bitter-aloe/trc-testimonies huggingface dataset:
Special Hearings — Mandela United Football Club Hearings — 1997-11-28

CHARLES ZWANE: As I stated before, I knew that there was friction between Sibusiso and ...[indistinct] and I went to Sibusiso to find out what was going on and he told me that he was fighting with the Mandela Football Club guys.  So, I was aware there was - although I didn't witness them fighting ...[indistinct], I just heard that as I heard it from ...[indistinct] - by the rumours in the township that there was friction between ...[indistinct] and the Mandela guys.

MISS: Charles, do you still deny knowledge of the arson of Dudu Chile's house and the murder of Finkie despite a High Court finding you guilty of this?

CHARLES ZWANE: I still deny it and I don't think it's the High Court who made me guilty, the security police made me to be guilty, not the High Court - I was taken there guilty already.

MISS: I'm just going to ask you two questions now.  Winnie Mandela's statement in camera to the TRC makes reference to the fact that you stayed at her house, did you ever stay at her house?

CHARLES ZWANE: No, I usually visited the house but I never stayed at Mrs Mandela's place, I always stayed with my parents.

MISS: Why would she allege that you stayed at her home?

CHARLES ZWANE: I cannot answer for her, with respect.

MISS: Thank you Charles.  Thank you Mr Chair, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.
 I just want to find out again whether you feel you are able to continue?

CHARLES ZWANE: I'm able Sir.
Special Hearings — Mandela United Football Club Hearings — 1997-11-24

ZAKHELE CYRIL MBATHA: I don't know how to answer the question, I think I would have crossed the bridge when I came to it.  If it didn't happen that I submitted my fingerprints I do not know as to what the situation would have been then, so I cannot answer the question because it's the work of conjecture.
 I approached the situation as it came, had I not submitted the fingerprints something else would have happened or wouldn't have happened but I can't testify to that because it happened the way it happened so I cannot answer you.

CHAIRPERSON: Hanif?

ZAKHELE CYRIL MBATHA: I have no further questions of this witness Archbishop.

CHAIRPERSON: The question is - when you say you were promised a sum of R20.000-00, the question is: "Would you have gone to submit your fingerprints - were you taken there or did you commit the murder? Because you had already submitted your fingerprints and had you not submitted your fingerprints, would you have drawn back or wouldn't you once through with the killing"?

ZAKHELE CYRIL MBATHA: Can I you just explain about the R20.000-00, the R20.000 was linked about after I had submitted or given my fingerprint.

CHAIRPERSON: We thank you very much Mr Mbatha.
before we go, he made a request and you are in a position to respond or not ... (tape ends)
....emotional thing.

MR KADES: My client, Dr Asvat, would prefer not to respond today Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.  Thank you very much Mr Mbatha, please stand down.
 We are going to break at four but I thought it would be better for us to have finished with one witness.  Let's come back at a quarter to ...(intervention)
HEARING ADJOURNS
Special Hearings — Mandela United Football Club Hearings — UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, as a last statement, we want to place it categorically on record, that when Mr Semenya's client was challenged on the two issues of accusing a witness of the Truth Commission of being an informer, she referred it to her lawyer, her lawyer has refused to respond to the matter, raising rules of ethics.    I am not sure which rules of ethics applies to a straight forward withdrawal of a serious allegation.
Secondly I want to place it on record that the slander against the Truth Commission that we paid money to a witness to give evidence here has not been in any way backed up by Mr Semenya or his client.  Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.  I want to recall Mrs Sisulu on just one matter.  Will you please come Mrs Sisulu.  Mrs Sisulu, good afternoon.  We are sorry that this has to happen, half sorry.

ALBERTINA SISULU: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Mrs Sisulu in the course of your evidence, you were shown a card or a copy of a card, and you said here that the writing at the top of that card was not your handwriting.

ALBERTINA SISULU: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: We have since had as you probably heard this morning, the counsel for the Asvat family confirming that they are satisfied that that was not your handwriting.

ALBERTINA SISULU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, in a documentary you were shown a card and said then that that was your handwriting, the same card.  Now, clearly it must be that both can't be right what you said on the video, which is your version?  What you said in the Commission is your version?

ALBERTINA SISULU: What I said in the Commission is my version.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  And what you said in the documentary was a mistake?

ALBERTINA SISULU: That might have been a mistake.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Dumisa?

MR NTSEBEZA: Thank you Chairperson.  Mama Sisulu, this is once again, a very happy moment for me.
 You and I know that we go back a long way.  Rev Tetiwe, your late brother was a friend of my father and every time he went to Xala, he stayed with us.  And whenever he came to Cape Town, I stayed with your brother.  You therefore must realise how pained I was when I met what was to me a weakening in consistency.
 I am the first person to want to say publicly here, that you have vindicated yourself and that in my eyes, you remain not only the friend of my family, but the person that you have been, an icon of moral rectitude and all that we had been fighting for.
 I am pleased for you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.  I am pleased and I don't mind if certain people in the audience would be willing to respond in the way that I have not allowed them to respond.  Thank you Mama, you may stand down.

ALBERTINA SISULU: Thank you.
Special Hearings — Media Hearings — 1997-09-15

CHAIRPERSON: Good morning!   Please stand.  I will ask Dr Boraine to lead us in a prayer please.

DR BORAINE: Thank you very much.  I want to welcome you all very warmly to this special hearing on the Media of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
WELCOME IS REPEATED IN AFRIKAANS AND ZULU
Before I open our proceedings it gives me very great pleasure to give the word to the Chief Executive of the 
SABC Radio, Mr Goven Reddy.

MR REDDY: Thank you very much Archbishop.  In case my colleagues from the SABC are wondering what
I am doing here I am not the first to testify.  It is my great pleasure as Acting Chief Group Executive of the 
Corporation, Mr Sisulu is away, to welcome the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to the SABC.  
When the TRC requested that the hearings be held over here the SABC had no hesitation in saying yes.  Not 
only did we say yes, but we also said they could have it free of charge, and not many people get anything from 
the SABC free of charge, except those who don't pay TV licences.  But I don't think there could be a 
more appropriate place in the country for the TRC to hold its Media hearing.  This was of course Auckland Park
, the heart-land of National Party propaganda, and I think it's highly symbolic that the TRC decided to hold its 
hearings at the SABC.  They have three long days ahead of them so I don't wish to waste another second 
of their time, suffice to say a very warm welcome to all of you to the SABC and I wish you three days of fruitful 
hearings.  Thank you.
Special Hearings — Media Hearings — 1997-09-15

<UNKNOWN>: Thank you very much Archbishop for those introductory remarks, and it is good to have you
 back.  We actually missed you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

<UNKNOWN>: We will start off the first session by looking into the situation of the Broadcasting Corporation
and we will listen to the testimony of Mr Jonathan Proctor and Mr Tau Matau, both of them together.  So can I call 
upon them to come forward.  Good morning gentlemen, welcome here.  Thank you for having come.  I am going to 
administer an oath to you and then I am  going to hand over to two of my colleagues who will be facilitating your testimony 
to us.  So for that purpose I am  just going to ask both of you to rise and I will administer to you jointly if you don't mind. 
 Please rise.

JONATHAN PROCTOR: (sworn states)

TAU MATAU: (sworn states)

<UNKNOWN>: Mr Proctor's testimony will be facilitated by Dr Alex Boraine and Mr Matau by Dumisa Ntsebeza.
So it's over to Dr Boraine.  
BOP BROADCASTING

DR BORAINE: Thank you very much.  Mr Proctor, welcome.  We are grateful that you have given the time and the
energy to be here for what we regard as a very important part of the work of the Commission.  You will know that
 we have a large number of people that will be making submissions and appearing so we want to be as concise 
as we possibly can be.  I am not sure, we have received a submission from you, do you want to summarise that
 in  a few minutes or do you want me simply to move on to questions?

JONATHAN PROCTOR: Whichever would be most convenient to the Commission in its dealings.  I think that a snapshot
probably would be helpful just to set everything in context.

DR BORAINE: Yes I'd be grateful.  Would you go ahead then and if you could limit it to say about five or so minutes
 and then I'll proceed with some questions and my colleagues may have some as well.  Thank you.
Special Hearings — Media Hearings — 1997-09-15

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very, very much.  It is going to be of considerable assistance to us as we try to describe what took place but much more importantly as I keep saying what we would want to recommend about the kinds of things that should happen in a public broadcaster, the letting people know what is happening in their country, being able to tell the stories of wars in Angola which were not described in South Africa.  But thank you very, very much, we are most grateful.  Despite our efforts at stopping certain Commissioners from being too loquacious we have not succeeded entirely and Professor van Zyl would you agree to stand down for after lunch and let's just have one more - thank you very much.  Denzil will you please....  S A B C
DOCUMENT DIRECTOR

<UNKNOWN>: Good afternoon Mr Khathide.

BHEKI KHATHIDE: (sworn states)

MS MKHIZE: Sir welcome.  I don't know how you would prefer to present your views before Commissioners or you can just highlight the areas which you would like to talk to and allow me to ask you a few questions.

BHEKI KHATHIDE: I started working for the SABC on the 1st of July 1982.  Between that time and now I worked in a number of departments.  At the very onset I became a producer that made programmes running or moving called documentaries, magazine and directing news in the studio, working in the final control, directing a variety of live programmes.  The highlight of those programmes I remember in 1984 were referred to as the TV2 Tjikelele)?).  So my experience moves from producing magazines to directing news.  That gave me experience of knowing how SABC internally operated and how the higher structures related to the juniors, and how information-giving was managed.  That is in a nutshell.  I will continue to give a whole range of my submission if you will permit me to do so.  If you are now in a position to ask questions based on this synopsis I would give answers to those.

MS MKHIZE: Really I won't like you to feel rushed.  I have thought you have highlighted one thing where, how you joined the organisation and how you moved on to directing the news, but here you have identified issues which gave you cause for concern.  I don't know whether you would like to talk to them, briefly.
Special Hearings — Media Hearings — 1997-09-15

CHAIRPERSON: Yes I think Professor let's look at the presentation that you want to make and then we'll take questions after that.  Thank you.

UNKNOWN: The first extract, this is the SATV programme Network...(intervention)

MR LEWIN: Sorry Professor, can we just try and organise so that everybody can see the monitors and, is it possible so that one can be made available in the plethora of cameras so that the panel can see it as well?  Thank you.  Can everybody see a monitor?  Can everybody get to a place where they can see a monitor?

CHAIRPERSON: Ja those people can turn around.

MR LEWIN: Thanks very much.
Special Hearings — Media Hearings — UNKNOWN

MR NTSEBEZA: Thank you Chair. Gentlemen good morning and welcome.  I don't know whether how you propose to do your submission.  I have noted in my file that there is a fairly substantial and lengthy submission which has been made on behalf of MWASA. 	I also note that in terms of the schedule we have got 30 minutes for each schedule to be conducted within the confines of that period.  I am perfectly happy to get a sense from you as to how you, in view of all those constraints, you propose to make your presentation. Whether one of you is going to make it or one is going to be dealing with one section and the other is going to be dealing with one section.  I would have assumed that in view of the length of your presentation as it stands on paper, and in view of the fact that we have got about a half an hour to do it in that maybe you want to speak to the submission that you have handed in.

ZAKES NENE: Thank you Mr Chairman, firstly we would like to introduce ourselves.  My name is Zakes Nene.  I'm the president of MWASA and I work for the SABC.  I joined the SABC in 1981, I'm still working for the SABC.

TSELISO RALITABO: Thank you Mr Chairman.  I am Tseliso Ralitabo and I am the National Executive Committee member of MWASA.  	I think in terms of answering your question we would want to take this on twofold.  One Comrade Zakes would handle the electronic media side of it and I will be talking on the print media part of it. And then yes I fully agree with you that the document is quite lengthy and we won't do justice to it if we're going to be reading it through but at least we can talk to the submission.  	I am going to give a synopsis of the report and then we'll take questions from that, and I think Comrade Zakes is going to do the same with the electronic part of it.

MR NTSEBEZA: Thank you very much, then proceed gentlemen without further ado.
Special Hearings — Media Hearings — UNKNOWN

TSELISO RALITABO: Ja. I think to add to that Mr Chairperson, it is also important to say here, as a Union we embrace very dearly the freedom of the press. It is therefore quite necessary that in our submission or in our proposal to your Commission in terms of what we'd want to see, we would want to see, it's quite strange to us that even in this government of the day, we still have got sections like Section 205 of the Criminal Act, which we have already mentioned in our submission how much damage it has done to the free flow of information. We clearly see Section 205 as a counter to free flow of information because we think journalists in their effort to try and get accurate information and news, in order to be able disseminate proper reflections of news, they need to have contacts and those contacts are giving them valuable information for the society, and if we continue to have sections like 205, which is going to make it very difficult for them to be able to operate without giving their sources of information, much as the information is valuable to both their government and the society, we would really want to appeal to you if you can in your recommendations propose the repealing of Section 205. 	We would also want to see a situation whereby journalists are given the latitude to represent like Comrade Juby has said, give a true reflection whether we can argue whether there are two sides of the story but, yes indeed, a balanced story should not be interfered with by any -  whether editorial superiors or by the government.  That is what we would want to see in the current dispensation.  Thank you.

MR NTSEBEZA: Thank you.

ADV POTGIETER: Thank you Dumisa. I'm going to restrain my colleagues here and apologise to you as well. We unfortunately at our public sessions we've got these tremendous time constraints and we're trying to do justice to everybody and you have actually already submitted quite an extensive submission to us. A lot of information and material which we thank you for and your union as well and we are grateful that you have indicated that you will in fact present us with even further information, we quite appreciate that very much.  We're sorry that we don't have much more time to discuss the submission that you've made but we want to thank you for having come and at least made the most of limited time that we have available this morning.  Thank you very much.

ZAKES NENE: Thank you.

TSELISO RALITABO: Thank you.
UNIONS  -  SAUJ

CHAIRPERSON: The next testimony that we will take is that of Pat Sidley in regard to the SAUJ.  Can I ask her to come forward.  Good morning to you.  Will both of you be making a presentation?

SAM SOUL: Yes we will have a more-or-less interactive presentation.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.  And it's Pat Sidley and Sam Soul from the SAUJ.  Thank you.  I am just going to administer the oath to you before you go into your submission, so I am going to ask both of you to please stand.

PAT SIDLEY: (sworn states)

SAM SOUL: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Hugh Lewin will assist you.
Special Hearings — Media Hearings — UNKNOWN

JOLYON NUTTALL: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Hlengiwe Mkhize will facilitate.

MS MKHIZE: Mr Nuttall I would also like to welcome you to these hearings and ask you to take the Commissioners through your submission.
Special Hearings — Media Hearings — UNKNOWN

JOLYON NUTTALL: Yes.  The Newspaper Press Union at this present time I gather is holding a congress at the Victoria Falls and I gather that on the agenda is a proposal for transformation of the NPU which is being put forward by one of its members.  I will be interested to see the outcome of that, because the NPU still exists to some extent, it's still made up of the sort of profiles that I've painted from across the spectrum.  It seems to me that it's absolutely essential that a body like the NPU in fact should transform itself into being able to speak and represent and act for a much wider range of media diversity as I have indicated than it has done up till now.  I think the era of looking after its own members and its own newspapers is well past, and that it should now be addressing in fact the wider needs of communication and interaction with communities.  	The small publications that I was able to sponsor in recent years through a development trust that I worked for are crying out for training, for support, for equipment.  The Independent Media Trust, which I have served on for the last five years, has done what it can but it has lacked resources to do it.  The NPU has resources.  And I believe in fact it should be transforming itself to be able to encourage media diversity, to ensure that the smaller voices that are emerging all over the country are given a chance to move towards some degree of viability and not to live or die according to the whims of those who subsidise them. So that for me would be the major area of transformation that a body like the Newspaper Press Union should be considering.

MS MKHIZE: Thank you very much.  I will hand you back to the Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Hlengiwe.  Any other questions - no.  Well Mr Nuttall I want to thank you for the trouble that you had gone to to prepare the document for us as well as the annexures that you have referred to.  We do realise that you know there is some effort in trying to recover all of those things years after you had actually vacated the offices as president of this Union, and we in fact have noted the point that you have made that there are some of those who had been presidents of the Union previously still available and alive and so on, and we will certainly follow that up.  We didn't approach the matter on the basis that you are the prime source of information, it's just that you were at hand and we quite appreciate the fact that you were prepared to come and to present your testimony in quite a forthright way.  	Thank you very much for that we do appreciate it.  Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: The next witness that we will listen to is Mr John Horak.  I would ask him to come forward please.
Special Hearings — Media Hearings — UNKNOWN

CHAIRPERSON: The next witness that we will listen to is Mr John Horak.  I would ask him to come forward please.
STATE OPERATIVES

CHAIRPERSON: The next witness that we will listen to is Mr John Horak.  I would ask him to come forward please.  We are just waiting for Mr Horak, who is outside, to come in.	Whilst Mr Horak is settling in, can I just mention once again that we prepared a schedule of the witnesses to be heard and we had given a rough indication of the time at which we would hear them.  And unfortunately as things go in practice, it is not always possible to stick to the minute and we are obviously a bit behind schedule at this stage and we apologise for that, but we are doing our best to try and accommodate everybody.	Mr Horak, good afternoon and welcome.  I will, before you start I am going to just ask you to take the oath.  Would you like to affirm.

JOHN HORAK: (affirmed)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, be seated and can I just ask you to just switch on the microphone in front of you.  There is a red button on it, if you touch that, yes, that is it, so you are connected.

JOHN HORAK: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Horak, you have been a journalist but also a member of the South African Police, as it was known at that stage.  And you have prepared a submission to us, setting out the relevant circumstances and information surrounding your work and activities.  Would you like to proceed and present that to us?
Special Hearings — Media Hearings — UNKNOWN

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Horak.  Can I just to get  a little bit more clarity on the situation of the involvement of the Security Establishment in the media, you were what would have been described as an agent?  In other words a professional ... (intervention)

JOHN HORAK: Mr Potgieter, I know where you are heading to.  I forgot to address that question.  I remember now that you've asked that question.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you explain those categories very briefly?
Special Hearings — Media Hearings — UNKNOWN

CHAIRPERSON: Tea will be served and, at the back of the room and it is going to be 15 minutes.  We will have to assemble here at half past 11 and, at their request we will take Times Media Ltd immediately after tea.

DON MATTERA: Thank you, Sir.
HEARING ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: The problem is that in Times Media Limited we have a Chairperson who is an apt negotiator.  I have, since the last time I spoke, negotiated with him that we put Times Media Limited after Thami Mazwai and Jon Qwelane.  We will call Thami Mazwai and Jon Qwelane to the podium.  Each is speaking independently of the other, but from the point of time management, we are wanting to put them together and where is Thami Mazwai?  Maybe go ahead, let us hear you.  Oh, it is you.  Shall we all get settled please.  We would like to start.  We have terrible time constraints, there are people who have to be out of here and, JQ, welcome and Thami is making his way to the podium.  As I said, both of them are going to be making presentations, but they are going to make them separately.  We are having them there now for purposes of managing time.  Mary Burton is going to be leading or facilitating both of you and, but before we do so, I would like to ask Commissioner Hlengiwe to swear you in.
FORUM OF BLACK JOURNALISTS

UNKNOWN: I would like to welcome both of you and ask you to stand please, so as to.

THAMI MAZWAI: (Duly sworn in, states).

JON QWELANE: (Duly sworn in, states).

UNKNOWN: Thank you.

MARY BURTON: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mary, yes.

MARY BURTON: Thank you.  I seem to have received instant promotion in that I am to facilitate both of your testimonies to us this morning.  I would like to welcome you both here very much, thank you.  Thank you for the documents which we have and for the facts that you are going to bring before us this morning.  I think I will ask you, without any further ado, Mr Qwelane, are you going to start?  Thank you.
Special Hearings — Media Hearings — UNKNOWN

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Qwelane.  Mary.

MARY BURTON: Chairperson, I wonder whether, perhaps, we should ask Mr Mazwai to continue and then take questions, in the interest of time, addressed to both of them?  Would you prefer to do that?
FORUM OF BLACK JOURNALISTS

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, if Mr Mazwai is ready.  I believe you have already been sworn in Mr Mazwai.

THAMI MAZWAI: Yes, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: If you could.  Mary is also going to facilitate your presentation.  Thank you.

MARY BURTON: Thank you Mr Mazwai.  We also have your written submission and so we would ask you to make your presentation then.  Thank you.
Special Hearings — Media Hearings — UNKNOWN

CHAIRPERSON: Without further ado, I would like to call Mr De Beer, Arri.	Before you sit down, I think you have become very wise for sitting in and knowing what the ropes are.  I will ask Commissioner Burton to swear you in.
AFRIKAANS PRESS

UNKNOWN: (Duly sworn, states).

MARY BURTON: Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: I would just like to say - are you going to speak in Afrikaans?

UNKNOWN: Mr Chair, if it is possible I would like to make a short introduction in English, and then give a summary of my submission to you in Afrikaans.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I only hope people do have the mechanisms of translation, otherwise that will be allowed. I would just like to indicate at the beginning of these proceedings on Monday, the Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Chairman of the Commission, did indicate that it was a pity that the Afrikaans medium in the form of Naspers and others, had not taken up our invitation to come and give us a sense of their perspective.  It was a pity because there would obviously be things said about that Press as there has been, and there have been a lot of things that have been said about the Afrikaans newspapers, and that we would be poorer for it, that we don't have a perspective, certainly for the mainstream of Afrikaans newspapers. 	It is particularly therefore, for that very reason, that we must take into cognisance the fact that their absence here is not for a lack of trying by those who were organising this occasion.  We tried to get a submission from the Afrikaans Press, Naspers. It is my information - they specifically refused.  It is my information, I have not verified it, but it is also my information that in one particular newspaper, I stand corrected, Die Beeld, had wanted to come, some journalists had wanted to come and appear before us, and it appears that they were warned if they did, they would be putting their jobs on the line.  	Now if that information is true, it is a great pity. It is against that backdrop that we are extremely pleased that Prof De Beer, you have been able to find the opportunity and the time to give us a sense of your own views about the media, and that you are going to be communicating to us with particular regard to the Afrikaans Press.  Welcome.
Special Hearings — Media Hearings — UNKNOWN

CHAIRPERSON: On a much more serious vein, Max, you are here I suppose, to talk about the Vrye Weekblad, but I am just envious seeing that there is a programme called Special Report. I would not like it that because you are here there is not anybody who is going to produce this particular most "special report", because I would hope to appear and appear with you on Special Report and see what that looks like.  So please make sure that we have made arrangements for you to appear.  You will be facilitated by Hlengiwe Mkhize, but Mary Burton will swear you in before you do that.

MAX DU PREEZ: (Duly sworn, states).

MARY BURTON: Thank you.

UNKNOWN: Max, or Mr Du Preez, I would like to welcome you today in a different capacity.  We have in our possession your submission which I would like you to talk to the Commission to.
Special Hearings — Mental Health Workshop — 1997-11-20

UNKNOWN: Can I just say that academic writing is only one form of writing.  There is a rich heritage of writings by novelists, poets and other forms of writing.  I think we should be cautious in thinking that it is only those who are academically trained can articulate best the experiences of the people.
 If you read the works of people like Don Mathera, Mphahlele you will understand the psychology of this, of the oppressed people in this country, far better than any psychologist could ever articulate.  So I think there are the forms of writing that we can be proud of and look at.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, but does that answer your question?

PROF MAGWAZA: I should think for us as a Commission it is important what he is saying, because really we tend to rely entirely on authorities.  Like we think of Don Vorster because he has written 20 books and 20 articles.
 I think even with our writing up of the research, we had the report of these other alternative forms.  I for one didn't think about it as I was looking at it.  But I should think that it is very, very important.
 It is good that we've got it for our records as to how we take the process forward.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  I agree.  I think it is an issue how we even pitch our report writing and in which style we actually choose to report on that as well.  Thank you very much for that.  Professor Lionel Nicholas?
Special Hearings — Mental Health Workshop — 1997-11-20

MR SAUNDERGUARD: Thank you Thulani.  Firstly good afternoon to the Chairperson and the members of the panel and to all the delegates.
 Just for the benefit of all in attendance, let me give you a short background on the Citizens' Commission on Human Rights and its role now and in the past.
 CCHR was established in 1969 by the Church of Scientology as an independent social reform body to investigate and expose psychiatric violations of human rights and criminal abuse and to clean up the field of mental healing.
 The co-founder of CCHR is an eminent Professor of Psychiatry at New York State University and the author of over 20 books, Dr Thomas Zass.  At the time of CCHR's establishment the victims of psychiatry were a forgotten minority group warehoused under dreadful often terrifying conditions in institutions around the world.
 They had no legal rights and could be arbitraly incarcerated and barbarically treated by psychiatrists who were above the law.  CCHR is now an independent organisation with more than 128 chapters in 28 countries.
 Its mandate is to investigate and expose psychiatric abuse of human rights and in the course of CCHR's 28 year history it has researched psychiatric abuses in many forms and worked with religious leaders, government officials, police, politicians and community and parent groups to effect changes.
 The Commission include doctors and other medical specialists such as neurologists, educationalists, artists, religious leaders, attorneys and civil and human rights representatives who advise and assist in their professional capacity.
 CCHR has also received acknowledgement for its work from leading professionals and international bodies such as the United Nations Human Rights' Commission which in 1986 acknowledged that CCHR had been instrumental in the enactment of more than 30 pieces of reform legislation in the mental health field around the world.
 And today that figure has moved up to more than 100.  We have learnt from 28 years of experience and many government enquiries we have participated in that in order to bring about true reforms and a better future, there must first be honesty, admission, nothing left to hide and responsibility.
 With this, the past can be cleaned up and the future become a new road to build upon.  One of the greatest crimes that an individual or group can do is to do nothing.  That is what apartheid psychiatry and psychology did.
 They did nothing to stop its abuses in the field of mental health and as my colleague Mr Lawrence Anthony will present from our submission, psychiatry and psychology were not mere passengers under apartheid, they created, built, manned and navigated and advised the apartheid ship.
 In 1974 CCHR first exposed the horrors being committed on patients in the private psychiatric camps owned by the private company Smith Mitchell and Company.  I say camps, because these places could hardly be called hospitals.  As we uncovered, there was an incredible lack of care for blacks in these institutions.
Special Hearings — Mental Health Workshop — 1997-11-20

PROF SIMPSON: ...[inaudible] It's a sort of division of labour that's important I think, the communities often have very considerable expertise in what questions actually matter and we may be able to work with them with some expertise in how to get the answers to the questions they want.
 The problem with the criticism we've heard today about earlier academia was, we had a bunch of professors chosen on political grounds who basically satisfied themselves and if there were any questions that troubled them, those were the ones they answered even if they didn't matter to anyone else on earth.
 The issue of finding what academic standards should mean is finding high quality answers but not being the sole source and the sole arbiter of what questions need to be answered, that has to be done with community as well as the process of finding the answers.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, I'm getting anxious about time, so I thank you Michael and invite Lawrence Anthony who's going to talk - it's not on the - they psychology - he's going to do a submission on the psychology of oppression.
 Welcome, could you introduce yourself on your area of expertise for the panel because it was a ...[inaudible]?

MR ANTHONY: Thank you Madam Chairperson, my name is Lawrence Anthony ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Chairperson.
Special Hearings — Mental Health Workshop — UNKNOWN

MR GREY: We don't need to be so formal today, we're going to work. Okay I think as I said yesterday we're gonna, I think we're gonna approach today by splitting into two groups with the, and we're gonna phrase the topics so that they orientate themselves around recommendations because that's our end point. I don't think some of the sections actually lend themselves. Like the role of psychologist regarding political prisoners. I don't think that's the sort of recommendation type sort of topic that will help us. So I'll speak to those when we move onto the groups. Can I invite Glenda to do a review of yesterday and then Wendy will follow to really sort contextualise that work within the Truth Commission's mandate so we become clear about what our task is. Thanks.
Special Hearings — Mental Health Workshop — UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN: ...asking yourselves, well yes we've had these interesting two days, what now?  What now is that we have to write up the proceedings of this workshop, formulate recommendations and then incorporate them into the overall health sector report which then becomes part of the overall report which then goes to the President and we would very much like your assistance in that process.  Perhaps we should just thing about it for a while, but if there are any of you who would like to help in the writing up process, please could you contact Tulani and then what we would also very much like to do is send the first draft of the written up to all of you and get your comments and your feedback back, so I'm afraid it's not over yet, the work has only just begun and we really would appreciate your ongoing involvement and assistance in taking this work forward, thank you.
HEARING ADJOURNS
Special Hearings — Political Party Hearings — 1996-08-19

MR MESHOE: Mr Chairperson, in our submission we did repent on behalf of the Christians who did not openly stand for the truth.  One mistake that took place in the past was that when apartheid was promoted by people who said the Bible taught that, those that were convinced the Bible did not teach that did not openly challenge those that were trying to use the Bible to defend the apartheid practices, it should have happened because on the issue of the apartheid the Bible is not contradictory, it is clear that before God there is no colour that is superior to the other, so the repentance that took place on behalf of many Christians that were quiet was just trying to say we should have come out and say if you believe the Bible teaches that, let's debate this openly because we can prove that the Bible does not teach that there is a race that is superior to the other.

MR GREEN: Chairperson if I might just add one or two sentences.  I would agree with you that you have marched and I have seen you march and there were times when I marched with you.  So can confirm what you are saying.  I must just remind the audience and Commissioners here that although apartheid has been defended by using the Bible, the very same apartheid was declared a heresy by using the word of God. So that is exactly what I'm talking when I'm saying that you do not compromise principle when you look at the word of God as the authority because the existing Government wouldn't have listened to the Koran as the revelation of the word of God because they didn't believe in the Koran, and so it was by means of the word of God that they were convinced that apartheid is and was a sin.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very very much. We are enormously grateful to you and your party for your submission.  We will be handing it over to our research Department who are going there to supply us with very clever questions to ask which will make us look slightly more intelligent than we are doing now, and we may then ask for you to come back to a later hearing when we will try to do justice to a well-thought out and as Dr Boraine says, a thought provoking submission but we are very grateful the insights that you have provided us and with some of the light that you are helping to shed on the gloom and sombreness of our past.  Thank you very much.
 We will adjourn now until 10 o'clock  tomorrow morning. Please stand.
Special Hearings — Political Party Hearings — 1996-08-20

MR LEON: No, no, that's fine.  Thanks very much Helen.  The next part which is the situation from 1974 onwards, and also the - yes from 1974 onwards, participation in Parliament, will be deal with by Mr Eglin.
Special Hearings — Political Party Hearings — 1996-08-20

MR LEON: Yes, thank you very much Colin.  Helen will now deal with Parliamentary opposition.
Special Hearings — Political Party Hearings — 1996-08-20

MR LEON: Thank you.  Colin.
Special Hearings — Political Party Recalls — 1997-05-16

GEN VILJOEN: No I can just maybe add a little.  I would say that I don't think few Afrikaners are ignoring the realities of the past. I think many Afrikaners are.  Maybe what you wanted to say is that few of the leaders do so and remember what I said in my presentation.  When you approach this from the party-political point of view, you always find excuses and you manipulate party-political cliches, but this is not what I'm trying to do.  I think that in general many Afrikaners accepted things in the past were not always 100% correct but also, you must bear in mind that many Afrikaners were absolutely convinced about the directions that we have taken in the past.  I'm not sure whether I should expand on this but one can talk a lot about the basic conception of the Afrikaner people, how he developed and how eventually self determination was tried in the homelands system and what went wrong with that.  There are many reasons for that but the whole idea of self determination, the whole idea of self-governing areas, the idea of separate development was not bad, it was not meant at that stage to govern over other people, it was actually trying to create  situations where everybody could govern themselves.  But the basic mistake was that it was done for the people and not with them. Had the ideas of separate development been negotiated with and talked through with the leaders of the other population groups, there might have been a different solution to this altogether, and I therefore think that the Afrikaner of today is in a certain way, of course we don't accept what has happened in the past, and one can never justify all the acts that have taken place in the past.  But all I want to say is that we must not generalise and the Afrikaner must not be demonised for the actions that we have taken by generalisation. A few Afrikaners that have faulted is not the general attitude of the Afrikaner people. We are a much prouder people than that.

UNKNOWN: One of the consequences of Afrikaner 'trauma-related nationalism', as pointed out by yourself was the following,
 When liberation fires came in Africa, 
firstly read page 2 paragraph 4 there is a second submission, may I proceed?  Thank you. 
When liberation fires came in Africa, the Afrikaners dug in their heels, given the losses of the past that had to be avoided, so they produced what they believed was a master plan. But it was based more on ideology than on reality which can only be understood from the threatened mind set of the embattled Afrikaner community.
Could you be  a bit more specific on this and in addition are you referring to the policy of separate development? Does it differ from the original concept expounded upon by ...(indistinct) the concept of differentiation?
Special Hearings — Political Party Recalls — UNKNOWN

<UNKNOWN>: anus Schoeman who is chief of staff in my office as leader of the official opposition. Then next to me Mr David Malatsi who is the leader of the National Party in Mpumulanga and who also accompanied me and assisted me when I made my first submission. Then on my right is Mr Dave Stewart, he's not a politician. He served for most of my period as State President as Director General in the office of the State President and has been extremely helpful in assisting me in the formulation of the submissions. He has a vast amount of knowledge and facts at his disposal and his assistance is extremely valuable to me. And then Mrs Camerer who is here in her capacity as Chairperson of our Justice Committee and also Chairperson of a small committee in our party which monitors the whole situation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and which also gives valuable assistance to me. Mr Marthinus van Schalkwyk, the Executive Director of the National Party's federal structures will join us a little bit later. He is caught up in important discussions at Parliament and asked to be excused until later.
Mr Chairman, members of the Commission, after careful consideration I have decided not to burden you with an oral representation of that which you have had before you in writing for the past six weeks. I assume that you have studied my replies to the questions and it would be merely repetitive to just read it out again. 
The media have similarly had it for the same period and parts of the contents were when it was made available to them widely reported. We have also once again distributed copies of our second submission today to the media and they are welcome, obviously, to report from it.
I consequently suggest, Mr Chairman, that we move to a discussion of, as well as questions and answer on the subject matter before us as soon as possible. As far as new issues, which might arise are concerned, I would prefer those to be deal with by way of written questions to which I could reply in writing in due course. However, I will endeavour to deal, forthwith, with those which do not require research or consultation with others in order to get some facts from them and I will try my best to field, therefore, all questions which might be posed.
Against this background I shall limit my opening remarks.
Special Hearings — Political Party Recalls — UNKNOWN

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. At the close of this fairly gruelling session I would want to express our appreciation to Mr de Klerk for his cooperation with the Commission. 
To thank the members of our panel and Glen Goosen and those who have assisted him.
Also to say thank you to Wendy Orr and Hugh Lewin and all the other members of our staff who are engaged in ensuring that these hearings go on smoothly. 
Thank you also to the Interpreters for sticking to their medium.
I hope that what has taken place here will be something that may be able to contribute to our search for the truth, but much more importantly that it may be able to contribute to the healing of our nation, traumatised and divided and alienated and that it will be making a contribution to the process of reconciliation. 
Thank you.

MR DE KLERK: Thank you. I fully align myself with your concluding remarks. Thank you very much Mr Chairman.
Special Hearings — Prison Hearings — 1997-07-22

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sipho Katana is not available, so we will call upon Mr Golden Miles Bhudu to come forward.  Welcome, I know it is very bad to be the last witness when you have been here the whole day, but we are happy that you were patient enough to wait.

GOLDEN MILES BHUDU: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.  I will hand over to Mr Dumisa Ntsebeza to lead this interview.

MR NTSEBEZA: Thank you Chair.  Mr Bhudu, I believe you have prepared a submission and maybe I should allow you to deal with it as you like, taking into account time constraints.
Special Hearings — Prison Hearings — 1997-07-22

CHAIRPERSON: We will now call upon Duma Khumalo to come forward.  Welcome Duma.  Before you tell us your story, would you stand up.  Are you going to take the oath or the affirmation?  Oh, you will take the oath?

DUMA KHUMALO: My problem is one ...

CHAIRPERSON: Will you stand up then and repeat after me.

DUMA KHUMALO: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Duma, Tom Manthata is going to facilitate the interview.

THOMAS MANTHATA: Will you conduct your evidence in English or Sotho?

DUMA KHUMALO: (No interpretation available)

THOMAS MANTHATA: Duma, you were detained, tried and sentenced to death with in a very short period of time, that is between, I think it was October if not November 1984, sentenced in 1985, am I correct?

DUMA KHUMALO: That is true.

THOMAS MANTHATA: Okay, can you please tell us of your observations and experiences about that whole drama?

DUMA KHUMALO: I tried to write a statement, I have only one problem, I don't know where to start because every minute in death row, there is an event which happened.

CHAIRPERSON: Shall I interrupt a minute.  Duma, the interpreters would either have you speak English and not mix English with any other languages, you are making things very tough for them.

DUMA KHUMALO: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, you'd rather speak in Sotho, thank you.

THOMAS MANTHATA: I think let's confine ourselves to the death row experiences, not the trial and what not and what more.

DUMA KHUMALO: The experience of death row doesn't begin when you are sent to that cell, the whole experience starts when the Judge pronounce judgement.
 I hoped that I will just explain and leave, but after Paula has talked, she resurrected my memory as if this thing has happened yesterday.  She helped us a lot when we were just about to be hanged.  As she spoke of the seven day experience,  we were given five days, because they wanted to do the work faster, but fortunately she was there and she informed our parents to rush to prison.
 The first day when I arrived in the death row, if I remember well, when I arrived in that cell, they said you should close yourself in, which means if you close the door on your own, you think that when you open the door again, it will open, in the true sense, the other people would be able to open.  It was on the 13th of December 1985.
 When I arrived in that cell, there was a mattress.  There were blankets on the floor.  It is this hard mattress.
 By the time I was affected emotionally because when I arrived at the reception, they have already arranged our clothes.  But they didn't know our heights then.
 I was the tallest amongst the five accused.  My trousers was only just beneath my legs, which means the shortest one had a problem with the size of the trousers.  They said that the shortest should give me his trousers, then it became too short.  We were taken there without shoes and we were taken to the cells.
 Then from there, I took the mattress and put them on the bedding because I didn't know the whole procedure.  In the morning I just heard stand up, the gates were opened.

THOMAS MANTHATA: Don't wait for the translation, just talk on your own.