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

ALBERTINA SISULU: To start with, I gave my evidence under oath to speak the truth of what I know.  I don't think it would be proper for me to come and tell lies here.
 As Mrs Sisulu, some of you know very well, under what hardship I went through during the previous regime.  From 1964 I was arrested for five years and before even that expired, I was given ten years house arrest in that house.  I was relieved in 1983 when I had a few months working with Dr Asvat, because I was on pension on 1982 from the City Health of Johannesburg.
 From that time, there was a blanket lifting off - blanket orders, I was given only four months on that relieve, when there was that blanket lifting of the banning orders.  And from there, there was a funeral of a member in my area, where I gave you know, a speech.  I was arrested in 1983, kept in Diepkloof prison for so many months.
 Even when I was elected in Cape Town when they were launching the UDF, I was in prison.  1984, it is when my case ended, sentenced to four years imprisonment, two years suspended for five years.
 I appealed the case, I came out on bail of R1 000-00.  Before my appeal in 1984 was heard, I was arrested for treason (indistinct), which took place in 'Maritzburg.  In your own way of thinking, what would I know much in that area.
 People used to come to me, hiding because they couldn't be openly talking to me.  I could not speak to Mrs Mandela because we were both banned.  It would mean taking me to jail again.  If the harassment I was under, if any one of you know even when I have to visit my husband in Robben Island, the police would keep the appointment until the following day when I was supposed to see him,  the next day and from there, 1976, 1986 when I won the case of the treason trial, I was given five years house arrest.  Five years which ended up a day before my husband entered his gate when he was released.
 When would I have time, when would I have anything to do with anything, when I could not even meet the people?  My organisation which is the UDF, I congratulate them, because despite all that, they used to sneak in and inform me about what is happening.
 And when we drew up the statement, we distanced ourselves from the Mandela Football and Mandela actions with the Football, that was terrorising the township.  They wouldn't come there as a Committee.  So, even if I am shielding Mrs Mandela, I am not here to tell lies.  I am going to tell exactly what I know and what I have seen.
 Dr Asvat was my child.  If he had anything to do with the Mandela's besides what is normal, he wouldn't come and tell me.  He never told me that is why I said in this paper when I was interviewed, had he told me all this, he wouldn't have died.
 What else would Albertina Sisulu do?  Had he told me, I would have really gone all out to ask people to help me.

CHAIRPERSON: Order please.  Dr Boraine?

MR SEMENYA: Mr Chairperson, may we state that we obviously would not know why Commissioner Ntsebeza says he is holding the impressions he his holding, but that the witness is trying her level best to protect our client, but we note it.

CHAIRPERSON: Alex Boraine?

DR BORAINE: Thank you Chairperson.  Mrs Sisulu, I hesitate to put more questions to you, you have been waiting a long time and you have had some time now, having to answer questions.
 And I think that any one who knows you, knows the remarkable life that you have lived, under extraordinary difficult circumstances, but just please just help  me to try and understand this.  You see I also watched the documentary and your evidence on that documentary was extremely powerful, simply because of who you are and the integrity that you hold.  
 Now according to this documentary which I watched and I know I have the transcript in front of me, the interviewer Fred Bridgeland, said after asking you about Dr Asvat, and you were saying what a good man he was, and a lot of people left owing him money and you know that because you were responsible for dispensing the cards and the medicine, and then he says to you on the question of the cards, can I show you a card from the surgery and you say yes.
 And according to him, the card that he shows you is the card with Katiza Cebekhulu's name on it.  And he asks you is that your writing on the top and you say -
"Yes, that is my handwriting.  Is that Dr Asvat's writing, yes, it is his writing, and that date, yes, I take the name of the patient, the date here and then stamp the card for that date.
All I was doing was to dispense the cards and stamp, I put the stamp.  The card is dated the 30th of the 12th, 1988".
 Now, forgive me for going over this again, but it is difficult for me to understand why you should say that then and why you should say now today in answer to questions, that you have no knowledge of Cebekhulu ever coming to the surgery and that it is not your handwriting and you didn't put the stamp there.
 Whereas on the documentary you said you did all these things, can you explain to me why there is a contradiction between what you have said then because this was a video that was seen right throughout South Africa and the newspapers commented the next day, it was big news.  It wasn't done in a hole in the corner.
 Did you ever deny that you ever said that, did you make a statement to that effect or please help me?

ALBERTINA SISULU: Well, I have a few questions on this card.  If I admit a patient, I take his urine, I weigh him.  This card is blank, there is no way you can say I admitted this patient and took his urine and weight.
 As I am saying, with the next paper, where my signature is in writing, I don't write my signature like this.  So that is why I say I doubt if, I don't print when I write, that is how I was taught in the Transkei.  I don't know how to write in printing, it is cursive.  My writing is always cursive.  That is why I am surprised, I can't say really, of course in this one, I've got the weight there, I've got the urine, on different dates, on different dates.
 What does that mean, I didn't admit that patient where I have written the real thing I should have done, here is the urine, that is my writing.   The whole paper was written by Doctor, which means I was not there that day this man was admitted by Dr Asvat.  He must have taken this card, that is Dr Asvat's admission.  So must I tell lies?

DR BORAINE: I am sorry, you are talking about two different patients, the one is Jerry Richardson and you say yes, you definitely did admit him?

ALBERTINA SISULU: Yes.  On that date I took that specimen.  That is what I was signing for.  But even the signature, I never signed my cards - why the signature, that is printed there?

DR BORAINE: I don't want to prolong this, let me just ask you two further questions.

MR KADES: Mr Commissioner may I, I am sorry, I have written the name Sisulu in two places on the card that the witness has before her.  It is my document and in consultation with Dr Asvat, I wrote the name Sisulu, I handed that document to Dr Asvat and probably what the witness is looking at, is my writing the word Sisulu.

DR BORAINE: Thank you, that is very helpful.  Every patient who came to see Dr Asvat, did you do exactly the same things for every one, in other words did you take a urine specimen and weight?

ALBERTINA SISULU: Yes, it is routinely, it was routine?

DR BORAINE: So for everybody?

ALBERTINA SISULU: For everybody, it was routinely.