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

MR DU PLESSIS: The statement of Zinzi Mandela is relevant to the Scorpion pistol matter.  I also want to put it to you that Colonel Potgieter with regard to the Scorpion matter, checked his diary and in his diary it seems that Seheri on 25 January 1989, was arrested?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: That can be so.  I do not have the details in front of me.

MR DU PLESSIS: I am sorry, 1987.

ANDRE KRITZINGER: Yes, I will agree with what you say.

MR DU PLESSIS: The Scorpion weapon was found in Mrs Mandela's house on 27 February 1987 and he will testify further that as far as he can remember, the Scorpion pistol had nothing to do with the Seheri matter.

ANDRE KRITZINGER: I cannot recall that specifically, no.

MR DU PLESSIS: Something else that I want to take up with you.
 Mr Chairman, ... you had the copies of Colonel Potgieter?

CHAIRPERSON: No, we don't have it in front of us.

MR DU PLESSIS: I beg your pardon, I was under a different impression.  However, I will endeavour to enlighten you in respect of that and to refer you to that in respect of any aspect that you did not follow me about.

CHAIRPERSON: I've got no problem so far.  What I would argue is that if we are going to hear at length from Colonel Potgieter, I hope you will be fairly brief.

MR DU PLESSIS: I am nearly finished Mr Chairman.  I just want to put this so that certain aspects which have been raised which Colonel Potgieter might enlighten the Committee to and which might make questions in future in respect of other witnesses easier, that is the reason why I put his evidence now in respect of these aspects.

CHAIRPERSON: Please go ahead.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Do you have any knowledge of tapes regarding telephone conversations which were tapped of Mrs Mandela, who are at present in possession of the Attorney General which would also been used in the further investigation in the high treason case?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: Yes, I have knowledge of that.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.  Are there any other questions?  Yes please Mr Semenya.

MR SEMENYA: Thank you Mr Chairperson.  The name is Semenya, I am acting for Mrs Madikizela-Mandela.
 Mr Kritzinger, I think when I listen to your evidence, you used the word Mrs Mandela was an untouchable.  Am I not?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: That was my interpretation thereof, yes, that she was untouchable, that was the word that I used.

MR SEMENYA: The other description to her given by Mr Richard is that she is of a special category, did you hear that evidence?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: No, I did not hear that specifically.  But I accept that if you say that is Mr Richardson's evidence, then I accept your word for that.

MR SEMENYA: Mr Vally says it seemed that she was treated with kitgloves, did you hear that?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: It is possible that I could have read this in the press, but I did not hear this specifically.

CHAIRPERSON: To shorten things, Mr Vally, this morning suggested to you that Mrs Madikizela-Mandela was being treated with kitgloves by the Security Police?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: Oh, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: It had nothing to do with the press.

ANDRE KRITZINGER: That is correct.  I just understood you incorrectly, but that is correct yes.

MR SEMENYA: Let us try and ascertain to what extent then she was an untouchable.  You tapped her telephones, did you not as Security Police?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: That was done yes.

MR SEMENYA: And you invaded her privacy did you not?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: If you would like to see it in that way, yes, then I believe it is possible that her privacy was invaded if you say that we listened to her telephone conversations, it has to be mentioned that it was done with the necessary approval of Section 118 of the Act on Postal Facilities.  I would concede that it was definitely an attack on her privacy.

MR SEMENYA: So you do agree, you did invade her privacy, whether it was authorised or not is another question.

ANDRE KRITZINGER: Yes.  I did not attack her privacy.  The only way that I could have done this was by reading the transcriptions.
 If you want to suggest that by reading the transcriptions that I actually violated her privacy, then that is debatable.

MR SEMENYA: It is not debatable that you are reading something about a person without her knowledge on matters which are personal, what is the debate there?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: No, that is why I say, that if you want to interpret it in this way, that by reading her taped conversations, then I agree that I could have violated her honour and her dignity and her privacy, yes.

MR SEMENYA: All of this tapping was intended to find leads that can expose her to criminal activities, isn't that right?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: Criminal activities in the form of what?

MR SEMENYA: You did not tap her telephone just surely to know who is coming to dinner that night, you must have done that with a view of obtaining information that can expose her to some criminal activity?  Is that factually correct or not?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: Yes.  That would have been so, yes, it could have been like that.

MR SEMENYA: And if you found leads that would expose her to common law crimes, you would have investigated those common law crimes, isn't that right?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: Yes, we would have.  If it was relevant to the Security Branch, yes.

MR SEMENYA: Particularly because it was her.  If you had conclusive evidence to arrest her, you would have done that, isn't that right?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: I am going to tell you quite honestly that I would not have arrested her.  I would have once again as I have said previously, I would have discussed this with the Attorney General as I regarded her as a high profile person.

MR SEMENYA: But if you had conclusive evidence that Mrs Mandela had shot somebody and killed her, you would have done the arrest, isn't that right?  Or you would wait for the Attorney General?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: I believe that if I had those, the proof that she was guilty of murder and that it was related to the Security Police, I would have arrested her, yes.

MR SEMENYA: And you would have made sure that she appears in court and she is prosecuted for that type of offence, isn't that correct also?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: Correct.

MR SEMENYA: ... never any special treatment in the sense of putting her away from possibility of a prosecution and or conviction and or sentencing, isn't that correct?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: I did not understand your question quite properly.  Could you just repeat this?

MR SEMENYA: ... could not have been a policy position by the Security Department to treat Mrs Mandela different from all other agents that you are looking at, isn't that correct?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: Let me be honest with you.  My whole interpretation regarding Mrs Madikizela-Mandela is that I would definitely not have just gone to arrest her.  I would have brought her to the attention of my Divisional Commanding Officer and I believe, and this is merely my own interpretation and conclusion, that my Divisional Commanding Officer would have liaised with Head Office in Pretoria in order to inform them what actions were to follow.
 In my opinion she would not just have been arrested.  She was as far as I was concerned, a person whom one had to deal with very carefully and I think that I would have had to have had instructions from Head Office in order to go and arrest her physically.  This was the personal impression that I got while I was working at the Security Branch at Soweto.

MR SEMENYA: ... Attorney General was in fact premised that no political trials would be advisable at that time, but surely if the Police had evidence of common law crimes, he would have prosecuted, isn't that right?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: That is possible, I don't know.  It is a decision which rests with the Attorney General.