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

UNKNOWN: No, I am not going to but I take objection against the fact that my learned friend is stating here that my client was in possession of documentation in November which he did not want to provide to this Commission.  I want my learned friend to indicate to me exactly what document he is referring to because the documents attached to his statement, in the statement it clearly states that he obtained those documents during the last weeks or the week before's research at the Attorney-General's office.  Now I want to know apart from the tapes I want to know exactly what documents my learned friend is referring to which was in possession of my client in November which was not disclosed to this Commission.

MR PIGOU: Well there is his diary for instance.  There is a good example of that.  And related matters that he could have provided information to the Commission.  He did not voluntarily come forward until the issue was brought to his attention and to his attorney's attention.  That is the point I am trying to make.  And I don't want to get into a debate either.  It is a question of whether people like Mr Potgieter are voluntarily prepared to come forward and disclose information proactively to help this Commission or whether it is only when the door is right up against their face that they come forward and provide this information.

UNKNOWN: Sorry Mr Du Plessis can I just intervene in the matter.  I think there is a perception within the Commission that we have had to have these two days of hearings this year because your client and a number of the other security policemen whom we contacted were not willingly prepared to come forward to the Commission without us actually issuing a subpoena.  So there is a perception within the Commission that their appearance here is not voluntary and that they did not actually want to assist the Commission.  And I think that it is in that light, despite your explanation, that there is that question being raised.  But I don't think that we are going to sort this matter out by having a debate between you and Mr Pego and I would certainly ask your client to answer the second part of the question, which is what information he still has in his possession because I think we certainly are interested in receiving his diaries or day books as well as any other transcripts that he may have of conversations that were recorded and which are still within his possession.

UNKNOWN: May I please respond to that, Mr Chairman.  You know me, I have dealt with the Commission for a long time.  Any documents which have been available, which are in the possession of my client have been disclosed here.  I have made them available.  We have given the tapes.  I want to state here that in this explanation and for purposes of the people who are clapping here I want to read what my client has said in the statement which he hasn't had the chance to read, about the request in November.  He says
"Ek is voorheen versoek om gedurende die versoek ten opsigte van mev Mandela wat begin het op 24 November 1997 getuienis af te le oor die aspekte na verwys in die kennisgewing.  Na die aanvang van die getuienis is ek versoek om ....  with regard to the same aspects referred to under the notice. I advised via my legal representatives at that stage and was of the opinion that I had to prepare myself well to help the Commission as well as possible.   My opinion was that I would be of more assistance to them if I could prepare thoroughly.  For that reason I asked that I appear later".
... insinuation that my client who I represent is not co-operating with this Commission.  The Commission knows how I have co-operated with this Commission on previous occasions with other witnesses and other clients.  And I take objection against any such insinuation.

CHAIRPERSON: The objection is noted.  Mr Potgieter, can you reply to the second question.   Do you want to hear it again?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: It concerns any other documentation - no, I don't have anything else.

CHAIRPERSON: You have no other documents.

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: No, I have no other documentation.  ... what I have presented here.

MR PIGOU: One last question and that is it, I am finished.  It is a simple thing.  Mr Potgieter have you applied for amnesty for a gross human rights violation to this Commission?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: Yes I did.   I applied and I am willing to tell you what it is about.  It was for detentions, compelling people to testify against former colleagues and thereby being ostracised by their communities.  Secondly, persons were made  Askaris and similarly they were stripped of their dignity and ostracised by their communities and even their families.

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, I wouldn't want the - if I can interrupt.  My client has applied for amnesty for a various amount of incidents and I don't want my client to go into the details of those applications, if you don't mind.  We have made application for everything that he was ...

CHAIRPERSON: I think he has actually answered the question.

MR PIGOU: He has.

CHAIRPERSON: The question was simply have you applied for amnesty.  You were going beyond the question and it is very nice of you to do that but I don't think it is necessary to go beyond that.   Thank you very much indeed.  I think this is a good time to adjourn but I would like to request that we meet again at 1.45 rather than 2 o'clock.   I know that is asking a great deal but we have a huge amount of work to do this afternoon.  1.45.  Thank you.  This Commission is adjourned.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS: .
ON RESUMPTION

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: (still under oath)

MR RICHARDS: Mr Potgieter, we have the scenario where Mr Richardson, by his own admission, murdered a number of people, allegedly on the instructions of Mrs Mandela, on the basis that they were informers.  Stompie Sepei was alleged to be an informer, so was Cookie Zwane, so was - and so on.  Now you in your capacity as head of the operation would you be in a position to know whether these people were informers?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: Mr Richardson or the others?

MR RICHARDS: No, I am talking about the ones that Mr Richardson murdered.

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: No, I wouldn't know whether they were informers or not.

MR RICHARDS: Who would know?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: I wouldn't know.

MR RICHARDS: Would you know who might know, who might be able to give some ...

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: Well if they were informers in Soweto then I would presume that they would have been recruited and/or handled and/or placed by either the intelligence unit and/or the unit of Col Claassens during that period.  I wouldn't know.

MR RICHARDS: Now in your evidence you said you had over 100 statements on file regarding Mrs Mandela and her household.  Is that correct?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: I don't have them.  They are with the Attorney-General and it is statements from different case dockets that had been investigated.  Not necessarily directed at Mrs Mandela but directed - but where the football club members were involved, other associates were involved, MK members, et cetera.  In various cases.  Like the Sehere case and the Mjalors case and other cases of that nature.

MR RICHARDS: Were these statements mostly from people who had been arrested for one or other reason and then decided to talk?

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: Many of these statements were recorded from persons detained in terms of section 50 which is the 48 hour clause in the Criminal Procedure Act and were then let go after that.  And some of these statements like the one I attached to my statement were taken in terms of section 29, when they were detained in section 29.   So it varies.

MR RICHARDS: So in colloquial language these people could also have been labelled impimpi, alternatively informers.