What’s in the top-secret report that former spy boss Billy Masetlha finally got his hands on this week?
The National Intelligence Agency (NIA) will not say what is in the report. Through the state prosecutor, the agency opposed Masetlha’s request for access to the document to support his defence against the fraud charge being heard in the Pretoria commercial crimes court.
The state claims Masetlha, software salesman Muzi Kunene and NIA manager of technical support Funi Madlala were involved in the fraudulent creation and distribution of the so-called hoax emails.
They are charged with presenting false documents to President Thabo Mbeki, Intelligence Minister Ronnie Kasrils and the NIA, representing the emails as true.
Masetlha’s lawyers will not say what is in the report either. His counsel, Neil Tuchten, told the Mail & Guardian the court had imposed very strict conditions when acceding to Masetlha’s request and explicitly prohibited any disclosures about the document or its contents. ”I can’t say anything,” Tuchten said.
The M&G has, however, previously established that [copy removed subject to Apartheid Act] into leaks to the media from [copy removed subject to Apartheid Act].
[Copy removed subject to Apartheid Act.]
A number of the hoax emails purported to be from well-known members of the media or senior figures in the NPA, supposedly colluding in an anti-Jacob Zuma conspiracy.
It is believed that Kasrils rejected the report, and questioned the competence of those who drew it up, [copy removed subject to Apartheid Act]. He is also understood to have questioned the credibility of the ”email” attached to the report.
It is not clear how the report will help Masetlha in his defence, though his strategy during his whole battle since his dismissal has been to find evidence that will tend to support claims of a conspiracy against Zuma.
Former national director of public prosecutions Bulelani Ngcuka this week said he was not aware of such an investigation and was never informed about the conclusions.
”This matter was fully canvassed at the Hefer Commission. I have nothing further to add,” Ngcuka said through his spokesperson, Sipho Ngwema.
The fraud trial was this week postponed to October 1 for the state to obtain a copy of the ANC’s own report on the hoax email saga.
Tuchten told the court Masetlha’s plea would be determined by the contents of the ANC report, compiled by a task team that was headed by struggle stalwart Hermanus Loots (alias James Stuart).
The M&G reported earlier this year that the ANC task team exonerated Masetlha for his alleged role in manufacturing the emails, but that the party’s national executive committee rejected the report because of technical flaws.
The task team found the emails to be untrue, but allegedly confirmed the identity of an unknown person who created them.
Masetlha now wants ANC secretary general Kgalema Motlanthe to hand over this report to the state. Masetlha is not allowed to contact Motlanthe, who is a state witness, directly.
Prosecutor Glynnis Breytenbach told the court that she had previously requested the report and supporting documentation from Motlanthe, to no avail.
”According to him [Motlanthe] some of the documents were not in his possession — In terms of the ANC constitution he is, however, the custodian of the documents. I will go back to him and try to get all the documents,” she said.
Motlanthe allegedly told Breytenbach that some of the documentation, particularly drafts of the report, was destroyed.
Magistrate Dawie Jacobs warned Masetlha that the prejudice to Kunene and Madlala of a postponement was ”fast reaching a situation where their rights to a speedy trial will outweigh yours”.
Apartheid act invoked
The M&G cannot reveal the subject and nature of the top-secret report handed to Masetlha, courtesy of the Protection of Information Act of 1982. The M&G previously established what the report was about and this week wanted to elaborate on it, without reporting on specific findings. We are not in possession of the report or a copy thereof.
The ministry for intelligence services, however, on Thursday sent us an attorney’s letter, asking for a written undertaking that we will not publish any of the contents, failing which the ministry would interdict the newspaper. When presented with the article, they insisted that we take out any reference to the report and its contents in terms of the 1982 apartheid Act, which also protected the previous regime’s military secrets. — Adriaan Basson