Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-07-27

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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?

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

MR MOERANE: Who showed him the ambush spot?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: I showed it to him, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: When?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: It was later that same afternoon.

MR MOERANE: Who gave him his instructions?

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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?

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

MR MOERANE: What instructions was he given?

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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?

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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.

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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?

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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?

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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?

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: Excuse me?

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

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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?

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: Yes, we expected them to be armed.

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

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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?

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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.

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: That may have been so, Chairperson.

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

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: It may be so, Chairperson.

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

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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.

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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.

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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.

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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?