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

MR VALLY: He said on page 1314 "I was the head of STRATCOM.  I was more involved in setting strategies there and co-ordinating STRATCOM operation throughout the country though I personally did not get actively involved in STRATCOM operations against Mrs Madikizela-Mandela, but we had people as I said STRATCOM section at Soweto and a section here at Witwatersrand that dealt on her matters personally."
 Superintendent McPherson says that there was a STRATCOM operation in Soweto?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: There are some of my colleagues present here today who were responsible for the information leg.  I am once again saying that I have no knowledge of any STRATCOM division, section at the Soweto Security Branch and with a bit of humour if there was such a STRATCOM action, they were strategically so good that I had no knowledge of their existence.

MR VALLY: I find this very strange, however and this is the last question.

ANDRE KRITZINGER: This is the truth.

CHAIRPERSON: You are quite correct.

MR VALLY: You say in your statements, after you say a number of times you use phrases such as I have no knowledge, at no stage was I involved in any tapping of phones.   ... setting out how you were not involved, yet you say in paragraph 8 that you assisted your senior, Colonel Jan Potgieter, and I will quote you "in order to compile this docket, I went to different Units of the South African Police in order to obtain information regarding her activities.  A complete analysis was made of all information which dealt with her activities and a bulky docket containing more than 30 crimes, was compiled in the process.
 In terms of the work that you have done with and for Colonel Jan Potgieter, you had compiled a docket with 30 serious offences which you submitted to the Attorney General's office, is that correct?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: That is correct yes.

MR VALLY: Did you at any stage take a statement from Mrs Madikizela-Mandela or at any of this 30 serious offences?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: As far as my knowledge goes, she was never approached to comment on this before the Attorney General had made a decision, this is my interpretation.

MR VALLY: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Vally.  Mr Kemp?

MR KEMP: Mr Chairperson, at this stage I do not have any questions, but I believe there might be other interested parties.  Perhaps they should be given a chance and then if there is anything at the end, then I might comment again.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Are there any others who wish to ask any questions?  Yes, Mr  (Indistinct)

<UNKNOWN>: (Indistinct)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Mr Richards?

MR RICHARDS: Thank you Chairperson.  Superintendent, I am correct in making the assumption that you have tried your best to give evidence only to matters that you have within your personal knowledge, am I correct?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: Could you just repeat that please.  I cannot hear very well.

MR RICHARDS: Thank you Superintendent.  Your evidence this morning, am I correct in saying that your evidence is to the effect that you have only spoken about things that are within your personal knowledge, you've avoided hearsay is that not correct?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: That is correct, yes.

MR RICHARDS: I can assure you that in these hearings you are at liberty to give hearsay evidence, we are not before a court of law.
 Now, the next proposition I put to you, isn't it true that the Security Police were not only interested in taking matters to court for convictions and prosecutions, they were also interested in getting information, detaining people and so on?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: Yes, the component where I was, I was only interested and tasked with obtaining court orientated information and therefore I was also involved in the terrorist tracking unit.  My task was mainly court orientated investigations.

MR RICHARDS: Is that the reason that you presented these 30 or so dockets to the Attorney General for decision?  It is in the nature of your function to have presented the prosecutable cases, or so you thought, to the Attorney General?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: That is correct.  It was a reasonable period that my colleague and I attended to this investigation, and this bulky docket was handed to the Attorney General.

MR RICHARDS: And during the preparation of that docket, there was constant interaction with his staff, is that not correct as well, according to your evidence?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: No, I don't think that is what I said.  If I understand you correctly, the docket after my colleague and I were in agreement that we had a good case against her, we handed the docket to the Attorney General.  Perhaps there were discussions previously with the office of the Attorney General where we could have informed him that we were busy with such an investigation, but I do not believe that there was feedback on a daily or weekly basis to the Attorney General in order to tell him how far this had progressed.
 My colleague could have done it, but I did not do that.

MR RICHARDS: ... in the ordinary course of your investigation, you could have taken statements from whom you liked?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: Could you repeat the question please?

MR RICHARDS: In the ordinary course of your investigations, you would approach the people you thought were relevant to take statements from and to ask Mr Vally's question yet again, there was no particular restraint on you taking statements from Mrs Madikizela-Mandela?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: No.  Let me put it this way.  The statements that we had, were mostly from people who had been arrested and in which she could have been incriminated.  I cannot physically recall that we actually went out into the street and used other independent people in the community and obtained statements from them.
 Possibly, as many of the statements in the Seheri docket would have been placed in the docket of Mrs Mandela, where she was incriminated her name was mentioned or whatever the case, so the investigation was built on evidence from people who were detained or dockets which could have been closed where her name was mentioned as to being linked to one or other activity.

MR RICHARDS: ... inference that I had drawn from your evidence earlier today that Mrs Madikizela-Mandela was in a special category which was untouchable and that meant that the Attorney General had to authorise you to take a statement from her, is untrue?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: No, that was my interpretation and the fact that she was untouchable was what I thought, and that if I had visited her, I would have been shown the door.

MR RICHARDS: I would proceed to the next point.  My client concedes that he was a police informer.
 In any Police operation, informers are unfortunately part and parcel of the operation.  He also says that Sergeant Pretorius was his handler.  What was Sergeant Pretorius' function in the Security Police at the time?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: I think that I can try to give you an answer.  Sergeant Pretorius did not work with me, he was directly under the command of my colleague, who is also present here today. ... (tape ends) ... one of my functions was not dealing with ... (tape 1 - side B blank)

MR RICHARDS: Who did you and Captain Watermeyer account to and report to, Colonel Jan Potgieter if I understand you?

ANDRE KRITZINGER: No, I would personally reported things regarding investigations, I would have reported to my colleague Colonel Jan Potgieter.  If I am not wrong, I think Superintendent Watermeyer reported to his Commanding Officer, who I think at that stage was a Colonel Claassen.  I believe that he would have reported to him.