Special Hearings — Mandela United Football Club Hearings — UNKNOWN

MRS MADIKIZELA-MANDELA: She may have been there, she may not have been there.

MR KADES: Well, you know a card was filled in for Katiza Cebekhulu giving his name, the ordinary patient's card that Dr Asvat used, or that was used in his practice.  A card stating the name and the age and the address of Cebekhulu, do you know that?

MRS MADIKIZELA-MANDELA: I suppose that is the procedure in every consulting room.

MR KADES: Did the information concerning his name and address and age emanate from you or was it given by Mr Cebekhulu?

MRS MADIKIZELA-MANDELA: No, it emanated from the patient himself.

MR KADES: I see.   Well, I want to place on record Mr Chairman, that with regard to the evidence of Mrs Albertina Sisulu the other day, that we have inspected the documentation and more particularly the card of Katiza Cebekhulu, which you will recall Mrs Albertina Sisulu stated was not in her handwriting, because it had been printed.
 And she told this Commission and she was accustomed not to print, she was unable to print she told us, that she rather wrote or scripted the words that she wrote.  Well, we have compared the card of Katiza Cebekhulu with the card of Mbatha which was the only one available to us, and which is common cause, was completed by Mrs Albertina Sisulu and it is quite clear to us, and we accept it, that the card with the name of Katiza Cebekhulu and his address and age stated on it, are not in the handwriting of Mrs Albertina Sisulu.

CHAIRPERSON: Are there any other factors that seem to confirm this because this is quite important?

MR KADES: Well, Mr Chairman, the other factors which lead us apart from what is clearly a visible evidence and one doesn't need to be a handwriting expert to determine that these two documents are not in the handwriting of the same person, apart from that of course, is the evidence of Mrs Falati who has told this Commission that Mrs Sisulu was not present on that day and that a pregnant woman is the one who was then attending as a nurse and receptionist at Dr Asvat's surgery and also Mr Chairman, the evidence that we have just heard from Mrs Madikizela-Mandela herself, that she doesn't recall Mrs Sisulu as having been present on that day.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kades, I want to say that this is a very important, but I don't think it is a concession.  It is an important point that you are making, would you go further to say that with regard to this particular point, the mistake that that witness made, would have been possibly in her answer on the video?

MR KADES: Mr Chairman, I obviously can't comment on the making of the video and the circumstances under which the video was made but it is a matter which we find perfectly acceptable that a person of the age of Mrs Sisulu when making the  video, might well have made the admission or assumed that because it was a card that emanated from Dr Asvat's office, that it was obviously completed in her hand.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you very much.  I will be making a statement later at the end of this hearing, because this is I think a very important point that we need to acknowledge.  Thank you very, very much that you have of your own (indistinct) done this.  Thank you.

MR KADES: Mrs Madikizela-Mandela, just to finish off these aspects of the evidence, I must put to you what you said at page 92 of the second hearing, the in camera hearing.  May I refer you and I put these questions to you Madam, for the reason that we seek to understand what happened with the late Dr Asvat.
 You see, we have had allegations that you returned to the surgery, that there was, what is called or described somewhere as a volcanic row and we are investigating these matters as we are entitled to do and that is why we have come here.
 You see Madam at the bottom of page 92 of the record of the in camera hearing, you say in answer to the question of Mr Vally and what did Dr Asvat say, and you say Dr Asvat made an appointment with the specialist who were supposed to be coming back on the 8th of January if I recollect the date correctly.
 You see, this evidence causes us to believe that you were in fact, in your presence, or you were told that that day Dr Asvat had made an appointment with a specialist?  And if such an appointment was made, it would be necessary for you, Katiza to be examined by the specialist and at some stage, presumably to return to Dr Asvat?

MRS MADIKIZELA-MANDELA: As I explained sir, events overtook that process and I was no longer able to deal with Katiza.

MR KADES: Well, do I understand then that your answer is that you confirm that an appointment was made for the 8th maybe of January?

MRS MADIKIZELA-MANDELA: Yes, that is correct sir.

MR KADES: That is not what you have told us earlier?

MRS MADIKIZELA-MANDELA: I did indicate that Dr Asvat was to arrange for a specialist to see this boy?

MR KADES: Yes.

MRS MADIKIZELA-MANDELA: Katiza.

MR KADES: Yes, but this of course is an actual statement that such an appointment was made.

MRS MADIKIZELA-MANDELA: I merely made an indication of a date.

MR KADES: Yes.

MRS MADIKIZELA-MANDELA: From my recollection.

MR KADES: Yes, and you also indicated that an appointment was made.

CHAIRPERSON: Excuse me Mr Kades, I have been fairly generous in the time that we have allocated.  I would hope that you would be able to have finished by the time we want to break for lunch, okay.

MR KADES: Oh, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

MR KADES: Thank you Mr Chairman.  You see, what you've told us earlier today was that no appointment had been made and that an appointment was to be made.

MRS MADIKIZELA-MANDELA: No, I don't seem to recollect saying that.  I did indicate that an appointment was to be made and I merely gave a vague date and this happened years ago.  That was my recollection that Dr Asvat was to make an appointment.

MR KADES: If I were ever to make a submission to the Commission on that matter, Madam, I would say that you contradicted yourself, but let us move further.

MRS MADIKIZELA-MANDELA: What would be the reason for that?  It makes no difference at all.

CHAIRPERSON: Put your next question.

MR KADES: Yes.  Madam, you say events overtook you and you didn't keep the appointment with the specialist.  Did you ever return to Dr Asvat with Cebekhulu?

MRS MADIKIZELA-MANDELA: No, sir.

MR KADES: There is evidence that we have heard, well there is evidence, a statement made before the in camera hearing, that if I might give you, it is page 105 of the second in camera hearing, there is an allegation Madam that you said that Krish Naidoo took Cebekhulu to the police station on the night of the 26th of January 1989 in order to lay a charge of sodomy against Paul Verryn.

MRS MADIKIZELA-MANDELA: I had no recollection of such an event.

MR KADES: Well, if in fact there is evidence of such a charge, an attempt to lay such a charge, would you say that this was something that Cebekhulu ...

MRS MADIKIZELA-MANDELA: If Krish Naidoo was acting for Cebekhulu, he would have been within his rights to do what he pleased.  He didn't have to take instructions from me on behalf of Cebekhulu.

MR KADES: Well, I have no argument with that, but do you know whether Krish Naidoo was ever acting for Cebekhulu?

MRS MADIKIZELA-MANDELA: I don't know sir.

MR KADES: So you know nothing about an attempt to lay a charge of sodomy against Paul Verryn?

MRS MADIKIZELA-MANDELA: I have no such recollection.

MR KADES: Just give me one second please Mr Chairman.  If it is appropriate Mr Commissioner, we may well adjourn for lunch, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you finished?

MR KADES: I have finished, yes.

MR KADES: .

CHAIRPERSON: Well, is there someone who is up for grabs, there is five minutes?  Mr Joseph?