News | Sport | TV | Radio | Education | TV Licenses | Contact Us |
TRC Final ReportPage Number (Original) 557 Paragraph Numbers 12 to 20 Volume 2 Chapter 6 Part Part6 Subsection 2 ■ BACKGROUND TO INVESTIGATION12 The allegations against Ms Madikizela-Mandela and the football club have been extremely controversial. The activities of the club, which culminated in the abduction and assault of youths and the subsequent events of January and February 1989, resulted in the prosecution and conviction of Madikizela-Mandela and three associates, as well as the conviction for murder of Mr Jerry Richardson, the coach of the MUFC. Madikizela-Mandela was found guilty in 1991 of kidnapping and of being an accessory to assault. The latter conviction was subsequently overturned, but a full bench of the Appellate Division upheld the kidnapping conviction in 1993. 13 The Commission’s enquiry was initiated following submissions received at the Soweto hearing in July 1996 and from Ms Joyce Seipei, mother of Stompie Seipei, in KwaZulu-Natal. Additional information was also received from members of the MUFC as well as from the amnesty applications of Mr Jerry Richardson and former members of the Security Branch. 14 The task of the Investigation Unit was to try to piece together a series of seemingly unrelated incidents and allegations, some of which were already well known. It made use of court and police records, victim statements, amnesty applications, media records and other publications. These sources assisted in the identification of all individuals concerned and involved. 15 Ms Madikizela-Mandela was subpoenaed to appear before the Human Rights Violations Committee in terms of section 29 of the Act. The hearing was to be held in camera but, following a request by Madikizela-Mandela’s counsel that the enquiry be held in public, the Commission decided to hold an in camera session, followed by a public hearing at which a cross-section of witnesses would be called to testify and at which Madikizela-Mandela would be given an opportunity to respond publicly. 16 The in camera hearing began on 26 September and continued for a further day on 13 October. The transcripts of these hearings were released for use at the public hearings, which began on 24 November. A total of forty-three witnesses gave evidence before the nine-day hearing – including perpetrators, victims, former members of the MUFC and other associates of the Mandela household, members of MK, Ms Madikizela-Mandela’s former co-accused, members of the Mandela Crisis Committee, representatives of the mass democratic movement (MDM), religious and community leaders, members of the SAP Murder and Robbery Unit, former Security Branch members working with STRATCOM and the staff of the Commission’s Investigation Unit. The final day was reserved for the evidence of Ms Madikizela-Mandela. 17 Arising from the testimony obtained from these hearings, the Commission decided to conduct a further public hearing into the role of the Soweto Security Branch. On 28 and 29 January 1998, twelve former security policemen, including two former divisional commanders of the Soweto Security Branch and former Vlakplaas commander Eugene de Kock, testified before the Commission. 18 The broader enquiry also heard in camera testimony from members of the National Intelligence Agency (NIA), a former member of the Witwatersrand AttorneyGeneral’s office and a former member of the ANC’s intelligence department who had been drafted into police investigations in 1995 to assist with the location of former MUFC members. 19 The Investigation Unit was constrained by insufficient personnel, time and resources. Initially, it received very little co-operation from the police regarding access to dockets and statements, receiving more information only in early 1998 when its mandate was coming to an end. It was thus not able to follow up all witnesses and leads. 20 The public hearing process was constrained by time limitations, allowing only for limited cross-examination, which angered many of the lawyers who appeared. The Commission emphasised, however, that this was not a court of law but a commission of enquiry – attempting to understand events rather than establish guilt or innocence. |