Special Hearings — Mandela United Football Club Hearings — 1997-11-28

MR JOSEPH: Trust me.  My surname is Joseph, I represent Katiza Cebekhulu and Emma Nicholson.  Mr Cachalia, page 2 of your report, paragraph 6.9 and 6.10, my learned friend, Mr Semenya, questioning you, you conceded what is the obvious that this is not something of which you have personal knowledge.
 Would I be fair in suggesting that you arrived at these conclusions and the inferences, these opinions, based on your mature consideration of facts and circumstances that you were aware of, that were communicated to you by reliable sources?

AZHAR CACHALIA: Yes, there is a leading question if ever there was one, but I accept that.

MR JOSEPH: You accept that?  No further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Elly?

MR UNTERHALTER: I act for the Sono family, the Shabalala family and then the Chili family.  Mr Cachalia, am I correct in thinking that you played a role in arranging Mr Sono's visit to the National Commissioner of the Police during 1995?

AZHAR CACHALIA: I may have, but I can't remember.

MR UNTERHALTER: In your work, either in UDF structures or in the Ministry of Safety and Security, have you ever received credible information to the effect that either of Lolo Sono or Sibuniso Shabalala were police informers or operatives?

AZHAR CACHALIA: No, but a simple yes or no would be inaccurate.  I am not a police officer and I don't work with the Police operations.  Ordinarily I don't come across intelligence, I don't deal with intelligence so, if I say no to you, it would be a useless answer.

MR UNTERHALTER: And you are going to say no, you say no?  You haven't come across that?

AZHAR CACHALIA: I don't come across it ordinarily sir.

MR UNTERHALTER: You imply that given the kinds of activities which Winnie Mandela was the centre of at the time, it was strange that the Police did not do more to reign her in?

AZHAR CACHALIA: Yes.

MR UNTERHALTER: And did it seem that Winnie Mandela herself was somehow immune from Police attention?

AZHAR CACHALIA: This is a difficult one, it wasn't so much the question of her immunity.  I have no doubt that there was a lot of attention, the question is what the Police strategy and tactics were in relation to Mrs Mandela.
 Did they want to use what was happening around the Mandela home to discredit our President when he was released?  I mean there were a million agenda's.  I am not even going to begin to enumerate them, but I will say that the police played very close attention to what was happening with Mrs Mandela and the Mandela home.

MR UNTERHALTER: And it was surprising that nothing happened despite that attention?

AZHAR CACHALIA: Yes, well I mean in the old days, in the days before that, if there was a vague sense that there was a banned book in Mrs Mandela's home, let alone an arms cache, Mrs Mandela would have been prosecuted and dealt with severely.  By 1988, 1989 that wasn't happening, we were running away, we were trying to keep our organisations alive.
 But yet there seemed to be this kombi driving around Soweto with Mrs Mandela in it, and nothing was happening, so yes, it was difficult to understand.

MR UNTERHALTER: Persons in the Mandela household, were responsible for serious acts of criminality and murders.  Including one of the Chili relatives.  Do you think that if the Police had paid more attention, and the kind of attention they should have paid to the activities taking place in Winnie Mandela's household, if we had lived in a civil society at that time, the Police would have been able to put a stop to her activities?

AZHAR CACHALIA: Well look, this is difficult and I want to balance it.  I think in a sort of normal society, all right, the police must act, they must act properly, they must deal with witnesses.
 I do understand at that time, that the one difficulty that let say the good guys in the Police, the one difficulty that they would have had was to get credible witnesses and those who were credible, they were going to be people in the pre-1990 who were prepared to give evidence, so I have no doubt that say among the good cops, the Attorney General, that would have been a consideration, getting credible evidence.
 On hindsight and reflecting, I am not sure that the Police did everything they could in every case to deal with the problem.  But that is just the sort of ex post facto sense that I have.

MR UNTERHALTER: Do you think that some blame can attach to the Police for failing to act against Winnie Mandela at the time when they should have acted?

AZHAR CACHALIA: It is difficult.  You are asking me to make a proposition.  I would say they could perhaps have done a bit more, but where the scale tilted and really when you are asking me as a general proposition, you have to talk about it almost case by case.
 It maybe in one case that they owed a greater responsibility, it maybe in another case that they did everything properly.  So it is really difficult for me to say that as a general proposition.

MR UNTERHALTER: When persons were detained during the 1980's without access to the court, wasn't it the convention to call for their immediate release or that they be charged?

AZHAR CACHALIA: Well, I think that, you know in the very early days, if you like, and I can't remember now the time periods, I see some of the Detainees Parents Support Committee are here, so they would be able to help me.
 Initially the demand was charge or release.

MR UNTERHALTER: But immediately, do it immediately?

AZHAR CACHALIA: Yes, it was immediate charge or release, but as in a sense the struggle intensified, our view was not charge or release, we don't want to be charged and go to your courts, our demand was an unconditional release.  So that changed.

MR UNTERHALTER: But the point was that you called for the person to be released immediately?

AZHAR CACHALIA: Yes.

MR UNTERHALTER: If a person committed a gross human rights violation in the past, but failed to apply for amnesty, would you have a problem with such a person being charged in a criminal court today for his or her crime?

AZHAR CACHALIA: It is not a question of a problem.  I think there is a obligation for the law to take its course, so the law must take its course.  How can I have a problem with that.

MR UNTERHALTER: Legally the law must take its course, but morally?

AZHAR CACHALIA: Morally, the law is the law and I am legally and morally obliged to uphold the law.  I assume that the law has a moral basis so it must happen.

MR UNTERHALTER: Thank you, no further question.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Please identify yourself.

MS GERNTHOLTZ: Mr Cachalia, my name is Liezl Gerntholtz, and I act for Bishop Verryn.  I have just one question for you.  You say in paragraph 10.3.6 of your statement that Paul Verryn was framed.
 Who in your opinion framed him?

AZHAR CACHALIA: It is very clear to me that there was a conspiracy to frame  Paul Verryn.  Who all the people were, I cannot say, but I have very little doubt that if you like, in my own mind, I think that the people who are chiefly responsible for what happened to Paul, was Xoliswa Falati in the first instance and Mrs Mandela in the second instance.

MS GERNTHOLTZ: Thank you Mr Cachalia, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kades?

MR KADES: Mr Cachalia, I am Norman  Kades, or behalf of the Asvat family.  Mr Cachalia, the statement of the 16th of February 1989, by the mass democratic movement is based very largely on, it is motivated by the activities of Mrs Mandela and her Football Club?

AZHAR CACHALIA: That is correct.

MR KADES: Now, apart from information relating to Mrs Mandela's activities and her Football Club, you are aware that the late Dr Asvat was murdered on the 27th of January of 1989, approximately two or three weeks prior to the making of the statement of the 16th of February?

AZHAR CACHALIA: Yes.