Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-07-27

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 MOERANE: And as far as the second one is concerned, "Howard Sifiso Nxumalo...(indistinct) Fracture of the neck vertebrae"

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: That is correct.

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

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: That is correct.

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

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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?

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: No, Chairperson.

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

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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,
"I am satisfied that this was a police action which had a legitimate objective, namely the arrest of persons with regard to whom there was more than a reasonable suspicion",
This was really based on what you had told the magistrate, that this was an attempt to arrest the people?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR MOERANE: And also you had lied giving the following results, as far as the ruling was concerned,
"I am satisfied that the steps which were taken in preparation for the arrest, are proportional to the use of an ordered police force".
That finding was also based on the evidence that was presented to the magistrate.

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: That's correct.

MR MOERANE: And of course on the eloquent address of the prosecutor, who told the magistrate at page 277 that
"The purpose of these police officers was to arrest the persons."
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
"they switched on a light."

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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.

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: Yes, the blue light.

MR MOERANE: That was a lie.

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

MR MOERANE: And going back to the judgment on page 278, line 23,
"There can be no doubt that an ambush was set to which the persons were lured and in which they were killed"

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

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: Yes, it was an ambush.

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

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: We go on further.
"But that this was done during circumstances which were described here as a moving road-block".
There was no road-block at all.

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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?

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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.

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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.

MS LOCKHAT: Mr Pienaar, you called in Vlakplaas, that is C1.

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: Correct.

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

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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.

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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?

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: No.

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

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: Former operations?

MS LOCKHAT: Covert operations.

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: No.

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

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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?

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: No, I didn't.

MS LOCKHAT: Why not?

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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?

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: No, I didn't.

MS LOCKHAT: Why not?

FREDERIK JOHANNES 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?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: Yes.

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