Information Does Not Relate NDPP

31 October 2003

The Public Protector confirms receipt of sensitive information concerning high profile government officials from an individual who wishes to remain anonymous as explained in a previous press release.

With regard to the recent report in the Eastern Cape Herald, the Public Protector reiterates that the information put forward by this individual in no way relates to the spy allegations leveled against the National Director of Public Prosecutions. The matter will therefore not be forwarded to the Hefer Commission.

The Public Protector has no knowledge of the contents of the affidavit allegedly deposed to by the retired secret agent in Port Elizabeth and therefore cannot comment thereon. This raises the question as to whether this retired secret agent is the same person as the individual with whom the Public Protector consulted. Had the Public Protector received the same information as that which appeared in the Herald's report, he would not have hesitated to refer the matter to the Hefer Commission. However, this is not the case.

The information provided to the Public Protector relates to allegations against the members of the Witness Protection Programme in the NDPP's office, whereby this individual alleges to have been used to do the following:

• Elicit information from a potential state witness in a pending case against the Premier of the North West Province, Mr Popo Molefe for the benefit of the accused/suspect (Mr Molefe);
   
• To telephonically contact Mrs Winnie Madikizela Mandela and to impersonate a certain Samantha du Plessis who would promise to assist Mrs Mandela with her financial problems. The cellular phones used for this purpose are alleged to have been bought for the complainant by the Minister of Justice, Mr Penuel Maduna, who also apparently paid for this person's accommodation during forced relocation to the North West Province in order to obtain information regarding the above mentioned criminal case.

The office of the Public Protector confirms the following:

• That it is in possession of a recorded consultation with this individual. However, the contents thereof in no way relate to that which the Herald's report purports to be the contents of this individual's affidavit.
   
• That this individual claims to have been paid huge sums of money for the two tasks.
   
• That this individual is an awaiting trial prisoner and was consulted personally.

In the circumstances, the Public Protector has to establish whether this retired agent is the same individual with whom he consulted. Should this be so, the Public Protector will find it difficult to establish a basis for these allegations. The Public Protector has not been able to access the report from the Psychologist (previously referred to as a psychiatrist), as this individual has not yet submitted written consent to the counseling Psychologist, despite having agreed to do so verbally to both Adv Thomas and the Psychologist.

Enquiries: Adv N Thomas
Cell: 082 333 5623

Back to Top