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

MR VALLY: Madame Chair, Mr Kemp is not correct. We've just had a small bun fight between the respective clients of Mr Hugo and Mr du Plessis in which they went into their amnesty application in great detail, number one.
 Number two, I do not intend going into the details of what he's alleged to have done for which he is asking for amnesty but I'm certainly going to point out an obvious and direct contradiction in the affidavit which he submitted his amnesty application on with what he says here. And this is what I intend to do and ask him to explain that contradiction. It is crucial to the issues that we are discussing regarding the Mandela United Football Club and I need to set the scene for Mr Pretorius so he understands that he should not contradict himself.

YASMINE SOOKA: Do you want to (...intervention)

MR VALLY: May I just add one last thing, Madame Chair? As you know the commission has got the authority to lift the confidentiality clause regarding any amnesty application, a resolution has been passed by the Commission to that effect.

YASMINE SOOKA: Mr Kemp?

MR KEMP: Madame Chairperson, the previous witnesses who alluded to incidents reported in the amnesty or covered by the amnesty applications did so by their own volition and that therefore cannot be a precedent for this matter.
 econdly, it would be impossible for Mr Vally to put a contradiction without alluring to facts. If he can do that without alluring to facts I would have no objection. 
 And if he simply would state that there is a contradiction and he can ask Mr Pretorius whether he admits that or not, I wouldn't have an objection to that either. It is true, as Mr Vally contends that this Commission does have the power to require the witness to testify. If the commission would require to do that, I would ask that such a power be exercised in camera so as not to prejudice the rights of the witness. Thank you.

YASMINE SOOKA: Mr Ntsebeza?

MR NTSEBEZA: Before I indicate what happens here. Mr Vally you wanted to respond what he says now, just on the point that he saying?

MR VALLY: Thank you Mr Ntsebeza, I will. The section which I quoted from his affidavit he submitted now, there's an identical relevant section without referring to any specific incidents which contradicts this and that's also under oath and I need this to point this out to Mr Pretorius in order that I can flow with the rest of the questions.
 It's important to note that in both this affidavit and in the affidavit he submitted in his amnesty application, he was legally represented by the same firm. So there's no question of trying to trick him at all. I will not want to prejudice his amnesty application but if he does commit perjury here, then he will be prejudicing his amnesty application.

MR NTSEBEZA: I would like to think that the basis has been properly laid and provided Mr Vally keeps within the confines of the basis that he laid, the questions shall be put. But feel free at any stage to object if you feel that the questions that are being put are prejudicial.

MR KEMP: Madam Chairperson, my objection is on the table. I did not and I do not represent Mr Pretorius in his amnesty application. And I do not believe that it is the proper procedure to do it in the case of one witness whilst other witnesses are treated differently. That is my objection and I will abide with whatever decision the commission makes, thank you.

YASMINE SOOKA: Mr Kemp may I say that it is not my impression that issues relating to the amnesty applications of the previous witnesses were not dealt with in this hearing. What I rather understood was whether there was a question of credibility and how one could limit cross-examination in respect of the differing views on the same subject. S
 So when, I will allow Mr Vally to ask the questions. If you have an objection to a line of questioning, please object to it and I will then make a ruling on it, but I don't think that we can divorce the processes between the three Committees. Because at the end of the day whatever version is put to one Committee should be the same that is put before the Amnesty Committee. Thank you.   Mr Vally will you proceed please?

MR VALLY: I'll ask my question again. Paragraph seven of our affidavit under oath, sorry your affidavit which you've repeated under oath now, you say
"During the time when I was in the service of the Safety Branch in Soweto I was not involved in any task that didn't have a direct bearing on Mrs Winnie Madikizela Mandela and the Mandela United Football Club."
In your amnesty application under the oath, there's no page number but it says: 
"In the event,"
Point 9 A and Roman numeral IV, this is what say: "During my term at the Intelligence Unit in Soweto, I received orders to investigate the terrorist acts of Winnie Mandela."

ANTON PRETORIUS: Commission, if I could just quickly tell you that the time when I applied for amnesty the circumstances were different. I want to qualify however, it is not that I differed from that affidavit. When did that there wasn't a contradiction in that but the circumstances were different.
 In all sincerity I can tell you today, no commander ever gave me an order to investigate Winnie Mandela as such. What I had to investigate and perhaps it is not clear from my amnesty application, I was tasked to look at the activities of Umkhonto weSizwe and whatever they did which included Mrs Winnie Mandela. So in other words I didn't specifically have the task to investigate Mrs Winnie Mandela. 
 It is not specifically about Mrs Winnie Mandela. Mrs Winnie Mandela was one of hundreds of people I investigated.  And in the same paragraph seven I said that during the time when I got hold of information, information about Mrs Winnie Mandela's activities was brought to my attention, but I didn't specifically concentrate on Mrs Mandela's activities. 
 If she was involved in MK activities I had to pay attention to that because then it was brought under my attention.

MR KEMP: You did invite me to raise any objections. I abided by the decision of the Commission and I thought and I expected Mr Vally to refer the Commission perhaps to something which I was unaware of. I was perfectly aware of that statement that was put to - however, the question in this affidavit addressed in that paragraph is specifically subject to what was asked in the subpoena.
 In the subpoena, the witness was asked to give any information in regard to the use and treatment or handling of informers or sources associated with the Mandela United Football Club or Winnie Madikizela Mandela. And the reply was drafted and it is stated in answer to the specific request by this Commission in that regard and it must be treated in that way as well.  And I think that the innuendo by my learned friend that this is a contradiction is wrong and I therefore would ask that any continued line of questioning in this line should be stopped.

MR VALLY: Madame Chair, may I respond? This is not an innuendo, this is not a insinuation, this is a direct factual contradiction. He goes on in his amnesty application, if Mr Kemp is aware of his amnesty application he knows what goes on about observing Mrs Mandela's house, etc., etc. The question is, did you have direct involvement in monitoring in any way, Mrs Winnie Madikizela Mandela or the Mandela United Football Club?