CHAIRPERSON: Mr Honnorat, who is the next applicant?
MR HONNORAT: Mr Chairperson, the next applicant is Mr Fakude, Mr Charles Fakude.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Fakude, I want you to please stand and give your full names for the record.
CHARLES FAKUDE: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, please be seated. Mr Honnorat?
EXAMINATION BY MR HONNORAT: Mr Fakude, at the time of the incident which resulted in the killing of Jacob Manoto, in 1993, were you an actual member or a supporter of a political organisation, liberation movement involved in the struggle, committee, which had a relation to a political organisation or liberation movement at the time?
MR FAKUDE: That is correct.
MR HONNORAT: Can you explain what was your position.
MR FAKUDE: The ANC.
MR HONNORAT: Were you part of any committee?
MR FAKUDE: I was a member of the Street Committee.
MR HONNORAT: Do you know the deceased, Mr Jacob Manoto?
MR FAKUDE: Yes, he was my neighbour.
MR HONNORAT: Did you attend any meeting on the 21st of April 1993, at the Lutheran Church in Diepkloof, in Zone 5?
MR FAKUDE: Yes, that's correct.
MR HONNORAT: Can you say anything which happened at the meeting as you saw it, or any participation on your part at that meeting?
MR FAKUDE: I did participate in the meeting. The meeting was called so that the Street Committee and the elders could resolve the problem with regards to Mr Manoto.
MR HONNORAT: What was the problem?
MR FAKUDE: The problem was that Mr Manoto was an informer.
MR HONNORAT: How was the problem solved?
MR FAKUDE: A person in his condition was punished the same way that he was punished, by death.
MR HONNORAT: As a neighbour of Mr Manoto, did you see anything suspicious which made you believe, before the incident, prior to the date of the incident and prior to the date of the meeting at the Lutheran Church, that he was in fact a police informer?
MR FAKUDE: Yes, there were instances.
MR HONNORAT: Yes, can you tell us about that.
MR FAKUDE: In most instances Mr Manoto did not associate himself with the community, instead the police used to frequent his home, their vehicles would be parked outside his home. And it then happened that later on he sent the police to go to the Tshabalala home to search for firearms.
MR HONNORAT: As far as your participation in the incident which led to the eventual killing of Mr Manoto at Mr Manoto's house, what contribution did you make?
MR FAKUDE: If it had not been established that he was an informer he would have not suffered the fate that he did ...(intervention)
MR HONNORAT: Wait one moment, the question was, the incident which resulted in his killing, at the house of Manoto, now are to the house of Manoto, did you participate in those events which led to his killing and if so, in which manner?
MR FAKUDE: It was permitting the comrades to use my yard to gain access into the Manoto house and also that I assisted in them gaining that access, but I did not really physically assault him. Moreover, I could have assisted Mr Manoto by telephoning for help, but I decided against it because of what he was. That is the role that I played.
MR HONNORAT: So was your reason for permitting the comrades to use the yard of your own property to gain access to the house of the deceased, based on the fact that he was a police informer and that you hated him for that? Was that your reason?
MR FAKUDE: That is correct.
MR HONNORAT: When you were permitting them to gain access to his house, did you know that that would probably result in his death or might result in his death, considering the large size of the group?
MR FAKUDE: I knew that already, from the moment that they left the meeting, proceeding to his home. It was known to me as to what was going to happen to him.
MR HONNORAT: And did you reconcile yourself willingly and supportively with that almost foregone conclusion, as you put it?
MR FAKUDE: That is correct, because if I did not associate myself I would not have also given the testimony that he was indeed an informer.
CHAIRPERSON: Where did you give that testimony, at the meeting?
MR FAKUDE: Yes, I was the second person to testify.
CHAIRPERSON: And you say that you allowed them to use your yard but you also helped them to gain access to the property of Mr Manoto. Is that correct?
MR FAKUDE: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: In which way did you help them to gain that access, apart from allowing them to use your yard?
MR FAKUDE: I opened the window so that they could use it to get onto the roof.
CHAIRPERSON: Was that the only way that they would have been able to get onto the roof?
MR FAKUDE: There was no other way because his wall was very high and it has a razor wire on top.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Honnorat?
MR HONNORAT: As a neighbour of the deceased, did you see him usually locked inside the house, with the house locked and well protected?
MR FAKUDE: Please repeat that question.
MR HONNORAT: As a neighbour of the deceased, Mr Manoto, did you see him usually with the house door locked and well protected by things?
MR FAKUDE: As I mentioned before, he distanced himself from the community because his gate was always locked and his family would always be inside the yard, locked in.
MR HONNORAT: Now was there any chance of gaining access also via the property of accused number 2, Sipho Victor Tshabalala?
MR FAKUDE: No, it is too far.
MR HONNORAT: Were there any family members of yours present at your house and your yard at the time of the incident?
MR FAKUDE: No, there were no members of my family in the yard, but it was just the other people in the community who were present.
MR HONNORAT: Now would it have been easy for a whole group of comrades to gain access of the deceased without your assistance of letting them in through the yard and opening the window so that they could get onto the roof? Would it have been easy for a huge group of people to do so without that assistance?
MR FAKUDE: No, because he had a burglar gate which was chained, the walls were also very high.
MR HONNORAT: Now is there anything else you want to say about your participation in the incident of that relevant date, which you haven't said so far to the Honourable Panel?
MR FAKUDE: Yes. I want to state that I am very deeply sorry for what happened to my neighbours. I have spent a lot of time in prison and I have thought about this matter and will request the family to forgive me. What prompted this whole thing was the situation at the time, an informer was not wanted in the township.
MR HONNORAT: Mr Chairman, if I can just have one word with the applicant concerning his application, because it was brought to me at the time that the applicant has been actually I mean, to the table?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well.
MR HONNORAT: I'm indebted to you.
CHAIRPERSON: Won't you just switch off the microphones.
MICROPHONES SWITCHED OFF
MR HONNORAT: I've got no further questions for this applicant, Mr Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HONNORAT
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I didn't have the headset on. What is the position, Mr Honnorat?
MR HONNORAT: I've got no further questions, Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: You've got no further questions, alright. Ms Vilakazi, any questions?
MS VILAKAZI: I have some questions, Honourable Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VILAKAZI: Mr Fakude, your house is, or your house was at the time of the incident, in the immediate neighbourhood of that of Mr Manoto, is that correct?
MR FAKUDE: That is correct.
MS VILAKAZI: And your house and Mr Manoto's house were joined, is that correct?
MR FAKUDE: That is correct.
MS VILAKAZI: And Mr Manoto had a wall surrounding his house, he built a wall to surround his house, is that correct?
MR FAKUDE: That is correct.
MS VILAKAZI: And at some stage you had a dispute with him concerning that that wall encroached on your property, is that correct?
MR FAKUDE: That is correct.
MS VILAKAZI: How did you relate with Mr Manoto generally?
MR FAKUDE: We were on good terms because we discussed this matter because when I used to close my gate, Mr Manoto complained that it made a noise for him, ultimately I ended up not being able to close my gate. But we discussed this matter and he even offered me help, he gave me a pole with which I fixed my gate.
MS VILAKAZI: Did you have good relations at all times, particularly after the incident concerning the wall and your gate?
MR FAKUDE: We were not very close except that we would greet and ask after one another's health, because as I explained earlier he did not really associate himself with the people.
MS VILAKAZI: But you have just said that you used to greet each other and talk to each other, wouldn't you say that's relating well?
MR FAKUDE: We were no longer able to discuss matters of general interest as neighbours, our only interaction was limited to just greeting. That is why I say our relationship was not that good.
MS VILAKAZI: You have said in your testimony that Mr Manoto was an informer, is that what you knew or what you were made to believe?
MR FAKUDE: It was something that I was informed of and I was convinced of it because I used to witness police vehicles parked at his gate and moreover, when he sent the police to the Tshabalala home he confirmed my suspicions that yes, indeed he was an informer, because of his closeness to the police.
MS VILAKAZI: How many times did you see police vehicles parked at his place?
MR FAKUDE: Several times, because when I return from work I will see these cars parked and sometimes I will see the police - I would see him taking the police to the gate. So I used to see these cars often.
MS VILAKAZI: Did they go to his place during the day?
MR FAKUDE: ...(no English interpretation)
MS VILAKAZI: Did the police go to Mr Manoto's house during the day?
MR FAKUDE: Normally they would be there during the day, but they sometimes, once in a while maybe you would see one vehicle parked at night, but I would normally see them during the day.
MS VILAKAZI: So he was freely relating with the police, he was not hiding that fact, is that correct?
MR FAKUDE: Yes, he was free.
MS VILAKAZI: Is that not inconsistent with the behaviour of an informer?
MR FAKUDE: I beg your pardon?
MS VILAKAZI: I mean relating freely with the police, is that not inconsistent with the behaviour of an informer?
MR FAKUDE: He did not hide his close relationship with the police. At that time we would hold meetings at different houses in the community because we did not have a venue for our meetings, but there was never a meeting held at his home and he was very open and free in his relationship with the police.
MS VILAKAZI: But you have not answered my question. My question was, the conduct of Mr Manoto relating freely with the police, not hiding his relations with the police, is that not inconsistent with the conduct of an informer?
MR FAKUDE: I do not know because he himself as a community member, he was aware that if you were close to the police and you were seen to be close to the police, what implications that has.
MS VILAKAZI: Did you at any stage alert him to the fact that his relations with the police are inconsistent with the wishes of the community?
MR FAKUDE: He was the sort of person that there was no way I could have discussed such a matter with him.
MS VILAKAZI: Do you mean to say that he was not approachable?
MR FAKUDE: That is correct.
MS VILAKAZI: I see. Now talking about the date of the incident, you were at the meeting - I'm talking about the 21st of April 1993, were you at the meeting at the Lutheran Church?
MR FAKUDE: Yes, I was present.
MS VILAKAZI: What decision was taken concerning Mr Manoto?
MR FAKUDE: A decision was taken to go call him and return him to the church, but on arrival at his home he was in a fighting mood and therefore the fight broke out between him and the comrades.
MS VILAKAZI: So are you saying the decision was not to kill him, but to call him to the meeting?
MR FAKUDE: He was supposed to be fetched and be brought to the meeting and answer to these allegations and the decision would have been taken thereafter, but when people arrived at his home he started fighting with the comrades.
MS VILAKAZI: Who was sent to collect him, or who was supposed to collect him?
MR FAKUDE: We elected certain people to go out and fetch him and it became apparent that we as the elders were not taking this matter as urgently as we should and the comrades suggested that he should be fetched and that is when everybody went out.
MS VILAKAZI: So are you saying the whole group that was attending the meeting was the one who was supposed to go and collect Mr Manoto?
MR FAKUDE: That is so.
MS VILAKAZI: Then you said in your testimony that you knew already when you left the meeting, that the action that was going to be taken would result in his death.
MR FAKUDE: That is correct.
MS VILAKAZI: So why did you think that the action would result in his death, if the purpose was to go and take him in order to talk to him?
MR FAKUDE: I say this because of the manner in which the comrades left as they went to fetch him.
MS VILAKAZI: Now arriving at the place of Mr Manoto, the impression that I gained from your testimony is that you went to your place, is that correct?
MR FAKUDE: That is correct.
MS VILAKAZI: So you did not go into Mr Manoto's house or yard, is that correct?
MR FAKUDE: I went into my own yard, not his.
MS VILAKAZI: Why did you not go into Mr Manoto's house, because you were part of the group that went to take him out?
MR FAKUDE: It was becoming dark and I wanted to light up the house so that I could check and see if the stones that were being thrown at Mr Manoto's house did not damage my own house.
MS VILAKAZI: Are you saying when you arrived there he was, the stones were already being thrown around?
MR FAKUDE: That is correct.
MS VILAKAZI: Does that mean that you arrived after the people who were throwing stones?
MR FAKUDE: That is correct.
MS VILAKAZI: Okay. And then, after you assessed the damage, what then did you do?
MR FAKUDE: I only left my house when they were already outside and they had dragged him out of the house and they were setting him alight.
MS VILAKAZI: I want to understand the sequence correctly. When you arrived at the scene stones were already being thrown around and you went into your house to check whether your house has been damaged, is that correct?
MR FAKUDE: That is correct.
MS VILAKAZI: And then you only left your house when Mr Manoto was being burnt, is that correct?
MR FAKUDE: That is correct.
MS VILAKAZI: Between those two periods, what were you doing?
MR FAKUDE: As mentioned before I was just safeguarding my home, that it does not get damaged. I even reprimanded some comrades who wanted to throw a petrol bomb into the house.
MS VILAKAZI: So you were concerned with your house, is that correct?
MR FAKUDE: That is correct.
MS VILAKAZI: You were not taking part in the attack on Mr Manoto and his family, is that correct?
MR FAKUDE: I did not take part physically.
MS VILAKAZI: I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VILAKAZI
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Vilakazi. Mr Masagela?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MASAGELA: Thank you, Mr Chair, I just have a few questions.
Mr Fakude, in your testimony you said you were present at the meeting of the 21st of April 1993, is that correct?
MR FAKUDE: That is correct.
MR MASAGELA: Do you know the lady by the name of Anna Gumede?
MR FAKUDE: Yes, she's my neighbour.
MR MASAGELA: Did you see her in that meeting?
MR FAKUDE: Yes, we were together as members of the Street Committee.
MR MASAGELA: Did she at any stage address the meeting?
MR FAKUDE: Yes, she did, because seemingly we were delaying in sending people out to collect this person and she expressed the opinion that we were delaying these proceedings, but this person should be fetched there and then.
MR MASAGELA: Tell us exactly what she said in that meeting.
MR FAKUDE: She said "You elders do not know anything about the struggle, this person should be fetched". That is when the comrades left.
MR MASAGELA: So that's the only thing that she said?
MR FAKUDE: Yes, when she uttered those words the comrades went out rushing to the Manoto's home.
MR MASAGELA: Mr Fakude, in your testimony you said that the decision that was taken in that meeting was that Mr Manoto should be taken from his home and brought to the meeting, is that correct? I mean, ja, to the meeting at the church, is that correct?
MR FAKUDE: That is correct.
MR MASAGELA: Did Ms Gumede at any stage say that Mr Manoto should be killed?
MR FAKUDE: No, she did not say he should be killed, she said he should be fetched.
MR MASAGELA: No further questions, Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MASAGELA
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Masagela. Ms Thabethe?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE: Thank you, Mr Chair.
Mr Fakude, in your amnesty application form on page 4, I would say it's the last paragraph 10(b), you say -
"I was not part and parcel of the people who took part in the incident. According to what I heard from the comrades, was that the deceased was a police informer, so they had to do away with him."
My question is, when did you hear this from the comrades?
MR FAKUDE: ...(no English interpretation)
MS THABETHE: Yes.
MR FAKUDE: I learnt of it on a Monday evening.
MS THABETHE: What I'm asking is - maybe let's start here. At what date did the incident take place where Mr Manoto was killed? What day was it?
MR FAKUDE: It was on a Wednesday.
MS THABETHE: It was on a Wednesday.
MR FAKUDE: Yes.
MS THABETHE: And when did the comrades tell you, was it before the day of the incident?
MR FAKUDE: I learnt of it on the Monday before the incident.
MS THABETHE: Maybe let's start here. At what day did the incident take place, where Mr Manoto was killed? What day was it?
MR FAKUDE: It was on a Wednesday.
MS THABETHE: And when did the comrades tell you? Was it before the day of the incident?
MR FAKUDE: I heard of it on the Monday before the incident.
MS THABETHE: And then you also say on page 4 first paragraph, you say
"On the above-mentioned date, time and place, the comrades occupied my house and I assumed that it should be told that I should not do anything that I should later regret, for trying to save my neighbour, because they were going to attack my next-door neighbour."
When did the comrades tell you this in relation to the incident? Was is before or after the incident or during the incident?
MR FAKUDE: Please repeat your question.
MS THABETHE: I want to know when did the comrades come to your place and tell you that you should not do anything that you would regret, for trying to save your neighbour?
MR FAKUDE: On the same day that he was killed.
MS THABETHE: Was it after the meeting or before the meeting?
MR FAKUDE: After the meeting.
MS THABETHE: And then on the next page you say
"I only did",
unfortunately I can't read your handwriting very well, it reads something like:
"I only did what I was told to do because they threatened me with my life, that if I did not come they were going to cut off my electricity and my life was going to be endangered"
When were you told this? When were you threatened with your life?
MR FAKUDE: I do not know about them threatening me. What I do know is that at the time there was no other way that I could do.
MS THABETHE: Can you please show him the form?
MR FAKUDE: It was filled in by Mr Nkosi.
MS THABETHE: So are you saying that you did not tell Mr Nkosi that you were threatened by these people?
MR FAKUDE: No, I did not tell him about me being threatened.
MS THABETHE: Did you tell this to your attorneys?
MR FAKUDE: About this incident?
MS THABETHE: Yes, that what is written here is incorrect, you never said that people came to threaten you.
MR FAKUDE: I am saying this now.
MS THABETHE: So on the day of the incident, what would you say your attitude was? Did you support the act that was about to happen of killing Mr Manoto and did you associate yourself with it?
MR FAKUDE: I did associate myself with the act because of the relationship that he had with the police and also for the reason that I had received reports from the neighbours that he had sent police to their homes.
MS THABETHE: Coming to the Judgment on page 95, I just want to ask you, because you've indicated that you spoke at the meeting about Mr Manoto, I just want to find out a few things. Did you, at the meeting, speak about the dispute that you had had over the wall and the fact that it encroached on your property?
MR FAKUDE: Yes, I did. That was in addition to what Mr Makoba had expressed at the meeting.
MS THABETHE: Did you also, at the meeting that day, address the meeting about the fact that the deceased had accused you of making noise in your home?
MR FAKUDE: Yes, I did.
MS THABETHE: And what was the motive for you to talk about that dispute between you and your neighbour? What did you want to achieve by telling the meeting that because it had nothing to do with whether he was a police informer or not?
MR FAKUDE: That was to the effect that he should rather go and stay with the police instead of the community.
MS THABETHE: But would you agree that your dispute with him had nothing to do with the fact that he was a police informer or not?
MR FAKUDE: Yes I would agree with you.
MS THABETHE: On page 98 of the Judgment, it's indicated there that Mrs Manoto says she saw you entering the dining room from her roof and you were one of those people who took her out. Do you agree with this?
MR FAKUDE: I dispute that.
MS THABETHE: Also the son, Marvin, testified to the fact that he saw you in the yard and you were armed with a stick. Do you agree with this?
MR FAKUDE: I was in my yard, this is true, as I was assessing the situation.
MS THABETHE: Thank you, Mr Chair, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS THABETHE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Thabethe. Has the Panel got any questions?
ADV BOSMAN: Mr Fakude, in your application form, there are also other statements, but before I put that to you, who filled out the form? Did you say Mr Nkosi? Who filled out the form for you?
MR FAKUDE: Mr Nkosi. Ephram Nkosi.
ADV BOSMAN: Who is he?
MR FAKUDE: A comrade who is the chairperson of our structure in the prison.
ADV BOSMAN: And you affirmed this form under oath, before a Commissioner of Oaths, is that right? If you turn to the last page.
MR FAKUDE: Yes, I did sign when I was told to do so.
ADV BOSMAN: And it says there that you knew and understand the contents of the declaration.
MR FAKUDE: Well, I did not read what he had written down because we were under time pressures.
ADV BOSMAN: Did you know what was in it? You did not read it, but did he tell you what he had written?
MR FAKUDE: Yes, he did.
ADV BOSMAN: So why did you sign it?
MR FAKUDE: I signed after he had told me what he had written in the form, but I have just learned of the other things that I do not agree with.
ADV BOSMAN: It is stated in the form that you tried to stop them, not to, I think it's
".....murder my neighbour. That that could solve the matter in a good way, but my plea fell on deaf ears."
Did you know that was in the form?
MR FAKUDE: That is something that I mentioned in Court, but not in my application form.
ADV BOSMAN: No, but it is in the application form. My question is, did you know that it was written in the application form?
MR FAKUDE: No.
ADV BOSMAN: What did Mr Nkosi tell you, what did he write in the application form?
MR FAKUDE: I did not get that question.
ADV BOSMAN: What did Mr Nkosi tell you, what had he written in the form?
MR FAKUDE: He just informed me that he was finished and that I should sign.
ADV BOSMAN: So where did he get this information from?
MR FAKUDE: I did tell him about what I said in Court. He questioned me as to what I said in Court and I told him.
ADV BOSMAN: And did you then tell him that that what you said in Court was not right, it was not the truth?
MR FAKUDE: Yes, I did tell him.
ADV BOSMAN: And what did he then say to you?
MR FAKUDE: Well he seemed to agree with me that you are likely not to tell the truth in Court and I should tell the truth to the TRC, but I don't understand now why he wrote all of that, but unfortunately I did not have time to go through it and read it because we were under pressure. Mine was the only application form left.
ADV BOSMAN: Okay, if I can just get this - it's more a statement than a question. He told you that you must tell the truth, is that correct?
MR FAKUDE: That is correct.
ADV BOSMAN: But in spite of that, he told the untruth in the form, is that correct?
MR FAKUDE: It surprises me that he wrote this on my form, because that is exactly what I explained to him, as to what I said in Court.
ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination, Mr Honnorat?
MR HONNORAT: Just one aspect.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR HONNORAT: Ms Vilakazi mentioned about two periods, Sir, the time you were assessing a possible damage to your property and your exit into the yard when you noticed that he already grabbed the deceased and burned him to death. In between those two moments, did you continue allowing the comrades free access to the house of the deceased?
MR FAKUDE: Yes, I did continue because ultimately they dragged him out of the house and then they set him alight, then that was when I left my own yard.
MR HONNORAT: Did you do that, I mean, out of malice, spite, ill feeling towards the deceased, personal rancour, because of the previous disputes? Any reason other than a political reason?
MR FAKUDE: I did not hold any personal grudge against him except for that action that he took which involved the whole community, the action of bringing the police to the Tshabalala home.
MR HONNORAT: I've got no further questions, Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HONNORAT
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Honnorat. Mr Fakude you're excused. Thank you.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe, can you just give us an indication, according to the Correctional Services, until what time are we able to proceed today? Can you just get an indication from them?
MS THABETHE: Mr Chair, I've indicated to them that we have two more applicants who still have to testify. They say they prefer that they continue in testifying, instead of coming back tomorrow.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh.
MS THABETHE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: So they're able to accommodate us later, we can carry on?
MS THABETHE: Yes, Mr Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Until what time? Oh, till we finish? Because we've got addresses and so, argument and everything else still.
MS THABETHE: Sorry Mr Chair, are we going to continue with argument, considering the fact that we've reserved the right for Adv Vilakazi and the victims?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no, we're going to continue. We're going to continue to wrap up this aspect of things.
MS THABETHE: Do we need, I'm just assuming, do we need the applicants during argument?
CHAIRPERSON: Presumably not, depending on what their legal representatives' views are, subject to their views.
MR HONNORAT: I don't believe it's necessary for applicants to be here for argument.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, alright.
MS THABETHE: Mr Chair, I was going to suggest that if, maybe people are tired after the last applicant has given evidence and if we have to come back tomorrow, we just come back for argument, instead of coming back for evidence.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I suppose it will make little difference. I don't think we're going to be able to depart from the city in any case by the end of the night or the day, but let's proceed, let's proceed with the other applicants. Correctional Services seem to be in a position to accommodate us.
Yes, the interpreters will just have to give us an indication if they are not able to proceed, or if they need to catch their breath or whatever. So we've got the two applicants left. I don't know whether the interpreters actually interpret argument, I'm not sure. I don't see any real serious need to interpret argument, so it might be that even they could stand down after we've heard the evidence, because I know they've been going on for some time. Is that so? Alright. Yes, I'm told that they, sometimes they normally - but they must give us an indication. I mean, I know they've been going on for some time.
INTERPRETER: Yes, maybe I should just come in here. It has been quite a long day and we were of the opinion that if there are two more persons still to give testimony, maybe it would serve everyone's interests better if we adjourn today and go on tomorrow.
CHAIRPERSON: Won't it assist you if you only need to interpret the evidence and be released after that?
INTERPRETER: Yes, that might go some way in assisting.
CHAIRPERSON: And not being called upon to interpret the arguments. We're trying to accommodate the public as far as we can, but we also take into account other considerations, of which one of them is the capacity of our staff to deal with matters, so I'm quite sure the public would understand if at the end of this very, very long gruelling session in respect of interpreting the evidence, we were to excuse the interpreters from interpreting the arguments.
INTERPRETER: As the Committee pleases.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think let's complete the evidence of the two remaining applicants. It will also accommodate the Correctional Services, to know that they don't need to physically come back to this venue.
MR HONNORAT: Mr Chairman, there is only one applicant available and that is Victor Sipho Tshabalala.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh I see, okay, well that's better then.
MR HONNORAT: And I call Victor Tshabalala.
