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

MR PIGOU: Last year when we handed over the in camera hearing to your attorneys we also made available a copy of that inquest docket, have you had a chance to peruse that docket prior to these hearings?

MR COETZEE MR NIENABER: I have done so yes.

MR PIGOU: Are you satisfied -  having looked through those dockets and in the light of the contradictions that exist inside those dockets, inside the statements in those dockets, that a competent and thorough investigation was conducted by Mr Lemmer?

MR COETZEE MR NIENABER: That is exactly what I tried to state now. In that connection I want to qualify it by saying that firstly there was - and I'm still not convinced that there is anything wrong and that there was no reason for any suspicion, however with hindsight and according to what was said here, questions asked here, I with all respect want to say to you that we should forget about anything else but the dates alone and as such do not create the impression and I think it is not right against the family.
 I am very sorry for that. At the same time however Chairman, I find it very strange and I've told Mr Pigou that as well, that Mr Pretorius and this is no allegation, that Mrs Pretorius and she is also colleague or she used to be a colleague, didn't ask us about that. As far as I'm concerned I suppose her colleagues will bend over backwards and I don't know who started the line of questioning.

YASMINE SOOKA: Thank you.  Mr Pigou, are you going to be much longer, you had forty five minutes already.

MR PIGOU: I'll try and be as quickly, go as quickly as possible because I realise everyone is tired but I mean I do think we need -please a yes and no answer to this. I'll try and move along and skip things which perhaps will be raised by other people across the hall here.
 Yes or no answer, are you satisfied having looked at that docket that it was a competent and thorough investigation by Mr Lemmer, yes or no?

MR COETZEE MR NIENABER: No.

MR PIGOU: Thank you.  At what stage did you become aware that Mr Richardson was an informer and was involved in this case? Was it at the time of the incident, after the incident - I beg your pardon, at the time of the incident after it had happened?

MR COETZEE MR NIENABER: Yes, but I want to qualify that please. The name doesn't mean anything to me, now while we're sitting here and while we have spoken with Mr de Kock for the first time actually, the name doesn't mean a thing to me.
 At the time I was told and I also attached a qualification to that. And I said to him: "Sir I was not aware of an informer, if it were an informer it could only be an informer for the time being or a once off".  In other words the name - with regard to that I'm going to have to tell a blatant lie to you whether the 9 November 1988, on that date the name meant something to me.

MR PIGOU: Thank you.  A brief yes or no answer, I'm going to try and move along with yes and no answers if possible. You've spoken about the fact that Intelligence and Investigations you met in the morning and information was passed and so forth, do you have any knowledge about a statement or statements that were taken by Mr Lemmer in connection with the alleged abduction of Mr Lolo Sono?

MR COETZEE MR NIENABER: No.

MR PIGOU: And Mr Anthony Tshabalala?

MR COETZEE MR NIENABER: May I qualify please? I can't recall that and therefore I will say categorically no. But in that short time that he was still there it could have been mentioned and therefore I'm not excluding that, but I can't tell.

MR PIGOU: Quickly, Mr de Kock and other gentlemen that have appeared here before and other testimony this Commission has heard has described Mrs Mandela as a sort of an untouchable figure, would you concur with that?

MR COETZEE MR NIENABER: No, definitely not.

MR PIGOU: In terms of Stratcom operations, you've referred to it in your document. I'd like to know whether you had known, even though there wasn't a Stratcom Unit in Soweto according to your statement, that members of your unit were receiving instructions or requests in connection with Witwatersrand or the headquarters of the Security Branch, their receiving instructions and requests? Do you have any knowledge of that?

MR COETZEE MR NIENABER: Mr Chair, you're talking about instructions? No, I would say requests. I have no knowledge thereof but that information was exchanged, yes. That was general practise.

MR PIGOU: Okay, thank you.   Before you came to - and I just want to go into this quickly, Mr Jerry Richardson said that or made the allegation that Mr Moodley was one of the people that used to frequent Mrs Mandela's house and the inference was drawn that Mrs Mandela was working with Mr Moodley in some respect. Now you were based in C.R. Swart, Durban for twenty odd years prior to your move up to Johannesburg, was Mr Moodley in the same branch at that stage?

MR COETZEE MR NIENABER: Yes.

MR PIGOU: Did you know  Mr Moodley then.?

MR COETZEE MR NIENABER: Yes, he worked there and I don't know for how long and what time but he was there for a couple of years, quite a couple of years.

MR PIGOU: Did you have any contact with Mr Moodley when he transferred up to the Soweto Murder and Robbery Unit, in I believe the mid to late 1980's?

MR COETZEE MR NIENABER: I think we did meet, yes but I don't want to say so outright, I think so.

MR PIGOU: Mr Nienaber, would you agree that it is highly irregular in the context of the Security Branch agreement to facilitate the provision of information concerning alleged criminal matters relating to Mrs Mandela and that a statement taken by Lemmer, which was passed onto the Murder and Robbery Unit was not complemented with information about Mr Richardson's role in the incident in which Mr Pretorius died? - there is a clear correlation between the two incidents. And what I'm trying to find out from you is, why would the information which could have assisted Mr Dempsey in his investigation of the Lolo Sono case, why this information wasn't passed on and why it would have been withheld by the Security Branch?
 Now we know the stories about not revealing sources and informers and all the rest of it. But by the 20th of January 1989 when Mr Dempsey took over that case, we've heard testimony here that Richardson was no longer a source. We know actually within a month he was being picked up and charged with murder of Stompie Sepei and as I've said, we know that this information could have facilitated Mr Dempsey's investigation. Could you tell us why that information would not have been made available?

MR NIENABER: Are you talking about the information about Richardson being an informer or what information do you want to refer to?

MR PIGOU: I think what we are trying to establish is the connection between the two incidents and that this would have been fundamentally important for Mr Dempsey to understand this connection. And that may well have meant divulging a former source, as we've heard he's no longer a source and in fact he's facing charges in investigation of murder. What I'm trying to find out is, is it not peculiar that information was not handed over to facilitate that investigation?

MR NIENABER: The fact is that Mr Richardson, that he was a source was - Dempsey was informed about that. I told him myself that this man was an informer but it doesn't matter if he is guilty of an offence, he's got to go but that we had any contact with him at that stage, I also told him about.

YASMINE SOOKA: Mr Pigou, could you indicate how much longer you're going to be please?

MR PIGOU: Well if you would like I'm going to cut out whole sections which won't be to the benefit of the Commission receiving this information which I think is crucial. But if you would like me to do it, I can move to two or three last questions of a general broad nature.