Special Hearings — Mandela United Football Club Hearings — UNKNOWN

MR SEMENYA: That's right.  And now it begins to make sense why de Kock blew up the poor man, because of the information that Richardson, yourself and Xoliswa must have communicated to the police.

MAGALI EUVODIA NKADIMENG: Do you want me to confirm that or?

MR SEMENYA: I want your response Ma'am.

MAGALI EUVODIA NKADIMENG: No, I don't think so.

MR SEMENYA: Why does he get arrested when you are there with the security police?

MAGALI EUVODIA NKADIMENG: What happened at the house of Mrs Mandela was very clear that if I move out of the house to anywhere Temba will follow me because I revealed about him what he never expected.

MR SEMENYA: I'll ask you that question again, why is Temba arrested by the security at the time he is with you?

MAGALI EUVODIA NKADIMENG: Actually Temba was not with me because the security told me that he was arrested in Grobblersdal and by that time I was arrested in Soweto.

MR SEMENYA: So you're arrested to identify him to be the correct person, isn't that right?

MAGALI EUVODIA NKADIMENG: Actually when they brought Temba to me I was not asked any questions to identify the man.  They asked him to identify me and he identified me clearly because I never had any means, those were the right means and he said that.  I was never asked by the security to identify the man.

MR SEMENYA: Were you ever charged arising out of your arrest of that moment when you last saw Temba?

MAGALI EUVODIA NKADIMENG: Was I ever charged?

MR SEMENYA: Yes.

MAGALI EUVODIA NKADIMENG: Yes, I was.

MR SEMENYA: For what?

MAGALI EUVODIA NKADIMENG: For crossing the restrictions, for moving from Pietersburg to Soweto without permission from the security police as I was restricted person.

MR SEMENYA: Ma'am I want to put it to you that you are a police operative and you had caused the death of Temba at the hands of de Kock.

MAGALI EUVODIA NKADIMENG: That's up to you.

MR SEMENYA: I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Order please.  It is going to be important for that fact to be established because as all of us know even today it is one of the most dangerous things to assert and it will be important that it is established beyond reasonable doubt.

MR VALLY: Archbishop, I just want to say in terms of - because it's a serious allegation which has been thrown at Miss Nkadimeng, in terms of the application of Captain Potgieter he states - and this in Afrikaans so I'm going to ...[indistinct] translate it
"While the matter of - I believe Stompie Sepei was being investigated, Mrs Madikizela-Mandela's telephone was being tapped"
and I'm even told that in terms of Section 118 of the Post Office Act, but goes on:
"Whilst listening in it came to our attention ("aan die lig gekom") that a person named Goerge ( Johannes Mabotha) was on the scene and it could be determined that he was possibly a trained MK military person.
 While listening in it was determined that George on a certain date was in the Marble Hall area and he needed money to get back to Soweto, he requested Mrs Mandela to telegraph money to the local Post Office.
 On receipt of the said money George was arrested by members of the security branch and (Soweto Opspoorings Eenheid), he was arrested" 
And this is from Captain Potgieter. 
"although I wasn't personally present"
I will give this amnesty application to Mr Semenya, annexed to it is also the relevant section of the de Kock trial transcript, thank you Mr Chair.

MR JORDI: Mr Chairman, I'd like to know from my learned friend Mr Semenya, whether the version he has put to Miss Nkadimeng is in accordance with his instructions and what the basis for his allegation against Miss Nkadimeng is.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you be able to answer that?

MR SEMENYA: Chairperson, I have put the assertion to the witness on the strength of information that suggests that the witness would have been in collaboration with Jerry Richardson and Cebekhulu when at a time - as my client would say, she did not know that these people had some contact with the police, that is the basis on which the statement was made to the particular witness.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry, you are saying that her association with those people therefore is what - you are making assertion in the form of a statement, is it a question?  Is it that you are saying that it is factual because I do have to say that is one thing that I think we as a Commission -  knowing where we come, need to seek to protect people as far as possible.
 If there is independent evidence incontrovertible evidence then of course the assertion must stand but I don't think that we as a Commission will - I can't certainly allow the assertion to be made unless we have reasonable evidence that that is the case just because you and I know where we come from.  That is - even today I think in a sense, almost a death sentence.

MR SEMENYA: Chairperson, all I'm able to say is, I have made the proposition to the witness and invited the witness to respond to it.  As far as I am aware, the witness elected not to deny or admit it.

YASMINE SOOKA: I think Mr Semenya, there are two questions that are being posed to you. The one is, do you have a factual basis for the proposition that you're putting and the alternative to that is - I think as Mr Jordi requested, are those your clients instructions that you put that question to the witness and thus far I haven't heard you answer either of the questions.

MR SEMENYA: They are my instructions Madam Commissioner, they are my instructions Madam Commissioner.

MR JORDI: Mr Chairman, my learned friend said they were a supposition based on Miss Nkadimeng's association with - by chance on the version she's given, with Mr Cebekhulu and Mr Jerry Richardson.  I would think that this is a dangerous position for Mr Semenya to take given his client's lengthy association with both Mr Cebekhulu and Mr Richardson and I ask my learned friend to withdraw the remark he made against my client - against Miss Nkadimeng.

MR SEMENYA: Chairperson, I have nothing to withdraw.  If my learned colleague wants to accuse me of having acted unprofessionally, I think we have a forum where he would lay the complaint and I will defend it.

CHAIRPERSON: We've had your response and there is a point that you have made that if it is by association then the conclusion would be that those who have associated with the same persons would therefore itso facto be defined in the same way.
 And I think that you need to be aware of that, that is what is being said that  on your own admission it would be that we don't have to prove that - nobody has to prove it, it is that those who have been associated with those persons must therefore be and I think it's a very dangerous position.  
 And I would hope that - it would be important that it be reconsidered and if it is your considered position, it is your considered position and we will have to take note of that.

MR SEMENYA: Chairperson, I don't know whether my learned colleague says therefore Mrs Mandela must be an informer?  And if that is the proposition he is putting then clearly Chairperson, against the admonition which I'm reading from the Chair, he can't make that proposition again.   ...[inaudible] has a factual basis to suggest it.

MR JORDI: Mr Chairman, I ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, have you finished?

MR SEMENYA: I've finished.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm always very careful, I want you to put your point as clearly as you can.  I don't want to be unfair especially to you but now, do you want to respond?