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

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: It appears to me that it was not the case.  If one looks at the statement of Chappies Klopper it seems as if Mabotha first went to point out certain things, other places that I don't know of and then as you will see in my evidence I speak of the detention period as it was in the registers so I don't know.  There seems to be a big discrepancy between the day on which he was arrested and the day on which he was detained.  I am not sure what happened there.  That appears to be the case if one looks at the statement under oath of Mrs Ngadimeng.  You must  remember that a person can be detained only for six months in terms of section 29 and before you could go to the revision committee, which I couldn't do because the interrogation had been completed, I couldn't get a warrant under section 31 because the Attorney-General had not given a finding so I had to release Mabotha.  So this is - if he had been detained since February that means he was detained for eight months.  I don't know, I don't understand it.

UNKNOWN: Let's assume that he was assaulted and that he was brought to Soweto and that he was handed to you and that he had been seriously assaulted as you have heard.

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: My reaction would have been negative.  If I listen to the degree of his assault then there would have been an investigation.

UNKNOWN: And everyone who worked with you in the security branch knew what your attitude would have been.

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: Yes.

UNKNOWN: Would you say that from your opinion of this matter that they could have detained him elsewhere for those two months?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: Yes, that might be.  That seems probable.

UNKNOWN: On page 40.

CHAIRPERSON: We have obviously had an opportunity to study the entire document quite carefully, particularly our leaders of evidence.  I am wondering in view of the time factor whether he could simply confirm that this is his evidence before us for the record so we could then go to questioning and if you need to come back at any time obviously you will be allowed to do that.

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, may I be afforded the opportunity just to check if there is anything else  that I wanted to ask him about apart from the statement.  If you would just bear with me for one moment.

CHAIRPERSON: Of course.

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: Mr Chair, in the light thereof I would like to point out some errors to you.  On page 55 paragraph 35.4 I said - dit moet wees volgens die aanhoudings register.  Dan op bladsy 31, Meneer die Voorsitter paragraaf 31, die eerste reel met my diens aanvaarding as intelligensie hoof en nie as interne eenheids hoof nie.

CHAIRPERSON: We will adjust that accordingly, thank you.

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, I have one or two further questions then I am finished.  Colonel, you said on page 43 that you had no direct knowledge of why Mabotha was not used in the Sepei case.  You read the record of Advocate Chris van Vuuren and said that he indicated that Mabotha was an unreliable witness and that that was why he was not called.  That which Van Vuuren said, was that ever conveyed to you?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: No, it was not.   I never spoke to Van Vuuren and never got feedback as to why they didn't call him as a witness.  I assumed that Captain Dempsey had complied with my request.

UNKNOWN: Colonel was there ever anything said on the relationship between Mabotha and Mrs Mandela by anybody else in the security branch?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: No.  Definitely not and it is for that  reason that I said that Mr De Kock's evidence was false because I was totally unaware of that fact and apart from Mr De Kock's hearing yesterday was the first time I
 heard

ADV SANDI: of it.

UNKNOWN: If there were such evidence would you accept that it might be?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: Yes, it might have been but I didn't have opportunity for such nonsense.

UNKNOWN: Did you have any orders from Colonel De Kock?   Would you be able to give orders to De Kock?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: No, Colonel De Kock was my senior.

UNKNOWN: Would there be any reason why you would have wanted Mabotha killed if you wanted to use him as evidence in a case afterwards?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: No, definitely not.

UNKNOWN: Were you then aware that Vlakplaas had eliminated certain persons?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: No, I wasn't.

UNKNOWN: Did Mabotha ever tell you during interrogation - you were responsible for the interrogation of Mabotha?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: Over a period of six months.

UNKNOWN: And you had a good relationship with him?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: Very definitely.

UNKNOWN: Did he ever tell you something with regard to the shooting of policemen?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: Definitely not.

UNKNOWN: For which Mabotha had been responsible?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: No, definitely not and there weren't any dockets or evidence in that regard either.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for your co-operation.  I appreciate that very much.  Mr Prior are you going to start?  Can I suggest again that bearing in mind the length of this and the importance of this that you try to restrict yourself to 20 minutes and then Mr Pigou for a further 20 minutes.  Let's try and see if we can.

MR PRIOR: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Mr Potgieter, Mr Du Toit, did you regard him as a competent policeman?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: I have no reason to believe that he wasn't competent.  The investigations conducted under my command was done fairly well.

MR PRIOR: Were you aware of Mr Mabotha's arrest on the 22nd February 1989?  As testified to by Mr Du Toit and as evidenced by the statement he took from Mr Mabotha on the 24th February 1989 at Soweto police station.  Or Protea police station.

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: Mr Chair I am lost where this case is concerned.  The documentation showed that the statement was handed to him a month after Mabotha's arrest.  The detention register also indicates a time after Mr Du Toit's date that he testified.  There aren't any facts to tell me when Mabotha was arrested so I really cannot tell you that he was arrested on that specific date.

MR PRIOR: In the normal course of events such an arrest would have been brought to your attention, do you agree?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: Yes.

MR PRIOR: And there was no reason that we heard from Mr Du Toit for them to have kept this information away from you, as the head of the investigating component of the security branch at Soweto?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: Yes.  Let me just tell you of another scenario.  I am thinking of the year, the dates.  There was a marathon criminal investigation ...

MR PRIOR: I don't know if the witness is clarifying anything, I am satisfied with the answer.

UNKNOWN: No Mr Chairman, with respect the witness is trying to explain the answer further and if he could be given the opportunity, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: If you could do that quite briefly because we're satisfied.

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: What I want to say I was at a criminal hearing in Pretoria and for periods of six weeks at a time I was away from my base.  Unfortunately I have only the diary of '87 but not '88 and '89 so I can't say where I was at that stage.  Maybe I was there, maybe I wasn't.  I don't remember anything.

MR PRIOR: Can you tell us who made  the entry in the detention register of 4th April 1989?

JOSEPH HUME DU TOIT: I cannot identify the handwriting.  But yes there was a person who handled the register but whether he made the entry himself I will not be able to tell.

MR PRIOR: Alright you're unable to identify the handwriting.  Well are you able, knowing the facts as you do now, are you able to explain to the Commission the two month period in which Mabotha apparently was in the custody of your security branch?  Can you explain that?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: I cannot.