This resource is hosted by the Nelson Mandela Foundation, but was compiled and authored by Padraig O’Malley. It is the product of almost two decades of research and includes analyses, chronologies, historical documents, and interviews from the apartheid and post-apartheid eras.

To search the O'Malley archive please click here.

Moe Shaik time line submission

IN THE HEFER COMMISSION OF ENQUIRY

R Shaik

RIEAZ a.k.a. MO SHAIK

I recognise the contribution made by Bulelani Ngcuka in the struggle against Apartheid and the suffering he endured under Aparthied. I recognise too the role he has played in the reconstruction of a post apartheid South Africa.

I recognise too the contribution of the Deputy President, Jacob Zuma and the former Minister of Transport Mac Maharaj. They too have struggled and they too suffered and served the people of South Africa.

It was a feature of Apartheid that those in power used and abused the authority vested in the state against the people who opposed them and their policies. Their justification then, was "the swart gevaar". The justification now is "the war on crime." To forever protect the people, and in the words of former President Nelson Mandela, "never, never and never again" we enacted the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights is a cornerstone of democracy in South Africa. It enshrines the rights of all people in our country and stipulates that " The state must respect, protect and fulfil the rights in the Bill of Rights." It is my belief and the evidence presented shows, that the National Prosecuting Authority under the contr4ol of Mr. Ngcuka abused that authority.

The abuse is evident if only by the fact that, documents relating to Maharaj were unlawfully seized – and to this day not returned. His right to privacy was violated. But the abuse did not end there. These documents at a time when they were in the possession of the NPA only, and no one else, were handed over to the Sunday Times for publication. The effect of that publication was to charge him by innuendo with acts of corruption. To this day he has not been brought before a court of law. But in the court of public opinion he has been found guilty to serve a term of imprisonment longer than rope.

But the abuse did not end there. Mr. Ngcuka held a briefing which we are told "was confidential and off the record" but it found its way into various publications. First, Jovial Rantao of Star and Independent published an article on matters he was briefed on. Then Matatha Tsedu of the Sunday Times published an article. Finally, City Press. In every instance, the claim was made that the wife of Mr. Maharaj is to be charged for non disclosure of income, a matter that was the subject of the briefing. To this day, no charge has ever been brought against Zarina or Mac Maharaj in a court of law. However in the court of public opinion, following the trial by the media, they have been found guilty.

In the case of the Deputy President, Mr. Ngcuka in a public broadcast declared that "We have concluded that, whilst there is a prima facie case of corruption against the Deputy President, our prospects of success are not strong enough. That means that we are not sure if we have a winnable case. Accordingly, we have decided not to prosecute the Deputy President."

With these words, he forever branded Mr. Jacob Zuma, the Deputy President of our country as corrupt. And the Minister of Justice piped in "it is a sad day..." It in deed was a sad day because on that day, we abandoned the rule of law.

Even the Prosecution Policy was abandoned. In that policy it stipulated that:

"in deciding whether or not to institute criminal proceedings against an accused, prosecutors should assess whether there is sufficient and admissible evidence to provide a reasonable prospect of a successful prosecution."

All that which was required was "sufficient and admissible evidence" to provide a "reasonable prospect" of success. There is no mention of a "winnable case"

From that day to this, the Deputy President has tried to clear his name. Like Jesus Christ, he was to discover how cruel and devious Pontius Pilate was. At the sight of my comrade, commander and friend, carrying his cross to that place where he was to be crucified, I could endure his pain no longer. I refused to stay silent and be a curious on- looker at this spectacle.

I chose to speak of the fact that many years ago in a time of civil war we investigated Mr. Ngcuka. I said so openly and in public. It was accepted before this commission that indeed such an investigation was conducted.

10.

I presented before this commission all the evidence I had gathered, the assumptions I made and the conclusions drawn. The investigation was conducted during a time of war, with limited access to official information. I did the best I could knowing that if I did not make an effort, my comrades in arms would suffer torture, detention and death. In doing so I was guided by the Nul-hypothesis.

11.

I have said many times during my testimony that if any of the information, assumptions made or conclusions drawn are demonstrated on evidence presented to the commission to be wrong, I would accept it. It was never my intention to prove before this commission or to the public, that Mr. Ngcuka was a spy. I sought simply to lay before the public and this commission the information I had on hand.

Before this Commission all were invited to present any evidence of relevance. I came forward with what I had and laid it on the table for close scrutiny and challenge. For me that is the honourable way: it promotes openness and transparency and accountability. I may not have been permitted to speak about these matters, and enjoyed the protection of legislation to stay silent. I choose not to.

To their ever-lasting shame, many who have information, choose not to appear and testify. I should think they prefer to keep the people in the dark, prefer confusion rather than clarity, prefer to pass rumours in the corridors rather than take the oath and swear to tell the truth and testify. I choose not to follow that way.

12.

And if you should ask me why, it is because that investigation we conducted then was relevant if only to understand the nature of the relationship with Mr. Ngcuka and his motives for conducting himself in the manner in which he did.

For me it was no more than a basis to understand what was happening at the time and why. Was he conducting an honest investigation or was it a process of vilification? Was he coming after us because we had investigated him? Was he motivated by the functions set out in the NPA Act or did he have an agenda of his own?

13.

It was promised to us, the people, that , the state will respect, protect, promote and fulfill the rights in the Bill of Rights. That promise I believe, was broken by the National Prosecuting Authority Act and Mr. Ngcuka.

Instead of respect for privacy, we are subjected to unlawful search and seizures. Instead of respect for dignity we are maligned in the press and robbed of our good name. Instead of a fair and open trial we suffer the effects of confidential briefings to editors. Instead of the presumption of innocence we suffer public branding with a hot iron imprinted across our forehead with the words "we have concluded that whilst there is a prima facie case of corruption against the deputy president our prospects of success are not strong enough. That means that we are not sure if we have a winnable case."

14.

It is possible Mr. Ngcuka made an error of judgement, by allowing the leaks to go unchecked. It is possible too, Mr. Ngcuka made an error of judgement in calling for and briefing the editors. It must be remembered that the briefing was called at his request, in the main, on that scurrilous email and to report on investigations. In exercising his discretion, to disclose confidential information, then on hand, he had an interest in the matter and he was motivated by his own self- interest.

Clearly, his interest was to protect and defend his own good name. He values his own name and was affronted by the things said in that email and rightly so. By calling for that confidential briefing of editors to took steps to protect his name. But he went too far... it is alleged he rubbished the names of others unfairly and unjustly and promised to exact vengeance by following the Pontius Pilate approach. In the days to follow we were to learn what the Pontius Pilate approach means.

15.

He claims that the briefing was confidential, yet matters discussed there, were published. The best illustration is the article of Jovial Rantao dated 08 August 2003 and titled "the Day Mac Maharaj made history". He sought to deny Mona testifying on the contents of that briefing and invoked the non existent legal principle "of confidential briefing." When called upon to testify on matters discussed at the briefing of editors he refused. Why?

16.

By coming out into the open with what I knew concerning the investigation conducted by the ANC of which I was a party, I stand accused in the press and in this commission of conducting a "smear campaign". By legislation and order of the President not to speak, I spoke.

I spoke truthfully, and honoured the oath I swore before you and in front of all the people "to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

The truth at times embarrassed me, the truth associated me Gideon Niewoudt and Benie Ley, the truth showed me that Lt. Karl Edwards was falsely attributing information to RS 452, the truth showed me that I did not have all the information on hand, the truth showed me that my assumptions and conclusions were wrong. The truth also set me free and lifted a burden that lay heavy on my heart.

17.

How by telling the truth can I be accused of conducting a smear campaign? I did not whisper in a corridor. I did not hide behind the law. I told the story of the investigation like it was, on TV and before this commission. The people had a right to know of this past relationship, least it influence the exercise of discretion.

If the allegations set out in that scurrilous email about him influenced the exercise of his discretion to call a meeting of editors and brief them was he not motivated by self interest?

And in adopting the Pontius Pilate approach as alleged was he not motivated by self- interest?

In the circumstance, was there not a justifiable perception of bias? It is the right of all citizens to fair administrative action and a fair trail.

18.

I acted in the manner in which I did because I found the suffering of my commander and your Deputy President unbearable. I found it to be unbearable that the Rule of Law was abandoned in favour of arbitrary administrative action. I found it unbearable that we must now live under trial by media. I found it unbearable that we must live at the whim of arbitrary state action in violation of the Bill of Rights. I found it unbearable that the names and reputations of men and women can be ruined in secret confidential briefings and public pronouncements in the absence of a fair trail. I found it unbearable that we - and in particular Mr. Ngcuka -must be trapped in the vicious bind of rumour-mongering.

19.

These proceedings were an ordeal suffered by all who participated in it not least of all Mr. Ngcuka and Minister Pumzile, Mr. Maharaj and his family and the people of our country. I acknowledge the extreme suffering of us all. But by this commission we kept our promise that South Africa shall be an open society.

END

Mr Kgalema Motlanthe,
African National Congress
Luthuli House

Dear Comrade SG,

In light of the publication of the Hefer Commission's report and it acceptance thereof, I thought it necessary to write to you to explain the reasons for my involvement and conduct in this affair.

MJK, the ANC underground unit to which I was a member, was a counter intelligence unit of the ANC that operated within the country. The unit was under the internal command of myself and, amongst others, the external command of Cde. Jacob Zuma and Cde. JN Nhlanhla.

The unit infiltrated the Apartheid security agencies and sourced reports held in their files which were analysed with the view to determining agents working within the ANC and the mass democratic movement. The reports were photographed and a summary made of its salient features which were entered into a computer data-base and thereafter transmitted to Lusaka via London, for further investigation. The unit remained in dynamic contact with Cde Zuma who provided feedback in respect of investigations done by Lusaka. (Project Bible). As a result of the information on hand, an investigation was conducted into Cde Bulelani Ngcuka.

Further investigations on the ground that it is in the public interest was designed to discredit the people been investigated.

This view was further strengthen when the contents of the editor's meeting became known and the manner in which the NDPP announced his decision not to prosecute the Deputy President. In short, the manner in which this was done has effectively cast a permanent cloud of suspicion over the integrity of the Deputy President.

Based on information I received I also arrived at the view that Cde Bulelani was aware of the investigation done by ANC counter-intelligence and that this was a determining factor in the manner in which he was performing his obligations. It is my belief that the NDPP investigated Cde J Zuma and Cde Maharaj in the manner in which he did because he was aware of the investigation into him and thus sought to discredit these comrades.

Enraged by the above, I decided that I could no longer maintain my silence in respect of what I knew about the counter-intelligence investigation. I was mindful of organizational discipline which demanded my silence whilst my conscience demand that I speak in defense of these comrades and the organization. As a result when I was approached by Ranjeni Munsamy a journalist from the Sunday Times about this investigation I confirmed that such an investigation had indeed taken place.

I acted in the manner in which I did, by going public, because I found the attack on the integrity of the ANC, Deputy President Zuma, Cde Mac Maharaj and the perceived abuse of power by the NDPP simply unbearable. In doing so I accept that I acted without an organizational mandate. For this, I once again unconditionally offer my apologies to all, to the President, the Officials, the National Executive, and to the membership of the ANC.

From the moment the Commission of Enquiry was appointed both Cde Maharaj and I took up the position that we would co-operate and assist it in fulfilling its mandate. We adhered to this position even when the terms of reference were amended and when they were subsequently completely revised. We were strengthen in this resolve because at no stage did we understand or believe that the terms of reference imposed any onus of proof upon us.

In presenting our evidence before the Commission we were constantly mindful of not bringing the ANC and the Government into disrepute. Accordingly we approached the Commission with openness, transparency and truthfulness. We did so in the honest belief that we were acting as responsible citizens and more so as committed members of the ANC.

In presenting the evidence before the Commission we attested to the historical fact that there was an investigation into Cde Bulelani Ngcuka. Further, we stated categorically that if any further evidence were to be presented to the Commission, which evidence the commission found credible, we would accept the findings of the Commission and acknowledge any mistake in the assumptions and analysis.

The Commission has published its report and its main findings have been accepted by all and sundry including Cde Maharaj and myself. Accordingly, I acknowledge the mistakes in the assumptions and analysis made in respect of the counter-intelligence investigation by MJK into Cde Bulelani Ngcuka. For my part, I offer my sincere apologies to Cde Bulelani Ngcuka and his family for the pain and hurt that this ordeal has caused and trust that he would take comfort in the findings of the Commission.

Lastly, the Commission also expressed itself in respect of the leaks to the media from the office of the NDPP and the impact this has on the human dignity of the person's under investigation, on the need for those been investigated to be presumed innocent until found guilty, and the possible abuse of power by the office of the NDPP in flouting the prohibition against the disclosure of information obtained as a result of their investigations. The President in accepting the main findings of the Commission, expressed Government intention to follow up these matters. As such I remain confident that both the Government and the ANC will chart a suitable way forward in all of these issues.

I thank you for your consideration.

Moe Shaik

Moe Shaik
847 Merton Av
Pretoria

Mr Kgalema Motlanthe,
African National Congress
Luthuli House

25 January 2004

Dear Comrade SG,

In light of the publication of the Hefer Commission's report and it acceptance thereof, I thought it necessary to write to you to explain the reasons for my involvement and conduct in this affair.

As a result of the information on hand, an investigation was conducted into Cde Bulelani Ngcuka.

Due to the prevailing conditions within the country and as a means of ensuring the protection of these reports and database, copies were made and stored in different places.

With the un-banning of the ANC and the return from exile, Project Bible was centralized in the office of Cde Joe Nhlanhla, from where the processing of its information continued. Project Bible ceased to exist in its ANC form with the coming into existence of the State intelligence services (1995), namely; NIA and SASS.

However, under the instructions of the then Deputy Minister of Intelligence Services, JN Nhlanhla the processing of information obtained by Bible Project continued. To this end, other members of the MJK unit, who had by that time been incorporated into the NIA, were assigned to this task and worked from his offices in the Ministry of Intelligence. I, myself, under the instruction of Cde Nhlanhla, continued to follow-up on the information obtained by Project Bible until I left the employ of the Intelligence services in 1997. I have reason to believe that follow-up investigations continued beyond this date.

At some point during or post 1998, as a result of redeployment of those members of MJK who were seized with the Project Bible follow-up task the information of the project was handed over to Dr S. Sigxashe, the then DG of the NIA.

At no time during my working with Cde J Nhlanhla was I asked or instructed to hand over the copies of the data-base which were in my possession and were known to be in my possession.

However as a result of the developments within the Hefer Commission I took the initiative to hand over to the Ministry of Intelligence all the intelligence information in my possession.

During 1991, I was informed by Cde J Zuma that he had received information that two western intelligence services working with a south African security agency intend to discredit him as a means of ensuring that he does not occupy high office in the new south Africa. It was stated that they intended this because of the information known to Cde J Zuma as a result of him been the head of ANC intelligence.

As a result of the constant media leaks in respect of the investigation by the NDPP which by November 2002 became a constant feature of the news community, I was of the view that there was a serious attempt by elements within the NDPP to discredit Cde J Zuma. On a brief visit to South Africa from Algeria, I had the occasion to discuss this view with Cde J Zuma, who in turn reminded me of the report he gave me in 1991 (see 2.1). As a consequence I undertook to re-examine the database within my possession to explore the veracity of this possibility.

On revisiting the information in respect of the investigation into Bulelani Ngcuka I discussed the matter with a former head of Security Branch Intelligence section. He informed me of the NIS false flag involvement and provided further leads which I could follow up.

Concerned by my perception that there was a serious attempt to discredit the Deputy President, I compiled a document which was a reconstruction of our earlier assessment together with the new information at hand. At the December ANC conference I handed this document over to The Co-Ordinator of Intelligence, Mr Jeff Maqetuka and to Deputy President J Zuma.

From February 2003 onwards, it similar pattern of media leaks by the office of the NDPP occurred in the case of Cde Mac Maharaj. I came to the view that the NDPP technique of strategically leaking investigations to the media thereby generating a flurry of new articles which in turn are used by the NPA to justify its further investigations on the ground that it is in the public interest was designed to discredit the people been investigated.