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

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: I cannot say.  The system worked in this manner, that if I had made an application - say for instance to but Doctor Asvat, the tape recordings or whatever would come to me as the person who had requested.   If anybody else wanted insight in that they would have had to come to me and I would then authorise Bosman to say: "all right, give a copy to Watermeyer or to whoever" .   With the Mrs Mandela aspect we requested authority to - we requested copies and it was agreed whereas Watermeyer was the principle client, if I may express myself in that way.

MR MAKANJEE: So what you're saying is, at the time that Doctor Asvat died - and you must have heard shortly thereafter there were allegations of Mrs Madikizela Mandela's involvement, did you at that stage receive any information obtained by surveillance of either Mrs Madikizela Mandela's telephone or Doctor Asvat's telephone regarding the murder of Doctor Asvat?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: Not that I'm aware of.

MR MAKANJEE: Okay.  So that means you yourself did not receive any information?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: I did not receive any information.

MR MAKANJEE: I've nothing further, thank you Mr Chair.

DR BORAINE: Thank you very much.
 Mr Mavundla?

MR MAVUNDLA: Thanks Mr Chairman.
 Mr Potgieter, when Mr Mabotha's detention period expired, were you convinced that Mr Mabotha co-operated with you regarding the interrogation that you had?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: Yes, I was under the impression that he co-operated well.

MR MAVUNDLA: And when you handed him over to de Kock, what were the instructions then to de Kock?  What was he supposed to do with Mr Mabotha?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: As I set out in my statement.  The idea was to keep him available should the Attorney General need to have an interview with him or whatever.  Secondly, that even if the Attorney General thereafter officially declined to prosecute, Mabotha would be able to serve as an askari from there on.

MR MAVUNDLA: But Mr Potgieter, if I remember correctly you  -in one of your statements you mention that you had an alternative, meaning that Mabotha had a chance of either going to his parent's home in Pietersburg than - so that when a need arises, you'll personally go and look for him in Pieterburg.

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: Yes.

MR MAVUNDLA: Why was that arrangement not made?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: One would never know how he would have changed.  He could have had second thoughts maybe and rather go home than stay at Vlakplaas because that is why I enquired from Pietersburg whether he had arrived there, when I heard that he was not at Vlakplaas.   I thought that he had gone there and I requested that they look for him because I was - I intended continuing my relationship with him until I had a definite answer from the Attorney General.

MR MAVUNDLA: But Mr Potgieter, you will agree with me that had you released him to his parent's home in Pietersburg - obviously you were in a position to make contact with the Pietersburg branch so that they can always have that surveillance over him?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: No, he only supplied me with his address and that short notice contact wouldn't have been easily possible telecommunication etc.

MR MAVUNDLA: But the relationship that you had with him was built - was not built in a day, it's matter of time and obviously you had that opportunity to make arrangements with the Pietersburg branch.

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: I beg your pardon?

MR MAVUNDLA: Obviously the relationship that you built with Mr Mabotha was not something that was built in a period of a day, do we agree?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: Yes.

MR MAVUNDLA: And obviously within that period you would have had an opportunity to make contacts with the Pietersburg branch so that by the time you release him they might be having a surveillance over him.

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: If I had done so, he would probably have still been alive today.

MR MAVUNDLA: After Mr Mabotha - after Mr Mabotha was arrested he was handed over to you, am I correct?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: At a certain point.

MR MAVUNDLA: Do you still remember who are the police officers who handed him over to you?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: I would lie if I have to name na individual.  I see the detention register has Mr Hugh du Toit name.

MR MAVUNDLA: Mr?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: Lieutenant du Toit, the previous witness.  I see his name's recorded as the person who dealt with Mr Mabotha.

MR MAVUNDLA: And presently as you state, you can actually cannot tell who personally handed over Mabotha to you?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: Unfortunately not.

MR MAVUNDLA: I see.  Then, let's come to the relationship that you built with Mr Mabotha.  At the end of the day when you released him, were you convinced that indeed Mr Mabotha was an Askari or what?

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, I had dealt with a great number of terrorism trials -  as known at the time, during my career starting from 1985 and in say 90% of these cases one had to use accomplices to testify and some of those relationships last very, very long and others don't last that long.
 There are different factors that effects these relationships, he may have had a change of heart - anything could have happened.  But as I say, over the years I've had many trials - I was the investigating officer of ...[indistinct] trials and I used many persons, compelling them to testify and of course had won their confidence.  Some had done so voluntarily and others had done so fearing to be imprisoned if they refused to testify.
 I've had some refusing on me that were in prison, there were some that had skipped the country to evade their undertaking to testify, so anything could have happened.

MR MAVUNDLA: But according to your observation, were you convinced that indeed Mr Mabotha was an askari or what?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: No, ...[intervention]

MR MAVUNDLA: I put it to you he wasn't.

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: No, he was an askari, there's no - it's not in dispute because he had testified in previous trials so no, he was an askari.  I'm made to understand that he had testified in trial in Pietersburg, I don't have the - or Nelspruit or Tzaneen I'm not quite sure, I don't have the
facts but I was made to believe that he had testified.   And in fact he was - to a certain extent, he was afraid of going home because the ANC was looking for him.  They had made enquiries from his family but he had said that people had made enquiries at his people's home regarding him, so it is not that easy just to say go home, I'll contact you later.

MR MAVUNDLA: Then when did you hear for the first time that Mr Mabota was assassinated?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: I can't recall the exact time that I heard Mr Chairman, I can't recall, I knew that  he was missing, that's why I sent a telex to Pietersburg, but I can't recall I heard that he had been killed.

MR MAVUNDLA: : And when you heard this story that he was assassinated, were you ever told who committed this offence or what.

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: The detail of it became known in the trial, in the evidence of Mr de Kock during his trial.  And I think the manner, more specifically the manner in which he died only became known during one of the amnesty applications, I was never aware of it.

MR MAVUNDLA: You also mentioned the fact that when you handed him over to de Kock your was not for him to be assassinated.  Am I correct on that aspect?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: That is correct.

MR MAVUNDLA: Thank you Mr Chairman I have nothing further.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mavundla.  Mr Semenya.

MR SEMENYA: Thank you Chairperson.  You say there had come a point when you formed an opinion that it was no longer for you to hold Mabota unlawfully.

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: That is correct.

MR SEMENYA: So you formed a view that he is not guilty of any offence, is that right?