=====================================================================
ON RESUMPTION 21ST JULY 1999 - DAY 8
=====================================================================
 ON RESUMPTION 21ST JULY 1999 - DAY 8

CHRISTOPHER MOSIANE: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Good morning everybody. Today we are continuing with the evidence of Mr Mosiane. Mr Hattingh.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: (cont) 

&#9;Thank you, Chairman. Mr Mosiane, I just want to come back to one or two issues that I've already dealt with yesterday before we continue. May I refer you to bundle 3(a) at page 132?

MR MOSIANE: What's the page again?

CHAIRPERSON: 3(a) 132, page 132 of bundle 3(a).

MR HATTINGH: You are questioned here, still by counsel for the State and round about line 20 he says to you, "We will later return to this form when we have once again discussed the matter of Japie Maponya. I want you to think back to the time when you were in Josini and tell us what happened during that time." You will reply to this question as follows: "Usually if a member was sent to perform work or service for example in Josini, it would happen that you would be called immediately, suddenly from there to the farm. I remember it clearly that that is what took place regarding me." Do you confirm that that is still your version?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you. Now, you said yesterday that when you arrived back at Vlakplaas you received certain instructions and you thereupon proceeded to Krugersdorp.

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Are you certain about that?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Because at page 134 of the same bundle, round about the third paragraph you are asked the following question, "You must be able to explain to the Court very carefully. Was this on the same day that you returned from Josini, when you received the instructions and drove, or did it perhaps take you longer to go?" You reply to this question as follows, "I can no longer recall whether we arrived at Vlakplaas and slept there, or whether we arrived at Vlakplaas, received the orders to carry out that mission, I'm no longer certain". What is the position now Mr Mosiane? Did you spend the night at Vlakplaas before you went to Krugersdorp the next day, or did you go on the same day?

MR MOSIANE: Chairperson, I think we did not sleep at Vlakplaas. We arrived on that day then we received instructions that there is an operation which needs to be executed at Krugersdorp.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Mosiane, when you say we arrived, was that the whole group that was in Josini that arrived together or did you go separately from Josini to Vlakplaas?

MR MOSIANE: Chairperson, I'm talking about my own team. There were about more than two teams in Josini. We were all called back to Vlakplaas. When I speak about us arriving at Vlakplaas, I'm talking about my own team, which drove in a kombi, which the team leader was Sam Radebe.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR HATTINGH: And the other members who were in Josini, were they already at the farm when you arrived there, or did they arrive after you did?

MR MOSIANE: If I remember well, Chairperson, there were those who arrived before us at Vlakplaas.

MR HATTINGH: Was Willie Nortje one of them?

MR MOSIANE: I believe so, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Now when you received your instructions to Krugersdorp, you were only told to approach Mr Japie Maponya and to try and obtain information from him, is that correct?

MR MOSIANE: Please repeat your question, Sir.

MR HATTINGH: When you received your instructions in Krugersdorp, you were instructed to approach Mr Maponya under false pretences, as you explained yesterday, in order to try and obtain information from him about his brother's whereabouts?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Those were the only instructions you received?

MR MOSIANE: Correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: You did not know - was it discussed what would happen if Mr Maponya would refuse to give you the information?

MR MOSIANE: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And the possibility of kidnapping or abducting him in order to force the information from him, was that not discussed at all before you departed for Krugersdorp?

MR MOSIANE: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Now, in your evidence in the De Kock trial you spoke about a Jetta, can I refer you to it at page 134 or 3(a)?

You said - I don't want to read all of it, you are questioned still by Mr deMylon and he said to you about a third from the top of the page "Very well". I interrupted you, "I beg your pardon" and you then continued, "but what I do remember, what I now recall, recall in my mind, I remember that there was a vehicle which was disguised there. It was tuned." Mr deMylon then said to you, "Disguised?" And you continued "You see it was a small vehicle a Volkswagen Fox, or a Volkswagen Jetta. I realised that this particular vehicle, you know what they do in the vehicle, they took diesel oil and smeared it at the back on the registration number and the number-plate. They smeared the back in such a fashion and then they took soil. The soil or the sand was then strewn over that diesel oil. It creates the impression that this car, this vehicle, has travelled over a long distance on a gravel road. "Now, do you recall that evidence Mr Mosiane?

MR MOSIANE: I do remember, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did that actually occur?

MR MOSIANE: Correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did you know why they were doing it?

MR MOSIANE: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did you not ask anybody?

MR MOSIANE: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: That vehicle which you described here, that was the Jetta in which Mr Maponya was placed in Krugersdorp after he'd been abducted, or kidnapped, is that correct?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did you expect to see that vehicle in Krugersdorp that day?

MR MOSIANE: No, Chairperson, I didn't expect that car.

MR HATTINGH: Did you expect to see any other members of your team in Krugersdorp on that particular day, apart from the members who accompanied you?

MR MOSIANE: No, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Hattingh, if I could just ask a question please? Mr Mosiane, this piece of evidence where the sand was thrown on the number plate, where did that take place, in Krugersdorp or at Vlakplaas?

MR MOSIANE: At Vlakplaas, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And was that before you yourself left for Krugersdorp?

MR MOSIANE: Yes, it was during when I was taking my instructions from Mr Eugene de Kock.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

MR HATTINGH: I think at Mr de Kock's trial you said that that was done by Mr Snor Vermeulen, whom you mentioned yesterday, is that correct?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: You then departed for Krugersdorp and you went to Mr Maponya, is that correct?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did you introduce yourself to him?

MR MOSIANE: I did, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: As what? Did you tell him your correct name?

MR MOSIANE: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: What name did you give him?

MR MOSIANE: I don't remember the name I used, but I know that I gave him a wrong name.

MR HATTINGH: Was it not your MK name?

MR MOSIANE: Not at all, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Why did you not give him your correct name?

MR MOSIANE: We don't work that way, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And this conversation that you had with him, did that take place inside the bank?

MR MOSIANE: Inside the bank, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And you also showed him the Makarov inside the bank?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: How did he react to that, when you showed him the firearm?

MR MOSIANE: Negatively, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: What do you mean by that?

MR MOSIANE: I did not receive the response which I expected from him.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, but did he appear to be startled or surprised when you showed him the firearm?

MR MOSIANE: Yes, he was surprised, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did he remonstrate with you for bringing a firearm into the bank?

MR MOSIANE: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And then he told you that he'd already been approached by another person, who was also trying to obtain the same information that you were trying to get from him?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did you ask him who that person was?

MR MOSIANE: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: You then returned to your people, who were waiting in the vehicle, is that correct?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Just refresh my memory, what type of vehicle was it?

MR MOSIANE: It was a VW panel van.

MR HATTINGH: And who was the driver of that vehicle when you went to Krugersdorp?

MR MOSIANE: It was my team leader, that is Simon Radebe.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, did you report to him?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And what did he do?

MR MOSIANE: After I reported to him he spoke with a certain person on the radio. He gave me a report.

MR HATTINGH: Could you not hear what the person said to him over the radio?

MR MOSIANE: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: One of these police two-way radios was it?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did you hear what he said to the person to whom he was speaking?

MR MOSIANE: Not in full, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And after he'd spoken to this person, what did he say to you?

MR MOSIANE: He said to me we must wait until Japie Maponya knocks off duty.

MR HATTINGH: Did you ask him why?

MR MOSIANE: No, Chairperson, I did not ask him.

MR HATTINGH: Was there a reason why you weren't curious to find out why you now had to wait until Mr Maponya came off duty?

MR MOSIANE: I believe that you realised that when we discussed about this particular incident there was a time when it was stated about the need to know basis principle. There was no need for me to ask.

MR HATTINGH: Alright, so then you waited. How long did you have to wait for Mr Maponya to come off duty?

MR MOSIANE: I don't remember how - the duration, but we stayed there until Japie Maponya was off duty when he went out of the bank building.

MR HATTINGH: At the de Kock trial you gave an estimate, you said it was approximately 45 minutes to an hour that you had to wait, would that be correct?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct because it was an estimation, which I've mentioned at de Kock's trial.

MR HATTINGH: And then before Mr Maponya - could you see Mr Maponya from where you were waiting, inside the bank? Could you see him where he was inside the bank?

MR MOSIANE: You would only be able to see him when he went out just on the pavement of the bank, in front of the bank.

MR HATTINGH: And before he came out, did you see the Jetta in which he was placed after he'd been kidnapped?

MR MOSIANE: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did you observe that vehicle at all in Krugersdorp that day, before Mr Maponya was kidnapped?

MR MOSIANE: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And after his kidnap, did you see the vehicle then?

MR MOSIANE: I don't remember Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: So did you not observe the actual kidnapping?

MR MOSIANE: I saw the kidnapping, Sir.

MR HATTINGH: Where did they take hold - where was Mr Maponya when they grabbed him, or when they kidnapped him?

MR MOSIANE: He was walking along, he was walking on the sidewalk. He was coming from work. It looked like he was on his way to the taxi rank. Just nearby, that's where I realised that the Jetta that I saw at the farm, is the same car that is parked next to the shops, yes. When Mr Maponya came close, I realised that there were members of Vlakplaas who were standing there, close to the Jetta.

MR HATTINGH: Did you not recognise the Jetta at that stage?

MR MOSIANE: I recognised it at that stage, Sir.

MR HATTINGH: So you did see it in Krugersdorp that day?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Were you surprised to see it there?

MR MOSIANE: I was not surprised.

MR HATTINGH: Why not?

MR MOSIANE: When I saw the Jetta and saw Maponya approaching and when I saw the people that I saw at Vlakplaas, I'm talking about Johannes Thabelo Mbelo, Elmond Butana Nofemela, Moses Bheki Nzimande. I saw them. Now the picture got clearer as to what I saw at Vlakplaas. What I saw in Vlakplaas was now materialising here. Things were becoming clearer. I could now see the purpose of what I saw back. When this thing happened, Simon Radebe's team, we were still inside this panel van. It was a sort of a surveillance on Maponya, we were surveilling him from the bank up to the point where this thing happened. I saw that they approached him. They kidnapped him. They put him inside the Jetta. Immediately thereafter the Jetta sped off taking the direction to Vlakplaas.

MR HATTINGH: The question Mr Mosiane was, why were you not surprised when you saw these people and the car there where you were parked?

MR MOSIANE: It did not surprise me.

MR HATTINGH: Now I'm going to briefly put to you what Mr Nortje’s version was about this incident. He said they were asked to go to Krugersdorp to render assistance to the Security Branch in Krugersdorp. They were asked to try and obtain information from Japie Maponya as to the whereabouts of his brother, Orderele. They first sent you, in the manner which you've described. You reported back that your attempts were unsuccessful and thereupon he asked the members of the - the black members and the askaris who were present what they suggested they should do then, whereupon it was suggested that Mr Maponya should be kidnapped and interrogated. He then went and discussed that possibility with Col le Roux first and also with Mr de Kock over the telephone and Mr de Kock then arrived and the black members were then given their instructions to kidnap Mr Maponya. Did you know anything about that version?

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, and then perhaps you could just add that when he phoned Mr de Kock, Mr de Kock was in Zeerust and Mr de Kock came from Zeerust to Krugersdorp.

MR HATTINGH: What do you say about that version, Mr Mosiane?

MR MOSIANE: Yes, I was there, I heard his version. Now what I am telling you is my version and the role that I played there. I think it is my duty to bring solution to this puzzle. I want to solve this and to explain as to how it happened. I said when I arrived at the bank at Mr Maponya, approaching him as an MK member, I wanted to know the whereabouts of Orderele Maponya. In his own words he said to me that I am not the first person to come to him to tell him this, there was a person who came before me on that day.

MR HATTINGH: I'm sorry to interrupt you, we don't want you to repeat your whole version, I'm just asking you, do you agree with Mr Nortje’s version or do you say that your version is the correct one?

MR MOSIANE: I do not agree with that entirely.

MR HATTINGH: And from your version it would appear that they'd already started making preparations for a kidnapping before you left to approach Mr Maponya in Krugersdorp. Would you agree with that?

MR MOSIANE: Not totally.

MR HATTINGH: Why did you think they obliterated the registration number of the Jetta?

MR MOSIANE: That explains that the first people who went to Mr Maponya got a negative response. Those are the people who took a negative decision to kidnap him. When I was sent to him, I was sent the second time.

MR HATTINGH: I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean when you say the first people who were sent to him got a negative response. Which people are you talking about?

MR MALAN: Sorry, Mr Hattingh. I understood Mr Mosiane to have responded to your first question, Mr Hattingh, when the version of Nortje was put to him, that Japie Maponya told you you were not the first person to approach him, that another person had been to see him and ask him the same question on that same day.

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chair.

MR HATTINGH: Sorry, Mr Chairman. I'm aware of the fact he spoke about another person who'd approached him, but I didn't hear him say that it was on the same day. Are you saying that according to what Mr Maponya told you, that happened the very same day?

MR MOSIANE: He did not mention the day.

MR HATTINGH: Well when you now talk about the other people who were sent to obtain information from him, which people are you referring to, do you know? Do you know who was sent to obtain that information from him?

MR MOSIANE: I do not know, Chair.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, I'll leave ...(intervention)

ADV GCABASHE: Mr Hattingh, if I can just - I just need a bit of clarity Mr Mosiane, I'm a bit confused. I thought that your explanation, your later explanation was that Japie said that there had been somebody else on that day, meaning earlier on before you got there on that same day, but what you have just said now is that he did not mention a day. Just help me there. Which is it, because I don't understand you any more. Did Japie say to you on that same day somebody else had been to talk to him? So it could have been earlier in the day, or did he simply say, whenever, some other time, I'm not sure which it is, just help us with that, it's important.

MR MOSIANE: Chairperson, let me put it according to how he put it. When he responded to my approach, he told me that, "You are not the first person to come here to tell me that you want Orderele Maponya. There is someone who arrived before you here." Now, I don't know, this person who arrived before me, did he arrive before me in hours, in days, in months, he did not explain.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Mosiane, this obliteration of the number plate by putting diesel oil and throwing sand on it, was that a common practice or was it the first time you'd seen that being done?

MR MOSIANE: I personally saw it for the first time, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR HATTINGH: And afterwards you must have realised that that was done for purposes of the kidnapping?

MR MOSIANE: Mr Flip Hattingh, you don't have to be a record scientist to see when that thing happens before your eyes, that there is mischief going on here.

MR HATTINGH: Did you realise that that was the purpose?

MR MOSIANE: Not necessarily that.

MR HATTINGH: Well what did you think? Why were they doing that? MR MOSIANE: I thought to myself there was going to be mischief here.

MR HATTINGH: What kind of mischief, Mr Mosiane?

MR MOSIANE: The type of mischief that the Security Branch was involved in during that fascist period of the apartheid era.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, but now when you later on observed the vehicle, that this very same vehicle was used in the kidnapping of Mr Maponya, surely you then realised that that was why it was done? It was for that particular mischief, that the registration number was obliterated?

MR MOSIANE: It was later when I saw the kidnap happen that I realised the motive of doing that, but prior to that I had no idea that it was going to be used in this particular operation, but for a certain operation definitely, I knew.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, very well, but that's why I'm saying to you Mr Mosiane, that it seems clear that preparations for the kidnapping of Mr Maponya were made even before you departed from Vlakplaas to approach Mr Maponya.

MR MOSIANE: I would not dispute that.

MR HATTINGH: And that doesn't fit in with the version of Mr Nortje who testified that the decision to kidnap Mr Maponya was only taken after you reported that you could not obtain information from him and it was taken there in Krugersdorp.

MR MOSIANE: That's Willie Nortje’s version, Chairperson, I have given you my version.

MR HATTINGH: Alright, let's continue. You then saw him being put in that Jetta and you then departed. The vehicle, in which you were, then departed for Vlakplaas, is that correct?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And when did you see Mr Maponya for the first time again after he'd been placed in the Jetta?

MR MOSIANE: I saw him at Vlakplaas.

MR HATTINGH: Now were you told anything about what had happened, what you observed there on your way to Vlakplaas? Did Mr Radebe tell you what had happened?

CHAIRPERSON: He'd seen it himself.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, but why - what was going on? Did he tell you that they'd kidnapped Mr Maponya for purposes of interrogating him at Vlakplaas?

MR MOSIANE: No.

MR HATTINGH: Did you not ask?

MR MOSIANE: I did not ask, Chair.

MR HATTINGH: And when you arrived at Vlakplaas, where did you go to? The vehicle in which you were travelling, where did it go to?

MR MOSIANE: We went to the shooting range, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Directly to the shooting range?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Nobody made inquiries first as to where Mr Maponya had been taken on the farm?

MR MOSIANE: Can you repeat your question, Sir? When you refer to nobody, who are you referring to?

MR HATTINGH: Anybody in your vehicle, when you arrived there, did anybody in your vehicle inquire from anybody else on the farm where they'd taken Mr Maponya to?

MR MOSIANE: No.

MR HATTINGH: Do you know how the driver of your vehicle knew that you had to go to the river, or to the shooting range?

MR MOSIANE: Chairperson, if you have a two-way radio, it's quite easy to know where to go.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. Now when you got to the place where Mr Maponya was, was it still daylight?

MR MOSIANE: It was afternoon, Sir.

MR HATTINGH: Daylight still, yes.

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And when you saw Mr Maponya there for the first time, I think you said he was already outside the vehicle, if I remember correctly he was lying on the ground, is that correct?

MR MOSIANE: If I recall well, when we arrived Japie Maponya was inside the panel van. There was an E20 panel van that was parked nearby, it was white in colour.

MR HATTINGH: And was there anybody else with him inside the vehicle?

MR MOSIANE: It was him alone.

MR HATTINGH: And this panel van, did it have a sliding door like the kombis have?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct. 

MR HATTINGH: Was that door open or was it closed?

MR MOSIANE: The door was open, Sir.

MR HATTINGH: And was he lying on the floor of this panel van?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And you say there was no one else with him inside the vehicle?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Were there any people in the immediate vicinity of the vehicle?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Doing what, Mr Mosiane?

MR MOSIANE: They were standing, others were standing, leaning on the cars.

MR HATTINGH: But at the vehicle in which Mr Maponya was, was anybody right there next to the vehicle, busy talking to Mr Maponya or perhaps assaulting him, or what?

MR MOSIANE: No.

MR HATTINGH: So he was just lying there?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And could you see him clearly? There was nobody obstructing your view?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And you were asked whether he was blindfolded or his head was covered, what would you say about that?

MR MOSIANE: His head was covered.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, with what?

MR MOSIANE: It was covered with a balaclava facing backwards, the balaclava was facing backwards.

MR HATTINGH: You even remembered, here in your evidence here, you even remembered the colour of the balaclava.

MR MOSIANE: I think it was navy blue in colour.

MR HATTINGH: Yes. Now at the criminal trial you were also asked about this. Do you recall that?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: May I refer you to page 135 of bundle 3(a)? About two thirds down the page, you said, you were asked, "Very well, continue." You say, "When we arrived at the farm, we drove to the river. The river flows around the shooting range, round the shooting range of the farm. We went directly to the river. When we arrived there, I saw that there was a Volkswagen standing there. It had been there for quite a long time. There was a great gathering of white people there." You were asked "Only whites?" and you responded "Yes, there were also blacks. This Japie Maponya, he was finished, his arms were tied. A cloth was tied around his eyes, or there was a balaclava over his eyes, but something of that nature." There you weren't certain what it was, Mr Mosiane.

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Are you certain today?

MR MOSIANE: I believe so, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Because on a few other occasions in your evidence, page 136, you once again repeat it, "If I recall correctly, that something was still tied around his eyes, if I remember correctly." And on page 162 you were asked by me, "Why do you speak of either a cloth, or a balaclava, that covered his eyes? What was it?" And you said "I've already said that when we arrived there it was already after dusk or sundown, and when I was examined about this, during the time when I gave my statement, I explained that this incident had taken place a long time ago, approximately 10 years ago and it is for this reason that I cannot recall precisely whether it was a cloth or a balaclava, but the fact that something was bound around his eyes, or that something covered his eyes, is something that I am certain of." 

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chair.

MR HATTINGH: Is that still your evidence, Mr Mosiane?

MR MOSIANE: That's my evidence.

MR HATTINGH: Did only Vlakplaas, or let me first ask you this question, now you see Mr Maponya lying in the kombi, nobody busy interrogating or assaulting him, did you observe an interrogation or an assault?

MR MOSIANE: It was a violent interrogation.

MR HATTINGH: Did it only commence after you arrived there?

MR MOSIANE: No, Chair.

MR HATTINGH: Why do you say that?

MR MOSIANE: Because on our arrival at the shooting range, getting out of the car we were travelling in, what became clear was that tear gas had been used already. In other words the E20 that I am talking about, where he was in, the door was open. It is clear that the tear gas was sprayed inside the car where he was, because it's very strong. Now the reason for the door to be open was to limit the gas inside, that's why the door was open on our arrival.

MR HATTINGH: Now is that the only reason why you say that he'd already been assaulted before you arrived?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And then when was he again assaulted thereafter, whilst you were present at the scene?

MR MOSIANE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Who assaulted him, Mr Mosiane?

MR MOSIANE: When we arrived, it is clear that the assault started again because Simon Radebe and Mr Sefadi got closer, they got into where Japie was and they interrogated him at that time, right inside that E20. There was still the smell of tear gas. Japie was then pulled outside and he was put on the ground and the interrogation re-started.

MR HATTINGH: You mentioned two names now, who else assaulted him?

MR MOSIANE: Some whites who were leaning against the cars also took part and Mr de Kock also took part. They assaulted him.

MR HATTINGH: Did you see anybody not belonging to Vlakplaas participate in the assault?

MR MOSIANE: Yes, there were white men that I did not know.

MR HATTINGH: And did they also interrogate Mr Maponya?

MR MOSIANE: This was a free for all situation, this was a quick, quick situation, they took part.

MR HATTINGH: I think I've already put it to you, but just in case I haven't, that Mr Sefadi was not there and he did not participate in the assault upon Mr Maponya.

MR MOSIANE: And I put it to you that he was.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman, we have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, do you have any questions?

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman, just one or two.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Just to make certain, because you are the only one that can tell us, the man that you spoke to in the bank and that you showed the Makarov pistol to, was that the very same man who was later abducted and taken to Vlakplaas?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chair.

MR VISSER: Please tell me if I understood you correctly, was it your evidence that when you went to Krugersdorp on the first occasion, when you spoke to Japie Maponya in the bank, that was about two to three months before you went to Josini? My learned friend has a way of interjecting in questioning and giving the answers to a witness. Let the witness just reply and then my learned friend can raise whatever objection he wishes to raise.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, just repeat your question.

MR VISSER: My question was, when you went to Krugersdorp the first time and spoke to Japie Maponya in the bank, did I understand you correctly to say that that was some two to three months prior to the actual abduction?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chair.

MR VISSER: So about two to three months later Japie was abducted, after you had spoken to him in the bank, that's clear in your mind?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: How many times did you speak to him in the bank, Mr Mosiane?

MR MOSIANE: Only one time.

CHAIRPERSON: Just correct me if I'm wrong. I was under the impression, I might have been wrong, that you said that when you spoke to him in the bank you went out and you went to the kombi where Mr Radebe was and then Mr Radebe spoke on the radio and then said you must wait and then while you waited after 45 to 60 minutes, you saw the abduction. Was I wrong?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: But you didn't wait for three weeks. Now you've said to Mr Visser that you approached Mr Maponya in the bank three weeks, about three weeks, three months, before you went to Josini?

MR MOSIANE: I'm sorry, I should have asked for clarification from Mr Visser. 

MR VISSER: Well, perhaps, I don't know whether you've finished Mr Chairman, you see in your evidence you specifically mentioned that you went to Krugersdorp two to three months before the abduction, that's how I remembered it.

MR MOSIANE: That is true, that is true, Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: Yes. and when you went there the first time you told us that you went to look for Orderele, that was the reason.

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, yes.

MR VISSER: The only question now is, was it at that stage when you spoke to Japie Maponya in the bank?

MR MOSIANE: Before his abduction it was the first time in the bank to talk mouth to mouth with Japie.

MR VISSER: Yes, but was that two to three months before the abduction?

MR MOSIANE: No, it was the day of the abduction.

MR VISSER: I see. After you spoke to Japie Maponya in the bank, did you have a discussion with Mr Nortje in Krugersdorp?

MR MOSIANE: After the abduction, or before?

MR VISSER: No, no, I'm sorry. After you spoke to Japie Maponya in the bank and before the abduction, was there a discussion with Mr Nortje in Krugersdorp that you can remember?

MR MOSIANE: The discussion I had with Mr Nortje was at Vlakplaas when I saw...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, the question was, from the time that you went into the bank and spoke to Mr Maponya, until the time of the abduction, in that period, did you speak, did you have a discussion with Mr Nortje?

MR MOSIANE: No, Mr Chair, no.

MR VISSER: I see. You were not part of any discussion where the black members suggested that Japie Maponya had to be abducted to be questioned?

MR MOSIANE: No, Mr Chair.

MR VISSER: Just one thing that I wanted to ask you, you say that Radebe spoke to someone on the police radio, is that a radio in the car?

MR MOSIANE: It was a radio that was in his hand?

MR VISSER: A walkie-talkie?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And were you standing next to him when he did that?

MR MOSIANE: It's a panel van. He was inside and he was sitting with Eric Sefadi in the front and we were at the back.

MR VISSER: But you could hear when he was speaking, that's why you know he spoke to someone on the radio?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct. You don't just talk alone in the radio of that kind, you don't talk to yourself in that kind of communication, Sir.

MR VISSER: I'm sorry I didn't hear the answer.

CHAIRPERSON: He said the answer was to the effect that when you speak on the radio you don't speak to yourself, you're speaking to somebody.

MR VISSER: Yes, you see that's exactly the point. Who was he speaking to?

MR MOSIANE: I didn't see him, it was through the radio, it was not a television.

MR VISSER: Yes, that is funny, yes Mr Mosiane, but didn't you hear the voice on the other side, on the other end?

MR MOSIANE: Okay, Mr Visser, this type of radio is the type of radio that you could modulate the audio system to suite you, the listener.

CHAIRPERSON: You didn't hear the other voice?

MR MOSIANE: No I didn't, not at all.

MR VISSER: And are you saying that that is because the modular or the audio modular was tuned down to the extent that you could not hear what was said by the other person?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Just one last thing. Am I correct to infer from your evidence that you actually had nothing to do with the whole plan, or the execution of the abduction of Mr Japie Maponya?

MR MOSIANE: That is not correct.

MR VISSER: What did you have to do with it?

MR MOSIANE: I was used in the total plan. I fit somewhere. I fit somewhere. I fit in the initial stages of being sent there in the bank to seek information which later was relayed into the radio to someone I did not see, that Japie Maponya is not co-operative, he does not want to give us the whereabouts of his brother. That I do not fit in the plan is unthinkable, I fit somewhere, but not in the actual kidnap.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mosiane, in your own mind, why do you think that you and Radebe and the others had to wait in this vehicle after you had spoken to Mr Maponya and you went back to the kombi. Why do you think that you had to wait there until after the abduction? What reason do you think you were waiting for?

MR MOSIANE: It is clear, Mr Chairman, that from the time Japie knocks off, walks out of the bank, we are in a position to see his movement, that is called surveillance. We tail him, in other words, while Simon Radebe is relaying to the other person on the other side, Japie's movements. So we could see and tail Japie up to the point where he was abducted.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: Alright. Did you associate yourself with the abduction of Mr Japie Maponya?

MR MOSIANE: There is no way I cannot associate, disassociate myself with the whole exercise.

MR VISSER: Yes, and when he was assaulted at Vlakplaas, you said at page 136 of bundle 3(a), it was like a swarm of bees around him. Remember that?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Was he seriously assaulted?

MR MOSIANE: Seriously assaulted, varies in degree, the degrees of seriousness. When you assault a man, you kick him lying down with his hands bound behind his back, after having been tear gassed and suffocated with a balaclava. I don't know to what degree you would think it's serious or not serious, or more directly assaulted.

MR VISSER: Yes, well you see, what I think is irrelevant. I'm asking you what you thought. Did you think he was seriously assaulted?

MR MOSIANE: In my opinion, it was, it was.

MR VISSER: A very serious assault?

MR MOSIANE: If that thing was done to me on my person, I would take it as very serious.

MR VISSER: Was there blood?

MR MOSIANE: I saw no blood.

MR VISSER: It wasn't as if Japie, or was it, do you think that he required medical attention after the assault?

MR MOSIANE: From my own point of view I would say yes.

MR VISSER: Now, just to get this clear in my mind, is it your evidence that really there were two teams in Krugersdorp on the day of the abduction, not just one team from Vlakplaas?

MR MOSIANE: It could be more than two.

MR VISSER: But at least two?

MR MOSIANE: Yes, yes, I think so.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Visser. Mr Williams do you have any questions you would like to ask?

MR WILLIAMS: Yes, yes Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WILLIAMS: Mr Mosiane, how many people were in your vehicle?

MR MOSIANE: Sir, I do not remember the precise number.

MR WILLIAMS: But more or less?

MR MOSIANE: Perhaps four to six.

MR WILLIAMS: And you were in a white mini-bus, is that correct?

MR MOSIANE: It was not a mini-bus, it was a panel van.

MR WILLIAMS: Now I think one of the applicants testified, I think Mr Nortje testified that he thinks he imagined himself, but he saw two busses there. Now we know from Mr Mbelo's testimony that this is at the Krugersdorp Security Offices, that his group wasn't there. Is it possible that some other group of black policemen might have been in the vicinity in another vehicle on that day?

MR MOSIANE: It might happen, Sir.

MR WILLIAMS: And the members of, or names of which you can't remember today?

MR MOSIANE: Those who were with me in Simon Radebe's team, or are you saying the people who were in Krugersdorp on that day?

MR WILLIAMS: The other group that might have been there.

MR MOSIANE: No.

MR WILLIAMS: Okay, the question is, you can't remember the names of the other people that might have been there?

MR MALAN: Mr Williams, I don't understand the question. If he doesn't know whether there were other people, how must he remember their names?

CHAIRPERSON: You have mentioned various names, you have mentioned the three people who were in the Jetta, you've mentioned people in your vehicle, okay, you say four to six, but you've mentioned Mr Radebe, Mr Sefadi and yourself. Did you see any other members that day while you were in Krugersdorp, not at Vlakplaas, in Krugersdorp? Did you see any other members of Vlakplaas, besides those ones that you have mentioned by name already?

MR MOSIANE: No Chairperson.

MR WILLIAMS: Thank you Mr Chairman. The next question I want to ask you is, did you see the actual abduction?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MR WILLIAMS: Now did Mr Maponya, out of his own accord or without the use of force, enter the Jetta, or was a measure of force used to get him inside the vehicle?

MR MOSIANE: He was forced.

MR WILLIAMS: By whom?

MR MOSIANE: Two men, Thabelo Johannes Mbelo and Elmond Butana Nofemela.

MR WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I've got no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR WILLIAMS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wagener, do you have any questions you would like to ask?

MR WAGENER: No questions, Mr Chairman.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR WAGENER

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ramawele, do you have any questions you'd like to ask?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RAMAWELE: Just one question. You say that Mr Japie Maponya was actually forced to get into the vehicle, is that so?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MR RAMAWELE: What do you mean when you say he was forced to get into the vehicle?

MR MOSIANE: I'm saying he did not voluntarily get into a car, as someone would do when getting into a hired taxi.

MR RAMAWELE: But would you say there was physical force? Did you see that he was actually being forced to get into the vehicle, or are you saying, because it was an abduction, so it was not voluntary?

MR MOSIANE: I'm saying this because I saw it.

CHAIRPERSON: Did the passers-by, the other people who were walking up and down the pavement there, was there any reaction from them when this happened?

MR MOSIANE: I didn't pay particular attention to the passers-by's reaction, but at that time it was peak hour and the action was so swift, it was so swift it did not draw much attention for the people to react noticeably.

CHAIRPERSON: There wasn't a fight between Mr Maponya and the two people who were ...(indistinct)

MR MOSIANE: There was a measure of resistance and they hastily, very quickly grabbed him and forced him into the vehicle.

CHAIRPERSON: Bundled him into the vehicle?

MR MOSIANE: They grabbed him, very swiftly.

MR RAMAWELE: I just want to put it lastly that Mr Nofomela says that in fact he voluntarily or rather, he went into the vehicle without being forced because he was told that a case was being investigated against him, that's the reason why he entered into the vehicle without being pushed or grabbed.

MR MOSIANE: Yes, you are putting Mr Nofomela's version to me, but I'm telling you what happened, I'm telling you what I saw.

MR RAMAWELE: I've got no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RAMAWELE

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Ramawele. Ms Bridjlall do you have any questions you'd like to ask?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS BRIDJLALL: Yes I do, thank you Chairperson. I've just forgotten you name, I'm sorry.

MR MOSIANE: Christopher Mosiane.

MS BRIDJLALL: Sorry, Mr Mosiane. Mr Mosiane, you said that you were previously sent into Krugersdorp by Mr de Kock, is that correct? Before the day that you approached Mr Maponya with the hand grenade and the weapon to try and convince him that you were an MK member, before that, were you ever in Krugersdorp?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chair.

MS BRIDJLALL: Were you on an operation in Krugersdorp to find Mr Orderele Maponya?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chair.

MS BRIDJLALL: Who sent you to Krugersdorp, Mr Mosiane?

MR MOSIANE: It was Mr de Kock, Chairperson.

MS BRIDJLALL: When exactly, how long before the abduction was this, did you go to Krugersdorp on instructions from Mr de Kock?

MR MOSIANE: I have mentioned earlier on, I said it could have been a matter of months.

MS BRIDJLALL: Where did Mr de Kock give you these instructions?

MR MOSIANE: We were at Vlakplaas, Chairperson.

MS BRIDJLALL: Were you alone when he gave you these instructions?

MR MOSIANE: No.

MS BRIDJLALL: Who was with you?

MR MOSIANE: Let us understand each other. The first time or during the abduction time.

CHAIRPERSON: The first time. The first time some months before.

MR MOSIANE: Prior to the abduction?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MOSIANE: Chairperson, when we are being given such instructions we are in a hall. We would be divided into teams and we would be told that this team will go to Krugersdorp, this team will go to the Eastern Transvaal and that team will go to Mafikeng. We are instructed as a team. On that day our team was deployed at Krugersdorp.

MS BRIDJLALL: Who were the members of your team at that time?

MR MOSIANE: I do not recall very well, Chairperson, but I was one of the members.

MS BRIDJLALL: Approximately how many people were in this team?

MR MOSIANE: It happens at times that two teams are in the same place at the same time.

MS BRIDJLALL: Yes, but approximately how many people were in your team, the team that Mr de Kock instructed to go to Krugersdorp and find Orderele Maponya?

MR MOSIANE: Usually a team was comprised of 5 to 7 people.

MS BRIDJLALL: Are any of those members applicants in this matter? Can you remember? Any members of that team.

MR MOSIANE: I do not have knowledge to that effect.

MS BRIDJLALL: What were the exact instructions to you from Mr de Kock?

MR MOSIANE: Let me put it this way, Chairperson. After we were briefed as to our destination, we reported at the offices of the Security Branch where we were posted, to tell them that we have arrived. We would be given further details and instructions at that station. From that moment we are now under their command, we'll be working according to their instructions.

MS BRIDJLALL: So all Mr de Kock said was to, you and your team, please go to Krugersdorp. He didn't discuss with you why it was that you had to go to Krugersdorp. Is that correct?

MR MOSIANE: Sometimes he used to put it loosely, he would give us the purpose but the details will be provided by the branch that accommodates us.

MS BRIDJLALL: But on this particular operation did he tell you that you were going to Krugersdorp because you had to find Orderele Maponya, or did he just say to you, "Go to Krugersdorp, your assistance is needed. You will get further instructions there"?

MR MOSIANE: I do not recall.

MS BRIDJLALL: I take it that you then went to the Krugersdorp Police Station, Security Branch, is that correct? You and your team.

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS BRIDJLALL: Who did you report to at the Krugersdorp Security Branch?

MR MOSIANE: Usually we would arrive and park our cars at the branch and the team leader would go into the offices and report that we have arrived. Him and the local officers there will discuss our work during our stay there.

MS BRIDJLALL: Mr Mosiane, but I'm talking about this particular incident. On this particular operation when you went to Krugersdorp, who did you go to Krugersdorp and meet with? Was it Kleynhans, was it le Roux, was it Dunkley?

CHAIRPERSON: I think what he's saying is, perhaps you should ask him before you get to that, Ms Bridjlall, is whether he did speak to anybody because he has just explained the usual practice is that they stayed in the car and just the leader would go in and get instructions from the local branch. So just ask him if he spoke to anybody himself, before asking that.

MS BRIDJLALL: Thank you, Chairperson. Who was your leader at that time? Were you the leader?

MR MOSIANE: No, Chairperson.

MS BRIDJLALL: Did you speak to anybody at the Krugersdorp Police Station at the Security Branch?

MR MOSIANE: I do not remember, but the usual procedure would be after reporting that we have arrived, the officers of Krugersdorp would come and brief us as a team. Yes, they would brief us as to how we would work, but the first person who would report to them would be the team leader. Sometimes it was important for them to come to us because they would come with the photo from their offices, but I do not quite remember at this instance who came to us, whether we were briefed by someone from their office, or our team leader.

MS BRIDJLALL: Okay, was there a file that was shown to you?

MR MALAN: Just before you proceed. You asked the question and did not follow it up. Can you remember who your team leader was on that occasion or do you have no recollection?

MR MOSIANE: I think the team leader was Andrew Letsatsi.

MR MALAN: But you're not sure?

MR MOSIANE: I am not sure, I'm just thinking.

MS BRIDJLALL: Thank you. Mr Mosiane, what were the instructions that were received at that time when you were briefed as to what was going to happen with your team in Krugersdorp, what were your instructions?

MR MOSIANE: It was during the time of the revolution and there were many MK operatives and it was rumoured that Orderele Maponya is back and is operating in that area. Our presence there was, amongst others, to patrol the Krugersdorp area. One other thing that I must mention is, after we were told that Mainstay lives in Kagiso, I was sent to a certain house that was built in corrugated iron. I was told to go and inquire there, because it looked like there was a member of his relative who was living there and I had to use the tactic of pretending to be an MK operative. I was supposed to go there and ask about Orderele Mainstay Maponya's movements.

ADV GCABASHE: Mr Mosiane, were your activities then confined to Kagiso or did you also have to go to town and do particular things in town?

MR MOSIANE: We also reached town.

ADV GCABASHE: On that occasion?

MR MOSIANE: No, Chairperson.

MS BRIDJLALL: Thank you. Mr Mosiane, besides this corrugated house that you went into, this house that you went into and pretended to be an operative, what else did you do? Did you approach any members of the Maponya family?

MR MOSIANE: The house that I've referred to was the relatives of Maponya.

MS BRIDJLALL: Yes, but did you approach any members of his immediate family, his brothers or his sisters? Besides that relative, did you approach anybody else? 

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MS BRIDJLALL: Who did you approach?

MR MOSIANE: There was a female. Because it was daylight, - I was talking, I pretended to be an MK and I wanted to know about Orderele Maponya. When I looked at this female, she looked a bit surprised and scared when I talked of Mainstay and she told me that she knew nothing of Maponya's movements. Let me tell you, when this happened, when someone gets scared when you ask him or her about something, that person feels that here is trouble now. Another possibility was that, I could read it in her face, she was uneasy. When she refused that she had never seen Orderele, she knows nothing of him, we left for the car.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairperson, I've heard Mr Mosiane also saying something about the Special Branch in his own language which wasn't exactly translated on this point.

CHAIRPERSON: What did you say about the Special Branch when you were talking about this lady, Mr Mosiane? Did you get the feeling that she suspected that you were a member of the Special Branch?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS BRIDJLALL: Do you know who this female person was? Was she related to Mr Maponya? Was she a neighbour? Who was she?

MR MOSIANE: I do not have knowledge.

MS BRIDJLALL: So why did you approach her?

MR MOSIANE: Because we were sent to that house, we had the address, we were told that there's a relative of Maponya that lives there.

MS BRIDJLALL: Who gave you this information, can you remember?

MR MOSIANE: The Krugersdorp Special Branch.

MS BRIDJLALL: The person in particular from the Krugersdorp Special Branch?

MR MOSIANE: I do not recall in particular who gave us that information.

MS BRIDJLALL: Was there anybody else you approached in Krugersdorp at that point in time? Did you approach anybody else?

CHAIRPERSON: Concerning Orderele.

MS BRIDJLALL: Yes.

MR MOSIANE: No, Chairperson.

MS BRIDJLALL: At this time did you know about Mr Maponya? Was Mr Maponya ever discussed? Japie Maponya, sorry.

MR MOSIANE: No, Chairperson.

MS BRIDJLALL: How long did this operation last? This operation in Krugersdorp, to look for Mr Orderele Maponya?

MR MOSIANE: The usual time would be three weeks.

MS BRIDJLALL: And you had no, you didn't have any luck with finding Mr Maponya, Mr Orderele Maponya? Did you find any information regarding his whereabouts, etc?

MR MOSIANE: No, Chairperson, no information retrieved.

MR MALAN: May I just have some clarity here? You say it was usually three weeks? Let's assume it was a period of three weeks, were you only looking for Orderele or were you generally patrolling and trying to find MK people?

MR MOSIANE: We were patrolling with the hope of finding others except Orderele.

MR MALAN: So Orderele was not the focus of the three weeks exercise, he was simply incidental, one of those you were looking for?

MR MOSIANE: Orderele was a focus.

MR MALAN: And to the best of your recollection, the only contact made with the relatives was that one visit to that corrugated iron house when you spoke to the lady?

MR MOSIANE: Often times you'd find that members of Vlakplaas had been there just once, but Krugersdorp had its own people maybe that it sent down there.

MR MALAN: My question, I hope to put it simply is, the only contact with any relative of Orderele Maponya during those three weeks from Vlakplaas people, askaris or whoever, was the contact that you had with that lady, no contact with his father, his mother, any of his brothers?

MR MOSIANE: No, Sir.

MR MALAN: Can you tell us why not, or why would you think that you weren't sent to the father or the mother, or his own home, his wife, or his brothers, or his brothers' wives?

MR MOSIANE: I do not know why we were not sent to them.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Would this be a convenient time to take the tea adjournment?

MS BRIDJLALL: Yes, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll now take the short tea adjournment.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHRISTOPHER MOSIANE: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Bridjlall, you were busy questioning Mr Mosiane, you may continue.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS BRIDJLALL:(cont.) 

&#9;Thank you Chairperson. &#9;Mr Mosiane, besides the corrugated iron house that you visited and the single female that you approached, was there anybody else that you approached to get information regarding Orderele Maponya in Krugersdorp at the time when you were conducting this operation on instructions from de Kock?

MR MOSIANE: I do not remember.

MS BRIDJLALL: Mr Mosiane, when you approached the people in this corrugated iron house, what did you pose as? How did you present yourself? What did you say to them?

MR MOSIANE: I presented myself as an MK operative. I wanted to know whether it was possible to meet Orderele Mainstay. I was inquiring with the hope that I would hear something relating to his coming to visit here.

MS BRIDJLALL: And what was their response to that query?

MR MOSIANE: They refused, they said he does not come, they do not know anything.

MS BRIDJLALL: There are two answers in that. There are two things that you are saying to me in that answer. You're saying number 1, that they refused and number 2, they told you that he doesn't come there. Which is it, did they give you an answer and if so what was that answer?

CHAIRPERSON: He said that they said he does not come to this house and they do not know anything about him, that's what his answer was.

MS BRIDJLALL: Yes, thank you. I heard him say that they refused, but they did co-operate with you, they did tell you that he didn't come to that house, is that correct?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, he does not come to that house.

MS BRIDJLALL: What then, Mr Mosiane, what did you do thereafter?

After they told you this, what did you do?

MR MOSIANE: I left.

MS BRIDJLALL: Did you ever go back to that same corrugated iron house?

MR MOSIANE: No, Chairperson.

MS BRIDJLALL: You see, Mr Mosiane, I'm instructed that you went back to that corrugated iron house on the same day, posing as an insurance broker and you tried again to get information from the family members as to the whereabouts of Orderele Maponya and that you were sent away. Can you remember that?

MR MOSIANE: These things do not correlate. How could I go the first time and fail to get what I wanted and go back the second time and pretend to be an insurance broker, whilst in the first place I pretended to be an MK operative?

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Bridjlall, your instructions are that it was the same man who came back twice?

MS BRIDJLALL: Yes, that is was Mr Mosiane.

CHAIRPERSON: The same person, Mr Mosiane himself?

MS BRIDJLALL: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: That's what Ms Bridjlall's instructions are, what do you say to that? That you came later that same day, posing as an insurance broker?

MR MOSIANE: That is not correct, Chairperson.

MS BRIDJLALL: Mr Mosiane, do you remember them sending you away and my instructions are that Mr Daniel Maponya, who is Japie Maponya's brother said to you that you should visit with their father, because he just wanted to get rid of you? Do you remember him saying that to you, or any person saying that to you, when you went to this corrugated iron house?

MR MOSIANE: I do not recall that.

CHAIRPERSON: You mentioned, when you were giving evidence on this, Mr Mosiane, that you met a female in that iron house, did you meet any males as well?

MR MOSIANE: I do not recall, Chairperson.

MS BRIDJLALL: Chairperson, I think that I must get some clarity on that. Did you visit a corrugated iron house and apart from that you met a female somewhere else, or was it the female in the corrugated iron house that you spoke to?

MR MOSIANE: I met the female at this corrugated iron house.

MS BRIDJLALL: So there was only one person you communicated with in this and that was the only time when you sought to get information, when you approached somebody for information regarding Orderele, is that correct?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MS BRIDJLALL: Mr Mosiane, you see that's also a problem because my instructions are that you did actually approach another female, who is a sister to Mr Japie Maponya and she was the one that was afraid and thought that you might be from the Security Branch or whatever, but she also sent you away.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that at a different place?

MS BRIDJLALL: Yes.

MR MOSIANE: No, I only went to a corrugated iron house. Let me put it clear, so that it is clear to everybody. It might happen that, because I told you already that it might happen that there are two groups in one place at the same time, it might happen that when I was at the corrugated iron house, other people arrived at that place that you have just referred to and they did what you have just explained.

MS BRIDJLALL: But Mr Mosiane, if there were two units on the same operation, would they not communicate with each other as to what was going on, what your task was and what their task would be?

MR MOSIANE: That was possible.

MS BRIDJLALL: So do you have any knowledge of any other team that may have been in the area at the time?

CHAIRPERSON: Would it not necessarily only have to be another team because he said that there were what, six or seven in his own team. Is it also possible that another member of your team might have been approaching people at the same time that you were?

MR MOSIANE: That's also a possibility.

MS BRIDJLALL: Mr Mosiane, who did you report all of this to, or who did you give a progress report to regarding the operation in Krugersdorp?

MR MOSIANE: The usual way is to report to the team leader.

MS BRIDJLALL: And who would that team leader have reported to? Let me put it to you, would Mr Eugene de Kock have had this information, would somebody have gone back to Mr de Kock and said "that is what we did in Krugersdorp and we looked for Orderele Maponya and we couldn't find him"?

MR MOSIANE: Because we were now operating under Krugersdorp, such a report was given to the Krugersdorp people.

MS BRIDJLALL: Again, would you be able to tell us who at Krugersdorp this report would have been given to?

MR MOSIANE: I cannot mention a specific name of an officer, but those who were in charge of the Krugersdorp Special Branch were given the report.

MS BRIDJLALL: So Mr de Kock would not have knowledge of what happened during this operation? That you went there and that you looked for Orderele Maponya, is that correct?

MR MOSIANE: He would know.

MS BRIDJLALL: How would he know?

MR MOSIANE: Mr de Kock would know because the units that were dispatched by him from Vlakplaas, he has a time to visit them and monitor the progress achieved. To add to that, it was usual to meet the officers of the place where we are dispatched.

MS BRIDJLALL: Can you tell me if in this particular operation you have any knowledge of Mr de Kock coming to Krugersdorp to check on your unit?

MR MOSIANE: I do not recall, Chairperson.

MS BRIDJLALL: At the time you were sent to Krugersdorp, which unit were you in during this first operation with Orderele Maponya, were you also part of C1 at that time?

MR MOSIANE: That's correct, I was at C1.

MS BRIDJLALL: You see, because that's interesting. Some of the other applicants say that the only time C1 went into Krugersdorp, or the first time that C1 was called into Krugersdorp was when the abduction and the subsequent murder of Japie Maponya occurred. So you as a member of C1 were in Krugersdorp before Mr Maponya was abducted and murdered, is that correct?

CHAIRPERSON: ...(microphone no on) is clear from his evidence.

MS BRIDJLALL: Yes, thank you. Mr Mosiane, when you approached Mr Japie Maponya at the bank and you showed him the gun and the hand grenade, what did you tell him? Can you remember what it is that you told him?

MR MOSIANE: Chairperson, I hear that there was a hand grenade and a pistol. I said I was given a pistol Makarov to approach Japie, I was not given a hand grenade. When I arrived at him I posed as an MK operative. It might happen that the first person who approached Japie, this unknown person, could have been given a hand grenade and a pistol, I was given a pistol only.

MS BRIDJLALL: Okay, so you take the pistol to Mr Maponya, Mr Japie Maponya. What do you tell him? You pose as an MK member, what do you tell him? "I'm an MK member".

MR MOSIANE: Yes.

MS BRIDJLALL: And what else did you ask him, what did you tell him?

MR MOSIANE: I told him that I wanted to establish a contact with Japie, wasn't there a way he could help? I was talking to Japie. At that moment I noticed that there was nothing that he could tell me. He was uncomfortable, he was scared, this person. It was at that time when he told me that I was not the first person to approach him inquiring about Orderele's movements and he told me that he knew nothing.

MS BRIDJLALL: You said that you noticed that there was nothing that he could tell you. Is that correct?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Sorry for interrupting. Did he tell you that the first person that approached him, approached him in the bank?

Or did he simply say, "I was asked before"?

MR MOSIANE: We were inside the bank when he told me. I took it that this that I was doing had been done already. Someone had approached him the way I approached him.

MR MALAN: Yes, that I accept, but did he mention the location as the bank? Could someone not have approached him at home, or some other place, showing him a hand grenade or a pistol, or a Makarov or whatever? Did you simply assume that it was in the bank, or did he tell you that he was approached in the bank?

MR MOSIANE: He did not tell me where this person approached him.

MR MALAN: If that is so, it's not necessarily so that they sent a person before you into the bank?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MS BRIDJLALL: Thank you. Mr Mosiane, after the abduction of Mr Japie Maponya, you said that the vehicle in which he was put proceeded to Vlakplaas. Is that correct?

MR MOSIANE: It went towards the direction of Vlakplaas.

MS BRIDJLALL: Did you follow the vehicle?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS BRIDJLALL: Mr Mosiane, you said when Mr Maponya was assaulted, that it was a free for all, that everybody got in there and assaulted him. Did you not participate in this assault?

MR MOSIANE: No, Chairperson.

MS BRIDJLALL: What did you do while everybody was assaulting him?

MR MOSIANE: I was standing aside, Chairperson.

MS BRIDJLALL: But you associated yourself with the assault by standing there?

MR MOSIANE: Yes, that is correct, I was standing there.

MS BRIDJLALL: Mr Mosiane, did you participate in the interrogation, in the asking of questions?

MR MOSIANE: No, Chair.

MS BRIDJLALL: Do you remember that questions were asked?

MR MOSIANE: I recall, even though I would not verbatim quote them, I would not say them word by word.

MS BRIDJLALL: Do you remember what Mr Japie Maponya's answers were to those questions?

MR MOSIANE: Chairperson, the questions were relating to Orderele. He refused, he said he didn't know anything.

MS BRIDJLALL: Mr Maponya, we heard that ...(intervention)

MR MOSIANE: I'm not Mr Maponya.

MS BRIDJLALL: Sorry. I'm sorry, I'm busy writing and I apologise. Mr Mosiane, we heard yesterday that Mr Maponya was covered with a blanket. Did you at any time during the assault see a blanket anywhere? Did you see him covered at any point in time with a blanket?

MR MOSIANE: I do not recall, Chairperson.

MS BRIDJLALL: You do not recall seeing him covered with a blanket, or seeing a blanket, is that correct?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MS BRIDJLALL: Thank you Mr Mosiane, thank you Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS BRIDJLALL

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Bridjlall. Ms Lockhat do you have any questions you'd like to ask?

MS LOCKHAT: Yes, thank you Chairperson, I'll be very brief.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: You said that you were abducted by Freek Pienaar and Mr Deetlefs, is that correct?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MS LOCKHAT: How did you get to Vlakplaas?

MR MOSIANE: I arrived at Vlakplaas after I was detained for 6 months.

MS LOCKHAT: Did you ever see Mr Freek Pienaar at Vlakplaas?

MR MOSIANE: When, before, after or my entire life at Vlakplaas?

MS LOCKHAT: Just during that period, say 1985, when you were there during the Japie Maponya incident.

MR MOSIANE: No.

MS LOCKHAT: You can recall that Mr de Kock told all the askaris to leave after the assault of Japie Maponya?

MR MOSIANE: He told us when we at the shooting range.

MS LOCKHAT: Did you live - did you sleep over that night at the farm?

MR MOSIANE: I do not recall, Chairperson.

MS LOCKHAT: Because why I'm asking you this, because in the criminal trial you said you stayed there at the farm that specific night, so when de Kock said everybody left, some people left to go to their homes, but you particularly, you slept there, I don't know if it was in a rondavel or something, but you slept on the farm that night.

MR MOSIANE: It might be so, Chairperson.

MS LOCKHAT: So after the assault, did you go back to where Japie was, or did you just stay the night wherever you were sleeping on the farm?

MR MOSIANE: I did not go to the place of the assault.

MS LOCKHAT: Did you see Gen le Roux on the farm on that particular day? Did you ever see him?

CHAIRPERSON: On which day?

MS LOCKHAT: The day that Japie Maponya, the day of the assault.

CHAIRPERSON: The day of the assault.

MR MOSIANE: No, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And the next day, the next morning?

MR MOSIANE: No Chair, I did not see him.

MS LOCKHAT: And the next day, after Japie Maponya was assaulted, you were at the farm, what did you think happened to Japie Maponya when you didn't see him there the next day?

MR MOSIANE: I did not see him, Chairperson.

MS LOCKHAT: You didn't wonder what happened to him after the assault?

MR MOSIANE: When such an operation happened, the usual way would be, the second phase of the operation, if you are not involved in that second phase of the operation, you would not be in a position to know how it went.

MS LOCKHAT: I see in your amnesty application form ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Sorry Ms Lockhat. What do you mean, the second phase of the operation?

MR MOSIANE: Chairperson, we're talking about the abduction and the torture of Japie and his killing. When he was taken to be killed, there were arrangements made. He was taken to Piet Retief. If you were not present when this was planned, you'd not know, you'd only know of instances where you were present.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Lockhat.

MS LOCKHAT: On page 494 or your amnesty application, that's bundle 1(b), your political objective, you stated that you were a soldier carrying out orders. Did you perceive yourself as a soldier at this point in time when Japie Maponya was killed?

CHAIRPERSON: When he was abducted.

MS LOCKHAT: When he was abducted? Thank you, Chairperson.

MR MOSIANE: That was so, Chairperson.

MS LOCKHAT: So you were an askari, abducted by the South African Police, and you regarded yourself as a soldier after that. Can you comment on that?

MR MOSIANE: Let us put it this way. I was a soldier before I was abducted. At that time I was a soldier of conscience and at that time I was turned into an askari, I still remained a soldier against my conscience.

MS LOCKHAT: I just want you to turn to page 497 of your amnesty application form. Mr Mosiane, who completed this amnesty application form for you?

MR MOSIANE: This is not my handwriting. I believe there was someone who was assisting me in the filling of the form.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you remember the circumstances in which it was filled out, where you were, who that person might have been?

MR MOSIANE: I think I was at the offices of the Attorney-General, there was someone assisting me with the filling of these forms.

MS LOCKHAT: Mr Mosiane, just if you can check on page 497, there's a signature there, is that your signature?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MS LOCKHAT: And then I just want to refer you to page 507, continues your amnesty application form, which one of page 524 is your signature?

CHAIRPERSON: Which page?

MS LOCKHAT: Page 524.

CHAIRPERSON: 524.

MS LOCKHAT: There's a hand-written statement. is that your hand-written statement, or did someone else write that statement on your behalf as well?

MR MOSIANE: This is my handwriting Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: When you say this is your handwriting, it seems, if you take a look at page 524 Mr Mosiane, that there seems to be two handwritings there. If you take a look at the first 10 or so lines and compare it with the last 3, it looks like it's different handwriting. Are you saying that it's all your handwriting, or is it, if not, which one of the two sets is yours?

MR MOSIANE: The last two lines are not my handwriting.

MS LOCKHAT: And the signature at the bottom of the last two lines that's not your handwriting, is that your signature as well?

MR MOSIANE: That's correct, that's mine.

MS LOCKHAT: And the top one, just before the handwriting that is not yours, is that your signature or is it just the way you write your name?

MR MALAN: It's not his handwriting.

CHAIRPERSON: No, he said that these two bottom lines are not his handwriting. I think the question being asked Mr Mosiane is, where it's written Christopher Mosiane, did you write that?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Is the way it's set out there your signature?

MR MOSIANE: This is my name, written by myself.

CHAIRPERSON: And then the bottom one is your signature?

MR MOSIANE: At the bottom, that is my signature Sir.

MS LOCKHAT: And then I just want you to turn over to page 558 of the same bundle, there is another signature there on page 558. Now is that also your signature?

MR MOSIANE: I wrote with my hand my full names, but right at the bottom that is not my signature.

MS LOCKHAT: No, I know that, that is the Commissioner of Oaths signature. So you would basically sign differently. The one on page 558 is totally different to the one on page 524. Can you explain that?

MR MALAN: Ms Lockhat is the way he wrote his name on 558 not very similar as on 524?

CHAIRPERSON: I think what Ms Lockhat is getting at, take a look at page 497 rather. Now 497 you signed with a signature, you've got a squiggle C and there's a sort-of squiggle, it's like a signature, whereas on page 558 it's not a signature as such, it's just a printing out of your name. Now what she's asking you is, why would you not sign the same, the same way, why print your name on the one and sign it on the other? That's what the question is.

MR MOSIANE: I signed on page 497, on page 558 I printed my name in full, I did not sign. I do not know whether there's a fault with this, whether there was a rule that I should have followed.

CHAIRPERSON: No, there isn't any fault with it, Mr Mosiane, Ms Lockhat just wants to know why you did it differently. Is there any reason? That's all she wanted to know, but there's nothing wrong with it. The one's not invalid.

MS LOCKHAT: I just wanted to get some clarification on that, Mr Mosiane, that's all. I see on your statement, the statement on page 507 continued to 524, that's the statement that you said you wrote. Why didn't you include Japie Maponya's incident in that statement, because there's someone else, you said that you didn't write that at the bottom where it refers to Japie Maponya, but in your statement why didn't you refer fully to the Japie Maponya incident in that statement that you made?

MR MOSIANE: I thought I was writing with my hand, it was a free hand here. Japie Maponya's incident was going to be included in the forms that I was going to be provided with, the application forms.

MS LOCKHAT: Okay. Thank you, Chairperson, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS LOCKHAT

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Lockhat. Mr Lamey, do you have any re-examination?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, just before Mr Lamey re-examines, may I seek your indulgence just to deal with one aspect that I should have dealt with? Thank you. 

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Mr Mosiane, may I just refer you to your evidence in the De Kock trial, para A(3) on page 172, at the foot of that page. I ask you the following question there, "Yes, can I just get clarity from you? Are you saying that your search there in the Kagiso/Munsieville environment took place for two reasons? One, there is possibly a man here who has been militarily trained and two, he was, according to information, also involved in the murder of W/O Tshwane?" You answered in the affirmative, you said, "That is so" and then I continued, "This W/O Tshwane was murdered in the month of May, I mean the 27th, can you recall whether you began searching for him shortly after the murder of Tshwane?" You replied, "Well I don't know when the W/O was murdered, but I know that when we searched for him, we were searching for him with regard to the two matters."

Now the question that I really want to put to you is, Mr de Kock was only, he only became the Commander of Vlakplaas on, I think the 1st of July. Now I want to know from you, is it possible that the instructions to go and look for Mr Orderele were given to you by his predecessor, Cronje?

MR MOSIANE: I don't think that is the situation, Sir.

MR HATTINGH: Is it not possible?

MR MOSIANE: That the instructions could have been from Mr Cronje?

MR HATTINGH: Yes, who was then the Commander at Vlakplaas.

CHAIRPERSON: What Mr Hattingh is saying, Mr Mosiane, is that Mr de Kock became Commander of Vlakplaas in July 85. W/O Tshwane was murdered during May 85. Now, what Mr Hattingh's asking is, is it possible that you went to Krugersdorp during either May or June 1985, in which event it would have been Mr Cronje who was the then Commander who may have given the order? He's asking, is that possible?

MR MOSIANE: It's possible, Chair.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, re-examination?

MR LAMEY: I've got no re-examination, Mr Chairman.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY

CHAIRPERSON: Adv Gcabashe, do you have any questions you would like to ask?

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you, yes, Chair. Mr Mosiane, in the motor vehicle, after you had talked to Japie Maponya, did Radebe speak to you at all about the possibility of an abduction, in the vehicle, when all of you were now sitting in the panel van?

MR MOSIANE: No, Chairperson.

ADV GCABASHE: Even after speaking over the radio, he didn't raise the issue with you at all?

MR MOSIANE: Not at all.

ADV GCABASHE: Then you say you sat there until Japie came out of the work premises, out of the bank. Did Radebe say, tell you why you should wait in the van? Did anybody talk about why you were sitting there?

MR MOSIANE: No, Chairperson.

ADV GCABASHE: And if you cast your mind back to the time that you were sitting in that van, you had done your job, why were you sitting there? What was going through your mind at that time, not now?

MR MOSIANE: There was maybe this possibility of following him, even though I do not know up to which point.

ADV GCABASHE: Had he used a back exit for instance, would you have had to sit in that van until somebody dismissed you, said to you you can go home? I mean, how long were you going to sit in the van?

MR MOSIANE: It would be clear that the bank was now closed and Japie does not appear. There would be no reason to sit there had he used a back exit. We would be in a position, we would supposed to leave that place.

ADV GCABASHE: But it's the team leader who would give direction as to what you should do at any moment in time?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: Coming back to Vlakplaas. The interrogation's taken place, the assault takes place, you are told that you can go home. Do you know who took Japie from the shooting range, from the river up to the farm house?

MR MOSIANE: I do not know.

ADV GCABASHE: You left him down at the river? When you left he was still there?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chair.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you very much. Thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan, do you have any questions?

MR MALAN: Mr Mosiane when you approached Japie in the bank, did he wear a uniform?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chair.

MR MALAN: When he came out of the bank that afternoon, when you observed him on the pavement until his abduction, was he still wearing the uniform?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chair.

MR MALAN: When he was assaulted, was he still wearing the uniform, when you saw him at the river?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chair.

MR MALAN: Did you see him with any other clothes with him? Did he have a parcel with him?

MR MOSIANE: He did not have any clothes with him.

MR MALAN: You did not observe him carrying anything when he left the bank?

MR MOSIANE: I do not recall.

MR MALAN: Then, after his abduction, when you observed the abduction, and when that vehicle drove off, as you say, in the direction of Vlakplaas, what did you do?

MR MOSIANE: We followed it, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Did you follow the vehicle?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: When you say followed it, in sight or you went to the same place ultimately? Did you drive in convoy?

MR MOSIANE: We took the same direction, Chair.

MR MALAN: You did not keep that vehicle in your sight? The Jetta?

MR MOSIANE: No, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Did you stop anywhere on the way to Vlakplaas?

MR MOSIANE: We did not stop.

MR MALAN: So wouldn't one estimate that you would arrive at Vlakplaas more or less simultaneously or shortly after the arrival of that vehicle that he was abducted in, the Jetta?

MR MOSIANE: It's possible. You will realise that we were driving in a panel van and they were driving in a small car, a powerful, a speedy car. It's possible that they could have arrived a minute, a few minutes before us.

MR MALAN: Yes, but it's a short distance from Krugersdorp to Vlakplaas, at most probably half an hour's drive, so yes, you could have been say 5 minutes after them?

MR MOSIANE: That's possible, Chair.

MR MALAN: But at the time when you arrived he was not in the Jetta any more. According to your impression he had already been assaulted, he had been taken from the Jetta, put into the kombi and there was already tear gas sprayed, so there must, that part of the assault must have been very, very quick, very fast. Could all of that have happened in 5 minutes?

MR MOSIANE: Yes, Chair, but let us understand each other. The time difference, 5 minutes, is not what I mentioned. I think Chair you are channelling me to say this happened in 5 minutes. I said the Jetta was in front and when we arrived these things had happened already. I did not confine myself to the 5 minutes.

MR MALAN: No, I'm not accusing you of having said that. I'm trying to find out how quickly that assault, including the spraying of tear gas happened, it must have been in the time difference between the Jetta travelling to Vlakplaas and the panel van travelling to Vlakplaas.

CHAIRPERSON: That's assuming they took the same route.

MR MALAN: I doubt whether there - that is of course assuming they took the same route.

CHAIRPERSON: If I was driving I'd probably get lost, take half an hour extra.

MR MALAN: One would assume that you drove there and back and probably followed the main route, the main road, but that's not that important. It's just, it's a very brief span, it must have happened quickly. Are you sure you never stopped over anywhere?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Are there any question arising out of questions that have been put by members of the panel?

Thank you, Mr Mosiane, that concludes your testimony, you may stand down. Thank you.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson, the next amnesty applicant is Simon Radebe.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman we appear for Mr Radebe but I would seek leave from you to call Mr Pienaar first. Mr Pienaar came yesterday to give evidence and he didn't come prepared to stay over. He had to return to Piet Retief yesterday after the adjournment.

CHAIRPERSON: I think if we could just have a short adjournment. I think Mr Williams has also got a problem, so perhaps if we can just take a short adjournment and if you could speak with Mr Williams. As far as the panel is concerned, we have no difficulty in the order of witnesses.

MR WILLIAMS: Chairperson, before we adjourn, Mr Mosiane just indicates that he just wants to say something else.

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly Mr Mosiane, if you want to say something you're free to do so, but it won't concern Mr Hattingh.

MR MOSIANE: What about Mr Hattingh, Chair?

CHAIRPERSON: I said you can say something but not a continuation of what was said yesterday about Mr Hattingh.

MR MOSIANE: Thank you, Chair. I am directing this to the family of Japie Maponya. I say to the Maponya, I did not come here to justify my participation in the killing of Japie. I'm not here to say I am very clean. I am here to set the record straight. Me, Gabukwele Mosiane, maybe I know better how they feel about the brutal killing of a brother and a father to two kids. I placed myself in Japie's situation at the time of the abduction. I know abduction because I went to Vlakplaas because I was abducted. I know exactly how he felt. I know exactly how it is to face death. I'm not reading it from books, I'm not hearing it from other people and I know they are very sad. 

&#9;I have one request and I would also request the Committee. This is done, it cannot be undone. After talking for seven days about the brutality of this killing, there are many issues that cropped up. Other incidents were done with an attempt to bring them together with this abduction of Japie. In these past 7 days I heard there was someone also who was kidnapped, I think he's got an Indian name. I heard that he was kidnapped, yes, it was mentioned here as well, but what I want to strive to, what I want to make as a request here, is that I tried to follow that abduction through television and newspapers, I came to realise that that man claimed R700 000. He sued the State and I heard that the same man was given, received something like R600 000 out of the court settlement. This is not a secret, I read it in the newspapers. 

&#9;Japie left two small children. It is my plea that his children be given a decent reparation so that they grow up and get a decent education, so that they become learned friends, I have heard people calling each other learned friends. It's true, we can't bring his life back. He is also a victim in the process of achieving freedom. That is my request. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: At the conclusion of these proceedings, one of the functions of this particular panel will be to make recommendations to another committee within the Commission, namely the Reparations Committee and that will be done in this case as well.

MR MOSIANE: Thank you very much Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We'll take a short adjournment now so the legal representatives can discuss the question of the next witness.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman, with your leave I call Mr Pienaar.

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Do I take it that it's in order if I lead him, although he's not my client, Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you. Mr Pienaar, you were a member of the South African Security Police, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: Yes that is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Are you still a member?

MR PIENAAR: No.

MR HATTINGH: You were stationed in Piet Retief, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: We have heard from other evidence that Piet Retief is a branch of the Ermelo Security Branch of the security police? 

MR PIENAAR: It was a sub-branch of the Ermelo branch.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, and were you the Commander of the sub-branch in Piet Retief?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I was.

MR HATTINGH: And in that capacity you were involved in various operations?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, what was your rank at that time, 1985?

MR PIENAAR: Warrant Officer.

MR HATTINGH: Is it correct that you were also involved as a security policeman, in operations in co-operation with C1 or Vlakplaas?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And is it also correct that you were involved in serious human rights violations in the execution of your tasks

with special regard to some of these operations?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And that you are applying for amnesty for the gross human rights violations that you may have been involved in?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And that some of your applications have been heard by the TRC?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: You have not applied for amnesty for the Japie Maponya incident?

MR PIENAAR: No, I haven't.

MR HATTINGH: Were you aware of the evidence which came to light regarding the Japie Maponya incident?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I heard about it. 

MR HATTINGH: During the course of the de Kock hearing?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: The evidence of Messrs Nortje, Fourie, van der Walt and various others.

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And were you thus aware thereof that you were being implicated in the matter by these persons?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I was aware of it.

MR HATTINGH: And were you also aware of it that these persons were applying for amnesty for the incident?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And that once again in their evidence, for the purposes of their applications, they have implicated you in the matter?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: You have your own legal representatives who represent you with regard to an amnesty application.

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And is it with their co-operation and their knowledge that you are giving evidence here?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: You came to the hearing yesterday afternoon with your legal representative, Mr Prinsloo?

MR PIENAAR: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And you held a brief consultation with his assistance with us?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: After which he excused himself?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Pienaar, just in general, you say you were involved in operations with Vlakplaas and I assume from that, that you got to know Mr de Kock from 1985 onwards.

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did you ever visit Vlakplaas?

MR PIENAAR: I think that during my time I may have visited the place two or three times, but not any more than that.

MR HATTINGH: Any while he was the Commander, or not?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And as a security policeman at Piet Retief, and I am referring specifically to 1985, were you in liaison with the Counter Insurgency unit of the police, who undertook border patrols in that area where you were stationed?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I was in good liaison with them and also later with the members of the Defence Force who took over from the Counter Insurgency units.

MR HATTINGH: Can you tell us when the Defence Force took over from these units?

MR PIENAAR: I'm not certain of the period in time, it may have been 1985, but I am not entirely certain.

MR HATTINGH: Were there any discussions or meetings between the Security Police and the Counter Insurgency units with regard to border movements?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And how frequently did these meetings take place?

MR PIENAAR: There were never any specific times, Chairperson, it may have been once a week. In more serious cases if, there were more infiltrations or if there was more information, it may have been even two to three times a week.

MR HATTINGH: These meetings had to do with infiltrations by so-called terrorists, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, primarily.

MR HATTINGH: In your capacity as a security policeman, were you ever involved in operations which were cross-border operations in Swaziland?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I was.

MR HATTINGH: Could you say whether these were just a few or were there many such cases?

MR PIENAAR: There was more than one case.

MR HATTINGH: And do you know of any other policemen who were involved in the Eastern Transvaal Security Branch, is that what it was?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, it was.

MR HATTINGH: That were connected to that branch, who also were involved in such operations?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: During which they crossed the border to Swaziland?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Legally or illegally?

MR PIENAAR: Sometimes legally, sometimes illegally.

MR HATTINGH: Did any such persons who wanted to cross the border illegally, ever make any inquiries with you with regard to police movements on the border?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, they did, but it wasn't only members of the Eastern Transvaal branch, but also members of other divisions.

MR HATTINGH: Other security divisions of the police?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: For the purposes of determining whether or not they could cross the border at a specific place without encountering the police?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, to determine whether there was a lot of movement, whether extra people had been deployed and so forth.

MR HATTINGH: So it wasn't a strange request to you?

MR PIENAAR: No, it wasn't at all.

MR HATTINGH: And then just to come to the Japie Maponya incident, were you contacted by Mr de Kock or anybody under his command with regard to the Maponya case?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, during the trial of Col de Kock, I thought back quite a lot to the time that it may have been as the evidence was led, when Col de Kock came to fetch garden equipment from me and I had the vague notion about it, so he may have contacted me, but I cannot recall specifically whether he contacted me or whether it was somebody else.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall that he arrived at your house late one night?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And when he arrived there, can you recall where he parked the vehicle that they were travelling in, was it outside your premises or on your premises?

MR PIENAAR: It was on my premises, close to the back door of my dwelling.

MR HATTINGH: Was there a road that gave access to that section of the premises?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, there was.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall whether you expected their arrival, Mr Pienaar?

MR PIENAAR: As I have said I can vaguely remember that somebody called me. As I've said I cannot recall whether it was him or somebody else, so I did expect them to arrive there.

MR HATTINGH: And when he arrived there, were you still up?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I was.

MR HATTINGH: And can you recall where you met him?

MR PIENAAR: I'm not entirely certain about that, but it would probably have been at the kitchen door because that is where the vehicle was parked. I cannot recall whether it was inside or outside the house.

MR HATTINGH: And what was the purpose with his visit, according to your recollection?

MR PIENAAR: He came to fetch gardening equipment from me. I cannot recall what it all was.

MR HATTINGH: Did he want to know anything else from you?

MR PIENAAR: He wanted to know if there was much movement on the border by members of either the Counter Insurgency units or the Defence Force, I'm not sure which one at that stage.

MR HATTINGH: Did he ask you about movements at a certain place?

MR PIENAAR: No, he simply made inquiries about border movements.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall whether you gave him, or lent him, any gardening equipment?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I did. Upon various occasions I lent spades to members of C1 who were working there as they were doing border work.

MR HATTINGH: And can you recall what you lent him?

MR PIENAAR: I can recall a spade and I don't know what else it was, when I think back about it.

MR HATTINGH: Did you ask him what he wanted it for?

MR PIENAAR: No, I didn't.

MR HATTINGH: Was there a reason for that, Mr Pienaar?

MR PIENAAR: No, as I've said, on previous occasions I had lent spades to Vlakplaas members if they were doing work.

MR HATTINGH: Didn't you have any suspicions or ideas?

MR PIENAAR: No not at all.

MR HATTINGH: If any suspicion had arisen within you, would you have made inquiries? Would you have wanted to know why they wanted it?

MR PIENAAR: It was not my policy when C1 came to work in our area, to ask them what they were going to do.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Pienaar, was the arrangement when you lent him these garden tools, or at least the spade, that they would be returned that same night?

MR PIENAAR: No, often it was not returned on the same day. I didn't ask him specifically whether they would be returning that very same night. I didn't ask him anything about it.

MR HATTINGH: Did you receive such equipment back?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Now, we have heard much before this Committee about the need-to-know principle. Was this a principle that was also of application to you?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And if you had suspected that they were occupied with some or other operation, would you have inquired about it?

MR PIENAAR: No, I wouldn't have inquired about it.

MR HATTINGH: Did they depart from there?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, they did.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall whether you saw more than one person, or whether you only saw Mr de Kock?

MR PIENAAR: If I have it correctly, when I walked out with Mr de Kock, I went to fetch the equipment in my garage which was situated above the house. I gave him the equipment and that is when I saw Mr Nortje seated in the front of the vehicle and I also saw Eugene Fourie along with somebody else who was in the back of the vehicle, but I don't know who that was.

MR HATTINGH: Did you speak to them?

MR PIENAAR: No, I simply greeted them and that was that.

MR HATTINGH: Did you climb into the vehicle?

MR PIENAAR: No, I didn't.

MR HATTINGH: Did you accompany them to where they were on their way to?

MR PIENAAR: No.

MR HATTINGH: You heard the evidence that you went with them to the Nersden border post and that you crossed the border with them and that you entered the plantation with them when they killed Japie Maponya and covered his body there?

MR PIENAAR: That is not correct.

MR HATTINGH: How well did you know the borders between the Republic and Swaziland in that environment where you were stationed?

MR PIENAAR: I knew my environment very well.

MR HATTINGH: What was the distance from the closest border post to Piet Retief?

MR PIENAAR: I would say approximately 12 kilometres.

MR HATTINGH: Which border post was that?

MR PIENAAR: That was Bothashoop.

MR HATTINGH: Bothashoop. I assume that you are also familiar with the Nersden border post?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: How does the Bothashoof, is it Bothashoop?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: How does that border post compare in size and scope with regard to buildings, with Nersden?

MR PIENAAR: Bothashoop is a very small border post which operates during the hours of 8 to 4, while Nersden was a much bigger and far busier border post with more residences and more staff members than Bothashoop.

MR HATTINGH: Were there also roads at Bothashoop which were used for the purposes of border patrol, and did these roads run parallel to the border post?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And you say that that border post used to close at 4 o'clock in the afternoon at that stage?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Were there any other border posts in the near vicinity?

MR PIENAAR: There was also a border post at Houtkop.

MR HATTINGH: How far away was that?

MR PIENAAR: 25 kilometres approximately.

MR HATTINGH: And how did that compare with Nersden?

MR PIENAAR: It was also much smaller than the Nersden border post.

MR HATTINGH: And can you recall the hours of operation?

MR PIENAAR: That was open from 8 to 6.

MR HATTINGH: And what were the hours at Nersden?

MR PIENAAR: They were 8 to 6, now they are 6 to 6.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. And as it was at the other border posts, was it also so at Houtkop where there were border roads?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And were there any other border posts closer to Piet Retief?

MR PIENAAR: At Mahamba, but that was a far bigger post which is open until 10 o'clock at night and was about 30 kilometres away from Piet Retief.

MR HATTINGH: The border fence between Swaziland and the Republic, we know how it looks at Nersden, can you tell us what it looked like at these other places that you have mentioned?

MR PIENAAR: It was also quite bushy in certain parts.

MR HATTINGH: But the fence itself, was it a wire fence?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, it was.

MR HATTINGH: Was it a security fence or something similar to that at Nersden?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, around the border post.

MR HATTINGH: Would it be a security fence around the border post?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And away from the border post?

MR PIENAAR: I would say that it is approximately 200 metres from the house that the security fences were erected. Approximately 200 metres. 

MR HATTINGH: And after that, what sort of fence would it be?

MR PIENAAR: Ordinary barbed wire.

MR HATTINGH: How high would it be? Approximately 4 feet high?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, approximately.

MR HATTINGH: You have already mentioned occasions during which persons would cross the border illegally. Can I assume that such border crossings took place away from the border post?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And were you involved in such crossings?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Is it easy, or is it difficult?

MR PIENAAR: No, it's relatively easy.

MR HATTINGH: You know the Nersden border post, don't you?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: At that time when Mr de Kock's legal representatives, that would be me and my attorney and our assistant, wanted to inspect the place, you went to show us where Nersden was.

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And you accompanied us to the place?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: In fact, at that time, you were still our client, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Now the border post there at Nersden, we have photographs of it. Those were the photos which were taken on that day. We know that there is a security fence around the building complex.

MR PIENAAR: Yes, with security lights which point to the outside.

MR HATTINGH: Do you say that the lights point to the outside? Are these sharp lights?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And do they light the road which one would take along the border?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And apart from those lights which are situated at the border posts, are there also lights in the residential sections?

MR PIENAAR: There are not lights on the plots or the premises, but there are outside lights which belong to the houses.

MR HATTINGH: Yes and that means that the area is reasonably well lighted?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And the road which turns off at the border post ran quite near to the houses in which the border patrolmen lived?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Would you reckon that it would draw attention if a vehicle was approaching the border post when the gates were already locked and if it drove along that dirt road?

MR PIENAAR: &#9;Yes. There was one person on duty during the night and if a car approached and turned right on to that road it could mean only one thing and that was that it was possibly a stolen vehicle.

MR HATTINGH: That wanted to cross the border?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: If you had to go and find the place - on that day we drove around and took photos of various places, so you are familiar with the vicinity?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: If you had to look for a place to kill and bury somebody, and specifically on the Swazi side of the border, would you have chosen that place?

MR PIENAAR: Absolutely not, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Are there other places where one could cross the border without having to drive to a border post and then taking the patrol road along the border fence?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, at various spots between border posts.

MR HATTINGH: And are those places also far closer to or than Nersden?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, because Nersden was 70 kilometres away from Piet Retief.

MR HATTINGH: And did Mr de Kock return to you that night?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, they returned later that night.

MR HATTINGH: Were you already asleep?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I was already in bed.

MR HATTINGH: And was the equipment returned to you?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: What did you do with it?

MR PIENAAR: I first left it on the back porch and the following morning I replaced it in the garage before I went to work.

MR HATTINGH: Did you inspect the equipment?

MR PIENAAR: No, I didn't.

MR HATTINGH: Did you have any reason to inspect it?

MR PIENAAR: No, I had no reason to inspect it, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And after that the equipment was used during the ordinary course of events in your garden?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

ADV GCABASHE: Can I just ask Mr Pienaar, were you expecting Mr de Kock to come back, was that the arrangement?

MR PIENAAR: Not on that same night. He didn't tell me anything, but I knew that he would return the equipment at some or other time.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, while Mr Hattingh is discussing with his attorney, coming from Vlakplaas to Piet Retief, if you had to drive from Vlakplaas to Piet Retief, or Vlakplaas to Nersden, what is the easiest route to, which would be quicker?

MR PIENAAR: Vlakplaas, Nersden.

CHAIRPERSON: So to get to Piet Retief - in other words they drove a sort of longer distance to get to Piet Retief, to borrow a spade and then drive 70 k's in the middle of the night, so they put on about 140 kilometres, to borrow a spade?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: To borrow a spade?

CHAIRPERSON: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: That's the effect as far as you can see.

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: With respect, Mr Chairman, not only that. May I embroider on that? You also said that he made inquiries about border movements again?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall whether he asked you this in the morning? Can you recall any such telephonic discussion?

MR PIENAAR: No, I cannot really recall anything about that.

MR HATTINGH: Well, let us suppose that you were contacted in the morning and that inquiries were made in that regard, could the position have changed from the morning to the evening?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, it could have changed.

MR HATTINGH: Did it change at times?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, often.

MR HATTINGH: How frequently?

MR PIENAAR: If information came through and you had redeployed people on the border in order to have double strength patrol.

MR HATTINGH: Did you expect them on that evening after they had made inquiries about the border?

MR PIENAAR: No.

MR HATTINGH: Just to get back to Nersden. When we undertook the inspection, I don't recall what the exhibit number was.

CHAIRPERSON: It's a blue one.

MR HATTINGH: It's a blue one, yes, Mr Chairman.

MS LOCKHAT: It's Exhibit E, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Pienaar, I want to refer you to some of these photographs. You will recall that on that day we covered a reasonably long distance and took photographs all along the border.

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I can recall that.

MR HATTINGH: If we look at photo 1(a) and photo 1(b), then the legend thereunder reads, "Photo is taken 5 kilometres away from Nersden border post in plantations on Swazi side in an easterly direction."

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: So now we know, according to the evidence, that the killing of Mr Maponya took place within a distance of about 3,7 kilometres. We didn't know that at that time.

MR PIENAAR: No.

MR HATTINGH: And I don't know if you can recall why we travelled so far, can you?

MR PIENAAR: If I recall correctly, it was to inspect the plantations next to the fence on the Swazi side.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall whether we took any statements from the potential state witnesses during the inspection?

MR PIENAAR: I'm not entirely certain, but I would imagine and I don't know whether I heard this during the de Kock trial, that somebody spoke of Mr Maponya who was killed in a pine plantation on the Swazi side of the border, but there is no pine plantation there.

CHAIRPERSON: I think I recall mention of Eucalyptus here as well, in this hearing.

MR PIENAAR: Yes, blue gum, but not pine trees.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, you are correct. I did not deal with that during these proceedings but during the trial in his statement, he mentioned something about pine needles on the ground and then reference was made to the fact that there are no pine trees there.

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And we drove along the border line and we took photos as we moved.

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Photo 5(a) indicates the border and the nature of the wire fence. Is that the nature of the fence?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Do you know whether the border was patrolled by the Swaziland police?

MR PIENAAR: There were some patrols, Chairperson, by the Swaziland army sometimes, but it was very seldom.

MR HATTINGH: Did they also co-operate with the South African police in this regard?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, we had a close co-operation.

MR HATTINGH: And would you have had any knowledge of their movements?

MR PIENAAR: Usually I would have.

MR HATTINGH: And if one looks at the photos, I'm looking for photo 14(a), one there sees a house comparatively close to the border. Is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And there is a ploughed area, is that the area on the Republic side?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that's on the Republic side.

MR HATTINGH: Where the grass starts, is that the border?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: So the house there, that one sees there in amongst the trees, is practically right next to the fence?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And if one drives past there, one would pass within 50 metres of it?

MR PIENAAR: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Would you, if you wanted to kill someone and bury someone there, would you have picked a place where you would have passed so close to houses?

MR PIENAAR: No.

MR HATTINGH: And on photo 16(a).

MR PIENAAR: I just have to mention Chairperson, there are two houses next to the Nersden border post which is very close to the border.

MR HATTINGH: The one on photo 16(a), is that the other one?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: And the fence that one sees there, I think one only sees the poles there, does that form part of the border?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And on photo 16 (b) one sees the ploughed soil and one sees where the border starts. 

MR PIENAAR: The ploughed soil was for fire prevention between the two borders.

MR HATTINGH: And on photo 18(a) one sees a house once again, which is a little bit further away from the border, but within sight.

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And then the issue of the lighting. To deal with that, on photo 22(b) one sees the border post, as you approach it from the Republic side, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And one does not see houses on the right-hand side, but also on the left-hand side.

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR PIENAAR: And towards the end, photo 26(a) one sees the fencing and one sees the high wooden poles with the lights and the photo which shows where the lights are turned to the outside.

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And it is more clear on 26(b).

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: So if one turns down that road, you would drive for as far as the security fence goes around the border post, you would drive in a clearly lighted road.

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. I see it's just past 1 o'clock. We'll now take the lunch adjournment until quarter to 2.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh have you finished your evidence in chief?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: (cont.) 

&#9;I've just got one more question, with your leave Mr Chairman. May I proceed?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Pienaar, you've now said that other policemen inquired about movements on the border, did Mr de Kock, before this incident and afterwards, direct such inquiries to you?

MR PIENAAR: Yes he did, as well as other members from C1.

MR HATTINGH: And you were also together with Mr de Kock at one border incident?

MR PIENAAR: I think with three, yes I think so, I am not certain.

MR HATTINGH: But I know you were involved with such instances where people were killed.

MR PIENAAR: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And for which you apply for amnesty.

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Lamey do you have any questions you'd like to put to the witness?

MR LAMEY: Yes, thank you, Chairperson. 

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, before I commence with my cross-examination, I wish to beg leave to hand up a road map, it's actually two road maps. May I just hand it up and then I'll explain the document?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Lamey.

MS LOCKHAT: And mark it EXHIBIT G Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Lockhat. Thank you, yes. We'll receive these then. The one on the front, page number 55 will be Exhibit G1 and the one on the second page which hasn't got a number, will be G2.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, you will note on G1, in the right-hand corner, is the logo of BP. I have the provisional book from which this copy was made, in my possession. It can be inspected.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, are there any problems with the maps from any of the representatives? You can go ahead, Mr Lamey.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I just want to say that I don't - I tried to find the date of the printing of this G1 and this map. I couldn't find it in this book but I can just say, this is my own personal one, I have it for a long time and I can recall that I had it before at least the 90's. There is, at the back of the original, an advertisement of BP with a motor vehicle and an outdated Model Ford Cortina with the TJ, the old Johannesburg registration number on that vehicle. I just want to, there's a reason why.

CHAIRPERSON: So it's a reasonably old map, probably some time in the 80's that it was published.

MR LAMEY: Probably even before that. I know that I had it at least before the 90's. Then Chairperson, G2 is a copy from the book printed by the AA Motorist Publications. It's the second print dated 1993.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Perhaps Mr Pienaar who lives in the area or who knows the area well, have there been any significant road changes there in the last 20 years, Mr Pienaar, the last 15 years?

MR PIENAAR: No, Chairperson, except for the tarred roads and the other roads which have deteriorated. 

MR LAMEY: So can we then accept, I am going to refer you to the map, I don't know if we have an extra one for you. The roads in the vicinity of the border post, if you could just look at G2, may I just show you? Can you just have a look? If we refer to the roads in the vicinity of the Nersden border post and the infra- structure with regard to the other border post referring to the roads and so forth, if you look at G2, was that about the same in 1985?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, no, a State forestry developed between Nersden and Houtkop border posts there where you see Dwalier, close to the Wimpies River, that is all State forestry that was developed there during that time and that is on the South African side, I would say approximately 10 to 12 km from Nersden where this forestry was started and that whole section is planted with pine trees.

CHAIRPERSON: Does that refer to the roads?

MR PIENAAR: The roads are still the same, yes, except there's just much more plantation roads which were made there.

MR LAMEY: Was this also in 1985 that we found these roads in between the plantations? These are State farm roads?

MR PIENAAR: No, there are also private plantations with a tremendous amount of roads, but they also lead right up to the border fence because the plantations reach up to the border fence.

MR LAMEY: Yes, but now we refer to roads which would not appear on a map. You were born in Amsterdam, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Amsterdam in Transvaal?

MR PIENAAR: In Transvaal.

MR LAMEY: May I just ask you, your whole life did you live in that vicinity? Did you work and live there?

MR PIENAAR: No, I did not. My primary school career I was there and high school I was in Pretoria at Pretoria Afrikaans High School and afterwards I went to Heidelberg, Balfour and back to Amsterdam where I went to Waverley border post, that was just above Nersden and I went to Golelle border post and back to Piet Retief. But I always visited Amsterdam, my family and so forth.

MR LAMEY: And of all the years, do you still live in Piet Retief?

MR PIENAAR: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: And could we then accept that the border towns, Amsterdam, Piet Retief, all the border posts along the Swaziland border, I refer to the whole Swaziland border, do you know that very well?

MR PIENAAR: I would not say the whole Swaziland border, but right down to Golelle, but up to Josefdal and Barberton, I don't know that area, I seldom visited there.

MR LAMEY: So from Oshoek, south?

MR PIENAAR: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: Do you know it well?

MR PIENAAR: The Golelle which you refer to, where is that?

MR PIENAAR: That is the last border post, it does not appear here.

CHAIRPERSON: That's just near Josini.

MR PIENAAR: Yes, it is close to Josini.

MR LAMEY: Would it be incorrect to say that border vicinity with Swaziland, would you know it like the palm of your hand?

MR PIENAAR: I would not say as the palm of my hand, but I do know it well.

MR LAMEY: So we accept that you know it better than somebody who was not born there and who had not worked there for a long time, but from time to time may have come there?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Yes. If we have regard for Exhibit G2 as well as G1, then we see quite a lot, or we have a main road that comes from Ermelo to Piet Retief, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, 

MR LAMEY: That is the N2. 

MR PIENAAR: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: And then, there is a prominent main road from Ermelo to Amsterdam?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Right up to Nersden?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And on the original map, I can tell you, that was in 1983, the N2 was indicated in blue there and the other one is in red, meaning a solid red line, which indicates the road there.

CHAIRPERSON: Both tarred roads, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that's correct.

MR LAMEY: And then, let's call it north of Piet Retief, if you look at G2 in the direction of Amsterdam, there are several roads which are indicated, also in the vicinity of Houtkop, Bothashoop border posts, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: What are those roads, Mr Pienaar?

MR PIENAAR: Those are gravel roads to Bothashoop and in the later years, I'm not sure when it was, the one road to Houtkop was tarred and the other one not.

MR LAMEY: I see there are specifically three border posts not very far from each other, Houtkop, Bothashoop and Mahamba?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Houtkop has a parallel border post, Sekunusa and Botha's Hoop has the same parallel, and Mahamba is on the Swaziland side.

MR PIENAAR: Mahamba is on the Swaziland and on our side they have the same name, yes.

MR LAMEY: From Piet Retief, is there a reason why there are specifically two border posts close to Piet Retief? Is it because there is much traffic from Swaziland and movement? I've never been there.

MR PIENAAR: No, I don't know the reason why it was originally built there, but there is much forestry traffic that comes from Swaziland to the Republic and there are also two small towns, Sekunusa and Ngege on the Swaziland side and I would assume that that was done, the border post was built there for medical treatment to the people on the Swaziland side, closer to what they would be inside Swaziland.

MR LAMEY: Is there a settlement on the South African side between Piet Retief and Swaziland for which those access roads are there?

MR PIENAAR: No, there is no settlement there, those are farms and plantations.

MR LAMEY: Because there is an interesting thing here, there is a network of roads here, surrounding Piet Retief and surrounding Houtkop, as you see in G2 and Botha's Hoop except for the main roads, which are indicated on a farm. There has to be a reason therefore.

MR PIENAAR: That's correct, those are gravel roads which connect each other to make it easier for the forestry people, but they are not all roads that are used by the general public to the border post.

MR LAMEY: Are there many forestry plantations there?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, it's one continuous plantation.

MR LAMEY: Could one accept that there are people that live there in the labourer's houses and so on?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct, yes.

MR LAMEY: Can we accept, Mr Pienaar, that here around Piet Retief in general and that close to the border post, the population presence whether it be in the plantation is larger than elsewhere north of the border post?

MR PIENAAR: No, I would not agree with you, not at all.

MR LAMEY: How would you put it then?

MR PIENAAR: Plantation labourers, people on the farms themselves, they live in groups, they are not distributed through the whole place.

MR LAMEY: So there is not a dense population in that section like there is in other places?

MR PIENAAR: I would say the densest population group would be in between Mahamba and Golelle border posts, which resort under Kwa-Zulu Natal. It is a densely populated area.

MR LAMEY: Excuse me, Mr Pienaar, I think we refer to the comparative population density with regard to Houtkop and Nersden.

MR PIENAAR: No, it won't be more, not at all, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: More or less the same?

MR PIENAAR: I would say on the Republic side, Nersden might be less, not much less, but on the Swaziland side, Nersden is much more than at Bothashoop, than at Houtkop itself.

MR LAMEY: You see, even on the Swaziland side from Nersden, one does not see the same extent, there is just one road that goes from Nersden into Swaziland according to this map and it's a recent map and comparatively there are more roads if you look at the map on the Swaziland side. 

MR PIENAAR: On the Swaziland side at Nersden, I would say approximately 5 kilometres or probably more, further away from the border post, the plantation starts. It is quite large pine plantations and the people live there, except for the labourers. They don't live there, but along the border there are many houses and shops, as well as the radio station of Swaziland.

MR LAMEY: Mr Pienaar, can you recall that you were contacted from Vlakplaas on the day before Mr de Kock arrived at your house?

MR PIENAAR: It is possible, Chairperson, I cannot specifically remember who called me and what was said, but it is entirely possible.

MR MALAN: Mr Pienaar, I think the question was, were you contacted, not by whom you were contacted.

MR PIENAAR: It is possible that I was contacted.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall?

MR PIENAAR: Specifically, ...

MR LAMEY: (end of tape)...before the arrival later that evening.

MR PIENAAR: May I put it in the following way, I would be certain that he did call me if he arrived there the evening and I was still awake when they arrived there and he asked certain things of me.

MR LAMEY: No, I don't want you to draw inferences. I am asking you, can you recall that you were contacted from Vlakplaas the morning before the evening that Mr de Kock arrived there.

MR PIENAAR: No, I cannot specifically remember.

MR LAMEY: So you cannot recall that you were called. What about the contents of any discussion?

MR PIENAAR: No, I cannot.

MR LAMEY: Why are you saying that it's possible that you could have been called?

MR PIENAAR: If Mr de Kock had arrived later that evening at my house and he and Willie Nortje say that they called me, then the possibility does exist and I cannot recall it because many people called me from several different branches.

CHAIRPERSON: You recall that you were waiting up, you didn't have to get out of bed when they arrived?

MR PIENAAR: No, I did not get up Chairperson, I was still awake.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you remember approximately how late it was at night?

MR PIENAAR: I have no idea Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Not at all? You cannot recall what time they arrived there?

MR PIENAAR: No, I cannot, I have no idea.

MR LAMEY: Let us accept that in September they departed late afternoon, between 5 and 6, what time would they arrive at your house?

MR PIENAAR: If it was between 5 and 6 it would have been at approximately 9 o'clock because from Pretoria to Piet Retief it's about three and a half hours drive if you are not speeding.

MR LAMEY: What border posts would still have been open by that time?

MR PIENAAR: Mahamba border post would be open, that one closes 10 o'clock as well as Golelle and Oshoek.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Did you expect Mr de Kock there at your house?

MR PIENAAR: Out of himself, no, but I did not expect himself there.

MR LAMEY: So you did not expect him?

MR PIENAAR: No.

MR LAMEY: You were only awake incidentally?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I was awake.

MR MALAN: I don't thinks we have to have this go wrong. If I understand the Afrikaans - you must not give answers that you cannot recall. You are saying, if he called you, you would have expected him. That was your first answer.

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR MALAN: And if he did not contact you, you would not have expected him.

MR PIENAAR: No. 

MR MALAN: I don't want us to part with incorrect premises, you don't know whether you expected him?

MR PIENAAR: I don't know.

MR MALAN: Well then you must answer to that, I don't know.

MR LAMEY: What do you recall furthermore of the events, Mr Pienaar? May I ask you the following, was there no previous evidence that would refresh your memory?

MR PIENAAR: As I have said Mr Chairperson, during the trial of Col de Kock, I thought back much to that time and it was very vague. It was a long time ago. There is not much that I can recall of it because it was an everyday thing actually, for members from Vlakplaas at C1 who visited my house and came to work there, so there was nothing specifically that I had to remember.

MR LAMEY: So your evidence is that at several occasions up to that stage, I speak of September 1985, Vlakplaas members had arrived there who worked there, who had worked there in the vicinity?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: If you refer to several times, you refer to many times?

MR PIENAAR: There must be a difference between several and many. I would say regularly one group from C1's people were in the Eastern Transvaal vicinity and it was usually in the Piet Retief vicinity because that was where the most infiltrations took place.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall, at the times when other members were there, what they came to do there?

MR PIENAAR: They came to work there, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: When they visited your house, what they did there?

MR PIENAAR: They came to braai meat, spend the evening there, spend the night there.

MR LAMEY: Were there at previous occasions members from Vlakplaas who arrived there for operation purposes, for their operations?

MR PIENAAR: I cannot recall before 85 but what had happened indeed was there were several occasions that I acted with members from C1 during operations as well as cross-border operations.

MR LAMEY: Were there such instances before September 1985 that you acted across the border with C1 members?

MR PIENAAR: I cannot specifically recall, Chairperson, I cannot recall dates.

MR LAMEY: Can you not recall any occasions?

MR PIENAAR: I can really not recall any dates, there were many ...(intervention) 

MR LAMEY: I am not referring to dates.

MR PIENAAR: I say there are several instances but I cannot recall dates so I cannot say it was before 85 or after 85.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you ever involve yourself in an operation with C1 members when Mr Cronje was the Commander?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, that would have been before September 85.

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I did work with him as well, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: So I will ask you again, before September 1985 can you recall how many Vlakplaas operations you were involved in?

MR PIENAAR: One with Brig Cronje in Swaziland.

MR LAMEY: Only one or could there have been more?

MR PIENAAR: I can only recall the one.

MY LAMEY: Are you not sure?

MR PIENAAR: No, I am not sure, but that is the one which has served before the Commission.

MR LAMEY: And that operation was that at the request of the Eastern Transvaal Security Branch, the one you refer to?

MR PIENAAR: No, it was a joint operation. It was information that was gathered and the initiative came from Head Office in Pretoria.

MR LAMEY: Was the information gathered by Eastern Transvaal Security Branch?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Is this relevant for our hearing, what happened with Brig Cronje?

MR LAMEY: I am not going to delve deeply.

CHAIRPERSON: Because I can recall your client's testimony was that they all considered Mr Pienaar a good policeman and they all respected him, etc. I don't know what you're trying to get at here. Are you trying to find out that he doesn't know the border, or he didn't work, or what is the point of it?

MR LAMEY: No, I'm just getting back on his recollection of the number of operations that he was involved with Vlakplaas and his memory in this regard. And after 1985, can you recall in how many operations, joint operations, you had acted with Vlakplaas? That is the Eastern Transvaal border security operations along with Vlakplaas?

MR PIENAAR: Could be four or five, Chairperson, I am not certain but there were a few.

MR LAMEY: You don't have an independent recollection as to how many?

MR PIENAAR: If I have to count, then I'll name them for you.

MR LAMEY: Well take your time, please.

MR PIENAAR: I would say five.

MR LAMEY: Can you tell me which occasions these were?

CHAIRPERSON: But what do we need this for Mr Lamey? Is it necessary to name what operations he was involved in afterwards, it's got nothing, it's not going to affect our decision is it?

MR LAMEY: Again Mr Chairman, I, my cross-examination surrounds the witness's recollection in general and his memory. As it pleases you, Mr Chairman.

MR PIENAAR: I can name from the start. The Siphiwe Nyanda incident in Swaziland.

MR LAMEY: That was before 85?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that was just before 85 if I am correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it Zwele Nyanda?

MR PIENAAR: Yes Zwele Nyanda and the abduction of Chris Mosiane and three other persons from the police station at Swaziland.

MR LAMEY: And did you ask amnesty for that incident?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I have. The abduction of Lefoge Sedibe from a police station in Swaziland. The Panzo incident, where Panzo and three persons were killed in a house in Swaziland. I requested amnesty for that too.

MR LAMEY: And what else? Any other operations where you were involved with Swaziland. 

MR PIENAAR: On the RSA side, yes. 

MR LAMEY: So these four were Swaziland operations?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, they were all cross-border operations.

MR LAMEY: So we have one which you cannot recall?

MR PIENAAR: There was one on the RSA side, the Piet Retief incident, the two incidents there which will be heard next week, the Amsterdam incident on the border there and then there was an incident at Sodwana Bay, along with C1, where Col de Kock was not involved.

MR LAMEY: Is that the sum total?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, as far as I can recall.

MR LAMEY: So to get back, initially you mentioned 5 operations in Swaziland and you have left one out there now which you cannot recall.

MR PIENAAR: No, I cannot recall.

MR LAMEY: Is it possible that it could only be four?

MR PIENAAR: It is entirely possible, yes.

MR LAMEY: Were you involved in an attack on a house in Swaziland along with Mr de Kock at some stage?

MR PIENAAR: With two houses yes, the one where Zwele Nyanda was killed and the other where Panzo and two other people were killed.

MR LAMEY: So you were involved with the one with Panzo Smith?

MR PIENAAR: I cannot recall the surname but I know Panzo was his MK name. Yes, I was involved there.

MR LAMEY: Can I just tell you, I refer you to page 135 or the book of Mr de Kock where he is or may I just ask you in the following, is that the instance where Capt Willem Coetzee and Capt Pretorius were also involved?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: And I would just like to tell you, I would like to make the statement to you, it is interesting that in Mr de Kock's book, your name is not mentioned in his book as a participant in that incident.

MR PIENAAR: I was there, yes, I was there. From Eastern Transvaal it was Col Deetlefs and myself, that I can remember.

MR LAMEY: The other persons' names are mentioned here but Mr de Kock left your name out. I am just putting that to you.

Then I would like to ask you, I would also like to refer you to another page 173, it says "Sometime in the 80's C1 launched an attack on a house in Swaziland that was being used by the ANC to change the number plates of stolen vehicles. The house was on the Southern side of the Mbabane/Oshoek road. The information on which we acted was gathered by the Eastern Transvaal Security Branch but the operation was carried out on my initiative."

Were you involved in that operation?

MR PIENAAR: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, are we going to go through the whole book now, or what is the position?

MR LAMEY: No, no I'm not going through the whole book, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Then on page 163 of the book, there was also an attack in Swaziland during which the following persons were killed, Thabo Mahale, Derek Mashabane and Portia Shabangu, all persons from the African National Students Congress, were you involved in that operation?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, if that was the case of Panzula, then there were three persons killed during that incident and I cannot recall their names.

MR LAMEY: It appears to be another incident.

MR PIENAAR: Then I wasn't involved in it.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Now when Mr de Kock and the others arrived at your house, what took place there that you can recall?

MR PIENAAR: I cannot recall specifically what we discussed. I have a vague recollection that they did borrow things from me, among others gardening equipment. I cannot recall exactly what sort of equipment it was. I did not question why they were there or what work they came to do or when they were going to return to my house. I cannot recall that Chairperson, not at all.

MR LAMEY: So you also have a very vague recollection of the incident?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, very vague. As I have said, this is not something that remains in your mind, if C1 came to borrow a spade from you. That isn't something that I would have remembered for very long. If he said to me, "Listen I need a spade, I'm going to bury someone", then I would have remembered it, but differently I don't believe, one wouldn't remember that.

MR LAMEY: So you cannot recall what was discussed?

MR PIENAAR: No.

CHAIRPERSON: You're saying it was basically unremarkable?

MR PIENAAR: Completely.

MR LAMEY: So there was nothing sinister about it, is that what you're trying to say?

MR PIENAAR: No. Even if he had asked me whether things on the border had changed, that was a question that was often asked, this isn't something that I would remember, unless he had told me for what purpose he was asking, I would have remembered it.

MR LAMEY: So you cannot remember whether he asked you whether anything on the border had changed?

MR PIENAAR: I cannot recall that specifically.

MR LAMEY: You cannot recall that he asked you anything with regard to border patrol in the vicinity?

MR PIENAAR: It's possible, but I can't remember.

MR LAMEY: Why do you say that it's possible if you cannot remember it?

MR PIENAAR: What I am saying is that it is possible, but I cannot recall that he ever asked me that.

MR LAMEY: In your evidence in chief you gave evidence that the vehicle parked outside the back door.

MR PIENAAR: Because it always stopped there, there wasn't any other place to stop the vehicle. That is where vehicles would stop ordinarily, as far as I can recall.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just while it's in my mind Mr Lamey, was it common for people to cross the border on these little lonely roads in a vehicle? What would happen? Would he drop the fence or via gates, or what?

MR PIENAAR: The fence could have been pressed flat and one could drive over it. Many people cut the wire fences and drove through, especially when they had stolen vehicles. Infiltrations took place quite often in that way. It was a very easy thing to cross the border.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey.

MR LAMEY: Mr Pienaar is it correct that there was a counter insurgency unit near the border post?

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, Mr Lamey, before you continue. I heard your answer to Mr Lamey's question regarding the fact that the vehicle stopped at the back door and you said that vehicles would always stop there because there was no other place for them to stop. They wouldn't have stopped in the road?

MR PIENAAR: That's correct.

MR MALAN: But the question is that you know that they stopped there, is that what you can remember?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that's what I recall, vaguely.

MR MALAN: Or are you just saying that because people stopped there as a habit? Can you recall it?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that may be partially so, but as I've said, I recall vaguely. It could also be that that was the only place for them to stop and that is how it has taken root in my consciousness.

MR MALAN: I don't know if the issue of the spade is going to be discussed any further. It looks as if you're moving away from it.

MR LAMEY: Please continue, Mr Chairperson.

MR MALAN: You also gave evidence that equipment was often borrowed by you. Can you recall that equipment was borrowed from you on that evening by Mr de Kock?

MR PIENAAR: Once again, vaguely. After the case had begun and after Mr Hattingh came to see me, and we visited Nersden, I thought about the events and it occurred in my mind vaguely, but I wouldn't swear on it.

MR MALAN: Isn't it possible that after you heard the evidence during the case, you began to reconstruct something that you don't really remember?

MR PIENAAR: No, I have tried to remember things that were vague, but as I have said, it was nothing unfamiliar.

MR MALAN: So on that point of it being nothing strange, to use the word that the Chairperson used, it was unremarkable that he came to your house that evening and that he stopped at your house, so you don't recall it. Wasn't it remarkable that he returned the spade two hours later?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that too. As I've said, I didn't expect them to come back that evening.

MR MALAN: But wouldn't you then have remembered it rather clearly, as you would remember a murder?

MR PIENAAR: No. If I borrowed something from somebody and returned it within and hour, it wouldn't be anything strange. If I returned it three months later, they would start asking about it.

MR MALAN: But it was in the middle of the night when he returned it to you.

MR PIENAAR: That was nothing out of the ordinary.

MR MALAN: You said that you were in bed, in your evidence in chief, were you asleep?

MR PIENAAR: I don't know, I cannot recall.

MR MALAN: Then how do you recall that you were in bed?

MR PIENAAR: It must have been late, according to the evidence it was late.

MR MALAN: So you also don't recall that. That is also just another reconstruction. Thank you.

MR LAMEY: For the sake of argument, they could have said to you that they were not going to be away for a long while and that they would return the spade to you that evening, even though you cannot recall it.

MR PIENAAR: I cannot recall that.

MR LAMEY: So you cannot recall anything about it, even that they returned the spade to you?

MR PIENAAR: They brought it back.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall that?

MR PIENAAR: Well I had it.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall that they returned it the same evening?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, once again that is the evidence, I am going on the evidence.

MR LAMEY: We are not asking you to reconstruct on the basis of the evidence, we want to know what you know.

MR PIENAAR: It was an insignificant matter. It wasn't something that I would have remembered for all time. This wasn't something to remember.

MR LAMEY: If the action of Mr de Kock and the others was of such a nature that it created the impression with you that they were busy with a covert operation, but that you did not need to know the particulars thereof, at least that they were busy with a covert operation, would you have remembered it better?

MR PIENAAR: If they had told me what they were going to do, yes.

MR LAMEY: So you had no indication whatsoever that they were busy with a covert operation?

MR PIENAAR: Not at all.

MR LAMEY: You see I just want to put it to you, Mr Pienaar, that according to the evidence which Mr de Kock gave here and in your experience as a security policeman and a branch commander, you would definitely have been able to draw the inference at least that they were busy with a covert operation.

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I cannot say now after 14 years what I thought on that night. I mean nothing was said to me.

MR LAMEY: Just by the way, Mr Pienaar, the cases in which you were involved with Vlakplaas regarding internal and cross-border operations in Swaziland, were these all cases in which the Eastern Transvaal Security Branch was closely involved?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Mr Pienaar, during the de Kock trial, you were also a client of the legal team of Mr de Kock?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Why were you their client at that stage?

MR PIENAAR: I had been charged and I was examined regarding the Maponya incident.

MR LAMEY: Were you a suspect?

MR PIENAAR: Yes. I put it clearly that I didn't know anything about the incident. I was charged and I appeared three times in the Regional Court in Pretoria after which the A-G withdrew the case.

MR LAMEY: I just want to put the record of the de Kock evidence to you which we have here. There is an interesting gap which indicates that the State witnesses who gave evidence and implicated you in your involvement in the murder of Japie Maponya, indicates that nothing was ever put to them to the effect that it was their instructions from you that you were not there at Nersden or anything in that relation which could indicate a denial of your involvement.

MR HATTINGH: Chairperson, with the exception of the beginning of the Nelspruit matter, no version was ever put to state witnesses, there was only cross-examination which was put to them to test the fact that the State could prove its case against Mr de Kock. Mr Pienaar was not a party to the de Kock trial and we did not deem it necessary to put instructions on his behalf.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think we can move on from that. One wouldn't expect things to be put to a witness, testifying at a trial about what somebody else who is not involved in the trial would say. It's not necessary, in any event.

Did you give evidence at the trial?

MR PIENAAR: No, Chairperson, not at all.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I hear what you say but the record reflects that it was indicated at the trial that Mr Pienaar was the client. Here there is evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: In any event Mr Hattingh's explained why. You've made the point that there wasn't anything put to the state witnesses, who implicated him, to indicate his denial.

MR LAMEY: I will argue that further, Mr Pienaar and I am going to put it to you that I am going to argue it because I find it strange that if it was your instructions which boiled down to a denial to the effect of that evidence, that you were there in the bushes where the murder was committed, and that that portion of that denial was put to the state witnesses to test the validity of their evidence. But I will leave it at that. I just want to examine you further. Were you asked to make identifications to a photographer from that legal team?

MR PIENAAR: Which legal team?

MR LAMEY: The legal team of Mr de Kock during the trial.

MR PIENAAR: I went with Mr Hattingh and the others to Nersden.

MR LAMEY: Did you make any identifications?

MR PIENAAR: I did not identify anything, I simply pointed out the roads which ran along the border line, I couldn't point anything out.

MR LAMEY: Did you identify any scenes in photographs?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, with regard to houses and the road running along the border. That was upon the request of Mr Hattingh

and the others that I accompanied them to Nersden.

MR LAMEY: So you went upon the request of Mr Hattingh? Did you attend the de Kock trial? Did you listen to the evidence?

MR PIENAAR: No, I simply followed it in the news. I did not spend one day at the trial itself.

MR LAMEY: Did you have insight into any statements made by Mr Nortje regarding any distance from the Nersden border post which they would have travelled?

MR PIENAAR: Somebody said something about pine trees or pine needles and Mr Hattingh spoke about three and a half kilometres from the border or three kilometres from the border.

MR LAMEY: Mr Hattingh could not have spoken of about three or three and a half kilometres from the border because at that stage there was not mention of it.

MR PIENAAR: But he has mentioned it now during these proceedings today.

MR LAMEY: No, I've speaking of that time.

MR PIENAAR: No, there was no mention of distance.

MR LAMEY: So you didn't know anything about anything? Didn't you hear something from the legal team?

MR PIENAAR: No, Chairperson, I went with Mr Hattingh and the others. We took the photos there, we left the place and I don't know whether it was before or after this, that I heard from the people in Nersden that there had been people investigating the plantations, I think it was before, that they were looking for a body.

MR LAMEY: But what interest did you have in accompanying them if you knew nothing?

MR PIENAAR: Mr Hattingh and the others didn't know Nersden that well.

CHAIRPERSON: Was Mr de Kock there?

MR PIENAAR: No Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Mr Lamey if I understand the evidence correctly, Mr Hattingh himself led the evidence to the effect that he stated that they approached Mr Pienaar and that Mr Pienaar went with them upon their request.

CHAIRPERSON: Because Mr de Kock couldn't, was in custody at the time and they needed somebody to show them the place, well, the area.

MR LAMEY: I understand that Mr Chairman, I understand that explanation. I'm not bound to accept it necessarily and I, Mr Chairman can I just ask, the bundle of photographs that we have, can I just have a look at it? I just want to show to you Mr Pienaar and ask if this is correct with regards to the photo album which was taken by the forensic expert, Mr Wolmarans. Can you recall him, the photographer?

MR PIENAAR: I must have met him there, yes, but I cannot recall him any more.

MR LAMEY: He says, "points were indicated by W/O Freek Pienaar, the photographs were taken by me. Did you point out anything?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, the border, the houses next to the border, the plantations, the lights, the roads surrounding the border post.

MR LAMEY: I cannot find it at the moment, but I do recall seeing this previously in the bundle, let me see if I can find it again. There was a specific point below the photograph which was pointed out here and I don't know why I can't find it now. On photo 15(b) the bundle says "photos show a residential house which is still inhabited and which was inhabited in 1985." Where are these houses? Or at least the residence which is referred to?

MR PIENAAR: On the Swazi side of Nersden.

MR LAMEY: How far is that from Nersden?

MR PIENAAR: I am not entirely certain. There were two houses that were close to the fence, not very far from Nersden, very close to Nersden in fact. I would say it would be less than 5 kilometres.

MR LAMEY: Let us accept for a moment that you do not know, it is your evidence that you were not there, so you do not know where the place is where Japie was murdered.

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Let us also accept for the moment that the only indication that there was at the stage when these photographs were taken, would be an indication of approximately 5 kilometres from the Nersden border post, which is an estimation of where Japie Maponya would have been murdered, is that correct? Well, you wouldn't know. Let us just accept that for the moment.

MR PIENAAR: I wouldn't know. As I have said, I was taken by Mr Hattingh and the others along the border. 

MR LAMEY: Nonetheless, I have the impression that what has been attempted to be indicated during your evidence in chief is that that place wasn't actually the most suitable spot. Mr Hattingh

also you referred you to photos from the bundle. Now afterwards a distance was measured when the specific determination was made and it amounted to 3,7 kilometres, which indicates a 1,3 kilometre difference from the initial estimation, so one could be 2 kilometres out with regard to the identification of houses and other aspects in this photo, is that possible?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Mr Pienaar, did you, as the commander of the sub-branch at Piet Retief at that stage, have any knowledge regarding all patrol movements in the vicinity of the border posts within your area?

MR PIENAAR: I wouldn't say regarding each and every patrol, but I believe that I knew about most.

MR LAMEY: And the Counter Insurgency units who were at Nersden also patrolled that area?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, they were at Mahamba and Nersden. Mahamba was actually the main camp.

MR LAMEY: And you have given evidence that there were regular meetings and co-ordination with the Security Branch, Piet Retief regarding these infiltrations and patrols and so forth?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: So when we speak of the security forces who were active there, they knew you very well as a commander?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, from Piet Retief.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you agree, Mr Pienaar that, you've said that the Houtkop and Botha's Hoop were far more convenient to Piet Retief with roads etc and Nersden is not as good a place to have deposited or to have killed somebody because not only is it further away, but there's lights at the border post and all that sort of thing, but if you had to think of a reason why they would have gone to Nersden instead of Botha's Hoop or Houtkop, may it be because of the report received from you about the intensity of the border patrols?

MR PIENAAR: That is a possibility, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: it could have changed from time to time, the intensity of the border patrols there?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that's correct. Let me just put it this way Mr Chairperson, the counter insurgency patrols were not only co-ordinated by me alone, orders came very often from Head Office, Middelburg, with their information which I had to convey to the commanders at the border posts and the border people themselves regarding possible infiltrations which they had to monitor.

MR LAMEY: I want to refer you to page 299 of the de Kock trial. I am going to read an extract to you, that is bundle 3(a). At the bottom of page 298 going over to page 299, the following is said, that would be during cross-examination of Mr Fourie, "Mr Pienaar informed us telephonically that in 1985 there was a temporary base within the enclosure surrounding the Nersden border post where TIN people, counter insurgency people of the South African police and as far as he recalls, were stationed."

MR HATTINGH: Not as far as he recalls, he would have to determine that first.

MR LAMEY: Yes he would still determine that there were also members of the South African Defence Force there. Are you aware of that?

MR PIENAAR: No, we were not at the border post ourselves, I don't know.

MR LAMEY: You have already stated that there were counter insurgency people at the Nersden border post?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that's correct.

MR LAMEY: Members of the South African Defence Force?

MR PIENAAR: As I've said, I don't know when the Defence Force replaced the counter insurgency staff, whether it was before the time or after the time. They worked together for a while after which the Defence Force took over completely and the counter insurgency units were completely withdrawn from the border posts.

MR LAMEY: Then it continues further down. "Their task was specifically border guarding." Is that the counter insurgency unit?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Furthermore, "Yes, because if they were there specifically for that purpose, one would expect that they would have people on duty at night or people who were guarding the area at night and patrolling and undertaking observation at the border post and so forth, isn't that so?" The answer is "Yes." "Then one would have expected that a vehicle like yours which arrived there and just disappeared along the side would have drawn attention wouldn't it? Definitely. And a man like Pienaar who was stationed there and in whose area it was to work, would have been aware thereof, isn't that so? Yes." Do you agree with what Mr Hattingh basically put to Mr Fourie? The extract that I have just read to you?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, it is possible.

MR LAMEY: Specifically with regard to the vehicle arriving there and driving down along the side which would have drawn attention?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I have already stated that.

MR LAMEY: You would have to approach the border post quite closely before you could turn off?

CHAIRPERSON: But we know for a fact that they actually went there and there wasn't any reaction from any guard or anybody else on either version.

MR LAMEY: Yes, indeed, Mr Chairperson. Now Mr Pienaar, ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Lamey, I'd like to just give a five minute break for the interpreters now, would this be a convenient time?

MR LAMEY: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll just take a short break for the interpreters.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

FREDERIK JOHANNES PIENAAR: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Lamey. 

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY:(cont.) 

&#9;Mr Pienaar I'm still on page 299 and what I have said to you and Mr Fourie was questioned about, that a vehicle that moved there could have been detected and in that scenario, did Mr de Kock run a great risk of being detected late at night there at the Nersden border post by going down that road? Can you recall whether Mr de Kock asked you whether any arm teams were deployed?

MR PIENAAR: I cannot specifically recall, Mr Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: He also said that a spade, a pickaxe and a fork were collected from you ...(end of tape) ... and he says your answer was when he asked you whether troops had been deployed in the Nersden border post vicinity, you said no.

MR PIENAAR: That is entirely possible.

MR LAMEY: But would you have know that necessarily exactly what the patrol movements were at any given stage?

MR PIENAAR: I had knowledge of most patrols Chairperson, but usually at night-time the people do not patrol, they remain at certain places. They do not patrol during the night.

MR LAMEY: Did you exactly know where they would be?

MR PIENAAR: If I had contacted them, yes.

MR LAMEY: Did you make contact with them?

MR PIENAAR: I cannot recall now, I had much contact with those people.

MR LAMEY: Were you in a position to control the movements of the CI units and the army patrols?

MR PIENAAR: Not to control them, but I would have sent them to certain places if there was information either from my side or from other branches or from head office at Middelburg itself. I would have asked them to concentrate on certain areas.

MR LAMEY: That is if there was specific information, there would be a reason therefore.

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: But otherwise one would expect that army patrols or normal patrols would, without specific request from you, patrol in general and move around there?

MR PIENAAR: That is so, yes.

MR LAMEY: Mr Pienaar I want to put it to you that for this specific reason, there was a good reason because of that risk, that you would have accompanied them in case the unexpected came about and you would be the most ideal person to diffuse any suspicion that there might be. That is why you went along with them.

MR PIENAAR: I did not go along with them.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall that you did not go along with them?

MR PIENAAR: I would remember if I went along to go and kill a man and bury a man. Then I would have applied for amnesty therefore as in all the other instances where I did apply for amnesty.

MR LAMEY: And I would want to put it to you that the instances for which you apply for amnesty and on your own evidence, are the instances where the actions were launched in co-operation and on information of the Eastern Transvaal security branch. This was another type of incident.

MR PIENAAR: No, Chairperson, I was definitely not there.

MR LAMEY: Did you make any arrangements that patrols should not be there during that evening.

MR PIENAAR: I cannot recall, Chairperson. As I have said, if calls were made, that Col de Kock told me that they want to go through, then I could have arranged it, but I cannot specifically recall.

MR LAMEY: Mr Pienaar, let us assume the following. Let us assume Mr de Kock did contact you and asked you whether there were army patrols or any patrols in the Nersden vicinity, and let us assume that he had already contacted you from Vlakplaas and let us assume that you might have made arrangements to keep patrols away from there, that you cannot recall and let us assume furthermore that Mr de Kock's team arrived late at night at your house and borrowed a spade, a pickaxe and a fork from you, would that not be an indication to you that there was some or other form of covert action that would take place whereby you would be instrumental?

MR PIENAAR: It may be possible Chairperson, but I see no crime in lending garden equipment to somebody or to say that I had arranged that a patrol might not encounter them. I said that it happened often that several branches and we ourselves sent informers across the border to Swaziland without passports and I also brought people back. 

MR LAMEY: I speak of covert operations Mr Pienaar, which indicate by implication that it was operations which were unlawful.

CHAIRPERSON: Sending people across the borders in the middle of the night without passports etc. is also unlawful.

ADV GCABASHE: Can I just ask, sorry Mr Lamey. How often did your colleagues turn up at night and borrow spades and pickaxes from you?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson I cannot say there on whether it was in the evenings, but there were several instances where members of C1 came and borrowed spades from me, if they should drive along the border and get caught where the roads were bad. I cannot recall at which times they were there exactly, whether they arrived there in the late afternoon or in the evening or early morning, I cannot specifically recall.

ADV GCABASHE: This particular incident, it being one that happened in the evening, doesn't stand out at all in your memory?

MR PIENAAR: No Chairperson, not at all.

ADV GCABASHE: The fact that they were brought back a few hours later, the same items that you borrowed your colleagues?

MR PIENAAR: No, it did not bother me.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you recall what the weather conditions were that night when they arrived?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I cannot recall, but on the instance of Mr Hattingh, I think it was during the trial of Mr de Kock, I visited the weather station and had a look at the rainfall register and it indicated that it did rain that evening in that vicinity.

MR LAMEY: Mr de Kock and his team were there with a four-wheel drive vehicle.

MR PIENAAR: Yes he was driving one.

MR LAMEY: And once again a Land Cruiser?

MR PIENAAR: It is possible.

MR LAMEY: You cannot recall?

MR PIENAAR: Not specifically.

MR LAMEY: Let us accept it as a fact. You did see a vehicle at that stage?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I did see a vehicle but I cannot specifically recall what it was.

MR LAMEY: Now why would one need a spade, a pickaxe and a fork if you have a four-wheel drive vehicle, what are the chances of you getting stuck?

MR PIENAAR: I did not say that he got stuck, but a four-wheel drive could get stuck, many of them do.

MR LAMEY: Then you would just need a pickaxe, or rather a spade.

MR PIENAAR: Probably.

MR LAMEY: So what would you need a pickaxe and a fork for?

MR PIENAAR: I don't know, as I said, I don't recall what he borrowed from me.

MR LAMEY: Even after the de Kock hearing and as to what your role was, did you not realise that you were instrumental here in an illegal action and that you had neglected your duty to act there?

MR PIENAAR: During the de Kock trial I realised that after it was said that that particular evening, which I could not really recall, that Col de Kock came to me along with Mr Nortje and Mr Fourie, that that was the specific evening that Japie Maponya was killed, but I did not foresee it beforehand.

MR LAMEY: And your recollection today is that you cannot recall much about it, but if we put it to you as Mr de Kock had said and Mr de Kock on his version said you had to draw the inference that they were busy with some or other illegal action, would you accept that?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, no, probably in the subconscious but not that I could say specifically that that is what I thought at that stage, not at all.

MR LAMEY: Are you saying that the arrival late at night and the acquiring of the fork and the spade did not indicate any illegal action?

MR PIENAAR: No, Chairperson, a spade and a fork and a pickaxe doesn't indicate anything to me.

MR LAMEY: And if he would have asked you if there were any patrols in a specific area, would this not have been an indication to you that Mr de Kock was concerned that somebody might happen on them whatever they were doing there and that they wanted to have those people out of the way.

MR PIENAAR: That is possible, that they wanted to go through to Swaziland, but I did not ask and I cannot recall what I said or what I asked.

MR LAMEY: But if he said that to you, you cannot recall it, but just place yourself back in 1985, if it was so then the idea must have existed with you if those questions were asked, seen in the light that the equipment was borrowed from you, seeing the time and during the night, and that there must be a covert action here.

MR PIENAAR: It is possible that it must have been in my subconscious, but I did not pay attention to it.

MR LAMEY: Did you not think that it was specifically for that reason that it was in your subconscious to apply for amnesty?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, no, I had no idea what they did. I did not have any knowledge of the murder, or the abduction of Mr Maponya, not at all.

MR LAMEY: Mr Pienaar, on whose request do you give evidence here today? Is it from your own motivation or is it from somebody else?

MR PIENAAR: I was contacted by my legal representative, Mr Prinsloo, and I arrived here yesterday and he took me to Mr Hattingh and I assume that Mr Hattingh must have approached him about it.

MR LAMEY: Did you receive notice that you were an implicated person in this amnesty hearing?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I did. Not notification from the Commission, not at all.

MR LAMEY: From whom?

MR PIENAAR: From Mr Prinsloo and later from Mr Hattingh, who told me yesterday morning.

CHAIRPERSON: Sometimes these notices are sent to the legal representatives if they are known, is that not so Ms Lockhat?

MS LOCKHAT: That is indeed correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So it is a notice for the implicated person, but it's sent to the known legal representative.

MR LAMEY: I accept that. Did you know this before these proceedings started?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I did.

MR LAMEY: Did you not deem it necessary to protect your interests with your legal representative before these proceedings started, where you would have been implicated by evidence?

MR PIENAAR: No, I did not come to listen.

MR LAMEY: Why not?

MR PIENAAR: I did not see any reason for it.

MR LAMEY: But you are implicated, you know that there is evidence that was given by State witnesses during the de Kock trial and those are also amnesty applications who involve you in a murder.

MR PIENAAR: It is on the instance of my legal representative that I was not here and day before yesterday evening he called me to be here. I left it in his hands.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, it's also quite common that implicated people who have been served notices, don't represent themselves at hearings. So there's nothing unusual about it. I'm just informing you.

MR LAMEY: Yes, yes, but this person has got a legal, he's got legal representation.

CHAIRPERSON: I mean, it's very often that we have notices sent to legal representatives etc. and very many hearing we're involved in, implicated people aren't represented at all, so it's nothing uncommon.

MR HATTINGH: There is also a problem with payment in respect of legal representatives for people who are merely implicated, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: That's a new development, yes.

MR LAMEY: So your evidence here is on the request of the legal team of Mr Hattingh, not on the recommendation of your own legal team, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: I said that Mr Prinsloo called me here and then took me to Mr Hattingh. I don't know who made the proposition.

MR LAMEY: But your evidence here is because of a witness, as a witness in the application of Mr de Kock.

MR MALAN: I think it is clear, Mr Lamey.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairperson, I just want to look at my notes further.

CHAIRPERSON: While you're doing that Mr Lamey, Mr Pienaar, we've heard the evidence of Mr Nortje who says he knows you. We've heard the evidence of Mr Fourie who says he knows you. 

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And Mr Fourie also said that he used to work in that area as well some time ago.

MR PIENAAR: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: We've heard the evidence of Mr van der Walt who said that he doesn't know you, or he didn't at that stage know you, but both Mr Nortje and Mr Fourie said that they both highly respected you as a policeman, that you were friends, got on with each other, no problems at all, no axe to grind, in fact it would indicate the opposite, they had respect for you and nothing less. Can you think of any reason why they should falsely implicate you by saying that you went along and were present at the murder scene?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I may just say that I suspect or I think that I am being confused with another incident. I believe so. I cannot see any other reason therefore. As I have said, we are not enemies. Maybe usually any operation that had to do, that was done there or where we went to do work on the border where I accompanied them, I cannot think of another reason, there is no other good reason therefore, according to me.

MR MALAN: Excuse me, before Mr Lamey continues, I get the impression more and more that you say everything that Mr de Kock says is possible, but you cannot recall. 

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, no. The exact words which he said to me I cannot recall. If he says it was said to me, then it is possible, but I cannot recall them myself. 

MR MALAN: Even the visit is quite vague. You don't know what vehicle it was?

MR PIENAAR: No, as I've said that they visited me often.

MR MALAN: So you say he must have probably stopped at the kitchen?

MR PIENAAR: Yes which they did.

MR MALAN: But I heard you say in your evidence in chief that the car stopped and you saw Mr Nortje in front and Mr Fourie as well with another person at the back. Why do you have such a clear recollection of the persons?

MR PIENAAR: Because I thought about the incident and what I can think back for myself and recall back to that night. If Mr Fourie was in front, then it may be so, or whether Mr Nortje was driving, it may be so, but that is how I remind myself back to the time after these things started at the Court and I thought back to the story.

MR MALAN: But in your evidence in chief, there were more persons with Mr de Kock, you recall that you fetched the equipment from the garage, you recall when they stopped, you saw Nortje in front and Fourie as well and another person at the back. That is a clear, positive recollection.

MR PIENAAR: Fourie in the vehicle as well.

MR MALAN: So you said Fourie as well, according to my note but you don't recall anything, but you recall those three persons specifically?

MR PIENAAR: As I said, I thought back, I placed myself back in the situation, I may be mistaken, but that is how I recall it.

MR MALAN: So you might remember it, it might also be a reconstruction?

MR PIENAAR: That is what I said, I placed myself back there, I might be mistaken. It is quite possible.

MR MALAN: Yes, it seemed that it was quite positive evidence from you in terms of identification, but now you are also not sure about it. That is how you thought back.

MR PIENAAR: I would not be able to speculate who sat in front, or who was there, or that any of them were there.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall that you came out to the vehicle?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson once again, if somebody arrived at my house, I would go out to the vehicle. It is an institution with me in any case, any vehicle.

MR LAMEY: I would like to put it to you, Mr Pienaar, that from your evidence in chief and during cross-examination it seems clear and it is notable that the versions of Mr de Kock are conceded by you as a possibility, while the versions of the applicants whom I refer, you would not concede those in the same breath as a possibility.

MR PIENAAR: No Chairperson, what I do not concede, if your applicant would tell me I said so, it might be possible but what I do not concede is that that particular evening I accompanied them to Nersden, that I do not concede, but what Mr Nortje or Mr Fourie might have said to me, that I can concede.

MR LAMEY: Because I want to put to you, the reason why you did not apply for amnesty was that you would have had trouble with the political motivation. It was not an Eastern Transvaal operation, 

you had no depth as to why this man had to be killed, you had no knowledge of this, you would not yourself have been able to think up any motivation and that is why you did not apply for amnesty.

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, if I accompanied them, I did not know the man. Col de Kock or Mr Fourie or Mr Nortje would have said, this man is a trained man who we arrested somewhere and he had to be taken away. I would have accepted it. Right up to today I do not know Japie Maponya except for on the news and in the media.

MR LAMEY: Would you be surprised if I put it to you that just according to the version of Mr de Kock that you probably could have drawn the inference what it was about, which he conceded, that you, because of that reason, could not have expected to apply for amnesty?

MR PIENAAR: No Chairperson, I don't agree with that.

CHAIRPERSON: That's essentially a question of argument as well.

MR LAMEY: As it pleases you, Mr Chairperson. Mr Pienaar, Mr de Kock and them drove a round about way to get to you before they went to Nersden.

MR PIENAAR: Yes, it is a round about way.

MR LAMEY: And if you did not propose Nersden, he must have taken that decision on his own, is that not so?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, probably.

MR LAMEY: And then the shortest route to get to Nersden from Pretoria would be from Ermelo to Amsterdam as we see in Exhibit G2 and the distance that is indicated from Ermelo to Piet Retief is 103 kilometres, according to the indication and from Ermelo to Amsterdam it is 76 kilometres and then we don't even account the distance that you have to drive from Piet Retief to Nersden, which is 47 kilometres on this map, plus 18.

MR PIENAAR: I said it's approximately 70 kilometres from Piet Retief to Nersden. I am not entirely sure, but approximately.

It might be less.

MR LAMEY: Did you know that they would go to Nersden?

MR PIENAAR: No, Chairperson not at all.

MR LAMEY: And you cannot recall or you don't have a vague recollection that they told you that they would go to Nersden? 

MR PIENAAR: No, not at all.

MR LAMEY: So the round about way which they came to you, to confirm, it seems it would be approximately 100 kilometres in one direction? 200 kilometres back and forth, which is the difference in distance which they could have driven. 

MR PIENAAR: I don't know exactly how far it is.

CHAIRPERSON: According to the map it would have been that they did an extra 130 kilometres by going down to Piet Retief and back, because it's 65.

MR LAMEY: Yes, but Mr Chairperson, if, I put this also on the difference you know, if you ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but I mean if they were going to Nersden they'd go to Amsterdam, so they went 130 kilometres out of their way to drop down to Piet Retief and back, whether it 130 or 200 nothing swings on it.

MR LAMEY: Mr Pienaar, you have just said, upon the question of the Chairperson regarding whether you can think of any reason, your response was that they may be confusing you with another incident. Now which other incident comes to mind during which Mr Nortje and Mr Fourie may have confused you?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, other incidents where we may have worked together on the border. They were there with me quite often, we worked quite closely together, not necessarily with regard to incidents. There were incidents but not necessarily illegal incidents. Legal arrests, that is why they would come over there with the askaris because there was quite a thoroughfare from Swaziland to the Republic in that area and they would do identification of trained persons and so forth.

MR LAMEY: Mr van der Walt was involved only in this incident.

MR PIENAAR: I don't know.

MR LAMEY: I put it to you. Is there any reason that you can think of in his case as to why he may be misimplicating you?

MR PIENAAR: I don't know him. I think he may have told me yesterday that he met me when he and someone else went fishing, but I really cannot recall. I don't know him at all.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson, I've got no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Lamey. Mr Visser, do you have any questions you'd like to put to the witness?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, apart from the fact that I was born in Piet Retief in 1941, I have no contribution to make.

CHAIRPERSON: Did they have roads at that stage?

MR VISSER: Chairman, no, but what I was told later is that some people were interned there, who became imminent judges later.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ramuwele, I believe, after having spoken to Mr Williams, that you're looking after the interests as well now of Mr Radebe, do you have any questions you'd like to put to the witness?

MR RAMUWELE: No, no Mr Chairman, for both Mr Nofemela and Mr Mbelo.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wagener, any questions you'd like to put?

MR WAGENER: No questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Bridjlall, any question that you would like to put?

MS BRIDJLALL: Yes, thank you Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS BRIDJLALL: Mr Pienaar, you stated that the two, as far as you can remember, the two reasons that de Kock came to you on that night was to get information regarding border patrols and he wanted garden equipment, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: That is what I can recall. If I think back, upon the question of the Chairperson I said that it was a possibility, but I cannot recall specifically myself.

MS BRIDJLALL: Do you remember discussing border patrols and the movement of troops along the border.

MR PIENAAR: As I have said, I cannot recall that specifically. If I think back, then I will once again have to rely upon what was said, that I was contacted in order to determine whether or not there were border movements, whether there were any changes in the border movements, but I cannot recall it myself.

MS BRIDJLALL: That's exactly my point. Could Mr de Kock not have got the information regarding the border patrols over the telephone?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, whether there were many movements, but that may also have changed. He could just keep calling and I don't think that they had cell phones at that stage.

MS BRIDJLALL: Phoned you before he left Vlakplaas to find out if there were any changes?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MS BRIDJLALL: And he could have got garden equipment from Vlakplaas?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MS BRIDJLALL: So then, except for the reason that they took you along to show them a suitable place to carry out this operation, there is no other reason that they would have come to you?

MR PIENAAR: I would not have taken them to Nersden, definitely not. Mr Fourie and Mr Nortje and Col de Kock as well, were familiar with Nersden and it's surroundings, they did a lot of border work there, but I definitely would not have taken them to Nersden.

MS BRIDJLALL: Mr Pienaar, Mr Japie Maponya's body was never found, although there were pointings out of the scene etc, his bones were never recovered and an applicant mentioned yesterday that it could be possible that you could have removed Mr Maponya's body after the incident. What do you say to that?

MR PIENAAR: I think that is far-fetched. It is completely untrue.

MS BRIDJLALL: Did you ever participate in any operations where you went back to the scene and put things right, put things in order?

MR PIENAAR: No, not at all. Operations were conducted and you would leave and you would never return to the place, especially when it was a cross-border operation.

MS BRIDJLALL: Mr Pienaar, you were situated in Piet Retief and we heard evidence that the body was not properly covered up, that the body was barely covered with leaves, branches etc.

MR PIENAAR: That's correct.

MS BRIDJLALL: Did you at any point in time after Mr de Kock came to visit you, did you hear any news about a body being discovered on the other side of the border? Did anybody come to you and say "listen, we've discovered a body", or would you have that knowledge? Would people from Swaziland approach you and say that we found a body so close to the border?

MR PIENAAR: No, they wouldn't have approached me. If such a body was found, they would perhaps have contacted the police and that would have been the police in Amsterdam. I would have heard about it, however, but I never heard anything like that, or they would have reported it to the border police in order to determine something about a person that they had found lying there.

MS BRIDJLALL: You see that's also very strange because it appears then that Mr Maponya's body just disappeared.

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, as I've said, many people live there, there are wild animals and anything could have happened to the body. It may have stayed there for quite some time and then be carried away. I don't know what else to say.

MS BRIDJLALL: But it is exactly for the reason that you say that there are many people around there that the body would have been discovered if it was not removed.

MR PIENAAR: If it was in the bush, people didn't walk around in uncultivated plantations very much, anything could have happened to the body there, I wouldn't know.

MS BRIDJLALL: But then the bones would have still been found, even if it decomposed, even if the body was decomposed and the applicants pointed out the scene.

MR PIENAAR: That is entirely possible, but I never heard anything about it.

CHAIRPERSON: This is for argument really. He's just giving he's opinion.

MS BRIDJLALL: Yes, thank you Mr Pienaar. Thank you Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS BRIDJLALL

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Lockhat, do you have any questions you'd like to ask?

MS LOCKHAT: Yes, thank you Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: Mr Pienaar when they arrived at your house, you said they came round the back. Did you have a light on at the back at your house where they would stop?

MR PIENAAR: I can say with certainty that I always left the back porch light on. Whether it was on that night or whether it had blown that night, I cannot say, but I always left the back light on.

MS LOCKHAT: So now you see your friends, Fourie, Nortje, de Kock. Didn't you go up and talk to them "Hi, How's it", I mean you know you haven't seen them probably for ages. Didn't you go up and speak to them?

MR PIENAAR: Probably.

MS LOCKHAT: Didn't you perhaps see a body at the back of the car, was it possible that you could see someone lying on the floor of the car, covered with a blanket?

MR PIENAAR: No, then I would have asked who is that, or what is that.

MS LOCKHAT: So the light was on, the car's at your back door, you probably in your mind thought you probably went and had spoken to them, so it could be possible actually, your memory's not that well, it could be possible.

MR PIENAAR: No, if I had seen someone in the car I would definitely have asked about that. I definitely didn't see someone lying in the car.

MS LOCKHAT: Mr Pienaar here were your friends, middle of the night at your house, going on a mission. Wouldn't it have been natural for you to say, "What's up guys, what is happening?"

MR PIENAAR: No, Chairperson. I've heard that this was in the middle of the night, I'm not certain of what time it was, but I don't believe that it was actually in the middle of the night. I don't recall asking them what they were going to do.

MS LOCKHAT: I just find it so strange, but nevertheless. You said in your evidence in chief that it was never your policy to ask C1 any questions, was this one of those examples? I also find that a bit strange, because you said you dealt in a lot of operations with C1 and they normally came into the area there with you, so why would you not ask them anything, and that was your policy?

MR PIENAAR: I don't believe that I actually put it that way. I didn't ask what they were going to do. If I had asked them where they were going and they told me, it would have been in such a way that I don't remember it any more, but they didn't tell me that they were going to kill somebody and that I should come with them. If they had said that, I would have remembered it, but otherwise there's nothing.

MS LOCKHAT: You said they brought the equipment back to you, the spade and so forth, was there any material, blood, brains on the spade?

MR PIENAAR: Not that I saw. After that I must have used the equipment again and I would have noticed it, but I don't believe. From what I can infer from the evidence, if one strikes someone with a spade and you use it again in the soil, nothing will remain on the spade, I don't believe so, at least.

MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson, just if you can correct me here, I recall Mr de Kock saying that he'd given you the spade and that it was possible that there might have been, that they didn't clean the spade but he thought he could trust him with the cover-up.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, the evidence was that the spade was used in hitting the deceased.

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I understood it that way.

CHAIRPERSON: And also with the sharp edge and that the spade wasn't cleaned. After it was used to hit, it was then taken back to the vehicle and just given to you and nothing was mentioned about the possibility of blood or anything else like that on it and they just trusted that if there was blood on it, you would sort it out.

MR PIENAAR: I definitely didn't see any blood on any of my equipment.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you use your own garden implements or are you like me and you don't use them, somebody else uses them in your garden?

MR PIENAAR: I've always used them myself, even to this day I don't have anybody helping me with my garden.

MS LOCKHAT: You also said in your evidence in chief that you didn't actually expect to see de Kock there that night. Why not?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, if you arrive and then depart and it wasn't asked when they would return, whether it be today, tomorrow, tomorrow evening, I didn't ask them what the purpose of their visit was or anything like that.

MS LOCKHAT: I'm sure, Mr Pienaar, when Mr de Kock and his colleagues arrived at your house, you were a bit surprised to see him actually there himself in person and you surely knew his reputation as well and that is why you also went with them because you knew something big was going to happen. Can you comment on that?

MR PIENAAR: Col de Kock visited me often. I was never surprised to see him. He was respected by my office and there was nothing odd about him arriving there. The same went for his members, there was nothing odd about it.

MS LOCKHAT: Mr de Kock said that after the incident they went back to your house and you gave them some beers, can you remember that?

MR PIENAAR: That may be possible. If I had beer and they wanted beer, I would have given it to them.

MS LOCKHAT: Mr Pienaar, I just find it so strange that three people, Nortje, Fourie and Mr van der Walt, place you at that scene of that incident. Your memory is not that well today, it's not that good, they, as has been said, they don't have any grudges against you, why do you think, do you think it was a mirage, they were just hallucinating that you were with them, or what?

MR PIENAAR: As I have already said, I don't know how I am being implicated into the scene, it is completely unexplainable to me. They may have confused me with other work that they have done. That's why I would also imagine that Mr van der Walt said yesterday that he can recall very little, but he can recall that I drove with, yet nothing further. This took place a long time ago, Mr Chairperson, it is very difficult to recall everything.

MS LOCKHAT: Mr Pienaar, would you say you suggested the place Nersden or did you think de Kock or one of his colleagues suggested it, that it would be a suitable place?

MR PIENAAR: Suitable for what?

MS LOCKHAT: Suitable for, to get rid of someone?

MR PIENAAR: I don't know anything about that.

CHAIRPERSON: If you are asked what would be a suitable place to cross the fence to Swaziland, now the question was would you have suggested, is it possible that you suggested Nersden?

MR PIENAAR: That is possible, it depends upon whether or not there were movements. Botha's Hoop is also much closer and it also depends whether or not there were troops there. I wouldn't know, I wasn't asked.

MS LOCKHAT: Mr Pienaar, I can just, I think Nersden was actually the perfect place for this whole incident, because the body was never found.

MR PIENAAR: I knew many places in that area where a body would never be found which were far closer.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS LOCKHAT

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, do you have any re-examination?

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Mr Pienaar, you refreshed my memory when you spoke of a radio station. Can you recall whether the radio station was pointed out to us on the Swazi side of the border during our inspection?

MR PIENAAR: I cannot recall. It is possible.

MR HATTINGH: I have a recollection that it may be visible, although vaguely on one of these photos. Look at some of these landscape photos and tell us whether you can determine, according to what you see, where the radio station would be situated.

MR PIENAAR: I think it will be very difficult to make things out here. I would say that it is situated quite close to the houses on photo 18(A) and (b).

MR HATTINGH: How far would this have been situated from the border?

MR PIENAAR: I'll give a wild estimation, I would say approximately 10 kilometres.

MR HATTINGH: Could I refer you briefly to some of the other photographs? 18(a) and 18(b) are, according to what is written here, indicating a residential house on the Swazi side of the border, which is taken from the same position as photo 17(a) and 17(b). The border fence is next to the ploughed land. Let us look at photos 17(a) and 17(b). It says "indicates a ruin on the Swazi side of the border, approximately 2,9 kilometres from the Nersden border post" and this house is photographed on 17(a) and 17(b) on the same side as 1(a)A and 18(b). One can assume that the house is clearly visible on 17(a) and 17(b) when we take into regard the position from which the photographs were taken. If we accept that the photographs were taken from a point approximately 2,9 kilometres away from the border post and the point which Mr Nortje pointed out is 3,7 kilometres away from the border post, then one would at least have been able to drive past the house on photo 18(a) and (b) in order to get to the point where Mr Maponya was killed.

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And then just another aspect. This is where the house is (end of tape)...is along the road. Photo 13(a) and 13(b) there is a road which runs parallel to the Swaziland border. Which road is that?

MR PIENAAR: I leads to a small town Dwalile and a radio station.

MR HATTINGH: And how far is that road from the border itself? It says approximately 500 metres.

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is possible.

MR HATTINGH: And the town Dwalile, how far is that from the border?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson if we can just look at the map, G2, I would say approximately 10, perhaps less, kilometres from the border, but the town itself is in Swaziland.

MR HATTINGH: Is it a large or small town?

MR PIENAAR: No, it is not a big town. There is a school, or two schools, it's not a very big town. It is quite remote from most things.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, that is what I wanted to determine. You say that you were charged with regard to the Maponya matter?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And you appeared three times in the Regional Court?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And I think Mr Hugo represented you during those appearances?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And what happened to the case?

MR PIENAAR: It was withdrawn.

MR HATTINGH: And it must be known to the A-G that you did not apply for amnesty?

MR PIENAAR: I would assume that.

MR HATTINGH: You have never been approached again in this regard?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: You were examined regarding political motivation, that would be on a hypothetical basis. If Mr de Kock had come to you and said, "there is a man that must be killed because we interrogated him regarding his brother who is an MK member and he can now identify Vlakplaas personnel and so forth, and if he had told you that he had the approval from an officer, a colonel, to kill the man, that he actually had an order to do so, what would your attitude have been towards it then?

MR PIENAAR: I think at that stage I would have gone along with it, but not today.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Hattingh. Adv Gcabashe do you have any questions you would like to ask?

ADV GCABASHE: No thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan do you have any questions? Thank you Mr Pienaar, that concludes your testimony, you may stand down.

MR PIENAAR: Thank you Chairperson.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: I see it's just before 4 o'clock. Now Mr Hattingh what other witnesses are you going to be calling?

MR HATTINGH: I've still got an applicant that I have to call.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Radebe?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Radebe. May Mr Pienaar be excused from further attendance? If necessary he can come back.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, he may be excused from further attendance. Thank you. We have come to the end of today's proceedings and we will accordingly adjourn until tomorrow morning at half past nine in the same venue.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, may I just ask that also my clients be excused. Mr Fourie has got to go back to Cape Town and Mr van der Walt has also asked me just to formally request his, you know excuse.

CHAIRPERSON: His non-attendance.

MR LAMEY: His non-attendance, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman. Could we perhaps just discuss the question of argument, Chairperson, because as I understand it, my learned friend Mr Hattingh seems quite adamant that he needs the record to deal with all the issues properly. It would appear to us, with respect, that there - either we all have to argue or none of us. It doesn't seem as if there's any point in only us arguing and the rest of the argument standing down, but we would be led by you in this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we were of the view, but we're open to hear other views, that we would argue tomorrow perhaps after giving a bit, if we finish the evidence, I don't know what time we'll finish the evidence, but hopefully, there might be some statement coming forth from the victims, hopefully we might be finished round about tea time, I don't know, hopefully, maybe not, that we'd argue perhaps in the afternoon and if necessary Friday morning. Once again we have to finish at lunchtime on Friday and then give the opportunity for anyone who wishes to supplement their argument with written heads. Having said that, Mr Williams has excused himself and he has undertaken to submit written heads. He said he'll do it, he's going to fax them through tomorrow. So that is what we would have preferred and then, you know, I think maybe the value of that, I can understand Mr Hattingh's difficulty, but maybe the value of that is during the course of argument I'm sure you'll pick up from questions asked by members of the panel, what are the points that we think need dealing with and then when you do supplement it, you can concentrate on those points. But we are not saying that there's going to be argument tomorrow and that's it, finished. You certainly will be able to supplement it. I've got information about the record, have you got any fresher information Ms Lockhat, mine is that it won't be too long in being available, maybe even tomorrow.

MS LOCKHAT: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Melanie, have you heard anything about the record?

&#9;Not yet? Yes, that was what we were thinking would be perhaps the best and you know, if you don't want to supplement and you feel that you've given sufficient argument, that's also fine. But with the supplementation, the written argument, we'd like to have terms you know, have a deadline.

MR VISSER: Yes, Mr Chairman, we would prefer to argue immediately, but we wouldn't like to be the only ones that argue before you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, if I speak from my position, I entirely go along with your suggestion, that we have a provisional argument, also to, as you stated, get an indication of those points that are relevant and then we can also address those aspect in further heads, as well as other aspects. I would like to avail myself also of the opportunity to have a look at the record and to supplement heads, but I'll go along with that suggestion.

MR VISSER: We've already indicated to Ms Lockhat that that would be suitable for us as well Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And Ms Bridjlall?

MS BRIDJLALL: Yes, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ramuwele?

MR RAMUWELE: I will not be making any submissions.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Yes, well if we can then proceed on that basis and we will then adjourn till tomorrow at half past 9.

MR RAMUWELE: Can I just make a request? 

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly.

MR RAMUWELE: Mr Nofemela is requesting me to put it to the Chair that he wishes to be excused for tomorrow. I will be in tomorrow.

CHAIRPERSON: You will be looking after his interests. Yes, certainly he may be excused, yes. Thank you, we'll now adjourn.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

