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

EMMA NICHOLSON: Thank you very much, you gave me a hefty charge of questions and I'll do my best, and if I don't answer the questions to your satisfaction, please ask again because I am certainly trying to.
 Can I take you back to the problem that in the complexity of his case and in it's veracity.  I have told you in my evidence that a large number of countries refused to take him and that I had some reasons given me by leading people in those nations as to why they were not taken.  I just put on the record that the United Kingdom refused not once but several times.  In 1991, in 1994,...(intervention)

MR: We have that you've given us all of that information.

EMMA NICHOLSON: I haven't given you all I'm afraid, that in Denmark there was this very extraordinary response, in Sweden the same, USA, Canada, all of these countries.  Now I myself was in no position to have the time or the knowledge to test any of the points that Mr  Cebekhulu had made.  As a matter of fact please bear in mind that between 1991 when I had maybe an hour I suppose with him, with the Zambians, and 1995 when I had several weeks with him, I never saw him and I had merely a small handful of letters.  I therefore had no knowledge of his case, of any real validity at all.  That was of no consequence because all I was trying to do was find him somewhere to live.  It was not my job to talk about South African matters.  I did see it as my job as somebody who works a great deal with refugees having the extraordinary coincident of finding him to try to find him somewhere to go.
 Now by 1993 when we were in this extraordinary pickle with the UNHCR saying it was unique, they had no accredited refugee for whom they couldn't find a place.  They could think of no think of no case like him.  It would be difficult to think that everything he had told at UNHCR, he had given them his story in great detail, and the Zambian newspapers was utterly without any foundation at all because these countries had to have reasons.  They were all offering the same reasons related to his knowledge.
 In 1993 however, despite having been asked to keep this story very low key so as not to unsettle the unity of the ANC, which I did, I in fact published knowledge of the case and of his assertion that he'd seen Mrs Winnie Mandela stab Stompie in a book of my own which was published and which I'm happy to leave you a copy.  I also made reference to the case in a second book I wrote in 1996 which was a political book about why I left the right wing Conservative party and joined the left of centre Liberal Democrats, and I'm happy to leave you that as well.
 Now to go back to your point, by 1995 Katiza Cebekhulu had spent two years in Sierra Leone.  I had made the assumption that once the ANC or rather the non-apartheid government had taken power, that cases such as his that surely were a fall-out from the struggle, would be sorted out.  I was extremely disconcerted to discover no movement at all and a continued block on any country giving him settlement and a continued block on leading members of the ANC whom I knew personally refusing to even discuss his case at all.  Therefore I responded to his despair by saying yes I would 
do what I could to get his story published.  He wished his own story to be published under his own name and he sent me a small book, it would have been very difficult to get that published in the United Kingdom, such detail and of little interest, however, journalists had been hounding me for access to Mr Cebekhulu in the utter mistaken belief that he had been living with me all the time in my home.  As I say correctly he had been in jail for three years, he was then at that stage into his third year in Sierra Leone and I therefore made a huge effort for him to try to solve this settlement to see if getting something on the record of what he said, and in trying to get that check would assist his case.  As a working member of Parliament I certainly had no opportunity to come to South Africa, sit her, study that evidence, I therefore could not write a book.  It was not my knowledge and I would not have dreamt of trying because I was a busy member of Parliament.  As I said earlier I was busy caring in the south of Iran and Iraq and Lebanon, Palestine, Rumania, now Rwanda and I think in Sierra Leone soon for about 15000 refugees to do voluntary work in addition to my parliamentary work.  I just didn't have time.  So I responded to one journalist who seemed to me to have the upper hand in his request, which was Fred Bridgeland - why did he have the upper hand because it was he who originally had asked me to see if Mr Cebekhulu was in prison.
 Now Mr Bridgeland is an author, he chose not to co-partner Mr Cebekhulu and that was understandable as after his very few weeks in the United Kingdom Mr Cebekhulu went straight back to Sierra Leone where he stayed until very, very recently indeed. So he spent all of this time away and therefore Mr Bridgeland wrote his book and spent considerable time in South Africa double-checking and brought a team here too.
 And I, myself, therefore believe that it is a book of great merit, but it is not an autobiography of Katiza Cebekhulu, it is not a book co-authored by Katiza Cebekhulu and it is not a book in which I have the capacity to check the facts.  My foreword relates to my finding Mr Cebekhulu and how I subsequently tried to get him a place and what reaction I have had.

UNKNOWN: I have to apologise as profusely as I can to Mr Jabu Sithole and his lawyer, his legal representative who I don't see at the moment, I hope I won't see him because I did promise that we would try to hear him as well today.  I think in the interests of all concerned it will be foolish to hear another witness.  I don't think it's fair on Mrs Mandela and her legal team, I don't think it would be fair on any of us who would have to stay for that.  I think it's beyond probably what we can bear.
 So let me say now that we will resume at 8

<UNKNOWN>: 30 tomorrow morning and that one of the first witnesses, if not Jabu Sithole, will be Bishop Verryn, because we have kept him waiting several days and then we will follow the order.
 Can I say that the staff have asked me to announce that all those lawyers who are still here and need to pick up their documents please do so where the TRC staff room is before you go so you can work again a little later on tonight.   Can I very sincerely thank all concerned for your remarkable endurance and patience.  This could have gone very badly wrong when people are very tired bad things happen.  Can I say to Mr Cebekhulu you've had a very long spell in the witness box, I appreciate very much your willingness to answer the questions as far as you were able to.  Thank you very much indeed - yes......

MR: Just one aspect which my counsel is going to place on record, it's directed to the witness, it relates to the question of whether they are prepared to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the local courts with regard to the impending actions that we are considering.

UNKNOWN: I think that's a private matter you must take up now, we cannot take it up ...(intervention)

MR: That's why we want - we are putting the question direct to them ...(intervention)

UNKNOWN: On record.

MR: ....we are made to understand that they will be leaving in due course and we won't have any means of contact with them.  We are directing the question right away to them.

UNKNOWN: No I cannot take that question in this Commission but of course you must feel free to put that question directly to them.   We have taken advice, we have been told that there is no need for them to leave, they have decided that they are leaving, we can't control their movements and I think you must now take that up.
 We stand adjourned.
HEARING ADJOURNS