Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-02-17

CLIVE MHLAULI MAKHUBU: I will not be able to put a date but I know that I used to see them even before the funeral.

MR RICHARD: I beg your pardon, I cannot hear the interpreter?

INTERPRETER: He said he cannot put a specific date on when he saw them, but he ...(intervention)

MR RICHARD: Sorry, ...(indistinct) improves, I still can't hear the interpreter.

INTERPRETER: Can you hear anything from me?

MR RICHARD: I have silence on this.

INTERPRETER: Can you hear me now?

MR RICHARD: It's back on line, it's very loud now.  What was the witness' answer?

INTERPRETER: He said he cannot put a specific date on when he saw the family, but he did see them before the funeral.

MR RICHARD: Well I have an original of a letter signed by the firm of attorneys, dated 26 January 1988, so that establishes that within one day the investigations had commenced and in fact Doctor Gluckman was being instructed on what was to happen.  On the 27th of January the post-mortem was performed, did you know any of this?

CLIVE MHLAULI MAKHUBU: No, I was not aware.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, Mr Richard, this letter you've just referred to, you're not handing it in as an exhibit?

MR RICHARD: I shall.  I don't have copies at this point.  It will be Exhibit B.

CHAIRPERSON: It's obvious from the beginning that this letter was untrue, wasn't it, Mr Richard?

CLIVE MHLAULI MAKHUBU: The reason that we need to discover is why it was untrue.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) patently so, wasn't it?

MR RICHARD: There is information in the document that I would like to examine the witness on, why does he refer to somebody specifically by the name of Joe who is an identifiable person referred to by the first applicant, whose decision was it to put that name in?

CHAIRPERSON: Are you asking ...(indistinct)

MR RICHARD: No, I'm just explaining ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Let's not get on about letters written by attorneys to doctors performing post-mortems which I think are totally irrelevant to this inquiry.

MR RICHARD: As the Chairperson pleases.
	Right, the next thing is if you have a look at the first paragraph of your, of Exhibit A, who decided to use that information: a house in Naledi, Clive Makhubu, Joe, why mention a name like Joe?  Who is George?

CLIVE MHLAULI MAKHUBU: There is no such person called Joe.

CHAIRPERSON: And George?

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, George, who is George?

CLIVE MHLAULI MAKHUBU: There is no such person.

MR RICHARD: Is it pure coincidence that yesterday we did establish that there was a person in Naledi called Joe?  Is that merely ...(indistinct)

CLIVE MHLAULI MAKHUBU: I do not know Joe, George, sorry.

MR RICHARD: Now before you went to the attorney with Sipho, had you worked out what you were going to tell him?

CLIVE MHLAULI MAKHUBU: We did discuss just what lies we were going to tell him.

MR RICHARD: Now the money ...(intervention)

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Richard, if you've moving onto another issue, can I just make one small follow-up on this?
	So the two of you went to see this attorney, you were sitting there, you were telling him to write this statement, whose handwriting is this?

CLIVE MHLAULI MAKHUBU: I'm not sure whose it is, but it is not mine.  Maybe it is Sipho's or somebody else's, but it is not my handwriting.

ADV SANDI: Is it no the attorney's handwriting?

CLIVE MHLAULI MAKHUBU: It is possible, but I'm not sure.  What I know is it is not mine.

ADV SANDI: Just to get a clear picture as to how this statement was produced.  Yourself and Sipho were sitting there, you were talking to this attorney and he was writing?

CLIVE MHLAULI MAKHUBU: I do not remember quite well how it happened, but I know that the statement was written.

ADV SANDI: At what stage did you sign the statement?  You just said your signature appears there.

CLIVE MHLAULI MAKHUBU: I signed it after it had been written.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: It's been put to you time and again this attorney, was the person who took it down an attorney?

MR RICHARD: Yes, the gentleman still practices in Johannesburg.

ADV SANDI: Was it not the assistant of the attorney, a clerk or something?

CHAIRPERSON: I'm not asking about the firm, I'm asking the person himself who wrote it down, was that an attorney or was he an employee in the firm?

MR RICHARD: I would have to take specific instructions by contacting the person who signed the letter.  That person is known to me.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and ...(intervention)

MR RICHARD: I don't know who ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) might well have been a clerk or one of the secretaries wrote the thing down.

MR RICHARD: When you spoke to the person at the attorney's office, did you meet a man or a woman?

CLIVE MHLAULI MAKHUBU: I do not remember.

MR RICHARD: Right, let's go back to the document itself.  At paragraph 2 you said quite correctly that he had with him a diary, a radio cassette and a sum of R830, now why do you mention the sum of R830?

CLIVE MHLAULI MAKHUBU: I think it would be better if you would direct your question to Sipho.

MR RICHARD: You signed the statement.

CLIVE MHLAULI MAKHUBU: I repeat I signed for something that was not true.

MR RICHARD: Now if I say to you that that Saturday the deceased had been given over R1 000, some R1 200 - I'll leave the point.  However if I understand your answers you say that the entire contents of this statement is untrue and no reliance should be put on it, you gave it to mislead people so as not to have the fingers pointed at you, is that your answer to this document?

CLIVE MHLAULI MAKHUBU: Yes, that is the truth.

DR TSOTSI: Did you pay this attorney?

CLIVE MHLAULI MAKHUBU: ...(no English translation)

DR TSOTSI: Did you pay the attorney who wrote this statement for you?

CLIVE MHLAULI MAKHUBU: No, we did not.

MR RICHARD: Did you remember making this statement until I produced it yesterday?

CLIVE MHLAULI MAKHUBU: I had forgotten about it.

MR RICHARD: Now we then go to what turns to be your house in Emdeni, not to be Joe's house in Naledi.  At what time about did the deceased arrive back that afternoon? - you and Mr Dube were sitting there.

CLIVE MHLAULI MAKHUBU: He returned just before dusk.

MR RICHARD: Just before dusk.  Now what was his first statement when he walked in, did he say anything to anyone?

CLIVE MHLAULI MAKHUBU: He found us outside and he greeted us.

MR RICHARD: Was he suspicious or was he friendly, was he fearful?  What was his attitude?

CLIVE MHLAULI MAKHUBU: From what I observed - when I met him in the morning he was fine, but when he returned in the afternoon and found me sitting with Dube he didn't seem comfortable.

MR RICHARD: Did he know that Mr Dube was going to be there?

CLIVE MHLAULI MAKHUBU: I did not inform him.

MR RICHARD: Right, you heard the evidence of Mr Dube, do you agree with his sequence of events in the statement that you referred to?

CLIVE MHLAULI MAKHUBU: If you can refer me to the sequence you are actually referring to.

MR RICHARD: Did you hear Mr Dube's evidence yesterday when he gave a sequence of events and an order of events about how the murder happened?  Do you agree with what he said yesterday?

CLIVE MHLAULI MAKHUBU: I do not want to commit myself to a response before I hear what is it exactly that you are asking me about.

MR RICHARD: I've asked a very simple question ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but my recollection of Mr Dube's evidence is that it varied from time to time and I can understand someone saying I do not want to commit myself until you tell me which points.

MR RICHARD: Now I return back to the statement sworn under oath, page 10, do you agree with the sequence of events in that version?  Which version do you stick to?

CLIVE MHLAULI MAKHUBU: I think you should ask me specific questions on that statement because I cannot say that I agree or disagree with the statement in its entirety.