. I know it is not my client and it is not my turn to speak, but as a result of the insinuations which Mr Moerane is making, especially with regard to what he has just said, that the statements were all taken by Mr Pienaar for the post mortem inquest, Mr Moerane is now alleging that the legal representatives, as both witnesses have just given evidence, the incident was set out to indicate that there was dishonesty on behalf of the legal representatives and I would like to object to that because the same sort of point has been put to the Committee before and his Honourable Justice Wilson has stated beforehand that everybody knows how legal representatives compile statements. We have technology available to us in the form of a computer and if the form of the document is universal, why should that be a problem? If there is a measure of dishonesty, then Mr Moerane must put it as such. I request that this be the case.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I don't know what Mr Moerane is going to argue, but I must say that this form of application when there are several applicants and there is very similar wording, is very common, not only with regard to Security Force personnel but with regard to other applicants as well. I've come across it quite often that there's the same wording used, the same political motivation keeps coming over and over again in different applications from different people. But I don't know what the point Mr Moerane is going to be arguing and I don't know if there is any insinuation that the legal practitioners were part of a conspiracy to make the same story, I don't know.

MR MOERANE: Mr Chairman, anyone who has been present here will know that I have made no insinuations against the legal representatives. I am concerned with the applicants themselves and their credibility.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we have wasted quite a lot of time on this point about this. If we can move on now.

MR MALAN: Mr Moerane, with your permission. May I just determine from you, Mr van Zweel, when you made your application did Mr Pienaar or anybody else contact you to tell you about everybody who was involved in this matter and who had to apply for amnesty?

MR VAN ZWEEL: I had already left the force, I cannot recall. I think that a person from Ermelo, if I recall correctly, a Maj Marais, took me to Delmas in order to make my statement, but I am not certain.

MR MALAN: You cannot recall that Mr Pienaar contacted you or Mr Deetlefs?

MR VAN ZWEEL: No, I did not travel with them.

MR MALAN: And this Mr Marais, or whatever his name was, did he simply get to you himself and tell you to apply for amnesty for this incident?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, he told me that the Generals had decided, or that this was the decision that came from Head Office, I cannot recall exactly, that we should apply for amnesty and all of us should go to Delmas.

MR MALAN: And then you made a statement to your legal representatives there?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, that's correct.

MR MALAN: And you then signed it on a different day?

MR VAN ZWEEL: No, it was signed on that day.

MR MALAN: On the very same day that you made the statement?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, that is correct.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR MOERANE: Thank you, I am indebted, Mr Malan. So in short, Mr van Zweel, you were requested to make an application?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, that is correct.

MR MOERANE: And you came up to Delmas?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: You had this consultation and you signed the affidavit and you went back?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: Yes. Now, let's come to the incident itself. Do you recall what you were told when you were invited by Mr Deetlefs to come and join him, to come to Piet Retief? What did he say to you?

MR VAN ZWEEL: He picked me up at Ermelo and I went with him to Piet Retief. In the office I was present for a while when the matter was discussed and from there we went to the scene.

MR MALAN: Mr van Zweel, the question is, can you recall what Mr Deetlefs said to you before he picked you up and why he came to pick you up, the reason why he came to pick you up.

MR VAN ZWEEL: He said we were going to Piet Retief. He said that there were people infiltrating from Swaziland and that we had to go and assist.

MR MOERANE: Yes, and when you got to Piet Retief there was a briefing session, not so?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That's correct.

MR MOERANE: What was said to you about the operation? What was going to happen?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That there would be a vehicle coming from Swaziland containing MK members and that at a certain point on the Houtkop road we would take up position and wait for the people.

MR MOERANE: Yes, continue.

MR VAN ZWEEL: That transpired later.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Moerane wants to know what you were told at the briefing session. You said that you were told that there was going to be infiltration, people would be coming in a vehicle, you'd take up position at a spot. Was there anything else?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That the people would be armed and that the planning was of such a nature that they would give us a signal should the people be armed, the indicator light would flicker and we reacted upon that.

MR MOERANE: How were you to react to that?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That if Manzini climbed out and ran, we had to open fire on the vehicle and we did that.

MR MOERANE: I see. So you knew that there was going to be an ambush?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: And you were prepared to go along with that?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: Had you heard that there was an incident four days before that?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, I heard about it.

MR MOERANE: And had you heard that four ANC members had been killed in that incident?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, that's correct.

MR MOERANE: Had you heard that that incident had taken place at the same spot where you were to lie in wait?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That's correct.

MR MOERANE: And had you heard that the first group, the group that came through on the 8th of June, had not been armed?

MR VAN ZWEEL: No, I never knew that. I heard about that the other day here. I never knew about it until the day upon which evidence was given about it.

MR MOERANE: What information did you have?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Simply that the people had been armed and that they had been killed. I never had any information that they were not armed.

MR MOERANE: And had you been told that the people in the first incident, that's the incident of the 8th June, had shot at the police?

MR VAN ZWEEL: I can no longer recall what the precise information was, I just recall hearing that people had been shot dead.

MR MOERANE: I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR MALAN: Sorry Chair, just before you proceed to Ms Lockhat. Mr van Zweel the question was put to you whether you had knowledge of the first incident, but the time of your knowledge was never specifically mentioned. Just to have certainty, I assume that you understand that this has to do with your knowledge of the first incident before the second incident took place?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, I heard about the first incident before the second incident took place, that is correct.

MR MALAN: Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Lockhat?

MS LOCKHAT: I have no questions.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Adv Gcabashe any questions?

ADV GCABASHE: Yes, thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, before - yes, re-examination, sorry Mr Prinsloo, I forgot. Do you have any re-examination?

MR PRINSLOO: Briefly.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Mr van Zweel when you executed orders, did you believe that you were acting in the interests of your country in the execution of your duties?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, that's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Adv Gcabashe.

ADV GCABASHE: Mr van Zweel in the statement you made, the one in volume 5, that was used at the inquest, paragraph 8 thereof, you talk about the man coming out of the kombi and that you heard shots from the direction of the kombi.

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

ADV GCABASHE: Is there any reason why you did not mention the fact that a bullet actually hit the surface of the tar between yourself and Rorich as you were approaching the vehicle?

MR VAN ZWEEL: I don't know why I never mentioned it.

ADV GCABASHE: But the statement itself was prepared by you or by Mr Pienaar, just help me again with that.

MR VAN ZWEEL: I cannot say who took the statement because I cannot make out who signed at the bottom.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but I think what Adv Gcabashe wants confirmed is whether you provided the taker of the statement, the person who had this statement typed out, with the contents contained there or if you were just presented with a written statement for you to sign.

MR VAN ZWEEL: Chairperson, I think I have already stated that I cannot recall how it took place, because this statement was taken quite a while afterwards. In all honesty I cannot tell you whether the statement had already been prepared or whether I was there when the statement was taken, I really cannot recall.

ADV GCABASHE: But you would agree that mentioning the fact that the bullet struck the tar would have strengthened your version as presented at the inquest?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, that is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: One other matter. Do you know how the deceased got to be shot in the head?

MR VAN ZWEEL: No, I cannot say.

ADV GCABASHE: Do you remember directing shots at any one of the four specifically in the region of the head and neck?

MR VAN ZWEEL: I shot into the back section of the kombi, I don't know where my bullets hit, whether they hit any of the deceased, it is very difficult for me to say.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you. Thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan.

MR MALAN: Mr van Zweel, I did not put this to any of the other applicants, but this is something which remains strange to me and that is that you find the people there with their weapons ready to fire and the evidence is that they told the driver not to be afraid, that they would protect him, that everything was fine.

MR VAN ZWEEL: The only way that I can assist you with that is that everything happened very quickly and that the people didn't have a chance to fire back. I really cannot tell you why they didn't fire any shots. What the circumstances were inside the kombi is very difficult for me to say.

MR MALAN: Weren't those guns planted on them?

MR VAN ZWEEL: No, never.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you given the opportunity to volunteer for this operation or were you just instructed to go along?

MR VAN ZWEEL: I was given instruction to accompany, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You see, I ask because Mr Deetlefs said that Sgt Manzini was a - volunteered for it. I was just wondering whether that applied to anybody else in the operation.

MR VAN ZWEEL: Chairperson, one could probably refuse, I don't know, but I don't think one could refuse if you worked for the state. If you receive instructions you must execute those instructions. I don't believe one could refuse. It is in the interests of the country and in the interest of the South African Police, so I believe that the instructions which I executed were justified.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any questions arising from questions put by members of the panel.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MOERANE: Mr Chairman yes. It might not arise directly but it relates to the

firing by this person and the reconstruction about a year later. Mr van Zweel you told the Honourable Committee, that you attended a reconstruction of this event at a later stage?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: And I assume that at that reconstruction each one of the people who fired stood at a position where he alleged he was at the time of the shooting?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: Now was Col de Kock at that reconstruction?

MR VAN ZWEEL: I don't know Chairperson, it was a long time ago. Is it not in the report? I cannot recall.

MR MOERANE: All you say is that on the 24th May 1989,

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, that is correct.

MR MOERANE: So you do not recall whether Col de Kock was there or not?

MR VAN ZWEEL: I cannot recall who were all there.

MR MOERANE: In all probability he wasn't there because at that stage he was being kept out of this matter, not so?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is possible, yes, Chairperson, because he was kept out of the matter.

MR MOERANE: You say even on that occasion, or on that occasion you saw a mark on the tar which you believed was caused by a bullet from the firearm that was fired by this person who came out of the kombi?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, that's what I said, Chairperson, but I also said that it could have been one of the other - the advocate asked me and I said it could have been a bullet that might have ricocheted from somewhere or somebody else's bullet, I did not deny it.

MR MOERANE: I see. So you are actually saying that you are not positive that that mark was caused by that bullet?

MR VAN ZWEEL: I am positive that the mark was caused by a bullet but I am not positive that it was caused by the bullet of an ANC member.

MR MOERANE: I suggest to you that this question of the person from the kombi firing, is something that you people fabricated for purposes of the inquest.

MR VAN ZWEEL: No, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: You didn't see him fire.

MR VAN ZWEEL: Chairperson, I say I suspected that the person who had jumped out the left front of the vehicle fired in our direction and you asked that it could have been another bullet and I said, "yes it is possible."

MR MOERANE: Yes, but what I'm putting to you is that you did not see this person fire.

MR VAN ZWEEL: No, Chairperson, I suspected that he fired.

MR MOERANE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Any other questions arising? Thank you Mr van Zweel, that concludes your evidence. You may stand down now.

MR VAN ZWEEL: Thank you, Chairperson.

------------------------------------------------------------------------- MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson, the next amnesty applicant is Mr Ras.

MARTHINUS DAVID RAS: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR JANSEN: Mr Ras, your amnesty application in this matter continues from page 126 in volume 1 and the facts of the specific incident we find from page 174 and further, is that correct?

MR RAS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: And you dealt with the facts on page 174 and further, except for certain qualifications and additions, which you would make now in your oral evidence. Do you confirm the correctness of the facts as they are portrayed there?

MR RAS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: And those facts are also preceded by a general summary of your political motives and how you regarded your work during your time at the Security Police, is that correct? From page 169.

MR RAS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Do you confirm the correctness of those allegations?

MR RAS: I do, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: You are also aware of the fact that this series of hearings of incidents where Mr Eugene de Kock was involved was preceded by a specific hearing with regard to Vlakplaas itself?

MR RAS: Yes, that is correct Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: And you also wish that the evidence which was given by Mr de Kock at that instance be read along with your application here?

MR RAS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: In 1989, or let us start, you joined Vlakplaas in 1984, is that correct?

MR RAS: That is correct Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: And in 1988 what was your rank?

MR RAS: I was a Warrant-Officer.

MR JANSEN: When did you become an officer?

MR RAS: In the beginning of 1990.

MR JANSEN: So the references which are there which referred to you as Lieutenant and Major, those are ranks which you occupied later?

MR RAS: That's correct Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: For purposes of the record, on page 130 there is a specific award certificate to say that you were an Officer at that stage.

MR RAS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: And just to eliminate any confusion, the certificate, although it is in the bundle, it does not have any relation to this incident at Piet Retief.

MR RAS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: With which incident is this in regard to?

MR RAS: Chairperson, this is in connection with an incident with a transit house in Botswana, for which I apply for amnesty, where people were killed.

MR JANSEN: Very well. With regard to the so-called first incident in Piet Retief, the one of the 8th June, just a few single aspects. Can you please tell the Committee when the vehicle moved into this ambush where did you take up position?

MR RAS: Chairperson, behind the vehicle, right to the rear, out of the line of fire from the other people.

MR JANSEN: Were you there by yourself?

MR RAS: Yes, I was Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Could you see or surmise who initiated the shooting?

MR RAS: No, I did not, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: And your only expectations at that stage was what was this, with regard to whether these people were armed or unarmed within the vehicle.

MR RAS: We believed that they were armed and that is the information that we had, that these people would be armed.

MR JANSEN: Now the rest of the incidents are described by Mr de Kock and Mr Pienaar. Can you please tell the Committee, the Makarov and grenades that you had with you, why did you have those weapons with you?

MR RAS: Chairperson, it is weapons which I had with me. I was a group leader who had worked with former ANC and PAC members, and the members from time to time needed weapons to use if they would go to a shebeen or a house where they presented themselves as members of the ANC that had infiltrated and in this way, to win the trust of the person who was favourable towards the ANC and to try and find out whether there were no other ANC or PAC members in the vicinity.

MR JANSEN: Is it also correct, from a general inference from several other events, except for that idea, to create the impression that the person was attached to the ANC or any other liberation movement? Is it also in this instance from time to time used to let a scene appear as if there was danger from the persons whom you would have arrested and that these persons were a danger to you?

MR RAS: Chairperson, if I recall correctly, and for all the incidents where I apply for amnesty, it was the only instance where it was necessary for me to plant these weapons on the scene. As standard procedure I did have a Makarov with me and I was also attached to Koevoet and some of the weapons came back with me. For a long time I worked in Bophuthatswana where in one year we arrested 18 ANC members and some of those weapons, because of the instances where it was in Bophuthatswana, which was independent, I did not hand in all the weapons.

After I contacted the special investigation team and told them I would give them my full co-operation, I handed three containers with weapons which I had buried. Mr de Kock also did know of all the weapons and amongst others there were 5 LMGs, 6 Makarovs and some explosives.

MR JANSEN: If you refer to the investigative teams, these are teams from the Attorney-General?

MR RAS: That is correct, Chairperson. It was the same time when I applied for amnesty.

MR JANSEN: With the regard to the incident of the 8th, is it your contention that you acted under instruction from Mr de Kock?

MR RAS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: And you regarded this as part of your general duties or general activities as an operative at Vlakplaas?

MR RAS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: You also did not receive any benefit for this operation?

MR RAS: No, I did not, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Can you, with regard to the second incident, please explain to the Committee how your involvement started there? You explain it in your application from the top of page 177 and further. Can you tell us about that instance because it has not been dealt with yet.

MR RAS: Chairperson, if I recall correctly, after the incident had taken place, the person who brought the persons to the Swaziland border told Mose that he would have to fetch more persons on the 12th and that they had to transport them to Durban once again and according to my recollection we knew at that stage we expected another group who would infiltrate the country. From there we went to Island Rock and when we returned Mr de Kock told myself, John Tait, Botes and Paul van Dyk, he sent us to Swaziland.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you just repeat those names again?

MR RAS: It was myself, John Tait, Paul van Dyk and if I recall correctly, Botes, Botha. Mr de Kock gave us instruction to go over to Swaziland. There was a road that ran parallel to the border. We hid our vehicle in the bush on this side and continued by foot to the other side. We did not know exactly where these people would stop the vehicle or where they would be dropped off and we took up position next to the road. If I recall correctly at about 10 o'clock or so, a vehicle approached which turned around and parked on the other side of a small bridge. We heard people climbing out of the vehicle. There were some voices talking. It must have been 100 to 150 metres from us. We heard the boot opening and we also heard 4 AKs being cocked. I did not know that it was AKs but I drew the inference because of the experience that I have and the ten years, at that stage, which I had worked operationally. We waited for the voices to disappear and from there we went along the road, across the bridge, to next to the car. We were afraid that they might have left a guard at the vehicle, which was not the case and on the eastern side of the road approximately 40 metres from the vehicle we took up position and waited for the persons to return who would accompany the ANC members to the border.

We lay waiting quite a while and we heard some voices approaching. The planning was to wait until the persons were in the vehicle and then to shoot the persons.

This would prevent that - so to limit their chances of escape. When the one person unlocked the door, Mr van Dyk started shooting upon which the other three of us followed and there was a short skirmish until Mr van Dyk said we should stop firing. Next to the vehicle a person lay dead, there was a Makarov next to him. We did not plant it this time. We had a look for documentation quickly in the vehicle. We did not open the boot. Mr Botha shot the petrol tank to pieces after which I set the vehicle alight and from there we came back to the RSA side upon which we heard later in Piet Retief that four ANC members were killed in a shooting incident similar to the one where I was involved with at a previous occasion.

MR JANSEN: And the purpose of this group of yours to go to the Swaziland side, was to kill those people there

MR RAS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: And who was in command of that group?

MR RAS: Mr van Dyk was.

MR JANSEN: And similar to the first incident on the 8th June, you did not receive any remuneration for this incident?

MR RAS: No, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: And you regarded it as actions which you participated in against the ANC or against ANC members?

MR RAS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Later during the post mortem inquest which was held with regard to the first incident, did you give evidence?

MR RAS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: And that evidence of yours is not embodied in the documentation before this Committee but the short and long of it is you participated in this defeating the ends of justice and perjury, to describe that scene as one where you acted in self-defence.

MR RAS: That is correct Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: And this you did with what you regarded as your work and in the interests of the country?

MR RAS: That is correct Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Thank you Mr Chairman, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Jansen. I think this would then be a convenient time to take the adjournment. I see it's five to three and as mentioned earlier we said we'd be adjourning at 3 o'clock today. We will therefore adjourn until tomorrow. Will 9 o'clock again be convenient? We'll adjourn until tomorrow at the same venue and we'll start at 9 o'clock in the morning. Thank you.