Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-07-26

MR PRINSLOO: Did you in that case lead the inquest investigation?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: Yes, I took statements in this regard.

MR PRINSLOO: In the first instance, did you hear that questions were put with regard to clothing which belonged to the deceased, that includes Mr Naidoo and the three ladies?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: That's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: What is the position there?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: I can only mention that a while after the incident the deceased' parents were there.  I showed them the clothing and I asked them if they wanted to clothing back and they said no, they did not want the clothing.  The deceased's father asked ...(intervention)

MR PRINSLOO: Is that Mr Naidoo?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: Yes, Mr Naidoo. ... asked whether there was not a gold chain around his son's neck, and I informed him that I did not see such a gold chain.  Afterwards I destroyed the clothing because it was torn and bloodied.

MR PRINSLOO: Were there any prescriptions with regard to bloodied clothes and such things?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: Yes, Chairperson, because of the various illnesses which come about there such clothing is destroyed if the next of kin did not want it.

MR PRINSLOO: Why only after a while were the persons informed that people were killed there?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: It was to prevent that head office immediately disclosed the events there and also because these persons in Durban, some of the deceased, refused to answer Durban's requests as to where their family members were, they denied to Durban Security Branch that their family members had left the country and later they arrived with their legal representatives at Piet Retief.

MR PRINSLOO: With regard to the investigation in the second incident, is it so that Col de Kock's name was not indicated as the commander there?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: But Mr Deetlefs was indicated as the commander?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: Yes, because his division was there and because somebody, I'm not sure who it was, said by means of Ermelo office that we had to leave Mr de Kock's name out of that incident.

MR PRINSLOO: Was there any reason for that, or did you draw any inference because of that?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: I understood that they did not want to involved Col de Kock with two incidents so close to each other, and I did not make any further enquiries about it.

MR PRINSLOO: Is it so that the two investigations with regard to the inquest, were taken over, or the first one was taken over by Brig van Wyk, attached to the Detective Branch?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: That is correct, Chairperson, he continued with it right up to his retirement date where the matters were handed over to Brig Engelbrecht.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you know from your own knowledge or not that the reports which were directed at head office from Middelburg were removed from Middelburg offices?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: I don't know thereof, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: During the post-mortem inquest you gave evidence with regard to Mr Naidoo and the ladies.

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: I did.

MR PRINSLOO: And is it so that there in certain instances you told lies?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: Yes, I did, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Why did you lie there?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: It was to protect the State and the police from this incident where people were killed without weapons and which could be exploited by the enemy of the time.

MR PRINSLOO: And Mr Pienaar, in the second instance, did you also give evidence there?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: Yes, I did testify there, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And in that instance it was already put by Mr Moerane, who appears for the family, that apparently the family requested a postponement, which was not granted to them and that the evidence was only put from the one side?  ...(transcriber's own interpretation)

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And in that instance can you recall what you testified there, were there any lies?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: None, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Pienaar, with regard to the first instance, did you realise ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, did you at that second inquest mention that Mr de Kock was the commander?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: Excuse me, Chairperson, I just wanted to mention that now.  I did not mention it there, that Mr de Kock was not there.  Or that he was there, I did not mention that.

MR PRINSLOO: And to follow up on the question of the Honourable Chairperson, it's that in that sense you told a lie there?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And with regard to the first instance, is it so that you made yourself guilty of murder, that four people were cold bloodily killed there?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: That is correct, Chairperson.  I regarded it as a time of war against the ANC and the ANC saw it as war against the Security Forces.  It was an undeclared war which was started by people before my time.

MR PRINSLOO: Excuse me, Mr Pienaar, did you think that one could shoot unarmed persons in a war?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: Chairperson, in that instance we could have waited and walked closer to the vehicle, but if one did that and they were armed, then we would have been killed.

MR MALAN: No, I asked you a general question, because you apply for murder, you don't apply in the sense that it was a matter of self-defence.

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: So my question to you is, do you think that one could shoot unarmed people in a war?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: No, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And to follow up, Mr Pienaar, you believe that those people were armed, ongoing by the sign that was given by the driver?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And shots were fired before you fired?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: That's correct.  And mention was never made by the source or anybody that women would infiltrate the country.  It was said that it was trained MK members, but it was not mentioned that any women would be among them.

MR PRINSLOO: On that point.  In general, is it so or not that women who were members of MK and received training would infiltrate the country with arms?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And then furthermore, Mr Pienaar, you also apply that you defeated the ends of justice by disclosing the incorrect facts to the Court.

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: That you perjured yourself.

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: That's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And in the second instance you also apply for murder as well as you had disclosed false facts with regard to who was present.

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And what the true action would be.

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: That is correct Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And you apply for amnesty for any other competent judgment that would emanate from the facts held
 before this Committee as well as for any other unlawful acts which might lead to civil charges.

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: That is correct Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Just one moment's indulgence Chairperson.
Thank you, Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO

CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt do you have any questions you'd like to put to the applicant?

MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Pienaar, the persons who were under your command were Mr Hayes, Barnard and Theron, is that correct?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: And Botha Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: More specifically Mr Hayes, Barnard and Theron, they were not involved with the discussions between yourself and Mr de Kock, is that correct?