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

MR JOSEPH: Mr Chairman may I object to this.  The question must be relevant to the issues which are being examined before this Commission.  The issues that are being examined before this Commission are enumerated in the subpoenas.  This witness has a background, the background is not relevant to these proceedings.  He's applied for amnesty in respect of certain activities.  He is here to give evidence relating to the items or the issues which have been enumerated, and I would object to this type of fishing expedition which is designed purely and only for the purpose of attacking his general credibility.  I would urge my learned friend, taking into account the nature of the proceedings, to direct his questions at the issues.  I went out of my way in leading this witness to lead him on the real issues which I think this Commission is interested in, the issues being the issues that you've identified in the subpoenas.
 Insofar as collateral matters are concerned, even if this were a court of law, when a cross-examiner asks a question on a collateral matter he's entitled to do that, he is then bound by the answer.  So I'd ask you to bear that in mind and ask my learned friend to restrict the questions to the issues.  
 I remind my learned friend that in the time that I have been here listening to him cross-examine there have been many occasions where he has refrained from putting his client's version to any witness, whether it's an admission or a denial.  I raised this earlier on in the evidence of the third witness, Mr Sono.  As I recall Mr Semenya, in regard to Mr Sono's evidence at not one stage did he deny on behalf of his client the allegations, the real germane allegations which have been made over here.  I would ask Mr Semenya in light of that to stay away from embarrassing questions and to stay away from questions which are not germane to the evidence Mr Cebekhulu has tendered.

UNKNOWN: Mr Semenya you have heard the objections from your learned friend, could you very briefly respond to that and tell me what you think.

MR SEMENYA: My response is threefold Deputy Chairperson.  Firstly let me deal with the Lolo Sono, Mr Sono's evidence.  I think maybe it has something to do with the temperature in this room.  When Mr Vally started with the cross-examination of Mr Sono he put every factual refutation which emanated out of the closed hearing to Mr Sono and he responded to that.
 Now let me deal with today.  Two reasons.  Firstly, matters of credibility can never be irrelevant.  Secondly, my learned colleague would know the fact about his admission to the murder comes from the witness' mouth, it didn't come from me.  I am asking him, now that you say you have admitted to murder which murder did you admit to.  It can be relevant.

UNKNOWN: I have one problem and that is that the amnesty application is normally sub judice until the person, the applicant applying for amnesty actually appears before the Committee.  But I am quite prepared to try and assist you in your quest to test the witness in terms of credibility, but I would be most grateful if you could stay not with incidental matters which he himself raises, but rather to follow your own cross-examination.  Let's see how we go and let's see how we get on because otherwise we are going to be here until ten o'clock.

MR SEMENYA: Do I read the ruling to be that the witness shouldn't answer to that question?

UNKNOWN: I think that is my ruling.

MR SEMENYA: I beg your pardon I....

UNKNOWN: That is the ruling, yes.  In light of the fact that the amnesty application is sub judice until such time as it's heard at an application opportunity general terms yes, but in specific names and dates and times they are normally, in terms of our Act, held until the actual hearing takes place.

MR SEMENYA: Can we obtain as we did with other amnesty applications the amnesty application by Katiza Cebekhulu?

UNKNOWN: Yes of course, we will make that available to you.  Can you proceed Mr Semenya.

MR SEMENYA: Mr Cebekhulu when your evidence was opened earlier you seemed to have said, when you came to Johannesburg you were basically not politically involved, is that correct?

KATIZA CEBEKHULU: That is correct.

MR SEMENYA: Is that factually correct that before your coming to Johannesburg you were not politically active?

KATIZA CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR SEMENYA: Do you recall you said the information in Katiza's Journey it's correct wherever it purports to quote you as a source?

KATIZA CEBEKHULU: Which book are you referring to?

MR SEMENYA: The book which you say whenever it purports to quote you it would be quoting you correctly, Katiza's Journey.

KATIZA CEBEKHULU: Not all of them.

MR SEMENYA: So it is not the whole book which is correct whenever it quotes you?

KATIZA CEBEKHULU: Yes that is correct.

MR SEMENYA: Without being difficult are you able to point us to areas of the book which are factually incorrect whenever reference is made to you?

KATIZA CEBEKHULU: No.

MR SEMENYA: Why do you say certain sections of the book are incorrect?

KATIZA CEBEKHULU: Ask me whatever you want to ask me, I cannot start relating about the whole book, ask me about specific factors or extracts from the book.

MR SEMENYA: Are you not able to give me sections of the book which you say have been quoting you incorrectly?

KATIZA CEBEKHULU: This book is very big, it's extensive, I don't know what you want me to tell you.

MR SEMENYA: Okay, let's go to page 8 of your book, of the book Katiza's Journey.  Page 8.  Do you see the very first paragraph.

KATIZA CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR SEMENYA: In the middle of the paragraph there is a quotation which I want to read out to you
"He targeted individuals.  I was among the boys who took part.  When they came to my house to pick me up they were carrying petrol bombs and sticks. At that time we didn't have guns, I had no choice, I could not refuse, I didn't carry any petrol bombs, I was just part of a crowd.  We burnt houses on the Inkatha side.  Several people were killed".
Is this not activism on your part while you are in Hammarsdale?

KATIZA CEBEKHULU: Yes that is political activity.

MR SEMENYA: No why do you say you were not participating in politics while you were in Hammarsdale, you just came from a poor family (...indistinct).

KATIZA CEBEKHULU: Because they used to force us to participate, I didn't do it voluntarily.  They were removing each boy by the house to join them because they were saying they are fighting we are sitting in the house, so that's why we joined them.

MR SEMENYA: Now let me ask you clearly, were you a political activist in Hammarsdale or not?

KATIZA CEBEKHULU: I wasn't.

MR SEMENYA: So you cannot have committed in Hammarsdale that is motivated, which is politically motivated, is that right?

KATIZA CEBEKHULU: No I did not.  The things that I did were political, I was involved in political activity but I was not a politician.   What I mean you say I do things which is politics inside, I said I did but I am not a politician because I don't know nothing about politics.   Yes what I am saying is I am not a politician but I did take part in political activities because I was coerced into the situation.

MR SEMENYA: Well I don't know what is your answer but I am trying to establish ...(intervention)

KATIZA CEBEKHULU: Your question ...(intervention)

MR SEMENYA: If you can allow me to finish the question then I am sure we will be able to know what is the question and what is the answer.

MR JOSEPH: Mr Chairman may I object.

UNKNOWN: Yes, please go ahead, try to make it very brief.

MR JOSEPH: It is precisely this type of questioning which is directed at collateral matters, matters which are the subject matter of an amnesty application and matters which do not form the subject matter of this investigation save for that catch-all general credibility.  Now there's a discretion ...(intervention)