Special Hearings — Mandela United Football Club Hearings — 1997-11-28

MR PIGOU: Thank you very much.  I just want to put it to you formally that the information that you read in the newspaper that you have spoken about on paragraph 8, the media reports on the 24th of October, that indeed Mrs Madikizela-Mandela when asked about, and I will just quote to you on page 119, Section 29.2, it's the second one, 13th of October, that Mr Vally, my colleague put to Mrs Madikizela-Mandela
"One of the two persons who were convicted for the murder of Dr Asvat alleges that you undertook to pay him and his co-accused to kill Dr Asvat.  What do you say to this allegation?"
And her response was -
"I will here tell you a little story about, I heard about that ridiculous allegation.  I heard for the first time of this nonsensical version when I was informed that my ex-husband had instructed Fivaz to investigate any type of dirt Fivaz could...."
it says "debt" here but I believe the words that were used was "dirt".
".... that Fivaz could rake in my name.  He needed that information, it was stated to me, for purposes of our divorce matter which had not started at that time.  He claimed he had sent emissaries I had not given a proper hearing to".
 She then - let me just stop there, can we get you to confirm then that what you are saying in paragraph 8 is what you would say now in relation to that statement?

JOHN GEORGE FIVAZ: I confirm Chairperson.

MR PIGOU: She goes on (...indistinct)

CHAIRPERSON: Switch on your....

MR PIGOU: I beg your pardon.  She goes on to say that
"I was then advised that the murderers of Dr Asvat had been approached in prison and had been assaulted and had been in fact asked to make implicating statements implicating me".
Do you have any knowledge of that allegation or the truth of that allegation?

JOHN GEORGE FIVAZ: I haven't got personal knowledge about it Chairperson.  I think this is really a question that should be put to the investigating officers because they were instructed by myself to follow up all those allegations and alleged loose ends.

MR PIGOU: I won't carry on on that paragraph, and perhaps I could just ask you a question now, you've indicated on the front page of your statement that you, I beg your pardon on paragraph 5 page 2, the second section of that that you instructed the command structure of the detectives to reconsider cases anew.  Could you tell me who took the decision inside the command structure to appoint the same investigating officer, Senior Superintendent Henk Hesslinger onto the Abu-Baker Asvat murder docket?

JOHN GEORGE FIVAZ: That was the head of the detective services at that time, at that time still a Lieutenant General Wouter Grove, but I must I think elaborate on that one Chairperson, that is normal practice to appoint your previous investigator because that investigator will be in a position, the best position with the knowledge about the case and with insight in the case and that is normal procedure.  You will always try to find the original investigator and that investigator will be appointed.

MR PIGOU: Were you aware of any allegations that were made about Senior Superintendent Henk Hesslinger at the time of the trial of Mr Cyril Mbatha and Mr Nicholas Tilani Dhlamini?  What I am referring to is that there were concerns first of all - from two quarters, that Superintendent Hesslinger had said that this was not a political crime, this was a straightforward robbery which my understanding is and perhaps my colleague Mr Kades over there will look into this and explore it a little bit further, that there was some concern from the Asvat family that there was such a quick decision taken over whether it was actually a straightforward criminal matter or whether there was some kind of political connection and I am referring now to the connection to Mrs Madikizela-Mandela.  And linked to that the fact that a statement had been made by Tulani Dhlamini on the 18th of February 1989 which said that Mrs Madikizela-Mandela had offered R20 000 to them if they killed Dr Asvat, and the fact that this statement never surfaced in court, could you perhaps tell me why then was the same investigating officer put back on to that case?

JOHN GEORGE FIVAZ: Chairperson I must say I wasn't aware of any of this type of allegation against Detective Henk Hesslinger.  As far as I know he's a very competent well-experienced detective, he served on various commissions in the past and he's well known in our environment as a very thorough investigator.  I must explain to the Commission, I think if we look at investigations of this nature you will always find that not only one investigator will take all the sections, in this case I think at least three very prominent investigators were involved, Detective H T Moodley and a Detective Dempsey and I think between the three of them some of these questions have to be sorted out.  But I am certainly not aware of any allegations of that nature to Detective Hesslinger.

MR PIGOU: Would you agree Commissioner Fivaz that.....(tape ends)
...as it was imperative to get the co-operation of the two accused or the two convicted men I should say, Mr Mbatha and Mr Dlamini in this case and that in the investigation diary we see that considerable lengths were taken to actually try and establish some sort of communication with them, that it would be somewhat problematic to put the same investigating officer into that position in terms of developing some sort of trust as to how the case would be handled.

JOHN GEORGE FIVAZ: Chairperson yes, if we have any allegation of substance against an investigator of course we will - and we have done it in the past, we'll remove that investigator and we'll replace or we'll add on investigators to a specific team to deal with that perception or allegation.
 I think in this case I certainly wasn't aware of that but over and above that Chairperson, it's not my responsibility to appoint investigators, that is really the responsibility of the detective command structure to appoint investigators for the purposes of investigating certain cases.

MR PIGOU: Thank you Commissioner, I just want to move on now, could you tell us what kind of priority was put onto this case at the time because it seems from reading the investigation diary that a considerable number of resources were used in the investigation?  Were you receiving regular feedback and what sort of interest did you take in this case?

JOHN GEORGE FIVAZ: In my statement Chairperson, I'm saying that I was very concerned about the views of especially the parents of Lolo Sono because in my mind the parents were really of the opinion that we haven't done our job as police officers in the past and I thought by myself from my side I'm going to make 100% sure that we are following up clues, outstanding loose ends and all other additional allegations, so I was very, very serious about the investigation.
 I think from the side of my investigators that was certainly my impression as well.  I received a number of report backs from Commissioner Suiker Britz - he's really in command of serious violent crimes and certain organised crimes in South Africa and at certain stages - I'm not sure about the dates, some of the investigators also reported back to me and I never had the opinion that they are not serious about the investigation.

MR PIGOU: Thank you Commissioner, you've indicated in your statement that on the basis of Major H T Moodley's information that he regarded Cebekhulu to be an unreliable witness.  I wonder whether you can tell whether any consideration was given to opening an investigation into the alleged abduction of Gatiza Cebekhulu out of this country to Lusaka and the fact that he ended up in a Zambian prison an uncharged man basically detention without trial - allegedly at the ...[indistinct] of the ANC.  Was there any consideration given into looking into that?