Hefer commission ‘heading for rocks’

The Hefer Commission looks headed for the rocks in its mission to establish whether Director of Public Prosecutions Bulelani Ngcuka was an apartheid government spy. 

The commission’s stiffest challenge is coming from state security agencies unwilling to share information with it. 

The National Intelligence Agency (NIA), the South African Secret Service and the South African Police Service have roped in one of the country’s top legal brains, George Bizos, to argue that they cannot provide evidence.

Former African National Congress intelligence operatives Mo Shaik and Mac Maharaj have asked the commission to source information from the agencies. 

Said Nano Matlala, who is assisting Bizos: ”The law categorically forbids the agencies from indirectly or directly disclosing their sources and methods. For this reason, we are consulting the Hefer commission to ensure that the agencies’ obligation in law to protect sources and methods, as well as the identities of their members, is upheld and not compromised.”

The commission has instructed Shaik to produce the documents he displayed during a TV interview with e.tv, in which he sought to prove that ANC intelligence had investigated Ngcuka as a possible apartheid spy. 

However, an intelligence source told the Mail & Guardian Shaik and Maharaj were likely to resist producing the documents, as they were copies and the originals were in the possession of state agencies. They could face prosecution if they illegally possessed state documents.

Asked why he and Shaik were not supplying documents to the commission, Maharaj said they wanted state papers handed over, as some had suggested they had cooked up evidence. 

Senior African National Congress leaders believe the commission is unlikely to pin down anything tangible on the spy claims. ”If the ANC was unable to find conclusive evidence that Bulelani was a spy, what makes you think that they can find anything new now?” asked a senior party member.

The commission has even stated it cannot take account of the ”confession” of Vanessa Brereton, apartheid agent RS 452, as she had not been interviewed or made a sworn affidavit. It was suggested in a City Press report that RS 452 was Ngcuka’s spy code-name.

Evidence leader Kessie Naidu tried to prevent Ngcuka’s lawyer, Marumo Moerane, from posing questions related to Brereton, as it was ”merely a story in the newspapers”. In response, Moerane pointed out that the the inquiry had originated from press reports. 

After the hearings, Ngcuka’s spokesperson, Sipho Ngwema, said he believed the intelligence agencies would help the commission. ”They should be able to present facts without compromising their integrity. It should not be difficult,” he said.

”This commission was set up by the president, who wants to know the truth, and it is the duty of this commission to provide that.”

A picture has emerged from the commission of Maharaj phoning around in a bid to substantiate the allegations against Ngcuka.

Two witnesses, Patrick Maqubela and Litha Jolobe, both confirmed receiving calls from Maharaj, or people associated with him, asking for their cooperation in the investigation. Both conceded that they were Ngcuka’s friends.

Jolobe and Ngcuka were jailed in 1982 for refusing to testify in a political trial. On Thursday Jolobe said he was approached by an NIA employee, Ricky Mkondo, who wanted him to meet some people.  Five minutes later he received a call from Maharaj, who suggested that Ngcuka might have been responsible for the arrest of certain ANC comrades.

Said Jolobe: ”Maharaj asked if I thought Bulelani was responsible for our arrest and whether I thought he had served his prison sentence. I said Bulelani could not have been a spy because I had no reason to believe he knew about our operational plans.  

”Maharaj asked why Bulelani was arrested much later, and I said the judge should answer that one. He also wanted to know where he had served his time. I said we were together in Pietermaritzburg and at Leeuwkop prison before I was taken away. I gave him the name of Mbulelo Hongo as a person who had served his sentence with Bulelani. 

”Later I told him Hongo preferred to give evidence to a legal enquirer. By then I had decided that getting engaged with Maharaj … was not the correct thing to do.  … After that Maharaj stopped calling me.” 

Jolobe said it appeared Maharaj was battling to support his claims.  ”He gave me the impression he was still fishing; he had made this conclusion and now came to me to substantiate it,” he said. 

Under cross-examination Jolobe conceded that his friendship with Ngcuka might have coloured his opinion, but insisted the latter could not have been a spy. 

Jolobe said when he saw the spy allegations in City Press he had called Maqubela to ask: ”Have you seen this rubbish?” He said the person who had betrayed him was his former handler, identified only as ”Mr X”. 

Earlier Maqubela told the commission he was called by Julie Mohammed, who claimed to represent Maharaj and who asked for his cooperation. Mohammed wanted information about his trial and the role of Ngcuka in his arrest. 

In a radio interview on Thursday Maharaj said he was ”unaware” of such an approach on his behalf.