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

JOHN GEORGE FIVAZ: You'll find Chairperson, that normal practice is that you never close a murder docket.  We have what we are calling a: "Bring forward system" where murder dockets will be filed temporarily and after a couple of months it will be brought forward and it will receive additional attention - that is normal practice with a murder docket.
 Once again I would like to recommend that if there are still outstanding issues in those dockets, then we have to ask the investigating officers why hasn't that type of thing been followed up and what are the intentions of the investigating officers of following it up because in my mind a murder docket is never closed, it is always alive and will receive attentions sporadically.

MR PIGOU: Thank you.  No further question Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, I think we will then break.  Can I just find out from you Doctor Asvat, is it possible to get back at quarter past one?   I think we should try to get back at quarter past one because you have to be away.  Thank you very much, we adjourn.

JOHN GEORGE FIVAZ: Thank you very much.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

MR RICHARD: May I use the opportunity of the pending settling down period to say various documents are being mentioned that do affect my client, I have no knowledge and I had no knowledge of them till now.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you say that when the legal people are there ...[intervention]

MR RICHARD: I see the relevant person coming.
 Mr Pigou, we have a relevant person here - I was making a short address as to the fact that there are various documents, the nature of which I do not know.  ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Just wait a bit, let us try and get order.  Order please, thank you.  Yes?

MR RICHARD: Thank you Chairperson, as I said there are various documents that are being referred to by the current witness, I've never had sight of these and I have no knowledge of the nature or description of them.  I would like to have them in time to be able to ask the witness some questions on them and I'd like a direction from the Chair.

MR PIGOU: Chair, I have checked with  my colleagues and it's true, Mr Richard has not been furnished with the investigation diary that I was referring to and I will now try to make a copy available for him.

MR RICHARD: I presume that will be before the witness is placed under cross-examination, so I'll at least have a chance to read them.

MR PIGOU: Mr Richard what I will do is, I will walk to the other side of this room and I will hand you my own copy.

MR KADES: May I have a copy as well, I don't have one?

MR PIGOU: Mr Cades, your client was given a copy of this document, I believe it was on Saturday when he visited the offices of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and I was present, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's get started.  Mr Semenya?

<UNKNOWN>: I have an extra copy somebody can use.

CHAIRPERSON: I beg your pardon?

<UNKNOWN>: I have an extra copy somebody can have.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

MR SEMENYA: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Could people please just settle.

MR SEMENYA: Commissioner, ....[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Hello, hello, I'm asking people to settle, thank you.

MR SEMENYA: Commissioner, can I try and put in context the letter that - the circumstances that gave rise to paragraph 8 of your statement and to put it in context I would refer to the transcript of the "in camera hearings" where that statement was made.
 Chairperson, may I refer firstly to page 170 of the second part of the "in camera hearing"?  And maybe in a very intelligent English, I'm saying there that - at the end of the hearing, I'm saying that I'm requesting that the Commission - before exercising it's discretion, to release the transcript and offer us an opportunity to address it so that we do not have ...[indistinct] of the statements coming out into the media and quoting certain things out of context.  
 And I wish to refer to page 171, where the presiding Chairman in that "in camera hearings" says - or maybe the lines before.
"Usually we take a view that the Commission, especially because it is a weighty decision to take, means commission in the sense of the entire Commission even though of course there is a sub-committee of the Commission, the definition says you can say: "Commission" when you say: "The Committee".
 We're fortunately going to have a meeting on the Commission on Thursday and Friday and I think this panel will have to obviously look at what the process has been so far, especially now in view of your request which is quite legitimate.
 We will want to put the matter before the Commission and I'm sure Mr Vally is going to be in contact with you as you know and tease you with what you consider is the proper legal way in which fairness should be ensured when a decision of that nature is made"
 Now, up to the time of the publication of the media, there has not been an official decision by the TRC to publish the contents of the "in camera hearing".  In fact when we saw all these comments in the paper, the TRC said the document was purloined - and I for the first time knew what that word meant, but it was taking without authority.
 Now, I wish to refer you to the aspect where that statement comes from.  Clearly on a direct question, Mrs Mandela has been asked what she knows about these allegations and she starts by saying:
"Let me tell you a story, this is my information that I have learnt"
But the media quotes it as though she's making a statement of fact and that's how you responded to it, am I correct Commissioner?

JOHN GEORGE FIVAZ: Chairperson, I became aware of the media releases on the issue.  I issued a statement from my side saying that is certainly not true, secondly I wrote a letter to the TRC in which I object against that specific statement.  I must say that it's not regarded by myself as a personal issue between Mrs Madikezela Mandela and myself, it's only a fact that we are working on a creditable police service removed from politics.
 And that was really in mind - whether it came from the media or specific persons, a deliberate attempt to smear the South African police services as such and also the President of the country.

MR SEMENYA: The point I'm ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Excuse me, Hanif seems to want to intervene here.

MR VALLY: Thank you Archbishop.  Archbishop, just as we speak I've had a ...[indistinct] Chief Executive Officer, Doctor Biki Minuku who tells me the investigation into the alleged leak of this Section 29 transcript by both the SAPS and the National Intelligence Agency has indicated - when they made a comparison between the Section 29 transcript and the report in the press, that the leak was not of the Section 29 transcripts.  This is the finding of the SAPS and NIA which has just been communicated to me telephonically right now.

MR SEMENYA: Mr Commissioner, the point I'm trying to make is this, if you look at the exact transcript, the media reports ought to have read that
"Mrs Madikezela Mandela has alleged that she has information"
Would that have been the correct way - looking now at the correct transcript?

JOHN GEORGE FIVAZ: Chairperson, I accept that is what you have in the transcript.

MR SEMENYA: Dealing with - and to confirm and to corroborate this point the Attorneys, Seseriti, Mavundlay and Partners caused a letter to be addressed to you Commissioner.  Can I give you a copy and tell us whether you recognise or recall having received this letter?

<UNKNOWN>: Mr Chairperson, I think the people at the bench here don't have a copy of that letter and we'd be grateful if we could also be furnished with a copy.

CHAIRPERSON: There are some - if you can share, thank you very much. [tape blank]