Special Hearings — Trojan Horse Hearings — 1997-05-21

SALMON PIENAAR: I would say yes they had wide powers in which they could act.  Unfortunately, and I won't say that's correct, I didn't understand the powers of the police because I think there was extended powers on the South African Defence Force as well by a situation like this.  It's difficult for me to judge this at the moment, if, and you know it's easy to sit in an armchair today and look back hindsight and say, okay you could have done this and you could have done that.  At that specific time, I can tell you, that there was a great necessity that I read from what the State in public papers said, that to get the situation back to normal, in other words I think we can expect from people like the police, who were basically responsible for law and order, to apply methods, but I as a soldier would always say, within the limitations of the law.  It doesn't matter what situation is declared by a State.

MR NTSEBEZA: Yes if fact, because we are sitting at this sort of Commission and not being a court of law and so many years thereafter, that I think it is important for us to understand what your feeling is.
Now that you can look back on things, do you in your own opinion, because your opinion will count, having been a member of the armed forces or special citizen forces, and I'm not criticising necessarily the police in this regard, do you think now that you look back on things, that the emergency regulations would, with a little bit more patience on the part of the police, would have provided them with the capacity to effect arrests rather than resorting to the methods that they did resort to, in this specific instance?

SALMON PIENAAR: I can give you a dual answer.  If I say what is my position now, I would say yes it wasn't necessary, but in those days I personally thought that an emergency situation could clear up the problem.
But you know there you were near to the situation, now you're far away, it's easier to have a broad vision at this stage.

MR NTSEBEZA: Now let me ask you about the 15th of October 1985.  When you agreed to this scheme to take place, in other words when you blessed it with your approval, knowing that even as a soldier, you in terms of the emergency regulations, had powers of arrest and detention, didn't you think that it would have been less risky if, for instance, you suggested to those people that rather than set up your own members in the first - because there is bound to be conflict, when once they get attacked they are going to have to retaliate to preserve their own lives, don't you think now that perhaps if you had indicated at that time that, why don't we just go to this place, cordon it and just effect arrests of those people who we suspect as being instigators?   A the law would have allowed you.  I certainly would have protested as a lawyer in that time and I would have tried to take you to court, but you had the law at your disposal to do those sort of things. You had the Army, you could have cordoned the entire Athlone. In fact I think this is what happened after this incident, the place was cordoned off in order for a proper investigation to take place, for people to be arrested and all that.
Now couldn't you have suggested that that is what should have been done in the first place, namely let's just go in the area, let's cordon it off, let's get in there in our numbers, let's make one fell swoop?  We can take those people into detention because the laws allow us and then let's do an investigation having removed virtually everyone who is suspected to be an agitator.

SALMON PIENAAR: I must be quite honest with you and you must accept it in the way I say it.  I thought that this was a good method to arrest people.  I've got no doubts in my mind, why do I say so - what was mentioned to me is, what we'll do is, we'll go into the area.  Whenever we attract stones or whatever it may be, we'll get down from the vehicle and catch these okes, and according to me that's a peaceful way of dealing with it.  I've got no doubt in my mind and if I say to you now, no I think we should have done another operation, I must lie to you.  I thought it was a good way of dealing with it ...(intervention)

MR NTSEBEZA: In other words you are saying, at the time no possibility was raised in your mind that death could result from this sort of method?

SALMON PIENAAR: No Sir, if that was in my mind, I'm telling you I would have sent along my channels a report back to my HQ's saying that my colleagues are executing an operation and I find that that this will result in deaths, and I can tell you that was not part of my task and I would have argued against it all the time.

MR NTSEBEZA: And in fact in that regard, were you aware that these people were intending to arm themselves with AAA and No 1 ammunition type?

SALMON PIENAAR: No I wasn't aware of that, I never saw and I never took notice of any orders that were given to South African Police or South African Railway Police.  The moment I left that JOC I continued with my task and that was normally having orders with my company commanders, telling them what their task for the day is.

MR NTSEBEZA: No more questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: May I just ask whether there are any other questions. No?  Mr Pienaar thank you very much.  I hope Advocate de Jager, you will make your flight back, we thank you.

ADV DE JAGER: Well perhaps we shouldn't make it, we like Cape Town.  And then may I at this stage thank you for the hospitality that we received today and also I wish to make this short submission to you.
You had the opportunity to listen to my client, you had the opportunity to question him and to see him as a person.  He was a citizen force member and I wish to submit on his part that we feel that, and it is our submission on his behalf, that the importance of the work that you are doing and of the report that you're bringing out is also of importance, not only to the families of the deceased children, with whom we have our sympathies, but it is also important to him as an honourable citizen to have a comment in respect of your view of him, and we submit that the way he explained his role to you, the way he has given account of himself, should after all these years of court cases, etc, warrant a positive finding from your part on behalf of my client, and I thank you for listening to us.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr de Jager.

ADV DE JAGER: May we be excused?

CHAIRPERSON: You may be excused, I hope you will get through the traffic.