ON RESUMPTION
CHAIRPERSON: Do you want to lead the evidence of the last applicant, I assume? Mr Ntshabeleng. Just swop around there please. Are your full names Johannes Ntshabeleng?
MR NTSHABELENG: Correct chairperson.
JOHANNES NTSHABELENG: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Please be seated. Mr Richard?
EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD: Thank you Chairperson. Sir, I am correct, you have been present here all day and you have heard the previous two, three applicants give evidence? Did you hear them give evidence, the three applicants that gave evidence?
MR NTSHABELENG: That is correct.
MR RICHARD: Did you hear what they said and understand or pay attention?
MR NTSHABELENG: I did Chairperson.
MR RICHARD: Very well. Do you confirm what they said?
MR NTSHABELENG: I do Chairperson.
MR RICHARD: Is there anything that you disagree with about what they said about what you did, they did, in connection with this incident?
MR NTSHABELENG: Please repeat your question.
MR RICHARD: Is there anything that you disagree with about what they said about this incident, about what you did, they did, what happened?
MR NTSHABELENG: No, there is nothing that I disagree with from their evidence.
MR RICHARD: So very briefly, to sum it up, you confirm that at the time of the killing of Philemon Masetla, you were a member of the ANC, a member of the Self Defence Unit in Mooihoek?
MR NTSHABELENG: That is correct.
MR RICHARD: And you also confirm that there was taxi violence in and around that area at the time?
MR NTSHABELENG: Correct Chairperson, not inside Mooihoek, but in areas like Tafelkop and other surrounding areas, in Mampogo as it has been stated by my co-applicants.
MR RICHARD: Now, what was Mr Mokoena in the ANC?
MR NTSHABELENG: If I remember well he was a Youth member of the organisation in our area.
MR RICHARD: And it is correct that he was killed in taxi violence?
MR NTSHABELENG: Yes.
MR RICHARD: And your, you saw his killing as an act which was in opposition to the ANC and its struggle?
MR NTSHABELENG: Yes, because as members of the SDUs, if one of us was killed or if one of the members of the SDUs or ANC or ANC Youth League was killed, therefore I would see that the people responsible are against the activities of the ANC.
MR RICHARD: I have said quite a lot about this list of names which I have at page 54. You have heard the evidence of the three other applicants that almost all of those people are ANC members and supporters and affiliates?
MR NTSHABELENG: Yes, I agree with that statement, except the two Mokolo's because I was not sure as to whether they were members of any political party, because they only came there because we requested transport from them.
MR RICHARD: Now, that meeting is the meeting at which it was decided that the deceased, Philemon Masetla should be killed?
MR NTSHABELENG: That is correct.
MR RICHARD: How old were you at that meeting, at that time?
MR NTSHABELENG: I was going to turn 17, I was about 16 and a few months.
MR RICHARD: Now, what I have said to the other witnesses is then more true for you, that the various people on this list were mostly senior and of much greater stature to you in the ANC, they were in charge of you?
MR NTSHABELENG: As I have already explained and my co-applicants have stated that we were members of the ANC Youth League, there were people who were senior to us, both in age and in their role within the organisation.
MR RICHARD: Well, to skip through the stuff that you have already confirmed and to go to the mountain. Let me ask this question, were you on the mountain when the man was burnt?
MR NTSHABELENG: Yes, I went there.
MR RICHARD: Did you help in lighting the petrol?
MR NTSHABELENG: Firstly I tried to tie the deceased on the tree and then again forced him to drink petrol. I was instructed to do so.
MR RICHARD: Now, are you ready?
MR NTSHABELENG: Yes, I am.
MR RICHARD: To go back a bit, were you at the meeting when the deceased was questioned?
MR NTSHABELENG: That is correct.
MR RICHARD: Who questioned the deceased?
MR NTSHABELENG: If I remember well, I did ask a question and Mr Masetla asked a question. Mr Magutla, if I am not making a mistake.
MR RICHARD: Which Mr Masetla asked a question?
MR NTSHABELENG: I am not sure as to whether he was the brother or the one who is in front of me.
MR RICHARD: The one in front of you or somebody else?
MR NTSHABELENG: This is the one who is in front of me, who asked the question.
MR RICHARD: What question did he ask of the deceased?
MR NTSHABELENG: He asked the deceased as to whether he was responsible for the killing of Mr Mokoena, then he replied by saying that he was responsible.
MR RICHARD: Did Mr Masetla, the person that you are looking at across the room right now, do anything at all to stop what was happening or to prevent the meeting deciding to feed petrol to Philemon Masetla, to tie him to a tree, cover him in petrol and light him?
MR NTSHABELENG: No, I don't remember telling us to stop doing that because I didn't see him when we went to the mountain.
MR RICHARD: But you saw him at the meeting?
MR NTSHABELENG: Yes, I saw him in the meeting.
MR RICHARD: At the meeting he did nothing to try and persuade people to stop doing what they were doing?
MR NTSHABELENG: No.
MR RICHARD: Now, Chairperson, no further questions at this stage, I am just repeating matters that he has confirmed.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RICHARD
CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you. Cross-examination Ms Vilakazi?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VILAKAZI: ; Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Ntshabeleng, who ordered you to kill the deceased, to necklace the deceased?
MR NTSHABELENG: Mr Joseph Pirie as our leader gave us an instruction.
MS VILAKAZI: I want to refer you to your application on page 75. In response to a question on 11(A), in response to the question were the acts committed in the execution of an order, you response is "the African National Congress Youth League, SDU", can you see that?
MR NTSHABELENG: Yes.
MS VILAKAZI: Can I ask your legal representative to assist you.
MR RICHARD: He's got the document in front of him, page 75, paragraph 11(A).
CHAIRPERSON: Carry on Ms Vilakazi, what is the question?
MS VILAKAZI: Now, on page 80 of the bundle, question 10(a) "state political objective sought to be achieved", your response is "Chief instructed us to commit murder".
On page 81, the continuation of that question, (b) your response is -
"... my Chief, Mr Samuel Makobe instructed us to murder the victim because he murdered a member of our clan".
MR NTSHABELENG: As it has been explained already by my co-applicants, there were people who were taking our messages to the Chief's kraal, because we were too little (indistinct) we had to tell them what they were supposed to pass on to the Chief. If there was anything that the Chief wanted to know, the Chief would tell induna Matlala and induna Matlala would tell us. If Headman Matlala was not present, he had his assistants. We were not directly involved with the Chief, but he had his own people to assist him.
MS VILAKAZI: Did the Chief instruct you to murder as you wrote in your affidavit?
MR NTSHABELENG: Not directly, but I should say indirectly because he sent his messengers to give us a message.
MS VILAKAZI: Which messengers are you talking about?
MR NTSHABELENG: People like Mr Mokoena, Mr Magutla, those are the people who were close to the Chief's kraal. These are the people who were transferring the message, communicating the message to the Chief's kraal.
MS VILAKAZI: But when I asked you, my first question, who instructed you to kill, you said it was Mr Pirie?
MR NTSHABELENG: Yes, he gave me the instruction when we were at school, by that time, so that is why I said he gave me the instruction. He is the one who gave me the straight instruction, not like the Headman.
MS VILAKAZI: On page 85, in response to the further particulars that were required by the TRC, under question 1, on page 85, under question 1, point 5 the question was "who gave the orders in the SDU" and your response was
"... Mr Tsukudo instructed me to necklace Mr Masetla."
MR NTSHABELENG: No, this thing I didn't write by myself, I asked my fellow prisoner to write for me please, so he didn't understand what I said maybe because Mr Tsukudo, he told me that there was a meeting in the Headman's place, so I went there. Maybe this is a mistake that the fellow ...
MS VILAKAZI: Are you saying that the responses to the request for further particulars was not written by you?
MR NTSHABELENG: This second question, I asked someone to write for me, because I was a little bit confused. At that time I was sick in the prison, so I didn't have time to write, and this thing was given to me in a short space, so I had to return it back to the TRC.
MS VILAKAZI: I want to understand you clearly. Who wrote the information on page 85, up to page 86 of the bundle?
MR NTSHABELENG: If I remember well, I have just said now, there at the prison I asked a fellow inmate to write for me please, but the first one, if I am not mistaken, the first one was written by me and the others were written by my co-applicant.
MS VILAKAZI: Are you saying these two pages were not written by the same person?
MR NTSHABELENG: No, let me see, where is that?
MS VILAKAZI: I am referring specifically to pages 85 and 86.
MR NTSHABELENG: This one was written by the same fellow prisoner.
CHAIRPERSON: What is your response, Mr Ntshabeleng?
MR NTSHABELENG: My response is that I am asking for forgiveness from the family of Mr Masetla and members of his family about what happened. This was an awful deed that ended up taking a life of a family member and we appear before this Committee today to ask for forgiveness.
MR RICHARD: May I suggest you repeat the question?
MS VILAKAZI: Yes, I understand that you feel bad, but the question is, the information on pages 85 and 86, who wrote that information?
MR NTSHABELENG: As I mentioned, I asked a fellow inmate to help me, to write it, because I was a little confused and sick inside the prison.
MS VILAKAZI: So the whole information was written by your fellow inmate, is that what you are saying?
MR NTSHABELENG: Yes, I asked him to help me to write this, because I couldn't write this.
MS VILAKAZI: Did you read this before signing?
MR NTSHABELENG: Not really, I just took some time and there and then ...
MS VILAKAZI: Can you explain why you did not write yourself?
MR NTSHABELENG: Because - should I carry on?
MS VILAKAZI: Yes please.
MR NTSHABELENG: I have explained already that I was sick and I was not sure of my handwriting and you know, corresponding with the TRC, one needs to have a clear handwriting, so that they can read something that is clearly written on paper, not to think of what was being said here. That is why I asked somebody to write on my behalf.
MS VILAKAZI: Okay, I have no further questions, Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VILAKAZI
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Mtanga?
MS MTANGA: I have no questions, Chairperson.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MTANGA
CHAIRPERSON: Panel?
ADV SANDI: No questions, Chairperson thank you.
ADV BOSMAN: I have no questions, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination?
MR RICHARD: No re-examination, thank you.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ntshabeleng, you are excused. Thank you.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: Is that the case for the applicants, Mr Richard?
MR RICHARD: That is the case.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Vilakazi, are you tendering any evidence?
MS VILAKAZI: Yes, honourable Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Who is it?
MS VILAKAZI: I call Mr Moses Masetla.
CHAIRPERSON: Just give him a microphone please.
MS VILAKAZI: The witness does not have an objection to taking the oath.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Masetla, please stand. Are your full names Moses Masetla?
MR MASETLA: That is correct.
MOSES MASETLA: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Please sit down. Yes Ms Vilakazi?
EXAMINATION BY MS VILAKAZI: Mr Masetla, can you explain to the Committee the relationship between yourself and the deceased, Philemon? The relationship between yourself and Philemon Masetla?
MR MASETLA: Philemon Masetla is my brother's child.
MS VILAKAZI: On the day that he was killed, were you present?
MR MASETLA: I was present, they came to wake me up.
MS VILAKAZI: Who came to wake you up, do you remember?
MR MASETLA: I remember Manasoe came to wake me up.
MS VILAKAZI: Manasoe, you mean the applicant who has just testified?
MR MASETLA: Yes.
MS VILAKAZI: Who else was there, do you remember, was he the only one?
MR MASETLA: I asked who he was, and he said he was Manasoe. The others I did not know, they were many and they were all boys, young boys, but I managed to know Manasoe. He told me "I am Manasoe" and I woke up, I opened.
MS VILAKAZI: Okay. At the time when you were woken up at your home, or do you know a person called Joseph Pirie?
MR MASETLA: Yes.
MS VILAKAZI: Was he present at the time when you were collected from your home?
MR MASETLA: I did not see him because it was at night.
MS VILAKAZI: Are you able to tell roughly how many people were there?
MR MASETLA: There were many, but I would not be able to count really, it was at night. There were many, it was just a group of young boys. I cannot tell really how many they were, it was at night.
MS VILAKAZI: So you only see young boys, you didn't see any elderly people in the group, is that correct?
MR MASETLA: The elderly person I saw was Mr Mokoena.
MS VILAKAZI: And then, what happened thereafter?
MR MASETLA: They went to the deceased's house to fetch him. They did not have any time to talk to me and they just took me and as I was standing, they did their things. I did nothing. Mr Mokoena was with me, he was quiet at all times, he did not say anything. Even when they fetched him, we went to the school and then they started asking him "did you do it" and he did not respond, because many people asked him really.
MS VILAKAZI: Okay, let me stop you just there. Now, you - did I hear you correctly to say that you, after you were collected then you went to the deceased's place?
MR MASETLA: Yes, we went to the deceased's place.
MS VILAKAZI: Did you not go to the school first and then to the deceased's place?
MR MASETLA: No. We were supposed to be at school, then we met with Mr Mokoena. Mr Mokoena, his son was pushing him saying "go", then we were not even at the school. We went to the school after they had been to his house.
MS VILAKAZI: When you say his house, who are you referring to?
MR MASETLA: From the deceased's house.
MS VILAKAZI: Okay. Now, three of the applicants have testified that while you were in a classroom, the deceased confessed that he killed, or agreed that he killed Mr Mokoena. Is that information correct?
MR MASETLA: That is not the truth. I have never heard him saying that. I did not hear him confessing that he did that. I don't want to give evidence to what I don't know.
MS VILAKAZI: Did you ask the deceased if he is the one who killed Mr Mokoena?
MR MASETLA: I did not say a word. They woke me up, we just left from my house, we did not talk. I never uttered a word about everything that was happening.
MS VILAKAZI: Not even in the classroom, is that what you are saying?
MR MASETLA: I did not utter a word, I only asked "who are you", and they said, they responded and said "wake up, they want you at school", that was the last time I opened my mouth.
CHAIRPERSON: Did they ask you any questions?
MR MASETLA: They did not ask me anything.
CHAIRPERSON: And you never participated in any of this?
MR MASETLA: There is no part I took. They just took me as I was from my house, but I saw Mr Mokoena who was driven to the school with me. His son was actually driving him and he wanted to go back, but his son did not allow him, he pushed him forward. That is what I saw. I could not recognise the others, because it was at night.
CHAIRPERSON: Didn't you ask what was going on, "why are you here in the middle of the night, what do you want from me, what is happening here, why are you accusing this man, he is an innocent man", you did nothing?
MR MASETLA: I was afraid to even ask, everybody was asleep, I was the only one woken up in my area and that surprised me really. I did not say anything.
CHAIRPERSON: When this bunch of children come and they wake you up and they take you to the school in the middle of the night, and there you just stand the whole time? They don't ask you anything, you don't say anything, how did you get away from the school?
MR MASETLA: Yes, I managed to be at the school, because I was being pushed.
CHAIRPERSON: How did you get away from the school, if you got away from the school?
MR MASETLA: I don't know how it came about that I left the school. Everybody stood up and they walked away. Myself and Mr Mokoena just stood still. We didn't go anywhere, there was nothing to say to them really.
CHAIRPERSON: But you must have at some stage, you must have left the school, or what?
MR MASETLA: When they left the school, I also left for my home. Magadi was at school, he was just sent to the school, but I don't know what brought him to the school. After the incident at the school, when they left for that place, I went home.
CHAIRPERSON: And then, what did you do?
MR MASETLA: When I arrived at home?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes?
MR MASETLA: As I was sitting, I saw the nephew of the deceased came running, saying "they have killed my uncle", they did not give anybody a chance to talk, they did not waste any time. They asked you a question in movement. When I arrived at home, it was not after quite a long time when the nephew came to say "they have killed my uncle".
CHAIRPERSON: Didn't you go to the police?
MR MASETLA: We went to the foreman, the policeman had already been called. The hospital was far, I don't know who went to the hospital to call the police, but I was just surprised to see the police arriving.
CHAIRPERSON: So you went, you basically went home and you sat at home and what else did you do?
MR MASETLA: I did not do anything, I just stayed there until the police arrived.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, yes, Ms Vilakazi?
MS VILAKAZI: Now, Mr Masetla, if you had anything to say at the time when you were taken by the group, would you have been able to say anything to them?
MR MASETLA: They were not going to give me an opportunity to say a word. There was no time to utter a word. Even the deceased, there was no time to open his mouth. This happened in no time. I did not hear many things that they are saying they had spoken. What they are saying is new to me.
MS VILAKAZI: Now, did at any time during the process when you were marched to the school, and even at the school, did you have any reason to believe that Mr Mokoena was part of the group of youngsters and that he was their leader?
MR MASETLA: I would not know, it was at night when I met him after I had been woken from my house. Now I don't know whether he was involved with these youngsters or not. I was only surprised to be woken up from my house.
MS VILAKAZI: Did you see him giving any instructions?
MR MASETLA: He did not say a word. I saw him but his son was pushing him, he wanted to move back, but his son was pushing him forward. Whether he uttered a word, I do not know. I did not hear a word. I will not give evidence about what I did not see or hear.
MS VILAKAZI: Now you have also heard the applicants testifying that there was taxi violence in the area, in your area, what is your comment about that?
MR MASETLA: I do not know about a taxi violence. Where I live, I had never experienced any taxi violence. I don't know about other areas surrounding our area. Again, I will not testify to what I do not know.
MS VILAKAZI: And it has also been suggested that the family of the deceased was ex-communicated from the community. Was that the position?
MR MASETLA: There is nothing like that. They voluntarily left their place. The other one went to Tafelkop, nobody chased them away, they voluntarily left. I was the one left behind. I just remained behind, because I wanted to.
MS VILAKAZI: Now mention has also been made of the Chief's messengers. Who, do you know who the Chief's messengers are?
MR MASETLA: I do not know them. Matlala was the King's messenger and anything that was being discussed, would be discussed among all of us, but we were not able to take any decision on our own. That is new to me. The decisions were taken by the Chief.
MS VILAKAZI: You have just referred to Matlala. I want you to be specific because we have Chief Matlala and the Headman Matlala. Which Matlala were you referring to?
MR MASETLA: Makobe is the right-hand of the Chief. If there is anything troubling us in the village, we go to him and if it is too difficult for us to handle, we all gather at the Chief's kraal to address the Chief, but Makobe Matlala was the foreman. If there was an incident and we cannot resolve it, he would take it to the Chief. The way they put it, no that is not the right version.
MS VILAKAZI: Was Mr Mokoena the Chief's messenger?
MR MASETLA: I do not know. I knew the right-hand of the Chief to be Makobe Matlala. I don't know whether the Chief had appointed Mokoena, but had it been the situation, the Chief would have informed all his subjects in writing. I don't know anything about him.
MS VILAKAZI: How long have you been staying in Mooihoek?
MR MASETLA: I arrived in Mooihoek in 1972. It was in 1972.
MS VILAKAZI: And you have been staying in that area all the time, is that so?
MR MASETLA: I, yes, I have been living there. Many people, all of these people who committed this act, found us already there, they came after us.
MS VILAKAZI: Now were you actively involved in the community matters?
MR MASETLA: I don't understand your question.
MS VILAKAZI: Did you take part in the activities of the community?
MR MASETLA: Activities such as?
MS VILAKAZI: Like, if there are meetings called by the Chief or the representative of the Chief, would you take part in those?
MR MASETLA: When the Chief has written a letter, give it to the foreman, the foreman would call us and say "listen, here is a letter from the Chief, the Chief wants to meet us". I won't have an option, I would go in such a case to listen to what the Chief has to say.
MS VILAKAZI: Then meetings that were arranged by the messenger of the Chiefs, did you attend them?
MR MASETLA: Everybody in the village would be called to this kind of a meeting, and he has to tell us what the Chief wants to see us about.
MS VILAKAZI: Do you know of any meeting that was called, okay, let me just be specific. The meeting that was held on the 12th of August, do you know about that meeting, the community meeting?
MR MASETLA: I know people were at the kraal.
MS VILAKAZI: Was it, what kind of meeting was it? Was it a community meeting, was it a political meeting, a meeting of a political organisation?
MR MASETLA: It was a meeting of the community.
MS VILAKAZI: Did you attend that meeting?
MR MASETLA: I went to that meeting.
MS VILAKAZI: Was the death of Mr Mokoena discussed in that particular meeting?
MR MASETLA: Yes, it was discussed, they wanted to know who killed Mokoena, and that matter was left there, saying that they would go to a sangoma to find out. That was the only time we heard of that issue.
MS VILAKAZI: Okay, it has already been testified that information was given in the meeting of the 15th, that the sangoma pointed out the deceased as the one who was responsible for Mr Makena's death. Did you attend that meeting of the 15th?
MR MASETLA: I know nothing about what you have just mentioned. I don't want to come here and tell lies. I was not present in that meeting, I do not know anything. Even the organisers of the meeting, I do not know who they are, they know.
MS VILAKAZI: But do you know if there was such a meeting?
MR MASETLA: I don't know. I have never seen that at the kraal. Maybe I was not present.
MS VILAKAZI: How did the deceased earn his living?
MR MASETLA: The deceased came home after retirement.
CHAIRPERSON: Just repeat that, I didn't hear you properly, Mr Interpreter?
INTERPRETER: The deceased came home after retirement.
CHAIRPERSON: After retirement? Thank you. Ms Vilakazi?
MS VILAKAZI: Did he run any business, the deceased?
MR MASETLA: He was selling vegetables and then he was using, I didn't know as to whether he was using the van as a taxi or not, because I did not know that he was operating a taxi business. I knew him being a seller of vegetables.
MS VILAKAZI: Now, would you say that the business that he was running of selling vegetables, was thriving so much that he could buy that van?
MR MASETLA: He did not use the money from the vegetable business to buy the van, he used his retirement benefits to buy a van. He did not use the money from the vegetable business to buy the van, he bought that van after receiving his fringe benefits.
MS VILAKAZI: How many taxi's were there in Mooihoek?
MR MASETLA: I would not know how many there were, because Mokoena had a Peugeot and another car. He did not have a microbus or a kombi.
MS VILAKAZI: Besides those of Mokoena, were there other taxi's?
MR MASETLA: Those who were there, they were taking the Marble Hall route and even today they are still there. They were not many. They were using the Marble Hall route.
MS VILAKAZI: Did you use the taxi's to commute as well?
MR MASETLA: You mean going to Marble Hall or other places? I used to board taxi's when I go to Marble Hall and other places.
MS VILAKAZI: Did you have a car at that time, or any time before that?
MR MASETLA: Yes, I had a car then.
MS VILAKAZI: That will be all, thank you Mr Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VILAKAZI
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Richard, any questions?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD: Yes Chairperson, not many though. Sir, are you aware, sorry let me start at the beginning. Have you applied for amnesty for this incident? Yes or no? Have you applied for amnesty for your role in the death of the deceased?
MR MASETLA: Amnesty for what?
MR RICHARD: Amnesty for the death of the late Philemon Masetla?
MR MASETLA: I did not play a role in Philemon Masetla's death. I was woken up from home, that is my relative.
MR RICHARD: The question I asked, the question I asked was simply yes or no, I didn't ask for a long answer, because the proposition I put to you goes this way. If the version that the four people next to me give me, is correct, and if their version as to who else was at the meeting on the 15th is also correct, you were as much a role-player in the death of the deceased as anyone else? Are you aware of that?
MR MASETLA: If the law says that, I will accept that, but I did not go there to go and take part. Which means I was forced to take part.
MR RICHARD: Thank you, so your version is that you were forced to take part?
MR MASETLA: Correct Chairperson, I was forced. It is clear that I was forced.
MR RICHARD: But nonetheless, forced you might be, was it true that under the pressure of the moment, as the applicants say, you did speak to the deceased?
MR MASETLA: You mean at the time when he was questioned?
MR RICHARD: Yes?
MR MASETLA: I did not say anything, I was silent all the time. I did not say anything to him, there is nothing I said to him. I was surprised and I did not say anything.
MR RICHARD: Now, in what way were you forced?
MR MASETLA: I was forced by those who were making me too march, they were pushing us.
MR RICHARD: What would have happened to you if you had said "no, I don't want to come along"?
MR MASETLA: I was scared that they would burn me or so. I knew that they were burning people.
MR RICHARD: How many other people were burnt?
MR MASETLA: You mean in our area?
MR RICHARD: Yes?
MR MASETLA: Three other people whom I heard of, were burnt, that includes my brother.
MR RICHARD: So you were scared of the crowd?
MR MASETLA: Yes. I thought they were going to burn me also. Why did they wake me up early in the morning, they were supposed to come during the day.
MR RICHARD: Now, did you know the death of the late Mr Mokoena, that is the ANC taxi driver?
MR MASETLA: I knew nothing about his death, I only learnt that he was killed on his way from Tafelkop. I only heard that he was killed on his way from Tafelkop, but I know nothing about how and I have nothing to testify about that.
MR RICHARD: Did you go to the meeting on the 12th of August 1990?
MR MASETLA: Yes, I was present in that meeting. But I did not know the intention of that meeting, I only responded to the bell.
MR RICHARD: Did you go to the meeting on the 15th?
MR MASETLA: I did not know about that.
MR RICHARD: You were woken up and taken there, did you go there, yes or no did not go to the meeting of the 15th, because I did not know about that one.
MR RICHARD: I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RICHARD
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Richard. Mr Masetla, was the deceased involved in selling liquor?
MR MASETLA: I would not know because he was drinking alcohol, but I did not know as to whether he was selling alcohol because I did not observe that. He liked the association of his friends there, therefore, every time when I visited him, I saw him drinking, but I did not know that he was selling.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you know the applicants, the four applicants for amnesty?
MR MASETLA: I know them all.
CHAIRPERSON: Have you ever had any problems with them at about the time when this incident took place?
MR MASETLA: I did not experience any personal problems with any of them. Particularly Mr Manasoe, I know him as a kind person, I was surprised to see that he was involved in that. He is very quiet. I was surprised by what he did.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Thank you. Does the panel have other questions?
ADV BOSMAN: No questions, thank you.
ADV SANDI: Yes, I do have. Mr Masetla, did you ever see Mr Matlala at any meeting which discussed the death of Mokoena?
MR MASETLA: It seems he was present at the meeting of the 12th.
ADV SANDI: What was his role there if he had any?
MR MASETLA: Usually when we were at the Chief's kraal, he would not say anything, he would just sit there and listen to what people were asking. We were discussing the death of this person, and thereafter they went out to go and find out as to who was responsible for the death of that person.
ADV SANDI: At that meeting, did Matlala convey anything from the Chief? Did he say the Chief had anything to say about the death of Mokoena?
MR MASETLA: No, he did not say anything.
ADV SANDI: Do you know of any taxi violence in the neighbouring residential areas of Mooihoek, the place where this incident happened?
MR MASETLA: I only know about one incident of taxi violence, which is further down from where the Chief was staying, within our Chief's district. I observed that because they killed one person from Tsimanyane who was a taxi driver. That is the only incident which I can relate to a taxi violence.
ADV SANDI: Do you know if there were any rumours or suspicions that were going around about the death of Mokoena?
MR MASETLA: There could have been there, I would not dispute that fact. That is why I said on the 12th they wanted to find out who was responsible for the death of Mr Mokoena, but I did not get an explanation as to who was responsible. I only know now that Mr Masetla was responsible for his death, after he had been killed.
And then for the fact that they consulted the sangoma, I did not know about that one.
ADV SANDI: Did you know what the relationship was like between Mr Mokoena and Mr Masetla, the late?
MR MASETLA: I would not know for sure, but I believed they did not have a dispute because Mr Mokoena was not far from my area, then I did not observe any dispute between them. I would not know, I would not know but I only saw that Mr Mokoena had his own car and Mr Masetla had his own car. I did not know whether there was a problem between them.
ADV SANDI: Did you know if Mr Mokoena was a supporter or member of the ANC?
MR MASETLA: I know nothing about that.
ADV SANDI: Do you know who was friends with him, people who were close to him in the area?
MR MASETLA: I don't know his friends, or associates, I only know him as my neighbour. He was not troublesome.
ADV SANDI: Do you know of any people who were close to Mr Masetla, the late, who were friends with him, your brother's son?
MR MASETLA: I would not know them all, I know his neighbour, that is the one I saw them visiting each other. I think they were of equal age, but I did not know of any other.
ADV SANDI: How would you describe the relationship between yourself, how intimate were you to the late Mr Masetla? Were you very close to him as a relative?
MR MASETLA: He is my brother's son, then if there is anything the issue, I would tell him and if he knows of any family issue, he would come and tell me. He is my brother's son, I don't know how to explain it.
ADV SANDI: Yes, were you so close to him that if there were people who were after his blood, people who wanted to attack him, he would have told you about that? Is that the position?
MR MASETLA: Yes, he could have told me. He would not keep quiet, he would tell me if there are people who were after his blood.
ADV SANDI: What do you think would have been the reason for these young men to take you to this gathering, because at the end of the day you had no role to play, you had nothing to do there, you were just there? Why do you think they took you there, forcing you to come along with them?
MR MASETLA: I did not know because they woke me up at night, whilst I was asleep. I did not know who had the intention to wake me up. I was woken up in the middle of the night. I did not think of anything, I was surprised when I was woken up.
ADV SANDI: That nephew you say, came to tell you that "they have killed my uncle", where was he coming from? Was he one of the people who were at the meeting where the deceased was being questioned?
MR MASETLA: They brought all Youth within the community. Even though others did not attend the meetings, but they were forced to come and attend the meeting.
ADV SANDI: Are you saying that your nephew was one of the people who had been forced to come to the meeting where the deceased was being questioned?
MR MASETLA: On that particular day, he was present in the classroom, together with others.
ADV SANDI: You say you attended the meeting of the 12th, because you were attending to a bell. Who was ringing, whose bell was this, who was ringing this bell?
MR MASETLA: The meeting of the 12 was attended at the Headman's kraal. If there is anything which is not familiar, happening within the community, then there would be a bell rung at the Chief's kraal so that everybody would respond do that and come and attend the meeting, to find out what is happening. Other meetings which were not called by the Chief or the Headman, I would not know about those, and I did not attend those meetings.
ADV SANDI: Finally, at this meeting of the 12th of August 1990, the question of the death of Mr Mokoena, was it the only issue that was discussed there, or was it one of the issues that came up for discussion?
MR MASETLA: They were surprised by the death of Mr Mokoena, so I did not hear about any other item on the agenda. They only discussed about the death of Mr Mokoena, and thereafter they decided they would go and find out who was responsible.
ADV SANDI: One last, last question. Do you know if the Chief, Chief Matlala was a member of the ANC at that time?
MR MASETLA: Do you mean M.M. Matlala?
ADV SANDI: M.M. Matlala, yes.
MR MASETLA: I would not be able to verify as to whether he was a member of the ANC, I only know him as the Chief. I would be lying if I knew his political affiliation.
ADV SANDI: And Mr Mokoena, do you know if he was a member of the ANC?
MR MASETLA: I did not know as to whether he was affiliated to the ANC. He would be the one who would respond to the question as to whether he was a card-carrying member or not, but I did not know.
ADV SANDI: Thank you sir. Thank you Mr Chairman.
ADV BOSMAN: Mr Masetla, was the issue of political affiliation of anybody discussed at the meeting of the 12th?
MR MASETLA: The only one I saw there was Mr Magadi and it has been said here that he was a member of the ANC. That is the only one that I saw there, and I did not see Mr Malopani because there were many people, maybe I am not able to recollect as to whether I saw him or not, but I saw Mr Magadi there.
ADV BOSMAN: But what I really want to know is was there any suggestion that Mr Mokoena was killed for political reasons, at this meeting?
MR MASETLA: I do not know. I would not testify to that, because I do not know.
ADV BOSMAN: And just one matter that I would like you to clarify for me. Was Mr Masetla an old man or was he a young man, because you said he was your brother's son and you said he had retired, so I am confused.
MR MASETLA: Mr Masetla is the first born of my elder brother, he was a little bit old.
ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.
MR MASETLA: He had a wife and he was married.
ADV SANDI: Thank you Chair, just one question. Do you know if Mbokoto had any profile in that area?
MR MASETLA: I know nothing about Mbokoto, I only heard about it, I don't know anything about Mbokoto, because I was not a taxi owner.
ADV SANDI: You mean you heard for the first time about Mbokoto today?
MR MASETLA: I only heard people talking about Mbokoto, I only know Mbokoto in the Ndebele area, in the Groblersdal area.
ADV SANDI: Thank you Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: I didn't ask you if you had any questions, I do it now.
MS MTANGA: I have no questions, Mr Chair.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MTANGA
CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MS VILAKAZI: Mr Masetla, I just want you to clarify a few things. When the legal representative of the applicants said that you took part and you said you were forced, I want you to clarify this. Did you take part in the killing of Mr Masetla, the deceased?
MR MASETLA: They forced me to go to the school, I did not take part. I did not utter a word, they took me from home, they pushed me to their meeting and I said nothing. There is no part at all that I took. I want to reiterate that I did not utter a word, they never heard my voice. It is a surprise really to claim that they asked me a question. I was quiet of surprise. I never said anything.
MS VILAKAZI: So the part that you say you were forced to take, you only mean about your presence at that place?
MR MASETLA: That is correct, and to go to the deceased's place to fetch him from his home. When they woke him up, I was just standing there, looking with surprise. It was at night, I don't know who knocked at the door.
MS VILAKAZI: Now, the gathering that took place at the school on the night on which the deceased was killed, do you consider that to be a meeting?
MR MASETLA: They were asking him questions as he was standing, it was not a meeting really, it was just a quick, quick thing. There were no long talks, nobody was afforded an opportunity to say anything. He was taken from the house and he was not asked anything. They just proceeded to the school.
MS VILAKAZI: No further questions, thank you Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VILAKAZI
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Masetla, you are excused, thank you.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: Have you got other evidence that you are tendering, Ms Vilakazi?
MS VILAKAZI: Chairperson, I have a submission of the ...
CHAIRPERSON: An affidavit from Mrs Helen Masetla. We've got that before us.
MS VILAKAZI: May I read it into the record to form part of the ...
CHAIRPERSON: It is not necessary, Ms Vilakazi.
MS VILAKAZI: In that event, that would close the case for the victims.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We receive the affidavit of Mrs Helen Manapo Masetla, dated the 3rd of October 2000, as Exhibit A. Ms Mtanga, are you tendering any evidence?
MS MTANGA: No Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Richard, have you got submissions on the merits of your client's application?
MR RICHARD IN ARGUMENT: I have submissions, thank you Chairperson. The first issue that I will address is the value of the last witness' evidence. My submission is that it is patently of very little value and not believable. The man is an implicated person, not a victim. There is cogent, credible evidence about his participation in a necklacing, for which he has not applied for amnesty.
If there is a motive for him to lie and not to make a full disclosure, that is it. We need speculate no further. As a witness he was obviously entirely unsatisfactory, he was contradictory, vague and in fact by the end of listening to him, one hardly knew which meetings he had attended or not.
In the circumstances I say the only thing to do with his evidence is to disregard it in its totality. The evidence, evidential value of the affidavit handed in, is also of no other relevance, other than it qualifies the maker of the affidavit to be classified as a victim.
That means what we have to consider is the bundle and the evidence of the four applicants. Section 20 of the Act as application, there is no dispute about whether the application complies with the requirements of the Act, and the next issue is whether there has been full disclosure of all relevant facts.
It is my submission that the four applicants candidly and openly revealed and gave particular detail of all relevant factors of their participation in what was a dreadful transaction, and they certainly cannot be faulted for either giving dishonest evidence or failing to disclosure material and relevant facts.
The next is the substance of the ac, the murder which constitutes a crime. The facts are straightforward. We start with the first death and that is of Mokoena on the 10th of August. It is unchallenged that he was a member of the ANC and a taxi driver. He was killed while operating his taxi. The inevitable began, the question, are taxi killings political acts?
In this regard I need only refer the Committee to the test which while being critical, is subjective. What did the applicants perceive. They perceived the killing of one of their comrades as a political deed. They had their reasons which were cogent and coherent as to why they saw taxi violence as political and when a competitor killed their comrade, I don't believe it can be argued that their belief that the killing is political, is unreasonable or incoherent or not a belief that could be held after critical self-evaluation.
Then, the next thing. The identification of who killed their comrade. The evidence of all four applicants is that the deceased who they killed, confessed. I don't believe that the evidence of the last witness, that of the implicated person, is of any merit. It does not go anywhere to establishing that the four applicants were dishonest or lied. Their evidence is that their victim killed their comrade. We now have a double relationship going on. First of all the killing of their comrade is seen as political and secondly, they have the confession of their victim. In the circumstances, it is quite plain that the person that they proceeded to kill, was perceived on an honest and bona fide basis to be a political opponent.
It is common cause that at the time, taxi violence was perceived to be of a political nature and be a product of the meddling of the then regime, that various parties were manipulating the situation. Those factors come from other hearings.
Then, as to what the particular applicants did and the test of proportionality, on their evidence, and there is no reason to doubt it, they were not the principal perpetrators. In fact, they were all minors, under the age of 21 who did nothing more than associate themselves with the murderous crowd and therefore in accordance with the law of the time, join in common purpose and therefore were guilty of the murder.
Certainly, the sentences that they received were heavy, 12 and 15 years, but in relation for sentences for common purpose, I need only remind the Committee that not that long ago death sentences were the norm for common purpose, so that sentences in no way impact on the real participation of the applicants in the crime.
To say that their participation was disproportionate, would be incorrect in this situation. In fact, as I have already submitted, they did nothing besides join the crowd. That the killing would be seen as an act which would further the interests of the ANC is also apparent. Persons who killed ANC supporters, were opponents of the ANC and it doesn't take a profound intellect to take it to the next step, and therefore they should be eliminated.
In the circumstances to sum up, my argument is that the applicants have complied with the Act, their act was patently political and in the furtherance of the objects of the ANC which was then a recognised political party at the time, and not disproportionate. They have therefore satisfied the requirements of the Act and are entitled to amnesty. As the Committee pleases.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Vilakazi, submissions?
MS VILAKAZI IN ARGUMENT: ; Thank you honourable Chairperson. I would just address two issues that were raised by my learned colleague, Mr Richard. Firstly that the witness, Mr Moses Masetla, is an implicated person. Supposing that the version of the applicants is to be accepted, there is nothing in their version to suggest in the least that Mr Masetla was a co-perpetrator because from their version and from the version of three of the applicants, the only thing that was mentioned in relation to Mr Masetla was that he asked the deceased if he killed Mr Mokoena.
The same version also indicates that he was asking that question out of a surprise, after the deceased made that particular confession. Now, I submit that there is nothing in the circumstances that would make Mr Masetla to be an implicated person in this particular matter because asking a simple question, under the circumstances that were outlined by the applicants from their version, does not tie the witness to the actions of the group. There is no indication of any common purpose for that matter, between himself and the rest of the group.
It has also been suggested that Mr Masetla was contradicting himself and he was vague. To the contrary I would submit that the evidence of Mr Masetla can be relied upon. Mr Masetla proved to be a very credible witness. In any instance where he was, he did not know of anything, he would readily concede to that.
If he was not sure of anything, he would say that he was not sure. He did not go all out of his way to implicate the applicants and to try and make himself, to convince the panel to agree, to accept his evidence. Where he was not sure, he would say that he was not sure. That is not an action, I submit, of a person who would lie.
There is, having said that, there is no basis on which Mr Masetla would lie. He does not have grounds to lie. He only told what he knew. What he did not know, he did not tell to the Committee, so it is really unfair to label him as a person who lied.
The reference to the aspect of meetings, my learned colleague said that Mr Masetla contradicted himself, he said he attended the meeting of the 15th, then he did not attend. I think in the re-examination it was made very clear. Mr Masetla did not consider that gathering of the 15th as a meeting. Under those circumstances you cannot say that he contradicted himself.
I submit that he is a credible witness and his testimony should be accepted for what it purports to be. If there is any reason for anyone in these proceedings to tell a lie, the question is who stands to benefit from telling lies? Mr Masetla will not benefit anything. The applicants are faced, they are in custody, they have criminal records against their names, even after serving their sentences, they would remain with those records.
So if there is any person who stands to benefit from lies, it would be the applicants and not Mr Masetla. Now, the version that was given by the applicants, considering that there are four applicants who are applying for amnesty for the same incident, it is not inconceivable that they may have discussed the version and went over the version to make sure that it correlates. Even if one looks at the manner in which the questions were asked in the forms, to a very large extent, the same types of answers were given.
The fact that, the possibility that the applicants discussed the matter and decided on a version that they were to give, cannot be excluded. Apart from the version of the applicants, there is no other version which has been put before the Court, or evidence which has been put before the Court to support the claim of the applicants.
The applicants say that they acted under the instructions and they want the Committee to believe that the instructions came from people who were in the leadership of the ANC. But then, no support of their application is included in the bundle. None of the leaders were called in to support the claim of the applicants. The Committee only has to rely on the word of the applicants that they were given instructions by the leaders in the ANC.
With regard to whether or not there was a political objective, my submission is that if the subjective test is to be applied to determine whether a political objective existed or not, then that would create problems that anyone who believed, even if there was no reason to believe that there was a political objective, would then have to be considered to have acted with a political objective.
I think the belief that there was or there was no political objective, should be a reasonable one. I disagree with my learned colleague that what the applicants perceived, should be regarded as proof that there was a political, should be accepted as an indication of a political objective.
Apart from that, I would leave it to the Committee to make a proper finding. I would just add that the family of the deceased, Mr Masetla, should be declared victims in terms of Section 20(2) of the Act.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Vilakazi. Ms Mtanga, have you got any submissions?
MS MTANGA: I have no submissions, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Do you want to add anything further, Mr Richard? Thank you very much. That concludes the hearing part of this matter, which has been quite an extensive one. By the nature of things, the panel would need some time to prepare a decision in the matter. It is not possible to decide the matter immediately. We will therefore reserve the decision in the matter, and we will let you know as soon as the decision has been made.
We always endeavour to do that as soon as the circumstances permit us to do so. This will be no exception. We had a long session, I want to thank the legal representatives for their assistance in this matter and for their preparedness to assist us in disposing of the matter. We have sat long beyond traditional sitting hours, I must hasten to add that that is nothing new in this process unfortunately.
It is not, in that regard it is not akin to what normally happens in our courts. We are often called upon at some expense, personal and otherwise, to endeavour to meet the needs of the process and the needs of everybody else, although these are things that are very easily overlooked when people comment on this process, but we are also getting used to that.
We thank you for your assistance, we thank you for your patience, also for the interested people, the members of the public, families, those other people with an interest in this matter, we thank you for having come and having attended and having sat through a very, very long session.
We have noted that. We will under those circumstances adjourn the proceedings and we will reconvene tomorrow morning at half past nine in this venue. We are adjourned. Yes, I am just reminded to also thank the members of the Correctional Services for your assistance and your ability to at least make yourselves available. Thank you very much, it is appreciated. We are adjourned.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
