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

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: There were many complaints, many dockets investigated where it was alleged that persons were assaulted.

MR PIGOU: Can you tell us the reason why there were soundproof rooms?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: Yes.  The interrogation rooms were next to one another.  There were three of them.  They were soundproof but the door was - it was a glass door, it had a window in where you could look in from the outside.  But the purpose of being soundproof so that if you detain more than one person they could be interrogated and the one person not overhearing what the other was saying.

MR PIGOU: Nothing to do with muffling the cries of people being tortured or assaulted?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: I am sure it wasn't built for that purpose.

MR PIGOU: I see, but possibly could have been used for that purpose.

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: Could have, yes.

MR PIGOU: Okay.  Now in the light of allegations that have been made to this Commission, to other human rights organisations, Detainee Parents Support Committee,  the Idaf records list numerous allegations of assault and torture at the Soweto security branch.  Would it be fair to say that the version that you presented that you didn't know about these things is highly improbable.

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, I have to - if the question is asked in that way that there is evidence about torture at the Soweto security branch from all these organisations then obviously it would be fair to put it to my client, to the witness, that in respect of this report, this allegation in respect of this person is made.  That is simply a bald statement and I haven't heard the statement to other witnesses being made in relation to the Soweto  security branch.  As far as I remember that statement was not made to other  witnesses referring only to the Soweto security branch.  So I think it is unfair to put the statement as broad as that referring to the Soweto security branch without referring to specific assaults in the reports that my learned friend is referring to.

MR PIGOU: Firstly Mr Chair, I hope Mr Du Plessis is not trying to restrict what I could ask to specific people and secondly this is not an amnesty hearing where we have endless amounts of time to go through hundreds of statements.  I am putting it to you, and you can either accept it in good faith or you can put your point of view forward that you disagree that this actually happened, this Commission has numerous statements available to it from these various sources.  We are looking at a time capacity problem here and quite frankly I haven't got the time to do that.  I am putting a general picture to you, or to your client.

UNKNOWN: But Mr Chairman it is possible that in one of these reports there may be evidence of assaults in respect of interrogations at a time when my client was involved in the six months trial as a witness, which he has testified, or prior to my client joining the security branch in Soweto.  Or there may be other reasons or he may not know about it.  Now the question is put to him in a wide fashion saying well there is this evidence, why didn't you know about it.   What I am saying ...

MR PIGOU: But there is evidence of systemic abuse.

UNKNOWN: I am saying he must pinpoint it Mr Chairman.  Then my client can ...

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Du Plessis you have made your point.  I have heard you.  Now Mr Potgieter let me try and rephrase the question.  It is on public record and in numerous publications and a large number of organisations that torture took place throughout South Africa and that it was almost endemic, including Soweto.   I think the question is if it was, and you must tell me if you agree or don't agree, that if it is true that this colossal amount of, let's put it only as allegations, have been made can you appreciate how difficult it is for us to understand that people like yourself and others who were so involved in doing your job that you didn't know about a single incident of torture through contact with your colleagues, through whispers in the corridors, through cries, whatever it may be.  I think that is what we are trying to do.  We are not trying to undermine you.  We are just trying to find out how is it possible that a person so senior knew nothing about this.

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: The instances where it did happen, I would like to refer you to one of the persons of whom I obtained a statement.  In fact ....

CHAIRPERSON: You can just answer the question.  I don't need any references really.  It was just a general question.

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: I accept.  And one of the statements that I had there I took the statement the person said that he was ill treated on occasions and assaulted.  I know it did happen but I cannot come down to specifics.  I am sorry.  I can't come down to specifics.

MR PIGOU: You are saying that it actually did happen but you cannot be specific.   Thank you.  So just to clarify it did happen...

CHAIRPERSON: Wind up please.

MR PIGOU: It did happen in Soweto.

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: Ja.

MR PIGOU: Okay, thank you.  Last point.   You have annexed a number of statements to your submission.  These were statements that were handed, I presume, as part of your wider investigation docket to Mr Von Lieres.

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: Not necessarily.

MR PIGOU: Okay.  And could you tell me you have painted a picture of yourself of coming here, wanting to co-operate with the TRC and provide all this information and you have also indicated that there  was other information like tapes which have been handed to the Attorney-General and so forth.  First point or first question.  Why if you wanted to co-operate with the Truth Commission and help this Commission understand what has happened in the past did you not make this information available before the public hearings last year when it was of crucial material importance to this Commission to have that kind of information.   And second point what other information do you have in your files at home where you made copies.  And if you have other information are you going to make it available to us.

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, may I come in here.  That is part - the answer to the first part of that question is part of the statement which wasn't read because I skipped it.  And a whole explanation in the statement is given why my client didn't testify last year in November.  He was advised by my attorney, he was contacted a day after the hearing had started and this thick bundle that was provided to you and the two days my client spent at the Attorney-General is proof of the fact that he wanted to co-operate and he wanted to give a full picture.  That answer is there.  So I don't know why my learned friend is asking the question again.

MR PIGOU: With respect Dr Boraine, that is not answering my question.  What I am trying to point out is that Mr Potgieter has tried to paint a picture of his co-operation to this Commission.  Now he may well be co-operating with us right now but this Commission has been looking for information, we have heard about the destruction of documents.  And this man is sitting with documents in his own possession and he is not making them available to the Commission prior to this incident, even though there is a great amount of media attention that the Winnie Mandela hearings and related matters are going on, and this information is not made available to us.  So I am afraid this does not answer this section of the statement what I am asking.  And secondly I would like to know an answer to the second part of the question.  Do you have other information.

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, with respect I don't want to get involved in a debate.

CHAIRPERSON: Please don't.