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

MR SEMENYA: The point I am making is the very reason that the docket that was placed before him was not finally prosecuted, was not because of favouritism to her, but more importantly it was deemed imprudent to prosecute at that time in our political history.  Political trials under the Internal Security Act, isn't that correct?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: I do not know if I understand your question correctly.  Does this deal with political trials?

MR SEMENYA: The reason why the prosecution was not made in respect of offences which are (indistinct) under the Internal Security Act, you would not deny it was because it was deemed imprudent to prosecute under that Act and in terms of the various sections of that Act, political offences at the time when there were negotiations with the various political parties?  Are you able to dispute that?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: No, I don't think I will dispute that.

MR SEMENYA: I have no further questions, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.  Mr Kemp?

MR KEMP: Mr Chairman, I have no questions for the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hanif, I know, I have experience of your short questions which go on for hours, so I must ask you either we must adjourn and come back because the Commission is yet to put questions to the witness.  I suggest that we hold your question till after tea and then I will put it to the Commission so that we can make some progress.
 We are now adjourned until five past eleven, thank you.
COMMISSION ADJOURNS

CHAIRPERSON: Before I ask Mr Vally, I am asking the photographers a moment to take pictures, but we will continue our work.  Before I ask Mr Vally, can I just make a plea to all concerned, myself as well, the witnesses, to the legal representatives, these microphones are extremely sensitive, so please don't touch them, it is not necessary to lean forward like that, they are very sensitive you can sit a little way from it.
 The only reason why I am mentioning this is because for audio and for recording and for radio the slightest jar will just about kill anybody whose got earphones on or who is listening on the other side, and this is live on radio.  I would be grateful if you could be sensitive to that.
 Mr Vally, your brief question.

MR VALLY: My two brief questions.  The first one is Mr Kritzinger, we haven't had the opportunity to look at all the statements given to us, but I have seen three of the statements given to me.  That is your statement, Mr Coetzee's statement and Mr de Jager's statement.  All of you represented by Attorneys Wagener Muller & Du Plessis.  What I would need to know is in compiling your statement, there is broad general denials.
 Did you people together, jointly prepare your statements, all the people represented at this hearing represented by Attorneys Wagener Muller & Du Plessis?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: I was upon occasion requested by the Attorney, Mr Kobus Muller to come and see him at Adv Kemp's offices.  The first consultation I could not attend.
 I did upon occasion go and see him where were present the Adv Muller and the Attorney and Coetzee, myself, Colonel Potgieter.  Sorry that was at Mr Wagener's office, upon which I once at a stage spoke, consulted alone with Mr Wagener.
 The second incident was at Adv  Kemp's office and we consulted together as a group, that is correct.

MR VALLY: So in other words the story that we are getting in your statements, is a joint story that you all have taken it upon yourself to assume the same position?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: If I understand you correctly, yes.  Each statement is not the same.  My statement is only relevant to the things that I know personally of the questions as set out in the subpoena.

MR VALLY: Very briefly I am saying, did you people collude in your statements?

CHAIRPERSON: May I just interrupt for a moment, I am sorry.  Photographers please, stop now and move away.
 Sorry Mr Vally.

ANDRE KRITZINGER: If I understand you correctly, no not colluding, definitely not.  But that there was a joint consultation, that is correct.

MR VALLY: Just to leave this matter, from the way your statements are phrased,  from the phrases used in the statements  it looks like you have colluded in your responses.
 Now I want to ask you a last question.  Did it not serve the interest of the Security Branch in Soweto to have disruptive elements such as the Mandela United Football Club continuing the disruptive activity, did it not suit your interest to leave them to behave in the way they were behaving?

CHAIRPERSON: Just repeat the question.

MR VALLY: Did it not suit the interest of the Security Branch to leave the elements in Mandela United Football Club who were carrying out a reign of terror in tact rather than ensuring that they were prosecuted for example, that you were aware of their unlawful activities, you are aware of their criminal activities, but it suited you politically - I am talking about the Security Branch - to leave them to continue acting the way they were?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: If I was aware of the fact that the Mandela United Football Club was involved in activities, were guilty of Security related activities, then we would have launched an investigation.

MR VALLY: Thank you Mr Chair, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Dr Mgojo?

KHOZA MGOJO: Thank you sir.  I am just going to ask a very short question because of the time, other wise I would ask many questions which are puzzling me.  Maybe because I am a layman, I am not a lawyer.
 Was it a common policy or practice within the Security Branch Unit that if a person had a high profile, you had to wait for an instruction from the Attorney General to do the investigation or take these statements, before you did it?  And tied up with that statement, in your knowledge, do you know of any other people who fell under that category?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: No, I have no personal knowledge of any other person who fell in that category.  It is my personal observation and that is how I experienced it that I did not touch her without kitgloves and I waited for decisions from above, if it was necessary to confront her, I would have done so.
 But as has already been explained, my personal experience with her was that in any case, she would have refused to make any statement of whatever nature and if interrogated, she would just refuse to answer the questions.
 That is the perception that I had and I keep to that perception today, I still have that perception at this moment.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Sooka?

YASMINE SOOKA: Mr Kritzinger, I think that I just want to lay out two scenario's to you.  You were the Investigating Officer on as we know, two matters.  The one in which a gun was found at the home of Mrs Mandela.  You were also the Investigating Officer on another matter where youth had their chests calved with inscriptions, Viva ANC, and you have knowledge of the fact that that happened at Mrs Mandela's home.
 You also admit in your statement that you read transcripts of the tapes that were made when her telephone was being monitored, so clearly there was a great deal of surveillance placed both over Mrs Mandela and the activities at her home and yet in spite of that, some of the most logical follow up procedures or as a lawyer I would think a logical, the interrogation of Mrs Mandela and her daughter, either taking a statement from her, these things didn't happen.
 Would you agree then that the only two conclusions that one can draw.  One, that either there was just very sloppy Police work, and quite frankly in terms of what we know of the activities of the Security Branch during that time, it clearly cannot be that conclusion, so therefore the only other conclusion that one can actually lead to is that it suited the Security Branch to have Mrs Mandela and her Football Club to continue operating in this fashion.
 Because you did nothing about it.