Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-07-27

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: I think I did, yes, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Because you said that Mr Deetlefs heard about the shooting, you didn't say that you informed him.

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: No, I informed him.

MR MALAN: When did you notify him?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: I cannot recall if it was the next day or the next morning, or whether it was later that following day.  I'm not certain about the exact time.

MR MALAN: And when you were looking for him before the first incident, by inference I heard that you did indeed speak to him, but that he could not come down?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: That's correct.

MR MALAN: So you did speak to him before the first incident and you told him about the insurgency?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: Yes, I told him about the infiltration.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MS LOCKHAT: You were also the investigating officer.  Were you the investigating officer of the first and the second incident, or only the second incident?  Just clarify that for me.

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: The first and the second incident but during the investigation into the second incident it was taken from me and handed over to Brig van Wyk and later to Brig Engelbrecht.

MS LOCKHAT: You said in your evidence that no-one told you to stop the investigation because you were involved in the first and second.  Didn't Mr Deetlefs tell you to recuse yourself from that position?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: No, he didn't.

MS LOCKHAT: Did the two of you discuss the matter?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: I beg your pardon.

MS LOCKHAT: Did you discuss that you were going to be the investigating officer?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: Yes, he was aware of that, including the officer who was at Middelburg.  They were both aware of it and nobody tried to stop me.

MS LOCKHAT: Let's just get back to the issue of the source.  How long was this person the source of your Security Branch?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: It was quite some time.  I'm not entirely certain of the time period, but it was quite a long period of time.

MS LOCKHAT: A couple of years, a couple of months?  Kindly be a bit more specific.

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: Various months, I wouldn't say years, but quite a few months.

MS LOCKHAT: And how many times did you meet the source?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: I cannot recall, it was a few times.  I cannot recall the number of times.

MS LOCKHAT: Was it about 10 times, 15 times, 5 times?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: No, I wouldn't be able to say anything, that would be speculation, I really cannot recall.

MS LOCKHAT: Can you remember the name of the source?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: Yes, I can.

MS LOCKHAT: Can you please inform us of that name?

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, must this name be disclosed in public?  Surely any source of that nature's life will be in danger?  Is there any need for it to be disclosed?

MS LOCKHAT: I shall leave it in your hands, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well, Mr Moerane what's your ...?

MR MOERANE: Mr Chairman, I know that the question of sources is a difficult one, particularly if the source is still a source at present, but if we are dealing with past incidents and past sources, I think the whole purpose of this inquiry is to get the truth and with specific reference to the facts of this particular case, those that I represent certainly are interested in the identity of the source.  They do not intend taking any action against the source, but they would like the name of the source to be revealed, so that they leave these proceedings at peace, at least knowing who the person is that sold out their loved ones.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, if I may come in here.  Not that I've got a direct interest but I seem to recall that this same issue arose at one of the hearings in Port Elizabeth more than a year ago and I think it was Judge Ngoepe when he was still there, but it might have been one of the other presiding officers that said on a previous occasion when the, I presume I can use the word the full bench, of the Amnesty Committee, the whole issue of sources did arise and that was before you were on that panel and so on and I speak subject to correction, I'm not suggesting that this Commission is bound by precedent, but I think it's important, it's my duty to you, that the full Committee on that occasion ruled that there was no necessity to disclose the identity of sources.  I seem to recall that is the case, so I think that bit of information should also be placed before the Committee to enable you to make a proper decision.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I'm indebted to my colleague Mr Booyens in this regard.  I respectfully submit, Mr Chairman, should the source's name be revealed, that person will be killed and we are dealing with the past, it is a matter of the past, Mr Chairman, and should it be essential for this name to be disclosed, I respectfully submit then the Committee should sit behind closed doors, exclude the public and hold an inquiry as to why it would be essential that the name be disclosed to the Committee only and not to the public or anyone else, Mr Chairman.  There's no need, I respectfully submit, why that name should be disclosed.  There is no dispute at this stage that there was a source that conveyed information to the police, which resulted in the people being picked up, conveyed and subsequently killed.  That is not part of the issues as far as this particular issue is concerned.
	I respectfully submit, Mr Chairman, this matter can be decided without the name being disclosed to the Committee or anyone else for that matter and the fact that the family wants to know the name of that person, will take the matter no further Mr Chairman, apart from knowing it and for what reason only, and the reason is obvious, that person will be eliminated afterwards.

CHAIRPERSON: From what we've heard and I just toss it in,

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: Was this person not something more than just a source because we've heard that not only was information supplied, but that the source also played an active role in respect of the shooting that took place in Swaziland by going back and relaying false information.

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct, the informer was very much involved in infiltrations.

CHAIRPERSON: So that person is, what I'm asking is, was that person more an implicated person rather than just an informer?  It was not just a question of supplying information on request or getting it, but playing an active role which we know led to the death of one person in Swaziland and also probably to the death of the four people in the second incident.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, is that the Committee's view, that the source knew there would be an ambush and the person's would be killed?

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I'm just putting it to you, I'm not saying it's a finding, but Mr Prinsloo said that the source - Mr Pienaar said that when the first incident had to be kept quiet because it would otherwise upset the possibility of the second infiltration taking place and that was done by the source going back to the people in Swaziland and relaying false information about the success of the first incident, thereby prompting the second infiltration.  Now is that just being an informer?  What I'm asking, is that just being an informer or is it going somewhat beyond that and actually now playing an active role in the incident and thereby becoming, in terms of our Act, more an implicated person rather than just an informer?