Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-07-26

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Lockhat, no sorry, Mr Jansen, do you have any questions you'd like to put to the witness?

MR JANSEN: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR JANSEN: Mr Pienaar, during these operations at Piet Retief we could probably accept that the persons involved there relied upon your intelligence and the accuracy of your information.

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR JANSEN: In 1988, for how long had you been in the Security Police?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: I think it was approximately 12 years.

MR JANSEN: And am I correct when I say that 8 years thereof were specifically related to the former Eastern Transvaal?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR JANSEN: You were well familiar with the existing information regarding the ANC's activities in Swaziland?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: Yes, I was aware of certain things which took place there.

MR JANSEN: You must have been aware of the names of certain individuals?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: Yes.

MR JANSEN: Now were you satisfied in your summaries that these persons who were coming through were trained ANC cadres and that your summary was accurate?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: Yes, I was satisfied with it.

MR JANSEN: It would appear to me that to a great degree thereafter, I want to refer you, for the purposes of the record, to certain aspects of the record and ask you whether this correlates with your recollection and whether this is also a correct summary of the events.  If we look at bundle 2, page 48, have you seen this document before?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: I think so, yes, Chairperson, I'm not entirely certain about it.

MR JANSEN: Well it may be that this was the sort of document that was submitted to the post mortem inquest.

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: I cannot recall whether or not this was submitted.

MR JANSEN: Well on face value do you confirm this document?  That Lindwe Mthembu was regarded as
"a soldier of our people's army, Umkhonto weSizwe"
as it appears there in the second paragraph.

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR JANSEN: Is that in accordance with your evidence of that stage?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: Yes.

MR JANSEN: Then there is something that you may not know about, but for the purposes of the record, page 61...(intervention)

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon Mr Jansen, is this relevant to Mr Ras' version, is it in dispute in any way because it does form part of the bundle?   I beg your pardon, I'm just asking whether or not it's necessary to go through this?

MR JANSEN: Chairperson at the end of the day I will argue that it is not necessary but suggestions have been made that these persons were not connected to the ANC and I am also not going to present that this information is direct evidence which can be unequivocally proven, this is something which can be questioned, it is of second rank nature.

MR MALAN: I don't wish to stop you but if I understand you correctly, the witness has already said that he understands that Mr Ras stood under the command of Mr de Kock and that it was not Ras' duty to confirm or deny the information and you are acting for him.  If it's absolutely vital for you to go through this, go ahead, but otherwise I don't really understand why.

MR JANSEN: Chairperson then for the purposes of the record I want to indicate that at certain places there are indications within the record which connect the deceased  to the ANC and more specifically with MK and that I will leave this over for the sake of argument.  I may also for the sake of information point out the question that you put regarding Mr Adriaan Vlok.  On page 121 of Bundle 2 there is a report which was placed on the 17th June which refers to an announcement made by Adriaan Vlok the previous day, which was the 16th.

MR JANSEN: I just want to see if I have any other - Mr Chairman, I have no further questions, thank you very much.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JANSEN

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Mr Moerane?  Mr Lamey?
Yes, Mr Lamey.

MR LAMEY: I apologise, Mr Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Mr Pienaar, I omitted to ask you whether you were the investigating officer with regard to the second incident as well?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: I began it and then the investigation was taken away from me and Brig van Wyk became involved in the matter.  After him it was Brig Engelbrecht.

MR LAMEY: Is the only fact which was false according to you in the statement you made the involvement of Mr de Kock, or are there other statements?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: No, I can only recall saying that Mr de Kock was not there.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you say that the minibus belonged to the Witbank Security Branch?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: I don't believe that I actually stated that in the case itself, but the fact that it later emerged that the vehicle was that property was stolen by the media, but I never reported that.

MR MALAN: But you never said where the vehicle came from, while you knew?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: I'm not certain of that, I may have said that it came from Witbank because Mr Rorich himself was present.

MR MALAN: In the second investigation of the 2nd incident, did you say that it was a trap?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: I'm not entirely certain, but I think I may have said that.  That it was not a stolen vehicle and that it came from Witbank.  I'm not entirely certain about it but I do believe that I said so.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey.

MR LAMEY: Mr Pienaar, wasn't it also so that in that inquest you had to suggest that there was a road-block instead of an ambush?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: Yes, Chairperson, we spoke of a vehicle with a blue light which was parked in the road.  That is correct.

MR LAMEY: In other words the stopper vehicle.  That is also false information?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson, I have nothing further.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Lamey.  Mr Moerane do you have any questions you'd like to put to Mr Pienaar?

MR MOERANE: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR MOERANE: Mr Pienaar, is it correct that you made your application for amnesty on the 13th December 1996?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: I'll have to consult the date, I'm not certain of the date.  13th December 1996.

MR MOERANE: Do you know when the cut-off date was for amnesty applications?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: No, it was a short while after the application was submitted, I'm not certain of what the precise date was.

CHAIRPERSON: The ultimate cut-off date was September 1997.  Yes, but there were various - the cut-off date kept being extended, but the last cut-off date, the last final date was September 1997, but I'm not sure when the cut-off date was after that date you've mentioned now December 1996.

MR MALAN: 15th December.

CHAIRPERSON: It was the 15th December I'm told by Mr Malan, but that later extended.

MR MOERANE: Well at the time that you made your application for amnesty, you did not know that the cut-off date was going to be extended.

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: I don't believe I knew that.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I don't think anyone would have known that, those extensions only came later.

MR MOERANE: So it appears, in a manner of speaking, you made your application at the 11th hour?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: Yes, we submitted it late.

MR MOERANE: Is there any reason why you delayed until the 11th hour?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: No, Chairperson, there was no specific reason.

MR MOERANE: You see, there is something that concerns me about not only your application, but also the applications of Maj Hayes, Capt Barnard, Maj Theron in particular and that is they were all made more or less the same time, do you confirm that?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: That's correct, yes, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: They were made from apparently the same computer.

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: Yes, I believe so.