CHAIRPERSON: For the record it's Friday 12 May 2000. We are continuing with the sitting at Middelburg, the amnesty applications, and we have on the roll this morning the application of Golden Holiday Sekgobela, amnesty reference AM 1026/96. The Panel presiding are constituted as been indicated on the record. The appearances are the same, Mr Richard for the applicant and Ms Mtanga the Leader of Evidence. There is no appearance on behalf of any interested parties in this matter. Yes Mr Richard?
MR RICHARD: Thank you Chairperson. I call Mr Sekgobela who is prepared to take the oath.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Richard.
GOLDEN HOLIDAY SEKGOBELA: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Sekgobela, in and during December 1990 were you affiliated to a member of, a supporter of any political party?
MR SEKGOBELA: Yes that is correct.
MR RICHARD: Which party?
MR SEKGOBELA: The ANC.
MR RICHARD: And how did you demonstrate your support for that organisation?
MR SEKGOBELA: I was attending all the youth meetings in the village.
MR RICHARD: Now what happened at those youth meetings?
MR SEKGOBELA: The youths had a suspicion as a result of the deaths that were occurring in the village.
MR RICHARD: Okay, before we go there Mr Sekgobela, you say that you attended ANC youth meetings. What was discussed besides suspicions? Did you discuss political affairs, did you discuss community affairs?
MR SEKGOBELA: Yes that is correct.
MR RICHARD: Now you come from a town called Kaboyong. Where is that village? In what area?
MR SEKGOBELA: May you please repeat the name of that town?
MR RICHARD: Which town did you live at as at December 1990?
MR SEKGOBELA: I was staying at Lebohang.
MR RICHARD: Thank you. Now what is the nearest bigger town to Lebohang?
MR SEKGOBELA: The nearest town to Lebohang is Orriestad and other towns are Leydenberg and Berresford.
MR RICHARD: Thank you. Now that area, is it an area where people still adhere to traditional practices and customary law?
MR SEKGOBELA: That is correct.
MR RICHARD: Now who was the chief of the area?
MR SEKGOBELA: It was Chief Dimgwanyani and the other one under him was Chief Moshlala.
MR RICHARD: And where did Chief Moshlala live?
MR SEKGOBELA: He lived in my village, he was my chief.
MR RICHARD: Now tell me, as at December 1990, had the ANC yet established any local organisations or structures?
MR SEKGOBELA: That is correct.
MR RICHARD: And what structures had been established?
MR SEKGOBELA: It was ANC Youth League.
MR RICHARD: Now who was the chairperson or office bearer in your village?
MR SEKGOBELA: It was Thomas Sishlangu.
MR RICHARD: Now tell me, did you know the deceased Poppy Serani?
MR SEKGOBELA: That is correct, I knew her.
MR RICHARD: How long did you know her?
MR SEKGOBELA: For a long time.
MR RICHARD: Thank you. Now was Poppy married and if so, to whom was she married?
MR SEKGOBELA: She had a husband but her husband died.
MR RICHARD: When did her husband die?
MR SEKGOBELA: In 1989.
MR RICHARD: Now her husband, did he have any brothers or sisters?
MR SEKGOBELA: Yes that is correct, he had brothers and sisters.
MR RICHARD: Now did any of his brothers or sisters die?
MR SEKGOBELA: Yes that is correct, there is one who died.
MR RICHARD: Was it a brother or sister?
MR SEKGOBELA: It was her brother, her elder brother.
MR RICHARD: When did her elder brother die?
MR SEKGOBELA: He died in 1990.
MR RICHARD: Now Poppy's husband, from what did he die?
MR SEKGOBELA: He died after a short illness.
MR RICHARD: And his elder brother, from what did he die?
MR SEKGOBELA: He was struck by lightening.
MR RICHARD: Now before the end of 1990, were there any other deaths in the village or near the village?
MR SEKGOBELA: That is correct.
MR RICHARD: Well how many other people died and how did they die?
MR SEKGOBELA: There was a bus accident in the village and about 15 youths died.
MR RICHARD: Did you know any of the youths who died in the bus accident?
MR SEKGOBELA: I knew all the youths who died there but I've forgotten their names.
MR RICHARD: Now do you know whether Poppy's husband and Poppy's husband's brother had any political affiliations?
MR SEKGOBELA: I would not say with certainty but I think he was supporting the same organisation that I supported.
MR RICHARD: And when you say him, do you mean both of them or just the husband or the husband's brother?
MR SEKGOBELA: Both of them.
MR RICHARD: Now the people who died in the bus accident, did they associate themselves with the ANC Youth League?
MR SEKGOBELA: That is correct.
MR RICHARD: Why do you say that?
MR SEKGOBELA: I used to meet them in the meetings.
MR RICHARD: How many meetings did you go to?
MR SEKGOBELA: There I would not say the number of meetings that I attended, but I attended every meeting that took place in the village.
MR RICHARD: Now did you see people from the bus accident at those meetings?
MR SEKGOBELA: No.
MR RICHARD: Thank you. Now what did you as the youth of that village think about the deaths?
MR SEKGOBELA: The youths in the village had a suspicion about those deaths. We were asking ourselves what could have been the cause.
MR RICHARD: And what did you do about your suspicions?
MR SEKGOBELA: We held a meeting and we decided that we will go and tell the chief about our suspicion.
MR RICHARD: What did you tell the chief?
MR SEKGOBELA: We told him that we as the youths in the village have a suspicion about the deaths that were taking place in the village and we were asking him, as the chief, to call the meeting of all the people in the village so that together we discuss this issue so as to get what could be the cause of these deaths.
MR RICHARD: What were the suspicions that you communicated to the chief?
MR SEKGOBELA: We told the chief that we suspected witchcraft.
MR RICHARD: Now do you know whether the chief had any political affiliation or supported a party?
MR SEKGOBELA: No I do not know.
MR RICHARD: Now did the community meet?
MR SEKGOBELA: That is correct.
MR RICHARD: Now who was at the meeting, do you remember?
MR SEKGOBELA: The youths and the parents attended the meeting.
MR RICHARD: Now who spoke on behalf of the youths?
MR SEKGOBELA: It was Thomas Shishlangu.
MR RICHARD: And what did he suggest happen?
MR SEKGOBELA: May you please repeat the question?
MR RICHARD: What did Thomas Shishlangu suggest and say to the meeting should happen?
MR SEKGOBELA: He told the parents that we as the youth have asked the chief to call them to the meeting and he asked them to donate some money so that we could go and see a sangoma.
MR RICHARD: Now did he say which sangoma he wanted to go and see?
MR SEKGOBELA: No he did not tell us the name of the sangoma.
MR RICHARD: Was the identity of the sangoma you were going to go and see discussed?
MR SEKGOBELA: For we decided that we will go to other places where the people do not know because we did not want to consult the local sangomas.
MR RICHARD: Why didn't you trust or want to go to the local sangomas?
MR SEKGOBELA: We thought that because we lived with them in the village it can happen that they point at somebody whom they do not like.
MR RICHARD: Thank you. Now who was chosen to go to the sangoma?
MR SEKGOBELA: People who were chosen to represent the youths and the chief also chose people who will represent him.
MR RICHARD: Were you one of the people chosen?
MR SEKGOBELA: That is correct.
MR RICHARD: Who chose you, the chief or the youth?
MR SEKGOBELA: The youths.
MR RICHARD: Now where was the sangoma living that you were planning to go and see?
MR SEKGOBELA: He lived at Komatipoort.
MR RICHARD: And what was his name?
MR SEKGOBELA: His name was Sicoto Sinyama.
MR RICHARD: Thank you. Now from your statement at page 14, I understand that you and other representatives of the youth and representatives of the parents chosen by the chief went to Komatipoort. Did you take anybody else with you?
MR SEKGOBELA: Can you please repeat?
MR RICHARD: When you went down to Komatipoort together with your colleagues from the youth and the people chosen by the chief did you take anyone else with you?
MR SEKGOBELA: No.
MR RICHARD: Now what did the man in Komatipoort say?
MR SEKGOBELA: When we arrived there he threw his bones and he told us - he asked us what our complaints were and he wanted to know from us what is it that we suspected. He told us that he could see that there is something that we suspect and he confirmed our suspicion.
MR RICHARD: Did he point to anyone?
CHAIRPERSON: Just hold on.
MR RICHARD: Thank you Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Just a minute. What do you mean if you say he confirmed your suspicion?
MR SEKGOBELA: Because he had already thrown his bones.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes? What do you mean he confirmed your suspicions?
MR SEKGOBELA: When I say that I mean because when we arrived there he threw down his bones and he told us what our suspicions were.
CHAIRPERSON: What did he tell you?
MR SEKGOBELA: He told us about us about the deaths and who caused those deaths.
CHAIRPERSON: Without you telling him anything?
MR SEKGOBELA: We did not tell you anything.
CHAIRPERSON: He just threw his bones and then he told you exactly what happened in your village?
MR SEKGOBELA: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And he also told you who caused this?
MR SEKGOBELA: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: What did he tell you who caused this?
MR SEKGOBELA: He told us about a certain man called Skwakalala Msoma.
CHAIRPERSON: Now who is that?
MR SEKGOBELA: Yes, he was living with us.
CHAIRPERSON: So he told you about this man. What did he tell you about this man?
MR SEKGOBELA: He told us this man was the chief of the witches in our village.
CHAIRPERSON: Now what did you mean when you said that he asked you when you got there, he asked you what your complaint was? Is that what he asked you when you got there, what is your complaint?
MR SEKGOBELA: Yes he did ask us about our complaint.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you tell him what your complaint was?
MR SEKGOBELA: He actually told us about our complaints.
CHAIRPERSON: Now what did you mean when you said he threw his bones and he asked "what our complaint was"? Or are you saying you didn't say that?
MR SEKGOBELA: After throwing his bones he told us that his aware what our complaints are before we could tell him what our complaints were.
CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying that he never asked you what your complaint was, he told you?
MR SEKGOBELA: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And he just knew everything?
MR SEKGOBELA: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Richard?
MR RICHARD: Thank you Chairperson.
Now did you or any of the people with you ever tell the sangoma about people dying in your village?
MR SEKGOBELA: No, no one told him about the deaths in our village.
MR RICHARD: Now did you ever tell him that your village might have a problem with witchcraft?
MR SEKGOBELA: We did not tell him that we have a problem in our village about witchcraft because our purpose of going there, we wanted him to tell us about our problem.
MR RICHARD: How often did he throw his bones?
MR SEKGOBELA: We spent the whole night there.
MR RICHARD: And during that time did he throw his bones once, twice or more than twice, lots of times?
MR SEKGOBELA: As we arrived there he started throwing his bones until we left.
MR RICHARD: Now did you, during the course of that night, mention either to each other in his presence or directly to him the names of any people in the village, in your village?
MR SEKGOBELA: No, we did not mention any name to him.
MR RICHARD: Now after this process of bone throwing and listening to him, was anyone or any people, more than one people identified as anything at all?
MR SEKGOBELA: Yes that is correct.
MR RICHARD: What is correct, was one person identified as something or more than one person?
MR SEKGOBELA: He mentioned four people and he said those are the people who caused those deaths in our village.
ADV SIBANYONI: Let me try to ...(indistinct).
Did he mention the people by name or by description?
MR SEKGOBELA: No he was just describing them.
ADV SIBANYONI: Thank you.
MR RICHARD: Now from his description, how did you work out who these people were?
MR SEKGOBELA: When the sangoma described a person he will in his description include his household and describe his house, everything in the yard including the trees and in that way we were able to know who that person might be.
MR RICHARD: Now you've said both now and in your statement in support of your application that four witches were identified.
CHAIRPERSON: Does he say that in his statement?
MR RICHARD: Sorry, he doesn't say four in his statement, I was reading my notes, sorry.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh.
MR RICHARD: You say now that four people were identified. In your statement you say
"All witches taken by the community to the traditional doctor."
That's at paragraph 4. What do you mean by that? Does that mean that you took the witches to him?
MR SEKGOBELA: May you please repeat?
MR RICHARD: At paragraph 4 of your statement there's a sentence which begins and I read
"All witches taken by the community to the traditional doctor, sangoma, next to Komatipoort."
My question then is were any people taken to the traditional doctor on that or any later occasion?
MR SEKGOBELA: The way you put this question, I do not understand the question.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sekgobela, the witch-doctor gave you descriptions, you spend the whole night there, right?
MR SEKGOBELA: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: What did you then do?
MR SEKGOBELA: We went back home.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes and what did you do there?
MR SEKGOBELA: When we arrived at home we went to the chief and informed the community what we were told by the witch-doctor and we went to fetch those people.
CHAIRPERSON: You went to fetch the witches?
MR SEKGOBELA: Yes we did.
CHAIRPERSON: How may witches did you fetch?
MR SEKGOBELA: Four of them. Those who were described by the doctor.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes and what did you do with them?
MR SEKGOBELA: We talked to them, we told them what the doctor said about them.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes?
MR SEKGOBELA: Some of them agreed, they said yes it's true.
CHAIRPERSON: How many agreed?
MR SEKGOBELA: Three of them.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes and then?
MR SEKGOBELA: One of them refused.
CHAIRPERSON: Is that the deceased?
MR SEKGOBELA: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Then what did you do?
MR SEKGOBELA: Those who agreed we told them that they should leave the village and they agreed.
CHAIRPERSON: They left?
MR SEKGOBELA: Yes they did.
CHAIRPERSON: And the deceased refused to leave?
MR SEKGOBELA: Yes, she refused because she said she is not a witch.
CHAIRPERSON: Now did you take any one of these four people to that witch-doctor in Komatipoort?
MR SEKGOBELA: We took this one alone and there were also people who represented the community and another group of people who presented the youths.
CHAIRPERSON: So you took the deceased alone to that witch-doctor?
MR SEKGOBELA: Yes that is correct, we took her to the witch-doctor so that she could hear for herself.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you. Alright Mr Richard, we've got that.
MR RICHARD: I believe it's a badly taken statement.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR RICHARD: And right, now when you took the deceased back to the sangoma in Komatipoort, what did the sangoma say?
MR SEKGOBELA: When we arrived there the traditional doctor confirmed that this is the person he had referred to. He told us that she was the person who was responsible for the death of her husband and her husband's brother.
MR RICHARD: And what did the traditional healer, sangoma, say should happen next?
MR SEKGOBELA: The traditional doctor did not tell us what to do so we asked the deceased whether she still refused or still disagree with us and the witch-doctor that she's a witch.
MR RICHARD: And what did she say?
MR SEKGOBELA: She said yes, that is true.
MR RICHARD: Did she agree that she was a witch or disagree that she was a witch?
MR SEKGOBELA: She agreed that she's a witch.
MR RICHARD: What did you say she should do next?
MR SEKGOBELA: We told her that when we arrive at the village she must leave the village.
MR RICHARD: And what was her reaction to this piece of information?
MR SEKGOBELA: She agreed whilst we were still at the traditional doctor's place but when we arrived at the village she refused to leave.
MR RICHARD: Then what did you group of people do, did you discuss it with anyone, report back to anyone?
MR SEKGOBELA: We told the people that she had agreed initially that she would leave but now she refused.
MR RICHARD: And what was the reaction to your report?
MR SEKGOBELA: The community decided that if she agrees that she is a witch she should leave but if she refused to leave the village then she should be killed.
MR RICHARD: Was this information conveyed to the deceased?
MR SEKGOBELA: She was not present at that meeting.
MR RICHARD: After the meeting did somebody go and say to her "Poppy, you've got a choice, either leave the village or get killed."?
MR SEKGOBELA: No one was sent to her.
MR RICHARD: So what else did the meeting decide?
MR SEKGOBELA: The community was angry because she walked out of the meeting, she didn't want to listen what the decision of the community would be.
MR RICHARD: And then what happened?
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, what meeting is that?
MR SEKGOBELA: That is the second one after we returned from the sangoma to give the report.
CHAIRPERSON: At which meeting wasn't she present?
MR SEKGOBELA: That is the last meeting when we returned with her from the witch-doctor.
CHAIRPERSON: Unfortunately I'm not following you properly. There's a meeting you walked out of, do I understand you correctly?
MR SEKGOBELA: Yes, that is the same meeting when we returned from the traditional doctor.
CHAIRPERSON: Is that the same meeting where you say that she wasn't present?
MR SEKGOBELA: I am not saying she wasn't at the meeting but she walked out of the meeting.
CHAIRPERSON: But she was present until she walked out?
MR SEKGOBELA: Yes that's what I mean.
CHAIRPERSON: Alright. Mr Richard?
MR RICHARD: Thank you. When she was present, what was said to the meeting when you came back with her from Komatipoort. When she was still in the room, what was said in her presence?
MR SEKGOBELA: She was told that if she agrees that she is a witch like others she should leave the village.
MR RICHARD: And was she told what would happen to her if she didn't leave?
MR SEKGOBELA: Yes, that is what made her to walk out of the meeting.
MR RICHARD: And before leaving the meeting did she say anything to the meeting, did she say what her plans were?
MR SEKGOBELA: She told us that she would not leave the village.
MR RICHARD: Did she tell you why she would not leave the village?
MR SEKGOBELA: That is correct.
MR RICHARD: What did she say to you why she did not want to leave the village?
MR SEKGOBELA: She told us that she does not agree with what the witch-doctor has told us.
MR RICHARD: After she left the meeting what did the meeting decide?
MR SEKGOBELA: The members of the community and people were shouting for her death.
MR RICHARD: And what did they decide to do, who did they tell to do what?
MR SEKGOBELA: People were chosen who would be responsible for her killing.
MR RICHARD: Who chose those people to go and kill her?
MR SEKGOBELA: There's no specific person who chose people but people were randomly choosing others or pointing other people who would go and kill her and some of the people who were chosen were her friends.
MR RICHARD: Now can you give us the names ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, sorry. Are you saying that this meeting then broke into chaos, people were shouting, angry?
MR SEKGOBELA: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And they just started pointing out people, identifying people that must go and kill this lady?
MR SEKGOBELA: Yes, they said because I used to visit her at her house I should be one of them and they said I should be one of the people who were going to kill her.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes but now was there a discussion and the chairperson who was in control of the meeting and then a decision is taken that you would go and kill the deceased or were people just pointing out other people, the members of this meeting to go and kill the deceased?
MR SEKGOBELA: After that chaos the chairman continued.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes?
MR SEKGOBELA: And everybody listened and they started now choosing people.
CHAIRPERSON: So it was calm again when you were chosen to execute this plan?
MR SEKGOBELA: Yes that is correct but the chairman was using the - the words that were used by the people who were shouting when there was chaos.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes but now that is what I'm trying to understand. You were saying to us a moment ago that, what I followed from what you said, is that there was chaos, disorder and people were just pointing out other people including her friends to go and kill her. Now when did that happen or did I misunderstand you?
MR SEKGOBELA: Yes I said during that chaos people were just randomly choosing people.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Now when were you chosen?
MR SEKGOBELA: After the chaos they pointed me as one of the people who should go to kill her.
CHAIRPERSON: So did you have to go with the others that were pointed out during the chaos?
MR SEKGOBELA: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I think I understand now. Yes Mr Richard, sorry.
MR RICHARD: Now who was the chair of the meeting?
MR SEKGOBELA: It was Thomas Shishlangu.
MR RICHARD: Was the chief of the village there as well?
MR SEKGOBELA: Yes that is correct.
MR RICHARD: How many people were at the meeting?
MR SEKGOBELA: There were many people at that meeting.
MR RICHARD: Now during the meeting before it got chaotic did anyone say hold on, it's wrong to go and kill Poppy?
MR SEKGOBELA: There's no one who stood up and said that because all the people were aware that she walked out of the meeting.
MR RICHARD: Now after the chaos, did anyone try and bring calm to the situation and try and argue for Poppy?
MR SEKGOBELA: No.
MR RICHARD: Now do you know the names of the other people who were chosen to go with you and kill her?
MR SEKGOBELA: Yes I do know them.
MR RICHARD: What are their names?
MR SEKGOBELA: That's David Dingwane.
MR RICHARD: And who else?
MR SEKGOBELA: Mboya Skobela.
MR RICHARD: And who else?
MR SEKGOBELA: And Mampote Sogagela.
MR RICHARD: Now how many of these people were her friends besides you?
MR SEKGOBELA: No there was none.
MR RICHARD: Now you say in your application at page 2 paragraph 10(a) that the killing had a political objective. What do you believe was political in the killing of Poppy Serani?
MR SEKGOBELA: May you please repeat the question?
MR RICHARD: At paragraph 10(a) of your application for amnesty you state there was a political objective which you intended to achieve by killing Poppy and in the application form you answer by saying and I quote
"Since the death of this witch then there was a deterioration of witchcraft in the place and the people started to live a modern life that leads to democratic South Africa."
Did you understand that?
MR SEKGOBELA: Yes I do.
MR RICHARD: To put it slightly differently, how do you think the killing of Poppy Serani would achieve that purpose?
MR SEKGOBELA: Here I was trying to explain that the youths were complaining about the deaths that were taking place in the community. Most of them were panicking and after the death of Poppy they became free because they were aware that most of the people who died before were those who were supposed to be their leaders. After Poppy's death the youth became free because even those who were also intending to be witches refrained from witchcraft.
MR RICHARD: Now ...(intervention)
ADV SANDI: Sorry, just for clarity. You say even those who were intending to be witches refrained from witchcraft. Who are those people?
MR SEKGOBELA: You did not understand me. I am saying that even those were still going to do that, that is to kill the youths, refrained from that because the deaths in the community stopped.
MR RICHARD: Now let's put it this way. As the youth, why did you see witches as your enemy?
MR SEKGOBELA: They were disturbing us because there was no development amongst ourselves and we did not have leaders because if for example there was somebody who was intelligent even at school he would be the person who would be targeted.
MR RICHARD: How would somebody who was intelligent at school and a potential leader be targeted?
MR SEKGOBELA: May you please repeat?
MR RICHARD: You say that potential leaders at school, who were good, would be targeted. In what manner would the witches target them?
MR SEKGOBELA: The witches did not like anything that was done by the youths in the village.
MR RICHARD: Now to carry on, at paragraph 10(b) at page 2 of your application, you are asked
"What is your justification for regarding such acts i.e. the killing of Poppy Serani, as an act associated with a political objective?"
Your answer went:
"As we were the comrades of that time, we tried by all means to democratise our Black people who were still living in the 'barrack'" is the best way I can read it "people where Black people were freed from mental slavery."
And then you go on:
"The death of this woman taught us the real impossibility of witchcraft. People must never suffer for one who is killing the nation."
Did you understand the translation?
MR SEKGOBELA: I do understand some parts but may you please repeat again?
MR RICHARD: I'll start at the beginning
"As we were the comrades of that time, we tried by all means to democratise our Black people who were still living in the - Black people were freed from mental slavery. The death of this woman taught us the real impossibility of witchcraft. People must never suffer for one who is killing the nation."
MR SEKGOBELA: Yes I do understand.
MR RICHARD: Who do you think was killing the nation?
MR SEKGOBELA: I would explain it this way. We as the youth wanted to teach the community about democracy and amongst ourselves as youths, some of us were afraid that as we go around spreading the word of democracy those who would be viewed as intelligent would be killed because that was what was happening. So some of the youths who were chosen to do that job of spreading democracy in the community would die mysteriously. That is why we decided to tell the community and the chief about our problem concerning witchcraft and our suspicion. After Poppy's death we realised that we were doing our job well of teaching people about democracy. That is what I was trying to explain here in this paragraph.
MR RICHARD: Now after you had been to Komatipoort and seen the sangoma is it not correct that you believed that Poppy, through her witchcraft, was killing your potential leaders and obstructing your efforts to democratise your society?
MR SEKGOBELA: Yes that is correct. We really believed that she was the person who was killing our future leaders.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I have difficulty in understanding that. I understand your evidence to be that according to this witch-doctor, the deceased was responsible for the death of her husband and her brother-in-law, not the youth? Now did I misunderstand you?
MR SEKGOBELA: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Now what did that have to do with the future leaders? How does that link the deceased to the killing of your future leaders and interfering with democracy?
MR SEKGOBELA: I say those people who were described by the doctor including the deceased and these other three witches agreed and they were also involved in the bus accident that I talked about before.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes, I've heard that evidence. I'm somewhere else now. I'm trying to understand the answer that you've just given to Mr Richard. I want to try and understand how the deceased was responsible for interfering with democracy and killing of your potential future leaders if all that she's alleged to have done was to have killed her husband and her husband's elder brother? There was no suggestion that she had anything to do with the death of the youths or anybody else for that matter? Now can you explain that?
MR SEKGOBELA: Yes I do understand what you say. I mean these two people who were killed by her, they were also our supporters.
CHAIRPERSON: Well I thought that you said to us that you're not sure, you think that the husband, the late husband of the deceased, was supporting the same organisation that you did? That seemed to have been - unless I misunderstood your evidence, that seems to have been the best you could say about the political affiliation of the deceased's husband? You never even told us anything about the political affiliation of the elder brother of the deceased's husband?
MR SEKGOBELA: Well I do not know which organisation the brother of the deceased's husband supported.
CHAIRPERSON: And if I understood you correctly, you're not even sure about the husband of the deceased either, you think that he supported the same organisation as you did?
MR SEKGOBELA: Yes that is what I think.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Yes Mr Richard, do you want to carry on?
MR RICHARD: Thank you Chairperson.
Now amongst your comrades in the youth league at the time, did you discuss witchcraft in general, not in relation to the deaths of the people in the bus accident and Poppy's husband and his brother, but just in general?
MR SEKGOBELA: Yes that is correct.
MR RICHARD: Now what did people believe of witchcraft, did they think it was good for the youth league or bad for the youth league?
MR SEKGOBELA: The youth in general knew that witchcraft was not good because there's nothing that is good that is done by witches.
MR RICHARD: Now why did the youth believe that the witchcraft and witches was against them?
MR SEKGOBELA: I do not understand.
MR RICHARD: Why did the youth believe that witchcraft was against them and their activities as the ANC Youth League?
MR SEKGOBELA: The youths in general knew that the witches were against development. They were actually hindering development.
MR RICHARD: Now I'm going to put a hypothetical proposition to you. At that time if a sangoma 'mgaka' pointed out a person to be a 'moloi' and that was done without any deaths or reasons for suspicion, would that person who had been pointed out have become a target for the youth to attack?
MR SEKGOBELA: Yes that is correct, we would attack him.
MR RICHARD: Even though there was no reason to suspect that person or to connect that person with any particular event or death?
MR SEKGOBELA: Yes because our understanding is that he will end up killing because he is against development.
MR RICHARD: No further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RICHARD
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Richard. Ms Mtanga?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MTANGA: I have some questions, Chairperson.
Mr Sekgobela, were you related to Poppy Serani?
CHAIRPERSON: Please could you repeat that name, Ms Mtanga?
MS MTANGA: Poppy Serani.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh, the deceased?
MS MTANGA: The deceased yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh, sorry.
MR SEKGOBELA: No, we were just friends.
MS MTANGA: What were the names of the husband and the brother who died, that is the husband of Poppy?
MR SEKGOBELA: The husband was Skopi Serani.
MS MTANGA: And the brother?
MR SEKGOBELA: He was Gerani Serani.
MS MTANGA: Were they related to you?
MR SEKGOBELA: No, they're not related.
CHAIRPERSON: Were you friends?
MR SEKGOBELA: Yes I would say so.
CHAIRPERSON: Were you good friends?
MR SEKGOBELA: That is correct.
MS MTANGA: Can I go on Chairperson?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes you may.
MS MTANGA: You've also indicated that Poppy was also your friend?
MR SEKGOBELA: That is correct.
MS MTANGA: Who, amongst them, that is Poppy, the husband and the brother, who became your friend first, who did you know first before the others?
MR SEKGOBELA: It was Poppy.
MS MTANGA: The first meeting that was called at the chief's place when you were going to discuss the mysterious deaths in your area, who called that meeting? Was it the youth of the community or was it the ANC Youth League? Who called that meeting?
MR SEKGOBELA: I will put it this way. The ANC Youth League held a meeting to discuss this issue but now because in those rural places that are controlled by chiefs, we are not allowed to hold such meetings. That is why we ended up going to the chief to ask for a meeting.
MS MTANGA: How many people attended the ANC Youth Leagues meeting before you approached the chief?
MR SEKGOBELA: There were many of us but I will not be able to say the number of people who attended.
MS MTANGA: Were there 20 or were there 50 people, just estimate. Were there more than 50 or where there less than 50 people?
MR SEKGOBELA: I would say there were more than 200.
MS MTANGA: What was your position in the ANC Youth League?
MR SEKGOBELA: I was just a follower.
MS MTANGA: Would you say you were one of the active supporters of the ANC Youth League in the area? One of the most active?
MR SEKGOBELA: Yes I would say so but because I would here from people saying that I was active.
MS MTANGA: At the meeting when people were chosen to represent the youth, when you were going to see this sangoma, can you give me the names of the people who were chosen to represent the youth?
MR SEKGOBELA: It was myself, that's Golden Sekgobela, Lucas Masete, a third one was David Mkwana, Thomas Shaye and Emma Makalela and Mabori Sigodela.
MS MTANGA: On page 21 of the bundle ...(intervention)
MR SEKGOBELA: The other one was Mogikledi Sekgobela. Those were the people who represented the youth.
MS MTANGA: Mr Sekgobela, there's something that concerns me in this matter. The people who were selected to go and kill Poppy Serani, it was yourself, Mampoti Lucas Sekgobela, was
this Mampoti a relative of yours?
MR SEKGOBELA: That is correct.
MS MTANGA: How was he related to you?
MR SEKGOBELA: My father and his father were brothers.
MS MTANGA: And how are you related to Mampoti Sekgobela?
MR SEKGOBELA: Our father's were brothers as well.
MS MTANGA: David Mgwane?
MR SEKGOBELA: We were not related.
MS MTANGA: And on page 21 there's a statement by Mthabesheng Judas Sekgobela. Do you know who that is?
MR SEKGOBELA: Mthabesheng?
MS MTANGA: Yes.
MR SEKGOBELA: Yes I do.
MS MTANGA: Is he relative of yours and if so how is he related to you?
MR SEKGOBELA: It was Mampoti's brother.
MS MTANGA: He made a statement to the police, that's the statement that appears on page 21, this was made on the 29th October 1991, where he said that he heard from Eric and Lucas that you had asked them, that is yourself, Holiday Sekgobela, asked Eric Sekgobela and Lucas Sekgobela to accompany you to your sister's place. At your sister's place ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Right, just stop there. What's your comment on that? This is on the night of the killing.
MR SEKGOBELA: May you please repeat that question?
CHAIRPERSON: Just tell him again please Ms Mtanga?
MS MTANGA: I am saying to you Mr Sekgobela, according to the statement made by Mtabasheng to the police, he states that Eric Sekgobela and Lucas Sekgobela told him, that is they told Mtabasheng that you, Holiday, asked them to accompany to your sister's place. What is your comment to this?
CHAIRPERSON: On the night of the killing.
MS MTANGA: On the night of the killing.
MR SEKGOBELA: I do not agree with this statement.
MS MTANGA: He further states that when the three of you got to your sister's place, you caused them to inhale some muti. Do you recall this?
MR SEKGOBELA: No, I do not remember that. What I remember is that every time when I visit my sister they used to accompany me and they would also visit my sister alone.
MS MTANGA: Did you take any muti before you went to kill Poppy?
MR SEKGOBELA: No.
MS MTANGA: Did you at any stage play football with Mtabasheng?
MR SEKGOBELA: No.
MS MTANGA: Were you ever a football player?
MR SEKGOBELA: Yes I did.
MS MTANGA: But you never played football with Mtabasheng?
MR SEKGOBELA: When I was playing football Mtabasheng was still young.
MS MTANGA: On the day you were instructed to go and kill Poppy, where were these instructions given to you?
MR SEKGOBELA: That day when we were given the instruction we were at the football ground, I suppose.
MS MTANGA: Were these instructions announced loudly to yourselves or were you instructed or called aside and told to go and do this? How were they given to you?
MR SEKGOBELA: These instructions were loudly announced to everybody who was present at that meeting.
MS MTANGA: When was this meeting? The date of the meeting? Can you recall?
MR SEKGOBELA: I do not remember the date, the day and the month I do not remember.
MS MTANGA: Could it be that you were told on the day you went to call Poppy or how many days before. Can you recall how many days before you killed Poppy were you told to go and kill her?
MR SEKGOBELA: We were told the same day that we went to kill her.
MS MTANGA: The problem I have with that testimony Mr Sekgobela is that if you say the instructions were given at the football ground, you agree with Mtabasheng that you were with Mtabasheng at the football ground on that day and further that if Mtabasheng gave a statement to the police - in fact he gave a statement to the police and he did not mention that there was an ANC Youth League meeting where such a decision was taken. Can you comment on this?
MR SEKGOBELA: That was a very long statement, I do not understand it.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, just a minute. Sorry Ms Mtanga.
Mtabasheng, he was a member of the youth, not so?
MR SEKGOBELA: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Did he also support the ANC Youth League?
MR SEKGOBELA: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: So you were part of the same political organisation?
MR SEKGOBELA: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Was he present at the meeting where you and others were chosen to kill the deceased?
MR SEKGOBELA: That is correct, he was present.
CHAIRPERSON: He heard what was going on at the meeting because you say they were speaking loudly there?
MR SEKGOBELA: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Now Ms Mtanga is putting to you that Mtabasheng made a statement to the police and he doesn't refer at all to such a meeting or to the fact that you and others were instructed to kill the deceased and she's asking if you've got anything to say about that?
MR SEKGOBELA: My comment concerning this statement to the police is that I agreed with that because even in court we said the same thing. That is one of the reasons that led to me being convicted along, it's because of this statement.
MS MTANGA: If the youth had indeed decided that Poppy should be killed and you were pointed by the youth in an open meeting, why is it that Mtabasheng - what would be the reason Mtabasheng not to mention this to the police because he was not selected to kill people or to kill Poppy?
MR SEKGOBELA: Mtabasheng managed to tell the police about that but he failed to call the police when we were holding that meeting and when we were chosen. He made this statement to the police after a long time in 1991 and he went on to tell the police that it's me who was responsible for this.
MS MTANGA: I put it to you Mr Sekgobela that it is not true that you were given instructions by the ANC Youth League to kill Poppy Serani. What do you say to that?
MR SEKGOBELA: Please repeat that?
MS MTANGA: I am putting it to you that it is not true that you were instructed by the ANC Youth League to go and kill Poppy Serani. You did not get such instructions from the ANC Youth League. What do you say to this?
MR SEKGOBELA: I would put it this way. It is not the ANC Youth League alone, it was a decision taken by the community that if this person refused to leave the village she should be killed.
MS MTANGA: I further put it to you that the reason that you were the only one convicted for this offence it's also because you personally decided to go and kill Poppy Serani without the instructions of the community or the ANC Youth League as you allege. What do you say to this?
MR SEKGOBELA: Yes that is what they said even in court, they said I did that on my own.
MS MTANGA: Are you agreeing that it is true that you did this on your own?
MR SEKGOBELA: I disagree with that, I did not do that on my own.
MS MTANGA: If you didn't do it on your own Mr Sekgobela, how come the people you were with were not convicted with you?
MR SEKGOBELA: I would put it this way, the people who were arrested before me was Lucas and David and Eric, that is Mboya, and I was arrested after that and the police told me that I should be a State witness and I told them I cannot do that, I cannot be a State witness. The charges were dropped because it was said there was not enough evidence. At that time the police were busy convincing these people because I refuse to be a State witness. So the police told them that it would be to their advantage for them to be State witnesses and be against me.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you mean to say that you were executing an order that was given publicly by the entire community where you were living and in the end ...(intervention)
MR SEKGOBELA: Yes that is what I say.
CHAIRPERSON: And in the end you were the only one that was held responsible for this because the police managed to twist the arms of your co-perpetrators?
MR SEKGOBELA: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: They never told the police but we were just acting on orders of the community, we had nothing against the deceased, we didn't want to kill her personally but we were just asked by the community to do that. Nobody said that or do I misunderstand the question?
MR SEKGOBELA: Could you please repeat?
CHAIRPERSON: Did anybody ever tell the police or the court that you and the other perpetrators were simply executing an order that was given to you by the community?
MR SEKGOBELA: In court Lucas Sekgobela put it that before the court and he told the court that they were convinced by the police to be against me because I remember one day I was even beaten by the police. They used sjamboks because they said I arrived late at the meeting with them. But he was discharged because there was not enough evidence against him to convict him.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, there's something else I don't understand. You were testifying that the instruction was that the deceased should be killed if she refuses to leave, is that right?
MR SEKGOBELA: May you please repeat the question?
CHAIRPERSON: If I understand your testimony correctly, you were saying that you were instructed to kill the deceased if she refuses to leave the area, is that right or is it not right?
MR SEKGOBELA: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And you say you went to kill her on the same day that you were given the order, this order that we're talking about.
MR SEKGOBELA: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Now what steps were taken to get her to leave the area?
MR SEKGOBELA: There were no steps taken because herself, that is the deceased, walked out of the meeting and no one suggested that we should go and try and force her to leave and it was unanimously decided that she should be killed.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, she should be killed as you say, if she refuses to leave and you're also saying that no steps were taken to get her to leave the area? Do you agree or disagree with that?
MR SEKGOBELA: Yes I do agree. The other three, when they were instructed to leave the village they did that and none of them resisted.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but the decision here was that she should be only killed if she refuses to leave? You never killed her immediately, it also looks as if there was no view that she should be killed in any case? There was a condition attached to that, to the killing, if she refuses to leave? And what I don't understand and that's why I'm raising this with you is why you then just went and you killed her?
MR SEKGOBELA: When we took her to the witch-doctor, her three accomplices agreed that they would leave the village. So that is why we took her along to the witch-doctor so that she could hear for herself that she's been pointed by the witch-doctor. So when we came back she refused to leave the village, so I think that there were no other attempts that we could do to force her out of the village.
CHAIRPERSON: You mean there was nothing else you could do to get her out of there? She was a woman, if I read these papers correctly, she was about thirty years of age, she was living on her own with a young child, a girl, you mean to say that entire community could do absolutely nothing to get her to leave the area?
MR SEKGOBELA: In my statement I said that chief told the community that there's no one who is going to be killed. What should happen is the person who has been pointed out as a witch should leave the village. That is why we didn't have the powers to kill the four of them. So we as youth could kill any person as we wished that would mean that were against the chief himself. We agreed with the chief that we are not going to kill anybody, we'll just make them leave the village.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, now that is the point that I can't understand. You then went and you killed the deceased. Now why did you do that?
MR SEKGOBELA: Our agreement with the chief was that if somebody is pointed out as a witch should leave the village. The deceased was killed because she resisted. She refused to leave the village when she was supposed to leave the village. That angered the community.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes and the understanding was that she would be killed only if she refuses, if she didn't want to leave?
MR SEKGOBELA: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And you are saying that she refused to leave, if I understand you evidence correctly, because she walked out of the meeting?
MR SEKGOBELA: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And there were no steps taken after that to get her to leave the area? Do you agree?
MR SEKGOBELA: I think that by walking out of the meeting was a sign of her refusal to leave the village.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes possibly at that point because she was saying that she was not a witch? I agree with you but I think you will agree with me that after she walked out there, there were no steps taken to get her to leave. You simply went through there to her house in the middle of the night and you killed her?
MR SEKGOBELA: Yes I do agree with you.
CHAIRPERSON: And what I'm trying to understand is, are you saying there was absolutely nothing you could do as a community to get her to leave after she walked out of the meeting?
MR SEKGOBELA: Yes that is true, we failed to take steps and we ended up killing her.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I mean you could have toyi-toyed. I've listened to many of these cases and that's another peculiarity that I'll raise with you in a minute. You could have toyi-toyed there as a community, as a youth league, you could have intimidated her, you could have spoken to the chief, you could have spoken to the police even, to say there's strong suspicion that she was involved in the death of her family and you want her to leave. Would you agree with that?
MR SEKGOBELA: Yes I do agree with you but we would not consult the police because the police and the soldiers were there, everywhere in the country.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes now the other thing that I would like to raise about this particular incident is that the entire community is in favour of killing the deceased?
MR SEKGOBELA: I would add by saying that even at her funeral nobody apart from her immediate family attended the funeral.
CHAIRPERSON: In this particular instance you are four - three of you are close relatives and while I'm at it, the other one, David, was he a friend of yours?
MR SEKGOBELA: I would put it this way, in our village where I lived, we were all related. That is why many people will have the same surname like Sekgobela and we'll have identical names.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes but you said earlier that David is not related to you. I'm just trying to find out what your relationship was. You might be distant relatives, I accept that, but were you friends, you and David?
MR SEKGOBELA: Yes that is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Just to continue where I stopped, now you've got three close relatives and a good friend. These four of you, you go in the middle of the night and you attack this woman in her house. Now is there any reason why at that meeting if it was the unanimous view of the community and they were angry, why they didn't toyi-toyi to her house and deal with her there and then? Why do they settle for the secretive operation here in the middle of the night if this was indeed a political incident?
MR SEKGOBELA: We did not kill her in the middle of the night, we went there around 7 o'clock after we have left the ground. Yes it was dark.
CHAIRPERSON: So you killed her under the cover of darkness, secretly? You didn't kill her openly.
MR SEKGOBELA: That is because we were also afraid of the police, like I have said that the police and the soldiers were there so we were actually against the police and the soldiers.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so I think you will then agree that this is not an open killing by a crowd of people who toyi-toyi, chant political slogans and then go to deal with somebody who is regarded as a threat. You go under cover of darkness, quietly so that you can't be discovered and then you kill her?
MR SEKGOBELA: I agree with you because we were afraid of the police.
CHAIRPERSON: Now you say that you were close friends, good friends with the husband of the deceased. Now after the death of the husband, was this deceased, was she engaged in some other relationship?
MR SEKGOBELA: No I do not know.
CHAIRPERSON: You say you knew the husband well, did the husband never indicate what sort of behaviour you would expect from the wife should he die one day in regard to relationships? For example sometimes you hear husbands who say that wives should never dare to form another relationship if they die, if the husband dies?
MR SEKGOBELA: I have never heard them talking about that in my presence.
CHAIRPERSON: It seems to be also that you attacked this deceased with axes and such like weapons, is that right?
MR SEKGOBELA: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And that you had virtually chopped off her neck?
MR SEKGOBELA: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Has the Panel got other questions?
ADV SANDI: No thank you Chairperson.
ADV SIBANYONI: Maybe just one, Chairperson.
Did you complete this application form on your own?
MR SEKGOBELA: That is correct.
ADV SIBANYONI: Thank you Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Re-examination Mr Richard?
MR RICHARD: No re-examination. That is the applicant's case.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Sekgobela you are excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mtanga, do you intend to present any evidence?
MS MTANGA: No evidence Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Richard, have you got any submissions on the merits of the application?
MR RICHARD IN ARGUMENT: Yes Chairperson. In this matter we have the uncontroverted evidence of the applicant that he comes from a tribal village where customs and practises are still adhered to and that in this village as a result of deaths by bus accidents, lightening, illness, suspicions were raised that the work of a witch or witches was afoot. I don't believe there's anything that can be said to cast doubt upon the applicant's evidence in this regard.
Then as a result of these suspicions an association is formed between the youth league and what are described as the parents, elders, chief of the village that an sangoma be consulted which exercise is then carried through as a result of which the deceased is pointed out as a witch. We also have the applicant's evidence as supported by the evidence in other matters and in the various reports that we are all familiar with that at this point the deceased in deadly peril of being executed as a witch and in great danger. It is there that the story changes and differs from the others that instead of a crowd action that we are all familiar, is small group of four are said to have been chosen to do what has become familiar as a public event, that is the execution of the witch.
Now where this case also differs from others is that the decisions made by the community and the youth league follow the more traditional policy of deciding that those pointed out should be made to leave the community instead of suddenly and immediately being the object of - and I don't intend to be frivolous by saying it, a witch hunt by the community and group. The traditional, as is born out by the papers before us, decision was that the elders and the chief would pronounce a sentence of banishment.
Now it appears that this was in fact done and I don't believe that it is a reason to doubt that it was done because indeed consistent with the area these actions took place, that would have been in the past what we are told would have happened. However, the next step in the chain which we are asked to believe, is that the group of four were instructed by the joint meetings of the ANC Youth League and the traditional structures to go and do the execution. There I argue as follows.
Firstly, the applicant's evidence is uncontradicted, no one has come forward to oppose his amnesty and his is the version that we have.
Secondly, he was part of the youth league and at that stage it was the youth leagues intervention as we've heard in other matters that resulted in the crowd hysteria action and public burnings and necklacing. So that's the - or traditional community had not yet decided what to do doesn't preclude that the youth league section had decided and did in fact decide that since they were not getting their way in this particular village to go ahead and do what had been done in other situations and that is execute the witch.
The applicant then continues to bolster his story by saying the police and soldiers were everywhere. I don't find it inherently incredible that a smaller group of people were delegated the task of carrying out what was decided to be done with the witch, that is execute her.
Now in all events, this applicant's evidence is consistent with the evidence that is contained in the various reports and tendered in other cases that witches were perceived as obstacles to progress, enemies of the ANC, those responsible for the prevention of a new leadership generation coming up and I don't believe I have to reargue the point that a person pointed out by a sangoma, ngaka, was from then on seen in the same light as an impimpi, a policeman or any other class of legitimate target for the youth as at 1991 in the history of the struggle.
I submit that the applicant has complied with the Act, has presented a version which reveals that his subject of perception which was bona fide on an objective basis, was that the person he killed was a person who posed a threat to him and his youth league, comrades and the liberation struggle and to be eliminated and for those reasons as it was an act committed with a political objective associated with the objectives of the African National Congress at the time and also with the concurrence and at least passive support of the local leadership of the ANC in that particular area, one would satisfy a sub-section 22(a).
The question continues, was the act proportionate? It is true that other methods of persuading the deceased to leave the village could have been adopted. Proportionality, however, must be seen in relation to what the bona fide perception and belief was at the time. We need not underrate the belief in witchcraft and the perceived power that witches had to have, were supposed to have. In the mind of a rural individual it is understood from numerous other cases that dramatic burnings, necklacings, stonings were in fact seen by the perpetrators of the gross human rights violation of murdering the witch as appropriate in the situation and circumstances. My argument then is that as there is a proportional act from the point of view of the applicant, the applicant should be given the benefit provided for in the Act and be granted amnesty, as the Committee pleases and I leave it in the hands of the Committee.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mtanga?
MS MTANGA: Chairperson, I wish to leave this matter in your hands.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you very much, that concludes the formalities around this application. It remains for the Panel to come to a decision on the application. We are not in a position to do so immediately as much as we'd like to do that in all cases. The realities are that we can only do it in a very small percentage of matter that serve before us. So like in most other matters we will reserve the decision and we will notify the parties as soon as the decision is available.
That also concludes our hearing roll in this particular session. It then remains for us finally just to thank you Mr Richard for your invaluable assistance in all these matter that serve before us. It's appreciated, your willingness to assist in this regard. And Ms Mtanga for your usual assistance, helpful assistance in the matters before us. We express our gratitude. And then just in general, we express a word of thanks to everybody else who have assisted us in enabling us to have this hearing and to have it run it smoothly as it did under sometimes very difficult circumstances and sometimes very circumstances. In this regard we must extend a particular word of thanks to the members of the correctional services department for their assistance in bringing the applicants from many corners of this immediate part of the country to Middelburg to enable us to continue with our hearing and to in fact be in a position to conclude all of the matters that were set down on the roll. It is of critical importance for us to be able to actually dispose of the matters that are set down for a particular session. Often there are delays and some unavoidable matters have to be postponed so that normally plays havoc with our process and we do appreciate the efforts and the assistance of correctional services in this regard.
Also to our staff and everybody else attached to the Commission for their assistance, the interpreters in particular who fill a critical role in having hearings of this nature, we're always grateful for their help and for the proprietors of this venue where we are sitting, for making their facilities available to us and looking after all of us as they have for the past week. We appreciate that. And to the police as well for their usual assistance in regard to matters of security and the like. We appreciate that.
And in conclusion, to my colleagues on the Panel with me for their assistance in dealing with the matters that were on our roll in this session. Thank you very much, we're adjourned.
HEARING ADJOURNS
