Advocate trying to corner me – MP
MBABANE – “The advocate is trying to corner me.”
This was said by Hosea Member of Parliament (MP) Mduduzi Bacede Mabuza when he was being cross-examined byAdvocate Gareth Leppan, who represents the Crown, after he had given his evidence-in-chief. MP Mabuza remained calm and unshaken throughout the cross- examination. He would sometimes seek clarity when he did not understand the question. Today we bring you a blow by blow of the cross-examination, which lasted for about four and a half hours.
Advocate Gareth Leppan: Were you well respected in Parliament and enjoyed the support of around 28 MPs when you raised the Section 67(1) (of the Constitution) issue?
MP Bacede Mabuza: I did not need support for the Section 67(1) motion. When I stand on a point of law, I don’t need support. (Section 67(1) says the King shall appoint the prime minister from among MPs, acting on the recommendation of the King’s Advisory Council).
Advocate: Did you get support among your colleagues generally for the Section 67(1) motion?
MP Mabuza: May I explain, because I can see he doesn’t understand. If the Constitution states what should happen for the House to operate and it doesn’t, once I raise it, the House automatically stops because it’s a point of law.
Advocate: The question is; did you get support among your colleagues?
MP Mabuza: Yes, inside Parliament and among the general public.
Advocate: Were you respected and supported by people in your constituency?
MP Mabuza: I don’t understand the use of the past tense. The people of my constituency respect and support me even now.
Advocate: Do they look to you for advice and assistance?
MP Mabuza: Yes.
Advocate: Would you say beyond Hosea Constituency, other members of the public respect and look up to you?
MP Mabuza: Yes, but I can’t say how much they do outside Hosea.
Advocate: Can you say before the arrest and now, you are influential.
MP Mabuza: I can say among the people.
Advocate: You were and are a successful businessman.
MP Mabuza: Yes, I’m a businessman.
Advocate: Have you helped your community and others.
MP Mabuza: I have the Bacede Foundation based at Hosea and it assists people in Hosea and few others outside of Hosea.
Advocate: Was the Section 67(1) motion your idea.
MP Mabuza: Yes, it was my idea. It’s my duty as an MP to guard against anything that’s against the Constitution.
Advocate: You say there was a resolution (to defer the delivery of petitions to June 26 and 27, 2021) and the DPM was present when it was taken?
MP Mabuza: Yes.
Advocate: The issue of the resolution was never put to the Crown witnesses during cross-examination.
MP Mabuza: I don’t recall one Crown witness mentioning the resolution, so there was no need to ask them about it.
Advocate: You say (MP) Dlamini (Sibusiso Mabhanisi) was present when the resolution was taken?
MP Mabuza: Yes, he was there.
Advocate: The issue of the resolution was never put to him.
MP Mabuza: Yes, because he never testified on it. I believe I have to cross examine someone based on what they said. He only talked about his inkhundla and not issues of Parliament.
Advocate: This is new evidence
I live the court did not hear before.
MP Mabuza: I don’t know how the court would have heard about that evidence when I had still not taken to the dock to tell my side of the story on the issues I am accused of.
Advocate: You agree that this is new evidence?
MP Mabuza: I don’t know if I’m supposed to agree with what you are saying, because I believe I have to tell you what I know and what happened regarding petitions.
Advocate: (Deputy Government Spokesperson) Thabile Mdluli testified and she handed in the banning order.
MP Mabuza: I agree.
Advocate: That would have been an ideal opportunity to make it known that there was a resolution.
MP Mabuza: I don’t think so. I believe my accuser had to state everything and in turn state my side of the story. Thabile was talking about things outside of Parliament. It was not for me to answer on those issues. If the DPM came to testify, I would have asked him about the resolution.
Advocate: I put it to you that the resolution you now rely on is an afterthought.
MP Mabuza: It’s not true and there is evidence to that effect.
Advocate: Your evidence is that the banning order is directly contrary to the resolution.
MP Mabuza: Yes. It was unlawful.
Advocate: I put it to you that was never put to any Crown witness, in particular MP Dlamini (Sibusiso Mabhanisi and (Thabile) Mdluli.
MP Mabuza: MP Dlamini came here to talk about violence that happened at his inkhundla and he didn’t talk about what happened in Parliament. I couldn’t cross-examine him about what he didn’t talk about. Thabile is not an MP, so I couldn’t ask her about anything that happened inside Parliament. Even inside Parliament, I don’t ask officials but I ask the politicians.
Advocate: Even though Mdluli was here with the document you say is contrary to the resolution, you still couldn’t ask her?
MP Mabuza: I couldn’t ask her about a document that was not tabled in Parliament. Procedure dictates that the document had to be tabled in Parliament first then I could have been able to comment. If the document was brought here by the DPM, I would have asked if he had tabled it in Parliament.
Advocate: You are in court and that’s your answer?
MP Mabuza: I can see that I’m in court, but that doesn’t mean I should change Parliament procedure.
Advocate: I suggest you are hiding behind Parliament procedure.
MP Mabuza: No, what we are talking about here started in Parliament. Mine is to answer on parliamentary issues as they are. It would be different if the issue started outside Parliament.
Advocate: If the resolution was there, you could have spelt it out in your June 24, 2021 speech.
MP Mabuza: I think I made it clear that there was a resolution and I went further to divulge the contents of the resolution.
Advocate: Show the court where it specifically states that there was a resolution. How could the DPM have gone against it?
MP Mabuza: If the advocate wants that, I can get it for him from the speech, though in the speech I didn’t mention dates. If he is not satisfied, can I get a few minutes to find it for him.
Judge Mumcy Dlamini: much time do you need?
MP Mabuza: 10 minutes.
How you spoke on evidence that touched on Simelane.
MP Mabuza: It was on what I understand, which is political. There’s a difference between commenting about what I heard or what I read. I comment on a matter I have been extensively told about like I have read it (banning order). I don’t know if Simelane had all the details or he had read it.
Advocate: Did Simelane tell you about the contents of the banning order?
MP Mabuza: No, I heard about it from a speaker during the meeting with political parties (June 24, 2021). I also said I saw same in the MPs’ WhatsApp group.
Advocate: Simelane gave details of the banning order in the meeting of June 24, 2021, do you agree that he had read it?
MP Mabuza: Simelane mentioned that he had read somewhere, so I’m not sure if he had read it from the WhatsApp group, but I don’t believe at the time he had a hard copy of it.
Advocate: Simelane said he tried to read the statement, not from a WhatsApp group, and he also said he was looking at the statement.
MP Mabuza: read it or not.
Advocate: Regardless, you heard him saying what was reflected on the record.
MP Mabuza: The speeches here are from different individuals. I can’t say I was even listening to him when he delivered the speech. I only listened to him when we were here in court.
Advocate: On June 24, you were aware of the ban?
MP Mabuza: I heard about when I was in the meeting.
Advocate: I find it hard to believe that you were not paying attention when Simelane made his speech and talked about the ban.
I can’t say he had it