TRC Final Report

Volume 2

Chapter 6

Part Part6

Subsection 8

Killing of Stompie Seipei

58 Ms Madikizela-Mandela has denied any knowledge of or involvement in the killing of Stompie Seipei on 1 January 1989.

59 The Commission received three versions of this killing. Jerry Richardson, who was convicted for the murder and applied for amnesty, claimed that he killed Seipei on Madikizela-Mandela’s instructions. Katiza Cebekhulu claimed that he witnessed Madikizela-Mandela stabbing Stompie Seipei, a version supported by John Morgan, who testified that he was instructed to dump Seipei’s body. The third version was presented in the form of an unsigned, typed section 29 detention statement from Mr Johannes ‘Themba’ Mabotha, a Vlakplaas askari who frequented the Mandela home, which states that he was present at a meeting when Richardson informed Madikizela-Mandela that he had killed Seipei. Although this statement claims that Madikizela-Mandela was shocked at what Richardson had told her, it goes on to allege that she was directly involved in an attempt to spread misinformation that Seipei was alive and had been seen in a refugee camp in Botswana. A further version, suggested by former Security Branch policeman Paul Erasmus, is that Richardson killed Seipei because he (Seipei) had found out that Richardson was an informer.

60 The various versions, with the exception of that of Erasmus, all implicate Ms Madikizela-Mandela, either directly or indirectly, in Seipei’s murder or its attempted cover-up. The Commission has not been able to establish conclusively the veracity of any of these versions, including Erasmus’s. Each version was explored in the Investigation Unit’s report to the Commission. A number of other possibilities also exist, including the option that Seipei was killed because his injuries were so severe.

IN THE LIGHT OF THE CORROBORATIVE TESTIMONY THAT PLACES MS MADIKIZELA-MANDELA ON THE SCENE, AND IMPLICATES HER IN THE ASSAULTS, THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT IN ALL PROBABILITY SHE WAS AWARE OF SEIPEI’S CONDITION AND FAILED, AS HEAD OF THE HOUSEHOLD, TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY BY ARRANGING MEDICAL TREATMENT FOR SEIPEI (AND THE OTHER YOUTHS), COMPOUNDING HER OWN COMPLICITY.

THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT MADIKIZELA-MANDELA’S SUBSEQUENT PUBLIC STATEMENTS ABOUT SEIPEI’S BODY AND HER ALLEGED LINK THROUGH MABOTHA TO THE RUMOURS OF SEIPEI BEING SEEN AT THE DUKWE REFUGEE CAMP IN BOTSWANA WAS AN ATTEMPT TO DEFLECT ATTENTION AWAY FROM HERSELF AND HER HOUSEHOLD BY DISSEMINATING FALSE INFORMATION REGARDING SEIPEI. THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT MADIKIZELA-MANDELA FAILED TO DISCLOSE TO COMMUNITY LEADERS THAT SEIPEI HAD BEEN AT HER HOUSE.

THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT STOMPIE SEIPEI WAS LAST SEEN ALIVE AT THE HOME OF MADIKIZELA-MANDELA AND THAT SHE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS ABDUCTION FROM THE METHODIST MANSE AND WAS NEGLIGENT IN THAT SHE FAILED TO ACT RESPONSIBLY IN TAKING THE NECESSARY ACTION REQUIRED TO AVERT HIS DEATH.

Attempted killing of Lerotodi Ikaneng

61 Mr Lerotodi Ikaneng and Mr Gift Ntombeni, former members of the MUFC, testified that Ms Madikizela-Mandela assaulted them and accused them of being informers approximately six weeks before the attempt on Ikaneng’s life on 3 January 1989 by members of the MUFC and associates of the Mandela household.

62 Ikaneng made a statement to the police regarding Mr Sizwe Sithole’s involvement in the killing of Mr Thole Dlamini, and this made him a target for the MUFC. It is therefore most probable that Ikaneng’s life was at risk from the MUFC and, in this particular case, from the MUFC’s patrons, Ms Madikizela-Mandela and her daughter, Ms Zindzi Mandela-Hlongwane. Ikaneng alleged that it was Mandela-Hlongwane who accused him of being an informer. It is probable that she was upset that Ikaneng had implicated her boyfriend, Sithole. According to Ikaneng, Mandela-Hlongwane had already accused him and several other MUFC members of being ‘sell-outs’ when he was still a member of the MUFC.

63 Jerry Richardson confirmed that he led the attack on Ikaneng on 3 January, accompanied by other MUFC members and the three abducted youths. Richardson and Gift Ntombeni corroborated Ikaneng’s allegation that he was labelled as an informer by Ms Madikizela-Mandela and/or her daughter. Richardson claimed that he had killed Ikaneng and that he was congratulated by Madikizela-Mandela when he told her this.

64 There is no apparent motive for Ikaneng to implicate Ms Madikizela-Mandela falsely in the attempts on his life. He had already testified against Richardson, who stabbed him in the throat. There is no evidence to suggest that Ikaneng was working for the police. Both Ikaneng and Ntombeni had insight into how the MUFC operated and knew of Madikizela-Mandela’s close relationship with it.

65 Ms Madikizela-Mandela denied knowledge of the attack on Lerotodi Ikaneng and the alleged reasons for it.

THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT MR LEROTODI IKANENG, ONE OF THE ORIGINAL MEMBERS OF THE MUFC, WAS RESIDENT AT THE ORLANDO WEST HOME OF MS MADIKIZELA-MANDELA. THE COMMISSION FINDS FURTHER THAT IKANENG LEFT THE MADIKIZELA-MANDELA HOUSEHOLD IN AUGUST 1988, FOLLOWING THE ARSON ATTACK ON THE PROPERTY. THE COMMISSION FINDS FURTHER THAT MEMBERS OF THE MUFC MADE SEVERAL ATTEMPTS ON IKANENG’S LIFE FOLLOWING HIS DEPARTURE FROM THE MANDELA HOUSEHOLD. HE WAS ACCUSED OF BEING A POLICE INFORMER AFTER PROVIDING THE POLICE WITH A STATEMENT NAMING SIZWE SITHOLE AS THE MURDERER OF MR THOLE DLAMINI.

THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT MADIKIZELA-MANDELA WAS INVOLVED IN AND RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ATTEMPTED MURDER OF IKANENG.

Killing of Dr Abubaker Asvat

66 Dr Abubaker Asvat was shot dead in his surgery in Rockville, Soweto, in the early evening of 27 January 1989. Mr Thulani Dlamini and Mr Zakhele Mbatha were subsequently charged and convicted for his murder. Media reports, speculation and a confession by Dlamini suggested that Ms Madikizela-Mandela was somehow involved in the murder.

67 Confusing and contradictory allegations by the convicted murderers, coupled with unsubstantiated allegations from Mr Katiza Cebekhulu, did not provide the Commission with any clarity regarding the Asvat murder and the alleged involvement of Ms Madikizela-Mandela. Indeed, the entire case remains unsolved as there are numerous statements from Dlamini as far back as 1980, in which he consistently maintained that Madikizela-Mandela offered him money to kill Dr Asvat. These are riddled with contradictions, which he claimed to have inserted deliberately in each version. Neither Dlamini nor Mbatha, who actually shot Asvat, provided the Commission with credible testimony or coherent reasons for the contradictions in their various versions.

68 The allegation that Dr Asvat saw Stompie Seipei before his murder and was a witness to his condition is supported by direct and indirect witness testimony. It is, however, denied by Ms Madikizela-Mandela. Other witnesses who were at the Mandela home also denied that they saw Dr Asvat at the house during this period.

69 Quotations attributed to Ms Madikizela-Mandela in the Sunday Times two days after the murder, linking Asvat’s death to her allegations of Verryn’s sexual abuse of the boys, have been rejected by Madikizela-Mandela as fabrication. This denial is part of a broader pattern of denials regarding quotations and stories attributed to her in the media at this time. It is, however, noteworthy that she made no attempt during this period, or subsequently before the hearings, to deny that she had ever said these things.

70 The death of Dr Abubaker Asvat, and the subsequent linking of his death with the sexual abuse allegations surrounding the Reverend Paul Verryn, raised serious concerns which the Commission was unable to unravel. The Commission was not, however, able to verify allegations that Ms Madikizela-Mandela was involved in Dr Asvat’s murder and is still unsatisfied as to the reasons why media reports linked the two incidents.

THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT THE MURDER AND ROBBERY DETECTIVES INVESTIGATING DR ASVAT’S MURDER WERE HASTY IN THEIR ASSUMPTIONS THAT THIS WAS A STRAIGHTFORWARD CASE OF ROBBERY, AND WERE NEGLIGENT IN THEIR FAILURE TO EXAMINE THE APPARENT CONNECTION BETWEEN DLAMINI AND CEBEKHULU’S STATEMENTS. IT IS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND HOW SUCH AN OMISSION COULD HAVE BEEN MADE, UNLESS ONE ACCEPTS THAT INFORMATION OF THIS NATURE WAS NOT SHARED IN PRIORITY INVESTIGATIONS WITHIN THE SAME POLICE UNIT. IN THIS CONTEXT, THE INVESTIGATION ALSO FAILED TO ACCESS POTENTIALLY VITAL INFORMATION FROM THE SECURITY BRANCH AND ITS RECORDS OF TELEPHONE TRANSCRIPTS AND OTHER INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION.