Special Hearings — Mandela United Football Club Hearings — 1997-11-24

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: I didn't know at that stage that they had gone missing because they were at his house, if I can recall correctly, they were at his house.   I don't know where they went to from there.  But then the one tape that I handed to the Attorney-General, the discussion between Mrs Mandela and Lolo's father creates an impression that she had sent him abroad for military training and that action was  to have formed part of a treason docket as recruiting people for military training because we never knew what the fate of these youngsters were.  We thought they had gone for training.

MR RICHARDS: Very well.  Now did you ever become aware during that period that that was not quite so, that they had not been sent abroad and that was in fact disinformation?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: No, the first I heard of it was when Mr Richardson - with the previous hearing in November or December, that they were killed.

MR RICHARDS: And until that point in time the docket had been dealt with on the basis that there was a reasonable possibility that the two young men were alive.

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: Ja.  Because I think it would have been one of the counts in the docket.

MR RICHARDS: Thank you.

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: I just want to - yesterday it was said that there were 30 dockets.  It wasn't 30 docket, it was one docket, treason docket, but there were I think 34 separate acts with evidence surrounding those acts.  So it was approximately 34 different let's call it terroriste aksies that would have amounted to the treason charge.

MR RICHARDS: No, I can imagine what the central charge sheet looked like.  And I realise it is 30 different incidents which are going to be consolidated into one indictment.

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: That is correct.

MR RICHARDS: Now that leads us to the next question, the relationship ...

CHAIRPERSON: Are you going to be much longer, Mr Richards?

MR RICHARDS: I beg my pardon, I am on my last point.

CHAIRPERSON: Wonderful, thank you.

MR RICHARDS: It leads to the relationship between the security branch and then Attorney-General, Advocate Von Lieres.  The impression that I formed yesterday was that indeed when it came to the investigation and the strategic decision-making in the enquiries into Mrs Mandela he was in charge.  He was in fact supervising the security police.

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: No, I wouldn't put it that way.  We were - well Mr Von Lieres and I have been working together since 1976.  We know one another well and I was free to have any discussions with him.  But it was always a good policy to involve your Attorney-General and to appreciate his decisions because after all he is the one that would have to prosecute.  So if you can understand what I mean.  We did - I think what I have done in the past as well whenever there was a case being investigated I would send him a memo telling him that this case was coming so that he could prepare and get me an advocate ready because his cycle was I think a 12 week cycle on which his advocates dealt with cases.  So I kept him abreast about the cases we were busy with and at one certain point in time we had 16 so-called terrorism trials running in different courts at the same time.  So that will indicate to you how busy we were at certain times.

MR RICHARDS: Thank you.  No further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Mr Hugo.

MR HUGO: Thank you Mr Chairman.   Mr Potgieter, you know of the agreement between myself and your legal representative with regard to your cross-examination.  Let me just put it for the record that we have agreed that we will not cross-examine you because Mr De Kock applied for amnesty for the Mabotha incident and because you are in all probability going to be a witness and that the whole matter will be covered there.  It was conveyed to you like this.  Do you understand it that way?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: Yes, I do.

MR HUGO: There are two other aspects that I would like to clear up with you.  And that is did you have the opportunity to read the statement under oath of Mr De Kock which is before this committee at the moment.  Could you peruse that.

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: Yes, I saw it briefly yesterday.  I didn't study it.

MR HUGO: And you saw that there were in certain aspects one aspect of material differences between these.  Do you maintain that the exposition as you gave it vis-a-vis the exposition of Mr De Kock?  I will not put Mr De Kock's version because you say that you stick to your version in opposition to his.  Did I understand you correctly when you said a while ago, and I refer again to the love relationship they spoke of, that in the beginning you weren't aware of it but that you heard of it for the first time yesterday.

UNKNOWN: ... had an understanding that even on peripheral issues such as credibility issues, and this question obviously relates to credibility issues, that we won't ask questions.  So really the agreement was that we would put the versions to each other's witnesses and not ask further questions about it.  This record will be available and if there are any discrepancies in my client's testimony and if he changes his version as my learned friend wants to put it or whatever then we can deal with it at the amnesty hearing, really Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Du Plessis I am trying to hear you as carefully as I can and I listened very carefully.  I really don't think that this is a matter of credibility.  I think this is a question of asking whether or not he can give us information as to what he thinks and what he says.  I don't think he is calling him to a question, and I will listen very carefully, but I am going to let him continue.

MR HUGO: ... put it on record that I told my learned friend yesterday in the presence of Mr Vally the one aspect that I am going to cover today is this particular aspect pertaining to the so-called love relationship.  And I am going to put questions to this particular witness because this aspect and the fact that it had been brought about aggrieved me personally and it was totally unnecessary and I am going to put it to this witness that it was brought about by his affidavit and we never meant to bring it about.  And I told Mr Du Plessis that I was going to do it today and he said it was fine.

CHAIRPERSON: You may continue.

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, maybe Mr Vally can enlighten us here because that is not how I understood it.  If I understood it wrongly and if Mr Vally says I understood it wrongly then I will consider my position but really I didn't understand him in that fashion.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's try and clear this up as quickly as possible.  Mr Vally?

MR VALLY: Mr Chair, briefly the position I understood that we had taken was that in issues affecting the respective amnesty applications of either Mr De Kock or Mr Potgieter, either party would merely put their client's version forward for the record and they would cross-examine them on the version that had been put forward by the person giving evidence.  Everything else was peripheral to that.  So on pertinent issues relating to the amnesty applications that is all that would happen and as I understood it there were further discussions on that whole issue but it was subjective discussion and I don't think it was party to the larger agreement.  That is the agreement.  That you will not probe further on pertinent issues relating to the amnesty applications.  No more and no less.