Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-07-27

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: No Chairperson, not at all.

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

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

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

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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.

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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.

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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.

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

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

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: No Chairperson, not at all.

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

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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?

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: I cannot recall the amount Chairperson.

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

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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?

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: That is correct.

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

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: The same place.

ADV GCABASHE: The same place.

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: Between - about 15 kilometres Chairperson.

ADV GCABASHE: About 15 kilometres.

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: Yes, approximately.

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

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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.

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: No Chairperson.

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

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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.

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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?

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: That is correct.

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

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: That is correct.

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

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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?

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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?

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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.

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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.