Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-07-27

MR PRINSLOO: ;   Mr Chairman, I respectfully submit, in as far as the informer is concerned, the informer played a particular role depending on the circumstances of that of an informer and the manner to obtain information, to convey information and to ensure that the information supplied would be utilised by the police in the fashion in which it was done.  I respectfully submit, Mr Chairman, as to whether that person is to be regarded as an implicated person, one will have to probe this matter further in order to establish that and if that is the case then I respectfully submit, Mr Chairman, other steps will have to be taken in order to inform that particular person so that that person can secure the proper representation, but at this stage it does not appear to be so, that that person knew that there would be a killing taking place, apart from facilitating the police that the people be assisted in infiltrating the country, in order for the police to apprehend these people,  unless that person knew before hand, was part and parcel of a conspiracy to kill, but that is not the evidence of the applicant, Mr Chairman.  That is my respectful submission.

CHAIRPERSON: Just before you proceed.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it's just been pointed out to me, was it not also that the informer arranged the transport on the other side to get them close to the border where they would cross to the waiting vehicle, all that sort of thing?  It was not only a question of supplying information, but of making various arrangements and also as I've mentioned earlier, supplying some misinformation, but also it would seem, and just from what I've heard here, that the identity of the informer may be known.  I mean it's been mentioned that first of all, and it's been agreed in evidence by both Mr Pienaar and Mr de Kock, that the informer was a female, that she was arrested by the ANC, that she was then detained at a place called Sun City near Lusaka for approximately a year and later released etc.  That information is known.

MR PRINSLOO: ;   Mr Chairman, I respectfully submit, if that is the same person and upon the questioning of Mr Moerane, my learned colleague, that he might know who that person is, is there then any need for the name to be revealed?  At this stage know one knows, or at least I don't know exactly where she is, will her life not be at risk if it's disclosed where she is?  That's apart from Mr Chairman, your further suggestion to me with regard to the issue of implication, if she's not to be regarded as an implicated person.  I respectfully submit then Mr Moerane, with respect, needs no further information for purpose of questioning.  If he is aware who that person is, he is a member of the court and Mr Moerane no doubt will not disclose it to anyone else, like we won't do it.  Now I respectfully submit, Mr Chairman, in the circumstances as already indicated to the Committee, there is not need for the name to be disclosed or revealed to the public at large.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, now what, I don't think Mr Moerane would argue that we, as a Committee, have to know the name of the informer in order to arrive at some decision in this matter.  Whether the informer was X or Y isn't going to affect all the factual evidence that we have before us, to enable us to arrive at a decision one way or the other.  However, and perhaps you can just make brief submissions of this, what would be the situation or how relevant would it be if it was a question of, to be taken into account in determining whether this particular application has made a full disclosure.

MR PRINSLOO: I respectfully submit, Mr Chairman, the applicant indicated that there was a source and the whole incident was arranged via a source and this information was arranged via a source and the evidence indicates that and the evidence of Mr de Kock, the first applicant, confirms that, with respect Mr Chairman.  There's no suggestion that there was no source.  There's no suggestion that the source did not facilitate this.   That is not the case of the family or any other persons Mr Chairman, and I respectfully submit, the applicant Mr Pienaar at this stage, has made a full disclosure.  He said he made use of a source and he even went further, from questioning by my learned colleague Mr Moerane and indicating who that person could be.  In the circumstances, I respectfully submit, Mr Chairman, the only issue here is that the Committee must guard against disclosing the name of that particular person, as this is a very, very - a matter which must be regarded with great circumspection as far as that person's life is concerned.  Will that person not be killed?  She was already arrested by the ANC as you indicated Mr Chairman and that person was already questioned.  What will the other people do, the public at large, when they know who that person is?  That person might be living in this area, might be living elsewhere, we don't know and I respectfully submit, in the interests of that particular person, that name should not be revealed.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Moerane.

MR MOERANE: Thank you.  Mr Chairman, we are involved here with a public inquiry into an application for amnesty by the various applicants.  These applications involve the unlawful killing of certain people, of 9 people.  The relatives of these people are here and they have come to find out how their loved ones were killed, why they were killed, by whom they were killed.
	Now, what we have so far Mr Chairman, are the identities of the persons who actually pulled the trigger.  We know why they were killed, if that will be the evidence of the rest of the applicants that these were ambushes.  We do not know, from the side of people who under normal circumstances would have been sympathetic to the cause of the deceased, who were involved.  I think it's important for the families to know who amongst the ranks of the ANC or their sympathisers was involved in the death of their loved ones.  The identity of that person, from my questioning of Col de Kock and from my questioning of W/O Pienaar, is a person who has made a statement, a statement before this Honourable Committee.  I haven't disclosed the name to those instructing me, but I don't think I should be privy to information to which those instructing me are not privy.  I think they should know what I know.  There's no reason for me to conceal from them information which they seek, information which is important to them, so that they also can begin the process of healing when they know the full facts surrounding the death of their loved ones.  I do not believe that this person is still a source or an informer of the police and I submit, Mr Chairman, that her identity should be disclosed.  Those I represent have no malicious intent against her, they just want to know, that is all.  Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it known whether this person is still an informer on the register of informers?