Special Hearings — Mandela United Football Club Hearings — 1997-11-28

JOHN GEORGE FIVAZ: Chairperson, the understanding is correct.  I'll institute disciplinary actions only when I have evidence that that payment was indeed not made to the specific source, then you have a base for disciplinary action and at this stage I haven't got a base for disciplinary action.

MR SEMENYA: All right.  Let me put it this way, have you since discovered how the oil operated?  We know Gerry Richardson's hands are oiled now and we've since discovered in aid of what - to induce which information?

JOHN GEORGE FIVAZ: Chairperson, I think to come back to the issue of paying for services to be rendered, that is not an extraordinary issue in any police service all over the world.  You are making use of this facility all over the world, not only in police services but also in intelligence agencies to pay people not only for services rendered but also services to be rendered, that's the way you are making certain breakthroughs in crime.
 Unfortunately it is case that you still have to pay people to participate with the police service on certain crimes.  It's not an issue of bribery and corruption, it's a well accepted mechanism all over the world in any police service.

MR SEMENYA: I accept that Commissioner, except one thing.   She had the services to be rendered and that it be rendered by a man who has been convicted and is on life sentence, he's making an application for a whole range of murders and he implicates a particular figure of complicity in those atrocities.
 Shouldn't one really ask the police: "What type of information is the man now giving us, what are these services to be rendered and were they useful or not"?

JOHN GEORGE FIVAZ: I established from the investigators that their dealings with the source was indeed useful.  I think Chairperson, they will testify from their side exactly what happened between themselves and the source.  I am of the opinion that if you look at people requesting attention from the side of detention - when they are in tension, we are receiving numerous letters and requests from people in jail saying that: "We now suddenly have certain information on crime".
 Most of those requests are totally unfounded and in many cases we are indeed discovering enough court related evidence in that way to take somebody to court, it is an exercise which you can't ignore.  When a person is requesting to be interviewed by a police officer, it's also normal practice to sent a police officer to interview that person and to make sure what is in the testimony or information or intelligence of that person that could be used for the solving of a crime or for that matter for the identification of people involved in crime.

MR SEMENYA: I've no further questions Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Any questions on that side?  Mr Richard?

MR RICHARD: Thank you Chairperson.  I'm reading from documents that I only received 20 minutes ago, so please bear with me if I don't understand them fully.  According to these documents, on the 12th of May 1995, Mr Richardson was already taking a Lieutenant Coode to point out the place where Kuki Zwani's body had been left and pointing out the places where the bodies of Lolo Sono and Sibuniso Shabalala had been buried.  Is it correct that without this information those three murders would not have been solved or you would have not had to deal with?

MR NTSEBEZA: What document are you referring to Sir - so that we can follow?

MR RICHARD: I'm referring to the document that Mr PIGOU handed to me 20 minutes ago and that is called
"Ondersoek Dagboek - Spesiale Ondersoek"

MR NTSEBEZA: Investigation Diary?  Is that the Investigation Diary?

MR RICHARD: That's the Investigation Diary.

JOHN GEORGE FIVAZ: Chairman, I'm of opinion - unfortunately I haven't got copies of the Investigation Diary but I don't think that will really assist me, I think that question should be posed to the persons who have interviewed Mr Richardson and who took the investigators to specific spots and who pointed out specific spots to the investigators.
 I was never involved in that process but what I can say to the Commission is that my investigators in the form of Superintendent Moodley and Superintendent Dempsey confirmed to me that the source led them to certain spots and it was indeed a useful exercise.

MR RICHARD: In other words - as you correctly pointed out, I should reserve my questions for the two further witnesses later.  However, I would point out at this juncture that one of the instructions that I have had from Mr Richardson is that if the police wish to consult with him, he is more than willing to sit and co-operate at whatever level.  He has made a similar invitation to Mr Pigou which hasn't yet been taken up.  No further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

JOHN GEORGE FIVAZ: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Yes, Mr ...[indistinct]

MR RICHARD: Mr Fivaz, I want to refer you to paragraph 5 of your affidavit, it's a reference to the visit by Mr and Mrs Sono to your offices in Cape Town, am I right in thinking that the visit took place in 1995?

JOHN GEORGE FIVAZ: I'm not 100% sure but the fact is the visit was in my office in Cape Town and I am more or less sure or nearly 100% sure it was in '95.

MR RICHARD: Thank you.  In your evidence elicited by my learned colleague Mr Semenya, you said that the payment to the informer was for services to be rendered in the future, is that correct?

JOHN GEORGE FIVAZ: Chairperson, just to underline again what or to re-iterate what I've testified.  After I had insight in the claim, I asked an explanation from the investigators and they explained to me - because I was upset about the motivation in the claim as that is not standard practice in the new police service to pay informers of the previous dispensation, that is the basic principle, so they explained to me they had to pay because to a certain extent the previous dispensation was morally obliged to pay for the services because they established that they acted on this information and indeed they were successful.
 That was not really the point, what was absolutely necessary - the source said: "I'm not willing to work with you unless you are paying what you are owing" and on that basis they decided to pay.   I'm not quite sure whether that payment was before the identification of certain spots or thereafter, I'm not quite sure but we have to ask that of the investigators.

MR RICHARD: But the point is, there were two possible reasons for the payment, the first was for information to be rendered in the future, the second was as an honourable organisation the South African police service would accept that it is liable for debts that have been incurred in the past even if they were incurred in 1988.
 So I take it that the second reason was also a further additional reason to make the payment to Mr Richardson even though it was made in respect of an incident that took place - as you say, in the previous dispensation.

JOHN GEORGE FIVAZ: Chairperson, that of course is possible, that was not explained to me as the reason for the payment by the investigators - that is only an assumption.

MR RICHARD: Then I see in paragraph 6.8 of your affidavit that is says that
"The case docket of Mr Sono was submitted to the Attorney General who declined to prosecute"
And then it says further:
"as the body of Mr Sono had not been found"
Then it says:
"The Attorney General indicated that the discovery of the body is necessary to institute criminal proceedings"
And you don't comment on what the Attorney General indicated.  Do you think that it is necessary to have a body in order to charge somebody with murder?  It's surely not because all that is required for a murder conviction is that the person is found guilty of having unlawfully and intentionally killed a human being, so you don't need to have a body to prosecute somebody for murder.