Special Hearings — Mandela United Football Club Hearings — 1997-11-24

KATIZA 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?

KATIZA 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?

KATIZA 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?

KATIZA 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?

KATIZA 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?

KATIZA 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?

KATIZA CEBEKHULU: I can't answer that question.

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

KATIZA 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?

KATIZA CEBEKHULU: No it's not true.

MR SEMENYA: Your mother is not telling the truth?

KATIZA 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?

KATIZA 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?

KATIZA 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)

KATIZA 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.

UNKNOWN: Mr Semenya?

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

UNKNOWN: 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.

UNKNOWN: 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.

UNKNOWN: 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.

UNKNOWN: 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?

KATIZA 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?

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

MR SEMENYA: Which murder did you admit to?

KATIZA 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?