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

MR RICHARDS: ... canvass in preparation for other witnesses, is the Brandfort story.  Is it not true that it would have been a particular interest to the Police as to where Mrs Mandela was at the time and if she would have made a trip to Brandfort, their surveillance mechanisms would have known that she had left Soweto for Brandfort?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: Yes, that is possible.  The Security Branch could have been aware of that, I do not deny that.

MR RICHARDS: I am not asking what is possible or impossible, I am saying is it not true that if Mrs Mandela had left Soweto at that time, they would have been aware, that is the Security Police, it is not a possibility or an impossibility or probability?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: As far as my knowledge goes, I would say that that is correct.  That the Security Branch would have been aware of such a thing yes.

MR RICHARDS: The last question, who was in charge of the recruitment of informers?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: Over all it would probably have been Colonel Claassen regarding the handling of informers, but I think it is actually a simplistic question in the sense that the information section also had informers, but they had their own Commanding Officer, so it is difficult to say whether there is someone in over all charge of informers.

MR RICHARDS: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Richards.  Any other questions?

MR DU PLESSIS: Superintendent Kritzinger, but I am going to call you Mr, because Superintendent is too long.  I act on behalf of Colonel Jan Potgieter who was your Commanding Officer.  I want to ask you about certain aspects of your testimony because it seems to me that certain of the questions and answers were confused, and I would like to clear up.
 I am going to read to you what Colonel Potgieter says regarding the investigation of Mrs Mandela.  There might have been confusion in terms of the docket.
 I refer to paragraph 7 of my client's statement if you want to follow me there.  He says originally there was one large investigation into Winnie Mandela called, it was in connection with her activities.  It should be borne in mind that the Security Branch would have investigated only those aspects of her activities that - so normal criminal activities which had nothing to do with security, would not have fallen under your jurisdiction?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: No, it wouldn't.

MR DU PLESSIS: If the criminal activity could have been related

ANDRE KRITZINGER: Yes, then it would have.

MR DU PLESSIS: And the other things would have been murder and robbery?  The offices were not in the same section or area as yours either?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: Are you now referring specifically to murder and robbery?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: No, it was not the in the same building, but on the same premises, approximately 400 metres from where the Security office was.

MR DU PLESSIS: But you worked separately?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: He goes further and he says the original idea was for senior MK members who were involved in certain terrorist activities, to use them as witnesses in a case in which Winnie Mandela could be prosecuted.  My deduction was that the view of the Attorney General was that Winnie Mandela could not be prosecuted by using evidence, but they would have refused to testify.
 These witnesses had to be found guilty before they could be used in a case against her.  I had no problem with that phrase.  Then he says and I think it is important, as a result of the Attorney General's view, it is decided to approach the investigation differently, it was done in consultation with Headquarters and the decision was made that high treason docket would be opened and investigated separately.  Can you recall that?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: Yes, I can.  The cases against the accomplices were carried out successfully, the case continued under my leadership and was handed to Attorney General, Advocate Claus von Lierres.

MR DU PLESSIS: We are now only talking about the high treason docket?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: So if one looks at your statement, the bulky docket of more than 30 offences which you refer to, so it is not the high treason one, it is the first one which was later broken down of which a part became the high treason docket?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: He goes further and he says that the high treason investigation had nothing to do, it didn't overlap with the Stompie Seipei investigation which was dealt with Murder and Robbery?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: That is correct, the Stompie Seipei was not incorporated with that, it had nothing to do with that.

MR DU PLESSIS: There we see the distinction between the function of the Security Branch and that of Murder and Robbery.
 Then we just add to that, for your attention, the translation of the witnesses and the cross-examination thereafter, of the November interrogation is confusing, it does not give the correct impression.
 Further more Adv von Lierres' attitude was that he would only, if he wanted to prosecute her, he would not do it based on statutory political offences, do you agree with that?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: Yes.  I do not have personal knowledge of that, I was informed by Colonel Potgieter to that statement.
 I cannot remember that he said it to me directly, it is a deduction I made.

MR DU PLESSIS: The high treason docket was handed to Adv von Lierres and according to his register it took place on 3 April 1989.  I checked this personally.  You don't know about that?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: No.  I have no knowledge what happened to the docket.

MR DU PLESSIS: I searched in the offices of the Attorney General but could not find it, this was during May 1979.  They did sign for the receipt of the docket and no notes were made that the docket could have been handed to any other person or any other section.  That is how I was informed by Colonel Potgieter.
 I also want to put it to you that Colonel Potgieter will say that all the dockets which are in possession of the Attorney General at the moment, that he has checked them and that he did not find this docket there either.

ANDRE KRITZINGER: I accept his word as such.

MR DU PLESSIS: A few aspects that I would like to clarify.  The high treason investigation, let me just make another statement.  I want to say that Colonel Potgieter will testify that with regard to the high treason investigation, a docket was handed to the Attorney General where certain witnesses or certain people from whom they still had to obtain statements.   He will also testify that the final step of this investigation would have been to do a complete interrogation of Mrs Mandela, to interrogate her completely.  Do you have any knowledge of that?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: It is possible that it could have been like that, but seen in the view of the fact that Colonel Potgieter played the leading role, if that was his strategy, then I accept that is what he would have done.

MR DU PLESSIS: The final decision to prosecute and how he would have prosecuted, would have rested with the Attorney General?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: He will also testify that Mrs Mandela and Zinzi Mandela in general refused to make statements regarding anything that they had been approached  by by the Police?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: The only two statements that could be traced by Colonel Potgieter, you will find as Annexures JDP9 and JDP10 in Colonel Potgieter's statement.

ANNEXURE JPD9: is a statement by Zinzi Mandela, dated 2 March 1997.  That is the only statement of hers that I could trace.

ANNEXURE JPD10: is a statement from Mrs Mandela which was not signed.

ANDRE KRITZINGER: Yes.  May I just ask how is this relevant, to which matter?