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

PAUL FRANCIS ERASMUS: No that would be not an accurate representation of the facts, I worked outside Soweto Security Branch, I was never stationed at Soweto.  The information that I received was for Stratcom purposes.  I didn't receive all of the information, I wasn't party to it.  There was a time that I did request additional information which if I recollect I never received.

MR RICHARDS: However, if you had so-to-speak a disinformation coup of the magnitude of the Stompie Seipei murder it would have been fed to you to make maximum use of.

PAUL FRANCIS ERASMUS: I did request information, additional information on the Stompie situation.

MR RICHARDS: And as I gather it you did not receive it?

PAUL FRANCIS ERASMUS: I did not receive it.  One of my colleagues could well have received it.  I used to handle, as it were, every morning during the entire time that I was at Stratcom a veritable heap of intelligence reports and information that came in from various quarters, instructions from head office, information from other security branches and so on.

MR RICHARDS: So that means that indeed the use that it could have been put to for your ulterior motives never happened?

PAUL FRANCIS ERASMUS: I don't believe in many situations that we maximised or obtained the maximum effect out of given situations, simply we were too hard-pressed for time and there was too much pressure to do so.

MR RICHARDS: Now to turn to the second of these three or four points I presume I have time to cover, the information which you assume that Mr Richardson is an informer, I refer you to paragraph 5 of your statement page 3.  For the sake of time I am not going to read it out.  Would you agree that your information was a matter of speculation?

PAUL FRANCIS ERASMUS: I would say deduction.  I would be very hard-pressed that either Mrs Madikizela-Mandela was giving information to the Security Branch on her own activities or her daughter's so the deduction was obviously that the third person present would have.

MR RICHARDS: But when it comes to the identification of the source on what basis do you make these assertions?  You, in your statement say as much that you had no direct information.

PAUL FRANCIS ERASMUS: I did not have direct information.

MR RICHARDS: And if I ask you questions as to who gave you the information you made your so-called deductions from, you wouldn't be able to give me the names?

PAUL FRANCIS ERASMUS: I received verbal information at the time and I received intelligence reports but on the intelligence reports one never mentioned the name of the agent anyway, the agents had code numbers to protect their identities from possible leaks within the organisation and so on.

MR RICHARDS: Now by the same token in that group of 20 or 30 people living at a particular property it could have been any one of a number of people?

PAUL FRANCIS ERASMUS: I would agree with that.

MR RICHARDS: So that means the reliability of the information contained in the last portion of page three is extremely low and suspect?

PAUL FRANCIS ERASMUS: I was asked about that by the members of the Commission and it's for that reason that I've included it in the statement which I made on Wednesday.

MR RICHARDS: I do note that this statement was made on the 27th of November which is contemporaneous and to a large degree it's a reconstruction of various questions that have been put to you, is that not so?

PAUL FRANCIS ERASMUS: That's correct.

MR RICHARDS: In other words it's only reliable as your memory is as to matters nine years ago?

PAUL FRANCIS ERASMUS: That's correct.

MR RICHARDS: Which is entirely unreliable.

MR SEMENYA: I don't think the statement can ever be put like that.  As a lawyer ...(intervention)

DR BORAINE: I am sorry I must ask you to do exactly what I asked, if you wish to address the Chair I would be grateful if you would.

MR SEMENYA: Chairperson I think my learned colleague is putting the most untenuous proposition that since the information is nine years old it's unreliable.  At least I remember my age and I must be many years away from nine years.

DR BORAINE: Mr Richards would you like to comment?

MR RICHARDS: My reply is nine years is a significant period ago and ...(intervention)

PAUL FRANCIS ERASMUS: Seven years if I may correct you Chairperson.

MR RICHARDS: And for a long and complicated set of facts, I need say no more.

DR BORAINE: Thank you.  That concludes your questions?

MR RICHARDS: Oh, it concludes that question.

DR BORAINE: You have got many more though have you?

MR RICHARDS: Is it correct that on the 9th of September 1997 you made a press statement to some organisation, the identity of which I don't know?

PAUL FRANCIS ERASMUS: At the request of Mrs Madikizela-Mandela's attorneys and at the request of Mrs Madikizela-Mandela herself, that is correct.

MR RICHARDS: And on the last page of that statement, page 3, you make the statement
"As regards Stompie Seipei I heard at the time in official circles that he was murdered by Jerry Richardson after he, Seipei had found out that Richardson was working for the Security Branch and had threatened to expose him".
 Now on what basis do you make that allegation?

PAUL FRANCIS ERASMUS: That was widely held, I think, within the entire security branch community within the Witwatersrand and in Soweto.

MR RICHARDS: No the ...(intervention)

PAUL FRANCIS ERASMUS: Sorry to interrupt you, the other ex-security policemen would be able to confirm that.

MR RICHARDS: On what basis would those opinions be formed?

PAUL FRANCIS ERASMUS: I beg your pardon?

MR RICHARDS: On what basis would those opinions be formed?  What factual ...(intervention)

PAUL FRANCIS ERASMUS: I think, I can't speculate on it, that is the information as I had it.

MR RICHARDS: So it's speculation and hearsay yet again?

PAUL FRANCIS ERASMUS: I wouldn't be able to prove anything with prima facie evidence, but that is what I was asked about and that is the version of events as I gave them, to the best of my knowledge.

MR RICHARDS: In other words you don't say that prima facie this is even validly asserted?

PAUL FRANCIS ERASMUS: No.

MR RICHARDS: No more questions.

DR BORAINE: Thank you.

MR JORDI: Mr Erasmus my name is Peter Jordi, I act for the Sono family and the Shabalala family and the Chili family.  I see from your affidavit that you worked as a member of Stratcom, I think, as a field intelligence officer in the security branch of the South African Police from January 1977 until May 1993 and you were apparently involved in dissemination of information amongst the leftwing activity and so on.  From what period was that?

PAUL FRANCIS ERASMUS: From the outset, from the time that I ...(intervention)

MR JORDI: From the outset.  So you have been involved in the dissemination of Stratcom information since what, 1977 to 1993?

PAUL FRANCIS ERASMUS: Well a bit later - those years it wasn't known as Stratcom, the word Stratcom I don't believe existed, that was a term that was coined or a term that came into being in 1984 but it was part of our day-to-day work in the intelligence community, most certainly we sewed disinformation it was part and parcel of the intelligence field.

MR JORDI: Right.  So you had worked for a long period in the distribution of unreliable information and you must be an expert in strategic communication and communication warfare, is that right?

PAUL FRANCIS ERASMUS: I would not regard myself as an expert, I have read a lot and I've learnt a lot and at the times I worked very hard on....

MR JORDI: Well you must be very knowledgeable in the field even if you're not an expert.

PAUL FRANCIS ERASMUS: I regard myself as being reasonably knowledgable, yes.

MR JORDI: Reasonably knowledgeable, although you worked there for something like, how many 12 years or so?

PAUL FRANCIS ERASMUS: I was in the security branch for 16 years in total.