Special Hearings — Mandela United Football Club Hearings — 1998-01-28

MR SEMENYA: Chairperson, the Commissioner is saying Mrs Mandela was continuing in this fashion.  What fashion is she referring to?

YASMINE SOOKA: I think that what I am referring to are that there were activities taking place in the home of Mrs Mandela, which could either lead to an investigation of Mrs Mandela, her own involvement possibly in these activities, but nothing happened at the level of the Police.
 I am putting it to Mr Kritzinger they wanted the situation to carry on, where the Mandela Footfall Club or members of it, continued participating in criminal activity.

ANDRE KRITZINGER: At this stage both scenario's that have been sketched, I would like to deny this categorically.  I think that the Security Branch and especially the Investigating Unit which I am proud to have been a member, did everything in its ability to protect the community of Soweto and the investigations we launched regarding Mrs Mandela, I think that this is a story that has been repeatedly mentioned.
 I want to mention again that she wasn't a person simply to be approached.  One must take into consideration that at that stage, she was the wife of President Mandela.
 I think that it is an armchair approach to now point a finger and say that we wanted violence to continue.  It was just a matter of you could just not approach her.  As I have repeatedly said, she showed you the door and she would in any case, her Attorney would have advised her not to have any contact with us or consultation with us.  So that is not true.
 I keep to the evidence that I have given that she was a person in a totally different category.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ntsebeza?

UNKNOWN: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Mr Kritzinger I just want to find out whether what came out in the translation with reference to paragraph 3, I think the translation said you attached to the Security Branch in Soweto from September 1984 to 16 April 1994. It was obviously an error.
 If the translation as I heard it was saying 1994, it was an error, is that correct?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: Yes, that is an error.  It must read that during the period 3 September 1984 to 16 April 1991 I was working at the Security Branch in Soweto.  If I read incorrectly, I apologise for that.

UNKNOWN: Further, I would like to understand your testimony.  You were asked if in the Oupa Seheri matter you did any follow up investigation from a Security standpoint and I think you said you did.  Is that correct?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: That is correct yes.

UNKNOWN: Without going into detail, would you agree that in the circumstances it would have been possible for instance to charge Mrs Mandela in the light of those facts?  We are for instance harbouring a terrorist in terms of the Internal Security Act?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: Once again, this is my personal opinion.  I am convinced that there is a prima facie case in the Oupa Seheri matter where Mrs Mandela could have been prosecuted successfully.

UNKNOWN: Yes, no, no, I agree with you, you could have also persuaded the Attorney General to have preferred for instance charges of furthering the aims and objects of terrorism in so far as she, you know, was keeping a person like Oupa Seheri knowingly at her premises, if that was your investigative evidence, is that correct?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: Yes.  I could only make such recommendations to the Attorney General, but as it is generally know, prosecution does not lay in my hands, but such a recommendation I cannot remember whether I made such a recommendation, but that is all that I could have done, is to make a recommendation.

UNKNOWN: Thank you, I just wanted to be very clear that I understand that evidence.  If I understand you well, firstly it would have been politically incorrect at that time, for all the reasons that you have given, to prefer charges in terms of the Internal Security Act as you understood Adv von Lierres to have been meaning.
 Was that your understanding that if she was charged in terms of the Internal Security Act, it would have been a problematic prosecution?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: I am convinced of that yes, and that is in agreement with the statement that you made, yes.

UNKNOWN: Now, that is the one view.  The other view of course is that and I would like to understand, get from you I don't say you said this, the other theory that is associated with absence of action by the Security Police, is that Mrs Madikizela-Mandela herself was working with the Security Police, what is your views?  What are your views in that regard?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: That is news that I am hearing here today.  I am not aware of that and I have no personal knowledge of the fact that she could have worked with the Security Police.  I have no knowledge of that fact.
 If you want my personal opinion, I would say that I deny this categorically.  I cannot believe it to be true.

UNKNOWN: Finally, the third theory would be that so-called honey pot theory, that it was in the interest of the Security Police to let her be because these guerillas which you in your terrorist tracking unit were wanting to get, would continue to stream to her place and because you had her place under surveillance, you would be able to get them then.  What is your comment on that?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: I don't believe that is true.  Once again, it is my personal opinion that that is not true.  I do not believe that there is any member of the South African Police Service who would just want to leave people alone, be it to create political unrest and by doing so to endanger their own lives and to see people being killed.
 I do not believe that there is any substance in that argument.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mkhize?

MS MKHIZE: Sir, I am not looking for factual information but I would just like to know your explanation or when looking back, how would you explain not having any information on a high political profile person like Mrs Madikizela-Mandela and the youth which surrounded itself around her, especially during the years 1984 to mid-1980's to the late 1980's, which is the time when there was intensified hostility and conflict between the liberation movement and the State?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: I am afraid I didn't follow your question, I didn't get an idea what you want me to answer on this actually.

MS MKHIZE: I just want to get your views as to how do you explain that.  I am not asking for factual information.
 I suppose by now you are beginning to reflect, you are aware that the Commission is interested in what happened around that time, at that particular place and you seem not to have much information.  Surely you are beginning to reflect to see and to think about where you might have lost an opportunity of getting critical information about a high profile person like her, in a  place where you were located during those years in particular?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: If I have understood it correctly, that is once again the fact that I am convinced that there was sufficient information regarding Mrs Madikizela-Mandela in order to prosecute her successfully in any court of law.  That is my personal opinion.  With all information that we have at our disposal, with the docket that was available.
 Whether it was politically orientated or whether there were criminal activities which could have been added, which were investigated by other departments, I am convinced of the fact that there were sufficient grounds to prosecute her successfully, but as a result of the high profile person that she is, I think it is an explanation that the Attorney General will have to give as to why he decided not to prosecute.
 That is my humble opinion as according to how I read the dockets and cases that were put together.  I am of the opinion that there was sufficient evidence to prosecute her successfully.