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

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Potgieter, can I just correct you on one thing, it's not merely applying for gross human rights violations but all human rights violations. People may apply for amnesty, for which you can be prosecuted so there is a distinction. Please continue Mr Semenya.

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman the questioner is asking the witness about the contents of his amnesty application.  He has already given evidence about what he has applied for, I'll give Mr Semenya his amnesty application if he wants it.

CHAIRPERSON: No I don't think he is actually.  Mr Semenya continue.

MR SEMENYA: Can you tell me why a person of that style which does not permit assault or permit people being assaulted in his presence would apply for amnesty for human rights violations?  To me they are not compatible.

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: No my amnesty application is based on the lawful powers that were given to me to detain people to compel them to testify and to be ostracised by the community thereafter, to make them discouraged and to lose their dignity and to be ostracised by even their families, those were the contents of my application.  I have it here if want me to ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No you don't have to go into detail Mr Potgieter.  Mr Semenya are you through.

MR SEMENYA: I'm through but confused Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Well you're not the only one.  Mr du Toit do you have any questions.

JOSEPH HUME DU TOIT: If you please Mr ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Please go ahead.

JOSEPH HUME DU TOIT: You know that I am du Toit and I am acting for the Pretorius family.  There are a number of aspects that I find worrying and I hope you can give us an answer to those. May I start at paragraph 35.9 where it is stated that your unit was responsible for the investigation into the whole matter and there will be an independent investigation.  From the outside I want to say I don't want to confuse independence with confidence but I would like to refer to Mr Lemmer's investigation. Do you refer to paragraph 35, page 56 of that document.  I would just like to get some chronology, is it true that on the evening of 29th November you had already interrogated Jerry Richardson?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: I cannot say for sure, it was on that exact day, it could have been the next day, I'm not exactly sure but it was shortly after the incident took place.

JOSEPH HUME DU TOIT: Did you have anything to do with the appointment of Mr Lemmer as investigating officer?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: I cannot help you in that regard, probably.

JOSEPH HUME DU TOIT: The way I understand what he said was that on the morning of the 10th November you appointed him as investigating officer.

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: I would agree with that.

JOSEPH HUME DU TOIT: You had the opportunity to look at the docket what that was and to check that, was it clear to you that the first two statements happened, were done at already 10 o'clock in the morning in 1988 by Mr Lemmer?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: I can't exactly remember the detail but I accept that that could be the case.

JOSEPH HUME DU TOIT: I am sure that your legal representative could stop me or will stop me but I refer here to the fact statements of de la Port and others were already indicated done.  Mr Lemmer's explanation was that the statements are done and then afterwards it's being typed and then the answer was whether four typed statements, do you think it will be possible to do that in one morning.

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: I think the statements were done by the members themselves, I am not exactly sure we could perhaps ask them but I think that would perhaps be the best thing to ask those people whether statements were made and who took them and when it was done.

JOSEPH HUME DU TOIT: Mr du Toit this morning said that he himself wrote hout his arrestation report, they do it and then they bring it over.  The only difference Colonel is that the setting and the type setting looks the same.  In that case Mr Lemmer's particulars are being typed in as well as the date and the signature were included.  Can you perhaps explain that to us?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: Unfortunately I really cannot help you in that regard.

JOSEPH HUME DU TOIT: You are not aware of who the person was who had to check this docket in normal circumstances?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: Partly it would be me if available, or perhaps Col Langenhoven.

JOSEPH HUME DU TOIT: You also said and I just want to make sure that the statement of Jerry Richardson was taken by you.

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: Perhaps I did tak a statement from him.   That is why I asked you yesterday, so I'm not exactly sure, I thought I took a statement from him, perhaps it is in the high treason docket but I think I have done so.

JOSEPH HUME DU TOIT: What I want to ask you is that one of those statements that are dated 24 November but it's not the same one you took.

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: The statement I have I think is not complete in my document and if I'm not mistaken I told you that Lt Bester took the statement.

JOSEPH HUME DU TOIT: Can you tell me where Lt Bester fitted into the structure.

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: He was a lieutenant, amongst staff. I cannot remember what period comes into play here from when to when, I recall that it was not that long.

JOSEPH HUME DU TOIT: Is there any reason why Lemmer could not take this statement but Lt Bester?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: I cannot tell you, I really don't know.

JOSEPH HUME DU TOIT: In your statement you handed in today, in paragraph 35 and especially 35.3.1 you had a version of what happened according to what you were told by Richardson, I refer to 35.3 on page 53.  My question in this regard is with what did you refresh your memory to make this type of statement.

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: Are you referring now to my memory.  Could you just repeat the question?

JOSEPH HUME DU TOIT: I would like to know whether you had any specific document in which you could refresh your memory in order to come up with this version.

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: No this is the way I recalled it.

JOSEPH HUME DU TOIT: Can I just check or ask you about certain aspects in connection with the accuracy in 35.3.2, the idea that Richardson telephoned Pretorius.  Is that what you remember or is that a reconstruction that you are giving at this stage.

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: No this is the way I recall.

JOSEPH HUME DU TOIT: According to the witness, he didn't call Mr Pretorius but he instead called the office and they then received a message.

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: I believe Mr Pretorius telephoned him then but that is the way I recall what happened as closely as possible.

JOSEPH HUME DU TOIT: So in other words this is merely an assumption.

JOSEPH HUME DU TOIT: I refer to 35.4.  In that paragraph referred to the detention register in which Richardson was held hostage from 11th November, could you explain why it could be from 11th of November if he was arrested on the 9th of November.

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: Perhaps the 48 hour period comes in.
(no recording follows for some time)

JOSEPH HUME DU TOIT: May I read what I have in front of me.
"Jerry Vusi Richardson, alias Jesa born 48.12.08, 39 years old",
and the address is indicated as Orlando West, the identity number wasn't debateable.  The investigating officer was Lt Bester, Place of Detention, Protea Cells and the date in terms of Section 29, that was the 11th.  The date perhaps when he was freed was the 25th and then another date where it is indicated as the 4th perhaps in ball-point pen, I'm going to have to check the register, and then also the 28 -days period would be the 11th of November.  Do you recall that?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: I said that on the 28 days we were considering further imprisonment awaiting the comments of the minister.