Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-07-26

MR MOERANE: They are made in the same language.  A great part of the applications are word for word the same, identical.

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: That may be possible.

MR MOERANE: Even mistakes, patent mistakes are the same.

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: I did not read everybody's application, it may be possible, I am not certain.

MR PRINSLOO: At this stage I'd like to intervene.  When these applications were drafted the applicant could well have said "I've read the application of Mr X and I confirm that"  but for the purpose of expedience, each one has to have his own application.  If he's not in possession of the other one's application, then surely it would be superfluous not to copy it in the circumstances.  It was not up to the witness and it was us who drafter the applications Mr Chairman. Instructions were given to us, we drafted the applications and now the applicant's being accused of this.

CHAIRPERSON: He hasn't been accused, he's just been merely asked a few questions about the similarity between the applications, I haven't heard any accusations yet.  Maybe a question will be coming out of it.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you.

MR MOERANE: Well, not yet.  For instance there are strangely similar mistakes.  For instance all of you say that the people who died in the first incident were three persons.

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: That is a faulty statement because there were definitely four persons.

MR MOERANE: Well, and you signed the affidavit to that effect, didn't you?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: Yes, I did.

MR MOERANE: There's also the question of Rasjbansi, same spelling right through.

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

MR MOERANE: The spelling of one of the deceased, Kotosa, same mistake right through.

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: That may be possible.

MR MOERANE: Was this a genuine application for amnesty, Mr Pienaar?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: Would you repeat your question please?

MR MOERANE: Was this a genuine application for amnesty?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: Yes, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: Are you in a position to tell the Committee, I'm asking about you now, not your legal adviser, but are you in a position to say why there's such a similarity, word for word in these applications?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: I cannot say myself.

MR MOERANE: Was that not also a problem at the inquest, that statements were in identical words, statements of different witnesses?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: I read the statement Mr Chairperson and there were certain unclarities.

MR MOERANE: You say in your application amongst other things and you have not said that in your evidence, paragraph 6, page 114, first bundle, 2nd sentence,
"I was under the impression that I saw the barrel of a gun."

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: Now that comes close to the false version that you and others proffered at the inquest.

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: No, Chairperson, I said during the investigation that a shot was fired from the vehicle at us and here I was simply under the impression, I'm not saying that this is fact.  I was under the impression.  It could have been anything, it could have been the person himself, it may have been his hand, it doesn't mean that it is the same as the post mortem inquest.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry I missed it, what did you say at the inquest?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: That the person fired at us from within the vehicle.

MR MOERANE: Well, in this particular statement, bundle 1, weren't you trying to stick as close as you could to the original version?  In other words, give the impression that when you shot, at least you were under the impression at the time that there was a firearm, barrel of firearm, pointing at you.

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: That was only my impression, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: What gave you that impression?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: As I have said, the window started opening, it may have been the person's hand, because we were expecting armed persons I may have had the impression that it may have been a weapon, but that was only my impression.

MR MOERANE: Wasn't the light shining into that motor vehicle?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: That is correct, Chairperson, but the windows were totally fogged up, it was at night, and one cannot see exactly  all the things that happen and to say what it was.

MR MOERANE: You mentioned this source that gave you the information with regard to the infiltration on the first occasion.  Did I understand you correctly to be saying that that was actually not your source, but it was Mr Theron's source?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: That's correct, Chairperson.  The actual handler of the source was Mr Theron.

MR MOERANE: But was that source available to you also?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: Yes, I would never have consulted him alone, that was not the use except for when Mr Theron was on leave, then I would have done so otherwise it would be in his presence.

MR MOERANE: So, was the practice then that a particular handler had his own sources, but in the absence of that handler somebody else could have access to that source?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: That is correct, Chairperson.  Usually it would be the Commander, because there is a position of trust that is established by the member and the source.  It is not well that one person has sole access to such a source.

MR MOERANE: Now you've told the Committee that this source was always reliable.

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: Now did that source give you any information with regard to the infiltration that was due to take place on the night of the 8th June?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: She did inform about that, about the infiltrations.

MR MOERANE: What was her information, what did she say?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, is this in regard to this particular investigation?

CHAIRPERSON: The 8th of June one, is that correct Mr Moerane?  He's asking about the first incident.  What information was received relating to the first incident, the one that took place on the 8th of June?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: Transport had to be arranged for trained MK members to infiltrate the country and which we indeed arranged and that there were several groups which had to infiltrate from Swaziland and it all had to take place as quickly as possible.

MR MOERANE: Yes, Mr Pienaar, I'm talking to you about a specific infiltration.  The infiltration of the evening of the 8th June  1988.

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: The information was given by the source, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Moerane wants to know if there's any more detail relating to the 8th June?  Was there any further detail?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: No, only that trained persons had to be brought into the RSA.

CHAIRPERSON: Was there any detail given about those people and their numbers etc?  In other words, what made you decide to send a Toyota Corolla rather than a minibus?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: No, Chairperson, no numbers were given nor was any sex given.  I don't believe that the informant had that information because the other person who was killed in Swaziland later, had brought the person to her and she did not know how many persons there would be.

MR MOERANE: Well, how would you have been able to cater for the number of persons if you did not know how many people were coming that particular night?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: It was a vehicle that was available and I took a chance with the vehicle.  The vehicle was actually too small for the persons, Chairpersons, because there were four persons plus the driver, which makes up 5 for a Toyota Corolla 1300 which was a bit much.

MR MOERANE: You're telling this learned Committee that you did not know how many people were going to enter the country that night?