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

MR SEMENYA: No he actually knows that his amnesty depends on the correctness and the completeness of the version that he's supposed to give.  You are saying he's making a mistake there?

KATIZA CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR SEMENYA: Did I understand your evidence to say that you are unable to give a full description because it was night and it was dark?

KATIZA CEBEKHULU: Like what, what are the things that I did not see?

MR SEMENYA: You were saying that you could not see properly whether this is Stompie and whether what parts of the body was being stabbed because it was dark, it was at night and it was dark.  Did you say that?

KATIZA CEBEKHULU: Yes I did say that they were handing a child or a youngster, but at that stage I didn't know as to who this youngster was.

MR SEMENYA: What I am trying to put to you is you couldn't see clearly because it was dark and it was at night, right?

KATIZA CEBEKHULU: It wasn't very dark that I could not see that there were people approaching or some apparitions that I saw.

MR SEMENYA: Can I refer you to paragraph 38 of your affidavit page 11 from line 7 you are said to be saying
"He awoke, went outside to the toilet in sleeping area 1, relieved himself and came out again into the garden.  He was shielded by shrubs and flowers.  He saw in clear moonlight Richardson emerge from the room in which Stompie and others were sleeping".
So there was clear moonlight on that day?

KATIZA CEBEKHULU: Are you telling me or asking me, are you posing a question?  You said at the time that they were taking Stompie out there was clear moonlight, are you making a statement or are you asking me and expecting me to comment on that?

MR SEMENYA: Is this your statement Sir?

KATIZA CEBEKHULU: Which paragraph are you referring to?

MR SEMENYA: Page 11, paragraph 38.  So what do you mean it was dark that night, when in this statement you say you saw in clear moonlight?

KATIZA CEBEKHULU: I said it was at night but I was able to see a person.  It wasn't pitch dark that I could not see any apparition in the dark or any moving person.

MR SEMENYA: But you recall in your evidence when you were led by your legal representative that you said you couldn't see clearly because it was dark, do you recall that piece of your evidence?

KATIZA CEBEKHULU: I am still trying to read the statement, I can't seem to get whatever you are referring to.

MR SEMENYA: No my question is a simple one, I say do you recall when you were led by my learned colleague, the legal representative for you that you said you couldn't see clearly because it was dark?

UNKNOWN: Could I just assist here.  There are two questions.  The first is your own statement on page 11, paragraph 38 which you say it was a clear moonlight night, the moon was shining, in your words "saw in clear moonlight".  That's the first question.  Did you say that or not?

KATIZA CEBEKHULU: No I never said that, no.

UNKNOWN: Well that's what it says in your affidavit.  Now the second question not in the statement ...(intervention) carry on, carry on.

KATIZA CEBEKHULU: It wasn't very dark, you were able to see a person approaching,  that's what I said, it wasn't very dark or pitch dark.

UNKNOWN: No but you see I am trying to assist you.  On the one hand in your statement which is in front of you, the typed one.

KATIZA CEBEKHULU: Yes.

MR NTSEBEZA: You say that you saw in clear moonlight Richardson emerged from the room, okay.  But when ...(intervention)

KATIZA CEBEKHULU: Yes I saw Richardson coming out of the room.

UNKNOWN: Right, clear moonlight.  Yet when your legal representative asked you a question, not here now, he was asking you could you see what was happening and you said you couldn't see clearly because it was dark.  Now those are the two questions that are being put to you. Now can you explain how it was a clear moonlight and yet it was dark so you couldn't see clearly?

KATIZA CEBEKHULU: No I didn't explain like that.

UNKNOWN: That's exactly how I heard you say that unless your legal representative wants to refute what we are saying at this stage.
 Now what you are being asked is how dark was it? What were you able to see?  And then you can tell us.

KATIZA CEBEKHULU: I know the moon, yes I think it was half moon or quarter moon, it shed some light, it wasn't pitch dark, neither was it very bright, but I could see some bodies or some people moving and I could differentiate between the sexes as well as the ages of the people that I saw.

UNKNOWN: Thank you.  Can you take this further, but I do remind you that we are running out of time.

MR SEMENYA: Yes Mr Cebekhulu all of this is intended to convey to you that what  you purport you saw, Mrs Mandela stabbed twice it's a fabrication on your part.

KATIZA CEBEKHULU: I wouldn't be able to fabricate such a story, I don't have that capability.

MR SEMENYA: But you were sent by a magistrate for mental observation is that right, because you were thought possibly mentally unstable, is that right?

KATIZA CEBEKHULU: Yes that is correct.

MR SEMENYA: Even the other earlier document you are described as a maverick.  That would be consistent with the type of person you are.

UNKNOWN: Sorry could you just tell us which document you are referring to, the description of the maverick?

MR SEMENYA: It's the document which we advised - was addressed to the late President of the African National Congress, Mr Oliver Tambo.

UNKNOWN: Thank you.

KATIZA CEBEKHULU: I am not crazy.

MR SEMENYA: Can I touch on just one other ...(intervention)

KATIZA CEBEKHULU: Can I just ask you one question.

UNKNOWN: It's your last question?

KATIZA CEBEKHULU: May I just ask one question?

UNKNOWN: Can the witness just hold it please.  Ask the question.

MR SEMENYA: On page 54 of the book there is a paragraph starting
"The first part of Winnie Mandela's plan for Katiza Cebekhulu at Paul Verryn's manse did not work out".
And then it is saying -
"Verryn and Katiza with his knife slept in the same double bed".

KATIZA CEBEKHULU: Yes I do remember that.

MR SEMENYA: Did you sleep with Bishop Verryn in the same bed?

KATIZA CEBEKHULU: Yes I did.

MR SEMENYA: The book also has aspects where you admit to lying.  Can I refer you to page 87.  There appears there the following lines
"Today Katiza justifies his lie about Verryn raping him on the grounds that he was totally vulnerable, unprotected, frightened and mentally and emotionally confused by the sheer dreadfulness of the web in which Winnie Mandela had entangled him".
Did you say that?

KATIZA CEBEKHULU: Who did I say that to?

MR SEMENYA: You must have said it to Fred Bridgeland because this purports to be his book describing you.

KATIZA CEBEKHULU: I did say that at the beginning when you asked me a question that some of the things are not my personal allegations and now you are asking me I am telling you that I don't know some of the things or the manner in which they are written or reported.

MR SEMENYA: Well let me put it differently, you did not justify your lie to Bridgeland by claiming that at the time you were vulnerable, unprotected, frightened, mentally and emotionally confused?

KATIZA CEBEKHULU: Yes I did say that.

MR SEMENYA: At what point are you confused?  Is it at the time that you are sitting and crying outside the house of the Manse, is that the point at which you were confused, mentally and emotionally confused?

KATIZA CEBEKHULU: I do not remember a specific time when I was mentally confused.  I don't know whether I understand your question very well, could you rephrase it.

MR SEMENYA: Were you under any threat at the time you disclosed that you were being raped by Bishop Verryn?

KATIZA CEBEKHULU: No I wasn't.

MR SEMENYA: Maybe explain to me, why do you justify that lie by saying that it is because you were confused?