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

CHAIRPERSON: Can I just try to remind us that we are talking to the father of someone who has been killed.  His father still does not, so far as I know, have the details of where his son was buried and so on.   I have said in the beginning part of this that we are supposed to be a victim-friendly, and I am not referring to you, I'm making a general statement, could we please try to express a  kind of caring for, I mean that he is remarkably strong, that he can sit there and talk about the disappearance of his son, and I myself, just as an ordinary lay person, find it odd that a person could want to do that in - and I ask that as we do our work, and you have to do your work as lawyers, will you bear in mind that we are not talking to machines, we are talking to someone who is carrying the burden of the death of his son, whoever may have killed his son, and we have to keep bearing that in mind, and that is why we keep reminding you - this is not a court of law.
 I have the responsibility as the Chairperson of this Commission to see that we try and express a caring for the people who testify, and I just hope, I mean, that we will keep bearing that in mind and that it may have an impact on how we carry on our proceedings.  Thank you very much.

MR UNTERHALTER: If I might put just one or two questions just by way of clarification.  Mr Sono, it was said to you by Mr Vally, on behalf of the Commission, that was it not strange that you would go to the police?  Is it correct that in fact, as I believe you mentioned in your testimony, that you had received a notice from the police and there had been one for Lolo as well that you should attend at the police offices?

NICODEMUS SONO: Yes, it is correct that I was called by police to come to them, that's why I went to the police.  Even after his disappearance, because I went and we were turned back to say come back on Monday.  So there was a good reason for me going there because it was an appointment for Monday the 14th, that's why I went.

MR UNTERHALTER: And had you not gone what would have been the likely consequences?

NICODEMUS SONO: I could have been locked up and I could have been framed of saying I have taken my son somewhere else.

MR UNTERHALTER: Yes.  Now, Mr Sono, it was also said to you by Mr Semenya, who acts for Mrs Mandela, that the words that you used in your testimony which refer to Mrs Mandela saying, "The movement will decide what to do with this dog", was a matter that you had only recently brought to light, or a statement that you had only recently given.  Can I refer you to one or two passages which indicate the origin of your testimony on this matter?
 Firstly, did you give a statement to the TRC?

NICODEMUS SONO: Yes, I did.

MR UNTERHALTER: Yes.  In that statement you say the following and if I could just read it
"I was shocked to see my son in that condition.  I asked what the problem was.  Winnie told me that he was a police informer and she was taking him away.  She did not tell me where, and that the "movement", meaning the ANC, will see what to do with him".
Did you say that and make that statement?

NICODEMUS SONO: Yes, I said that to the TRC.

MR UNTERHALTER: Yes.  Then there is a summary made by the TRC based upon statements that you had given and if I could just read a short sentence from the summary of your testimony
"Mrs Mandela responded aggressively to enquiries from Mr Sono saying that Lolo was a police informer and that the "movement" would decide what to do with him".
Is that a fair reflection of what Mrs Madikizela-Mandela said?

NICODEMUS SONO: That is correct, because I was surprised at Mrs Mandela, the way she spoke to me that day, because she was - I never knew the other side of Mrs Mandela, because she was very aggressive and I could see she doesn't like the way I'm talking to her, that's why I turned from talking into pleading with her.

MR UNTERHALTER: Yes. Now Mr Sono you were also contacted by a journalist, Mr Bridgland who has been writing a book and has produced that book called Katiza's Journey, is that correct?

NICODEMUS SONO: That is correct.

MR UNTERHALTER: I want to read to you from page 36 of that book. The following is there said and it is attributed to you.
"I pleaded with Winnie to return my son.  She totally refused. She said I am taking him with me. The movement will see what to do with him".
Is that what you reported to Mr Bridgeland as what Mrs Mandela had said to you?

NICODEMUS SONO: Yes, because she said many things and I did even spoke to John Carlin of Independent, which I also told him that she said the movement will see what to do with him, meaning the ANC.

MR UNTERHALTER: Yes. I have a transcript of what you said to Mr Carlin and it reads as follows.  This is from the 27th of November 1990, and this is what you said in the statement
"Now I tried to plead with her that, okay you can rather leave him with me.  She said, no, I am not going to leave him, I'm taking him, I'm taking him with me. The movement will see what to do".
Is that what you said to Mr Carlin in 1990?

NICODEMUS SONO: That's correct.

MR UNTERHALTER: Yes.  Now one other matter was put to you by Mr Semenya and that has to do with the identification of the men who came with the matchbox and the names of your son and Shabalala on the matchbox.  Is it correct that, although your wife doesn't know the identity of those men, she is able to say that those men came and they asked for your son and that they came from Mrs Mandela who wanted them to go to her? Is that correct?

NICODEMUS SONO: That's correct, that was their answer when she asked them that, who are you people?  They said we are from the Mandela United Football Club, we were sent by Mrs Mandela.

MR UNTERHALTER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Yes.

MR JOSEPH: I beg your pardon. My surname is Joseph, I represent Mr Cebekhulu and Baroness Thompson.  Just on a matter of procedure, bearing in mind that this is a sui generis procedure where you control the evidence, etc, I'm wondering, just for our clarification, where a witness such as Mr Sono has given direct evidence implicating a person, are we to infer that if the legal representative does not challenge the very essence of his evidence, that it's accepted by his client?
 In other words, I'm asking you whether it's not in the interests of everybody that where direct evidence of this nature has been tendered, that where that witness is being cross-examined on behalf of a person who has been implicated by that evidence, that that evidence should either be accepted or denied or some explanation given, so we know whether - and I think this has something to do with what you, Archbishop, have been saying earlier.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought - what we are saying is that we would seek, in terms of a cross-examination, if facts are challenged, facts are challenged.

MR JOSEPH: Now if my memory serves me correctly there has been direct evidence tendered by this gentleman implicating a person over here, who is represented, and that evidence has not been challenged.  I contrast that with the evidence that was tendered by a lady earlier on and the legal representative dealt with that evidence on the basis that it was a figment of that witness' imagination.

CHAIRPERSON: Hanif.