Amnesty Hearings — Boksburg — 1998-09-14

MR VAN ZYL: In other words there is a certain measure of discretion which you held?

MR PRINSLOO: Before we went over to this purposeful action, during this period of time, the week or two preceding, I or no other member of general could simply take a decision and then consult with the staff after the fact.  It was essential that all decisions enjoyed the approval of the generals in staff.

MR VAN ZYL: Very well, let us just briefly look at the situation surrounding the discretion which was left to certain members of the AWB.  In your evidence in chief you testified that with regard to an order which you gave to Clifton Barnard, he was to apply his own discretion and you left it up to him, with regard to the execution of his duties.
	At a later stage you also testified, when you gave evidence regarding the Peugeot and the bomb which was supposed to be planted in that vehicle, you mentioned that the person who was to drive the vehicle would have to use his own discretion with regard to the specific placing of the vehicle.
	My entire argument is that according to your own version a lot of mention was made about discretion and in my opinion much was left up to the specific member's discretion.  Would you agree with me that certain decisions were in fact left to their discretion?

MR PRINSLOO: But you must understand what I mean by that.  You are dealing with highly trained military personnel or members.  It wasn't always necessary at that stage to indicate a purposeful or specific destination in a town or in an area or in a residential area.
	That person would have to use his own discretion.  If it wasn't safe to enter such an area, he would have to realise himself that it would be preferable to carry this out in another area or in another town, not in that specific street.

MR VAN ZYL: That said in one breath but in another breach would you agree with me, and you also testified as such, that the hierarchy indeed was a para-military hierarchy which was similar to a military set-up and that certain rank orders of instruction had to be observed.  And isn't it true that in such a military hierarchy express instructions are given to members, isn't that how it would operate?

MR PRINSLOO: No, ...[intervention]

MR VAN ZYL: Mr van Zyl, that is if you are dealing with the regular step, rules and regulations in the regular military body.  Are you attempting to apply that to this?

MR VAN ZYL: My question deals with the fact that in the one breath the witness has testified that there was a certain measure of discretion which was left over and that is basically a statement which I'm putting to him.  I'm asking why can it be like that if, according to his own version, he testified that there was a certain rank order of command which had to be strictly observed.

CHAIRPERSON: What is your case then?

MR VAN ZYL: My case is exactly that, that a certain measure of discretion was left to the witness to make certain decisions.

CHAIRPERSON: But he has said so.

MR VAN ZYL: Indeed.  The rest of my questioning will then make it clearer.
	You testified further that with specific relation to the bomb attacks you received instructions from Ackerman, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that's correct.

MR VAN ZYL: To what extent did Ackerman take those decisions, was that in consultation with the rest of the staff or did he in his turn receive his instructions from someone else?

MR PRINSLOO: No, not at all, in consultation with the staff.  He could not take a decision by himself.

MR VAN ZYL: And were such decisions with regard to the planting of bombs, taken at a meeting during which you were present?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that's correct.

MR VAN ZYL: Did that order come from someone specific and if so, who?

MR PRINSLOO: Specifically which explosion or task or order?

MR VAN ZYL: Let us take the general instructions with regard to the planting of bombs in the former PWV area.

MR PRINSLOO: I don't understand what you mean.

MR VAN ZYL: My question is whether Mr Ackerman received his instructions specifically at that meeting from someone higher than him, and if so, what the instruction was?

MR PRINSLOO: Well that was in consultation, in co-operation with the entire staff that the decision was made to plant the bombs.  He had no instructions from a higher authority.

MR VAN ZYL: And you testified that you received instructions from Ackerman himself, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that's correct.  You could call it an instruction but it was more specifically highlighted to me.

MR VAN ZYL: And was it highlighted to you during that meeting or after the meeting?

MR PRINSLOO: Which meeting are you referring to?

MR VAN ZYL: The one at Fyndooringtjies.

MR PRINSLOO: It was highlighted to me.

MR VAN ZYL: During the meeting?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that's correct.

MR VAN ZYL: So you received express instructions during the meeting?

MR PRINSLOO: That's correct.

MR VAN ZYL: You testified with regard to the Jan Smuts bomb, that you were present on the farm.  Before then you testified that you were struggling to establish communications with head office and that there were certain aspects which you wanted to discuss with some of the other generals, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR VAN ZYL: At which stage, if you could just inform me once more, were you told that a bomb was to be planted at Jan Smuts Airport?

MR PRINSLOO: Well that must have been during the morning, but I can't give you an exact time.  However it did take place during the visit made by the staff from Ventersdorp.

MR VAN ZYL: Very well.  And who specifically gave you the order?

MR PRINSLOO: There were at least three members present who I can recall.

MR VAN ZYL: That being?

MR PRINSLOO: General Kiewiet Roodt, among others, General Cruywagen.  I can't say with certainly whether General Ackerman was present.  I would be lying if I were to tell you specifically who was there, I can't recall exactly.

MR VAN ZYL: In your evidence in chief you testified that the generals came to you and told you that everything was in order and that you should.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR VAN ZYL: Why didn't you mention at that specific stage that you had received instructions to go ahead with the planting of a bomb at Jan Smuts Airport?

MR PRINSLOO: You must remember that at that stage we were talking about the previous evening, what led to it, why these people came to see me.  They visited me with a specific reason because it was a priority with us  to set up communications with the other areas in the country and I wanted to clear that up.

MR VAN ZYL: Very well, but you will agree with me that it was also a priority to receive instructions with regard to the planting of those bombs, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: If the persons had not come through to the game farm I would have gone to find out what was going for what.

MR VAN ZYL: You testified that your instructions were to the effect that you should create an international incident?

MR PRINSLOO: That's correct.

MR VAN ZYL: Were those the specific words in which you were told?

MR PRINSLOO: Well I wouldn't say that those were the specific words but it boiled down to that.

MR VAN ZYL: But what were the specific words?

CHAIRPERSON: But he's just said that he can't remember.  He says according to what he can remember it boiled down to the fact that they wanted to create an international incident.

MR VAN ZYL: So therefore you can't remember the specific words?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I can't.

MR VAN ZYL: Would you agree with me that the international media during that period was primarily aimed at South Africa?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, to a certain extent.

MR VAN ZYL: And would you also agree with me that the bombs which exploded at the Jan Smuts Airport would also have attracted the international media to South Africa?