Special Hearings — Mandela United Football Club Hearings — UNKNOWN

MR JOSEPH: And one of the means they employed was that one way or another, they were able to get people to act as informers, to infiltrate units and to give back intelligence to the Security Services, who then used to act on that intelligence, is that correct?

MRS MADIKIZELA-MANDELA: What is the question?

MR JOSEPH: The strategy employed by the government of the day, one of the strategies, was to make use of informers who they would use to infiltrate MK cadres or MK strongholds or MK safe houses, and those informers would then relate that information to the Security Forces and the Security Forces would use that information, is that correct?

MRS MADIKIZELA-MANDELA: That is common cause.

MR JOSEPH: Yes, so you have identified yourself with the aims of the African National Congress and you had the same enemy as the African National Congress, is that correct?

MRS MADIKIZELA-MANDELA: I am a member of the African National Congress.

MR JOSEPH: The answer is yes or no?

MRS MADIKIZELA-MANDELA: Obviously, yes.

MR JOSEPH: The word enemy can be enlarged to include conventional soldiers, members of the South African Police Force and informers and traitors, is that correct?

MRS MADIKIZELA-MANDELA: I would imagine so.

MR JOSEPH: You would imagine so?  Now, what would occur if you came across a person who you knew, you identified, you were satisfied that this person was an informer, a traitor, what would your attitude be towards that person?

MRS MADIKIZELA-MANDELA: My attitude would be that of the African National Congress.

MR JOSEPH: Which would be what?

MRS MADIKIZELA-MANDELA: I don't actually understand what sort of attitude you mean, what position would I take.  I had no such powers to take decisions myself as to what should happen to those people, whoever they were.

MR JOSEPH: What would your attitude be?

MRS MADIKIZELA-MANDELA: My attitude would be that of not cooperating with informers and collaborators.

MR JOSEPH: And having identified a person as a collaborator, having identified a person as being an informer, identified a person as a traitor?

MRS MADIKIZELA-MANDELA: I wouldn't work hand in hand with such a person if I had that knowledge.

MR JOSEPH: What would you do?

MRS MADIKIZELA-MANDELA: I would surely not cooperate with such a person.

MR JOSEPH: You would pat them on the back and you would say I have identified you to be a traitor, please go away, leave my house, you would do that?  Is that what your attitude would be?

MRS MADIKIZELA-MANDELA: I thank God I didn't have any such a situation where I had to pat an informer on the back or communicate with an informer and say you have been identified as an informer.  I have not had such a situation.

MR JOSEPH: You never had, and did you have any attitude towards informers, what you would do?

MRS MADIKIZELA-MANDELA: What I would do?

MR SEMENYA: Chairperson, I think the question has been asked and answered.  The witness has said at least on three occasions that she would not cooperate with an informer.  I don't know to ask the question what would you do is intended to solicit and unlock which answer now?

CHAIRPERSON: That is probably a justifiable objection, can you - I have really been very generous Mr Joseph in terms of time, can you come to a conclusion now?

MR JOSEPH: Having identified a person as being an informer, you had a greater duty to your comrades in arms, then just not cooperating with the informers, is that not correct?

MRS MADIKIZELA-MANDELA: I don't understand the type of question you are asking me.  Is that now an assumption?

MR JOSEPH: I am putting something to you.

MRS MADIKIZELA-MANDELA: A hypotheses?

MR JOSEPH: I am putting to you that in real life the situation that you found yourself in, had you identified a person as being an informer, part of your duties to your comrades in arms, would have involved more than adopting an attitude where you would not cooperate with them, you would have to do something else?
 You would have to at least advise your other comrades that you had identified a person as being an informers, isn't that correct?

MRS MADIKIZELA-MANDELA: Well, I had no such a situation where I had personally go and identify an informer and be expected to act on that.

MR JOSEPH: Would you not have been required to do that?

MRS MADIKIZELA-MANDELA: No, why would I have to be personally required to go out of my way and inform people that such and such a person is an informer?

MR JOSEPH: To inform your comrades in arms that you have identified Mr X as being an informer?

MRS MADIKIZELA-MANDELA: No, no such a situation arose.

MR JOSEPH: Is not forewarned being forearmed?

MRS MADIKIZELA-MANDELA: I should imagine that is a good theory.

MR JOSEPH: And wouldn't it be very important to your comrades who were perhaps staying in a safe house to advise them that Mr X is an informer, be careful if he calls on you?

MRS MADIKIZELA-MANDELA: Well, it did not happen.

MR JOSEPH: It did not happen?  You actually have no attitude towards informers?

CHAIRPERSON: Let me just, how much more time?  I think we really - let me give you one more minute.

MR JOSEPH: I put it to you Mrs Mandela that at least Lolo Sono, at least Stompie Seipei were identified by you as being informers and then you took steps to eliminate them.

MRS MADIKIZELA-MANDELA: That is ludicrous Mr Chairman, almost nonsensical.

MR JOSEPH: Let me give you a real life situation where you have personal knowledge.  You had referred two MK soldiers to the home of Jerry Richardson, correct?

MRS MADIKIZELA-MANDELA: I beg your pardon?

MR JOSEPH: You have referred two MK soldiers to the home of Jerry Richardson?

MRS MADIKIZELA-MANDELA: Yes, I did.

MR JOSEPH: That is correct?  That house was attacked and two MK soldiers were killed.

MRS MADIKIZELA-MANDELA: That is true.

MR JOSEPH: From your own evidence, we know of two other people who knew that there were MK soldiers in that house and both these people were not killed or apprehended by the police, is that correct?

MRS MADIKIZELA-MANDELA: I don't really know what you are talking about.

MR JOSEPH: Well, think carefully and you will know what I am talking about.  The two people I am referring to are Jerry Richardson, he knew there were MK people in the house, correct?

MRS MADIKIZELA-MANDELA: Yes.

MR JOSEPH: And the fourth person, apart from the two MK soldiers was Lolo Sono, he knew there were MK people?

MRS MADIKIZELA-MANDELA: Yes, at what point were they identified as informers?

MR JOSEPH: Your yes, is all I want.  That is all.

MRS MADIKIZELA-MANDELA: I don't understand your question.

MR JOSEPH: Well, you will understand.

CHAIRPERSON: Order please.

MRS MADIKIZELA-MANDELA: No, I don't think ...

MR SEMENYA: Chairperson, in fairness we now know that Jerry Richardson would also have communicated that fact to Sergeant Pretorius and Sergeant Pretorius would have communicated that fact to what Richardson calls policemen who would fill Orlando stadium.
 To put it to the witness that it was only four people, would be inaccurate in the understanding of the evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Please, I think we really have got to get to your final question.

MR JOSEPH: This is the final question.  So at the time the house was hit, you believed that Jerry Richardson was your trusted ally?

MRS MADIKIZELA-MANDELA: That is correct.

MR JOSEPH: Correct.  The only other person who you have told us who was on your side of the fence, an ally of yours, was Lolo Sono, he was the only other person who knew that the two MK soldiers were in that house, correct?

MRS MADIKIZELA-MANDELA: He was my courier, not necessarily an ally.

MR JOSEPH: Your courier?

MRS MADIKIZELA-MANDELA: Yes, my courier.