ON RESUMPTION
JUDGE DE JAGER: The next matter would be?
CHAIRPERSON: Mafu. We will proceed with the Mafu application. Right, before we do so I want to deal with two other matters that have been set down for today. First is the application of Joseph Ngema. I gather there are a number of people here today who are interested in hearing the Ngema application. Unfortunately, we cannot proceed with that application today and I do not want to put you to the inconvenience of coming and perhaps waiting all of tomorrow. So we are now going to adjourn the Ngema application until 9.30 on the morning of Thursday 17th, that is this Thursday and I don't know if there are still people here or whether they are waiting outside now, I gather transport home will be arranged for them and arrangements will be made for them to be here on Thursday. That is so isn't it?
The second matter is the Nyawuza matter which also is set down for this afternoon which will not be able to be concluded today and we have, after discussion, resolved that this one should be adjourned till 2 o'clock tomorrow afternoon, that is one Wednesday, 16th at 2 o'clock. Are the persons interested in the Nyawuza application here?
Right, those two will be adjourned and we will now proceed with the Mafu application. Would you please announce who is appearing for whom?
MR DEHAL: Thank you Judge, I appear for the applicant, Mr Mafu. My name is Roshan Dehal from the firm Dehal Incorporated of Durban. Thank you.
MR PANDAY: Thank you Mr Chairperson. I appear on behalf of the victims, Mr Panday, initial S. Thank you.
MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, Zuko Mapoma, Evidence Leader.
CHAIRPERSON: The Committee remains the same, myself, Mr de Jager and Mr Sibanyoni. We will now proceed with the applicant. Are you leading the applicant first?
MR DEHAL: I am indeed. May I just make one comment which is unrelated? I thought Mr Mapoma would have raised this with you, he actually intended to do so. The two matters that you've mentioned, Mr Chairperson, still exclude one matter. That leaves us still with one matter and that is the matter of Tom Madlala. This is a matter which is scheduled to begin tomorrow morning. I think the large crowd that is present here is actually present in support of the Tom Madlala matter. They contain, they consist mainly of prisoners. Now the warders and the senior members of Westville Prison are present here and have expressed their concern that they need to take these prisoners back including the present applicant who is presently in prison at Westville. Apparently they can't bring two vehicles, they will have to bring one vehicle, also apparently given the crowd, they would need a bus. So apparently they need to get off between by 4 o'clock latest. Thank you.
Mr Chairperson, now in the Mafu matter, I have a statement prepared. I have asked my assistant to circularise a copy. I hope that the Committee members do have a copy and the other two gentlemen. Would that be marked Exhibit A?
CHAIRPERSON: My colleague has suggested to me that if they are anxious to return some of them to Westville Prison they could take one group now and then return to take the present applicant back. It's not very far from here.
MR DEHAL: Indeed, it's a brilliant suggestion. In fact it's the very one that I made to them but apparently so fraught is Westville with red tape so I'm told that they would only send one vehicle and not two for they don't have any men there. Apparently break off at 3, today is a pay day as well at Westville and all sorts of other problems that compound the issue.
CHAIRPERSON: Well we're merely trying to assist them, that if they wanted to get away with I think there are five people I can see, they could have done so but if they'd rather sit here until 4
o'clock?
MR DEHAL: Yes indeed, well thanks for the suggestion. Just may Mr Mafu be sworn in? He is Zulu speaking.
MAFANDO JOKONIA MAFU: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR DEHAL: Thank you Chairperson.
Mr Mafu, sorry may I hand to you a bundle - sorry Chairperson, I'm just seated away from the applicant so I'm just handing over my bundle, it's the only bundle I have, I'm hoping I get it back. Mr Mafu, do you see the application for amnesty on the first few pages, I don't have the bundle here so I can't tell you the page numbers and I'm referring now to the ...(intervention)
JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Mapoma, haven't you got a spare bundle to give to the witness?
MR MAPOMA: Unfortunately I don't.
CHAIRPERSON: You can take one of mine.
MR DEHAL: You will notice in that bundle there's a loose sheet at page 35 I think it is, that is because they'd left out the printed page 13, that's the ...(indistinct)
MR DEHAL: Thank you, I had the same problem, thank you Chairperson.
Mr Mafu on pages 1, 2, 3 right up to page 10 is an application for amnesty completed in the Zulu language. Do you confirm that that is your application for amnesty completed in your handwriting in the Zulu language?
MR MAFU: Yes that is correct.
MR DEHAL: However, you tell me you have a problem on page 9 in that that signature is not your signature but you have no problems in confirming the correctness of the application as correct?
MR MAFU: That is the problem.
MR DEHAL: And whilst we're on the application itself, if you look at page 14, the last paragraph, page 14 of the bundle before you, do you see the last paragraph at the bottom which says
"But if Inkudusenti, that's the deceased, did not come to me and say he's the one who killed my brother, Sibonsile and my dad, he wasn't going to die or died"
Do you see that paragraph?
MR MAFU: Yes I do.
MR DEHAL: Is it correct that your instructions to me is that you never said that and that if you look at the comparable paragraph in the Zulu language there is nothing of that sort ever mentioned in your application either in that paragraph or anywhere else in your application?
MR PANDAY: Sorry Mr Chairperson, before my learned friend will go any further ...(intervention)
MR MAFU: Yes I do not know what is written in that form.
MR PANDAY: As I was saying Chairperson, before my learned friend will go any further I think it will be fair enough for us to get the interpretation of the last paragraph in the Zulu application as opposed to the translation because neither one of us are conversive at the moment in Zulu, to understand what the content of the last paragraph is that he is referring to in Zulu.
CHAIRPERSON: Well before we do that is it not correct that the whole of paragraph 10(b) which appears on page 6 has not been correctly translated onto the English version on page 14. I say this not on the basis of my detailed knowledge of Zulu but merely on slightly half way down the page, a little bit more than halfway down the page 6, one sees the words "1987 June 16th". I do not see them on page 14?
MR DEHAL: Indeed, correct.
CHAIRPERSON: So if there's going to be a translation I think it would perhaps be more assistance to get the whole of paragraph 10(b) translated.
MR DEHAL: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And we could perhaps request someone to do that during the course of this afternoon?
MR DEHAL: Perhaps yes.
CHAIRPERSON: If you look around you will see that somebody is going to attend to it.
MR DEHAL: Thank you.
So for that reason Mr Mafu, is it correct that you do not confirm the correctness of the English translation of the application from pages 11 to 17? Do you agree with me?
MR MAFU: Yes I do.
MR DEHAL: Thank you. You have made a statement, a copy of which you have before you, do you see the statement, a three page statement? Do you mind getting that in front of you?
JUDGE DE JAGER: Exhibit A.
MR DEHAL: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Exhibit A.
MR DEHAL: Thank you Sir. May I take you through the statement? But firstly, this is your statement that you have made to us as your legal representatives and you've signed it and initialled the alterations thereon, correct?
MR MAFU: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: In the statement you say in paragraph 1 that you're an adult male, you were born on the 7th June '63 but you're currently detained at Westville Prison, is that correct?
MR MAFU: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: In paragraph 2 you say that you became a member of the ANC in 1988 under the wing of Operation Vula. You joined the ANC to fight against apartheid. You were also a member of the ANC Youth Brigade and you were responsible for the protection of the ANC members and supporters, is that correct?
MR MAFU: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: Now the Operation Vula that you speak of, is this the well known famous Operation Vula, operation of MK, of uMkhonto weSizwe, in which Mr Ronnie Kasrils and Comrade Mac Maharaj featured prominently?
MR PANDAY: Objection, that's leading the witness Chairperson, that's not even in his statement.
MR DEHAL: I accept that's leading, I don't think that's unfair, this is common knowledge as well. Thank you.
In paragraph 3 ...(intervention)
MR MAFU: Yes that is so.
MR DEHAL: Thank you. In paragraph 3 you say
"Shortly after I was recruited by Operation Vula as a cadre with uMkhonto weSizwe I was taken to Transkei where I was given formal training in the discipline of an organisation of MK and taught the use of firearms and ammunition, is that correct?
MR MAFU: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: You then say that you were recruited into MK on the Operation Vula by Mr Sipho Mkhize, your commander, and Mr Archie Gumede, is that correct?
JUDGE DE JAGER: I think if he confirms that the whole statement is correct, let's not ask every sentence whether it's correct.
MR DEHAL: I thank you. Is this the Archie Gumede, who was a lawyer, a human rights lawyer here in the greater Durban area?
MR MAFU: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: And he is now late?
MR MAFU: Yes he is late.
MR DEHAL: He then continued to say
"I was trained amongst other things in the use of handgrenades, shotguns, pumpguns, HMC's limpet mines and various other arms and ammunition"
On your return to your area you became the commander of the youth league in your area with the permission of your commander you recruited various cadres within your unit and assisted to politicise them by educating them on the discipline of the organisation and the use of arms and ammunition.
MR MAFU: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: This education, did it take the form of the use of literature like Sitchaba?
MR MAFU: No it was informal training, just what I could show them.
MR DEHAL: Okay, in the next paragraph you say
"In the area of Nyanazulu in Port Shepstone there was constant fighting between the ANC and the IFP. ANC members and supporters were physically harassed by the police who worked hand in hand with the IFP. ANC supporters were prohibited from using the recreational facilities. At ANC rallies and meetings you were always ambushed by the IFP and the police and your comrades were killed."
MR MAFU: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: And then you continue in paragraph 5 to say that as a leader you wanted to fight this problem to protect the ANC members. You had met and decided on a plan to eliminate informers and Ilikuzeng Mkhize, the deceased in this matter was an informer and he was responsible for the deaths of many comrades. He was therefore identified as a legitimate target. You were concerned about the safety of your people.
MR MAFU: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: In paragraph 6 you then continue to say
"On a certain Tuesday at eleven you had discussed with your commander of the ANC in the area, one Cyril Shezi, a plan to eliminate the deceased. At the meeting Cyril took the decision that the deceased had to be killed."
MR MAFU: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: Now this Cyril Shezi, was he a part of the Operation Vula or was he part of ANC structures in the area?
MR MAFU: He was not part of Operation Vula but he was in ANC structures.
MR DEHAL: It was Sipho Mkhize whom you refer to in paragraph 3 who was a part of Operation Vula, correct?
MR MAFU: Yes he was our commander in Operation Vula.
MR DEHAL: You then continue to say it was agreed that
"a group of us would see to it that this was in fact done. Everyone present at the meeting unanimously agreed with the instruction. It was made clear at the meeting that the deceased was going to be killed because he was an IFP member who was a police informer and who was responsible further for killing several ANC members."
MR MAFU: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: You then say that
"It was well known that witchcraft was embraced by the IFP in it's onslaught on the ANC and UDF in the escalating war at the time. You say the deceased, it was believed also practice that the ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Will you remember that this is being interpreted not only for the applicant but for the members of the public who have an interest in the matter. So give them time to do so?
MR DEHAL: I apologise. Thank you.
Sorry, may I just repeat that last part?
It was well known that witchcraft was embraced by the IFP in it's onslaught on the ANC, UDF in the escalating war at the time?
MR MAFU: Yes that is correct.
MR DEHAL: The deceased, it was believed, also practised the use of witchcraft in his fight against the ANC?
MR MAFU: Yes.
MR DEHAL: This witchcraft was known to be used to help protect them in the IFP and their property against attackers and to help attack ANC.
MR MAFU: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: The deceased was known to have lived by such witchcraft practice.
MR MAFU: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: You then say that you distinctly remember that the deceased's son, Kenneth, was also present at this meeting?
MR MAFU: Yes he was present.
MR DEHAL: Is this the meeting at which the decision was taken to execute the deceased?
MR MAFU: Yes because the last time I saw Kenneth it was at that meeting.
MR DEHAL: Kenneth is the deceased's son?
MR MAFU: Yes.
MR DEHAL: Did Kenneth disagree in any way or did he agree with the decision of the ANC structures at that meeting, to execute his father, the deceased?
JUDGE DE JAGER: ...(inaudible) seem to be relevant but I think it's very, very unfair to lead evidence about the sons involvement in killing his father. It may be relevant but I just want to ask you to make very, very sure about those facts because it may be said today that it's so and it could really reflect on the future of such a young man. We've got evidence that he didn't agree for instance to light the body of his father, so to strike the match, so I think that's common cause because he himself said so but I'm not sure whether he ever agreed with any decision to kill his father.
MR DEHAL: Thank you Mr de Jager, in fact my instructions are that and I'm wondering whether this applicant will confirm that and this was the endeavour I was hoping to achieve. The son was present at the meeting but he did not express openly his agreement with the decision to execute his father nor did he dissent from such an agreement and I think pretty obviously would not have done so.
JUDGE DE JAGER: He wouldn't have done so, he's one in a crowd of 200 at least?
MR DEHAL: Absolutely yes.
JUDGE DE JAGER: But it wouldn't implicate that he sought of agreed?
MR DEHAL: I agree.
In paragraph 7, Mr Mafu, you say that in order to execute Mr Shezi's instructions, you together with about 200 ANC comrades marched to the deceased's home. As you were approaching his home you met him on the road?
MR MAFU: Yes.
MR DEHAL: You then saw this the best opportunity to ask the deceased whether he did in fact practice witchcraft and kill your brother thereby. You had heard rumours ...(intervention)
MR MAFU: Yes.
MR DEHAL: Sorry, thank you. You had heard rumours from your family that your brother who was killed in an accident a few days earlier was bewitched by the deceased?
MR MAFU: Yes.
MR DEHAL: Thank you. You say that when you asked the deceased this question he refused to answer you?
MR MAFU: Yes he became aggressive.
MR DEHAL: In paragraph 8 you say upon arrival at his home, that's the deceased's home, your comrades and you started started stoning the deceased with the intention to kill him?
MR MAFU: Yes that is correct.
MR DEHAL: And in order to give effect to your commander, Mr Shezi's political instructions to you?
MR MAFU: Yes.
MR DEHAL: You say that it is possible that you asked further questions about the deceased's witchcraft activities at this stage and that when the deceased fell to the ground ...(intervention)
MR MAFU: Yes that is correct.
MR DEHAL: You say that when the deceased fell to the ground you were convinced that he was dead. You and the other comrades then asked Kenneth, that's the son of the deceased, to pour petrol over his father because as he was present at the meeting when the decision to kill his father taken and he did not then voice any objection?
MR MAFU: Yes.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Who asked him to do that? Did you all sing in a chorus, "pour petrol on your father" or who asked him to do that?
MR MAFU: I'm the one who told him so.
CHAIRPERSON: Well did you tell him or did you ask him?
MR MAFU: I told him because I had been given that task.
MR DEHAL: Thank you. You continue in that statement to say that you assumed, you say "we" I presume you and the other comrades, assumed that Kenneth the son had still agreed with Mr Shezi's instructions to eliminate his father?
MR MAFU: Yes I assumed so because he was one of us, a comrade.
MR DEHAL: Then you say that Kenneth the son in fact did pour the petrol but had refused to light the match and then fled?
MR MAFU: Yes he did refuse and he fled thereafter.
MR DEHAL: You then say that you personally lit the deceased's body and that you did this ...(intervention)
MR MAFU: Yes I did so.
MR DEHAL: And you say that you did so because you still agreed with Mr Shezi's instructions and you wanted to assist with the ANC of the danger that the deceased posed to the ANC as an organisation?
MR MAFU: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: In the next paragraph you deal with your trial and the stance you've taken there and you say inasmuch as Mr Mandela was released in February 1990 and the ANC unbanned, when your matter came before the courts in 1990/91 it was not possible for you to fully disclose the nature of your involvement with the ANC to the court hearing your trial?
MR MAFU: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: You say that that court which heard your trial, your matter, was seen by you still as a relic at that stage of the apartheid era and you were not prepared to detail your involvement in ANC activities at that stage as you did not trust the courts?
MR MAFU: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: You then go on to say that you accordingly kept your Operation Vula and MK activities all a secret from this court?
MR MAFU: Yes that remained my secret.
MR DEHAL: You say the court would not have believed the level of your political involvement, nor would it have been sympathetic to it. You say on the contrary this would have opened a can of worms on all the other comrades within the unit and would have caused the whole unit to have been arrested and the arms cache recovered to the consequence the death of your progress of the ANC and of reform in this country?
MR MAFU: Yes that is correct.
MR DEHAL: Then you say in paragraph 10, as the courts would not have accepted a true version of the incident you were forced to rely heavily on the aspect of the witchcraft activities of the deceased and his alleged involvement in your brother's death as the basis of your then defence.
MR MAFU: Yes that is so.
MR DEHAL: You say you maintain that you did not mislead the trial court as this witchcraft aspect was indeed the only feature which you could safely disclose to the court without the threat of any further charges being preferred against you as a result of your involvement in ANC related matters?
MR MAFU: Yes that is correct.
MR DEHAL: And then in paragraph 11 of the next page you deal with an aspect that we've already covered but I'll just read that for completeness. You say that as a matter of clarity your attorneys advised you that paragraph 10(b) on page 14 of the bundle is an interpretation of your amnesty application and that the last paragraph thereof relates to the deceased having admitted to you that he was the only one who killed your brother and your father and that this was the reason why you caused his death. You then say that you deny ever having said this. You say that ...(intervention)
MR MAFU: Yes, that is so. I do not agree with that, it is not a correct statement that I made.
MR DEHAL: You then say that a reading of the relevant part of your original application reads otherwise.
MR MAFU: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: You say that you are sorry for the death of Mr Mkhize in the next paragraph and you ask for forgiveness from his family?
MR MAFU: Yes that is so. It was not my intention for him to die but it was because of political reasons.
MR DEHAL: You say that you believe that he was a legitimate target in that he was responsible for the killing of your comrades, he was an informer and one who endangered the lives of the ANC members?
MR MAFU: That is correct. That was the reason which led me to believe that he was indeed a legitimate target.
MR DEHAL: Thank you. Mr Mafu, this gentleman, Mr Cyril Shezi, who you refer to as one who is within the ranks of the ANC in your area, you remember him don't you?
MR MAFU: Yes I do.
MR DEHAL: After your arrest did Mr Shezi visit you in prison?
MR MAFU: Yes they supported me very much, they visited me regularly.
CHAIRPERSON: Who is"they"?
MR MAFU: That is Cyril Shezi, Bongando Vele and Inganiso Shezi.
MR DEHAL: Did Mr Shezi or any of the others altogether ever discuss with you your impending trial on the murder charge of this deceased and how you should approach it?
MR MAFU: Yes they did discuss it and they advised me on how to approach it.
MR DEHAL: Now before I deal with what advice was given to you, Mr Cyril Shezi, did you see him as senior to you in the rank of the ANC in your area or junior to you?
MR MAFU: I regarded him as senior and this was because he an educated person who understood more than I did.
MR DEHAL: You say he advised you on how to approach the defense. What did he tell you?
MR MAFU: He said I should advise the court that the deceased practised witchcraft and that was the reason why many of us were killed. This in itself was not the truth because the deceased was an informer who was instrumental in us being attacked by people from other areas.
MR DEHAL: Did you take this advice seriously and did you adopt that approach in your defence during your criminal trial?
MR MAFU: Yes I regarded his advice as important because he was an educated person who understood better about court matters as well as about the organisation.
MR DEHAL: For that matter, as you've mentioned already in your statement, your brother was killed in a car accident a few days before the deceased was murdered or executed but you in your trial said that your brother was killed by witchcraft at the hands of the deceased?
MR MAFU: Yes that rumour had been mentioned before, even before the death of the deceased by my family.
MR DEHAL: Did other comrades in your area arrested on charges of this sort ever used witchcraft as a defence to your knowledge?
MR MAFU: Yes some of them were arrested before me.
MR DEHAL: And do you know what success rate they achieved as a result of that defence?
MR MAFU: Well they were acquitted that is why I also felt that it would be a good idea to use that difference in court because I had hoped that I would also be acquitted like the rest of them.
MR DEHAL: You were convicted of murder and sentenced to death. You received the death penalty which was subsequently commuted to life imprisonment, correct?
MR MAFU: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: And you are presently serving your sentence as life imprisonment and held at the moment at Westville Prison?
MR MAFU: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: Sorry Sir, bear with me? Thank you Sir.
Mr Mafu, is it correct that you were shown only late today a statement allegedly deposed to by Mr Cyril Shezi the one you talked of, that this is - Mr Chairperson, this is not contained in the bundle, I don't know whether a copy is available to you?
MR MAFU: Yes I was shown this statement.
MR DEHAL: It's a five page statement. If you do not have copies - you have, I see.
CHAIRPERSON: Exhibit B.
MR DEHAL: Thank you.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Your copy, could you read the right hand column for instance?
MR DEHAL: Not very legibly, no. I have a problem with that on all my pages.
Mr Mafu you have ...(intervention)
JUDGE DE JAGER: I'm sorry, could we - ours have been cut off, the end of each line. Have you got a better copy perhaps?
MR MAPOMA: No Chairperson, unfortunately mine as well.
CHAIRPERSON: I understand it was faxed to us and this is a result of the fax machine.
MR DEHAL: Mr Chairperson, judging your copy, looking at it from here it would appear as though mine is substantially more legible than yours. I have no difficulty in you using mine, my only difficulty is I've made lots of notes and annotations all about it.
JUDGE DE JAGER: No, I know somebody represented Mr Shezi and he in fact announced himself at our offices. Perhaps he could be contacted and be informed about the problem and that he should send us a better copy or even the original?
MR MAPOMA: Yes I'll try to do that Chairperson.
MR DEHAL: May I proceed Sir? Thank you.
Mr Mafu, this statement of Mr Shezi's - sorry, may I just deal with that statement? You have no difficulty with him distancing himself from Operation Vula for you agree he was not a part of Operation Vula to your knowledge, is that correct?
MR MAFU: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: But you say you have difficulties with him distancing himself from having given you instructions to execute the deceased because you insist he gave you instructions?
MR MAFU: Yes I do have difficulty with that.
MR DEHAL: Do you agree with the ANC stance on witchcraft killing as is contained in his statement. I know you don't have a copy before you but if you recall I read it out to you. He says the ANC did not agree with the killing of persons who dealt with witchcraft or purely premised on witchcraft?
MR MAFU: Yes ANC policy does not dictate that people that practice witchcraft should be killed.
MR DEHAL: As a leader in the ANC as you've outlined earlier you understood that and disciplined your cadres on the same understanding, didn't you?
MR MAFU: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: Sorry, bear with me Sir? Thank you Sir.
Finally, Mr Mafu, are you aware of Radio Freedom, what it is, Sitchabas and what they are? If you are please tell us?
MR MAFU: Could you please repeat the question?
MR DEHAL: Mr Mafu, are you aware of Radio Freedom, what it is, whose voice it is and Sitchabas, the document, what it is and what it relates to? If you are please tell us?
MR MAFU: Yes I'm aware of that. Sitchaba is a publication that educated us on how to conduct ourselves, how to deal with our enemy and how the organisation operated.
MR DEHAL: And Radio Freedom?
MR MAFU: Radio Freedom used to discuss issues on how to gain our independence.
MR DEHAL: Mr Chairperson, thank you very much, that's the evidence of the applicant.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DEHAL
CHAIRPERSON: Questions?
MR PANDAY: Mr Chairperson, before we go any further. I like to know what is the progress in the interpretation of page 6?
MR DEHAL: Well I've been seated here all the while as my learned colleague well knows, I've not done anything further in that regard. I will certainly after this matter adjourns endeavour to do so.
CHAIRPERSON: Well the young lady went out, I thought to attend to it but she hasn't come back and I can't see anyone else in the office sitting here at the moment.
MR DEHAL: I don't mind sending my assistant to go and check.
CHAIRPERSON: Could you? It's Debby, Deborah.
MR DEHAL: Deborah Quinn.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PANDAY: Mr Chairperson, if I may proceed? I'll endeavour to lead the - actually cross-examine the witness, the applicant, from page 11 insofar as the answers his disclosed to the relevant questions and let's see to what point does that take us.
MR DEHAL: May I suggest Mr Chairperson, least it be argued that my learned colleague was placed ill at ease, he perhaps should aspects that are not so contentious, on aspects that are directly relevant to these pages and the interpretation thereof, if he has any?
MR PANDAY: Well I intend endeavouring to question the applicant insofar as the interpreted version is from page 11 onwards ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: The only one that is being challenged in 10(b).
MR PANDAY: Well Mr Chairperson, the applicant seems to mention that he does not agree with the correctness and truthfulness of the interpretation, that's to embrace pages 11 to 17 I think it is?
JUDGE DE JAGER: But can't you deal with another aspect for instance? Exhibit B, the statement of Shezi in the meantime?
MR PANDAY: As Mr Chairperson pleases.
Mr Mafu, you mentioned that you trained in Transkei. For how long did you train there?
MR MAFU: It was a year and 9 months long.
MR PANDAY: And in what year did you go to Transkei.
MR MAFU: I first went there in 1987.
MR PANDAY: You say 1987?
MR MAFU: Yes in November.
MR PANDAY: Now to be recruited as an MK member did you first need to be a member of the ANC?
MR MAFU: Yes the people who were recruited into MK were ANC members.
MR PANDAY: Right now ...(intervention)
JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Panday is it disputed that he was a member of the ANC, that he was a member of MK?
MR PANDAY: Well we're merely trying to establish that Mr Chairperson, his membership. If Mr Chairperson will allow me to phrase the next question and we'd be able to move forward and establish as to whether he was ...(intervention)
JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes because if you haven't got any evidence contradicting that, it's no use wasting time, hours and hours asking about - on a fishing expedition to find out whether in fact he joined in September or November of whatever the date may be.
MR PANDAY: As Mr Chairperson pleases. Sorry and may I just say that I think it is important to establish whether his membership of the ANC has been contested, it seems to me it wasn't in the papers.
And Mr Mafu, when did you return to the Port Shepstone area?
MR MAFU: I first returned in 1990.
MR PANDAY: And when you returned in 1990 who were you under, who was your leader?
MR MAFU: It was Cyril Shezi and Doctor Kweli in the Port Shepstone area.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, who was it?
MR PANDAY: Doctor Kweli from what I understand.
CHAIRPERSON: Well before we go on can I just clarify something which I may have missed earlier, did you say you first went to the Transkei in 1987?
MR MAFU: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: For training as a member of uMkhonto?
MR MAFU: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: But in the statement that you've given us today you said you became a member of the ANC in 1988 which is correct?
MR MAFU: Must have been a mistake, I first joined the ANC in 1985 but I only joined MK in 1988.
MR PANDAY: Mr Chairperson, I did not want to interject, now that he's given the answer may I just place on record that my assistant in formulating this statement had intended that sentence to mean that he became a member of Operation Vula a wing of the MK in 1988 as opposed to joining the ANC in 1988. Forgive the ambiguity?
Mr Mafu, you said you were under Mr Shezi and Kweli? Now who identified Mr Mkhize, the deceased, as a legitimate target?
MR MAFU: It was Cyril as our commander who mentioned this in a meeting.
MR PANDAY: Now is that Cyril Shezi you refer to?
MR MAFU: Yes.
MR PANDAY: Now has your attorney showed you the statement by Cyril Shezi?
MR MAFU: Yes I did see that.
MR PANDAY: And I would refer you to paragraph 6, I want to read it out to you. Mr Shezi in paragraph 6 states the following, he says that
"I wish to further state that I knew the late Ndukuzepi Mkhize as a person who was respected in the community especially by adults that used to visit my stepfather, Mr Mabu Mjla at home."
Now isn't that in total contradiction to what you say ...(indistinct) as I did find is in Mr Mkhize's target?
MR MAFU: I do not see any contradiction there because he is only referring to the relationship between his father and the deceased not about the incident itself.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Well perhaps paragraph 7 then?
MR MAFU: Yes, let me then read paragraph 7 for you. Paragraph 7 says
"Whilst they deny any involvement in giving orders or ...(indistinct) the killing of Mr Mkhize, I'd also like to give the following clarity with regards to the political situation."
Now firstly, Mr Shezi makes it known that this man was a respected man. He thereafter distances himself from ...(indistinct) any killing. You on the other hand say the total opposite. Now if Mr Shezi was your leader why do you think now he says the total opposite of what you say?
MR MAFU: I wouldn't know where he gets that from because we worked very closely together but I have not seen him for a long time and we have not been in contact so I'm not in a position to say why is saying whatever he has written there.
MR PANDAY: When you worked together with Mr Shezi what was your relationship with him in the organisation?
MR MAFU: We related as well as I did with other comrades in the ANC. I am not in a position to say whether I was closer to him than to other comrades because we were all working together.
MR PANDAY: Now what sort of information was related to Shezi, as you say, to identify the deceased as the legitimate target?
MR MAFU: He was informed that the deceased had attempted to stab me with an assegai on three occasions before. He had come to my room as well and on that occasion he was with his stepfather, with Mr Shezi's stepfather and they had damaged property at my home and harassed my wife and children as well as the fact that when comrades were attacked or injured he was ...(indistinct) implicated.
MR PANDAY: The deceased stabbed you with an assegai, damaged your property and harassed you?
MR MAFU: He did not stab me but he attempted to do so but unfortunately I fled. On the occasion that they came to my house he was in the company of other IFP members. Even Cyril's stepfather was present and at that time he was an Induna.
MR DEHAL: Sorry Mr Chairperson, within the purview of cross-examination that proposition would be unfair. It does not put it totally as he said it earlier, he also said that when comrades were attacked and injured he, the deceased, was always implicated.
MR PANDAY: Objection Mr Chairperson, this is under cross-examination. We're trying to establish what sort of information was relayed to the head, Mr Shezi. Now under cross-examination the applicant has introduced evidence to the effect that he was also attacked and this was really to Mkhize. Now we're merely going on and that will be followed by the next question, if Mr Chairperson will allow me to pursue that line of questioning?
MR DEHAL: All I am saying is that having got the answer he then repeats, Mr Panday then repeats "so you say" and then he repeats only two of the three propositions in answer, he repeats the first part saying "so you say the deceased stabbed you about three times" and he damaged property at your house but he does not say the last part and in fairness to this witness you've got to repeat that last part as well where he says comrades were generally attacked and injured and this deceased was always implicated.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Perhaps he would be coming to that one still?
MR PANDAY: Well maybe before I continue, what was the name of Mr Shezi's stepfather?
MR MAFU: His name is Shede.
MR PANDAY: And the surname?
MR MAFU: He was Shede Mavundla.
MR PANDAY: Now you also mentioned that other comrades were attacked by deceased, is that correct?
MR MAFU: Please repeat that question?
MR PANDAY: You also mentioned in your evidence that other comrades were attacked by the deceased, is that correct?
MR MAFU: Now that is not completely correct. The deceased was implicated in the attack of comrades. He had something to do with their attacks.
MR PANDAY: Now when you consulted with your attorney and you drafted Exhibit A, that is the statement you handed in today, why did you not tell your attorney that the deceased also attacked you and your family?
MR DEHAL: Sorry Mr Chairperson, he certainly told me that, I didn't include it in the statement, it was drafted last night, he told me that day. I was actually conferring with my assistant on and on, we were trying to establish what aspects we should lead him on. This is an aspect I did not ...(intervention)
MR PANDAY: With due respect, Mr Chairperson ...(intervention)
MR DEHAL: Sorry can I just finish? I'm placing on record that it was honestly told to me and I am saying that I did not deal with it.
MR PANDAY: No Mr Chairperson, I don't know whether the attorney for the applicant will be giving evidence as to whether the evidence now elicited under cross-examination was in fact what he was told now, it's going to place the attorney in - we'd rather hear the answer from the applicant as to why or did he tell the attorney or not and that would place us in a better position to establish what really took place and if he did, to answer that Chairperson quite simply, you say yes or no?
MR MAFU: I did tell my attorney but it appeared that I had to inform him of that yesterday so that it would be incorporated into my statement.
MR PANDAY: When did you inform your attorney of that?
MR MAFU: Today when we had discussions.
MR PANDAY: Now ...(inaudible)
" As the courts would not have accepted the true version of the incident, I was forced to rely heavily on the aspect of witchcraft activities of the deceased and his alleged involvement in my brother's death."
Now what was the true version of the incident?
MR MAFU: The truth is that he was not killed merely for the reason that he practised witchcraft but for the reason that he was against the ANC, he was a member of the IFP and he did whatever he could to harass the ANC and stop the activities of the organisation. He even forbade his children to attend ANC meetings or to involve themselves in our activities.
MR PANDAY: Now you said he forbade his children to join the ANC? How old were his children at the time?
MR MAFU: I do not know their ages but they were not very young. For instance Kenneth was about 16 and the two girls, Wanasi and Nandi were my age mates although I'm not certain of their correct age.
MR PANDAY: Now besides Mr Mkhize forbidding his children to join the ANC, him attacking comrades, what other ...(intervention)
JUDGE DE JAGER: Sorry, what was your age at that stage?
MR MAFU: I was 28 but I said I was 22 in court.
JUDGE DE JAGER: So you as a 20 year old man, a 28 year old man instructed a 16 year old boy to pour petrol on his father, is that correct?
MR MAFU: Yes I did because that was an instruction that had been given to me, it was not just my instruction but it had been a decision that had been taken collectively and I would not have gone against that decision.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Who instructed you that the boy in particular should pour petrol on his father?
MR MAFU: It was the commander, Cyril Shezi.
JUDGE DE JAGER: So where did he give you that command?
MR MAFU: At the meeting where we discussed the elimination of the deceased. He said it would be a good idea if the son who actually pours the petrol over his father so that we are not heavily implicated because the son would be more implicated than ourselves.
MR PANDAY: Mr Mafu, how did Kenneth come to be at these meetings?
MR MAFU: He was an ANC supporter at the time so he had to be at the meeting because it was not that he would be exempt from attending the meeting just because the subject of that meeting was his father.
MR PANDAY: Who else was at this meeting?
MR MAFU: It was comrades from the youth league. I can mention a few but I cannot name all. It was, I can mention Vusi Mafu, Tandiso Vesi, Cyril Shezi, Bongani Mdovela as well as Baba Mkhize, as well as Jabulani Mkhize.
MR PANDAY: Is it correct that at this meeting Kenneth told the organisation his father disapproved of him being a member?
MR MAFU: The deceased's children had once mentioned to us that their father disapproved of them joining the organisation but when we enquired as to the reasons for that we did not get any response that is why we also started to follow his movements closely.
CHAIRPERSON: But you knew this man, you've just been telling us, to be an IFP leader who attacked ANC people and you didn't know why he didn't want his children to join the ANC. Are you being serious with us?
MR MAFU: The fact that I knew that he was an IFP member did not necessarily mean that he had to forbid his children from joining the ANC because even in my family my father is an IFP member or was an IFP member but he did not forbid me from joining the ANC because he was not at war with the ANC.
CHAIRPERSON: But you told us, my note is that you didn't give the true version in court when you said witchcraft, the true version was that he was IFP and that he opposed ANC activities and forbade his children from joining the ANC? Do you remember telling us that?
MR MAFU: Yes I do.
CHAIRPERSON: So this was a man who opposed ANC activities?
MR MAFU: Yes he was opposed to ANC activities.
CHAIRPERSON: Well surely in that case he would be opposed to his children joining the ANC if he was opposed to their activities?
MR MAFU: As far as political affiliation is concerned everyone has a right to join a political organisation of their choice because even his children were not forced to join the ANC, we just talked with them and asked them to do so. Therefore it was not right for him to forbid his children from joining an organisation of their choice and his refusal for them to join the ANC indicated that there was something not right about him.
MR PANDAY: Mr Mafu, who is Babalo Mkhize?
MR MAFU: He is a member of the deceased's family.
MR PANDAY: Was he an ANC member?
MR MAFU: Yes that is correct.
MR PANDAY: Now tell me did Kenneth Mkhize attend all the meetings of the ANC?
MR MAFU: He would attend some and some he would not attend because you may sometimes not have the opportunity to attend a meeting, for instance if you are busy or if you are a student but he would attend meetings.
MR PANDAY: Is it correct that he had stopped attending for a period of two weeks at least?
MR MAFU: That is not correct because we had held a meeting the previous day and his father was killed on the following day and he was present at that meeting.
MR PANDAY: Now do you recall Kenneth Mkhize giving evidence in court?
MR MAFU: Yes I do recall that, he was a State witness.
MR PANDAY: Now in his evidence he says on page 27, the bundle of documents, I'll read it to you. This is what Kenneth tells to the court. For about two weeks after he had ceased attending meetings for about two weeks he was approached by Babalo Mkhize and ...(indistinct) and asked why he stopped coming to the meetings. Would that be correct?
MR MAFU: That question was put to him at that very same meeting that we held not that he was approached or fetched from his home.
MR PANDAY: So you deny that he was approached by Babalo Mkhize?
MR MAFU: I do not dispute that he questioned him. What I do dispute is that he was approached somewhere. That question was put to him at that very same meeting where his father's elimination was discussed.
MR PANDAY: What was Babalo Mkhize's role in the organisation?
MR MAFU: He was in the disciplinary committee.
MR PANDAY: And who did he take orders from?
MR MAFU: I was his senior.
MR PANDAY: Now Kenneth further tells the court that he told him that it was because his father did not approve on the sunday before the deceased was attacked Babalo told him that because his father had disapproved of his membership of the comrades he was going to be burnt? Now isn't Kenneth's version quite different from what you say took place at this meeting?
MR MAFU: Babalo did mention that in the meeting because the subject of Kenneth's father's death was being discussed.
MR PANDAY: Where was Cyril Shezi at the time?
MR MAFU: He was at the meeting.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Who was the chairperson of this meeting?
MR MAFU: It was Kangiso Uvisi.
CHAIRPERSON: Who, would you repeat that again please?
MR MAFU: Kangiso Uvisi.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Wouldn't it be the custom that the commander or the leader of the ANC in that area would chair the meeting?
MR MAFU: Yes that person would be in charge of the meeting because even the people who chaired or the people who were in charge at that meeting had been instructed by him to do so. So he is the person who had issued out instructions on who was to be responsible for what task.
MR PANDAY: Who issued the instruction as to who had to be responsible for what task?
MR MAFU: The commander Cyril Shezi.
MR PANDAY: Now why in particular did Shezi not chair this meeting?
MR MAFU: It was his decision to elect those people to chair the meeting because those persons were - the people who normally chaired youth meetings because Cyril himself did not normally attend our meetings.
MR PANDAY: Now is it correct to assume then that the person who chaired the meeting will issue the order to either attack, kill or not attack or not kill?
MR MAFU: That is not so. The person who issued an instruction to attack would be the commander even if that commander was not present at a meeting but if he had issued such an instruction this instruction would be carried out, not necessarily the person who was chairing a meeting.
CHAIRPERSON: Well when did he issue the instruction?
MR MAFU: He issued it at the same meeting that Kenneth was present and that was on a Tuesday preceding the day that the deceased was killed.
MR PANDAY: Now do you know that Kenneth will testify that his father was a practising Christian and was not part of any witchcraft and was not part of any political organisation as you say. Can you comment on that?
MR MAFU: That is not correct because Kenneth's father came to my house and he was in the company of other IFP members and Induna and they almost killed me had my mother not intervened. I may have been killed on that day, they even damaged my property, my wife and children were chased out. So it is incorrect for him to say that his father was not politically involved.
MR PANDAY: You said your mother intervened, what did she do?
MR MAFU: She asked them what have I done because the deceased insisted that I should be shot and she told them that she was going to take the matter to the police if they kill me and because my mother was an IFP member they listened to her and informed us that my family, myself, my children and my wife should leave the area. They damaged my house and I had to leave and go there with my in-laws.
MR PANDAY: Now when your mother intervened where were you?
MR MAFU: I was seated and at that time there was nothing I could do because they were all around me, they surrounded me.
MR PANDAY: Now I stand to be corrected but when you earlier on mentioned that the deceased attacked you or tried to stab you, you managed to escape? Isn't that a bit different from what you say to us now?
MR DEHAL: The correction there, Chairperson, sorry, is the following. The witness had mentioned that there were at least three attempts made by the deceased to attack him, to kill him, that he had escaped from those occasions. This he is talking about is a separate incident when they had come to his home, damaged his property and there said to his mother that they wish to shoot him.
JUDGE DE JAGER: A fourth occasion then?
MR DEHAL: Yes he only mentioned there were at least three occasions.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes but couldn't it have been one of the three? Isn't your explanation perhaps wrong?
MR DEHAL: That's a probability.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Perhaps I'll leave it to the witness to explain?
MR DEHAL: If that's the anomaly, yes.
MR PANDAY: Mr Chairperson, the way I understand it is that the applicant gave his evidence that he was attacked, his property was damaged and his family was harassed.
CHAIRPERSON: Well my note is that "he tried to stab me with an assegai three times. He came to my house with Shezi's stepfather and attacked. He damaged my property and harassed my wife and children. He did not stab me as I ran away" but I'm not sure that that " he did not stab me" was not a question " why didn't he stab you on any one of the occasions?"
MR PANDAY: Mr Mafu when was the first time that the deceased attacked you?
MR MAFU: In 1986 he tried to stab me. I was on my way from my in-laws and I was passing by his house and he tried to stab me as I passed his home and I fled and reported the incident at home. On the second occasion the same thing happened. On the third occasion I was at his home because I had been summoned by his wife for who requested me to assist her to damage some structure on which they're going to build a house. On that occasion the deceased became aggressive and tried to attack me. I had to abandon whatever I was doing for the wife and leave home. These incidents happened one after the other. On the last occasion he came along with other IFP members attacking our home. That is when they destroyed my house, chased myself and my family.
MR PANDAY: Now Mr Mafu, how long or how far did the deceased live from you?
MR MAFU: The deceased is our neighbour and we are separated by a hill but we are close neighbours and we used to be good neighbours before the political conflicts started.
MR PANDAY: Now when exactly did the political conflict start?
MR MAFU: As I mentioned earlier I first joined the ANC in 1985. From that time onwards the relationship between myself and the deceased soured because he learnt that I was not part of their organisation any longer. When I was growing up I didn't have any knowledge about the ANC so when I learnt about it and joined and my neighbour discovered that the relationship between us soured.
MR PANDAY: And even with all that relationship turning sour his wife still called you to assist him?
MR MAFU: As neighbours we used to visit one another. Even up to his death I used to be in constant contact and had good relations with the members of his family because we did not have any personal grudges, there was no personal conflict between us. The conflict and the incident that happened was caused by political strife not because of personal reasons. Even during the conflict itself I used to go and see members of his family because I did not have any problems with them.
MR PANDAY: Now your brother's death, how was it caused?
MR MAFU: I do not know which brother you are referring to.
MR PANDAY: Well I'm talking about the brother you refer to in paragraph 7 of your statement
"I then saw this as the best opportunity to ask the deceased whether he did in fact practise witchcraft and kill my brother."
MR MAFU: My brother had been knocked down by a car in St Michaels.
MR PANDAY: Now what made you believe that the deceased practised witchcraft to kill your brother?
MR MAFU: It was what the deceased said after my brother's death. I've got letters to believe that he was implicated because the deceased, he'd come to my home and we discussed my brother's death so what he told me on that occasion led me to think that he may have been implicated.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Well tell us what he told you, did he say I gave him muti or what did he say? Why did you believe he killed him?
MR MAFU: When he arrived he asked me on how my brother was killed and I explained to him that he had gone to town with my mother and he had been knocked down by a car and he said yes my brother should have been killed because he had distanced himself from him or we had removed my brother from him because he used to be his herd boy.
MR PANDAY: Now this made you angry?
MR MAFU: It made me think because if it had made me angry I would have done something to him right there and there but it made me think and I had to think about it deeply, that is why I also - it also came to my mind when we discussed it with my family he also felt or he thought that he might have had a hand in my brother's death.
MR PANDAY: Now after your family thought that he might have had a hand in your brother's death, what did your family decide?
MR MAFU: The family was not very much involved in this because the family, the involvement and that, when they removed my brother from the deceased's home, when we met to discuss his death it was not with my family but with the ANC.
MR PANDAY: Now why did you have discuss that brother's death with the ANC?
MR MAFU: It was a serious problem that I had to discuss with the ANC because had I gone on my own to approach the deceased or to discuss with him the very same problem, if for instance we had ended up fighting with the deceased it would have been regarded as bad on my part not to inform the organisation of my movements.
MR PANDAY: So you needed to use the organisation to attend to the problem?
MR MAFU: It was not that I was going to use the organisation to solve my problems, I lied to inform the organisation on my problems even if they were not going to assist me in any way because if I did not inform them, if I was a person who did not inform them on my problems, they would not be there for me when I needed the assistance of the organisation.
MR PANDAY: But this was a personal problem, why did you have to inform the organisation? You mentioned that the deceased was angry because you removed your brother as his herd man, but that's a personal problem, that's not political? Why did you have to go to an organisation?
MR MAFU: What I can say is that if I'd been somebody else I could have even attacked him then and there when he uttered such words about my brother. The reason that I went to inform the organisation was because I realised that should I do something it should be known by the organisation because it might lead to greater strife, it might lead to something bigger that might eventually involve organisations.
MR PANDAY: So if the organisation got involved this could have hid your personal grievance or your personal problem, would that be correct?
MR MAFU: I went to discuss the matter with organisations so that I could also be advised on how to regard the matter. I trust members of my organisation, I trusted and had faith in their opinions. That is why I approached them not that I was actually doing that so that they would do something about it. They would have assisted me in advising me on what to do about the problem.
MR PANDAY: Who did you speak to in the organisation?
MR MAFU: I did not speak to one particular person because when the deceased came to my home and uttered these words I was in the company of other people so I did not call any one person aside but I just mentioned it in a meeting.
MR PANDAY: No you haven't answered my question, let's go through this again. You went to the organisation for advice, that is correct?
MR MAFU: Yes.
MR PANDAY: When did you go to the organisation for advice?
MR MAFU: That was after they deceased had said those words.
JUDGE DE JAGER: And then you were asked to whom did you speak and then you came with the story that you didn't speak to any person in particular but you went there for advice. Who gave you that advice?
MR MAFU: It was not important who was going to do the advising but it would be anybody who had an opinion or who could offer advice.
JUDGE DE JAGER: You went there, to whom did you speak? Who was the person you spoke to?
MR MAFU: I would say the person who responded was Gangiso Vesi.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Now why couldn't you give us the answer in the first place? Why beat about the bush?
MR MAFU: I would apologise for that but the person did say something to me was Gangiso.
MR DEHAL: Right, sorry Sir, with respect, as I understand it, his version, his evidence is that he attended a meeting and he raised it generally at the meeting, he did not speak to anybody specific but that Mr Vesi responded.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Oh, you went to the ANC office to ask for advice and then he said no he spoke at his house when it was mentioned and didn't mention it to anybody in particular, that was a different occasion but then it was put to him "your evidence was that you went to the ANC to ask for advice?" and we only want to know who gave him that advice?
MR DEHAL: Then he says "I raised it at the meeting generally" and the Vesi answer is the person who responds at the meeting, not the person he speaks to at the meeting but that he raises it generally to all persons at the meeting.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Right carry on.
MR PANDAY: Now what advice did Gangiso Vesi give you?
MR MAFU: Gangiso said I should not concentrate or forecast on what people say. He said we maybe investigate or take a closer look at what that person says where it emanates from before we take any action.
MR PANDAY: Now your brother do you recall on which day he died? What was the date?
MR MAFU: It would be difficult to recall the date because I have spent a lot of time here in prison so I do not remember a lot of things.
MR PANDAY: Let me re-ask you the question. How long after your brother's death was the deceased murdered?
MR MAFU: It could be a week or two.
MR PANDAY: Now Gangiso said that we must effectually jump to conclusions, we must first look what people say before we do anything, is that correct?
MR MAFU: That is correct.
MR PANDAY: Now what other investigation did you conduct to establish how your brother died?
MR MAFU: It ended there, I did not do anything else but the deceased continued being involved in activities that indicated that he was a supporter of the IFP and he was involved in activities that harassed the ANC but we did not concentrate on my brother's death nor carry out an investigation.
MR PANDAY: How were you sure that the deceased used witchcraft in your brother's death?
MR MAFU: I did not have any concrete proof except for what he said because I did not witness him giving my brother any muti. The only thing that raised my suspicions was what he uttered.
MR PANDAY: Now ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry before you go on, there's one issue I'd like to clear up, the problem arises, in the judgment as to your trial the judge says apparently quoting your evidence that you said people came to fetch you from your home to go to a meeting and you said you did not want to go because your brother had been run over the day before? Is that correct?
MR MAFU: I did mention that in court but it was not the truth because I was the person who was acting in politics, I'm the person who used to organise meetings.
CHAIRPERSON: But why lie to the court about when your brother was run over?
MR MAFU: That court was not trustworthy, I've got no trust then because they were an apartheid court even if I told the truth it did not matter.
CHAIRPERSON: The problem, gentlemen, is that my experience in the past, if prisoners do not arrive back at Westville Prison at a prescribed time they frequently find they don't get fed and there are other problems. I don't think, I didn't see them getting any food here at lunchtime so I don't want us to be responsible for that again. You'll be some time still with this witness won't you? So if we sit an extra half an hour now it won't help us very much and I think we will now have to adjourn this matter till tomorrow morning. What time gentlemen?
MR PANDAY: Half past nine is fine.
MR DEHAL: Whatever time suits you Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: The purpose is to enable us to conclude this witness. We will then go on to the other matters being heard by a different tribunal which will implicate the other people from Westville Prison so we can tomorrow clear up that side and we can then go back to this one.
MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, I'm sorry, in the light of this I suggest that we start at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning.
CHAIRPERSON: Right 9 o'clock. Wait a bit, who is the senior Westville officer here? Can you have them here at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning? Good, we will adjourn till 9 o'clock tomorrow morning. I'm obliged to you for that assistance.
MR DEHAL: May I just raise this Chair because the applicant Tom Madlala is a client of mine, I'm very indebted to you being as perceptive, they have not had lunch, all the prisoners approached me to say that they believe the TRC generally provides lunch and I said that's history so I wonder whether ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps we can make arrangements if history repeats itself tomorrow.
MR DEHAL: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: We'll adjourn till 9 o'clock tomorrow morning.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
