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

MR PRIOR: Yes, that is what amazes us, Mr Potgieter.   Mr Potgieter in this relationship he obviously told you intimate details of his personal life.  Is that correct?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: He may have, but I mean even his relationship with what we heard with Mrs Mandela, I didn't discuss that with him.  He didn't tell me about it.

MR PRIOR: Now after you handed him over to Mr De Kock did you ever follow - well you indicated that you did follow up, you sent the communique to the security police at Pietersburg, is that correct, to find out whether he arrived at his home.

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: That is correct.

MR PRIOR: And that later transpired that he did not arrive there.

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: That is correct.

MR PRIOR: And did you follow that up any further?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: No.

MR PRIOR: How so you explain your evidence a short while ago you were concerned about his welfare.

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: At that point it was quite clear to me that November 1989 had arrived, the Rivonia 7 were released and for all practical purposes the ANC and the PAC was unbanned, although it was only officially in February 1990 and I then realised that never in a month of Sundays was Von Lieres going to prosecute.  That is why I didn't follow it up any further.

MR PRIOR: So you lost interest.

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: I beg yours?

MR PRIOR: Did you lose interest to a certain extent.

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: Yes I had other matters to deal with.

MR PRIOR: Now you categorically denied the allegations of Mr De Kock where he says - he gives a completely different version to what you tell this Commission.

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: It is not complete.

MR PRIOR: Well insofar as the handling of Mr Mabotha is concerned.

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: Well the instruction.  I mean that is the only point that I differ with him.

MR PRIOR: Are you saying that you handed him over to Mr De Kock for a sort of safekeeping?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: Yes.

MR PRIOR: Were you aware whether Vlakplaas had any such facilities?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: Yes.  You see there was an instruction as well, and I am sure that it is attached to the statement, that there was a written instruction from head office that MK people who were not prosecuted were to be recruited to perform functions at Vlakplaas.  And I have attached that in my declaration.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prior I am just reminding you you have 20 minutes already so if you could bear that in mind.

MR PRIOR: I am coming to the end, Mr Chairman.   Is it not the position that you discussed Mr Mabotha's future with Mr De Kock, as Mr De Kock has described in his amnesty application, that you gave a directive or you gave an indication that Mr Mabotha was to be eliminated?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: No, I deny that.

MR PRIOR: Did you not suggest that he had been involved with the killing of policemen?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: No.

MR PRIOR: Had Mr Babotha not indicated to you that he had been involved in any unlawful activity when he had gone back to or had been co-opted by Mrs Mandela?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: There was no such admission that he was involved in any such instances and there were no other evidence that he was involved in that way.

MR PRIOR: I want to suggesdt that in the light of the evidence as we know it your version is highly improbable, given the circumstances of Mr Mabotha's arrest, the vicious beating that he suffered at the hands of the security forces, that he was as you indicated a willing and co-operative person and that he willingly went over with Mr De Kock who shortly thereafter caused his death.

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: No, Mr Chairman, I have already said that I find myself in a dilemma because it was brought to my advocate's attention earlier today otherwise I could have kept quiet about it.   No, I don't agree with you.

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman may I perhaps just enquire in respect of the last question where my learned friend suggested to the witness that his version is high improbable I just want to enquire if that means that my learned friend accepts then that the version of Mr De Kock is probable?

MR PRIOR: Well we don't want to debate that but it's certainly on all the available evidence and circumstances seems the more probable version, with respect.

CHAIRPERSON: We can come back to that.

UNKNOWN: Yes thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Pigou.

MR PIGOU: Thank you Chairman.

MR PRIOR: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman.

MR PIGOU: Thank you Chairman.
 Mr Potgieter, I just want to start off with a general questions.  Have you had the opportunity to read the statements that have been submitted by your former colleagues from the Soweto security branch?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: The persons who testified?

MR PIGOU: Yes, that is correct.

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: I read them during the hearing as they testified.

MR PIGOU: Okay.  And you have heard their testimony.

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: I beg yours?

MR PIGOU: You have heard their testimony?  You were present?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: That is correct.

MR PIGOU: Are you satisfied with the responses of your former colleagues?  Do you think that they have been candid with the commission, in terms of the questions that have been put to them?  And I am not asking for specifics, I am asking for a general impression.

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, I don't think that is a fair question to this witness.

MR PIGOU: With respect, Mr ...

UNKNOWN: At the end of the day the Commission has to make a decision which witness was a credible witness, which witness should be believed or not.  It is not for this witness to come and say I think Mr Augustyn was a good witness or Mr Lemmer was not a good witness or whatever.   This witness has given evidence and in every instance where his evidence contradicted the other witnesses I have pointed that out.  I have pointed it out every time in cross-examination.  It is an unfair question.

MR PIGOU: But I just point out, Mr Chair, that this is not an amnesty hearing and we are allowed to elicit the opinions of individuals in an investigative enquiry.  I am trying to find out whether he thinks on the basis of what he has heard, a general impression whether he thinks they have been candid with this Commission.
 Whether they have provided information, all the information they possibly could with regards to the general issues and to the specific issues that he may have knowledge of.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you must continue and leave that question.

MR PIGOU: So we are saying they are refusing.  Okay.  Or - okay, fine.

UNKNOWN: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR PIGOU: I want to go to your statement and I don't think you need to refer to it but when you are talking about the structure of the security branch you refer to there being over 200 members in the security branch in Protea, is that correct?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: I saw that Gen Nienaber puts it at approximately 100 as well as Mr De Jager.  I did not know all the individuals at the Soweto branch and to me it appeared as if there were many, and I estimated in the vicinity of 200.  I may be wrong, I may be correct.

MR PIGOU: But you would agree that it is a remarkable discrepancy between the two estimates because Mr Nienaber and Mr Coetzee say approximately 100 plus and you are saying 200 plus.  It is a considerable difference in terms of your capacity to operate in Soweto.

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: For instance I don't even, with all respect to the family of Mr Pretorius, I can't even recall ever having met the young man.

MR PIGOU: Okay.  I just want to move on to evidence that you have submitted about section 29, that people over the rank of lieutenant colonel, rank of lieutenant colonel and over have the ability, if they thought it was necessary, or if they had proof that a person was trying to undermine the state ...[intervention]

UNKNOWN: In the opinion.