MS FALATI: I cannot remember well. 

MR MPOFU: Well?

MS FALATI: I cannot remember well, but what I know, I have known you at that time, before.

MR MPOFU: Yes, no, I am not talking about seeing me doing what you call white boys’ cases.

MS FALATI: In fact, Inkehla was there representing with Cathy, Kathleen Sachwell and I was there in part and parcel of the, supporting those who were refusing to go to the military ... (intervention).

MR MPOFU: All right. In any event ... (intervention).

MS FALATI: ... training.

MR MPOFU: ... yes. When I met you at the prison you then told me, you gave me the version of what, the version of what had happened. Is that correct?

MS FALATI: Yes.

MR MPOFU: And your version was the same as the one that you subsequently gave in court in the Richardson trial. Is that correct?

MS FALATI: Richardson's trial?

MR MPOFU: Yes. Well, whichever trial before the democratic Government came and you decided to speak the truth. The version you gave me was the version that you gave that the boys were fetched and that Mrs Mandela went to Brandfort. Is that not correct?

MS FALATI: Ja.

MR MPOFU: And ... (intervention).

MS FALATI: I never gave you any version ... (intervention).

MR MPOFU: Well ... (intervention).

MS FALATI: ... when you were in came into prison, I remember, I never gave you any version. The only thing I wanted you, you came and, to give me support, moral support. You did not ask me so many things, because we were given very little time and my story was as long as (...indistinct).

MR MPOFU: Who gave us little time?

MS FALATI: Those people in prison.

MR MPOFU: No, that is not correct. I was given all the time I wanted to consult.

MS FALATI: I do not think so. That means you never stayed, for such, quite a long time in my place.

MR MPOFU: Well, in any event, was, is your version that you gave to, let us say, not say to me, to the lawyers, at that stage, the version of the Brandfort alibi. Is that correct?

MS FALATI: That was not the lawyer which I gave it. The version of, it was at the police, that was at the Protea Police Station.

MR MPOFU: Yes. That version, you first gave it at Protea Police Station at the time of your arrest. Is that correct?

MS FALATI: Hmm.

MR MPOFU: And then you subsequently gave it later at the Richardson trial. Is that correct?

MS FALATI: Yes.

MR MPOFU: And between the Protea statement and the court you consulted with the lawyers. Is that correct?

MS FALATI: Ja.

MR MPOFU: And you gave the same version?

MS FALATI: It was changed from one place. I told you, I told the court during the proceedings that it was changed. This was not given, the one which I have given to Oosthuizen, it was a different one which, I gave it to the Johannesburg, that is Johannesburg, Westgate Court and that it, it was gradually shifted until ... (intervention).

MR MPOFU: Right.

MS FALATI: ... until at court.

MR MPOFU: Yes.

MS FALATI: Ja. It was not the same version from Oosthuizen. It, there were some of the things which were changed right through, right up.

MR MPOFU: All right. You also gave an interview to Dr Allan Gino. Is that correct?

MS FALATI: Yes.

MR MPOFU: This was before your arrest?

MS FALATI: Yes, that was before my arrest.

MR MPOFU: And you gave the Brandfort alibi to him as well. Is that correct?

MS FALATI: Yes.

MR MPOFU: And you also gave that alibi to a local newspaper, I think it was City Press. Is that correct?

MS FALATI: To who, City Press?

MR MPOFU: Yes.

MS FALATI: No.

MR MPOFU: You only gave it to Allan, to Dr Allan Gino?

MS FALATI: Ja, to Allan and the Durban paper which, where I was flying, flown to Durban ... (intervention).

MR MPOFU: Yes, well, I just ... (intervention).

MS FALATI: ... for that application.

MR MPOFU: ... know that it was covered in the local press. Is that correct?

MS FALATI: No, it was not covered in the local press, it was covered in Durban.

MR MPOFU: In Durban?

MS FALATI: Ja.

MR MPOFU: I see. Ja, well that is what I mean by the local press.

MS FALATI: No, local is when you are talking about the ... (intervention).

MR MPOFU: About Mayfair.

MS FALATI: Ja.

MR MPOFU: Okay.

MS FALATI: Mayfair, Ja.

MR MPOFU: Now, do you know, it is ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: (Not translated).

MR MPOFU: Yes, I would really, Archbishop, I would like to ask for some latitude, because this is the crucial part of my involvement in this matter.

MS FALATI: Ja.

MR MPOFU: If possible. I will not abuse the latitude. Thank you. It has been suggested in, you did speak to the person who wrote Katiza Cebekhulu's book? Is that correct?

MS FALATI: Ja, at a later stage.

MR MPOFU: Yes.

MS FALATI: That is this year.

MS FALATI: Ja, ... (intervention).

MR MPOFU: Now, ... (intervention).

MS FALATI: ... that was this year.

MR MPOFU: Ja, it is suggested there that you told this person that the Brandfort alibi had been manufactured, I think that was the word that was used by me. Is that correct?

MS FALATI: That the Brandfort alibi was manufactured?

MR MPOFU: Was manufactured by me. In other words, it was originated or created by me. Well, I am not saying, well, is it correct that you told her, told him this?

MS FALATI: Yes.

MR MPOFU: Now, in actual fact, ... (intervention).

MS FALATI: Manufactured by you and Winnie.

MR MPOFU: Yes. In actual fact, who, how did ... (intervention).

MS FALATI: From time to time I was told the wrong, told a lie.

MR MPOFU: Yes. In other words, the, we, me and Mrs Mandela, we conceived the alibi and we fed it to you. Is that correct?

MS FALATI: Yes, because you were coming into prison as a go-between between myself and Winnie Mandela.

MR MPOFU: Yes.

MS FALATI: Coming to prison to say that must, you know, just a go-between.

MR MPOFU: Yes, now ... (intervention).

MS FALATI: Like a message boy.

MR MPOFU: ... at this time did you ever tell anybody in the legal team that represented you that your, there was another version? In other words, that there was the truth, but this is what is to be said.

MS FALATI: Which truth?

MR MPOFU: Well, in your case it is difficult to say, Ms Falati. I just want to say, did you say to anybody that there was another version? Okay, let me put it this way. When you spoke to Dr Allan Gino and to the Durban paper and so on, who had told you to, where did you get that, this Brandfort alibi, because it was before these prison visits in which I am alleged to have told you about ...

MS FALATI: You have been coming at Winnie Mandela's place, Tati. Do not deny that. You have been coming in 1989, you have been coming at Winnie's place, just remember.

MR MPOFU: Is this before your arrest or after, Ms Falati?

MS FALATI: I cannot remember, but ... (intervention).

MR MPOFU: Well, ... (intervention).

MS FALATI: ... you have been coming.

MR MPOFU: ... I am telling you, well, I am putting it to you, you can deny it if you want that I was ... (intervention).

MS FALATI: No.

MR MPOFU: ... never there before your arrest.

MS FALATI: Ja, ja.

MR MPOFU: Ja, ja.

MS FALATI: Ja.

MR MPOFU: Okay. Now, I am asking you before the arrest, which is when you gave the version to Dr Gino, we have now established that you did not, I had not been there, where did you get the alibi? Where did you get what to say to Dr Gino?

MS FALATI: That alibi is this one. I was from Durban that time and I had flown at an earlier stage, been flown to Durban. I went to Durban in order to fabricate this story. When I came back with the cooked up story I was actually told what to say and I did not even know the people I was sent to. I never knew those people, are the veterans of the ANC. A story was fabricated, it was a cooked up story, cooked and fabricated by you and Winnie Mandela and I had to cram this story and relate it on television.

MR MPOFU: (...indistinct) that or, at least, can, you contacted me if I say between the time of the alleged abductions and your going to Durban, I did not have a meeting with you?

MS FALATI: I cannot remember Dalius. I do not want to lie. If I knew or I was clear, I would tell you, but what I remember is that I went to Durban to fabricate this story and when I came back I was introduced to Dr Allen Gino as a Swapo adviser.

MR MPOFU: Mr Chair, I would really be stopping here, but there was a fresh allegation. I was really coming here to deal with this issue of manufacturing the alibi, which I think I have done sufficiently, but there has been a fresh allegation now.

Can we just deal with, you have alleged in your evidence today that on, at some stage I woke you up.

MS FALATI: Ja.

MR MPOFU: Where was this?

MS FALATI: It was in Orlando West where I slept. I woke up and went to Kessie.

CHAIRPERSON: (...indistinct) Thank you very much.

MS FALATI: At Mandela's place.

MR MPOFU: Yes.

MS FALATI: The original place.

CHAIRPERSON: Ai, togoman.

MR MPOFU: Well, before I run out of time, I must it to you that so-called waking you up never happened.

MS FALATI: You are a Xhosa, typical of a Xhosa, that is why you are denying everything. All Xhosas are just like that. You are a real Xhosa and you are Winnie's Xhosa as well.

MR MPOFU: I just want to ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Order please.

MR MPOFU: Now, you say that when I came to see you, what I suggested that you should ... (intervention).

MS FALATI: Change the evidence.

MR MPOFU: ... change your evidence.

MS FALATI: Yes, my evidence. I went to (...indistinct), that day I did not even testify in court. Just remember the day I did not, I had a tissue.

MR MPOFU: No, I do not remember ... (intervention).

MS FALATI: You cannot ... (intervention).

MR MPOFU: ... you had a tissue.

CHAIRPERSON: Wait a bit.

MR MPOFU: Please, please. Will you, okay.

MS FALATI: It is written down in the court ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: (Not translated).

MS FALATI: (Not translated).

MR MPOFU: Well, Ms Falati, ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Come, come, come. If you did this again, if you do this again, you are going to be in trouble. Yebo.

MS FALATI: Yes, I can hear you.

CHAIRPERSON: I do not want to be angered by you. I have requested you many a times, please finish off Dali.

MR MPOFU: Did you, in fact, change your evidence as I suggested?

MS FALATI: I decided to tell Kathleen Sachwell. It is in the court proceedings, because I told her. She took me and said, Xoliswa, come back and tell the truth. So, I did not testify that day. The very day that I did not, that was that day.

MR MPOFU: So, you did not change your evidence?

MS FALATI: Kathy said I must not change it.

MR MPOFU: Yes, but as I understand it, at this stage ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Dali, Dali.

MR MPOFU: Oh, just one issue.

CHAIRPERSON: Dali, Dali.

MR MPOFU: I need to complete this line.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know how to count?

MR MPOFU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: One.

MR MPOFU: One minute. Thanks.

I just want to say, as I understood your evidence, at this stage, you were, when you were giving the evidence in, you were giving evidence, trying to protect Mrs Mandela. Is that correct?

MS FALATI: Are you representing Mrs Mandela now?

MR MPOFU: I am asking you a question. Please answer the question.

MS FALATI: That is what I am asking you. Are you representing (...indistinct). Ask me a question ... (...indistinct) (intervention).

MR MPOFU: Chair, I really ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: (Not translated). You, I will have to want to deal with you. Do you want to see us angry? I am giving you a very last chance. Rather keep quiet, rather keep quiet and wait until you are calm enough, ask for permission for me to keep quiet.

MR MPOFU: Chair, I will make it easier, I will only make a statement which she can just deny or whatever. I will ask her (...indistinct).

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please.

MR MPOFU: Yes. I want to put it to you, Ms Falati, that if this version of yours was correct and since it would have happened at the time when, before you changed your mind, as you say, before the democratic Government or whatever reason made you change your mind, that you would not have rejected, according to your, what you described your state of mind to have been at the time, that it was your mission to protect Mrs Mandela and if this allegation is correct, it could have been, it would have been consistent with your allegation and your assessing that you, actually, ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: (Not translated).

MS FALATI: (...Indistinct).

MR MPOFU: You can deny or ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: No, wait a bit, I do not ...

MR MPOFU: Well, I will break it down.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you, can each, I mean, (...indistinct) helpful to have a short sentence, short question rather than ... (intervention).

MR MPOFU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: ... a convoluted one.

MR MPOFU: Yes, that is what I preferred. I was, I said I was trying to save time, obviously, I am not. I put it to you that you never informed anybody about this so-called conversation? You are looking away while I am asking you a question. I put it to you that the conversation that you claimed to have had with me did not take place and neither did the report that you claimed to have made the following day or whenever you claimed to have made it, because at that time, according to you, ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, no. Please ask your question. Make your assertion.

MR MPOFU: Yes, well, okay, my assertion is that at the time that you alleged to have had this conversation you were still hell bent or determined to protect Mrs Mandela. Is that correct? It was before the (...indistinct).

MS FALATI: (...Indistinct) asked me not to answer questions that are going, if a person is (...indistinct), going to be ... (intervention). MR MPOFU: No.

MS FALATI: If a person is not to answer, if I keep quiet then I am keeping quiet, because (...indistinct).

MR MPOFU: Well, you are not doing the Bishop any justice by ... (intervention).

MS FALATI: (...Indistinct).

CHAIRPERSON: I think, I mean, it will be better to leave to us the main, the inferences you may make where it does not answer the question or not. I think it will (...indistinct), because, again, you are (...indistinct) and I do not know, I think I have got to stop you now. I have given you ample time.

MR MPOFU: Thank you Archbishop. Yes, the last assessment is actually on the record, she did say that. So, I do not if ...

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. I (...indistinct) then like to appeal to (...indistinct) it is not my nature, but when people get me in the wrong, then sometimes I (...indistinct) other side, but I hide it most of the time. Thank you.

MR MPOFU: (...Indistinct).

DR BORAINE: Thank you Mr Chair, I have one question and I (...indistinct). What were you told by Jerry Richardson and (...indistinct).

MS FALATI: Pardon.

COMMISSIONER: What were you told by Jerry Richardson and (...indistinct)? During your evidence you said that you were told something by Jerry Richardson and (...indistinct). Do you remember, about ten, 20 minutes ago?

MS FALATI: Yes, you were asking about the affidavit, well, asking about (...indistinct), there are so many things (...indistinct). (...Indistinct) you were asking about Dr Asvat, asking about Madondo, you asking about (...indistinct), you asking about that, in connection with whom?

QUESTION: Madam, you made the statement, I did not.

MS FALATI: (...Indistinct)

CHAIRPERSON: I think, no, no, I am sorry. I think you have got to be fair to her, because she did say the context or where did she make that that particular statement about these two persons.

QUESTION: Thank you, if there is an (...indistinct), Dr Abu-Baker.

MS FALATI: Yes.

QUESTION: What (...indistinct) say to you.

MS FALATI: Gogo told me that Mrs Mandela had a fight with the (...indistinct) the previous evening. That was, he told me that (...indistinct) and I asked her the fight that was (...indistinct) between who and who. Gogo told me that it was between Mrs Mandela and Dr Abu-Baker Asvat and I did not stay further to ask as to what was the fight all about (...indistinct) Dr Abu-Baker.

QUESTION: (...Indistinct).

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

QUESTION: Mr Richardson had to do with the conversation, because this is what Gogo told you, what did Mr Richardson say to you?

MS FALATI: No, at, at a later stage Mr Richardson (...indistinct) a racist.

QUESTION: I beg ... (intervention).

MS FALATI: (...Indistinct) recognised him.

QUESTION: Thank you, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Any questions from the panel?

DR BORAINE: Ms Falati, you were living with Mrs Mandela in the few days preceding the death of Dr Asvat. Is that correct?

MS FALATI: Pardon, Sir?

DR BORAINE: You were living at her home with Mrs Mandela ... (intervention).

MS FALATI: Yes.

DR BORAINE: ... for the few days preceding the death of Dr Asvat. Is that correct?

MS FALATI: No, I was (...indistinct). I was based in (...indistinct).

DR BORAINE: You were at the home of Mrs Mandela in those few days preceding the death of Dr Asvat?

MS FALATI: No.

DR BORAINE: Not at all?

MS FALATI: No, I was not at Mrs Mandela's place.

DR BORAINE: Thank you Ms Falati, thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: (...Indistinct) Khoza.

MR MGOJO: Thank you Chair. I am not a lawyer, (...indistinct) two questions. Mrs Xoliswa Falati, Ms, I am sorry, apologies. Mr Xoliswa Falati, you said that the decision to say that (...indistinct) was an informer came from the caucus at the residence of the Ministers?

MS FALATI: Yes.

MR MGOJO: Were you in charge of that caucus yourself?

MS FALATI: Yes. I was (...indistinct) staying there, it was part of the caucus. I was worried because (...indistinct) and all that. So, (...indistinct) that is why I was worried about it (...indistinct).

MR MGOJO: (...Indistinct) that stage very (...indistinct). According to the record you were 35 years at that time?

MS FALATI: Yes.

MR MGOJO: And this young man was 18 years or 14 years?

MS FALATI: Yes.

MR MGOJO: Did you ever ask him about this accusation?

MS FALATI: No, it was the caucus of the (...indistinct) after that we decided that he must not go, actually, he is (...indistinct).

MR MGOJO: No, what I am asking, did you ever ask him if (...indistinct) a young man (...indistinct) 35 years and he is just 14 and you are a social worker, did you ever ask him if it was true or not?

MS FALATI: No, he was asked by the people. I think (...indistinct).

MR MGOJO: You say that you did not (...indistinct), because (...indistinct) you, our culture to protect (...indistinct). Can you and what culture is that, our culture, what is that?

MS FALATI: The culture of the comrades, of (...indistinct) so that anybody who wants to come here is (...indistinct) before.

MR MGOJO: Are you still (...indistinct) of that culture?

MS FALATI: That was the time of the struggle, Sir, not now. We are liberated, we are all liberated now and we have been fighting for the equality, we are all equal here.

MR MGOJO: Last question. You said that you (...indistinct) about the (...indistinct) Mrs Madikizela-Mandela was having and you were talking about (...indistinct) handbag and you say that in the handbag there was a (...indistinct). Did you see the (...indistinct)?

MS FALATI: Actually, (...indistinct) during the (...indistinct) or during those (...indistinct).

MR MGOJO: So, you believe that there was a (...indistinct)?

MS FALATI: Yes, I believe there was a (...indistinct). That is why I was worried (...indistinct) that I was (...indistinct) and I had (...indistinct) the victim (...indistinct)

MR MGOJO: Thank you.

MS MKHIZE: Thank you Chairperson. Ms Falati, it has been a long day for you, you have been (...indistinct). I just want to take you through a few statements which I would like to get your full (...indistinct). You have made serious allegations and I am sure you know that we are investigating human rights violations into the activities of the Mandela Football Club. So, these allegations are very, very important. On page 38 of your statement you say, that is paragraph number three.

MS FALATI: I do not have a statement.

MS MKHIZE: It says ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Can you let the witness have a statement, thank you.

MS MKHIZE: I will (...indistinct), but the (...indistinct). You say,

Okay, you have made this on, I just want to know whether is this what you know as the first or you put it down (...indistinct) based on what you heard from people (...indistinct).

MS FALATI: (...Indistinct).

MS MKHIZE: It is a (...indistinct) allegation, but you say it in your own words,

but you have put it down. So, I wanted to know (...indistinct) human rights violation, but based on this statement it is difficult to understand, because of the many (...indistinct) that you say you were told about this thing.

CHAIRPERSON: (...Indistinct) what ... (intervention).

MS MKHIZE: Only the person (...indistinct). She says I was told. So, we want to know what is the truth about this. Can you take it as a human rights violation, it really occurred, because (...indistinct) talks about many versions.

MS FALATI: When you are saying (...indistinct), people are telling, people in (...indistinct) will tell you how people are (...indistinct) you have a way (...indistinct) to investigate if they are responsible, because (...indistinct) I realised and I, therefore, decided to take an action and see which direction to take, because one said the whole thing happened in the (...indistinct) and even today he said that it was that Lolo is a dog, must be (...indistinct) again. I asked why did he deny that and now you are agreeing. This is why I think this Committee has a great task before exhume those bodies.

MS MKHIZE: You say that (...indistinct) said that Winnie and (...indistinct) had ordered the killing of Lolo and (...indistinct) the second one, maybe it is not an allegation, but I am interested in knowing whether you know for sure that they ordered those killings on your (...indistinct) as you are saying? Maybe while you are still thinking, I will go on ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: (...Indistinct) give her a chance. Can you try to answer the question? Do you know, for a fact, that Winnie, Mrs Mandela and her daughter ordered the killing of these two persons? (...Indistinct) made a long statement, (...indistinct).

MS FALATI: (...Indistinct).

CHAIRPERSON: You (...indistinct).

MS MKHIZE: Do you not, (...indistinct), you go on to say,

Again, this paragraph, tends to tell us what you know and what you heard somebody overheard. I mean, that (...indistinct), this is very, very important for us to know what is the truth around these (...indistinct).

MS FALATI: (...Indistinct) told, my daughter told that.

MS MKHIZE: Your statement reads that,

Somebody, I mean, they overheard. I suppose you put it down (...indistinct) our investigation. Again, it is more or less the same, we want to know what is the hearsay and what is the truth about this matter?

MS FALATI: That is why I (...indistinct) in that (...indistinct) she told Kathleen Sachwell. (...Indistinct) that the lawyers were representing us. (...Indistinct) told the lawyers were representing us.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MS MKHIZE: Okay, on page ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: How many more have you got?

MS MKHIZE: Well, it is really, really important otherwise, (...indistinct).

CHAIRPERSON: No, no I am not disputing the importance, I am saying how many more have you got?

MS MKHIZE: One, two, three, four.

CHAIRPERSON: I think maybe we can have (...indistinct) let us discuss those (...indistinct) it is one (...indistinct). I think, I mean, that may be better, because (...indistinct) over what, I mean, of (...indistinct).

MS MKHIZE: But, Chairperson, I thought for the sake of the record, it is important for us to get from her what is the truth and what she says I heard people say that. Otherwise, our record ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, if (...indistinct) I have heard then it means I have heard. What, do you have another? I will give you one more.

MS MKHIZE: The other one has been canvassed, but, again, I thought it is important to know, it seems that (...indistinct) where she says (...indistinct) I was told by him (...indistinct) died because he took information. I suppose that one is, again, it is an allegation about a killing (...indistinct). Again, she says I was told. So, I wanted to check where she is today.

MS FALATI: (...Indistinct).

MS MKHIZE: The last one,

I mean, again, I just thought for us it is important to know, really, how much does she know about this or is she put it down because she was told.

CHAIRPERSON: (...Indistinct), I mean, it has already been covered by the lawyer representing the Asvat family, because he wanted to know that. If you want to have a second go (...indistinct). (...Indistinct) have gone up (...indistinct). I do not know what to say, I mean, I think you (...indistinct) the first time (...indistinct) being in the witness stand for a little while. Thank you very much for, I mean, I did not want to have scolded you, I will not scold you now, I (...indistinct) thank you for your efforts of helping us to arrive at the truth. I am sure one is aware that you are carrying a heavy burden, that there is a great deal of emotion that you have, you have (...indistinct) like a (...indistinct) champagne bottle that has been corked up and when you open it, it overflows, but thank you very much.

We hope that the work that we will do you, again, will (...indistinct) your helping to alleviate or the (...indistinct) pain that we and many others feel. The work of this Committee (...indistinct) a major contribution to the process of healing. We are all wounded, we are all traumatised in all sorts of different ways. So, thank you very much.

MS FALATI: Thank you Bishop, but I would like to ask one question from you, to you. Can I ask that question?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS FALATI: Are you going to go into the mine-shaft, because I am positive there are bodies there. I do not want to (...indistinct).

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we will take ... (intervention).

MS FALATI: I can take you, even now, there. Can you go, can you go?

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MS FALATI: (...Indistinct) the bodies so that they can be buried in a decent way and (...indistinct). Can we go there? Are you going to go there?

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, please.

MS FALATI: I can take you there even.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. After the Investigations Unit has done (...indistinct).

MS FALATI: (...Indistinct).

CHAIRPERSON: Order please.

MR MULLER: Chairperson, can I, (...indistinct) Muller, I represent Jabu Sithole, who, you will recall, was called earlier this morning and who you allowed to stand down in order to (...indistinct) legal (...indistinct) ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: (...Indistinct) we will not call him anymore.

MR MULLER: Chairperson, I just wanted to place on record that, (...indistinct), firstly, that it is very difficult for him to do that at the (...indistinct), because he has other commitments. Secondly, that I have taken a statement from him and I do not believe that his

evidence will take longer than five to ten minutes, because he is not going to say anything of any critical importance. I leave it in your hands, Chairperson, ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MULLER: ... to decide.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you very much. I (...indistinct) told that (...indistinct) account (...indistinct) thank you very much for the (...indistinct). We will try and take him at the very (...indistinct) possible, some time today.

MR MULLER: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR MULLER: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: I now call Mr Cebekhulu. (...Indistinct). Order please. You are free to (...indistinct) those at the back (...indistinct). Order. Please settle now. Thank you very much. You will see yourselves on television, sit down. We are taking, order, order please, we are taking Mr Cebekhulu and now, because Mr Nicholson has a (...indistinct) that we must (...indistinct) last night and (...indistinct) as soon as possible. Order, order. We have authority from (...indistinct) the (...indistinct) National Commissioner of Police and the Attorney-General of the (...indistinct) that Katiza Cebekhulu will not be arrested or prevented from leaving the country on the grounds of (...indistinct) laid down (...indistinct) Mrs Madikizela-Mandela last night.

They, further, want to do nothing (...indistinct) to hinder the Commission's work. However, we are willing to accommodate the request on (...indistinct) now. You are welcome (...indistinct) and you are (...indistinct). You are (...indistinct) to speak (...indistinct). Are you comfortable?

MR CEBEKHULU: (...Indistinct). I will speak English.

MR JOSEPH: My surname is Joseph, my initials are S L, I represent both Katiza Cebekhulu and Mrs Emma Nicholson. Mr Cebekhulu indicated to me that he would prefer to speak in the English language. Would you swear the witness in.

CHAIRPERSON: (...Indistinct).

MS SOOKA: Will you state your full names for the record?

MR CEBEKHULU: My full names are Katiza Cebekhulu.

MS SOOKA: (...Indistinct)

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

KATIZA CEBEKHULU: (Duly sworn in, states).

MS NICHOLSON: My name is (...indistinct) I (...indistinct).

MS SOOKA: Are you going to take the oath or the affirmation?

MS NICHOLSON: I (...indistinct).

EMMA NICHOLSON: (Duly sworn in, states).

MS SOOKA: Thank you.

MR JOSEPH: Thank you Mr Chairman. (...Indistinct) the documents which you have before you relating to statements or affidavits. I understand that (...indistinct) refer you to affidavits (...indistinct) reached the last page of the second affidavit to the last page of the second bundle of documents. The first affidavit, if you look at page 11, was (...indistinct) by a Major in the South African Police force. The second affidavit is a more comprehensive affidavit, it deals with the matter (...indistinct) before this Committee. There is, however, a third affidavit, I have made an enquiry from my learned friend, Mr Vally, who says he (...indistinct) that for some reason or other the third affidavit is not before you in the documents before you. (...Indistinct) referring to that affidavit as well.

I intend, subject to your permission and taking into account the lateness of the hour and the enormous work that this Committee has to (...indistinct) before Friday to (...indistinct) witnesses on matters which are (...indistinct) nature, a (...indistinct) nature and matters which they do not think are controversial and I will attempt to bring them to the issue (...indistinct).

CHAIRPERSON: (...Indistinct) appreciate (...indistinct) most (...indistinct).

MR JOSEPH: (...Indistinct) that (...indistinct).

???????: (...Indistinct) the two affidavits. The (...indistinct) by (...indistinct) (end of tape 4a).

MR VALLY: Thank you. Is it the one, ... (intervention).

MR JOSEPH: The last page, is signed on the fifth of August 1997 before a Notary Public in England?

???????: (...Indistinct)

MR VALLY: We are trying to find the date. We do have the second one, yes. If you could just please describe the third one to us.

MR JOSEPH: The third affidavit is best described as being a combined affidavit, an affidavit deposed to by both Mr Cebekhulu and the Baroness. The body of the affidavit is in the first person of Ms, of Baroness Nicholson and Mr Cebekhulu as opposed to what we would call a confirmatory affidavit.

MR VALLY: We did receive the third one as well. I think we received it late yesterday or today. Is that the one which is an affidavit in the name of Ms Nicholson and is dated fifth of September 1997?

MR JOSEPH: The very first page of the affidavit is an affidavit deposed to by Katiza Cebekhulu and it is one page and it is dated the fifth of September 1997. That is followed by a second document with the heading "Affidavit" and it begins,

That affidavit is, do you have it. May I then proceed.

CHAIRPERSON: You have got that, have you not? Yes.

MR VALLY: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Say again.

MR JOSEPH: Ja, it is the first one dated the fifth, the second one is also the fifth of September and then there is a third.

CHAIRPERSON: Where is the third?

MR JOSEPH: In regard to the first affidavit, the affidavit which is witnessed by the Colonel in the South African Police Force, let me dispose of that affidavit now.

MR MPOFU: Chairperson, can I indicate, as far as we are able to see, we do not have a third affidavit.

MR JOSEPH: May I make available, to my learned friend, this affidavit?

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR JOSEPH: ... to the witness to hand over to the, my learned friend her affidavit, this affidavit has notes. In so far as the first affidavit is concerned, the one that was witnessed by the police officer, it covers certain areas of the evidence, it was an affidavit which was deposed to for the purposes of the police officer to answer his questions. He, apparently, travelled to London to interview Mr Cebekhulu.

The second and third affidavit are more comprehensive and I will attempt to follow the contents of those affidavits for the orderly running of this inquiry.

EXAMINATION BY MR JOSEPH:

Mr Cebekhulu, when were you born?

MR CEBEKHULU: I was born in February 12, 1970.

MR JOSEPH: You were born on February the 12th 1970 in Natal, in Mpumalanga and you came to Johannesburg when?

MR CEBEKHULU: 1988.

MR JOSEPH: I understand you come from an impoverished background. Your father had died some time ago ... (intervention).

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: ... and your mother was a very poor woman?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: When you arrived at, in Johannesburg, you travelled to Orlando. Correct?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: Did you come into contact with anybody of importance when you travelled to Orlando?

MR CEBEKHULU: Can you repeat the question?

MR JOSEPH: Did you come into contact with anybody who was prominent, anybody who was of importance when you travelled to Orlando?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: Who was that person?

MR CEBEKHULU: Mrs Mandela.

MR JOSEPH: Mrs Mandela, I understand, was carrying out some function which is akin to that of a social worker and you met her in an office block, a two storey office block surrounded by razor wire called Community Centre. Is that correct?

MR CEBEKHULU: Community House.

MR JOSEPH: Community House?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes, Sir.

MR JOSEPH: Were you taken to see Mrs Mandela?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: You spoke to Mrs Mandela?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: Did she befriend you?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: Did she take you into her house?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: For how long did you live, from time to time, I am not suggesting every night that you slept there, but over what period of time were you a permanent resident in the house of Mrs Mandela?

MR CEBEKHULU: I stayed in Mrs Mandela in 1988 to 89, 1990.

MR JOSEPH: 1990?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes, that is two and a half.

MR JOSEPH: Two and a half years, from August 1988 to February 1991. Is that correct?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: If you look at the affidavit, it is in front of you, it is paragraph four. The house, you say, was a large house, there were staff houses, there was a compound, it had a jacuzzi.

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: Who lived within the confines of the main house?

MR CEBEKHULU: In the main, I was living in the main house when I came.

MR JOSEPH: Yes, who else, Mrs Mandela and her family. Is that correct?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: Which members of her family lived in that house?

MR CEBEKHULU: Zinzi Mandela.

MR JOSEPH: Any other member?

MR CEBEKHULU: And Themba.

MR JOSEPH: And Themba. Now, you stayed in that house for more or less two and a half years. Did you perform any functions in that house?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: What type of functions did you perform?

MR CEBEKHULU: I use to wake up in the morning to prepare the food for the children and then I had to clean the house, wash the car and clean the compound.

MR JOSEPH: Type of domestic work?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: And you slept in the main house?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: Now, I understand, well, let me not lead you. Did you have any political affiliations which were strong, which were burning, which made you a member of any group?

MR CEBEKHULU: No.

MR JOSEPH: You were not a MK soldier, you were not a MK cadre, you were nothing at all?

MR CEBEKHULU: No.

MR JOSEPH: Now, we have heard about the Mandela United Football Club, this is made up of young men, whatever they did, we know that from time to time they frequented this house. Is that correct?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: Did some of them live, on a permanent basis, in the house, I mean from time, I mean that they slept there, they had a place to sleep?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: Were or were there not members of the Mandela United Football Club who were affiliated to any political grouping during that time? Were there members of the Mandela United Football Club who were affiliated, who supported, who were members of any political formation in this country at that time?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: Which political formation, which grouping were they affiliated to?

MR CEBEKHULU: Because they are close, they are not Mandela Football Team.

MR JOSEPH: Yes. Now, that is not a political formation. Were they members of the Inkatha Freedom Movement?

MR CEBEKHULU: No.

MR JOSEPH: Which movement were they members of?

MR CEBEKHULU: For the UDF.

MR JOSEPH: The?

MR CEBEKHULU: UDF.

MR JOSEPH: UDF. To your knowledge, were they involved in anyway with the possession of firearms, carrying firearms or anything like that?

MR CEBEKHULU: No.

MR JOSEPH: You never saw anything like that?

MR CEBEKHULU: Me to carry?

MR JOSEPH: No, the other members of the United, of the Mandela United Football Club.

MR CEBEKHULU: No.

MR JOSEPH: Okay. Now, how was the house run from a, from this point of view? The members of the football club, could they come in and out of the house freely or was their some restriction of their movement?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes, we need to report when you go out the house, you need to sign that you are going out.

MR JOSEPH: Yes.

MR CEBEKHULU: And you need to tell the time when you are coming back ... (intervention).

MR JOSEPH: Now, ... (intervention).

MR CEBEKHULU: ... and the ...

MR JOSEPH: Fine.

MR CEBEKHULU: And then if they say yes or no, I will need to get the order from Richardson. If Richardson do not agree, you cannot go.

MR JOSEPH: Yes. Let me just go back to one matter. Mrs Mandela's daughter, Zinzi, lived in the house?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: And were there any other children in the house?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: Who were those children?

MR CEBEKHULU: I cannot remember the name, but he was ... (intervention).

MR JOSEPH: No, the relationship?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes, there were three, two boys and a girl.

MR JOSEPH: Who was the mother?

MR CEBEKHULU: Zinzi.

MR JOSEPH: Zinzi was the mother. Do you remember some time in November 1988 an incident which involved a young man by the name of Lolo Sono?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: Will you tell the Commission what you recall?

MR CEBEKHULU: It was on Mrs Mandela's garage, they were beating Lolo Sono.

MR JOSEPH: Can you remember the day in November when this occurred?

MR CEBEKHULU: No, I cannot remember the day.

MR JOSEPH: You cannot remember the date? There was a day in November, that you were telling the Commission, that an assault took place on Lolo Sono. Correct?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: Who were the people who participated in the assault?

MR CEBEKHULU: It was Mrs Mandela and Richardson and others.

MR JOSEPH: Mrs Mandela, Richardson and the others?

MR CEBEKHULU: The boys, yes.

MR JOSEPH: Who were the others?

CHAIRPERSON: Can I just, I am sorry, photographers, I gave you your opportunity. Hello, oi, goodbye. Yes.

MR JOSEPH: Who were the others, I am not looking for a name of each person.

MR CEBEKHULU: They were the Mandela Football Team.

MR JOSEPH: Members of the Mandela Football Team?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: Now, the Commission is interested in knowing or hearing evidence which emanates from your own personal observations as opposed to matters that were told to you or your own speculation. Now, when you tell this Commission on oath that you witnessed Mrs Mandela and members of the Mandela United Football Club assault Lolo Sono, did you witness that with your own eyes, did you see that with your own eyes?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: Were you present when it occurred?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: Where it occurred in the house, can you identify a room?

MR CEBEKHULU: It happened in the garage.

MR JOSEPH: In the garage?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: Now, are you able to tell the Commission

details of the beating or the assault. In other words, which particular person inflicted an injury to Mr Sono and how was that injury inflicted? What did you see?

MR CEBEKHULU: When I enter in the garage it was Mrs Mandela holding sjambok. She was whipping Lolo Sono and Richardson, he was standing, kicking and the others, the Mandela Football Team, they were surrounding.

MR JOSEPH: Yes.

MR CEBEKHULU: I did not check the beating and then I went inside and then they say Lolo Sono work with the police, he is a spy.

MR JOSEPH: Just hold on one moment. You witnessed the beating which involved Mrs Mandela making use of a sjambok?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: When she struck Lolo Sono, was Lolo Sono standing, lying or sitting?

MR CEBEKHULU: He was lying down on the concrete.

MR JOSEPH: Did she strike him with force?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes, he was trying to cover his face. They were whipping him all over the body, Mrs Mandela.

MR JOSEPH: Were there injuries which were visible? Did you ... (intervention).

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: What type of injuries?

MR CEBEKHULU: He was bleeding.

MR JOSEPH: From where?

MR CEBEKHULU: He was having all the blood here, in the mouth.

MR JOSEPH: You say you never participated in this assault and, if I understand your evidence correctly, you did not remain there for the entire duration of the assault, you left at a certain stage?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: Is that correct?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: What is the next incident which you witnessed with your own eyes relating to Lolo Sono?

MR CEBEKHULU: They were going out holding him and then I meet Mrs Mandela on the gate. She asked me to go with them.

MR JOSEPH: Mrs Mandela asked you to go with them?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: Well, who were them?

MR CEBEKHULU: When I enter into the Kombi was Mrs Mandela and Jerry Richardson and when Mrs Mandela and Richardson and me and Lolo Sono and I cannot remember the names of the other person.

MR JOSEPH: And where did you, where did they take Lolo Sono?

MR CEBEKHULU: To his home in Meadowlands.

MR JOSEPH: To his home in?

MR CEBEKHULU: Meadowlands.

MR JOSEPH: In Meadowlands. You saw a gentlemen give evidence on the first day of this Commission. His name was Nicodemus Sono. Have you ever seen that man before?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: When did you see him?

MR CEBEKHULU: When we went to the house of Lolo Sono.

MR JOSEPH: When you went to the house of Lolo Sono?

MR CEBEKHULU: Ja, I remember the man.

MR JOSEPH: You saw a man come out who you recognised to be the gentleman who gave evidence on the first day of this hearing. Is that correct?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: Now, how was Lolo Sono taken to his father's house?

MR CEBEKHULU: They went to the house and then they went, they asked the documents.

MR JOSEPH: Listen to the question please.

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: What method was used to move Lolo Sono from where he was in Mrs Mandela's house to, some distance away, the home of his father? Did they use a bicycle, did they use an aeroplane? What did they use?

MR CEBEKHULU: They used a vehicle.

MR JOSEPH: They used a vehicle?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: What is the name of that vehicle?

MR CEBEKHULU: It was a microbus.

MR JOSEPH: A microbus? A kombi, would you call it a Kombi?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: And who was in the Kombi?

MR CEBEKHULU: Mrs Mandela.

MR JOSEPH: And who else?

MR CEBEKHULU: Richardson and me and Lolo Sono and other boy.

MR JOSEPH: Jerry Richardson was in the Kombi? Is that, I never heard?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: Was he driving?

MR CEBEKHULU: No.

MR JOSEPH: Who was driving?

MR CEBEKHULU: I cannot remember the driver.

MR JOSEPH: Some other man was driving.

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: Jerry Richardson was there. Where was Lolo Sono in the vehicle? Was he sitting in front in the ... (intervention).

MR CEBEKHULU: No, he was in the back seat.

MR JOSEPH: He was in the back seat?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: Was he injured or was he well?

MR CEBEKHULU: He was injured.

MR JOSEPH: Would you say he was seriously injured?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: Did his father come out to the vehicle?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: Did you hear his father have a conversation with Mrs Mandela?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: Are you able to remember, now, once again, I ask you to be careful and to relate to the Commission the words that you remember, not what you have read anywhere, not what you have heard anywhere. Nobody expects you to remember the exact words that were spoken, but try and relate, as faithfully as you can, the language you heard being spoken on that day when the vehicle arrived at the home of Mr Nicodemus Sono.

MR CEBEKHULU: When I arrive in the house the father of Lolo Sono came out in the car, in the house and then he speak with Mrs Mandela. Then he asked what happened and the boy wanted to explain. They told the boy to keep quiet. From then, Mrs Mandela drive and then we came back again and then they say Lolo Sono, they want the document which Lolo Sono work with the police. The father say his son, he does not work with the police.

MR JOSEPH: Yes.

MR CEBEKHULU: That is only conversation I remember.

MR JOSEPH: Yes. That is all you remember. Did you hear every word that was spoken.

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: You did. Anything else?

MR CEBEKHULU: She say, I am taking with me. The movement, you see, what to do with him.

MR JOSEPH: Ja. Did the father ask for his son back?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: And what was the response to that?

MR CEBEKHULU: She says she is taking him with (...indistinct), she see the movement what to do and then we drive to the house back.

MR JOSEPH: I am sorry, I never heard you. Would you just repeat.

MR CEBEKHULU: She say I am taking with him, the movement will see what to do with him.

MR JOSEPH: We are taking Lolo to the movement?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: So, the movement will see what to do with him?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: What then happened?

MR CEBEKHULU: And then we drive back to the house and then I came out in the Kombi and Mrs Mandela remain in the Kombi and then I do not know what is next.

MR JOSEPH: After leaving Mr Nicodemus Sono's house, you drove back to the house of Mrs Mandela. Is that what you are saying?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: You alighted from the vehicle and the vehicle then took off?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: And who was in the vehicle when the vehicle took off?

MR CEBEKHULU: I did not know who was in the vehicle.

MR JOSEPH: You were there when you arrived at (...indistinct).

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes, when the vehicle drive I did not know who drove the vehicle, Mrs Mandela went with the vehicle.

MR JOSEPH: Just tell the Commission who ... (intervention). CHAIRPERSON: Remove your finger from the base.

MR JOSEPH: Tell the Commission who was left, which human beings were left in the vehicle which dropped you off at Mrs Mandela's house after you had paid the visit to Mr Nicodemus Sono's house.

MR CEBEKHULU: It was Mrs Mandela.

MR JOSEPH: Yes, who else?

MR CEBEKHULU: Richardson.

MR JOSEPH: Who else?

MR CEBEKHULU: And the team.

MR JOSEPH: Who else?

MR CEBEKHULU: That is all.

MR JOSEPH: Was there anybody injured in the vehicle?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: Who is that?

MR CEBEKHULU: Lolo Sono.

MR JOSEPH: Was Lolo Sono, then, in the vehicle?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: Was that the last time you saw Lolo Sono alive?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: Now, in so far as this hearsay evidence might be objected to, I leave it up to the Commission to restrict this type of evidence. Did you hear anything about what might have happened to Lolo Sono?

MR CEBEKHULU: No.

MR JOSEPH: No. Mr Chairman, may I now direct you to the larger affidavit, the one that I have called the third affidavit and in particular to that part of the affidavit which begins at page ten.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: You have it? On the 29th of December 1998, the 29th of December, I, 1988, I am sorry, 29th of December 1988.

MR VALLY: Sorry, could you possibly refer us to the paragraph numbers?

MR JOSEPH: Paragraph 33 on page ten. On the 29th of December 1988 the four young men, the four people, four human beings, four human beings arrive at the home of Mrs Mandela.

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: Yes. Who were these four people?

MR CEBEKHULU: It was Kenny Kgase, Pilo Mekgwe, Thabiso Mono.

MR JOSEPH: I am sorry, I never heard the names.

MR CEBEKHULU: Pilo Mekgwe, Thabiso Mono, Kenny Kgase and Stompie.

MR JOSEPH: And Stompie.

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: And Stompie, what is his surname?

MR CEBEKHULU: Stompie Sepei.

MR JOSEPH: Now, what happened to these four men? What I have in mind is what took place, what took place, what did you see take place?

MR CEBEKHULU: They were beaten at Mrs Mandela's house.

MR JOSEPH: They were?

MR CEBEKHULU: Beaten at Mrs Mandela's house at Diepkloof.

MR JOSEPH: Did you, once again, with your own eyes witness the assault?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: Who were the people who perpetrated the assaults?

MR CEBEKHULU: Mrs Mandela, I too.

MR JOSEPH: You participated?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: Richardson and Mpumolelo and the football team.

MR JOSEPH: And the members of the football team?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: Now, where did the assault take place?

MR CEBEKHULU: At Mrs Mandela's house.

MR JOSEPH: Where about in Mrs Mandela's house?

MR CEBEKHULU: In the courtyard, in the back room.

MR JOSEPH: In the back courtyard?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: Now, are you able to recall the method or the manner in which this young man was assaulted? Are you able to recall the method or the manner in which this young man was assaulted?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: These young men were assaulted, I beg your pardon.

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: Well, describe it to the Commission.

MR CEBEKHULU: I brought a sjambok and then I hand it over to Mrs Mandela and then she whip Stompie. He is the first to whip Stompie. She said they are sleeping with the white man and Stompie he work with the police and Mrs Mandela started to whip them. Richardson, he took the foot in the hands and they lift him up and they drop him on the floor.

MR JOSEPH: Just stop there for one moment. You testified to some language or some words that were articulated, some words that were spoken by Mrs Mandela during the beating. I heard you say you sleep with the white man. Is that correct?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: And I heard you say something about the police. MR CEBEKHULU: Yes, they work with the police.

MR JOSEPH: Work with the police?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: Is there another word for a person who works with the police?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes, spy.

MR JOSEPH: Another word?

MR CEBEKHULU: Impipi.

MR JOSEPH: And the word that we all use, what is that?

MR CEBEKHULU: Informer?

MR JOSEPH: Thank you. So, Mrs Mandela accused this young man of having slept with a white man and having been a police informer.

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: Now, you had something to do with the false allegation being made. Namely, the false allegation that Father Verryn ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: He is actually Bishop now and Methodists do not call themselves Father. No, he has got a right, you call him Father. I think it is probably the easiest for (...indistinct).

MR JOSEPH: In our profession we would refer to him as Father as he then was. Father Verryn, as he then was, who is now the Bishop. You had made false allegations about Father Verryn having had sexual intercourse with a 14 year old man or having sexually abused a 14 year old man.

MR CEBEKHULU: No.

MR JOSEPH: Not no.

MR JOSEPH: No, the way you ask your question. I am the one who made the allegation ... (intervention).

MR JOSEPH: Yes.

MR CEBEKHULU: ... by Mrs Mandela's order that Paul raped me.

MR JOSEPH: Mr Cebekhulu, listen to the question. For whatever reason you made the allegation and whose ever to blame for the allegation, I understand your evidence to be the allegation that Father Verryn had sodomised the young man to be untruthful. Is that correct?

MR CEBEKHULU: No.

MR JOSEPH: I beg your pardon, that, and in regard to Stompie, you never made any allegations about Stompie? I am sorry.

MR CEBEKHULU: No.

MR JOSEPH: You never made any allegations about Stompie?

MR CEBEKHULU: No.

MR JOSEPH: No. I beg your pardon. In regard to yourself, you had made allegations that Father Verryn had slept with you. Is that correct?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: And those allegations were false?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: Is that correct? Mr Chairman, I, Mr Chairman, I do not propose to get involved in the details of these allegations. It seems to me from reading the subpoena that that activity is not regarded as a gross human violation. It certainly has to do with the general credibility that involves serious cross-examination. I take the lead from you, Mr Chairman, that we will be gentle on the victim. So, I leave the matter ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, go ahead.

MR JOSEPH: For how long did they keep Stompie?

MR CEBEKHULU: About an hour, 45 minutes.

MR JOSEPH: About 45 minutes?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR NTSEBEZA: Mr Joseph, I do not think your question will show in the record.

MR JOSEPH: Should I repeat the question?

MR NTSEBEZA: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: The question is for how long, on the 29th of December, did the people you have referred to assault Stompie in the home of Mrs Mandela?

MR CEBEKHULU: Forty five minutes.

MR JOSEPH: Forty five minutes. What happened to Stompie on that day after he was assaulted? Was he taken anywhere, was he left somewhere or did you leave the room where he was assaulted?

MR CEBEKHULU: No.

MR JOSEPH: What happened?

MR CEBEKHULU: The doctor came.

MR JOSEPH: Did the doctor come the same day or did he come the following day?

MR CEBEKHULU: The following day.

MR JOSEPH: The 29th is the day of the assault ... (intervention).

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: ... the 30th is the following day, the 30th is the day that the doctor arrived? Correct?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: Then the Commissioners can infer or am I correct in saying this, that after the assault on the day of the 29th, the young man was left in the house of Mrs Mandela? Is that correct?

MR CEBEKHULU: No.

MR JOSEPH: No, what happened to him?

MR CEBEKHULU: Stompie was beaten on 29 ... (intervention). MR JOSEPH: Yes.

MR CEBEKHULU: And then they, we did not go, I went and see the doctor the next day.

MR JOSEPH: Yes.

MR CEBEKHULU: And then the doctor did not come the next day, he came the third day, because I remember the day we beat Stompie, we did not go and see the doctor.

MR JOSEPH: All that concerns me is that after Stompie was assaulted, did he remain on the premises of Mrs Mandela's house or was he taken away?

MR CEBEKHULU: He remain at Mrs Mandela' house.

MR JOSEPH: Yes, and on the day he was assaulted and after the assault was he rendered any medical assistance or treatment?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: By whom?

MR CEBEKHULU: Dr Asvat.

MR JOSEPH: On the same day, on the 29th?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Order please. Just, maybe you have to put your question. Order please.

MR JOSEPH: On the day of the 29th when Stompie was assaulted, I understand your evidence that Dr Asvat did not come to the house. I talk about the 29th of December. Am I correct?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: The next day, did Dr Asvat come to the house?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: May I just get some clarity about matters which have nothing to do with the evidence. Mr Cebekhulu, Mr Cebekhulu ... (intervention).

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: ... is my evidence being translated to you in Zulu?

MR CEBEKHULU: I think that would be better.

MR JOSEPH: Are you happier like that?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Order please, order. Just give him a chance, he is counting on his fingers to try and get the dates, I think, and he is still calculating.

MR JOSEPH: Mr Cebekhulu.

MR CEBEKHULU: Yebo.

MR JOSEPH: Let me help you this way. On the 30th of December, that is the day after the assault, did you go with Mrs Mandela to the consulting rooms of Dr Asvat?

MR CEBEKHULU: You mean the day in which he was beaten, no. We went the following day.

MR JOSEPH: Do not do this to me.

CHAIRPERSON: It is one of the official languages.

MR JOSEPH: If anybody can hear me, I can hear nothing.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got it on channel two?

MR JOSEPH: Yes. Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you all right now? Can you hear yourself?

MR JOSEPH: I can hear you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

MR JOSEPH: Now, on the 30th of December, Mrs Mandela took you to see Dr Asvat. Is that correct?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: And you went to see Dr Asvat to enable Dr Asvat to examine you. Is that correct?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: Now, what was the purpose of the examination, to ascertain what?

MR CEBEKHULU: He say I being raped by Paul Verryn.

MR JOSEPH: And what did Mrs Mandela want of Dr Asvat?

MR CEBEKHULU: Please repeat your question.

MR JOSEPH: You mention that or your evidence is that it was mentioned to Dr Asvat that you had been raped by a particular man. What did Mrs Mandela want of Dr Asvat relating to this rape?

MR CEBEKHULU: I do not know.

MR JOSEPH: You do not know? You do not know, is that your answer? Did Mrs Mandela want Dr Asvat to examine you in order to ascertain from a medical point of view whether something had happened?

MR MPOFU: Well, Mr Chairperson, I do not think we change to leading questions ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MPOFU: ... purely because we cannot obtain a proper answer from the witness.

MR JOSEPH: Mr Cebekhulu, can you continue answering in English as you have done and then I do not have to go through this difficulty? Are you happy to answer in English?

MR CEBEKHULU: Okay. It is yes, okay.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MR JOSEPH: When a person visits a doctor they usually go there for a reason. Mrs Mandela took you to the doctor. Can you remember the reason why Mrs Mandela took you to the doctor?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: What was the reason?

MR CEBEKHULU: It was for the rape.

MR JOSEPH: For the rape. Now, what do doctors do when they are told that there is an allegation that a person has been raped? What are they going to do?

MR CEBEKHULU: They examine the person who has been raped.

MR JOSEPH: They examine the person. Did Dr Asvat examine you?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: He did examine you and what did he find?

MR CEBEKHULU: He did not find anything.

MR JOSEPH: Okay. You then went back to Mrs Mandela's house.

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: Is that correct? Now, I have reminded you about telling the Commission only of matters that you saw with your own eyes. Correct? You remember that? However, the Commission will take evidence of hearsay matters, that is matters that have been told to you, matters that you have not seen or witnessed with your own eyes. Was anything told to you or did you hear from anybody anything that related to the treatment of Stompie while you were away at the doctor? Was anything told to you about Stompie while you were away at the doctor?

MR CEBEKHULU: No.

MR JOSEPH: Did you see Stompie the following morning?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: Did any doctor or any person visit Stompie with a view to assisting him from a medical point of view?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes, Dr Asvat came.

MR JOSEPH: And do you know what Dr Asvat said?

MR CEBEKHULU: When he came he went to Mrs Mandela's room, sitting room, you know, the sitting room.

MR JOSEPH: Yes. And?

MR CEBEKHULU: And then after that he went to check Stompie. They brought Stompie in the waiting room and then the doctor he check him.

MR JOSEPH: Did you see the doctor check him?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: Did the doctor say anything to Mr, Mrs Mandela about the condition?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: What did he say?

MR CEBEKHULU: He say who beat the boy like this. I cannot remember what he reply Mrs Mandela.

MR JOSEPH: Did the doctor suggest ... (intervention).

MR CEBEKHULU: But the doctor asked, he say who has beat the boy like this.

MR JOSEPH: Ja. Did the doctor suggest anything in regard to treating the young boy?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: What did he suggest?

MR CEBEKHULU: He should be taken to the hospital.

MR JOSEPH: Okay. Now, if you turn, you have the affidavit in front of you, do you?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: You turn to the last page of the affidavit, members of the Commission, may I ask you or invite you to turn to the last page of the affidavit. You should find a sketch.

CHAIRPERSON: Can I just intervene here. This is the whole question of language. I know you have some inconvenience, but I want to be quite certain and I must be quite certain you are happy to give your evidence in English or do you want to speak in Zulu? Now, you should be free and say exactly and now we will not change from now on. Do you want to speak in Zulu? He will speak in English, you will hear the translation in Zulu in your ear, but I would suggest that you speak in the language in which you are most comfortable. Now, if it is English, that is all right, but I would suggest that it probably would be better if it was another language. What language do you want to use?

MR CEBEKHULU: It is fine when my attorney speaks in English, because I get the Zulu interpretation.

CHAIRPERSON: Which language do you want to use yourself? Zulu or English?

MR CEBEKHULU: I will use Zulu.

CHAIRPERSON: And do not worry, he will be translated. Now, I think you have to put it, number three. You have got it in number three? Right you are.

 MR VALLY: . . . I understand it to be a typographical error, it would be the last line on Page 36, on Page 11, Paragraph 36. Page 11, Paragraph 36, the last line it reads "do a five hour slob" that I understand is a typographical error it should be a "five minute" and I think it is "jog".

After, sorry, we now go to this sketch which appears at the very last page of the affidavit, do you have it?.

MR CEBUKHULU: Yes.

MR VALLY: Now this is a sketch of - what is it a sketch of?

MR MKHIZE: For the accident. It is an accident sketch.

MR VALLY: An accident sketch, OK. Is this, I can read words "Main House Garage" is this a sketch of a house?

MR CEBUKHULU: Yes, it is true.

MR VALLY: Whose house appears in this sketch?

MR CEBUKHULU: It is Winnie’s house.

MR VALLY: Fine. Now, I will come back to this sketch in a moment. That evening do you remember whether Mr Richardson was there?

MR CEBUKHULU: Yes.

MR VALLY: Did you see Mr Richardson have a conversation with anybody or speak to anybody that is of importance for the Commissioner for the Commission?

MR CEBUKHULU: Yes.

MR VALLY: Who did he speak to?

MR CEBUKHULU: He spoke to Winnie.

MR VALLY: And what did he say to Winnie that was important?

MR CEBUKHULU: He said, Winnie said to Richardson, please repeat your question.

MR VALLY: Let’s start all over again. I am asking you about matters which are of importance to the Commission, you know what they are investigating. Did Mr Richardson speak to anybody that evening, when I say speak to anybody, I mean speak to somebody which you witnessed the conversation. Did you hear him tell anybody something?

MR CEBUKHULU: No.

MR VALLY: Did he speak to Stompie at all?

MR CEBUKHULU: No.

MR VALLY: You have attached this plan of the house to this affidavit for a particular reason, is that correct?

MR CEBUKHULU: Yes.

MR VALLY: What is that reason?

MR CEBUKHULU: It is about the death of a person.

MR VALLY: Who is the person?

MR CEBUKHULU: Namely Sisto(?)

MR VALLY: Once again, please only tell what you witnessed with your own eyes, what you saw with your own eyes. Are you able to assist this Commission by tendering evidence, direct evidence relating to the death of Stompie?

MR CEBUKHULU: I saw her killing Stompie. I am referring to Winnie.

MR VALLY: Can I just interrupt now. You pick up your hand and you pointed at Mrs Mandela, you have been sitting in this Commission and we understand the emotions and passions that run high. Would you please continue to give your evidence without pointing fingers and just articulating what is in your mind, by only speaking and look in my direction or the direction of the Commission. OK.

MR CEBUKHULU: Yes. I am sorry.

MR VALLY: You say you witnessed the death of Stompie. Correct?

MR CEBUKHULU: Yes, I witnessed.

MR VALLY: Where did the death of Stompie take place?

MR CEBUKHULU: In Winnie’s house.

MR VALLY: Would you turn to the sketch that you have made of Winnie’s house and indicate to the Commission whereabouts in what you call Winnie’s house this particular incident occurred.

MR CEBUKHULU: This took place where, in the room where there was kids, where the Jacuzzi, in the Jacuzzi room.

MR VALLY: The Jacuzzi room? Is the Jacuzzi not in the outside?

MR CEBUKHULU: Yes.

MR VALLY: If you look at the map again, you have there a rectangular square and that has written the words "Main House" that is what anybody would understand by Main House, that is where the household lived, is that correct?

MR CEBUKHULU: Yes, that is correct.

MR VALLY: Steps going down is that into the open air?

MR CEBUKHULU: Yes.

MR VALLY: And Jacuzzi, that is in the open air?

MR CEBUKHULU: Yes.

MR VALLY: OK. On what day did you witness the killing of Stompie. Do you remember the day?

MR CEBUKHULU: It was at night.

MR VALLY: What was the date was it the 1^st of December, the 1^st of June, you have told the Commission that Stompie came to the house on the 29^th December and was assaulted, now how many days after his arrival at the house, after the initial assault took place, did you witness the death of Stompie?

MR CEBUKHULU: Two or three days.

MR VALLY: After the 29^th December 1988.

MR CEBUKHULU: Yes.

MR VALLY: Was it during the daytime or was it at night that the assault . . .

MR CEBUKHULU: It was at night.

MR VALLY: What time at night?

MR CEBUKHULU: It was at night, I don’t quite remember the time.

MR VALLY: OK. Just try and be of assistance, was it sometimes people refer to night time as actually being 2 ‘o clock in the morning or night time being 9 ‘o clock in the evening, try and assist this Commission.

MR CEBUKHULU: It was after midnight because I was sleeping.

MR VALLY: Now, you have implicated Mrs Mandela in the murder of Stompie and you say the murder occurred in the evening more or less where you have indicated on the map. Was Mrs Mandela alone or was she with anybody else?

MR CEBUKHULU: She was with others.

MR VALLY: Who else?

MR CEBUKHULU: It was Richardson.

MR VALLY: Now it seems to me that your evidence is that you witnessed this late at night would that be round about midnight, a little before midnight, a little after midnight. When would it be?

MR CEBUKHULU: It was at night.

MR VALLY: OK. Did, how did it come about that you happen to be in this area at night. Why were you there?

MR CEBUKHULU: I was coming from the rest room from the toilet.

MR VALLY: Look at the map, the plan and indicate to the Commission which toilet you were coming from?

MR CEBUKHULU: This is the toilet I am referring to.

MR VALLY: The toilet which appears in the left top corner?

MR CEBUKHULU: Yes.

MR VALLY: Where you were coming from the toilet. Is that correct?

MR CEBUKHULU: Yes, I was coming from the toilet.

MR VALLY: And where were you going?

MR CEBUKHULU: I was going back to the bedroom.

MR VALLY: The bedroom, does it appear on this map?

MR CEBUKHULU: This bedroom, I am pointing at.

MR VALLY: I can’t see.

MR CEBUKHULU: This is the bedroom I am referring to.

MR VALLY: Area 2.

MR CEBUKHULU: Yes. This is the one I am pointing at.

DR RANDERA: Father, I am sorry, we don’t have that map we have another map in our files with no, no, we don’t have that map, I can tell you that for sure. No.

MR VALLY: I beg your pardon, you have the affidavit that I am following in, may I then be of assistance and give you my map, to an extent I am able to recall what is over here.

MR VALLY: . . . Is in the left hand top corner and the room that he was going to is in the right hand top corner.

MR VALLY: Mr Chairman I am ready.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think so.

MR VALLY: I think let’s rather not waste time, we can visualise . .

CHAIRPERSON: How much more time are you envisaging?

MR VALLY: What I am going to canvass is the death of Stompie, there is some detail which you have to hear and then would shortly come to an end.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

MR VALLY: May I in fairness to my learned friend Mr Semenya who if I can just take this off through, I don’t believe has got an affidavit, do you have the map at all Mr Semenya?

MR SEMENYA: I have just been given one, yes, thank you.

MR VALLY: OK. I am sorry, do you have the affidavit as well Mr Semenya.

MR SEMENYA: Even that I have just been given, thank you.

The speakers mike is not on!

MR VALLY: . . . On about Page 11, this that’s where the sentence is. Right, now, we have the picture, it is night time, you have just left the toilet and you are moving towards your sleeping quarters and you observe some people, is that correct?

MR CEBUKHULU: Yes that is correct.

MR VALLY: Did these people see you?

MR CEBUKHULU: I don’t know.

MR VALLY: Was there anything obstructing you from the view of these people?

MR CEBUKHULU: Yes.

MR VALLY: What was that?

MR CEBUKHULU: It was the flowers.

MR VALLY: Is there anything grows a little higher?

MR CEBUKHULU: Those long flowers.

MR VALLY: Were they bush, would you call it a bush? OK. Now, who did you see and what did you see this person or these people do. Who did you see and what did you see this person or these people do?

MR CEBUKHULU: I saw Richardson coming from this point to the other direction holding something in his hand.

MR VALLY: Were you able to recognise what this "something" was?

MR CEBUKHULU: Yes.

MR VALLY: What was this "something"?

MR CEBUKHULU: A person.

MR VALLY: Are you able to name the person?

MR CEBUKHULU: I don’t know the person. But it was a person.

MR VALLY: You saw Richardson holding a person.

MR CEBUKHULU: Yes.

MR VALLY: At any stage . . . (indistinct) did you learn what the name of the name of the person was?

MR CEBUKHULU: Subsequently yes, I got to know.

MR VALLY: That person.

MR CEBUKHULU: Stompie.

MR VALLY: . . . say that you don’t know who the person was when you saw Richardson carrying a person, is that because it was dark and you were unable to see, is that correct, is that the reason?

MR CEBUKHULU: Yes it was dark at night.

MR VALLY: Now, was Mrs Mandela anywhere nearby?

MR CEBUKHULU: She was standing right next the to the Jacuzzi and Richardson put the person here and I saw Mandela’s wife, he, raising up his hands twice, her hands twice.

MR VALLY: I don’t think you have to refer to anybody as somebody’s wife. I think you can refer to the person by their actual name. Who did you see?

MR CEBUKHULU: I saw Winnie.

MR VALLY: . . . the lady who sits in this Commission. Is that right?

MR CEBUKHULU: Yes, that is correct.

MR VALLY: Now, slowly, what did you see her do?

MR CEBUKHULU: I saw her raising her hands twice.

MR VALLY: Did she have anything in her hand.

MR CEBUKHULU: Yes.

MR VALLY: What did she have in her hand?

MR CEBUKHULU: It was something that was shining. I saw her raising her hand twice.

MR VALLY: Raise the hand twice, I have difficulty with that concept how a person raises her hand twice. What happens, just think about what you are telling us. After the hand was raised for the first time did you see what . . .

MR CEBUKHULU: She was stabbing. She stabbed twice.

MR VALLY: . . . is your evidence then that Mrs Mandela with an object in her hand raised her hand above her head, now the hand is in the air, what then happened with the hand, what did you then see?

MR CEBUKHULU: She raised her hands twice and pulled down as well, in a form of stabbing and I left immediately into my bedroom, I was scared as to what I was seeing whether it was a nightmare or what.

MR VALLY: You use the word "stab" is that correct?

MR CEBUKHULU: Yes.

MR VALLY: In this movement with the hand which is holding an object going up and down, did you hear any sounds, any human sounds, sounds which come from a human being?

MR CEBUKHULU: Yes, I heard a sound, I said I heard a voice.

MR VALLY: You heard a voice?

MR CEBUKHULU: Yes.

MR VALLY: Whose voice?

MR CEBUKHULU: Of that person. I heard a voice of a person.

MR VALLY: Well, whose voice was it that you heard?

MR CEBUKHULU: Please repeat your question.

MR VALLY: Whose voice did you hear. You say you heard a voice. Who was the person behind the voice?

MR CEBUKHULU: I don’t know the person’s name.

MR VALLY: . . . Did you find out the person’s name?

MR CEBUKHULU: Yes.

MR VALLY: What was the person’s name.

MR CEBUKHULU: It was Stompie.

MR VALLY: . . . to answer my question using the interpreter. When you say I heard a voice, do you mean you heard a person speak or do you mean you heard some other noise that emanates from people?

MR CEBUKHULU: I heard a voice, I heard a voice of a baby, I heard a voice like that of a baby, you can put it that way.

MR VALLY: Mr Cebukhulu I know it is late, I just want you to be accurate, when you refer to a baby are you talking about a baby that a mother holds in her arms, what are you talking about when you say "I heard the voice of a baby"? . . . that the correct translation of the language is used is not a baby but a child. Is that correct?

MR CEBUKHULU: Yes.

MR VALLY: Mr Cebukhulu please try and be accurate you are speaking in Zulu. You heard a voice, you heard a noise, was it, what age would you say the person was who made this . . .

MR CEBUKHULU: It was a voice of a young person. The voice of a young person. Very young person.

MR VALLY: Did see the person who was being stabbed? Did you see the person being stabbed?

MR CEBUKHULU: No, I couldn’t see the person.

MR VALLY: The person.

MR CEBUKHULU: No, I wasn’t able to see the person who was being stabbed.

MR VALLY: Today, to tell the Commission who the person was who was stabbed.

MR CEBUKHULU: Yes, I am able to.

MR VALLY: Who was the person?

MR CEBUKHULU: It was Stompie.

MR VALLY: . . . it was Stompie if you say at the time of the stabbing you could not see the person who was stabbed?

MR CEBUKHULU: I heard the following day when I woke up, I went to where I saw Winnie, there was absolutely nothing, no water, but I could see droplets of blood and I went into the other rooms where the other people had been assaulted and I found, I tried to find out from them as to where Stompie was because he wasn’t in his room. They said Stompie had been taken by Richardson the previous night.

MR VALLY: They told you that Richardson had taken Stompie the previous night.

MR CEBUKHULU: Yes, that is correct.

MR VALLY: Did you ever see Stompie again?

MR CEBUKHULU: Not at all.

MR VALLY: Was there anybody living at the house apart from the young children of the Mandela family who were the size of the person you saw Richardson carry out to the Jacuzzi that evening?

MR CEBUKHULU: Absolutely not.

MR VALLY: You saw Richardson carrying a person out from a particular room, is that correct?

MR CEBUKHULU: That is correct.

MR VALLY: In which room was Stompie . . .

MR CEBUKHULU: From the room that had a sliding door.

MR VALLY: After Stompie was assaulted, in which room was he living in the house? Did you know?

MR CEBUKHULU: At which stage are you referring to.

MR VALLY: After Stompie was assaulted do you know in which room Stompie went to sleep at night?

MR CEBUKHULU: He slept in the room with the sliding door.

MR VALLY: The room from which you saw Richardson on the night carry a small person.

MR CEBUKHULU: That is correct.

MR VALLY: There was no other person in the house who fitted the description of the small person you saw Richardson carry?

MR CEBUKHULU: No.

MR VALLY: OK. Mr Chairman, if I may just address you, in so far as the rest of the evidence is concerned and taking into the account the lateness of the hour, subject to you permission and authority, I think allow me to then lead this witness to other matters and then if there is anything that we have to dwell on, if there is anything that we have to dwell on then we can deal with that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I would be grateful if you would and do it as swiftly as you can without prejudicing the witness.

MR VALLY: Now, the death of Stompie Sepei resulted in you or in your arrest together with Mrs Mandela and certain other people. Is that correct?

MR CEBUKHULU: Yes, that is correct.

MR VALLY: And you were arrested and you were then released on bail?

MR CEBUKHULU: Yes, that is correct.

MR VALLY: Your evidence is to the effect that you laid a complaint against Mrs Mandela. You laid the complaint with a Cpt. Dempsey and you laid the complaint with the Prosecutor with the name of Van Vuuren. Is that correct?

MR CEBUKHULU: Yes, that is true.

MR VALLY: Did you accuse Mrs Mandela of having done anything to these gentlemen?

MR CEBUKHULU: Yes, I accused Mrs Mandela but they did not believe my story. I went to the police to report the matter that is Stompie’s death and they told me straight that they didn’t believe me and I went to Prosecutor Van Vuuren. He also expressed views that he did not believe me. I requested to see the Judge. I got lost at some stage.

MR VALLY: But I understand that at a later stage your freedom was interrupted were you arrested again. Correct?

MR CEBUKHULU: Yes. That is correct.

MR VALLY: And the police officers took you to the house of Mrs Mandela?

MR CEBUKHULU: No, that is not correct.

MR VALLY: . . . to the house of Mrs Mandela?

MR CEBUKHULU: I saw her in the office. I saw her in the office in 1988. I was not a politically aware person and many people were being killed . . . (indistinct) from an area that had a lot of violence and I was from a poor home, I had gone to Johannesburg to try and earn some means of living.

MR VALLY: Mr Cebukhulu concentrate on the question and try and answer the question. OK. I understand that at a certain stage you were assaulted and you ended up in hospital. Is that correct?

MR CEBUKHULU: That is correct.

MR VALLY: And that occurred after you had been arrested together with Mrs Mandela and other people in connection with the death of Stompie. Is that correct?

MR CEBUKHULU: Yes, that is correct.

MR VALLY: You went to see Mrs Mandela in a building in the centre of Johannesburg. Do you remember the name of that building?

MR CEBUKHULU: No. I don’t remember the name of the building. I do remember the name. Morgan told me to accompany him, he was going to Johannesburg, City Centre, I went with him. When we got there it was the very first time for me to see Shell House. I had not been there before. When we got into Shell House, we got into a lift, we . . .

MR VALLY: OK. Mr Cebukhulu, Morgan took you to Shell House, Shell House we all know to be the head quarters of the ANC in Johannesburg at that time, you went into Shell House and you were introduced to Mrs Mandela. Is that correct?

MR CEBUKHULU: Yes, that is correct.

MR VALLY: Mrs Mandela gave you an option, you can do this or you can do that. What is the option she gave you?

MR CEBUKHULU: She said if I would either go to Swaziland or she would do as she pleased with me.

MR VALLY: And did she promise you anything in Swaziland?

MR CEBUKHULU: Yes, she promised me that if I go to Swaziland she would help me to further my education and give me some accommodation and some money.

MR VALLY: I see, now, you then made an election. What did you elect to do, you elected to go to Swaziland?

MR CEBUKHULU: I agreed because I was scared.

MR VALLY: Why were you scared?

MR CEBUKHULU: I was scared to go to wherever she wanted me to go to.

MR VALLY: But you weren’t scared to go to Swaziland?

MR CEBUKHULU: No, I was scared of Mrs Mandela herself, so I elected to go to Swaziland because I was scared to be around her.

MR VALLY: I understand you were then met two men who have something to do with the African National Congress and they took you to Swaziland. Is that correct?

MR CEBUKHULU: That is correct.

MR VALLY: From Swaziland you were met . . .

MR CEBUKHULU: They gave me to two unknown men who travelled me through the forest and at a later stage I was taken to Mozambique, I was handed over to another unknown male who said his name was Teddy, and this Teddy took me, I did not have a plane ticket, I did not have any clothes with but I was flown all by myself and I got to Angola.

I was also taken by another unknown person in Angola who introduced himself to me as Desta or Dexter. I was taken to Zambia. When I got to Zambia I was told not to run away and I was kept in a room. They interrogated me and they said I was working with the police because Winnie had told them that but I denied all the allegations. They asked me as to how Siswe Tola(?) died.

MR VALLY: Mr Cebukhulu if I may interrupt you, you then arrived in Zambia and that would have been, when was that, can you give us a date, more or less, that would have been when?

MR CEBUKHULU: I think I arrived in Zambia. Yes, I think it was in 1989, I remember the day I was taken, it was on a Friday because on that Monday I was due to appear in Court.

MR VALLY: . . . put the question differently. How long after you saw the stabbing take place in the house of Mrs Mandela did you arrive in Zambia, approximately. Two or three days, two or three weeks, two or three months. Just approximately.

MR CEBUKHULU: I think it was after some months.

MR VALLY: Right, after a number of months? Let me repeat the question. You arrived in Zambia after a number of months, is that correct?

MR CEBUKHULU: I think I arrived in Zambia in 1991.

MR VALLY: . . . (inaudible) did you end up in prison in Zambia?

MR CEBUKHULU: That is correct, I was incarcerated.

MR VALLY: . . . how long were you in prison in Zambia?

MR CEBUKHULU: I remained for two years and eight months.

MR VALLY: Who was the person instrumental in your release? You indicate Mrs . . .

MR CEBUKHULU: The person sitting next to me.

MR VALLY: . . . sitting next to you?

MR CEBUKHULU: Its Emma.

MR VALLY: You were taken to England and I understand Mrs Nicholson has been looking after you?

MR CEBUKHULU: No, I did not go to England immediately. I went to Sera Leon(?).

MR VALLY: And from there?

MR CEBUKHULU: I went to England.

MR VALLY: And you’d been out of the country since the day you left South Africa after you had a discussion with Mrs Mandela and the two men took you to Swaziland and from that date until the Sunday morning 23^rd you have been out of South Africa. Is that correct?

MR CEBUKHULU: That is true.

MR VALLY: In the evidence and I just make a suggestion for your consideration, I know the extent of Mrs Nicholson’s evidence, the affidavit that we have been using is her affidavit where she relates evidence which is being told to her by Mr Cebukhulu.

I do not propose to lead Mrs Nicholson to repeat hearsay evidence, you have the first hand evidence and that is what I think is what you should accept. But one of the issues to be enquired into and if I may just identify it for the record it is item No. T. The abduction and imprisonment of Katiza Cebukhulu in 1991. This relates to his experience in Lusaka. The import of Baroness Nicholson’s evidence will be to the effect that she is a member of Parliament and she is involved in refugee work and charity work around the world and she happens to come across this young man who is languishing in prison and I intend to lead her on that type of evidence.

I have a suggestion, bearing in mind that they are to fly out of the country this evening. In the ordinary course what should happen is Mr Cebukhulu should be subject to cross-examination by the various representatives. I am wandering whether it wouldn’t speed up things, because I don’t anticipate her evidence is going to be controversial from the point of view that it implicates on first hand knowledge any personality over here. It might well be to hear her evidence in regard to what she can tell you and your Commissioners about Zambia and when each person then cross-examines you will then have an indication that the cross-examination will only related to the evidence of Mr Cebukhulu. This might speed up things, it might not. I don’t know what . . .

CHAIRPERSON: It makes eminent good sense.

MR VALLY: Baroness, it is better when people address Mrs Nicholson that you look at them.

Baroness would you please give the Commission your full title.

MRS NICHOLSON: Archbishop, I have a small piece of evidence for you as our lawyer has suggested I found Katiza Cebukhulu by chance in October 1991.

MR VALLY: Baroness, Baroness, Baroness, I need to interrupt you, will you please just give the Commission your title, who you are, they would like to know who you are.

MRS NICHOLSON: My name is Emma Harriott Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne. I am a liberal democrat working . . .(indistinct) here and before that I was a member of Parliament for ten years and my last task in the House of Commons which ended in April 1^st of this year was as Liberal Democrat Spokesperson on Human Rights.

MR VALLY: Now, your involvement with Human Rights and I understand has taken you around the world?

MRS NICHOLSON: I was for twelve years a director of Save the Children Fund before entering Parliament and I also assisted the Duke of Edinburgh Aware Scheme. Since entering Parliament I have founded five charities, one of which is extremely large and has now dealt with over a six year period, three quarters of a million refugees.

MR VALLY: Arising from . . .

CHAIRPERSON: I didn’t know you were so violent.

MRS NICHOLSON: Laughter. . .

MR VALLY: I am not even going to try and get into this aspect of it, but somehow or another, you have the ability, you have the influence where you are able to sit and talk to Heads of State, correct? Some Heads of State?

MRS NICHOLSON: Yes.

MR VALLY: You had occasion to have a discussion with President Kaunda and you had occasion to have discussions with current President whose name is Chiluba. Now you had discussions with President Chiluba and had discussions with President Kaunda and of the many discussions you have had Katiza Cebukhulu came up. Would you in your own language tell the Commission the predicaments in which you found Mr Cebukhulu, whether he was being incarcerated lawful or unlawfully, who was perhaps behind his incarceration and what steps you took to liberate him.

MRS NICHOLSON: I first met Mr Cebukhulu in the State House President Chiluba as occupying the morning after he was elected as President for the first time in October 1991. I had asked President Chiluba to find him but I had been President Chiluba three hours earlier.

I had done that because I had been alerted by a British journalist that there was a prisoner in Zambia jail, a Zambian jail who was a foreigner and had not been tried. As a Human Rights Activist therefore I sought to find and help him.

MR VALLY: And then, carry on.

MRS NICHOLSON: President Chiluba had not heard the name of Katiza Cebukhulu and did not believe that Zambia jails housed non-Zambians for untried foreigners. As a favour to me he kindly agreed to look and several hours later his office called me back and said we found your man, you had better come and meet him.

MR VALLY: And you did that?

MRS NICHOLSON: I went straight back to State House and spent hours in State House with President Chiluba.

MR VALLY: . . . have information which you acquired from a British journalist that there was present incarcerated in a Zambian jail a foreign national who was imprisoned without trail, the President took an interest in this information and he secured the attendance of Mr Katiza Cebukhulu at State House in Lusaka. Is that correct.

MRS NICHOLSON: Yes.

MR VALLY: Now, did you find out how it came about that Katiza Cebukhulu a young man from Zululand ends up in a prison in Zambia, for how long, for how long was he in prison in Zambia?

MRS NICHOLSON: He left Britain in Zambia in 1994.

MR VALLY: For how long had he been incarcerated in prison in Zambia.

MRS NICHOLSON: I believe from subsequent information that he was placed in jail in about May 1991.

MR VALLY: He was released in 1994?

MRS NICHOLSON: Correct.

MR VALLY: On your visit and as a result of your effort. Correct?

MRS NICHOLSON: As a result of my efforts and the efforts of President Chiluba and the efforts of the United High Commissioner for Refugees in Zambia.

MR VALLY: Do you know how it came about that a foreigner would find himself incarcerated without a trial in a prison in Zambia. How did it come about?

MRS NICHOLSON: I obtained the knowledge from President Kaunda.

MR VALLY: You obtained knowledge from President Kenneth Kaunda?

MRS NICHOLSON: In 1997 I obtained that knowledge from President, . . . former President of Zambia, Kenneth Kaunda, who I had known for a very long time indeed.

MR VALLY: And what did former President Kenneth Kaunda tell you?

MRS NICHOLSON: Former President Kenneth Kaunda told me in a recorded interview, when he answered questions that I had created in an interview, that he had offered the ANC Freedom Fighters against apartheid from South Africa full facilities in Zambia to assist with training Freedom Fighters and secondly to assist as a boat hole for ANC or . . .(indistinct) ANC members who causing difficulty in the movement and that is a quotation.

MR VALLY: And then how did it come about that Katiza Cebukhulu found his way behind a locked door for such a long time?

MRS NICHOLSON: First, he found his way behind the locked doors because experts of Kenneth Kaunda when he was still President in early 1991 had received a telephone call from Oliver Tambo who as I understand headed the ANC in Zambia at that time, saying that this particular young man was one of the many who Kenneth Kaunda had been invited to look after who was in trouble with the Movement and would lose his life if he remained in South Africa.

Kenneth Kaunda had made an arrangement earlier that he would absorb these people and keep them out of harms way. He stated in prison so long because unfortunately his case was no ordinary case, in terms of the difficulties it gave to myself and . . . (indistinct) in finding him a placement.

In 1993 he became a UNHCR Refugee.

MR VALLY: Can you just, those initials, does it stand for the United Nations

MRS NICHOLSON: The United High Commissioner for Refugees headed then by Mrs . . . (indistinct). May I say the unusualness of this case is demonstrated by the fact that I immediately approached the United Kingdom for settlement because I believe it is a significant abuse of human rights to have someone imprisoned in another country without a trial. That should be addressed by any human rights activist.

The United Kingdom said no. I then approached Denmark and I gained the assistance of the UNHCR in approaching Denmark at well and Denmark gave a unique, I understand decision, it refused Mr Cebukhulu although he would have fallen inside the UNHCR quota for that year.

We then approached Sweden and incidentally the Danish file has got the politically sensitive parts which is most of it blotted out. We then approached Sweden who said no and when I asked for the files, the Swedes asked for the files surprisingly that file is not available, it is also stored in secret.

The USA said no, Canada said no, other European . . .(indistinct) in the Commonwealth said no. Other African Front-line States said no.

MR VALLY: May I just interrupt over here, interrupt you, the reason why you had gone to these lengths in order to find a refuge for Mr Cebukhulu is because Mr Cebukhulu fears for his life if he returns to South Africa, is that correct?

MRS NICHOLSON: It was not up to me to decide whether or not Mr Cebukhulu would return to South Africa, but it was clear that he did not wish to return to South Africa but I believe all of us have an obligation and a refugee conventions to assist refugees and loss of liberty for wrongful grounds is one of the first and most important items.

MR VALLY: But the reason Mr Cebukhulu doesn’t want to come back to South Africa is because he is afraid for his life.

MRS NICHOLSON: Yes, and the reason that I was given why other countries would not take his was because there was validity to that claim which meant that the expense of the protection they would have to give him would be so large, because I was told that he had offended one part of the ANC. I was also given to believe by a number of diplomats of different nationalities that if I pressed this case openly and publicly, I would cause the fragility of the ANC in 1991, ’92 and ’93 to be under great stress and I would put back the cause of getting rid of apartheid. That was a cause to which I was fully committed.

MR VALLY: At the present time the reluctance of all these countries to accept him as a refugee on your understanding is because he, Mr Katiza Cebukhulu has offended an element of the ANC.

MRS NICHOLSON: Yes, and ex-President Kenneth Kaunda told me in June 1997 that it was not a problem for the President. This was for another part of the ANC.

MR VALLY: The President being President Nelson Mandela?

MRS NICHOLSON: Yes, that this was not a problem with the Head of the ANC and his people, it was a problem with another wing.

MR VALLY: So your understanding is that there is a fraction in the ANC which has, which is able to influence these government agencies and has influenced these government agencies to the extent that they are not prepared to accept this man as a refugee. Is that correct?

MRS NICHOLSON: Yes and to add to that if I may, that there was also this well founded fear I believe, very well founded fear indeed that in the . . . (indistinct) abolishing of the apartheid in those last few crucial years to take an act . . . (indistinct) publicly which would expose a part of the ANC as maybe not up to standard, not up to International Human Rights standards would be a very unhelpful thing to do politically and I speak now as a Politician.

MR VALLY: Is there any other evidence you wish to give the Commission which you think would assist them in their task?

MRS NICHOLSON: Thank you for giving me that opportunity. Yes. I would like to put on record that I and therefore Mr Cebukhulu who granted me this Power of Attorney in 1995 by which time the problem seemed almost insoluble made a . . . (indistinct) to have another go that I and therefore on his behalf, Mr Cebukhulu have made large efforts to co-operate with Justice system of the new South Africa as soon as the government took power.

I wrote to Ministers, I offered to bring Mr Cebukhulu to South Africa to give evidence if that is what was required to make a statement, I requested that warrants for arrest were lifted to allow that to happen and I made extensive efforts even down to seeing South African Police myself when I had no obligation to do that. We have made very large efforts indeed and in that light I would like to say how grateful we are and I and I believe Mr Cebukhulu to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission for allowing and enabling this evidence at last to be taken.

MR VALLY: Thank you. Finished.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. How about a stretch, it is only for two minutes.

BREAK IN RECORDING

Thank you.

MR VALLY: Arch, what we are going to do is Mr Piers Pigou is going to ask Mr Cebukhulu some questions and I will ask a few questions of Mrs Nicholson. So Piers Pigou will start off.

MR PIGOU: Mr Cebukhulu, you have said in your statement that you spent two and a half years at Winnie Mandela’s house. Can you tell us whether that was a continuous period that you spent at the house.

MR CEBUKHULU: I stayed there permanently. It was a continuous stay.

MR PIGOU: During the Section 29 in Camera hearing where Mrs Mandela in September and October she indicated to us when asked about your stay at the house that you never stayed at the house and then qualified it by saying that you may have been put up for one night, are . . .(indistinct) that in the light of what you have just answered to my first question that that is not an accurate reflection of what happened?

MR CEBUKHULU: She is lying.

MR PIGOU: I just wanted to ask briefly about this book that has been recently published - Katiza’s Journey and to ask you whether details which are attributed to yourself, quotations and so forth are to all and intense and purposes an accurate reflection of what you can remember, the events that took place at that time.

MR CEBUKHULU: Yes.

MR PIGOU: You stated in the book that you came to, I am sorry, you say in one of your affidavits of the three affidavits that Mr Joseph has been talking about that you came to stay at Mrs Mandela’s house in either July or August of 1988. Now could you tell us which house that was, was it her house in Orlando or was it her house in Diepkloof.

MR CEBUKHULU: I was living in Diepkloof.

MR PIGOU: Mrs Mandela’s house was burned down in Orlando the end of July 1988 so you must have moved into the house in Diepkloof shortly after that incident. Could you tell me whether there was any talk amongst the other people living at the house about what had transpired, about the attack on Mrs Mandela’s house in July 1988?

MR CEBUKHULU: No.

MR PIGOU: Are you saying that there was absolutely no conversation whatsoever amongst people there about the circumstances which lead to the house being attacked and burnt?

MR CEBUKHULU: No.

MR PIGOU: Do you recall an incident in October of 1988 that would be two months after you had moved to the house, I believe the date is October 16^th when a man by the name of Tsoli Dlamini was shot dead?

MR CEBUKHULU: I don’t remember.

MR PIGOU: So, just to clarify there was no discussion also at the house about the circumstances around the death of Mr Tsoli Dlamini?

MR CEBUKHULU: No.

MR PIGOU: I would like to move to the circumstances around Mr Lolo Sono . . . (indistinct) that you have described in the affidavit that you have presented to us, do you have any knowledge of an incident that took place on the 9^th November which is three or four days before the date that you have given in relation to the assault on Lolo Sono in your affidavit concentrating on Lolo Sono, Paragraph 9, Page 2, you say that the date of that was the 12^th or the 13^th November 1988. I want to refer to an incident that occurred on the 9^th of November 1988 at the house of Mr Jerry Richardson.

Do you have any information about what happened on that day, at Jerry Richardson’s house?

MR CEBUKHULU: No.

MR PIGOU: Was Mr Richardson, when you arrived and stayed at the Mandela household, the head coach of the football team?

MR CEBUKHULU: That is correct.

MR PIGOU: Was he living at the house at the time at Mrs Mandela’s house.

MR CEBUKHULU: Yes. When I arrived he was living there.

MR PIGOU: During the time that, between the time that you arrived in August 1988 and the incident of the 12^th and 13^th November, the assault that you have alleged at Winnie Mandela’s house was Mr Richardson arrested?

MR CEBUKHULU: At which time?

MR PIGOU: Between the time that you arrived at the house in July or August 1988 well, we would presume it would be August because Mrs Mandela had already moved house and the date given in your affidavit as the dates of the assault of Mr Lolo Sono was Mr Richardson arrested?

MR CEBUKHULU: I have know knowledge thereof.

MR PIGOU: In your affidavit you have indicated that there was an assault on Mr Sono that you witnessed, now, Mrs Mandela has said that and I can quote, "I have been asked a question by Mr Vally are you aware of the allegation by Mr Katiza Cebukhulu to the affect that you gave instructions for Mr Lolo to be killed, . . . (indistinct) be killed" she responded that that was ridiculous, this is Page 124 of the first transcript of the In Camera Hearing.

MR CEBUKHULU: Page what?

MR PIGOU: Sorry, not in your record I think, your lawyer will have a record of the transcript of the public hearing, she is saying that that is a ridiculous allegation, are you maintaining that that is a ridiculous allegation or sorry, are you maintaining that that is not a ridiculous allegation.

MR CEBUKHULU: She is lying.

MR PIGOU: In your affidavit to the Commission, you have said in Paragraph 17, Page 4, that after having come back from Mr Sono’s house we drove back to her house, I left the car and she remained inside the car.

Paragraph 18 "The car was driven away with Lolo Sono still inside and silent, I never saw him again". In Katiza’s Journey there is another version, you say that "We went back to Winnie’s house", Page 13 of Katiza’s Journey, "We went back to Winnie’s house because the documents were not found, Winnie ordered Lolo to be killed", Winnie said "Take him away" it was her order to kill, Richardson and the others took him away he has never been seen since.

Could you tell the Commission which of the two versions, the one where you left the vehicle and the vehicle was driven away or the version in the book which says you went into the house and Winnie ordered Lolo to be killed and Richardson took him away. Which of the two versions is the version which actually happened?

MR CEBUKHULU: It’s the statement in my affidavit.

MR PIGOU: Thank you.

I would just like to ask quickly also about in terms of Lolo Sono incident, you say that Jerry Richardson was present when you went to the house of Mr Nicodemus Sono. Can you recall where he was sitting in the Kombi?

MR CEBUKHULU: At the back seat.

MR PIGOU: So he was sitting on the back seat with Lolo Sono?

MR CEBUKHULU: That is correct.

MR PIGOU: Did he speak at all during the conversation between Mrs Mandela and Mr Sono, was there any conversation from either Mr Richardson or yourself or any of the other members present?

MR CEBUKHULU: No. We did not speak.

MR PIGOU: I would just like to go to the allegation which is forms a chapter of the book in Katiza’s Journey, the entrapment of Paul Verryn, and I would like to ask you whether you maintain the version which is contained in this book that Xoliswa Falati is somehow in on this whole decision to bring down Paul Verryn that there was some sort of conspiracy between Mrs Mandela and Xoliswa Falati, do you maintain that version?

MR VALLY: Chairperson, I haven’t read the whole book myself, I have read the chapter that I think Mr Pigou is referring to, that is not my impression of what is said in the book, perhaps the witness can be first asked to confirm with that whether that in fact is the version.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you able to read a portion that would confirm your interpretation?

MR PIGOU: Thank you. I am going to actually try and find it, I am sorry, the actual page number is not with me in my notes there but my colleague Mr Vally will look for it and I will move on for the moment, or perhaps I could just ask instead of that whether you believe or whether you have alleged that Xoliswa Falati was part of that or indeed when you told Ms Falati what had happened, that this was the first time that she had any knowledge of this?

MR CEBUKHULU: Could you repeat your question?

MR PIGOU: Yes, what I am trying to find out is that Mr Cebukhulu is whether you think that there was some sort of an arrangement between Xoliswa Falati and Mrs Mandela, in connection with you reporting to Xoliswa Falati?

CHAIRPERSON: If you listen on your head set listen to the voice that comes from the head set so that you can understand. There is a button at the side to adjust your volume.

MR PIGOU: Would you like me to repeat the question Mr Cebukhulu?

MR CEBUKHULU: Yes.

MR PIGOU: I am just trying to establish whether, because my understanding of that particular chapter was that there was some sort of arrangement between Mrs Mandela and Xoliswa Falati in connection with your operation to go and trap Paul Verryn on Mrs Mandela’s instructions. Was Mrs Falati involved in this conspiracy that you are talking about that is between you and Mrs Mandela?

I am sorry, I didn’t get a response.

INTERPRETER: He says he doesn’t know.

MR PIGOU: I would like to move now to the past the assaults and the stabbing incident although perhaps I should just put in for the record that when we asked Mrs Mandela about the stabbing incident her response in Page 102 of the Section 29, 2^nd Hearing,

MR CEBUKHULU: Which date, Mr Pigou?

MR PIGOU: 2^nd Chapter 13^th October. That it is lunacy. That this allegation is lunacy that you did not witness this incident. Are you maintaining, Mr Cebukhulu that you actually saw Mrs Mandela stab Stompie Sepei.

MR CEBUKHULU: I saw Mrs Mandela, if I was lying, I think I need to be examined.

MR PIGOU: Thank you. Are you aware at all of the incidents which lead to the attempted murder of Mr Laratoria Effanay on the 3^rd January 1989?

MR CEBUKHULU: Yes.

MR PIGOU: Could you tell us what your knowledge is of that, because if my understanding is correct you were living at Mrs Mandela’s house again by this stage, on the 3^rd January.

MR CEBUKHULU: That is correct.

MR PIGOU: Were you involved in the attach on Mr Laratoria Effanay?

MR CEBUKHULU: No reply.

MR PIGOU: On the 16^th January 1989 you attended a public meeting in Dobsonville, I am referring now to a document which should be in the Commissioner’s file of a memorandum, it should be in everyone’s files, of a memorandum produced by Bishop Peter Storey entitled Accounts of Events related to the abduction of youths from Orlando West. It is a running commentary of events that transpired during this period following the abductions of the boys from the mass.

The meeting was during the evening in as I say in Dobsonville, the meeting started and I will read from this document which is Page 7, which I am referring to, that following evidence being led by Mr Palamichwa Entibisa Mono, to the meeting that this evidence is interrupted by the arrival of Krish Naidoo and Katiza, accompanied by one of the team. Katiza and the team member were excluded while the meeting debated whether it was safe to continue now that a team member knew where everyone was meeting. I will cut to where you are brought in and you give evidence admitting that you had participated in the beating of . . . (indistinct) Entibisa and Kenny and then asked why you responded "They were being beaten and I also felt like beating them" is that an accurate reflection of what was your feeling at the time when you were involved in the assaults? Katiza alleged that Verryn had "Lain on top of him on one occasion" asked for an exact description of Stompie’s injuries he said "He was quite soft on one side of the head and being beaten so he couldn’t see out of his eyes and had been picked up and dropped on the floor so that he couldn’t walk" is that what you told the meeting?

MR CEBUKHULU: That is correct.

MR PIGOU: So from the last time that we have had evidence led here by Council for Mr Richardson that Jerry Richardson actually walked out of the Mandela’s household with a certain slash to the veld where he subsequently met his death. Now are you saying from the time that you saw Mr Stompie Sepei that he couldn’t walk, he was in a condition where he couldn’t have walked?

MR CEBUKHULU: No answer on tape.

MR PIGOU: Why didn’t you tell the meeting that you had witnessed Stompie Sepei being stabbed by Mrs Mandela?

MR CEBUKHULU: I was scared of Winnie.

MR PIGOU: Who asked you to attend that meeting?

MR CEBUKHULU: Winnie had sent me to that meeting.

MR PIGOU: You were asked where Stompie went, I am just carrying on with the record here and you said that you didn’t know when you came back to the house Stompie was missing. Then asked whether you thought Stompie was dead you answered "Yes". Is that correct?

MR CEBUKHULU: That is correct.

MR PIGOU: Could you tell us why if you were afraid of Mrs Mandela you had actually said something which would have prompted an investigation perhaps by people thereby saying that Stompie was dead?

MR CEBUKHULU: I wasn’t asked as to who had killed Stompie, had they asked me I would have told them.

MR PIGOU: Mrs Mandela in her evidence before the Commission in the Section 29 Hearing has said on Page 86 of the 2^nd Transcript as you read back from Page 85 to 86 having being asked by Mr Vally whether she participated in the assault, this Mr Tobisa Monogasi had had implicated her in these that she said that this was not true and that she had not participated and similarly when asked whether, what her response was to your allegation she also responded that that wasn’t the case. Is it . . . (indistinct) that Mrs Mandela was present during assaults?

MR CEBUKHULU: Yes, my evidence remains the same.

MR PIGOU: Could you tell me whether you, before the meeting on the 16^th January in Dobsonville whether you had met with any of the so-called Mandela Crisis Committee?

MR CEBUKHULU: Yes, that is correct.

MR PIGOU: And what happened when you met members of the Mandela Crisis Committee, did you speak with them and what did you tell them?

MR CEBUKHULU: I don’t remember.

MR PIGOU: Perhaps I can refresh your memory, we have a document here and just for the record I will point out that during the course of the In Camera Hearing Mrs Mandela referred to this document as being a stratcom document, this is a memorandum from the Mandela Crisis Committee to Comrade President O.R. I am going to refer to the document anyway

DR BORAINE: Just before you do that can I ask just how much longer you are going to be because we are running out of time and there are other people who must have the right to cross-examine.

MR PIGOU: I will finish by twenty past, if my watch says thirteen past, by twenty past.

DR BORAINE: That is fine and then could you also try and I don’t want to tell you your job but could you have shorter questions, it is very difficult this late stage for the witness or for any of us to try and hold all of it in our minds so could you be short, sharp and crisp, please.

MR PIGOU: Thank you. This is what is written in this document which we believe was sent to, may have been sent to President of the ANC, Oliver Tambo, when we interviewed Katiza Cebukhulu he came across as a person who understood no language other than Zulu. Somewhere along the way we gained an impression that he is a maverick, this prompted us to concentrate on additional issues, we broken, consequently we established the following from him that both Gabriel and Thabisa were heavily assaulted. Stompie and Kenny were also assaulted that he (Katiza) was instructed to contribute in assaulting the four, he was not himself assaulted, he believed that Kenny had escaped but he suspected that Stompie was dead".

Is that an accurate reflection of what you told members of the Mandela Crisis Committee?

MR CEBUKHULU: Yes, I think I said that.

MR PIGOU: They also say you were running away from Hammersdale and where you were working with CR Swart Security Branch which I believe is a Security Branch offices in Durban, and he maintains that he did this because of poverty, he was according to him rejected by both the UDF and Inkatha. He reckons both organisations were after him and therefore he decided to leave the area. Is that also what you told, did you explain the circumstances of you leaving Hammersdale.

MR CEBUKHULU: No.

MR PIGOU: You were arrested in, or perhaps before that, on the 27^th, 26^th of January 1989, you have said that you were, you went to Attorney Krish Naidoo to lay a charge against Rev. Paul Verryn for indecent assault, you have said that Winnie Mandela prompted this and she has responded in her Section 29 In Camera Hearing, she can’t recollect that, I am not going to give you the quote so that we can save time of where that is I hope you will accept what I am saying, Do you recall exactly what happened Mr Cebukhulu, did Mrs Mandela instruct Krish Naidoo to take you to the police station?

MR CEBUKHULU: Yes, she said it, I duly went to the police station, she called Krish Naidoo at night because we had gone to a doctor earlier on, that is Dr Asvat, she wanted some confirmation for me to present to the police that to the effect that Paul had sodomised me or assaulted me indecently and the police asked me as to what was wrong, I said that Paul had slept with me and the police just laughed it off, they said they do not believe my story.

I was asked as to where I stayed and Winnie always told me or she told me in an early stage that I should not give her address under any circumstances when confronted. I went back to the police and the police requested some confirmation to the affect that I have been indecently assaulted.

I went back to the house and told Winnie and . . .

MR PIGOU: . . . 19^th February in Page 122, Katiza’s Journey, you say that in an incident where you’ve been taken by Frank Chikane Secretary General of the SACC to Hillbrow Hospital, that you said that he had tricked you into going there, he had persuaded you to go and see doctors but that Chikane had tricked me, I was under guard there by two police with rifles.

When you were taken from the house of Miranda Harris to by Frank Chikane to the hospital were you not under the impression that the police were looking for you at this stage?

MR CEBUKHULU: No, I was under no such impression.

MR PIGOU: Was it your belief Mr Cebukhulu that Mr Frank Chikane actually handed you over to the police, without your consent, without you being party to that?

MR CEBUKHULU: Yes.

MR PIGOU: Frank Chikane in a public address to the media, I think it was on the same day or the next day said that you were willing to make a statement to the police and that this had been voluntary. Would you disagree with that?

MR CEBUKHULU: That is not true.

MR PIGOU: I just want to move on to an incident . . .

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying no it was not like that or no I do agree?

MR CEBUKHULU: I think if I can refer to the statement I can be in a better position.

MR PIGOU: The problem Chair is that the statement doesn’t reflect really enough of the information which is contained . . .

CHAIRPERSON: Can you just ask the question again in a way that makes it clear when he says "No" what he is saying "No" to.

MR PIGOU: Certainly. Frank Chikane took you to the hospital where you were subsequently arrested. You were not, did you think when you were taken to the hospital that you would be arrested?

MR CEBUKHULU: No, I didn’t know.

MR PIGOU: Frank Chikane says you were willing to make a statement to the police, that is not true?

MR CEBUKHULU: That is not true.

MR PIGOU: Did you give an interview who 1990, did you give an interview to a BBC journalist, John Carlin, in connection with the death of Maxwell Madondo.

DR BORAINE: This is your last question, it is twenty past.

MR PIGOU: Well, if you would like it to be my last question, I will make it may last question. I could go on.

DR BORAINE: Yes, I am sure you could, thank you for your co-operation. Go ahead, but don’t try me too hard.

MR PIGOU: No. Did you provide in the trial of the people that were accused of killing Mr Madondo, did you provide the defence with a statement in which you said that you had attended a meeting in the Mandela household where a decision had been taken to kill Lerathodi . . . and Sibisi . . . (indistinct) and that you had gone with Killer and Maxwell Madondo to carry out this task, but it had gone wrong and Madondo had subsequently been killed by Mr Sponge . . .(indistinct) did you give the defence in that particular case that statement.

MR CEBUKHULU: Yes, I did.

MR PIGOU: One last question Dr Boraine. How many statements have you given to the SAP and now I am talking about the South African Police and not the new South African Police Service during the time that you were staying in Winnie Mandela’s house. How many statements did you give to the SAP during that period from August 1988 through to February 1991.

MR CEBUKHULU: I don’t remember.

MR PIGOU: Was it more than one?

MR CEBUKHULU: That’s why I said I don’t remember.

MR PIGOU: Thank you Mr Chair.

MR JOSEPH: Where you ever any informer for the police either in Kwa Zulu Natal or in . . . Yes, or no.

MR CEBUKHULU: No.

MR JOSEPH: There was a rumour that you were brought from Hammersdale to Soweto and your move was facilitated by the police. What is your reaction to that?

MR CEBUKHULU: Hammersdale, I was working with the police, that is not true.

MR JOSEPH: There is a rumour that you were brought from there to Soweto by the police. What is your reaction to that. You were into Mrs Madikazela Mandela’s household by the police? Feel free to speak in Zulu. That is fine. When you were brought to President Chiluba where you saw Mrs Emma Nicholson, at that stage how long were you in prison in Zambia? Could be approximate.

MR CEBUKHULU: I think it was about eight months.

MR JOSEPH: I put it to you that is there a possibility that you were so desperate to get out of prison in Zambia that you exagerated your version regarding the involvement of Mrs Madikizela Mandela in the murder of Stompie. That she in fact stabbed Stompie. What is your reaction to that? A number of other people talking about Mrs Madikizela Mandela being present when Stompie was assaulted, starting the assaults but you are the only person who states that you saw Mrs Madikizela Mandela actually stabbing Stompie.

...said the same thing as you regarding the stabbing of Stompie? 

MR CEBEKHULU: I don't know what I can do in order for you to believe that I am speaking the truth. I am telling you she killed him.

MR VALLY: Mr Cebekhulu did you get any money for writing this book, or for helping Mr Bridgeland write the book?

MR CEBEKHULU: No.

MR VALLY: There are a number of statements in this affidavit of Ms Nicholson and you have given us a confirmatory affidavit thereto. I am going to ask Ms Nicholson the same question, but are all the statements yours, because you are merely confirming Ms Nicholson's affidavit? Do you know the affidavit I am talking about?

MR CEBEKHULU: No unless you show it to me or you tell me which one you are referring to.

MR VALLY: Maybe I should just save this for Ms Nicholson just now because there are some details here. I have one last question. The police investigation into the murder of Dr Asvat, there is a statement in there that Mr Thulani Dlamini alleged that you were present in the surgery when Dr Asvat was murdered, what's your response to that?

MR CEBEKHULU: I was not present when Dr Asvat was killed.

MR VALLY: Thank you, I have no further questions of Mr Cebekhulu. Just a few questions of Ms Emma Nicholson.

DR BORAINE: Alright, obviously this will be a lot...

MR VALLY: A lot shorter.

DR BORAINE: Thank you.

MR VALLY: Ms Nicholson do you have any legal training?

MS NICHOLSON: I beg your pardon?

MR VALLY: Do you have any legal training?

MS NICHOLSON: I have no legal training.

MR VALLY: Regarding the circumstances in which you met Mr Cebekhulu in Zambia and subsequently assisted him, especially with regards to the various countries that refused him asylum do you have any documentary evidence which will be of assistance to us?

MS NICHOLSON: Yes.

MR VALLY: We would appreciate it if you would let us have copies of that.

MS NICHOLSON: I will let you have copies of all of it.

MR VALLY: As regards your affidavit, I am talking about, I think it's only one affidavit in your name.

MS NICHOLSON: Yes.

MR VALLY: Are all the statements therein, except the fact of your name and your meeting with President Chiluba, I am talking about paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4, and some other more general paragraphs, but are all the factual allegations in the paragraphs those of Mr Cebekhulu or both yours and Mr Cebekhulu's?

MS NICHOLSON: Mr Cebekhulu used me as a scribe. Zulu is not a regular language in the United Kingdom and while his speaking and comprehension of English it seems very good for a non-first language person at English, his writing is very, very fragmentary indeed. I found when he arrived in England eventually that the letters I had received from him, from Sierra Leone, had not in fact been written by him personally, they had been dictated and that is how he used me for this affidavit. I discussed with the lawyer whether it would be proper under such circumstances to use the first pronoun and we both decided with the absolute clarity to show that I had been a scribe it would be improper to do so, and it was best under the third person so that this explanation could be given. It was for absolute clarity.

MR VALLY: There are some, and I will be very quick on this, there are some statements here which are puzzling and I need clarity as to where they come from. I refer to paragraph 12, page 4 where you are talking about Mr Cebekhulu being happy to be given a place to stay by Mrs Winnie Mandela, midway through the paragraph -

and you describe what necklacing means,

Was this Mr Cebekhulu's statement?

MS NICHOLSON: Yes. May I add to that answer?

MR VALLY: Certainly, certainly.

MS NICHOLSON: I asked him if the news of necklacing, which was a word used in English language-speaking newspapers had been reported in Mpalanga, and he replied yes, but we didn't believe it, we thought it was white man's make-up, that the wife of the President could not be making those sorts of things happen.

MR VALLY: But the statement that "followers of Mrs Winnie Madikizela-Mandela were necklacing people", I am talking about paragraph 4 specifically, was that your statement or was that his statement - "despite the news of necklacing by her followers"?

MS NICHOLSON: This is him using me as a scribe.

MR VALLY: So he saw the people carrying out necklacing as being followers of Mrs Madikizela-Mandela?

MS NICHOLSON: I beg your pardon?

MR VALLY: Mr Cebekhulu saw the persons who were responsible for necklacing as being followers of Mrs Winnie Madikizela-Mandela, you are talking about it in a very general sense?

MS NICHOLSON: Mr Cebekhulu told me to say that he did not believe Mrs Mandela - before he had arrived in her home and witnessed violence he did not believe that the wife of the President was involved in violence, despite newspaper reports of violent activities associated with her political activities.

MR VALLY: He had access to those newspaper reports regarding her political activities?

MS NICHOLSON: I cannot tell you, I can only repeat what I have said that - I can only repeat what I have said, I cannot tell you whether or not he had access to the newspapers or television or the radio, I am unaware of that.

DR BORAINE: Can I just ask where are you going with this and how much longer are you going to be? You said you are going to be very brief. I can't allow you more than one more minute.

MR VALLY: I'll get in three questions in one minute. Page 7 paragraphs 22 and 23.

Cebekhulu or yourself?

MS NICHOLSON: Mr Cebekhulu.

MR VALLY: Paragraph 23 -

Mrs Cebekhulu again?

MS NICHOLSON: Yes.

MR VALLY: Finally, there is a question of the book.

MS NICHOLSON: Yes.

MR VALLY: The question being asked is why do you have copyright to the book and is there any financial interest you have in this whole matter?

MS NICHOLSON: I have no financial interest of any sort in this whole matter, and I am willing to show my bank statements to that effect and produce any other evidence to corroborate that. I have copyright of the book because in my work for refugees I know that refugees' principal problem is that they have no property of any sort, no clothes, no home, no food unless they are given it and no water, no (...indistinct), nothing, but they do have one thing, they have their story. In my work in the House of Commons I put in intellectual property legislation. I believe strongly that journalists and authors, writers and producers should not take the story out of a refugee's head, that copyright should remain with the refugee. At the time this book was created and published Mr Cebekhulu had no status anywhere, it was impossible to assign the copyright to him. I therefore arranged for it to be assigned to myself and intend to hand it on to him now that he has residency, which happened last week, in the United Kingdom.

MR VALLY: Thank you very much.

DR BORAINE: Thank you. Mr Semenya you have been very patient, your turn has come at last. Over to you.

MR SEMENYA: Deputy Chairperson maybe before I start I would for the record state, in my personal and humble judgement it would not be possible to finish cross-examination of such a critical witness in the limited time. However, I will proceed with the cross-examination and if I could be given an indication what timeframe I have I will try and concentrate on critical aspects.

DR BORAINE: Mr Semenya I think your request is entirely reasonable. This is a very important witness and as far as we are concerned on the panel here, we are prepared to go through until seven o'clock tonight if that becomes necessary. I hope you won't interpret that as licence. But I do want you to feel under no restriction in placing your questions.

MR RICHARD: Mr Chairman I must also speak on behalf of Mr Richardson. His name has been used on many occasions during the course of this witness' evidence and if this witness is to be believed he is a person who is incorrectly convicted of the charge of murder of Stompie Seipei, in the circumstances it is imperative that I get an opportunity to cross-examine. I would presume that Mr Semenya will allow me an opportunity as well.

DR BORAINE: You will certainly have that opportunity.

MR SEMENYA: Just for the record Chairperson I was merely saying that I will attempt to stop before seven. It cannot be and should not be construed to be a complete exercise of the rights of my client to test the correctness of the version by this witness.

DR BORAINE: That is noted, thank you, for the record.

MR SEMENYA: Mr Cebekhulu did I understand you to say when you left you were taken by Richardson to Mrs Mandela at Shell House?

MR CEBEKHULU: I said John Morgan took me to the Shell House, not Richardson.

MR SEMENYA: Can I tell you this Mr Cebekhulu, that when you left this country Shell House was not there. The African National Congress offices were in Sauer Street.

MR CEBEKHULU: Could you repeat your question.

MR SEMENYA: I say it is at Shell House you tell us that Mrs Mandela was telling you you must go through to Swaziland, right?

MR CEBEKHULU: That is correct.

MR SEMENYA: And it is where Mrs Mandela threatens you that this is one of the options you must get, we are at Shell House now?

MR CEBEKHULU: He was an officer for the ANC, I think it was Shell House.

MR SEMENYA: Now I am trying to say to you, by the time you left this country the offices of the African National Congress were in Sauer Street, they were never in Shell House.

MR CEBEKHULU: Probably I didn't know the name of the building, that is the name of the streets I didn't know, now you have told me now where when he take me.

DR BORAINE: Did you hear the translation?

MR SEMENYA: No there was no translation and ...(intervention)

INTERPRETATION: The problem is the witness speaks in English so we take it that the translation goes through. I don't know whether I should repeat him when he speaks in English I should repeat the English version, should I?

DR BORAINE: I think so because the witness' voice is very low and it's not always easy and there is a lot of noise. I know it's a lot of work but I would be very grateful if you could do that.

INTERPRETER: I will certainly do that, thank you.

MR SEMENYA: I did not hear your answer Sir.

MR CEBEKHULU: If I am not mistaken you asked me, because I said I had gone to Shell House to see Winnie, and you told me that Shell House at that time was not in existence or the ANC offices were not in Shell House, I think that is the question you asked me, should I go on to answer it?

MR SEMENYA: I am saying to you Sir, you could not have gone to Shell House, why do you say you went to Shell House?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes, the office that they took me, I think I forgot the name but I heard them saying it's Shell House.

MR SEMENYA: What is profound to me is at the time the African National goes into Shell House you are in a prison in Zambia or something, am I correct?

MR CEBEKHULU: I went to this office, I think Morgan knows the place, I am not sure about the name of the place.

MR SEMENYA: No what I am trying to ask of you is where do you pick up the name Shell House as an office of the African National Congress, you were out of the country all this time?

MR CEBEKHULU: I heard that they've got an office at the Shell House and I thought it was an ANC office.

MR SEMENYA: Where did you hear about an office of the ANC being in Shell House?

MR CEBEKHULU: When I read the book, the newspaper.

MR SEMENYA: So after reading the newspaper and the book you then go and say Morgan took you to Shell House?

MR CEBEKHULU: I read the name of the building that is Shell House. Where Morgan took me, I think, I do not know the name of the building but I was told it was ANC head offices or headquarters.

MR SEMENYA: Why don't you say Morgan took me to an office, I don't know? Why don't you just get accurate and say I was taken to an office that I do not know?

MR CEBEKHULU: I can't answer that question.

MR SEMENYA: Why can't you answer that question?

MR CEBEKHULU: Because you have reminded me of the name and I had forgotten it, I actually didn't know.

MR SEMENYA: Let's deal with easier matters for a while. Your mother tells us whilst you were in Hammarsdale you used to have friends of members of the police, is she correct?

MR CEBEKHULU: No it's not true.

MR SEMENYA: Your mother is not telling the truth?

MR CEBEKHULU: I do not have any police friends. I did know a lot of police but I was not friends with them.

MR SEMENYA: Is your mother not telling the truth is my question?

MR CEBEKHULU: I don't know. I wish she was here maybe she could answer for herself.

MR SEMENYA: Well let me tell you what she also says, that you were friends with members of the defence force, the soldiers as well, whilst you were in Hammarsdale, is this correct?

MR CEBEKHULU: No that is not true.

MR SEMENYA: Why would your mother tell the whole world something that is not true?

MR JOSEPH: May I just intervene ...(intervention)

MR CEBEKHULU: You can ask my mother.

MR JOSEPH: It's being put to this witness that the witness' mother says the following. My learned friend has not produced the mother and I understand the difficulty over there, I invite my learned friend to give us the source of the information which has it's origin in the mother.

DR BORAINE: Mr Semenya?

MR SEMENYA: I did not hear the objection I am afraid.

DR BORAINE: Let me state it quite quickly, the objection is that you do not produce the mother, and there are obviously good reasons for that, but could you at least produce the source so that Mr Joseph, who is acting for the witness, can at least know from where you are quoting or speaking.

MR SEMENYA: In the fullness of time I will do that. Can I get an answer from the witness?

MR JOSEPH: Then you can't, then you can't do that, you can't put a proposition to a witness as if it is going to be spoken by somebody else without producing the witness or having some basis, because what he is doing is unfair cross-examination. He is putting a proposition that if the mother were to come and give evidence she would give evidence contrary to what her son is saying.

DR BORAINE: Mr Semenya I think that Mr Joseph's objection is reasonable.

MR SEMENYA: I keep missing the essence of the objection, that I am unable to put a proposition which is hearsay, but I thought my learned colleague was here and he had to know and understand that the proceedings would admit to hearsay evidence. If he wants the reference I can give it to him but I just don't want my cross-examination interrupted to facilitate his convenience.

DR BORAINE: Ja I think that if it's a reasonable objection then we have to, in all fairness, but may I also remind you that the witness has already stated that he does not agree or he says it's untruthful and that if his mother was here then you could put the question to his mother, but he can't answer for what she has said. I think that's also reasonable.

MR SEMENYA: To expedite this it was a telecast on SABC quoting the mother who was interviewed. I don't know whether my learned colleague wants me to produce the...

MR JOSEPH: The quality of that source is no good. I would have thought that it would perhaps have been my learned friend who would be able to say that he consulted personally with the mother, or at least my learned friend's instructing attorney. Then as colleagues of mine I would be prepared to accept that for the purposes of this Commission taking into account the fact that you relaxed the rules, but you are not going to rely on third or fourth hearsay which is published in a book.

And there is a reason why this is being put to this witness. It's not so much that it's contradictory evidence per se, what is being put to the witness is that your mother is calling you a liar because she says you had an association with police, you had association with members of the SADF and that is what the serious objection is.

DR BORAINE: Let me try and make a ruling here because I think we must move. I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask of the witness whether he at any stage was an informer or worked with the police or whatever and that one could produce the statement by the mother, but if the witness says categorically that he denies what his mother is saying and that she is not here and if you could ask her, I think that's reasonable and I wonder if you couldn't put the question in a different way.

MR SEMENYA: Mr Cebekhulu just to round up on this point. According to that television documentary your mother states that you had left KwaZulu Natal in the company of members of the defence force. Do you dispute that or not?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes I do deny that because when I came here I came to speak freely. If I was working with the police I would have admitted that. If I did admit to the murder or to knowing about the murder why would I deny working with the police?

MR SEMENYA: Which murder did you admit to?

MR CEBEKHULU: During my amnesty application or when I lost my application for amnesty.

MR SEMENYA: Which murder did you admit to?

MR CEBEKHULU: I think we are speaking about what happened in Johannesburg not whatever happened in Natal. Could you please ask me about something that happened in Joburg.

MR SEMENYA: What murder did you admit to?

MR JOSEPH: Mr Chairman may I object to this. The question must be relevant to the issues which are being examined before this Commission. The issues that are being examined before this Commission are enumerated in the subpoenas. This witness has a background, the background is not relevant to these proceedings. He's applied for amnesty in respect of certain activities. He is here to give evidence relating to the items or the issues which have been enumerated, and I would object to this type of fishing expedition which is designed purely and only for the purpose of attacking his general credibility. I would urge my learned friend, taking into account the nature of the proceedings, to direct his questions at the issues. I went out of my way in leading this witness to lead him on the real issues which I think this Commission is interested in, the issues being the issues that you've identified in the subpoenas.

Insofar as collateral matters are concerned, even if this were a court of law, when a cross-examiner asks a question on a collateral matter he's entitled to do that, he is then bound by the answer. So I'd ask you to bear that in mind and ask my learned friend to restrict the questions to the issues.

I remind my learned friend that in the time that I have been here listening to him cross-examine there have been many occasions where he has refrained from putting his client's version to any witness, whether it's an admission or a denial. I raised this earlier on in the evidence of the third witness, Mr Sono. As I recall Mr Semenya, in regard to Mr Sono's evidence at not one stage did he deny on behalf of his client the allegations, the real germane allegations which have been made over here. I would ask Mr Semenya in light of that to stay away from embarrassing questions and to stay away from questions which are not germane to the evidence Mr Cebekhulu has tendered.

DR BORAINE: Mr Semenya you have heard the objections from your learned friend, could you very briefly respond to that and tell me what you think.

MR SEMENYA: My response is threefold Deputy Chairperson. Firstly let me deal with the Lolo Sono, Mr Sono's evidence. I think maybe it has something to do with the temperature in this room. When Mr Vally started with the cross-examination of Mr Sono he put every factual refutation which emanated out of the closed hearing to Mr Sono and he responded to that.

Now let me deal with today. Two reasons. Firstly, matters of credibility can never be irrelevant. Secondly, my learned colleague would know the fact about his admission to the murder comes from the witness' mouth, it didn't come from me. I am asking him, now that you say you have admitted to murder which murder did you admit to. It can be relevant.

DR BORAINE: I have one problem and that is that the amnesty application is normally sub judice until the person, the applicant applying for amnesty actually appears before the Committee. But I am quite prepared to try and assist you in your quest to test the witness in terms of credibility, but I would be most grateful if you could stay not with incidental matters which he himself raises, but rather to follow your own cross-examination. Let's see how we go and let's see how we get on because otherwise we are going to be here until ten o'clock.

MR SEMENYA: Do I read the ruling to be that the witness shouldn't answer to that question?

DR BORAINE: I think that is my ruling.

MR SEMENYA: I beg your pardon I....

DR BORAINE: That is the ruling, yes. In light of the fact that the amnesty application is sub judice until such time as it's heard at an application opportunity general terms yes, but in specific names and dates and times they are normally, in terms of our Act, held until the actual hearing takes place.

MR SEMENYA: Can we obtain as we did with other amnesty applications the amnesty application by Katiza Cebekhulu?

DR BORAINE: Yes of course, we will make that available to you. Can you proceed Mr Semenya.

MR SEMENYA: Mr Cebekhulu when your evidence was opened earlier you seemed to have said, when you came to Johannesburg you were basically not politically involved, is that correct?

MR CEBEKHULU: That is correct.

MR SEMENYA: Is that factually correct that before your coming to Johannesburg you were not politically active?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR SEMENYA: Do you recall you said the information in Katiza's Journey it's correct wherever it purports to quote you as a source?

MR CEBEKHULU: Which book are you referring to?

MR SEMENYA: The book which you say whenever it purports to quote you it would be quoting you correctly, Katiza's Journey.

MR CEBEKHULU: Not all of them.

MR SEMENYA: So it is not the whole book which is correct whenever it quotes you?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes that is correct.

MR SEMENYA: Without being difficult are you able to point us to areas of the book which are factually incorrect whenever reference is made to you?

MR CEBEKHULU: No.

MR SEMENYA: Why do you say certain sections of the book are incorrect?

MR CEBEKHULU: Ask me whatever you want to ask me, I cannot start relating about the whole book, ask me about specific factors or extracts from the book.

MR SEMENYA: Are you not able to give me sections of the book which you say have been quoting you incorrectly?

MR CEBEKHULU: This book is very big, it's extensive, I don't know what you want me to tell you.

MR SEMENYA: Okay, let's go to page 8 of your book, of the book Katiza's Journey. Page 8. Do you see the very first paragraph.

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR SEMENYA: In the middle of the paragraph there is a quotation which I want to read out to you -

Is this not activism on your part while you are in Hammarsdale?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes that is political activity.

MR SEMENYA: No why do you say you were not participating in politics while you were in Hammarsdale, you just came from a poor family (...indistinct).

MR CEBEKHULU: Because they used to force us to participate, I didn't do it voluntarily. They were removing each boy by the house to join them because they were saying they are fighting we are sitting in the house, so that's why we joined them.

MR SEMENYA: Now let me ask you clearly, were you a political activist in Hammarsdale or not?

MR CEBEKHULU: I wasn't.

MR SEMENYA: So you cannot have committed in Hammarsdale that is motivated, which is politically motivated, is that right?

MR CEBEKHULU: No I did not. The things that I did were political, I was involved in political activity but I was not a politician. What I mean you say I do things which is politics inside, I said I did but I am not a politician because I don't know nothing about politics. Yes what I am saying is I am not a politician but I did take part in political activities because I was coerced into the situation.

MR SEMENYA: Well I don't know what is your answer but I am trying to establish ...(intervention)

MR CEBEKHULU: Your question ...(intervention)

MR SEMENYA: If you can allow me to finish the question then I am sure we will be able to know what is the question and what is the answer.

MR JOSEPH: Mr Chairman may I object.

DR BORAINE: Yes, please go ahead, try to make it very brief.

MR JOSEPH: It is precisely this type of questioning which is directed at collateral matters, matters which are the subject matter of an amnesty application and matters which do not form the subject matter of this investigation save for that catch-all general credibility. Now there's a discretion ...(intervention)

DR BORAINE: Mr Joseph let me interrupt you, I am going to rule against you, I think that if the witness has stated earlier that he was not politically active when he came to Johannesburg and he is now being asked to either deny or to establish that and frankly I think that that's a very fair question. But I think that once the witness has made the case we should move on.

MR SEMENYA: What is your answer Sir?

MR CEBEKHULU: Could you please ask the question once more I have forgotten now what you said.

MR SEMENYA: Are we entitled to accept that you could not have committed anything while you were in Hammarsdale as a political activist?

MR CEBEKHULU: There are some things that I did.

MR SEMENYA: As a political activist?

MR CEBEKHULU: I did those things under duress, I was not politically active or a politician but I did do some things or some political activity.

MR SEMENYA: Let me refer you to page 176 of the book. The very first line, sentence rather goes along the following lines:

Is that part of the book correct?

MR CEBEKHULU: Could you please just give me a moment to read that extract. Yes I did say that.

MR SEMENYA: But I thought you said you didn't know this building, but what is important is you describe it even as a new skyscraper national headquarters of the African National Congress.

MR CEBEKHULU: I explained that the book some I said some I didn't say, because your question is with Shell House because I think the office was the Shell House now you've told me it's not the Shell House, that means I was wrong. There was no Shell House the office.

DR BORAINE: Did you not hear that, could you repeat that?

MR CEBEKHULU: I explained earlier on that I did not know the name of the building.

MR SEMENYA: Well what I am trying to establish, you didn't give Bridgeland this answer that you were taken by Morgan to the ANC's new skyscraper national headquarters of the African National Congress which was donated by the Royal Dutch Shell Oil Company?

MR CEBEKHULU: I answered you in this manner. I said it's not every allegation in this book that is true, but this specific matter with regard to Shell House is not true because at that time I did not know the name of the building.

MR SEMENYA: Let us talk about your statement when you came to Johannesburg.

MR CEBEKHULU: Could you please give that to me I also would like to see it.

MR SEMENYA: Can I give you a copy of your statement and there is a thumbprint on the last page of that document and the name Katiza Cebekhulu. Can the witness be shown this document.

DR BORAINE: Thank you very much.

MR SEMENYA: Is that a copy of your statement?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Joseph.

MR JOSEPH: Sorry to interrupt you. This particular statement was handed to me by my learned friend Mr Vally as I concluded leading this witness in-chief or while I was leading this witness in-chief. To the best of my knowledge this document has not been placed before Mr Cebekhulu. I would have thought that documents of this nature would have been given to Mr Cebekhulu's legal advisors before, to assist in presenting the evidence.

DR BORAINE: Now let's just establish that we are talking about the same document, isn't the document in Afrikaans and with the thumbprint - ja I must admit that I also only received this towards the end of your evidence. Pass the buck here, ask Hanif to explain.

: My understanding was that this was included in the packages at the beginning. This I believe is the statement taken on the 22nd of February 1989, is that correct?

DR BORAINE: Clearly not been seen by a legal representative for the witness, it's certainly not been received by any of us at this table until about an hour ago.

MR SEMENYA: Deputy Chairperson may I just for the record say neither did we have prior possession of the statement. We were given the statement at the same time as everybody else.

DR BORAINE: Thank you. Can you make a suggestion Mr Joseph so we can proceed?

MR JOSEPH: In the interest of bringing the inquiry to a close if my learned friend would oblige us by leaving the statement to one side and to continue with other cross-examination I will in the meantime study it and perhaps assist and facilitate my friend. I don't know what is in the statement. I think it is dangerous to allow the statement just to be put to him.

DR BORAINE: Would you find that acceptable? We will come back to it.

MR SEMENYA: I will suggest it's acceptable.

DR BORAINE: Thank you. Please proceed.

MR SEMENYA: Can we first, okay in the meantime deal with aspects of the book Katiza Cebekhulu. On page 77 it appears that Mr Sipho Mabuza is dead. Is this information the one you gave to Mr Bridgeland?

MR CEBEKHULU: If you can read it - no I never said that.

MR SEMENYA: You don't know where Mr Bridgeland gets it from?

MR CEBEKHULU: No I don't know, that's why I told you beforehand that some of the allegations are unknown to me.

MR SEMENYA: But that paragraph actually says -

So where would Mr Bridgeland have - or at least let me put it this way, did you say ...(intervention)

MR CEBEKHULU: I understand your point.

MR SEMENYA: Ja but if you give me an opportunity to finish what I am saying and I am indebted to your ability to understand my questions, did you say to Mr Bridgeland, did you give him an account about you and the other boys going to the funeral of Sipho Mabuza?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR SEMENYA: Now what do you mean that you did not give Bridgeland that you guys went to the funeral of Sipho Mabuza?

MR CEBEKHULU: Because you asked me about the death of Sipho Mabuza, you did not ask me about the funeral. You said to me as to whether I knew that Sipho Mabuza died. You did not ask me about the funeral.

MR SEMENYA: Do you now know that you attended the funeral of Sipho Mabuza?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes that is correct, I do.

MR SEMENYA: But Sipho Mabuza is very much alive Mr Cebekhulu?

MR CEBEKHULU: I did not say he died but we said we went to Sipho Mabuza's father's funeral. Sipho Mabuza's father's funeral, not Sipho Mabuza.

MR SEMENYA: Now you say the son to Sipho Mabuza is Hotstix, that's what you say in the book, that's not correct?

MR CEBEKHULU: What is it if it's not true?

MR SEMENYA: No I am saying the book says the son to Sipho Mabuza is Hotstix.

MR CEBEKHULU: No it's Sipho's father who passed away, Sipho Mabuza Hotstix is the son, the father died. I don't know what else you want me to say.

MR SEMENYA: Now that we know you were in Mrs - I withdraw that question. How many children does Zinzi have?

MR CEBEKHULU: I know of two.

MR SEMENYA: And how many does Zenani have?

MR CEBEKHULU: I don't know.

MR SEMENYA: How many children were in the house while you were a member of the household?

MR CEBEKHULU: There were three children.

MR SEMENYA: What are their names?

MR CEBEKHULU: I don't remember their names but I remember these other two boys names and the other one was of school-going age and the other girl.

MR SEMENYA: What names do you remember?

MR CEBEKHULU: It was Zondwa, there was Gaddafi as well as another girl and Zoleka.

MR SEMENYA: Well I don't know some of the names you mentioned. Can I draw your attention to the map which you were given. I see that you describe on the left-hand top corner of that diagram a toilet with a shower.

MR CEBEKHULU: That is correct.

MR SEMENYA: Are you sure that there is a shower in that room?

MR CEBEKHULU: It's a room there's a toilet just beside the house or next to the house.

MR SEMENYA: Are you sure there is a shower in that room?

MR CEBEKHULU: It's a toilet not a shower.

MR SEMENYA: Why do you write a shower both on this sketch as well as in the book?

MR CEBEKHULU: Which page is that?

MR SEMENYA: If you look at the diagram you will see that it says "shower/toilet".

MR CEBEKHULU: It's a toilet.

MR SEMENYA: I will find the right section in the book, even in the book you say it has a - can I refer you to the affidavit, I don't know how it has been described, but it is a five-page affidavit. Do you see that affidavit?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes I can see.

MR SEMENYA: On paragraph 5, third line onwards reads -

Did you say this?

MR CEBEKHULU: I haven't yet found the affidavit you are referring to.

MR SEMENYA: Deputy Chairperson I don't know whether the witness has the affidavit.

DR BORAINE: Let me just find out. Do you have that affidavit now?

MR CEBEKHULU: No I haven't yet got it.

DR BORAINE: See that he has it then please. It is coming to you now.

MR SEMENYA: Do you see from the fourth line, middle of the fourth line,

did you tell this to Mrs Nicholson?

MR CEBEKHULU: No I didn't.

MR SEMENYA: You didn't tell it to Mrs Nicholson?

MR CEBEKHULU: I told her that there was a toilet in one of the rooms and the other one didn't have a toilet. She might probably have made a mistake.

MR SEMENYA: You mean she made a mistake when she says "one each per house"? I thought that amount of English was plain.

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes I think the way in which I explained to her probably she didn't understand or grab what I was saying.

MR SEMENYA: Just say it in Zulu, we will attempt to see whether it is capable of this interpretation.

MR CEBEKHULU: I said to her the other room has got a toilet and the other one does not have a toilet but the big house or the bigger house has got a toilet. That is how I put it to her.

MR SEMENYA: Now you told us that you used to live in the house, in the main house, right?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes when I arrived, at the time when I arrived.

MR SEMENYA: At what point did you not live in the main house?

MR CEBEKHULU: I don't remember as to the time, maybe he can remind me.

MR SEMENYA: Well I was not sleeping there. If you are able to assist me just tell me at what part of your stay for two and a half years did you stay in the house or not stay in the house?

MR CEBEKHULU: If I was aware of if I knew I would be telling you. I can't remember everything, I am not a computer and I can't tell you everything as it happened.

MR SEMENYA: Was there a time when you did not live in the house?

MR CEBEKHULU: That is correct, at some stage I did not stay in the main house, I stayed in the little room because we kept guard of the premises.

MR SEMENYA: Do you know Mr Morgan?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes I do.

MR SEMENYA: He says he doesn't know you, or it was the first time he was seeing you when you were from the men's I think.

MR CEBEKHULU: I am telling you that they are lying all of them. If he does not know me where do I get all this story from, did I suck it out of my thumb?

MR SEMENYA: Well you seemed to have sucked Shell House out of your thumb, just give me an answer.

MR CEBEKHULU: If I did create this story how did I find myself in Swaziland, Zambia, Mozambique and all the other places, did I just go there on my own accord?

MR SEMENYA: Is that your answer to my question?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes that is my answer.

MR SEMENYA: Which bedroom did you use in Mrs Mandela's house Mr Cebekhulu?

MR CEBEKHULU: It's not a bedroom but I think it was a sitting room and I used to sleep on the sofa in the other small room where she used to study at night, I used to sleep there because in the morning I had to wake up and clean the whole house.

MR SEMENYA: Well you have a diagram there, is that the one with the sliding door?

MR CEBEKHULU: Could you please repeat your question.

MR SEMENYA: You have given us a diagram of the house did you sleep in the room that was having the sliding door?

MR CEBEKHULU: I was sleeping where I am pointing, that is the room that had the toilet.

MR SEMENYA: No that one is outside the house.

MR CEBEKHULU: I did say to you that I stayed in the main house when I first arrived, but at a later stage I was changed and put into the other room together with the other boys.

MR SEMENYA: I don't know whether this is confusing but while you were sleeping in the main house were you sleeping in the room with the sliding door or which room were you sleeping in?

MR CEBEKHULU: When I arrived or when this incident of death occurred, because when I arrived I stayed in the main house and at a later stage I stayed with the other boys, so I don't know which period you are referring to.

DR BORAINE: I will try and assist. The question is that when you stayed in the main house which room did you stay in, can you point out on the diagram and was it the room with the sliding doors or was it not the room with the sliding doors?

MR CEBEKHULU: I was sleeping in the main house. I slept I think it was the dining room because there were sofas there.

MR SEMENYA: Sorry you are confusing me, a dining room does not have sofas and you say you were sleeping in sofas what are you talking about?

DR BORAINE: Mr Semenya he has I think answered the question insofar as it wasn't a bedroom, that it was one of the living rooms where there was a sofa. I wonder if you could speed it up a little bit and then I must also ask you now much longer are you going to be because it's now half past six and you started at ten to six?

MR SEMENYA: Deputy Chairperson I would oblige if I get stopped anywhere down the line. The critical aspect about this particular witness to me is he purports to have stayed for two and a half years in a particular, with Mrs Mandela and it takes me this long to establish where he is sleeping in the main house. But I can move on if he won't give me an answer better than that one.

DR BORAINE: I think it would be advisable. I am sure you have a lot of other good questions to put.

MR SEMENYA: So clearly I must infer that when you say you went to the toilet you were not sleeping in the main house at the time?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes at the time when I was going to the toilet I was already occupying the other room with others.

MR SEMENYA: With who?

MR CEBEKHULU: It was Jabu, Mabuza, the football team.

MR SEMENYA: Is it sleeping area number one?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR SEMENYA: Jerry Richardson says that was his room, did you sleep in that one too?

MR CEBEKHULU: Which one?

MR SEMENYA: The same one, let's not play now.

MR CEBEKHULU: You mean the other one that I was sleeping at or the other one next to it?

MR SEMENYA: Did you sleep with Jerry Richardson in the same room?

MR CEBEKHULU: You mean me?

MR SEMENYA: Are you prepared to play or are you prepared to give answers Mr Cebekhulu?

MR CEBEKHULU: I am prepared to answer.

MR SEMENYA: Did you stay in the same bedroom with Jerry Richardson?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR SEMENYA: Now you have already told us that you saw the killing of Stompie.

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR SEMENYA: And the book describes - were you able to say which part of the body was stabbed twice by Mrs Mandela?

MR CEBEKHULU: No I did not see. What I saw is that she raised her hand twice. I don't know which part of his body was stabbed, but I saw her raising her hand twice.

MR SEMENYA: According to Richardson he would have cut him with a shears at the railway station, at the railway line. He cannot be correct to say that?

MR CEBEKHULU: Well maybe he made a mistake.

MR SEMENYA: No he actually knows that his amnesty depends on the correctness and the completeness of the version that he's supposed to give. You are saying he's making a mistake there?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR SEMENYA: Did I understand your evidence to say that you are unable to give a full description because it was night and it was dark?

MR CEBEKHULU: Like what, what are the things that I did not see?

MR SEMENYA: You were saying that you could not see properly whether this is Stompie and whether what parts of the body was being stabbed because it was dark, it was at night and it was dark. Did you say that?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes I did say that they were handing a child or a youngster, but at that stage I didn't know as to who this youngster was.

MR SEMENYA: What I am trying to put to you is you couldn't see clearly because it was dark and it was at night, right?

MR CEBEKHULU: It wasn't very dark that I could not see that there were people approaching or some apparitions that I saw.

MR SEMENYA: Can I refer you to paragraph 38 of your affidavit page 11 from line 7 you are said to be saying -

So there was clear moonlight on that day?

MR CEBEKHULU: Are you telling me or asking me, are you posing a question? You said at the time that they were taking Stompie out there was clear moonlight, are you making a statement or are you asking me and expecting me to comment on that?

MR SEMENYA: Is this your statement Sir?

MR CEBEKHULU: Which paragraph are you referring to?

MR SEMENYA: Page 11, paragraph 38. So what do you mean it was dark that night, when in this statement you say you saw in clear moonlight?

MR CEBEKHULU: I said it was at night but I was able to see a person. It wasn't pitch dark that I could not see any apparition in the dark or any moving person.

MR SEMENYA: But you recall in your evidence when you were led by your legal representative that you said you couldn't see clearly because it was dark, do you recall that piece of your evidence?

MR CEBEKHULU: I am still trying to read the statement, I can't seem to get whatever you are referring to.

MR SEMENYA: No my question is a simple one, I say do you recall when you were led by my learned colleague, the legal representative for you that you said you couldn't see clearly because it was dark?

DR BORAINE: Could I just assist here. There are two questions. The first is your own statement on page 11, paragraph 38 which you say it was a clear moonlight night, the moon was shining, in your words "saw in clear moonlight". That's the first question. Did you say that or not?

MR CEBEKHULU: No I never said that, no.

DR BORAINE: Well that's what it says in your affidavit. Now the second question not in the statement ...(intervention) carry on, carry on.

MR CEBEKHULU: It wasn't very dark, you were able to see a person approaching, that's what I said, it wasn't very dark or pitch dark.

DR BORAINE: No but you see I am trying to assist you. On the one hand in your statement which is in front of you, the typed one.

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR NTSEBEZA: You say that you saw in clear moonlight Richardson emerged from the room, okay. But when ...(intervention)

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes I saw Richardson coming out of the room.

DR BORAINE: Right, clear moonlight. Yet when your legal representative asked you a question, not here now, he was asking you could you see what was happening and you said you couldn't see clearly because it was dark. Now those are the two questions that are being put to you. Now can you explain how it was a clear moonlight and yet it was dark so you couldn't see clearly?

MR CEBEKHULU: No I didn't explain like that.

DR BORAINE: That's exactly how I heard you say that unless your legal representative wants to refute what we are saying at this stage.

Now what you are being asked is how dark was it? What were you able to see? And then you can tell us.

MR CEBEKHULU: I know the moon, yes I think it was half moon or quarter moon, it shed some light, it wasn't pitch dark, neither was it very bright, but I could see some bodies or some people moving and I could differentiate between the sexes as well as the ages of the people that I saw.

DR BORAINE: Thank you. Can you take this further, but I do remind you that we are running out of time.

MR SEMENYA: Yes Mr Cebekhulu all of this is intended to convey to you that what you purport you saw, Mrs Mandela stabbed twice it's a fabrication on your part.

MR CEBEKHULU: I wouldn't be able to fabricate such a story, I don't have that capability.

MR SEMENYA: But you were sent by a magistrate for mental observation is that right, because you were thought possibly mentally unstable, is that right?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes that is correct.

MR SEMENYA: Even the other earlier document you are described as a maverick. That would be consistent with the type of person you are.

DR BORAINE: Sorry could you just tell us which document you are referring to, the description of the maverick?

MR SEMENYA: It's the document which we advised - was addressed to the late President of the African National Congress, Mr Oliver Tambo.

DR BORAINE: Thank you.

MR CEBEKHULU: I am not crazy.

MR SEMENYA: Can I touch on just one other ...(intervention)

MR CEBEKHULU: Can I just ask you one question.

DR BORAINE: It's your last question?

MR CEBEKHULU: May I just ask one question?

DR BORAINE: Can the witness just hold it please. Ask the question.

MR SEMENYA: On page 54 of the book there is a paragraph starting -

And then it is saying -

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes I do remember that.

MR SEMENYA: Did you sleep with Bishop Verryn in the same bed?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes I did.

MR SEMENYA: The book also has aspects where you admit to lying. Can I refer you to page 87. There appears there the following lines -

Did you say that?

MR CEBEKHULU: Who did I say that to?

MR SEMENYA: You must have said it to Fred Bridgeland because this purports to be his book describing you.

MR CEBEKHULU: I did say that at the beginning when you asked me a question that some of the things are not my personal allegations and now you are asking me I am telling you that I don't know some of the things or the manner in which they are written or reported.

MR SEMENYA: Well let me put it differently, you did not justify your lie to Bridgeland by claiming that at the time you were vulnerable, unprotected, frightened, mentally and emotionally confused?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes I did say that.

MR SEMENYA: At what point are you confused? Is it at the time that you are sitting and crying outside the house of the Manse, is that the point at which you were confused, mentally and emotionally confused?

MR CEBEKHULU: I do not remember a specific time when I was mentally confused. I don't know whether I understand your question very well, could you rephrase it.

MR SEMENYA: Were you under any threat at the time you disclosed that you were being raped by Bishop Verryn?

MR CEBEKHULU: No I wasn't.

MR SEMENYA: Maybe explain to me, why do you justify that lie by saying that it is because you were confused?

MR CEBEKHULU: What I said was that the Reverend assaulted me indecently but that actually did not happen. I felt guilty because he had not raped me, I put that clearly. That is why I said I was confused and I felt somehow threatened and scared.

MR SEMENYA: Yes I am trying to establish that the reason for lying was it because you were confused and mentally and emotionally confused?

MR CEBEKHULU: No.

MR SEMENYA: So what appears in the book is not correct Sir?

MR CEBEKHULU: No.

MR SEMENYA: Did you know Lolo Sono?

MR CEBEKHULU: No I don't.

MR SEMENYA: Now why do you go at length to describe how Lolo Sono was assaulted?

MR CEBEKHULU: Because they were calling his name, I do know his name but we are not close or I cannot say we are friends. It was Richardson as well as the members of the Football Team.

MR SEMENYA: They were calling him Lolo Sono?

MR CEBEKHULU: They called him Lolo, but they did not call the surname ...(intervention)

MR SEMENYA: Where did you make the connection Lolo must be Lolo Sono then?

MR CEBEKHULU: I did say beforehand that I did know some of the people by their first names but I did not particularly know their surnames.

MR SEMENYA: So what Bridgeland writes there is not information he obtained from you?

MR CEBEKHULU: Could you please ask Bridgeland as where he obtains that information.

MR SEMENYA: Now you remember you testified about going in a kombi?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes I do.

MR SEMENYA: Who was in the car?

MR CEBEKHULU: It was Richardson, Winnie, myself as well as the other members.

MR SEMENYA: What do you mean, and others?

MR CEBEKHULU: I think there are about two more members in the car.

MR SEMENYA: No, what do you - who was in the car when you went to Mr Sono's house?

MR CEBEKHULU: It was myself, Winnie who was driving the car as well as Richardson. I don't remember the other one but I think there was another person, one or two.

MR SEMENYA: You are sure now you can't recall the other one who was there?

MR CEBEKHULU: It was Lolo Sono.

MR SEMENYA: Oh now you know him.

MR CEBEKHULU: Because you see that my memory - the way you asked me you asked me as to who else was there ...(intervention)

MR SEMENYA: But you just told us that when he is here you won't know that he's Lolo Sono, now you know him.

MR CEBEKHULU: It's the question, the manner in which you structured the question ...(intervention)

MR SEMENYA: No a much more simple question, do you know Lolo Sono?

MR CEBEKHULU: No I don't.

DR BORAINE: Order! Settle down please. Mr Semenya I must ask you please now to finish. I have to respect the cross-examination from other lawyers and you have had just over an hour.

MR SEMENYA: Well Deputy Chairperson I would put no further questions, I don't want to create an impression that cross-examination was complete.

DR BORAINE: Thank you very much.

MR KADES: Mr Chairperson, may I on behalf of the Asvat family, Norman Kades. Mr Cebekhulu might I refer you to the affidavit made by yourself that was spoken of earlier and might I refer you to page 10 paragraph 34, will you please confirm what you have stated in this affidavit, that on the 30th of December, the Friday, Mrs Mandela took you to see Dr Asvat, her personal physician, to seek a medical certificate supporting the rape claim. That the Doctor pointed out that no evidence was available since too much time had elapsed since the incident claimed had taken place with washing and toilet activities too.

However you say Dr Asvat gave you a medical examination and some tablets for insomnia. He asked Winnie and yourself to return in one or two weeks time when he would have the reports in from the general check-up he'd carried out and he would then provide the certificate of rape, the certificate for the rape.

Did you say that in your affidavit?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes I did.

MR KADES: And is that statement correct?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes that is correct.

MR KADES: And did you in fact hear Dr Asvat say that he would provide a certificate for rape, that you had been raped?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes I did.

MR KADES: Can we turn the page and look at paragraph 36 on page 11. You say that the following day Dr Asvat, that was the 31st, you say Dr Asvat was sent for and in fact he came. You have given that evidence in-chief and you've told us about that.

Might I then also refer you to page 12 of the affidavit in paragraph 42. You say there that about three weeks later or so Winnie Madikizela asked you to show two young Zulu boys Dr Asvat's house. Did you in fact show these two, whom you describe as Zulu boys, where Dr Asvat's house was or where his surgery?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes I did.

MR KADES: How did you go to what - you talk of Dr Asvat's house, was it his house or was it the place where he had examined you, his surgery?

MR CEBEKHULU: It was at the surgery, not the house.

MR KADES: Yes. And how did you go to show these two young Zulu boys where Dr Asvat's surgery was?

MR CEBEKHULU: We went in a car.

MR KADES: One of Mrs Mandela's cars or was it a car which was driven by one of the two boys?

MR CEBEKHULU: (no audible translation)

MR KADES: Yes, and did you point out the surgery to them?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MS KHAMPEPE: You go on in paragraph 42 to say that some days later you and Mrs Madikizela-Mandela instructed her lawyer, Krish Naidoo, to go to the police and file a charge for rape and you were told to accompany attorney Krish Naidoo to do this. Is that correct?

MR CEBEKHULU: That is correct.

MR KADES: Did you in fact go to the police station at about 11 o'clock that evening and did you make a report to the police?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes we went to the police.

MR KADES: You go further and say that the police asked for a medical certificate and the following day you were told to accompany Mrs Madikizela-Mandela to the doctor in order to obtain the medical certificate, is that correct?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes that is correct because the police requested some confirmation that I had indeed been raped.

MR KADES: Now did you go in to see Dr Asvat together with Mrs Mandela or did you go alone, did she go alone, what happened? Firstly did you go into the surgery with her, into the waiting room?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes I did go inside.

MR KADES: Yes, and who then went in to speak to Dr Asvat?

MR CEBEKHULU: It was Winnie.

MR KADES: And you remained in the waiting room, is that correct?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes that is correct.

MR KADES: Yes. And did you hear - your statement goes on to say, there was a very strong argument with shouts and disagreement and you heard someone, you thought it was Dr Asvat say, "no I am not going to do this", did you say that?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes I did.

MR KADES: You say that it was not possible to hear the subject under discussion and there was angry shouting with Mrs Madikizela-Mandela saying, "I will deal with you". Do you confirm that?

MR CEBEKHULU: No, the doctor said he was not going to do that and there was some arguments. I think thereafter I couldn't pick up what was being said.

MR KADES: Did you say in your affidavit that you heard Mrs Madikizela-Mandela saying "I will deal with you", to the Doctor?

MR CEBEKHULU: No she did not put it in that way. I said when we arrived there there was a lot of noise, he was busy saying "I can't do that, I can't do that" and there was this misunderstanding.

MR KADES: And that also is the afternoon that Dr Asvat was murdered, within an hour or two of that visit. Do you know that?

MR CEBEKHULU: I don't remember whether it's the very same day but we did receive a telephone call that he had been killed.

MR KADES: Yes. Now did you know, are you able to identify or do you know the names of the two young Zulu boys that you took to show Dr Asvat's surgery?

MR CEBEKHULU: No I do not know their names.

MR KADES: Yes, thank you.

DR BORAINE: Thank you. Anyone else? Yes.

MR .......?: Thank you Mr Chair. Mr Cebekhulu, yesterday were you in the room when I cross-examined John Morgan, the driver, about his version of seeing Stompie's body outside the window?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes I was sitting right there behind the attorneys.

MR .......?: And you heard me put Mr Richardson's version to Mr Morgan, correct?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes I think I recall that.

MR .......?: So there's no need for me to report that it's in total conflict with the version that you have put before the Commission today.

MR CEBEKHULU: I don't know what I am supposed to do in order for you to believe that what I am saying is true.

MR .......?: Either Mr Richardson's instructions are still incorrect, or are incorrect, or you are incorrect and you say Mr Richardson is incorrect?

MR CEBEKHULU: I could say that he's mistaken.

MR .......?: Now when we go to the Lolo Sono incident Mr Richardson's house was shot up, blown up on the 9th of November of that year, do you dispute that date or do you have any reason to?

MR CEBEKHULU: I wouldn't dispute the date, I am not sure.

MR .......?: How could you be that precise, how many days or days later did you see Mr Nicodemus Sono while Lolo Sono was in the car with you? Was it one, two, three or more?

MR CEBEKHULU: I think it was weeks, probably two weeks if I am not mistaken.

MR .......?: Now two weeks is a maximum of 14 days, is that your evidence?

MR CEBEKHULU: I think so, but I cannot say for sure it was 14 days, approximately.

MR .......?: Now did you hear Mr Nicodemus Sono's evidence?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes I did.

MR .......?: Do you dispute that he says that that incident took place, according to my notes, on the 13, 14th of that November?

MR CEBEKHULU: I wouldn't dispute that, it is possible, I just don't remember the date, so I wouldn't dispute the dates on any basis.

MR .......?: I do not have these, I believe it's in one of the leverarch files that I will be given, but those dates correspond with the CR number at the Meadowlands Police Station where Mr Nicodemus Sono reported the missing state of his son.

Now I put it to you that you could not have seen Mr Richardson in the car that day because he was in jail, he was arrested on the 9th and only released on the 25th, what do you say?

MR CEBEKHULU: I do not remember.

MR .......?: Was Mr Richardson in the vehicle with Lolo Sono? I put it to you he could not have been.

MR CEBEKHULU: (no translated reply)

MR .......?: Are you certain that Mr Richardson was in the vehicle?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes I could say that I am sure.

MR .......?: I will leave it there. Now we go back to the incident of the stabbing or alleged stabbing of Stompie Seipei by Mrs Mandela. Now from your vantage point how far away was the scene being enacted before you, was it one metre, ten metres, 30 metres? Indicate across the room.

MR CEBEKHULU: I was standing where I am pointing and this incident took place where I am pointing.

MR .......?: .... you indicate the nearest blue fan is that correct?

MR CEBEKHULU: No, I think it's from the table to the end of what I am pointing.

MR .......?: What are you pointing at, I am a bit lost?

MR CEBEKHULU: Could I just show you the distance? I was there where I pointed at first and this took place or occurred where I am at the moment.

MR .......?: (...indistinct).

MR CEBEKHULU: It's where I am pointing, yes where I am standing is where I was standing then and where I am pointing is where the incident took place, that is the distance between me and this particular scene.

MR .......?: I think there is consensus that it was about two or three metres......

Now from that distance could you see the person doing the stabbing was male or female?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes I was able to see that it was a woman.

MR .......?: What was the male at the scene doing?

MR CEBEKHULU: The male had put a person where I am pointing and the woman was doing as I am demonstrating, then thereafter I went into the house to sleep.

MR .......?: ....demonstration, was the male holding down the victim or standing.....?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes the male was holding down the victim, that is the youngster next to the jacuzzi.

MR .......?: And was she standing, kneeling, sitting?

MR CEBEKHULU: She wasn't sitting down, but she was bending as I am indicating or demonstrating.

MR .......?: And the male what was he doing?

MR CEBEKHULU: The male was holding down the youngster.

MR .......?: What time did you wake up the next morning?

MR CEBEKHULU: I woke up very early in the morning. The rest of the people had been up already by then, but I was the first one to wake up. I went into the other boys houses and I went past the jacuzzi as I am indicating in the diagram, I couldn't see anything really visible but I saw some droplets of blood and I went into the other rooms. I asked as to where Stompie was. I was told that he wasn't there.

MR .......?: I don't have any further questions, thank you.

DR BORAINE: Is there anyone else?

MR RICHARD: Mr Chairman if I may ask a few questions. Mr Cebekhulu I act for the Sono families and the Chili families. I know you have been answering questions for a very long time but I do need to clear up one or two matters with you in respect of Lolo Sono.

On the 12th or 13th of November 1988 was there an instruction given by Mrs Mandela that Lolo Sono was to be brought to her?

MR CEBEKHULU: No.

MR RICHARD: Your affidavit at paragraph 9 says that that was the case. You say -

that's what you've said in your affidavit, is that not correct? Think carefully Mr Cebekhulu.

MR CEBEKHULU: I think I have talked a lot for one day. Just give me some time to try and rethink.

MR RICHARD: ....to assist you could I refer you to your affidavit which was the affidavit of - it's the second affidavit and it's paragraph 9 of that affidavit. Take your time and just read paragraph 9 if you would.

DR BORAINE: It would help to give the page number and the paragraph number again please?

MR RICHARD: Mr Cebekhulu it's page 2 paragraph 9.

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes I do remember.

MR RICHARD: You now do recall that an instruction was given by Mrs Madikizela-Mandela to pick up Lolo Sono and bring him back to the house. That's something you recall?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes I do remember.

MR RICHARD: Now you go on to say in this affidavit that thereafter you found a boy who was being assaulted in the house and that this was a boy that you knew to be Lolo Sono and you assumed that to be the case because of the instruction that had been given. So did you observe a boy being assaulted by, amongst others, Mrs Madikizela-Mandela?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes I do remember.

MR RICHARD: Now was that the boy who was then taken to the house of Mr Sono, Nicodemus Sono?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes that is the same boy.

MR RICHARD: Now it's been suggested to you that perhaps Mr Richardson was not there but you do recall, do you, that Mrs Mandela was the person who assaulted Lolo Sono, is that correct?

MR CEBEKHULU: That is correct.

MR RICHARD: Now can I just ask you briefly about the occupants of the vehicle that took you to the house of the Sono's, do you recall whether there was a driver called Michael Siyakamela, is that name familiar to you?

MR CEBEKHULU: No I don't remember anything.

MR RICHARD: Can you remember however that when you got to the house Mr Nicodemus Sono came to the vehicle and tried to speak to his son, do you recall that?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes I do remember Mr Sono approaching the car.

MR RICHARD: Do you remember Mr Sono saying that his son was not a police spy?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes I do remember.

MR RICHARD: Do you recall Mr Sono asking Mrs Mandela please to leave the boy with him, his father?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes I do remember.

MR RICHARD: Yes. And then you've told us that Mrs Mandela refused and the vehicle went back to the house and you say that Mrs Mandela went off in the vehicle and you never saw Lolo Sono again, is that correct?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes that is correct.

MR RICHARD: Now it was said to you by Mr Semenya, and you answered at one point that you didn't know Lolo Sono, do you remember that?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes I still do say that because at the time I didn't know that it was Lolo Sono was being assaulted, I only realised that it was Lolo Sono when we went to Lolo Sono's place.

MR RICHARD: And you do know, am I correct in saying, is that the boy who was assaulted was the boy that Mr Nicodemus Sono identified as his son at the house, is that correct?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes it was the same boy.

MR RICHARD: Now Mr Cebekhulu I want to ask you one or two questions about ...(intervention)

DR BORAINE: Would you keep that as brief as possible.

MR RICHARD: Yes it will be very brief. Mr Chairman I do act for two families, not just for one.

DR BORAINE: I know that.

MR RICHARD: Mr Cebekhulu I want to refer you to events that occurred on the 13th of February 1989 and particularly the killing of Maxwell Madondo. Do you recall an instruction being given to you that steps should be taken to kill or at least apprehend Sibusiso Chili?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes I do remember that.

MR RICHARD: Who gave you that instruction?

MR CEBEKHULU: It was Winnie.

MR RICHARD: What exactly was her instruction?

MR CEBEKHULU: She said we should look for Sibusiso and bring him with to Winnie's office.

MR RICHARD: Do you know why she wanted to have him brought in?

MR CEBEKHULU: I do not know.

MR RICHARD: Did you then go ahead and try and apprehend Mr Chili?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes it was myself and Maxwell Madondo as well as another youngster, I have forgotten his name.

MR RICHARD: Is his name Killer?

MR CEBEKHULU: Ja I think it was Killer.

MR RICHARD: And is it correct that you attempted to apprehend Mr Chili but you were beaten off and

you and Killer escaped but Mr Madondo did not?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes that is correct.

MR RICHARD: Mr Madondo was in fact killed, do you know that?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes I do.

MR RICHARD: Thereafter do you know of any instructions given by Mrs Mandela to set fire to the Chili house?

MR CEBEKHULU: No she did not say the house should be burnt down but she said they must pay some revenge.

MR RICHARD: And the shooting of Mr Madondo?

MR CEBEKHULU: That is correct.

MR RICHARD: Just one more question on Mr Sono, that's Lolo Sono. Do you recall Mrs Mandela accusing Mr Sono of being a police informer? That's Lolo Sono being a police informer.

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes I do because he was assaulted at the garage and they kept on saying you are working with police.

MR RICHARD: And in your statement you have said that the reason that Mrs Mandela wanted to go to Mr Sono's house was to see if there were papers indicating that Lolo Sono was a police informer is that correct?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes that is true because when they put him into the car they were actually looking for that type of evidence.

MR RICHARD: Thank you Mr Chairman.

DR BORAINE: On whose behalf are you going to ask questions, on whose behalf.

MR MPOFU: I am acting for myself Mr Chairman.

DR BORAINE: But now how many people are you going to wanting to be cross-examined?

MR MPOFU: Well I have to put these questions, if Mr Cebekhulu is running back to England I may never have a chance. He has made some serious defamatory allegations about me.

DR BORAINE: Well now I want to remind you that you have very limited time and I have to be fair to everyone so please keep your questions very brief and precise.

MR MPOFU: Yes that's my intention.

DR BORAINE: I am glad to hear that.

MR MPOFU: Mr Cebekhulu do you usually tell lies under oath?

MR CEBEKHULU: No.

MR MPOFU: ....tell anybody that I had made frequent visits or unexplained visits to Brandfort?

MR CEBEKHULU: Could you please give me some chance, I just want to think whether you did go to Brandfort or you did not go to Brandfort, I am just trying to recall.

MS SOOKA: ... the witness by giving him some more detail.

MR MPOFU: ....answers the question please Mr Chairperson. Did you tell anybody or not?

MR CEBEKHULU: Now I think I remember. You told us that Mrs Mandela was in Brandfort the day of the incident and you told that to me personally.

MR MPOFU: ....visits to Brandfort, yes or no?

MR CEBEKHULU: No I didn't.

DR BORAINE: Wait there's an objection. Mr Joseph.

MR JOSEPH: I can't possibly see how this is relevant to the inquiry, but I take it no further. The examination as to whether there have been gross abuses of human rights. This is this gentleman's own mission.

DR BORAINE: Can you just motivate your question please.

MR MPOFU: Yes well Mr Chairman the basis for my invitation there was that serious and defamatory statements were made by, about me particularly by this witness. He is going to England in a few hours as I understand, that's the very basis of my presence here. If I am curtailed in my questioning him I may never get the opportunity.

MR JOSEPH: There are many courts of law in England where my learned friend can pursue his action of defamation.

DR BORAINE: No I don't think I can accept that. I think that Mr Cebekhulu is here, he is under oath, he is required to answer questions, but I remind you that you must please be - and precise.

MR MPOFU: Yes, well. Your answer is that you never told anybody this, is that correct?

MR CEBEKHULU: No I didn't.

MR MPOFU: Did you tell anybody this or did you not tell them?

DR BORAINE: Mr Cebekhulu would you please look at the attorney who is putting the questions to you and just leave your book alone now because you are tired, you are very confused and I want you to listen very carefully to the question and then answer the question please.

MR MPOFU: I will try and lead you. As I understand your answer is that you never told anybody that I went to Brandfort, is that correct?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes that is correct.

MR MPOFU: Now just as the Deputy Chairperson said you must leave your book could you just turn to page 144.

MR CEBEKHULU: What page?

MR MPOFU: 144. I will read it out to you. At the top of the page -

Did you say this to anybody? It's attributed to you, it says "Katiza said". Is this one of the incorrect passages in the book?

MR CEBEKHULU: I did explain beforehand that some of the allegations contained herein are not within my personal knowledge.

MR MPOFU: Did you tell anybody that you and I and Mrs Mandela went to Cape Town?

MR CEBEKHULU: No.

MR MPOFU: Did you tell anybody that Mrs - well Judge Kaplan Satchwell told you that she had paid money to Doctor to say you are mad and that you must pretend to be mad when you get to court?

MR CEBEKHULU: That I was told by you and the attorney that I should act crazy.

MR MPOFU: Mrs Satchwell told you this?

MR CEBEKHULU: No.

MR MPOFU: Did you tell anybody that Mrs Satchwell came to Mrs Mandela's house and Mrs Mandela acted as an interpreter and Mrs Satchwell said to you, do you want to go to Lusaka or do you want to be paid money, something to that effect?

MR CEBEKHULU: No.

MR MPOFU: Mr Chairman if I can just - yes final question. I put it to you that you made a statement under oath on the 15th of March 1990, a copy of which has been obtained from the TRC to a person by the name of Norman Lemmer which was -the statement was under oath and you made one of the following allegations.

A loose translation of that is that the three of us went to Cape Town and you and I apparently spent the night there and came back the following day.

DR BORAINE: Your question is?

MR MPOFU: That he made ...(intervention)

MR CEBEKHULU: I don't remember anything of that sort. I don't remember anything of that sort.

MR MPOFU: But do you remember going to Cape Town with me?

MR CEBEKHULU: No.

DR BORAINE: You told me that was your last question.

MR MPOFU: Yes. Well the very last one is that all the statements that are attributed to you, except for the one that was made in the book, were made by you under oath and there are several lies contained in your book, other than the one of me going to Brandfort. Have you got any comment?

MR CEBEKHULU: I said earlier on that some of the things written here were not said by me.

DR BORAINE: Thank you very much. Yes, please, just give your name.

MS GERNTHOLTZ: My name is Lisa Gerntholtz and I act on behalf of Bishop Verryn. I would simply like to ask you one question Mr Cebekhulu for the purposes of the record. The allegations that you made about Bishop Verryn you seem to vacillate between whether he raped you or whether he sexually abused you, were there any truth in those allegations at all?

MR CEBEKHULU: No I even want to apologise to him for having made those allegations because they were not true and still are not true.

DR BORAINE: Thank you.

MR MPOFU: Sorry Chairperson. No, no, I just want to, because I don't know whether I will get an opportunity to place this on record or to take the stand. I just want, for the sake of the record, to state that I have never been to Brandfort, I don't even know how to get there, in my life. Thank you.

DR BORAINE: We'll arrange for that a little later. Thank you.

MR SOLLER: Peter Soller for Zikele Mbatha. Mr Cebekhulu will you have a look please at paragraph 32 on page 10 of your affidavit.

DR BORAINE: Could I just ask you, are you the last lawyer now?

MR SOLLER: I guess the last but one I gather.

DR BORAINE: Who is the other one?

MR SOLLER: My learned friend on my right....

DR BORAINE: No,

MR SOLLER: Then I am the last.

DR BORAINE: You are the last so I am sure you will set a good example.

MR SOLLER: I will endeavour to do so Mr Chairperson. Mr Cebekhulu have you had a look at page 10 paragraph 32 of your affidavit?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes I can see that.

MR SOLLER: Do I read into that that you actually witnessed the murder of Dr Asvat?

MR CEBEKHULU: No I did not witness it.

MR SOLLER: What do you intend then saying by "KC himself saw the murder and to the sequence of events which caused Dr Asvat to lose his life as well"?

MR CEBEKHULU: All I know is that I pointed out the surgery, that is all that I know with regard to Dr Asvat's death, nothing more.

MR SOLLER: So it's factually incorrect for you to say that you saw the murder?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes I think that's a factual mistake. I just showed them the place.

MR SOLLER: As to the sequence of events Mr Cebekhulu my client as you know, Mr Mbatha, received the death sentence for this murder, are you aware of that?

MR CEBEKHULU: No I am not aware.

MR SOLLER: Do you not know that he's one of the young unknown Zulu boys to whom you were referring earlier tonight?

MR CEBEKHULU: I do know that there are people who killed Dr Asvat but I didn't know their names until they were mentioned that it was Mbatha and Siro.

MR SOLLER: Is it not correct that in the book that's been referred to so frequently tonight at least on four separate pages their name is referred to?

MR CEBEKHULU: As I have come here I want to speak the truth because I did say that some of the things alleged in this book are not my personal assertions. Some people I know them by their first names but not their surnames.

MR SOLLER: In fact you say you are aware of the sequence of events and I quote from paragraph 32 which caused Dr Asvat to lose his life, can you dispute what my client will tell the Commission that he was offered a considerable sum of money by Mrs Mandela to take the life of Dr Asvat?

MR CEBEKHULU: No I do not know anything with regard to the money. I would have said that if I had any knowledge thereof.

MR SOLLER: Then for the purposes of your evidence I can disregard entirely the fact, I can disregard paragraph 32 in it's entirety of your affidavit, is that correct?

MR CEBEKHULU: Paragraph?

MR SOLLER: Paragraph 32 on page 10.

MR CEBEKHULU: No I did not witness Dr Asvat's killing but I did point out the place.

MR SOLLER: Well can I just be a little bit more specific. The sequence of events, is it correct or incorrect that you were aware of the sequence of events beyond the pointing out of Dr Asvat's place as you call it?

MR CEBEKHULU: I do remember vaguely.

MR SOLLER: What is it that you remember vaguely?

MR CEBEKHULU: I remember that I went to show them Dr Asvat's surgery and I went to the police. I also went to point out Dr Asvat's surgery, but as to the sequence I cannot be absolutely positive.

MR SOLLER: ... possible that if Mr Mbatha says that he was requested to take the life of Dr Asvat by Mrs Mandela, and he did so with your assistance, would he be probably telling the truth?

MR CEBEKHULU: I think it is true because if it wasn't true I wouldn't have been instructed to go and show him the place.

(...indistinct)

MR SEMENYA: May I ask a short indulgence just to put two questions to Ms Nicholson?

DR BORAINE: I am going to allow Mr Joseph, you want to comment, but that's going to be a very brief comment.

MR JOSEPH: Yes I want to express our gratitude, the gratitude of Baroness Nicholson and Mr Cebekhulu to you and your Commission for sitting so late so as to accommodate their personal problems.

DR BORAINE: Thank you for that. Yes, two brief questions.

MR SEMENYA: Madam you have told us about your passion for human rights, can you confirm the book that you are describing Mrs Mandela as a "self-styled mother of the nation".

MS NICHOLSON: Can I confirm what?

MR SEMENYA: That you describe in the book Mrs Madikizela-Mandela as a "self-styled mother of the nation".

MS NICHOLSON: My input into the book is the foreword which I wrote and authored.

MR SEMENYA: So you confirm it's correct?

MS NICHOLSON: I confirm that the foreword I wrote in the book is as I wished to express it.

MR SEMENYA: And that's she's a black mamba. Is that your description and your respect for human rights to describe people as black mambas?

MS NICHOLSON: I fully confirm everything I have written in that foreword.

MR SEMENYA: And I take it you will give me the same answer that your adherence to human rights would get you to describe Mrs Madikizela-Mandela that she is a witch?

MS NICHOLSON: I confirm what I have written in that foreword, it is under my name, I am surprised that you ask me.

MR SEMENYA: No I just want to understand whether this that is described here is said by you with your conviction as a human rights adherent, that's all I am asking?

MS NICHOLSON: I confirm I've written that foreword.

MR SEMENYA: Thank you Chairperson.

MS NICHOLSON: But may I add also, is it possible for me to add something?

DR BORAINE: If it's very brief, yes.

MS NICHOLSON: Thank you very much. May I add two points that the book production which is written by a leading journalist based in South Africa was carried out in a period of time that allowed the journalist very little time with Mr Cebekhulu, and unfortunately because Mr Cebekhulu was in Sierra Leone it was not possible for the author to vet the book with Mr Cebekhulu. This was a pity because we had planned that it would have been co-authored but that was not possible without having both people.....(side A ends)

...over the words Bathroom and Toilet shower, Mr Cebekhulu told the lawyer in London, consistently using the word bathroom, I'm afraid that it was a misunderstood word, I recall him being invited to explain that it was bath in the room, he said no, a bathroom. And that is the clear point on that.

MR BORAINE: Now we are just about to adjourn, but I have a panel and I'm going to instruct the panel that they have one question each if that is entirely necessary. It is not necessary to ask any questions but if you do have any, you have one question. Mr Ntsebeza.

MR NTSEBEZA: Thank you Chair. My question is going to be to you Baroness Nicholson. You have become acquainted with the contents of the book, Katiza's Journey, and at the time that the book was launched in this country there was also a documentary. And I don't think it has been canvassed properly how you explain what appears to be two different statements with regard to the role or otherwise of President Mandela in the kidnap or otherwise of Katiza Cebekhulu, and I think we owe it to you being present here to assist us to clarify the averrments that are in the book.

On page 207, the book states and purports to have a quote from you in the following terms:

Now that's the one part.

The other part is where the book deals on page 270 with yourself, I think the quote is:

and I would assume I is Bridgeland,

Now if you are able to reconcile if it is possible, the first page number is 207 and then the other number page 270.

MS NICHOLSON: Yes.

MR NTSEBEZA: ...that in the wake of the documentary and this book, the President had been constrained to issue a statement in which he explained his position, but we'd like to hear from you in which you are attributed with some of the averrments here?

MS NICHOLSON: Yes, I can clarify this and thank you for asking me. I think it's best if I speak with no notes and merely tell you what happened, but I preface my comments by saying that the explanation came from Kenneth Kaunda himself that I have a record of that interview, not word for word, but I have the questions I put to him, the answers he gave me, and I stayed on a further hour after the interview was complete. And therefore I understood the full picture.

Please recollect that I saw President Chiluba on the first day that he became President of Zambia for the first time. In fact I was his first visitor. I was there at 9 o'clock in the morning and I received the name of Katiza Cebekhulu at about five to nine as I was leaving my hotel, and I want to point out here, that I had no knowledge of him, no knowledge of the case, I knew nothing about any of this at all. I merely, with some difficulty, because it was a complicated name for somebody from my language, I with great difficulty wrote down the name and put the name to President Chiluba.

When President Chiluba had authorised a search and the search had proved successful, which was some hours later, President Chiluba told me that the record, the government record which he then had looked up, because he hadn't expected to find a South African national in a Zambian jail, those were his very words to me, that the records appeared to show, that the order to take Katiza Cebekhulu out of South Africa and into Zambia purported to have come from President Mandela who was not of course then president.

I took that comment for what it was worth and made the assumption that either somebody was using the leader's name which in politics is not just a daily but an hourly and a minutely occurrence, everybody always says they're doing things in the name of their political leader, frequently it isn't so, or if the order had come from Mr Mandela, I reached the immediate conclusion, that it had been an excellent thing to do because if that was so, whoever had given the order, as far as one can tell from the story, that saved his life, because this young man was saying if had he stayed in South Africa, he would have been dead. Therefore I gave that point no rating at all. In fact it was of such unimportance to me that I did not mention it, that the journalist who wrote the book until I think it was early June or late May 1997, because it had not seemed to me to be of any value at all. If it wasn't President Mandela somebody had done this young man a good deed. If it was President Mandela, well he had done the good deed, and so much the better. It was of no value to me. What mattered to me was finding him somewhere to stay. And I think that if you enquire from the journalist you will discover that I told him, I just let it slip in, I think the middle of May, or late May, early June in 1997, it was something of so little consequence to me.

However, both the journalist and the film producer, I am sure they will confirm this, they are both men of high integrity, thought this was very important, and therefore requested me to ask President Chiluba again and requested me to ask former President Kenneth Kaunda. I should explain that in order to make the film we spent three days at the end of May in Sierra Leone, just as Sierra Leone was blowing up and went on to Zambia in a separate trip, several weeks later to clear up the ends and the bits and pieces of the young man's stay in Zambia.

However, it was not proper for me to ask President Chiluba. Our 1991 discussion was history and what we discussed there is on the record, is available and can be talked over, I am sure, with him as well. I did have a meeting with President Chiluba and it was a private, off the record confidential discussion with nobody present, certainly no journalist and no staff and ...(intervention)

DR BORAINE: Sorry to interrupt you, are you talking about President Chiluba now or Kaunda?

MS NICHOLSON: I said President Chiluba.

DR BORAINE: In private, off the record?

MS NICHOLSON: Yes. And this in fact was not the topic of our discussion because the person to ask, which was the question I put to President Chiluba was that I was there with the film crew, would he mind if I went around a little bit and did some filming and also talked to Kenneth Kaunda.

As a result of that I went off to see Kenneth Kaunda and took a list of questions to try to get to the bottom of the puzzle as to why he was in Zambia in the first place. And I had a very, very long, two to three hour meeting with Kenneth Kaunda of which about a half hour I think, it may have been more, is recorded on video and a clip from that was used in the film. And the video transcript is the intellectual property of the BBC and I can give you the details who to write to if you wish to have it. I will, however, give you my very, very full note on the meeting. And the key to the answer was that Kenneth Kaunda had not had a message from Nelson Mandela at all. He had been asked to take Katiza Cebekhulu in by Oliver Tambo. He explained to me that this was in a sequence of a long period of time during which he had taken in both freedom fighters and young men and I suppose women, who had offended the movement and were at risk in South Africa while their cases were being examined, and Katiza Cebekhulu fell into the latter category. He said most of those young men were not in prison. At any one time he had 60 or 70 of them, but he also at any one time have 15 or 20 in prison who had been so difficult and were such trouble, that they were better off protected inside the jail. And there were also, he told me, many thousands of freedom fighters during that time whose training he organised with Moscow.

To go back, however, to the point at issue, which is the taking in of people in trouble, I said why were they in trouble? He said, well you have to understand that towards the end of this period of freedom fighting in South Africa the movement became very suspicious of many, many people and often people were fingered on suspicion which was not valid. Therefore the best thing to do was to take them out of the way while the case was examined, while the heat settled and then they could go back again. I said, and was Katiza Cebekhulu one of those? He said yes, he was one of those. He hadn't offended the whole movement, but there was a small wing of the movement, there was a group of people who wished to have him killed. And that is the answer. I can give you the full record of the meeting.

DR BORAINE: Thank you. Could you please have one question and keep it brief. It's now eight o'clock.

DR RANDERA: Chairperson only one question to Mr Cebekhulu. Mr Cebekhulu while I have been listening and trying to understand all the questions and your answers today there are two things that I have had difficulty reconciling. One is that you say you joined Mrs Madikizela-Mandela's household in August. Now both Mr John Morgan and Xoliswa Falati were asked these questions about whether they had seen you in the house prior to what happened in December. Both of them said they had never seen you in Mrs Mandela's house. John Morgan worked there, Mrs Falati and you can perhaps comment on that.

The second one is ...(intervention)

DR BORAINE: Can I just one that - let's stay with that and you only ask him one question. Can you just answer that?

Do you understand the question?

MR CEBEKHULU: Yes I heard his question. They are telling a lie. They are lying.

CHAIRPERSON: Mrs Mkhize.

MS MKHIZE: My question is directed to Ms Nicholson. It's really about this book, I am seeing it for the first time, you will pardon me for that, but I just want to put a statement to you with the hope that I will get your reaction. In my knowledge of science, scientists are under certain obligation, as if as a scientist or a researcher you have to produce a text you have a responsibility to examine your facts very carefully. In this instance I am excited to see this text, but at the same time I have questions as to how much caution was taken to establish whatever is said, these aspects, given the fact that this is a document which is likely to go down from generation to generation?

MS NICHOLSON: Which document are you referring to please?

MS MKHIZE: Well I have just heard here that you wrote a foreword and I assumed that if a person agrees to write a foreword to a book it goes with a certain conviction about the contents of what is in that book.

MS NICHOLSON: I am not sure that I have the question from you that you want me to answer.

MS MKHIZE: The question really is how much accountability can you take in terms of having made sure that whatever is contained in this book affects - I take it to be one of the pre-conditions if you were to publish an article or a book, any, I am talking about production of knowledge. I was lecturing for more than ten years at the university.

MS NICHOLSON: I beg your pardon for not completely understanding you.

DR BORAINE: Can I just ask you to hold for one moment. It's just to save time. Miss Sooka wants to follow-up along the same lines I think.

MS SOOKA: I think that one of the problems that the Commission is facing is the fact that at the end of this it is supposed to make some kind of finding about gross human rights violations that took place, and the difficulty that we are sitting is that this book was published and it purported to be Katiza's story. Now certainly through the cross-examination that has taken place here today there are issues of Katiza's credibility at stake and the difficulty we sit with is you have now added a further rider to the issue by saying that there was no time for the author to actually check the book itself with the person who is purporting to tell his story. Now that immediately raises certain questions. One, that a number of people are vulnerable to really very serious allegations. They relate to murder and torture and violence which the Commission, through its Act construes as gross human rights violations. Now there was no cross-referencing in terms of what you said that Katiza didn't proof-read the book, but the book was published, it was launched quite spectacularly with the book launch and in London, in South Africa was shown on our TV screens at the same time and people's reputations are at stake. Now the Commission is faced with a huge problem because in an afternoon session like this we can't really explore all of the contradictions and that the contradictions are left with us I think all of us are really sitting with a major problem. And I have to ask, why was it necessary to launch this book then with such great haste, because we're really dealing with a really serious aspect of our history and at the end of it I'm not sure how we're going to make a finding on what has been told us today.

MR NTSEBEZA: Can I follow this....(intervention clapping and cheering)

DR BORAINE: Order! Order please, thank you!

MR NTSEBEZA: Can I just make a follow up on the same point please Mr Chairperson?

DR BORAINE: Ja but let's keep it brief, I think the point has been made here.

MR NTSEBEZA: ..Nicholson are you going to use this book as an authentic document after these hearings? That's a short question. Are you going to use this book as an authentic document? I'm also saying this because I've been in the field of education for a long time. I read the articles and publications of people before they can be published. Those are the ethics of research and writing. Is this book standing as an authentic document fro this time on after this?

DR BORAINE: Right now you may reply please.

MS NICHOLSON: Thank you very much, you gave me a hefty charge of questions and I'll do my best, and if I don't answer the questions to your satisfaction, please ask again because I am certainly trying to.

Can I take you back to the problem that in the complexity of his case and in it's veracity. I have told you in my evidence that a large number of countries refused to take him and that I had some reasons given me by leading people in those nations as to why they were not taken. I just put on the record that the United Kingdom refused not once but several times. In 1991, in 1994,...(intervention)

MR : We have that you've given us all of that information.

MS NICHOLSON: I haven't given you all I'm afraid, that in Denmark there was this very extraordinary response, in Sweden the same, USA, Canada, all of these countries. Now I myself was in no position to have the time or the knowledge to test any of the points that Mr Cebekhulu had made. As a matter of fact please bear in mind that between 1991 when I had maybe an hour I suppose with him, with the Zambians, and 1995 when I had several weeks with him, I never saw him and I had merely a small handful of letters. I therefore had no knowledge of his case, of any real validity at all. That was of no consequence because all I was trying to do was find him somewhere to live. It was not my job to talk about South African matters. I did see it as my job as somebody who works a great deal with refugees having the extraordinary coincident of finding him to try to find him somewhere to go.

Now by 1993 when we were in this extraordinary pickle with the UNHCR saying it was unique, they had no accredited refugee for whom they couldn't find a place. They could think of no think of no case like him. It would be difficult to think that everything he had told at UNHCR, he had given them his story in great detail, and the Zambian newspapers was utterly without any foundation at all because these countries had to have reasons. They were all offering the same reasons related to his knowledge.

In 1993 however, despite having been asked to keep this story very low key so as not to unsettle the unity of the ANC, which I did, I in fact published knowledge of the case and of his assertion that he'd seen Mrs Winnie Mandela stab Stompie in a book of my own which was published and which I'm happy to leave you a copy. I also made reference to the case in a second book I wrote in 1996 which was a political book about why I left the right wing Conservative party and joined the left of centre Liberal Democrats, and I'm happy to leave you that as well.

Now to go back to your point, by 1995 Katiza Cebekhulu had spent two years in Sierra Leone. I had made the assumption that once the ANC or rather the non-apartheid government had taken power, that cases such as his that surely were a fall-out from the struggle, would be sorted out. I was extremely disconcerted to discover no movement at all and a continued block on any country giving him settlement and a continued block on leading members of the ANC whom I knew personally refusing to even discuss his case at all. Therefore I responded to his despair by saying yes I would

do what I could to get his story published. He wished his own story to be published under his own name and he sent me a small book, it would have been very difficult to get that published in the United Kingdom, such detail and of little interest, however, journalists had been hounding me for access to Mr Cebekhulu in the utter mistaken belief that he had been living with me all the time in my home. As I say correctly he had been in jail for three years, he was then at that stage into his third year in Sierra Leone and I therefore made a huge effort for him to try to solve this settlement to see if getting something on the record of what he said, and in trying to get that check would assist his case. As a working member of Parliament I certainly had no opportunity to come to South Africa, sit her, study that evidence, I therefore could not write a book. It was not my knowledge and I would not have dreamt of trying because I was a busy member of Parliament. As I said earlier I was busy caring in the south of Iran and Iraq and Lebanon, Palestine, Rumania, now Rwanda and I think in Sierra Leone soon for about 15000 refugees to do voluntary work in addition to my parliamentary work. I just didn't have time. So I responded to one journalist who seemed to me to have the upper hand in his request, which was Fred Bridgeland - why did he have the upper hand because it was he who originally had asked me to see if Mr Cebekhulu was in prison.

Now Mr Bridgeland is an author, he chose not to co-partner Mr Cebekhulu and that was understandable as after his very few weeks in the United Kingdom Mr Cebekhulu went straight back to Sierra Leone where he stayed until very, very recently indeed. So he spent all of this time away and therefore Mr Bridgeland wrote his book and spent considerable time in South Africa double-checking and brought a team here too.

And I, myself, therefore believe that it is a book of great merit, but it is not an autobiography of Katiza Cebekhulu, it is not a book co-authored by Katiza Cebekhulu and it is not a book in which I have the capacity to check the facts. My foreword relates to my finding Mr Cebekhulu and how I subsequently tried to get him a place and what reaction I have had.

DR BORAINE: I have to apologise as profusely as I can to Mr Jabu Sithole and his lawyer, his legal representative who I don't see at the moment, I hope I won't see him because I did promise that we would try to hear him as well today. I think in the interests of all concerned it will be foolish to hear another witness. I don't think it's fair on Mrs Mandela and her legal team, I don't think it would be fair on any of us who would have to stay for that. I think it's beyond probably what we can bear.

So let me say now that we will resume at 8:30 tomorrow morning and that one of the first witnesses, if not Jabu Sithole, will be Bishop Verryn, because we have kept him waiting several days and then we will follow the order.

Can I say that the staff have asked me to announce that all those lawyers who are still here and need to pick up their documents please do so where the TRC staff room is before you go so you can work again a little later on tonight. Can I very sincerely thank all concerned for your remarkable endurance and patience. This could have gone very badly wrong when people are very tired bad things happen. Can I say to Mr Cebekhulu you've had a very long spell in the witness box, I appreciate very much your willingness to answer the questions as far as you were able to. Thank you very much indeed - yes......

MR : Just one aspect which my counsel is going to place on record, it's directed to the witness, it relates to the question of whether they are prepared to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the local courts with regard to the impending actions that we are considering.

DR BORAINE: I think that's a private matter you must take up now, we cannot take it up ...(intervention)

MR : That's why we want - we are putting the question direct to them ...(intervention)

DR BORAINE: On record.

MR : ....we are made to understand that they will be leaving in due course and we won't have any means of contact with them. We are directing the question right away to them.

DR BORAINE: No I cannot take that question in this Commission but of course you must feel free to put that question directly to them. We have taken advice, we have been told that there is no need for them to leave, they have decided that they are leaving, we can't control their movements and I think you must now take that up.

We stand adjourned.