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

MR SEMENYA: ... is brought to Mrs Madikizela-Mandela, and I want to read it to you, and please confirm or deny the correctness of what it says there. "Dear, Mama", is that how you used to address Mrs Madikizela-Mandela?

JOHN MORGAN: Yes.

MS HASSEN: Excuse me, Doctor. Is it possible for us to get a copy as well of the statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you just say who you are.

MS HASSEN: The surname is Hassen, the first name is Hasiena, I'm part representative of Mr Morgan.

CHAIRPERSON: Can we have a copy, please. There is.  I'm sorry to have not paid attention to you.

MR SEMENYA: It reads, "It has come to my knowledge that the time is ripe to see the future of this case, the advantages and the disadvantages". Would you have said this to anybody.

JOHN MORGAN: No.

MR SEMENYA: "After looking through in this case of ours, I have come up with a solution.  There's a worrying evidence, the tape and the young boy Katiza.  If the young man Katiza don't appear before the high court, we have won and conquered the enemy.  We must save the name of the Party as well as your personal dignity and faith".  Do you recall saying these things?

JOHN MORGAN: No, I say the entire letter was not written by me, that's not my handwriting.  Even if you can call handwriting experts, they would tell you that this has nothing to do with me.  This is definitely not my handwriting.  You have written this all by yourselves and you've decided to present this.

MR SEMENYA: ... continue: "not only that they regard you as a dynamic leadership. Therefore I still stand firm behind you to protect the interests of the Party as well as yours".

MS HASSEN: With respect, Mr Chairperson, my client denies having written this documentation and I don't think it should be pursued at this forum.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I was just trying to find out because he has said that this is not his letter. Can I find out?

MR SEMENYA: Chairperson, maybe let me read him the rules of the Hearing as I understand them.  "The procedures for the hearing, as we are told, the panel conducting the hearing may in its sole discretion allow hearsay evidence to be adduced".  Now, this suggests that we have been listening to a lot of hearsay.  The instructions that I have is that this document was sent to client through a courier from the witness.  I have never purported to say the document was written by the witness. Unless, if it does not fall within admissible parameters of these procedures, then I will stop.

CHAIRPERSON: Let me, I mean, I would want just to find out from him. Mr Morgan, do you remember writing this letter.  We do not say that this is your handwriting.

JOHN MORGAN: No, I totally disagree.  Besides the handwriting itself, I've never written any letter.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there any person that you sent or a courier to go and speak to Mrs Mandela?

JOHN MORGAN: No, not me.

MR SEMENYA: I didn't hear that, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I was asking that we're not speaking about the fact that he had written the letter himself, but did he dictate such a letter to somebody?  His answer is no.  Would he know whether he had asked someone to convey a message of this kind, and his answer is no.  Now I would like to be helped.  Where do you want to go from there because he has denied that this is his letter, it's not written -  Hanif, can you assist us as to what we do or we probably would have to be consulting but I do not myself, I mean, I'm just a lay person and I thought of it that when the witness says it is not his letter, he didn't send anyone to say anything of this kind, unable to establish in any other way that it is linked to him.

MR SEMENYA: No, Chairperson, all I was attempting to do is to see whether he can admit to any of the contents of the statement.  So far, the first three paragraphs he has denied.  He might very well deny everything or he might just say, 'This I recognise'.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I mean [indistinct] - I think let him do it the way he wants to do it, which is to read those letters, those paragraphs, but I must say that I find it odd.  If someone says it's not my letter, I have not sent anybody to say any of these things, it seems that he is going to be saying no, no, no. It may be because you have a knowledge of some lines that he may agree to.

MS HASSEN: Mr Chair, I would object on my client's behalf as to the reading out of this statement as to whether my client agrees to any particular paragraphs herein.  Is it purported to be that my client is going to be asked whether he wrote this particular thing or if whether he accepts that he had said this particular thing to "Dear Mama", meaning Mrs Winnie Madikizela-Mandela. Is he going to be asked after every paragraph whether he accepts or denies this?  And then I want to know, what is the purpose of this so-called expedition regarding this?  I cannot see where it's going to lead this Tribunal.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, I would have said that is the commonsense view because if somebody says straight away, it is not my letter, I have not sent anybody, then it seems a futile exercise to want them to go through paragraph by paragraph, of something where one has already said no.

MS HASSEN: I wonder if Mr Semenya cannot put to the witness that it is his client's version that this letter came from a particular person and ask Mr Morgan to admit or deny that, because it takes us no further dealing with each paragraph of the letter.

CHAIRPERSON: That is exactly what I wanted to say, but she said it.

MR SEMENYA: Can I deal with another matter?  I really don't understand that one point here says admissible, at another point it is not, but Chairperson I

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, I think you are misreading us.  You produced this document, which would have been, I mean is admissible, that is why you produced it, we allowed it to come through, but the witness you are cross-examining at the present time says categorically it is not his letter, he didn't send anybody to say the kind of things that are said in this letter, and now you want to go through paragraph by paragraph of a letter that is not his, and he's already denied the first three paragraphs, and all I'm trying to say is it may be better to do it this way.

MR SEMENYA: Mr Chairperson, save to say the witness admits that the name behind the statement is his, I will not take this process any further.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR SEMENYA: Mr Morgan, it is for the very first time again admitted by the information I have where you speak about people being tortured by having their testes burned. Did you say this version any other time before?

JOHN MORGAN: It's not the first time that I've said this.

MR SEMENYA: ... the very first time that you say it?

JOHN MORGAN: You are lying. I said to the very people who are doing this.

MR SEMENYA: ... time you mentioned this fact to any official structure that Mrs Madikizela-Mandela ...(intervention)

JOHN MORGAN: No, that is not the case.

MR SEMENYA: You interrupted me, I don't know

CHAIRPERSON: [Not interpreted, but admonishment for interruption]

MR SEMENYA: Which official structure do you tell and when that Mrs Madikizela-Mandela was present when people were tortured by having their testes burned?

JOHN MORGAN: Can I answer?

CHAIRPERSON: Yebo, Baba.  (Yes, Father).

JOHN MORGAN: I said it's not the first time that I mentioned this.  I said this, it was on a Sunday morning, and these boys were fetched by me, I think they stay somewhere in Zola, and what was happening in Lusaka, all those things that you are saying I never said.  I think you are just guessing.

MR SEMENYA: ... (indistinct)

JOHN MORGAN: I said this is not the first time that I said that, I said it on a Sunday, I don't remember the year.

MR SEMENYA: Who were you telling that story to?

JOHN MORGAN: I was telling Zinzi in the morning, together with her mother.