The following is an extract of the transcript of the cross examination of the Director General of the National Intelligence Agency, Manala Manzini, by Advocate Wim Trengove SC, at the hearings of the Ginwala enquiry on June 30 2008. Trengove was appearing for NDPP head, Vusi Pikoli. Manzini had been testifying against his client:
ADVOCATE WIM TRENGOVE (FOR PIKOLI): Thank you Chair. Mr Manzini let me start with the one bit of positive evidence that you gave and that was about the cooperation of NIA and the DSO in the nuclear proliferation prosecution. Correct?
NIA DIRECTOR GENERAL MANALA MANZINI: Yes I said so.
TRENGOVE: And that was indeed a remarkable success for investigation and prosecution. Correct?
MANZINI: (No answer)
TRENGOVE: Correct Mr Manzini?
MANZINI: I said so.
TRENGOVE: And I think you described it as unique in the world? Is my understanding correct?
MANZINI: I said so.
TRENGOVE: And it was achieved by a plea bargain, is that correct?
MANZINI: (No answer)
TRENGOVE: Is that correct Mr Manzini?
MANZINI: It was achieved by?
TRENGOVE: A plea bargain agreement?
MANZINI: That is not an area of work that NIA gets involved in. We were involved ... (intervenes)
TRENGOVE: Do you know the answer or don't you?
MANZINI: I will be assisted by you sir.
TRENGOVE: I see. For the rest your evidence was remarkably strident and at times emotional. Why is that so?
MANZINI: Is that what you say?
TRENGOVE: Yes. Why are you so strident and emotional in your condemnation of the NPA and the DSO?
MANZINI: I am a very passionate person about the responsibility I am assigned. Very passionate. I have spent virtually my life serving this democracy.
TRENGOVE: Are you not called upon though when you give evidence under oath in an inquiry of this kind, to give dispassionate evidence?
MANZINI: Can you explain what that means?
TRENGOVE: Do you not understand it?
MANZINI: Yes.
TRENGOVE: I will then move on. Did you tell the media on the 18th January this year that gangster Glen Agliotti is an NPA pawn whose evidence against Selebi was obtained by threats and intimidation?
MANZINI: No.
TRENGOVE: You were reported to have made that statement to the Mail & Guardian on the 18th January [see here]. Did you make that statement or did you not?
MANZINI: No.
TRENGOVE: What did you tell the Mail & Guardian about Agliotti and his evidence against Selebi?
MANZINI: NIA does not deal with the press or journalists. We have a spokesperson who resides in the Ministry, who speaks on behalf of Intelligence. If there are questions directed at NIA, they are answered through that spokesperson in the office of the Minister. I do not recall speaking to the Mail & Guardian and talking about gangsters and I don't deal with that.
TRENGOVE: Mail & Guardian of the 18th January this year quoted you as saying that Manala Manzini told the Mail & Guardian, quote:
"He believes gangster Glen Agliotti is an NPA pawn whose evidence against Selebi was obtained by threats and intimidation."
Do we have to call them to prove that that is what you said, or do you now recall that you did?
MANZINI: I am sure the commission would gladly want to get them to explain themselves, where do they get that.
TRENGOVE: Does that statement, whether you made it or not, reflect the view that you hold?
MANZINI: I don't deal with the media. I don't deal with Weekly Mail & Guardian.
TRENGOVE: I am not asking you ... (intervenes)
MANZINI: The spokesperson of Intelligence who resides in the office of the Minister, deals with questions that are raised by the media.
TRENGOVE: I didn't ask you about the media Mr Manzini, please listen to the question and answer it. Does that statement accurately reflect your view?
MANZINI: I do not deal with the media. It's a statement quoted by media attributed to me. I don't deal with the media. I therefore can't answer the question you are asking me, because I don't deal with the media.
TRENGOVE: I will ask the question a third time. Do you believe that Glen Agliotti is an NPA pawn, whose evidence against Selebi was obtained by threats and intimidation?
MANZINI: Chairperson I am not ready to answer that question. Glen Agliotti, Selebi, there is a case that is pending in the courts in this country. I really am not able to entertain that question. I am sorry.
TRENGOVE: You are not able to entertain it?
MANZINI: I am not ready to entertain it.
TRENGOVE: I beg your pardon?
MANZINI: I am not ready to entertain it.
TRENGOVE: Not ready?
MANZINI: Yes.
TRENGOVE: Because you don't have a view, or because you don't want to express it publicly?
MANZINI: I am not ready to answer that.
TRENGOVE: It would be contempt of court for you publicly to make such a statement while there is a prosecution of Mr Selebi pending, correct? You know that?
MANZINI: That's what you say.
TRENGOVE: Do you not know that?
MANZINI: But why then are you asking me?
TRENGOVE: I am asking you whether you know that? Because we propose to prove that you made that statement and I am putting to you that it was contemptuous of the judicial process. Do you realise that that is so Mr Manzini?
MANZINI: NIA's role, I am going to repeat for you sir, if you didn't hear. NIA's role is to gather, correlate and process intelligence on issues that pose a threat to the security of the state and its people. The individual you are referring to calls NIA to present an affidavit that indicates a threat to the security of the state and its institutions.
I go with the police, receive that affidavit and in writing refer it to the relevant government department which is justice for action. That is as far as I can go. That matter has been referred to the relevant ... (intervenes)
TRENGOVE: You met with Mr Glen Agliotti in an hotel bedroom on the 4th January, is that correct?
MANZINI: I am not going to be able to deal with my operational methods and means on how to deal with my work.
TRENGOVE: No I am suggesting to you that it had nothing to do with your work whatsoever. You are waging a vendetta against the NPA and the DSO and you met with Mr Agliotti as part of it?
MANZINI: In the process of doing my work there are methods that we use to do that work. I am not ready to sit here and answer to what methods, how and when I used what in order to do my work.
TRENGOVE: You tendered the evidence without my asking for it, of how Glen Agliotti brought you a statement. Correct Mr Manzini?
MANZINI: That is correct.
TRENGOVE: Where did he give you that statement?
MANZINI: The way about it is the detail of the methods. I have said I went and collected an affidavit that raised issues in relation to threats to the state and its institutions.
TRENGOVE: Why don't you just answer the question?
MANZINI: (No reply)
TRENGOVE: Why don't you answer the question Mr Manzini?
MANZINI: What question?
TRENGOVE: Where and when did Mr Agliotti give you that affidavit?
ADV KGOMOTOSO MOROKA (FOR MBEKI): Chair I am not sure whether I should object and I take my learned friend's point that Mr Manzini mentioned that he contacted Mr Agliotti. We probably need a ruling as to how we deal with things that we think are sub judice where Mr Manzini feels that he is not able to answer questions. I accept my learned friend's entitlement to ask questions, but I am not sure, you gave me a direction as to how I should deal with my issues with some parts of the evidence and I am not sure whether we are asking this witness to go into issues where your directive is we will not go into them and Manzini is entitled not to answer those questions. If I am objecting out of turn I will accept that.
CHAIRPERSON (FRENE GINWALA): I was about to intervene. I think when it comes to matters related to an actual operation, when he was acting as director-general of NIA, on an operational matter, whether it was collecting an affidavit or questioning or any of that, that I do not think we can ask him to answer here.
TRENGOVE: Madam Chair that's not correct, with respect. These matters are matters of public record that have been canvassed in an application before court. I am not revealing any secrets whatsoever and this witness knows it very well. So that I would honour your ruling that matters which constitute a threat to national security shouldn't be publicly revealed, but I haven't gone near anything of the kind.
CHAIRPERSON: No but asking him where the ... (intervenes)
TRENGOVE: Yes that's a matter of public record. That's an absolute matter of public record, on affidavit, in an application before the High Court. Which has been determined, there is nothing pending about it. Mr Manzini you received that affidavit from Mr Agliotti in a hotel bedroom in the Balalaika Hotel on the 4th January is that correct?
MANZINI: I will repeat for the good of the person who is asking questions. I am not expected to reveal methods, sources and everything I do to do my work. So if it's a matter of public record because you have read it in some papers, I cannot therefore use this platform to accept or deny that that happened. I don't think I have got that responsibility.
TRENGOVE: That was on a Friday night. On the Monday NIA again interviewed Mr Agliotti and videotaped that interview with him. Are you aware of that? That's on Monday the 7th January? Are you aware of that?
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Trengove perhaps you can assist me in indicating where you are going?
TRENGOVE: What I am suggesting is that this ... (intervenes)
CHAIRPERSON: No let me finish, because this is the content of a NIA operation. The fact that it is now part of the court record, it exists. So you are obviously trying to go somewhere beyond ... (intervenes)
TRENGOVE: Yes absolutely. Absolute, we submit ... (intervenes)
CHAIRPERSON: And I would like to ask you to move on to that.
TRENGOVE: Well I can't move onto it until I have the facts on record and for this witness to suggest that those facts can't be revealed in this hearing is, with respect, quite unjustified. Our accusation will be that both he and NIA involved in an unlawful operation to protect Mr Selebi and to discredit the NPA and I submit, with respect, that if that is so, then it is highly relevant to the evidence that he gives today, because a lot of it is emotive opinion. We submit is born of improper motive.
CHAIRPERSON: Your intention of showing a motive is obviously acceptable, but the fact of the meeting you say is a matter of public record. Now whether it was in Hotel A or B and getting Mr Manzini to ask him about that, that's where I am having a bit of a problem, because we seem to be stalling on that. If it exists, a meeting happened, an affidavit was there and if you go on from there I am not objecting to that aspect.
TRENGOVE: Thank you Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: You know if you want to use that to show a motive it's a legitimate thing.
TRENGOVE: Mr Agliotti said in his affidavit in the Pretoria High Court that you told him that you were the most powerful man of the country and would look after him. Did you tell him that?
MANZINI: No.
TRENGOVE: He also said that you gave him your cell phone number, which I would like to write down for you on a piece of paper and ask you whether the number is correct. Whether that was your cell phone number in January this year?
MANZINI: That's not my number.
TRENGOVE: Not your number?
MANZINI: No.
TRENGOVE: Strange though because the Mail & Guardian rang that number and you answered the phone, in January and they report it so publicly.
MANZINI: Chairperson that's not my number.
TRENGOVE: Mr Manzini the Mail & Guardian phoned that number that they obtained from Mr Agliotti and you answered the phone. Can you explain that?
MANZINI: That's not my number.
TRENGOVE: Can you explain it Mr Manzini?
MANZINI: I am ready to share my number with you.
TRENGOVE: Mr Manzini can you explain the fact that you answered that number? I beg your pardon Mr Manzini?
MANZINI: Chairperson I have a responsibility in the prosecution of my work, it is in law that I will not and I will safeguard the methods, the sources and all that has to do with my collection of information in the pursuance of my duty. I, with due respect, do not know what is it that the gentleman is asking me to do here.
TRENGOVE: The affidavit that you obtained from Mr Agliotti is also a matter of public record. Correct?
MANZINI: I am not in the courts on the Agliotti/Selebi case. So whether it is of public record I really don't know and I don't know how I come in there.
TRENGOVE: Well I want to ask you about that, because Mr Agliotti gave you the affidavit on Friday night, the 4th January. That following Wednesday, the 9th January the affidavit surfaced in an application launched by Mr Selebi and I want to know from you how that happened?
MANZINI: In prosecuting that project I was in the presence of the police. The people who stamped and certified that affidavit were the police. The affidavit, can I finish? The affidavit was left in the possession of the police. I received a copy subsequently and referred it. After having consulted with my Minister, referred it to Justice, as instructed.
TRENGOVE: Within days the affidavit found itself to the hands of the accused. It seems highly improper does it not? Mr Manzini?
MOROKA: If Mr Trengove could finish that question so that we understand the accusation? Improper on the part of Mr Manzini, or on whose part?
TRENGOVE: Improper for whoever gave that affidavit to the accused. I don't know who it was. Here you are investigating matters of national security and somebody runs off with your affidavit and gives it to the accused. Correct?
MANZINI: I do not understand what this is and what it is leading to?
TRENGOVE: You see because I - sorry.
MANZINI: I collected an affidavit that sought to bring to my attention and the attention of the institution I was heading, threats posed to an institution of the state, by people working within that institution. I received the affidavit, together with the police - I couldn't legalise the affidavit, so I brought in the police to be part of that operation. They endorsed and legalised the process. They take a copy, I have a copy. That I then refer to the relevant government department which is Justice.
CHAIRPERSON: So Mr Manzini if I may just be clear for myself. That the police had a copy at that point?
MANZINI: Yes, yes Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: And you had a copy?
MANZINI: Yes.
TRENGOVE: How do you know that the police stamped and signed this document? Did you see them do so or were you told about it?
MANZINI: It was signed in my presence.
TRENGOVE: I see.
MANZINI: The individual signed in my presence.
TRENGOVE: In the hotel bedroom in the Balalaika? Correct Mr Manzini?
MANZINI: I will not entertain that.
TRENGOVE: So that when the affidavit purports to be signed at the Brixton Police Station, it would be false? Correct?
MANZINI: (No answer)
TRENGOVE: Correct Mr Manzini?
MANZINI: I have said that the police signed an affidavit. So I am sure if there are questions that relate to who signed the affidavit and authorised it, they should be asked to the relevant people. I did not sign that affidavit.
TRENGOVE: At that time Mr Agliotti was both an accused in the Kebble murder and a witness for the prosecution against Mr Selebi. Did you not think it improper to meet with him without his lawyers?
MANZINI: He asked for the meeting. He was to deliver an affidavit. In my expectation he was coming to deliver an affidavit with those that relevantly should be with him in order to do so. And he came alone and in front of police officers and handed over the affidavit.
TRENGOVE: I would like to show you the affidavit to tell me which part of it has anything to do with national security?
MOROKA: Chair we would want to have a look at the affidavit?
TRENGOVE: Certainly.
MOROKA: And indicate that it would have been appropriate to have received this before the hearing, I would imagine Chair.
TRENGOVE: It's a matter of public record, it was obtained from ... (intervenes)
CHAIRPERSON: My question is how does this establish a motivation?
TRENGOVE: We submit that this witness participated in a highly improper and unlawful attempt to discredit the prosecution in the Selebi case and he says it was a matter involving national security. We dispute that proposition and we would like him to tell us which part of the affidavit discloses anything concerning national security?
MOROKA: Chair my juniors insist that I bring it to your attention and Mr (indistinct), because we are not very clear. Mr Trengove keeps saying it's a matter of public record. We don't know whether it's a matter of public record. We do know that at a point Mr Selebi gets charged. We don't know when, we don't know, because your ruling, if you recall, when we had a pre-trial conference was that because part of this inquiry impacts on matters that are still before the courts, we are going to have to be very careful where we tread and how we tread and it would be helpful for us to get - because we didn't, Mr Manzini didn't anticipate to be asked these questions, because we assumed that these questions are not within your purview because they are matters before the court.
I am being told there is a case or an application that was not prosecuted, I don't know. I don't know the status of that application. I don't know whether it's been completed. I don't know the status of Mr Selebi's prosecution or Mr Agliotti's prosecution for that matter. If we had anticipated that this was going to be ventilated here, our assumption and we may be wrong about it, our assumption was that anything that has to do with matters that are pendente lite are not going to be canvassed in this hearing and therefore we are then confronted with an affidavit that we have not seen. The charge might be we were negligent in not knowing about that affidavit, but we didn't know that these matters are going to be canvassed, because we understood your direction to mean that any matter that's before the courts will not be ventilated in this inquiry.
TRENGOVE: This matter is not before the courts. Mr Selebi launched an application on the 9th January to stop his prosecution. When the state filed their answers to that application, Mr Selebi capitulated and abandoned the application. This is an affidavit on which Mr Selebi relied in that application. So that there is nothing secret about it.
CHAIRPERSON: No it's not a question ... (intervenes)
MOROKA: I also put it on record Chair that it's not foreshadowed in any of their papers. There has never been an indication from Mr Pikoli that Mr Manzini is motivated by improper motive. He is entitled to raise that motive, but the issue is Mr Selebi and the Agliotti issues are before the courts. It might be that this affidavit is not and I am not saying my learned friend must not do it, but we would surely be entitled to have copy of that affidavit and it's no answer to say it's a matter of public record.
TRENGOVE: It is a complete answer. There was no duty on us to make full disclosure on every document we ever intended using in the first place. In the second place, if my learned friend would allow me, she told us last Tuesday that Mr Manzini would not be called. She was only persuaded to change her mind when the commission expressed surprise at that decision. It was only decided on Friday that Mr Manzini would be called. We prepared for our cross-examination of him over the weekend. The question of challenging his motive, has never come up before because there is no point challenging motive on affidavit, because affidavit must be taken at face value, you can't debate its credibility.
So that we would submit that this is entirely legitimate and we are not endangering any matters which are pendente lite. And let me say that the case that Mr Pikoli was suspended to frustrate the prosecution of Mr Selebi has been his case all along. This was simply another part of that story of people trying to protect Mr Selebi against prosecution by the NPA and in this case to do so improperly.
CHAIRPERSON: May I, firstly I think I would not want to go into matters that are a prosecution still pending. I don't think that's complete. The question of Mr Manzini's motives, whatever they are, the point is he has referred to laws, he has referred to facts, he has referred to mandates and as far as I am concerned those are the relevant issues.
TRENGOVE: Madam Chair ... (intervenes)
CHAIRPERSON: If he has misled us, and this is the point I am coming to, if he has misled us in terms of the mandate, in terms of anything, his opinions about something and I am sure Mr Pikoli also has his opinions, but they are not relevant to the issues which I wanted addressed and please, on the basis, if there is any factual inaccuracy arising from perspective, if you like, which would be part of the motivation, I will certainly hear you on that. But otherwise we can just go around and I am anxious not to do that.
TRENGOVE: Yes Madam Chair let me say that this witness gave very little factual evidence. Most of his evidence is based on information given to him by other people. We have not objected because we understand the practicality of it, but the importance of this witness' evidence, lies in the opinions that he expressed. Strong opinions, emotional opinions, strident opinions and what we are going to suggest to you at the end of the day, is that those opinions can't carry any weight, because it comes from a man who has been prepared to employ unlawful and improper means to discredit the NPA. So that he is the last witness from whom one can credibly expect opinions about the NPA. But I will move on.
CHAIRPERSON: I was not investigating and will not be investigating people's opinions. I am anxious to focus this inquiry on actually, factually what happened. Not on opinions.
[CUT]
Click here to read an extract of the transcript of Advocate Trengove's cross-examination of the Director General of the Department of Justice, Menzi Simelane.
