Zuma+Rape+Trial+reports,+Friends+of+JZ

Rape accuser claims multiple rapes, says she is a lesbian and became pregnant though she never had sex

 * Friends of Jacob Zuma, Johannesburg,** **9/3/2006 10:55:15 PM**

The rape case against ANC Deputy President Jacob Zuma is hanging on a precipice after the complainant’s credibility came under serious question in the Johannesburg High Court on Thursday.

The woman claims she was raped at least four times previously. Zuma’s lawyer Kemp J Kemp cited so many incidents in the past when the woman allegedly claimed there were attempts by different men to rape her that most people in the court – including journalists making detailed notes – lost count.

She also described a bizarre situation where she became pregnant although she could not remember having sex with anyone at the time. She and her mother then assumed that she must have been raped while she was in some sort of unconscious state. The woman then had an abortion. She told Judge Willem van der Merwe how her mother looked at the face of the aborted five-month-old foetus and concluded that the rapist must have been a school boarding master because its features resembled the man.

She also told the court adamantly that she was a lesbian despite admitting that she had consensual sex with a man as recent as July 2004.

The sensational evidence after the defence team produced a manuscript of an autobiography the complainant was writing in which she described some of the rapes and attempted rapes. The woman was visibly upset and angry that the defence had gotten hold of the notes she made and told the judge she found it “disturbing” that it had been produced in court.

The day’s proceeding began with Kemp again questioning the woman about the events on the night she claimed Zuma raped her. She said she remembered a conversation Zuma had on his cellular phone when he agreed to an appointment to some people later that night.

Kemp told the woman that Zuma’s phone records show that no such call took place and that he would testify that he never had the conversation she had described. She admitted at no stage hear these people arrive at the house despite the door they would have used being next to the window in the room she was in.

Kemp then asked her if she was sure that she had left the Zuma house before 6:15am the next morning. She admitted it could have been as late as 6:30am despite having told the court that she awoke at 5:10am.

Kemp then asked the woman to look at copies of articles in the Sunday Times and Sunday Independent of November 13, 2005. The Sunday Times story stated that rape charges had been laid against Zuma, while the Independent story quoted the woman denying that a rape had happened and that she had laid a charge.

The woman said the Sunday Times story was the one her minders had been concerned about before it broke that Sunday. When asked whether she had not been concerned about the story being made public, she replied: “I was not happy that someone from the media called me and knew that I had laid a charge”. She claimed again that a statement had been dictated to her by her minder which she SMSed to a Sunday Times journalist.

The SMS read: “If you go ahead and publish after me telling you in two conversations that it never happened, I will make a public statement tomorrow saying you insisted on running story despite what I said. This is apart from taking legal action”.

She denied that she and her minders decided to contact a journalist from the Independent, Jeremy Gordin, to deny the rape claim. She claims that the minder instructed her to do so after consulting her boss. “He instructed her to instruct me to call another newspaper and they gave me the number to call. I was instructed to say certain things and I said them,” she said.

She could not recall her exact conversation with Gordin in which she denied that Zuma raped her but admitted that she had told a clear lie to the journalist.

When asked whether she thought the journalist believed her, she replied: “I suppose if he ran the story, he believed me.” “Do you accept that this was a public lie you told?” Kemp asked. “Yes,” the woman replied.

Kemp then questioned the woman about her consultation with a lawyer, Yusuf Dockrat who KwaZulu-Natal Finance MEC Zweli Mkhize had asked to assist her. The woman says she told Dockrat that she would not drop the charge against Zuma and he said Mkize would be surprised by her decision.

Kemp said Dockrat said in his affidavit that he asked the woman what he should say to Mkhize and that she told him to tell Mkhize that she was “thinking” about her decision. When asked why she had told Dockrat to lie to “an old friend”, she said that it would have been Dockrat and not her telling the lie. She eventually conceded that she had agreed that Dockrat should lie to Mkhize.

Kemp then went on to the woman’s past sexual experiences. She said she had “some sexual experience” with men and after claiming not to remember how many sexual relationships she had, she said “five men maybe”.

Kemp asked whether she qualified her statement that it was men she had sex with because she was bisexual, she said “I consider myself a lesbian”. Kemp asked whether a sexual encounter in July 2004 she earlier told the court about was with a male, she replied that it was.

Kemp asked whether she had started writing a book about her life and replied that she was. Kemp then produced the manuscript of her book as evidence and the woman became furious.

“Can I just say I find it disturbing that this private document is here and how relevant this is here. “I have an idea how it came to be here, but I find it disturbing,” she said.

Kemp said that since the defence had the manuscript and that she in any event planned to publish it as an autobiography, there was no reason not to use it, she said that her notes were “very rough” and “the principle of it being here upsets me”.

Kemp said that judging from a note at the front of the book it appeared that the names of the people in the book had not been changed. The woman hesitated and then said she didn’t know how to answer the question.

“I don’t know the implications for the people named. There are journalists here and people I don’t trust and I don’t know what they are going to do with it,” she said.

Kemp then asked her about an incident she described on page seven of her manuscript where she and another girl had sex with a five year old boy in a toilet. The woman became agitated at the mention of the incident.

“Why did you describe this incident as rape,” Kemp asked. “I was talking about an experience with a penis I had at the age of five,” she said.

When Kemp asked why she wrote about it as a rape she explained that she had been raped at the age of five, but this was not incident. “This was just children experimenting,” she said. She said she knew the man who raped her at the age of five.

Kemp asked her to read the relevant extract in the book to herself. She said she had trouble doing so and the judge intervened saying that the defence team was trying to be responsible about the matter instead of reading the extract in open court.

Kemp then questioned her about the incident described in the book where she claimed a 30-year-old man raped her when she went over to run a bath. She claims the man told her to take off her clothes, took her to a bedroom and had sex with her.

“Did this happen,” Kemp asked. “Yes when I was five…I can’t remember if it was before or after the toilet incident,” she said.

The next time the woman states in the book she was raped was at the age of 13 by a man called “Godfrey” who lived with her and her mother in Lusaka, Zambia. She said she often went to sleep next to other people because she was scared of sleeping alone. When sleeping next to the man on a day her mother left early in the morning to go to the ANC offices, she awoke with Godfrey on top of her and he was removing her underwear.

She said in the book that the man “lodged his penis in my vagina and started thrusting”. After a while she told him that it was painful and he stopped and got off her. She said at the time, she considered “Malume Godfrey” to be an uncle or big brother.

Kemp asked if at the time of the alleged rape, she didn’t “freeze” as she claimed she had done in the incident with Zuma. She said she did not.

Kemp then went on to the next incident in the book where she claimed that she had been “kidnapped” by a man called “Mashaya”, bundled into a car, taken to his house, locked in a room and that he attempted to have sex with her. She told the court she remembered the incident but that no rape took place because she had been menstruating at the time.

“Thereafter did you have sex with Mashaya”, Kemp asked. “No.” “Ms X (name of complainant cannot be published), I am asking you a direct question, did you have sex with Mashaya? “I don’t remember it…I know I did not have sex with him in Lusaka. I saw him in Zimbabwe at some stage. I can’t say for sure but I don’t remember it,” she replied.

“If Mashaba testifies, he will tell the court it happened with your consent,” Kemp said. “May I say something? It is a bit complicated. At 13 years old, it is still rape because I was a minor. I didn’t understand the situation because I was young,” the woman said.

She claimed that in Lusaka, she didn’t want to go with Mashaya to his house and was crying screaming. “He didn’t ask my permission,” she says.

Kemp asked whether her clothes had been removed by force and she said she could not remember the details. But she did not think any of her clothes had been torn. Kemp asked whether it was true that she received a “severe beating” by Godfrey’s girlfriend when she was found and the house and she confirmed that this had happened.

The next incident was with a man called Charles. She said she didn’t remember the exact details but she always remembered the incident as a rape because it happened when she was 13.

It then emerged that after Godfrey’s girlfriend had beaten up the women because of her relationship with him, the complainant told her “aunties” in exile that both Godfrey and Charles had raped her. The women then set up a committee which tried the men through ANC exile court proceedings.

Kemp then pointed out a woman in the court who was one of the committee members. He said the woman would later tell the court that the complainant had actually told them that the men were her boyfriends and she had consensual sex with them. So instead of finding them guilty of rape, they docked six months pay off the men’s salaries for having sex with a minor. The complainant denied they were her boyfriends.

“Charles to this day maintains that he did not have sex with you and that this was rough justice,” Kemp said. “Are you expecting an answer from me,” the woman asked. “Yes,” said Kemp. “He had sex with me.” She said

When asked by Kemp to describe how the incident happened, she said she could not remember. “I remember what I was wearing that day and as I was walking home, I felt a horrible, uncomfortable feeling of having been penetrated,” she said.

Kemp asked whether she blamed Godfrey for the beating she received from his girlfriend and the fact that he did not protect her from the hiding. She said she did not but felt the beating was unjustified.

Godfrey, Charles and Mashaya were all over 21 when the incidents happened, she said. Kemp told her that the woman who had been on the ANC exile committee would tell the court that the complainant’s mother was not “concerned” at the time about the allegations regarding Godfrey and that she had been ready to accept the relationship. The complainant denied this saying her mother had been “totally devastated” by what had happened.

Kemp asked the woman why Mashaya did not feature in the case along with Godfrey and Charles. He asked whether she had told the women about the incident where he alleged attempted to rape her. She replied that she had told the women but did not know why Mashaya had not been charged.

Kemp asked whether the complainant had any boyfriends before 1990. She said that she did have one in Harare. She said she did not have any boyfriends in Zimbabwe before 1990.

He asked whether she knew anyone named “Javel” and she replied that the name sounded familiar but she could not remember. She said the man did not have a relationship with her. She denied that she knew a man called “Baby Duck”.

The woman admitted during cross examination that she did not pass matric although she had told the court previously that she “completed” matric in 1992 at Phambili High School in Durban. She also said she had attempted to obtain a matric pass a few times afterwards.

Kemp then asked her whether she had been raped anytime after the two incidents when she was 13 years old. She paused for a long time when she appeared to be thinking deeply.

“You expected questions along these lines today didn’t you,” Kemp asked. She replied yes. “So why did you take so long to answer?” “Even if I expected it, it doesn’t make it any easier to talk about it. This particular rape is very complicated,” she said.

“How many times were you raped after you returned to South Africa,” Kemp asked. “Once,” she said. “How many people have you made allegations against since coming to South Africa?” “The one I am talking about not spoken about extensively. I never laid a rape charge and there hasn’t been anyone other time I said someone raped me,” she said.

She told the court she joined the African Methodist Church because she wanted to become a priest. Between 1993 and 1994, she was also involved in the Diakonia Council of Churches in Durban.

Kemp asked whether she remembered anyone called Sandile Sithole. She said she didn’t. “I put to you that you accused him of raping you,” he said. “That’s not true,” she replied.

He asked whether she knew Minister April Mbambo and Cyril Xaba. She said she did. He asked if it was true that they were members on a committee who considered allegations she made against Sandile Sithole. She said it wasn’t. Kemp said that Mbambo says they found the allegations odd as the person was “not very manly himself”. She claims all this never happened and if Mbambo was saying this he was “making it up”.

The woman said at the beginning of 1995, she went to study to be a priest and in the first few months, she dad a series of “attacks” where she loses consciousness. She says there was an incident at the school where a young man was “touching me and wanted to have sex. We wrestled quite a bit. This was after the first incident and it was really upsetting because of the (previous) rapes and attempted rapes.”

“Apart from phone calls, I had no contact with the man I was involved with. At the time I got more and more ill. Before June 1995, I got extremely ill and was sent home. One day, I was feeling like I had been penetrated and I had an ugly green discharge. My mother took me to the doctor and I found out I was pregnant.”

She said the father could not have been the man she had been involved with because she had not been with him sexually at that time.

“With my mother, we concluded that logically someone had sex with me without me knowing. At the time I was not sexually active so it didn’t make sense,” she said.

She went on to explain that when she got sick she had gone to stay at the boarding master’s house outside the campus. “I don’t know who raped me. It must have been someone who had the opportunity to do it…I suspected the boarding master,” she said.

When Kemp asked to write the man’s name on a piece of paper so as not to disclose it to everyone else in court but so that he could verify where that man fitted into the picture, she said she did not remember the boarding master’s name.

Judge van der Merwe told the woman that it would be fairly easy to trace the man’s identity through the school records.

When asked by Kemp whether she had accused the man of rape, she replied that she had talked about it to “a few people”.

“As I said, I was five months pregnant. I had a termination. I didn’t but my mother looked at the foetus and it resembled the boarding master,” the woman said.

Kemp asked whether she knew a man called Terrence. She said she didn’t remember. Kemp said Terrence says he and the woman had “fairly intimate sessions of a sexual nature”. She said she didn’t have intimate sessions with anyone while she was at the school. Se only recalled the incident when she wrested with the boy who had tried to touch her.

Kemp asked whether there were any attempted rapes while she was at Diakonia. She said there was an incident in a youth forum office where a young man to rape her. She didn’t remember his name.

Then in Easter 1994, she went to sleep at a priest called Mayekiso’s house in Chesterville, Durban during a night vigil when one of the boys staying in the house attempted to rape her, she said. Kemp asked whether she told anyone about this.

“Yes I told that Mbambo character.” “Why did you refer to him like that,” Kemp asked. “I don’t know why it came out like that,” she said.

She explained that Mbambo knew of the incident because he walked into the room interrupting the boy who was trying to rape her. She claims the boy came into her room naked while she was sleeping fully clothed in the attire she had worn to church and had attempted to pull the blanket off her and rape her.

“What did you do?” Kemp asked. She said she tried to tuck herself in under the covers. She could not remember what time the incident happened.

Kemp said Mbambo version of the incident was that he woke up at 4am and when he walked into the room, he saw n the bed a boy called Nester and the complainant. According to Kemp, Mbambo says the complainant had on a t-shirt with either a Telkom or Eskom insignia. The woman says she did not remember owning such a t-shirt. Mbambo says he went into the room with some other females to fetch vegetables stored there and that the complainant was either sleeping or pretended to be sleeping.

Mbambo also says the complainant introduced Nester to her mother at breakfast the next morning. The woman denies all Mbambo’s claims. According to Kemp, Mayekiso says that at 6pm that evening says the woman and her mother came to the house with the t-shirt in a plastic bag claiming that Nester had raped her and that his semen was on the t-shirt. The woman says Nester never raped her as he was interrupted in the process of trying to. She also did not recall her mother asking the Bishop to suspend Nester.

She did not recall standing next to her mother crying while reporting the incident to Mayekiso. She says she didn’t know of all these events or could have forgotten them. She says her mother could have had the discussions while she was not present.

She said she did not go back to the church after that. Kemp asked whether it was true that mbambo then sent people from the church to ask why she had not returned and that she then accused him (Mbambo) of also raping her. The woman says she remembers a delegations coming but says she didn’t claim Mbambo raped or said anything that could have created the impression that he did.

The woman said she would visit Mbambo’s house and on one occasion when his wife had left to study to be a teacher, Mbambo said to her that since his wife had gone, he needed a girlfriend.

“He said he thought about asking me but was afraid it would bring down my faith.” After that she felt “uncomfortable” around Mbambo. She said she recalled a meeting with the church elders to discuss why she was feeling uncomfortable around Mbambo. She denied that she said: “I am no longer interested in this stupid, dirty church” when she then left the church.

Kemp asked whether the woman had ever accused a Namibian national called Gooieman of raping her. She said she hadn’t. She also denies knowing that Gooieman had been expelled from the school because of the allegations she made. She also denies she had a sexual relationship with someone called Terrence at the priest school. Kemp said Terrence says after the woman left the school there were rumours that he had raped her. She denies having made the allegation.

Kemp asked whether the woman had suffered any bruising or if her clothes had been torn in any of the incidents. She replied no to both questions.

Kemp put it to the woman that it would not have been easy for all these men to say that they had been accused of rape. She maintained that she had never accused any of them as the only rape was at the time she got pregnant.

Kemp said that in her manuscript she wrote when she thought back, she was of the view that Mashaya did penetrate her when he attempted to have sex with her during the “kidnapping” incident. She said this did not happen as she had been menstruating.

“I didn’t have a pad on. I remember putting my panty back on and I remember the blood. He didn’t do it because I was menstruating,” she said.

Kemp said she had written in the book that she still stayed on in Mashaya’s house and watched television in the lounge after he had left. She admitted that she did and that another “comrade” was present in the house.

“I was in a totally different township. I didn’t have anywhere to go. I had the comfort of my blood as he wouldn’t be able to do anything to me,” she said.

Kemp asked up to 1990 how many people the woman had consensual sex with. She replied that she didn’t think she had consensual sex with anyone during that period. She said up to 1999 when she discovered she was HIV positive she had a relationship with one person whom the court was referring to as “Z” so as not to reveal his identity. She suspected that this was the person she had contracted HIV from. The only other was she could have contracted the virus was through the “rape” when she became pregnant, she said.

Kemp asked whether she had not been tested for HIV after the pregnancy, she said she did have a test at some point but that the test may not have been accurate because of the window period could vary. She did not go back for a test.

She explained that if a person led a healthy lifestyle, eating the correct foods and had protected sex, there was no need to be tested.

“Did you have unprotected sex with Z? Kemp asked.

“Yes”. “So why did you put him at risk?” “It was an oversight on my side,” she said.

She says she had unprotected sex on three occasions in 1996 with Z. Kemp asked from 1999 to 2004, how many times she had consensual sex. She said she could not remember. He reminded her that she had told the court previously that she had consensual sex with five people. She says she had “non-penetrative sex” with two men since 1996 and “penetrative sex” with one man. She couldn’t remember who the others were.

Kemp asked her to either tell the court or write down the name on a piece of paper of the man she had sex with in 2004. She did this and the slip of paper was handed to Kemp. The court now refers to him as “C”. Kemp asked whether she had sex with a condom with this man and she said she did. She denied she met the man at Dubai airport and says she met him at the International aids Conference in Thailand.

Kemp against asked about her relationship with Mashaya. She said Mashaya told her he was in love with her. She said he once bought her a pair of trousers and declared his “undying love” for her. But she says she could not remember having sex with him.

“In Lusaka I didn’t. In Zimbabwe, I can’t remember,” she said. The judge then asked how it was that she could not remember having been intimate with someone who had claimed to love her.

“I don’t remember if we had penetrative sex,” she said.

“Mashaya says you had sex frequently,” said Kemp. “I had limited time. I didn’t see him that often. There was an occasion in a flat we did things of a sexual nature but I don’t remember if it was penetrative or not,” she said.

Asked again about the other people she had sex with, she said she could not remember their names.

Kemp asked how many times in her entire life she had “non-penetrative” sex? She could not remember. Asked what non-penetrative sex was, she said it was “when a penis did not enter my vagina or mouth”.

The day’s proceedings ended with a debate between Kemp and the complainant

“Can a kiss be non-penetrative sex? “Yes.” "So you have only kissed two males in your life?” “I had non-penetrative sex with not more than five men and I kissed all five,” she said.

Kemp asked how many men she had penetrative sex with and she answered C and Z.

The court then adjourned for the day as the complainant said she was very tired. Journalists interviewed prosecutor Charin de Beer afterwards to ask about the state of her case after the woman had so obviously discredited herself. De Beer said the state was still very confident in their case as they would argue that most of the evidence given about the women’s previous sexual history was not relevant to the case involving Zuma and should not be admissible.

The complainant will continue being cross-examined on Friday.


 * From: http://www.friendsofjz.co.za/showarticle.asp?id=80**

Zuma rape complainant says she did not say no to sex

 * Friends of Jacob Zuma, Johannesburg, 8/3/2006 08:29:15 PM**

“Did you tell him to stop?” “No.” “Did you say no?” “No I didn’t.” “Why did you not say that?” “I couldn’t move. I couldn’t do anything…I was confused and then I just froze.”

This was the exchange between Jacob Zuma’s layer Kemp J Kemp and the complainant in the rape case against the ANC Deputy in the Johannesburg High Court on the second day of cross examination.

Kemp asked the woman whether her behaviour could have given Zuma the impression that she was not objecting, she answered: “Yes, he could have thought so”.

These two admissions by the complainant – that there was no objection from the complainant and that Zuma could have had the impression that the sex was consensual – seriously undermines two fundamental aspects that constitute rape. These are that the intercourse is against a person’s will and that the accused must have had the “intention” to rape.

The woman entered the courtroom on Wednesday morning carrying two hot water bottles with fluffy blue covers, and a big multi-coloured scarf draped around her neck. She stopped court proceedings twice during the day to go to the toilet.

In an intense day of questioning, the complainant revealed that she had been in regular contact with Intelligence Minister Ronnie Kasrils before the alleged incident but denied that she had called to tell Kasrils about the incident because he was in an opposition political camp to Zuma.

When asked by Kemp why her cellular phone records didn’t show regular communication with Kasrils’ cellphone, she said it was because she sometimes called him from her landline, or to his office line or though Kasrils’ personal assistant. She said Kasrils had been helping her to raise money to study overseas.

Kemp asked whether the woman was aware that the National Intelligence Agency director-general Billy Masetlha had been fired by Kasrils shortly before the alleged incident. She replied that she was aware of this and was also aware of the political dynamics surrounding Zuma. She claims not to have thought about the fact that Kasrils was in an anti-Zuma camp when she called him before reporting the alleged incident to the police.

“Would it surprise you that the accused’s first reaction when he heard about the rape charge was that some political forces were at play?” Kemp asked. “I don’t want to answer,” the woman replied. Judge Willem van der Merwe then intervened to say: “It seems to me that it is common knowledge that there are different camps.”

Earlier in the day, Kemp questioned the woman about her discussion with Zuma on the day of the alleged rape when she told him that she did not have a boyfriend because “all the good ones were taken”. She denied that she said something sexual during the conversation.

The woman said during the course of the evening, she used Zuma’s cellular phone to call her niece in Swaziland. She admitted that she had been inside Zuma’s bedroom on a previous occasion when she says she went to close his windows and curtains.

Kemp went on to ask her why she went to Zuma’s daughter Duduzile’s room that evening to say goodnight to her as Duduzile would testify that they had already bid goodnight earlier in the evening. He said Duduzile would also tell the court that she saw that the woman was not wearing underwear under her kanga (material wrap). The woman did not want to say anything about this.

She denies having told Duduzile that she wanted to go to Zuma’s study because she wanted to talk to him. She said Zuma’s phone rang while she was in the study and that afterwards he told her that some people were coming to the house to see him. She admitted that Duduzile had left the study by this time.

She says when she went back into the guest bedroom, she lay across the bed making calls and sending SMSs and that the main light in the room was on. She says Zuma came into the room and told her he would be attending to the visitors coming to the house.

When asked by Kemp if she asked Zuma why he came to the room when they already said goodnight, she said that she did not. She said she did not know if the bedroom door was shut after Zuma left the room. She also says she did not switch the light off when she got up to go to the toilet.

She says she did not know what time the alleged rape happened although her police statement claims it happened at 23:55pm. She says the doctor who examined her at Baragwanath Hospital the next night told her that he would state this as the time of the incident to place it on November 2 instead of November 3.

She says she did not know what Zuma was wearing when he came into the bedroom the first time although she remembered that earlier in the evening he was wearing long pants, a shirt and shoes.

When Zuma allegedly returned to the room later, the woman claims she was sleeping and she heard his voice behind her asking if she was sleeping. He says he told her he came to “tuck me in” and give her a massage.

She related how she refused and turned away from him. A debate ensued between her and Kemp about what actually happened then because he said the story she was telling the court was different from her police statement. She eventually said the police statement was wrong in this regard, despite the incident being fresh in her mind at the time she laid the complaint, and the version she was telling the court was correct.

She described how Zuma began massaging her shoulders while she was lying on her side with her back to him. She admits she did not say anything then to object to the massage.

“Why did you not say ‘Malume I don’t want a massage please leave my room’,” Kemp asked. “I don’t know why I didn’t say so,” the woman replied. “You sound to me like quite a forceful woman. Why didn’t you say ‘Don’t touch me’,” Kemp asked. “I guess at that stage I was not as forceful as I am now,” she replied.

Kemp said as a 31-year-old woman with experience with men, she should have been aware that a massage was generally the first physical contact before sexual activity.

“At that point, I didn’t put the dots together. I didn’t imagine at that particular time that this person could go there with me,” she said.

She acknowledged that there was nothing between her and the bedroom door if she, as Kemp put it, “wanted to make a run for it”.

She claims Zuma turned her over on her back, facing upwards.

“Did you roll easily or did you resist?” Kemp asked.

“I rolled”, she replied. She claims eyes were still closed when Zuma started massaging her shoulders again.

Again she did not do anything to resist or object. “I started to feel uncomfortable and to explore that this was possibly going in a direction I didn’t want to go with him,” she said.

“I was shit scared. I didn’t want to see it because I didn’t want it to be happening,” she said.

“And you thought it was the best policy to just keep your eyes closed,” Kemp asked.

“I didn’t give too much thought to me eyes being closed,” she said.

She went on to say that after Zuma massaged her for a while, she said “No Malume”.

“You said no to?” Kemp asked.

“No to what he was doing,” she replied, “I then opened my eyes and saw he was on the bed… his knees were on either side of my legs”. She says she then closed her eyes and turned her head to the side.

She said Zuma opened her kanga, and then held both her hands up above her head with one hand. His one knee parted her legs and his other hand touched her vagina.

She could not explain why a heavy set woman of 31 years was unable to protest or push away a 63-year old man who wasn’t much heavier than she was. She again said she was “stiff with fear” and “shit scared”.

She claims Zuma held both hear hands down during the intercourse which lasted 10 minutes. She says he kissed her on the lips and cheek and whispered to her during the intercourse.

She concedes that as a result of the intercourse, she did not suffer a single bruise or any pain. She says she felt “discomfort”, “friction” and a “sting” afterwards. She didn’t take any pain tablets afterwards.

Kemp questioned whether she later told a friend she refers to as a “sister” that she was concerned that the incident was as a result of her walking around Zuma’s house only wearing the kanga. The woman claims not to remember saying so.

Kemp asked the woman: “Miss X (her identity cannot be revealed), wasn’t one of your difficulties with this case that you didn’t say ‘No’ and that you had to find an explanation why you didn’t?”

“It is not as if I would be going out on a safari to find an explanation,” she snapped at Kemp.

Kemp put it to the woman that she was aware that if she had claimed she had said “no”, she could have said so louder or scream in protest, which she didn’t do.

She says she didn’t think about the fact that an armed police officer was stationed just 10 metres from the window where she claimed Zuma had been standing. She says she also knew that Duduzile was in the house at the time she claims the incident happened but still didn’t call out for help.

She admits Zuma asked her whether he could ejaculate inside her but said she did not know why he had asked her the question. Kemp argued that it could be that Zuma had been asking if she would be safe from pregnancy and that Zuma had to have a certain measure of trust in her if he asked the question. She disputed that he asked whether the question meant he was asking if she was satisfied and ready for him to ejaculate.

The woman claims Zuma immediately got off her after ejaculating and left the room. She claims her eyes were closed and therefore didn’t know whether he got dressed before leaving the room. Kemp said it would appear that if she hadn’t opened her eyes briefly, she may not even have know that the person with her had been Zuma. She replied that she did see him and it obviously had been Zuma as only he, her and Duduzile had been in the house that night.

She says Zuma returned to the room after about 20 minutes dressed in long pyjamas. Kemp asked: “By now you found you voice. This man had just done you a grave harm. Why didn’t you say ‘why did you do this, why did you rape me you dog’ or whatever. Surely when he walked in, you should have screamed the roof down”.

She said she did not know why she didn’t do so. “I was in a daze, I didn’t think about the policeman nearby or that he would come to do it again,” she said. She said when he asked whether she had busfare to leave the next morning she replied “abruptly yes”.

“So you had no problem in speaking abruptly,” Kemp asked. She replied that she did not.

She confirmed to Kemp that it was true that she said she didn’t want to go back to her own house then because she did not want to be by herself.

“So you would rather be in the same house as your rapist then to be alone,” he asked. She replied that she had not thought about it in that way. She acknowledged that she may have had sufficient money to call a metered taxi immediately as she had planned to travel to Swaziland and had drawn cash earlier that day.

“Do you know if in your daze, you co-operated in sexual activity?” Kemp asked. She replied that she didn’t. When asked again why she did not scream for help, she replied: “I don’t know how other people think, this is what happened to me. I don’t want to entertain others’ thoughts. My body’s response was to freeze”.

She said she did not know what he thought about her frozen state. “He could have thought I was not objecting,” she said.

She admits that she heard Zuma whispering to her during the intercourse that she was “a real lady” and that he would “take care of” her, but did not remember him saying she was “delicious”.

Kemp asked whether Zuma appeared “ashamed” when he returned to the room after the incident and she peplied that she didn’t pay attention to his manner then.

She says when she awoke the next morning, she showered and gathered her things. She went into the kitchen and packed some fruit, including some strawberries, and a bottle of water in her cooler bag.

The woman could not explain why there were so many discrepancies between her version to the court and the police statement such as omissions about her visit to Zuma’s study and that she had made calls and sent SMSs after the incident.

She also could not explain why one of her sister’s affidavits states that the complainant told her the next morning that “uncle penetrated me”, but didn’t state that a rape had taken place.

She acknowledged that Zuma knew at all times that she had a cellular phone with her, was aware that she could use the landline to call out, and could leave at any time she wanted to.

“He had no reason to think you would freeze if he had sex with you?” Kemp asked. “No”. “There was no reason that he would know you would not scream if he had sex with you against your will?” “No”, she replied. “He was aware that his daughter was in the house?” “Yes”. “He was aware that a policeman was outside?” “Yes”.

The woman said she knew it was not a good idea to be pregnant. She denied that the reason was because she didn’t want people to find out that as a prominent HIV/Aids activist, she had unprotected sex. She said there was a difference between sex and rape and that it was a matter of choice if people wanted to have a baby even if they were infected with HIV.

Kemp asked why she sent her “sisters” an SMS immediately after the intercourse saying “the mothers must not know”. She said she didn’t want them to know what happened.

“At that stage, there was no chance of you laying a rape charge. If there was no encouragement from you, why was you mother not to know,” Kemp asked. She could not answer.

She admitted that after the incident she spoke to Zuma on the phone about having a face-to-face meeting with her and her mother. She said she did not recall telling an aunt afterwards that she was upset that Zuma hadn’t called her after the incident even though this was contained in the aunt’s sworn affidavit.

She said that while in protective custody, she accepted a call from Zuma and agreed to have a meeting with him. She later acknowledged that she had lied to Zuma then because she had no intention of meeting him. However, the next day he called back but she says she didn’t confirm that she would meet him the next Sunday in Durban, although it may have been “implied”.

In a second statement she made on November 16, she stated that she had in fact confirmed to meet Zuma. But the woman said the statement was “slightly wrong” in this regard.

She said she did not consider KwaZulu-Natal Finance MEC Zweli Mkhize to be a close friend of her mother but she considered him to be an “uncle”. She said she didn’t think Mkhize would be in contact with Zuma even though he was trying to broker a “peace deal” between them.

She said her mother told her on the phone that Mkhize had come to see her to “hlawula” for what had been done. This is a Zulu custom where people pay compensation for socially inappropriate relations. She said her mother told her she was not aware whether the custom applied to cases of rape.

She said she advised her mother to go with Mkhize to meet Zuma as Mkhize appeared to be “helpful, and really genuinely wanted to help”. When asked whether she was interested in compensation, she replied that she had not been.

She said her mother and Mkhize and her mother discussed the issue of her needing funding to go to school on London. She said she had earlier discussed with Zuma her “project” to build a fence at her mother’s home in KwaMashu, Durban. She said she had told Zuma they had received a quote for R15 000 to build the fence. She claims to have saved the money for the fence but consequently spent it and the fence has still not been built. She claims not to have asked Zuma for the money for the fence.

Kemp will continue with cross examination on Thursday.

Meanwhile, ANC Youth League leaders have rebuked suggestions that Zuma supporters outside court had “attacked” a cash-in-transit van with the intention of robbing it. Youth League spokesperson Zizi Kodwa said security guards from the van provoked the crowd by pointing guns at it in an effort to chase people away. He explained that the crowd was not able to move but one guard persisted in trying to push people with his weapon.

Kodwa, who was at the front of the crowd, says the guard clearly “agitated” the crowd with his gun and people reacted by banging on the side of the van. He said the police chief in charge of security outside the court confronted the guard about his provocative behaviour and told him to desist from such action.

However, some journalists, particularly those from the SABC, persisted in reporting the incident as if the crowd simply “attacked” the van.

Kodwa said the leadership outside the court, including members of the Friends of Jacob Zuma Trust, would address the security guards behaviour with the management of the bank outside the court building to prevent such an incident from recurring.

Judge van der Merwe has also issued a warning that the complainant’s identity must under no circumstances be revealed. This follows an incident on Tuesday when pictures of the woman were burnt outside the court. The Trust leadership condemned the incident and confiscated the pictures.

The leaders of the Zuma supporters outside court are however concerned by an incident on Wednesday when photocopied pictures of the complainant were handed to people a person in the crowd by an unidentified woman. Members of the Trust said they were concerned that there appeared to be a concerted campaign by provocateurs to infiltrate and discredit the Zuma supporters.


 * From: http://www.friendsofjz.co.za/showarticle.asp?id=78**

Rape complainant flounders under cross examination

 * Friends of Jacob Zuma, Johannesburg, 7/3/2006 12:00:00 AM**

The complainant in the Jacob Zuma rape trial has conceded under cross examination in the Johannesburg High Court that she lied to journalists about whether the alleged rape took place and that she was “not certain” as to whether the ANC Deputy President called her by a Zulu phrase referring to her as his “daughter”.

The woman also conceded that there were details she “omitted” in her official police statement about the night in question when she claimed the rape happened. These included that she visited Zuma in his study, scantily clad in a material wrap with no underwear, and that after the alleged incident, she sent had sent SMSs to family and friends in which she did not mention the alleged rape.

At the end of a day of gruelling questioning, the owman reluctantly said that she had been raped previously.

For the first time, the woman also explained why she called Intelligence Minister Ronnie Kasrils to tell him about the alleged rape before reporting it to the police. She had not mentioned Kasrils when she recounted the series of events around the incident in graphic detail on Monday.

In the second dramatic day of evidence in the high profile trial, the woman who had been composed and articulate in clearly rehearsed testimony on the first day, seemed unsure of herself and appeared to flounder under tough questioning from Zuma’s lead counsel Kemp J Kemp.

The defence team scored its first victory on Tuesday morning when Judge Willem van der Merwe ruled in favour of their application to waive a section of the Criminal procedure Act which prohibits references to the complainant’s sexual history.

The judge said he would give his reasons later as to why he decided to allow the defence team permission to question the woman about her sexual history.

Kemp thereafter began his cross examination, asking the witness whether she had read the statements of other witnesses in the trial and whether she knew what they contained. After some hesitation, she denied both. She also denied that she had discussions with anyone about what to say in her evidence.

During the entire cross examination, the woman never made eye contact with Kemp. She either stared ahead or looked at the judge. She took several gulps of water from a bottle when she became flustered and unsure of her answers.

Kemp asked her whether she was certain that Zuma had called her “ndodakazi” meaning “daughter” as she had repeatedly claimed on Monday or whether he had called her “ntombinkhulu” or “ntombazane”, meaning girl.

Kemp also questioned her about her claim that she and Zuma had a “father-daughter” relationship. She said she viewed Zuma as a father figure because he and her father were struggle comrades.

She said she knew Zuma from the age of five years and that she saw him when he used to visit her father between 1980 and 1985. The first time she spoke to Zuma after returning from exile was in 1998 on the phone. The first time she saw him was in 2001.

She said in April 1999, she was diagnosed HIV positive. When asked by Kemp how she had contracted the virus, she cheekily responded: “Unfortunately, the HIV test only tells you you are positive. It does not tell you where you got the virus from.”

Later during the questioning, she admitted that though she herself had been an HIV/Aids counselor for about five years, she failed to follow the standard procedure to trace the source of contraction and inform people hom she had intercourse with.

“I don’t know where I got it from”, she said. When asked whether she could have contracted the virus through a blood transfusion, she said: “It was probably as a result of sexual intercourse….I may have informed one person I may have thought I got it from,” she said.

When asked by Kemp whether she immediately informed Zuma she said she had not and only informed him two years later in 2001. This was because she was “not in touch” with him in 1999 and did not have his contact numbers.

However, she later conceded she called the year before in 1998 but could not remember how she had obtained his telephone numbers then.

Kemp asked the woman how she could have viewed Zuma as a father when she had not seen him in 14 years.

“Well this is how this father and daughter relate. I don’t know about others,” she snapped.

Kemp asked her whether she blamed Zuma for not giving her money to study in the United Kingdom. She said though she had been “devastated” such that her health deteriorated, she had not been angry with him.

She also admitted that she had previously stayed in Zuma’s house in Pretoria when he was Deputy President of the country – something she failed to mention during her evidence in chief.

A debate then ensued between the complainant and Kemp about how it came to be that the woman stayed at Zuma’s house on November 2, the night the alleged rape was to have happened.

The woman claims she was at work when she received word that the child of her sister in Swaziland was sick in hospital. She refers to her sister as her “daughter” and the child as her “grandchild”. She says she sent SMS’s to several people, including Zuma informing them about the child’s ill health.

She claims she called Zuma that evening and that he convinced her not to go to Swaziland but instead to come to his house. She claims that while at the house, he asked: “You are sleeping over, aren’t you?” She replied that she was.

Kemp put it to her that Zuma’s version of events was that they discussed her sleeping over on the phone but she denied this. She also denied that when she called him, she had asked to stay over.

While she initially denied having said at the dinner table while having supper with Zuma and his family that she always carried a “panty and toothbrush” in her bag, she later admitted that it was possible she had said so as it was true that she carried a face cloth, panty, toothbrush and kanga (material wrap).

She also could not explain why another witness, whom she refers to as a sister, and a doctor who examined her at Baragwanath Hospital both said in their affidavits that she had told them that had gone to “stay over” at Zuma’ house.

The woman says she phoned Kasrils, whom she refers to as “Malume Ronnie” to discuss “issues of safety” and “witness protection” when she reported the incident. She said she was advised to do so by another woman she refers to as a sister who works under Kasrils’ at the National Intelligence Agency.

She says she had Kasrils phone number because she was in “constant contact” with him from late 2004, as he was one of the people assisting with raising funds for her overseas studies.

Kemp read extracts from Kasrils’ affidavit in which he says the woman called him to “simply inform” him about the incident and that he told her he was not in the position to help as he didn’t want to “politicize” the issue. He also states in his affidavit that the woman told him she stayed at Zuma’s house because she was a “close friend” of one of Zuma’s daughters.

The woman denied having said this as she had only met Zuma’s daughter Duduzile, who had been in the house at the time, on one previous occasion. Kemp asked whether she considered Kasrils to be “pro-Zuma or anti-Zuma”, she claims not to have thought about this.

On the night in question, the woman says she went to Duduzile’s room upstairs, walked past the study where Zuma was sitting, because she wanted to say goodnight to her. She says she also told Duduzile she wanted a book to read from the library next to the study.

She says she and Duduzile went into the study to say goodnight to Zuma wearing only the kanga with no underwear. Kemp told her that Duduzile said in her affidavit that she thought it was “inappropriate” to go and speak to her father dressed in that way.

The woman said she did not want to comment on Duduzile's view. She agreed that Duduzile left her in the study with Zuma and returned to her room.

When asked why she had not mentioned this in her statement, she claims it was just an omission. She also admitted omitting the fact that she had had cellular and SMS conversations with several people after the alleged rape that night but had not mentioned to any of them that she may have been raped. This was essential evidence for the investigation.

She claims to have “embellished” the SMS’s to her sisters about what actually happened and told them “Umalume is starting to look at me sexually. I think there is something in my panties”.

When asked by Kemp what this meant, she said the people she had sent the message to had known she had been raped before.

The days’ proceedings ended with Kemp questioning the woman about what her definition of rape was. The cross examination will continue on Wednesday morning.

Meanwhile, chairman of the Friends of Jacob Zuma Trust Don Mkhwanazi has distanced the organization from an incident outside the court when pictures of the complainant were burnt while some people chanted “Burn this bitch”. There were also posters with the complainant’s name and surname.

Mkhwanazi said such action was not condoned by the Trust and was the work of “provocateurs”. He said the Trust and Zuma supporters did not and should not associate themselves would activities that undermined the rule of law.

Identifying the complainant in a rape trial is a violation of the Criminal Procedure Act and can result in the prosecution of people who participate in such action.

Members of the Trust confiscated the posters and pictures from people who gathered outside the court. Mkhwanazi has called on Zuma supporters to desist from such practices.


 * From http://www.friendsofjz.co.za/showarticle.asp?id=77**

No scream of protest because "I was in a total daze", says rape complainant

 * Friends of Jacob Zuma, Johannesburg, 6/3/2006 12:00:00 AM**

A woman who has accused ANC Deputy President Jacob Zuma of rape described in graphic detail in the Johannesburg High Court today the events of November 2, last year, when she claims he had sex with her against her will.

But the woman, who cannot be named, admits she did not scream in protest because she was “shocked and in a total daze”.

Earlier in the day, Zuma pleaded not guilty to the rape charge before Judge Willen van der Merwe. In a statement read by defence counsel Kemp J Kemp, Zuma said:


 * the complainant visited his Johannesburg home on November 2 and stayed over at her own volition
 * they had sexual intercourse consensually which lasted for some time
 * the complainant did not say no although she was at all times at liberty to say so
 * the complainant had her cellular phone with her
 * the complainant could leave his premises at any time; and that
 * the complainant had made several similar claims in the past.

The 31-year-old HIV activist, who has a shaven head and was dressed in khaki cargo pants, a yellow man's shirt and a blue tracksuit jacket, proceeded to give evidence for most of the day. She described how Zuma had constantly been supportive of her and how she had tried to get him to fund her overseas studies.

She said in June 2005, around the time he was charged with corruption, she sent him an SMS which read: “I support you. I love you very much”.

She said in July last year, she got a new job in Johannesburg, and around the same time, was accepted to study homeopathy in the United Kingdom. The money for the course was due in September 2005, and she phoned Zuma several times to get him to raise the money for her studies.

She also visited him in August 2005 and during a long talk with him late that night, told him that she did not have a boyfriend. When he asked why, she replied: “The boys that are given birth to now days are not man enough and all the good ones are taken”.

She said she was not able to pay the school fees on time in September and she was “very devastated, causing her CD4 count to drop dramatically.

Once she called Zuma to say she missed her mother and he paid for flight tickets for her to fly to Durban to visit her mother.

She said she called Zuma on November 2 to tell him that her sister’s child in Swaziland was sick in hospital and that he advised her not to rush to the neighbouring country as her mother would be going the next day. He instead invited her to his house.

She described how that night, after having supper with Zuma and his family, she had a talk with him when she again said she did not have a boyfriend because “all the good ones were taken”.

She said he showed her to a guest bedroom and told her he would come to “tuck her in” after he had finished with his work in his study and seeing to his visitors.

She says after having a shower, she put on a kanga (material wrap) with no underwear. She then went upstairs to the room of Zuma’s daughter Duduzile and the two then went to Zuma’s study to say goodnight. Zuma again told her that he would come to “tuck her in” later.

She claims that at some point during the night, he woke her up and offered to give her a massage. The woman claims to have declined but says Zuma climbed on top of her and proceed to massage her shoulders.

“At that point, I opened my eyes and saw that he was naked. I immediately closed my eyes again and turned my head the other way,” she said.

She claims Zuma parted her legs with his one knee and used both his hands to hold her hands down. “Then he took his one hand and put it on my vagina and just opened my vagina with his hand. His legs were between my legs and then he penetrated me with his penis. He had both his hands on my hands.”

She claims that after “pushing and thrusting”, he asked her whether he should ejaculate inside her. She says she did not respond to the question. She says he left the room afterwards.

“I then took my hand and put it on top of my vagina and that is when I felt his semen and that he had ejaculated.”

The woman claims Zuma came back to the room later and asked whether she had money for transport the next day. She replied “yes”, and he left again thereafter.

The complainant says she left the house early the next morning and went to her office. At about 11:30am, she says she told an aunt that she had been raped and then went to a doctor in Soweto with a colleague.

The doctor referred her to Baragwanath Hospital where she told the doctor she “wanted evidence” although she “wasn’t pressing charges now”.

The next day, November 4, she reported the case to the police around 2pm.

The woman says she went to Swaziland for the weekend and on Monday of the next week, two aunts arrived to speak to her about the case.

She said one of them said: “Did I realize what this would do to the ANC, it would rip people apart. She said did I know what this country would be like if Mbeki’s people took over”.

She said the aunt told her that Zuma had wanted to see her and that arrangements were being made for her to visit him that weekend. However she did not go to Durban to see him.

She claims that on Wednesday, November 9, Zuma phoned her and asked that they meet to talk about their relationship. She told him she would visit him with her mother.

On Saturday, November 12, the woman says she was called by Dumisani Lubisi from the Sunday Times who wanted to meet with her. She said she did not want to discuss the case as it was “sensitive”.

She claims that one of her minders in the witness protection programme told her to call the Sunday Times back and tell them that the charge had not been laid. She also says she sent an SMS to the Sunday Times reporter repeating that there had been no rape.

She says the minder returned later to say the Sunday Times was going ahead with the story. The woman claims the minder gave her the number for a journalist at an opposition newspaper, Jeremy Gordin of The Sunday Independent, and she then spoke to him, denying that there had been a rape. She also gave Gordin permission to print her name in the newspaper.

The woman says her mother came to see her the following Monday after KwaZulu-Natal Finance MEC Zweli Mkhize arranged for her (the mother) to travel to Johannesburg. She claims Mkhize talked about “compensation” and she told him to speak to her mother about it.

She says that a lawyer, “Yusuf” was sent by Mkhize to see her the next day. She claims he was initially “objective” and “helpful” but later advised she should drop the charges. She said when she made it clear she did not want to drop the charges, he said Mkhize would be surprised by this outcome. Mkhize has previously denied that he was involved in any attempt to suppress the charges.

Judge Van der Merwe granting the state an application to refer to the woman’s previous sexual history - which is prohibited by certain legislation pertaining to rape – and the woman then claimed that the last time she had sex (prior to the incident in November 2005) was in July 2004. The application may have consequences for the defence team as part of the defence is expected to include the woman's numerous previous claims against other men.

For the duration of the day's proceedings, Zuma sat calm and motionless, watching the complainant attentively.

She will continue to give evidence on Tuesday and will then face cross examination by Zuma’s legal team.

Zuma did not address his supporters outside court yesterday but asked ANC Youth League President Fikile Mbalula, YCL National Secretary Buti Manamela and Friends of Jacob Zuma Trust chairperson Don Mkhwanazi, who were in court to support him, to explain that he could not speak on the case as the trial was now in progress. He said legal procedures did not allow him to speak about the case while evidence was being led.


 * From: http://www.friendsofjz.co.za/showarticle.asp?id=76**