Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: Good morning. We want to start the proceedings. For the record, it is Thursday 8th of July 1999. We are hearing the amnesty application of Mr Mavuso. The appearances are as indicated earlier on the record.

Mr Khumalo, you are reminded that you are still under oath. Do you understand?

VELAPHI PHILEMON KHUMALO: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, have you got any further questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS: (cont)

Yes, I'll ...(no microphone). Mr Khumalo, do you recall what my last question to you was yesterday?

MR KHUMALO: I would like you to remind me.

MR BIZOS: Why would Mr Mavuso admit to you that he was guilty of murder?

MR KHUMALO: As I have already explained, he didn't say that I did commit the crime, he said he did but then he only mentioned myself because I went to his home. This is what I suspected.

MR BIZOS: No, no, no, you told us that he spoke words at the place where the five of you and he met, together with others from Piet Retief, that he said words which meant that he was guilty of murder. Do you recall that?

MR KHUMALO: He didn't say that he did commit the crime, but then when he was asked as to who sent him to do this, he didn't come out with a clear answer.

MR BIZOS: Well, what was the ambiguous answer that gave you the impression that he was guilty of the crime of which he was being charged?

MR KHUMALO: I thought so, I don't know about the others. He didn't explain that he actually did it and he was sent by someone, but then I personally thought from what he said, I thought he was admitting that he did commit the crime.

MR BIZOS: From what he said you came to the conclusion that he was guilty of the crime.

MR KHUMALO: Yes, that's what I'm saying.

MR BIZOS: Why should he have said anything which could convey to you that he was guilty of the crime, if he was a stranger to you and your four taxi owner/companions with you?

MR KHUMALO: What made me come to that conclusion that he actually did that, it's the way he was speaking and Sanda said we must stop questioning him any further, we must talk about the money, how we are going to help him. And there and there I suspected that Sanda may have an idea, or may know that the applicant has actually committed the crime.

MR BIZOS: Well did you ask Sanda, either there or anywhere else, why Sanda didn't want to - you did not want Sanda to question him any further?

MR KHUMALO: No, I didn't ask Sanda anything.

MR BIZOS: Why not? Were you not concerned whether the man that had come to you for help was guilty or innocent? You've already told us yesterday, more clearly than you are prepared to say today, that you knew that he was guilty.

MR KHUMALO: Yes, even now I'm still saying what he said made me suspect that he was actually guilty.

MR BIZOS: Not suspected, that you knew that he was guilty.

MR KHUMALO: I was suspecting because he didn't confirm that he actually did that.

MR BIZOS: Well I'm going to suggest to you that the only thing that you did overnight was to decide to change your evidence and not to try and answer the question. But let's go a little bit further. On the affidavits before the Committee, and more particularly the affidavit of Vincent Mtshali on page 56 of bundle 2 and the affidavit of Piet Sibiya on page 61 of bundle 2. The R3 000 for his bail was provided by Sanda through a devious way, in order to hide the fact who was responsible for providing the bail. Now I am referring specifically to paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the first affidavit, Mr Chairman, and paragraphs 1 and 2 of Sibiya's affidavit on page 61. Now do you know Mtshali?

MR KHUMALO: No, I don't know which Mtshali you're referring to.

MR BIZOS: Vincent Mtshali.

MR KHUMALO: No, I don't know him.

MR BIZOS: He words at Byson Board and lives in the Piet Retief hostel. You don't know him at all?

MR KHUMALO: No, I don't.

MR BIZOS: Can you admit or deny the contents of his affidavit, that it was he, Sanda, who gave the R3 000?

MR KHUMALO: I am unable to speak on behalf of Sanda, because I don't know whether he did give the money or not.

MR BIZOS: Do you know Piet Sibiya?

MR KHUMALO: No, I don't.

MR BIZOS: Also from the Piet Retief Hostel.

But now it seems that the R3 000 was handed over by Sanda. Was money collected by the Taxi Owners Association executive in order to bail Mavuso out or not?

MR KHUMALO: I don't know, but I personally never donated any money to bail of Mavuso.

MR BIZOS: Now where would Sanda have got the money?

MR KHUMALO: I think Sanda can give an appropriate answer to this one. I have no idea.

MR BIZOS: Well you know that Sanda is dead.

MR KHUMALO: Yes, I know.

MR BIZOS: He was murdered.

MR KHUMALO: Yes, I know.

MR BIZOS: Maybe because he knew too much, I don't know. But tell us, why would a senior member of the Taxi Association, and himself a taxi owner, make available either his own money or the money of others, it doesn't matter, why should he have made available and be the source, the known source of the money that was paid for Mavuso's bail?

MR KHUMALO: I wouldn't know.

MR BIZOS: The murder of the deceased angered many people in Pongola, did it not?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, it angered many people and after that there was no, there was unrest in Pongola.

MR BIZOS: Did it anger you?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, I was angry because I knew Mike and he was also a resident at Pongola.

MR BIZOS: Were you friendly disposed towards Mike?

INTERPRETER: Would you please repeat that question?

MR BIZOS: Were you well disposed towards Mike and his family?

MR KHUMALO: There was no relationship between me and Mike, but I knew him, he was older than me. I knew him, but ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: You are a law abiding and honourable citizen of Pongola, on your version.

MR KHUMALO: Like what law?

MR BIZOS: Well like reporting people that you suspect of being murderers.

MR KHUMALO: I've never done that before.

MR BIZOS: Well I would like to assume in your favour, that this was the first occasion on which you were told as you told us yesterday by clear implication, or you suspected as you told us today, that Mavuso was responsible for Mike's death. Why didn't you go to the police and tell them?

MR KHUMALO: They had already arrested him and I didn't have any evidence with me to go to the police and say I think he murdered the deceased because of this. I didn't have anything.

MR BIZOS: Now but you could tell them that you had a meeting with him in which by clear implication, as you told us yesterday, he admitted and today, although you watered it down, you had information about this man's complicity.

MR KHUMALO: I didn't think that way. Maybe someone else may have thought that way, but I didn't.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Among other interests, did the deceased have a hairdressing salon?

MR KHUMALO: I don't remember.

MR BIZOS: Well you should remember, because you and Sanda, according to what I am informed, actually had your hair cut there.

MR KHUMALO: In the deceased's salon?

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MR KHUMALO: If he owned one maybe I didn't know that it was his.

MR BIZOS: It was adjacent to his house.

MR KHUMALO: No, I don't remember and I've never been in his salon or hairdresser.

MR BIZOS: Look behind you and tell us whether you know Mr Mdumisi. - Msibi. I beg your pardon.

MR KHUMALO: No, I don't know him. Who is Mdu Msibi? I don't know him.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, perhaps Mr Khumalo, you've looked over your right shoulder, perhaps you want to look over your left shoulder as well, there are more people sitting to your left behind you.

MR KHUMALO: No, I don't know him and I don't see any person that I know whose name is Mdu Msibi here.

MR BIZOS: Have you looked behind you?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, I looked and I don't see anyone whose name is Mdu Msibi, but these are the people I know from Pongola, but not Mdu Msibi. I don't see a Mdu Msibi here.

MR BIZOS: Well the person behind you to your right, next to the warder. Now there is evidence contained in the documents that he was originally contracted to kill the deceased for money and that he did not do it because of some supervening events that he got into trouble for.

INTERPRETER: Would you please repeat that last part for me.

MR BIZOS: Yes. That he got into trouble and couldn't do it. He got into trouble in connection with something else and could not do it. And that the persons, according to Mdu Msibi's affidavit on page 19 of bundle 2, the people involved in asking him - paragraph 4, Mr Chairman, the people involved in asking him to kill the deceased in this case were Sanda and Mkhwanazi and Ali Msibi. Now do you know Mr Ali Msibi?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, I know him. I think I did mention that yesterday. I know him merely by seeing him.

MR BIZOS: Yes. And do you know Mr Mkhwanazi?

MR KHUMALO: You mean the policeman?

MR BIZOS: Yes, the ex-policeman.

MR KHUMALO: Yes, I do know him.

MR BIZOS: Yes. And of course you know Sanda.

MR KHUMALO: Yes, I do know Sanda, we used to work together.

MR BIZOS: And it seems that Sanda played an important role in the killing of the deceased, if a portion of the evidence of the applicant is to be believed. Correct?

MR KHUMALO: I don't know whether it is true or not, but this is what you've been reading for me.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Do you know of any reason why Mr Msibi, Mdu Msibi, would have implicated these persons in planning the death of the deceased shortly before he was killed by the applicant in this case?

MR KHUMALO: No, I don't know.

MR BIZOS: Now what is your evidence? Did you or did you not collect money for the applicant's defence?

MR KHUMALO: I've already explained that I never donated or collected any money to help the applicant.

MR BIZOS: You see we know from witnesses that Sanda organised the R3 000 bail and Mkhwanazi, we will contend, gave deliberately false evidence in order to get the applicant out of the charge of murder. Can you give any explanation as to why Sanda, with whom you were associated, should be coupled with these other people in relation to the murder of the deceased?

MR KHUMALO: I wouldn't be able to explain why Sanda did that.

MR BIZOS: Now do you persist that your meeting in Piet Retief was in your IFP capacities and not in your taxi owner capacities?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I think Mr Bizos is referring to Sanda as the person who testified in the trial. Perhaps I didn't hear it correctly.

MR BIZOS: Will you please tell us in what capacity you went to Piet Retief.

MR KHUMALO: At Dumbe, not Piet Retief. At the applicant's home. We went there because we were IFP members.

MR BIZOS: He sought assistance from members of the IFP. Did you do anything as a member of the IFP to help him?

MR KHUMALO: I didn't do anything.

MR BIZOS: But now did you know that Mr Israel Dlamini, whose affidavit appears in bundle 2, page 112, was the chairman of the IFP?

MR VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairman, that's not entirely correct. The witness indicated it was some time after the arrest of the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it would have been Rasta ...(indistinct)

MR BIZOS: Yes, that's correct Mr ...(indistinct). Now did you go the chairman of the IFP and ask him, please let us start a fund for our brother in the IFP? Did you do that?

MR KHUMALO: No, I didn't, I personally.

MR BIZOS: Do you know whether any of the five top taxi owners - well the other four top taxi owners who were there, carried this message to the IFP structures to help him?

MR KHUMALO: What I know is that Sanda said he received the letter and he took the letter with him to Mcwangu in the IFP office, to see Mr Mcwangu.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Do you know who succeeded Mr Dlamini as chairman of the IFP?

MR KHUMALO: You mean in the IFP?

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MR KHUMALO: I don't remember very well, but I think it was Ngcobo. I don't remember very well if it was him who succeeded him, but I think he was chosen.

MR BIZOS: But it was not Rasta?

MR KHUMALO: I said I don't know whether Ngcobo came after Dlamini. I do know to this fact that Ngcobo was also a chairman, but I don't know whether he followed immediately after Dlamini.

MR BIZOS: Well was Rasta ever a chairman? Because that's what you said yesterday, I'm reminded.

MR KHUMALO: Yes, I said so.

MR BIZOS: But that wasn't correct?

MR KHUMALO: It was correct.

MR BIZOS: Chairman of what? What was Rasta chairman of?

MR KHUMALO: IFP.

MR BIZOS: His name is not Ngcobo, his surname is not Ngcobo?

MR KHUMALO: These are two different people. Ngcobo was a chairman and Rasta as well was a chairman.

MR BIZOS: Well now we have two chairmen. Did they sit on the same chair when there were meetings?

MR KHUMALO: I didn't say the were chairmen at the same time, I said Rasta was a chairman and Ngcobo as well was a chairman.

MR BIZOS: Who was chairman of the IFP when you went to the applicant's house in Piet Retief, do you know?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, I did say so yesterday, it was Rasta.

MR BIZOS: Well why did you mention Ngcobo's name in that context today?

MR VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairman, it's not exactly the same context. His evidence was yesterday that Rasta was a chairman at the time of the death of the deceased. He only said Ngcobo was a chairman at a certain stage, he was not asked when.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well he might have been referring to the sequence of the chairs.

ADV GCABASHE: In fact that's ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

ADV GCABASHE: He said Rasta was the chairman at the time that they went to the applicant's home in Dumbe.

MR VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Honourable Committee Member, that's indeed correct so.

MR BIZOS: Well you've heard Adv Gcabashe - yes, I've been made very conscious, but this I am told Bizos by many. So that's my defence.

Well you've heard the correction by the Member of the Committee. It seems to me firstly, that you were so far removed from the IFP that you didn't know who its chairman was and also that you and your taxi owner friends didn't even bother to find out who the chairman was, to go and get the proper IFP authority to help the man. Which one of the two is correct? Or may both are correct, what do you say?

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, Mr Bizos, I don't quite follow. That he didn't go to the chairman, because the chairman went with him to the applicant, so the chairman was well aware of it.

MR BIZOS: Yes. What I am saying is that because of the confused and contradictory evidence, the inference may be drawn. Obviously if the one version is accepted then with respect, it is a correct observation that Adv de Jager is making.

Would you like to comment on it?

MR KHUMALO: I did explain yesterday that the chairman was Mr Mcwangu and he did contact the Dumbe IFP offices.

MR BIZOS: Well was any report ever made to you and your association, as to whether any assistance was given?

MR KHUMALO: I don't know, maybe the chairman did receive a report, but I didn't because I didn't have any position in the IFP.

MR BIZOS: Did you know that contrary to what the applicant told you at his house about his guilt or innocence, he was telling the Court not only that he was innocent, but the senior investigating officer in his case procured false evidence against him to convict an innocent man and that the then Sergeant Mkhwanazi, I'm going to put to you, went into the witness box and perjured himself in order to try and get the accused off. Did you know that Sergeant Mkhwanazi went into the witness box to give damning evidence against the investigating officer in order to prove the innocence of the applicant? Did you know that?

MR KHUMALO: No, I don't.

MR BIZOS: Did you see Mkhwanazi regularly, hanging around Pongola during the applicant's criminal case?

MR KHUMALO: I wouldn't know because there were other police and I cannot say I would see Mkhwanazi among all other police, but I used to see many police.

MR BIZOS: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BIZOS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Bizos. Mr Meiring, have you got any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MEIRING: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Khumalo, if I understand your evidence correct then you say you only knew Mr Amos Mtungwa as an honourable, is that correct?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, that's correct.

MR MEIRING: Have you ever met him in person?

MR KHUMALO: No, I've never spoke to him at all.

MR MEIRING: Now if I understand your evidence further, then it is that you had nothing to do with the plot relating to the death of the deceased in this matter.

MR KHUMALO: Yes, that's correct.

MR MEIRING: And is it correct that according to your evidence Mr Amos Mtungwa was not part of the delegation that visited the house of the applicant at Dumbe?

MR KHUMALO: No, he was not.

MR MEIRING: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MEIRING

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Meiring. Mr van der Heyde, have you got anything?

MR VAN DER HEYDE: No questions, Mr Chairperson.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DER HEYDE

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr van der Walt?

EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Mr Chairman, only two aspects.

Mr Khumalo, did you understand Mr Mavuso, the applicant's evidence that you were part of a plot to kill the deceased for political reasons?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, I heard him saying so.

MR VAN DER WALT: Do you agree with that?

MR KHUMALO: No, I don't.

MR VAN DER WALT: You also heard the suggestions made by Mr Bizos on behalf of the family of the deceased, that maybe you were part of a plot to kill the deceased, but not for political reasons but for reasons relating to the taxi industry at that stage.

MR KHUMALO: Yes, I heard that.

MR VAN DER WALT: And do you agree with those suggestions?

MR KHUMALO: No, I don't.

MR VAN DER WALT: Just one last aspect. In various or during your examination by Mr Bizos, he referred to you as one of the top five taxi owners in Pongola at the time of the death of the deceased. Would you describe yourself as being one of the top five taxi owners at that stage?

MR KHUMALO: No, I never had any executive position in the taxi industry.

MR VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I've nothing further.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DER WALT

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van der Walt. Mr Botha?

MR BOTHA: No questions, Mr Chairman.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR BOTHA

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Shubane, you are also representing the interests of Mr Padi we were told.

MR SHUBANE: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Have you got any questions?

MR SHUBANE: Only two questions, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR SHUBANE: Sir, you made mention that the mayor of Pongola called a meeting with regards to the strike to the taxis, is that correct?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, that's correct.

MR SHUBANE: Are you in a position to tell us who was the mayor of Pongola at that stage?

MR KHUMALO: Yes.

MR SHUBANE: Who was he?

MR KHUMALO: Mr Dlamini.

MR SHUBANE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR SHUBANE

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Shubane.

ADV GCABASHE: Just the first name of ...(indistinct) Dlamini?

MR KHUMALO: Israel Dlamini.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you, Chair. Rasta Mcwangu, he was the chair of the IFP in Pongola? Just clarify that for me. At the time that you visited the applicant's home.

MR KHUMALO: Yes.

ADV GCABASHE: Did the Dumbe branch of the IFP have a chairman?

MR KHUMALO: I don't remember very well whether it was Kashwa or Steshe, Mbatha or Steshe.

ADV GCABASHE: Steshe, do you know the surname?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, it's Mbatha.

ADV GCABASHE: So the first name is Steshe, the surname is Mbatha?

MR KHUMALO: Yes.

ADV GCABASHE: Are you then saying that Rasta Mcwangu spoke to Steshe Mbatha at Dumbe, at the time that you were going to see the applicant at home?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, that's what he said, he said he contacted the office of the IFP, but I don't know as to who spoke to Rasta, because when we arrived there the offices were closed.

ADV GCABASHE: I just want a little more information around this. So you went to the IFP office at Dumbe, that's where you started?

MR KHUMALO: Yes.

ADV GCABASHE: Did you collect any IFP Dumbe members? I heard you when you say that office was closed, but did any IFP Dumbe members then accompany you to the applicant's home?

MR KHUMALO: No, we didn't find anyone there. We were going to go with the chairman, but the offices were closed and therefore we went there alone.

ADV GCABASHE: And which one of you knew where the applicant lived?

MR KHUMALO: No-one knew, we asked in town and we were given directions and we tried to get to the applicant's house, but we were getting lost along the way and we were asking people until eventually we got at the applicant's home.

ADV GCABASHE: So your evidence is that you know nothing at all about the discussion between Rasta, representing the Pongola IFP branch, and whoever he may have spoken to at Dumbe? You know nothing of the content of that conversation?

MR KHUMALO: No, I don't, I think Rasta can be the one who can give more information because he said he contacted them over the phone.

ADV GCABASHE: Now a slightly different aspect. I know that you say you made no donation of any money for the applicant's case, either for the bail or for the legal defence. That's right, that's your evidence?

MR KHUMALO: Yes.

ADV GCABASHE: Do you know of any other person, be it somebody involved in the taxi business or somebody involved in the IFP, who made such donation?

MR KHUMALO: No, I don't know anything about that.

ADV GCABASHE: Did you ever hear of money being collected and receipts being given to people who made such donation?

MR KHUMALO: No, I didn't hear anything about that, I only heard about that when the applicant said so.

ADV GCABASHE: Sanda, you said in your evidence that you worked with Sanda, where did you work with Sanda?

MR KHUMALO: He was a taxi owner at Pongola and I was also a taxi owner at Pongola.

ADV GCABASHE: Then just one final aspect. My understanding of the different surnames we have here, we've got you, you are Mr Khumalo, we've got Paul Nlangamandla, we got Mtungwa. Now Nlangamandla, and as I understand it, Mtungwa it's tagasan(?), that's your clan name, but essentially you are all from the same clan, you're Khumalo. Just help me understand this because I don't know too much about the Khumalo family, but that's what I understand. Just help me, as a member of the family. Are you related?

MR KHUMALO: No, we are not related, the Nlangamandla, they are Mtungwa, because this is how you - it's the praise name for Mtungwa.

ADV GCABASHE: Start slowly, I'm listening to Zulu.

MR KHUMALO: The Nlangamandla and the Mtungwa's, they are one family. Some Mtungwa will call them Nlangamandla and some will call themselves Mtungwa. Khumalo is different, but the praise for Khumalo, it's Mtungwa. It is nor a surname, it is just a praise name for Khumalo.

ADV GCABASHE: So in relation to the evidence that we have here, the different names that have, the people who have been referred to here, you are saying that all Nlangamandla ...(Zulu) Mtungwa that have been referred to in this documentation, they are related, ...(Zulu) Khumalo are not related even though Stagazelo(?) might be Mtungwa? The praise name might be Mtungwa.

MR KHUMALO: Yes.

ADV GCABASHE: So just hold on. The names that have been mentioned in the evidence that has been give to date, are Amos Mtungwa, Philemon Mtungwa, we then have Sam Khumalo, Velaphi Khumalo, so those are two different families?

MR KHUMALO: Yes.

ADV GCABASHE: Okay. Do you know Philemon? Do you know him?

MR KHUMALO: No, I don't.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you very much, Mr Khumalo. Thank you, Chair.

ADV DE JAGER: Were there any rallies in Pongola, of the IFP having meetings there?

MR KHUMALO: When?

ADV DE JAGER: Before the killing and soon after the killing, 1993/1994.

MR KHUMALO: I don't remember any rallies before the killing. I think there were rallies after the killing. I do remember that a long time, long before '93, when Chief Mangusotho Buthelezi came to the area, there were rallies.

ADV DE JAGER: And were branches formed before 1993, of the IFP?

MR KHUMALO: ...(Zulu)

ADV DE JAGER: At Pongola.

MR KHUMALO: Yes, there was a branch, the chairman was Mr Dlamini.

ADV DE JAGER: And Mr Sanda, did he have any position on the committee of the branch?

MR KHUMALO: No, I don't remember. I don't remember him having any position.

ADV DE JAGER: Did he have any position after the killing, at the time when Mr Rasta was Chairman?

MR KHUMALO: No, I don't know because he had already left, he had moved to a trust area.

ADV DE JAGER: But at the time he was in possession of this letter, isn't that so?

MR KHUMALO: When he had a letter?

ADV DE JAGER: The letter coming - according to what you've told us, from the applicant requesting pay, financial aid.

MR KHUMALO: He was now residing at Etsheleshuba. I don't know what position he held in that branch.

ADV DE JAGER: Didn't he tell you where he got this letter from? And did he bring it to Mr Rasta at the office, or what happened, how did this - he accompanied you while he was staying in a different area at that stage.

MR KHUMALO: He was residing in a different area, but we were working together. He only said that he received the letter and he took the letter to Rasta. And I don't know what position he held in that branch in that area where he was residing.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you see him as one of, as a member of the IFP, a leading member of the IFP?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, I can say he was a leader, but I don't know what position he held.

ADV DE JAGER: The other members who accompanied you, the taxi owners working with you, were they also leading members of the IFP?

MR KHUMALO: No, I think the others were ordinary members, except for Mcwangu.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you ever hear of an ANC branch being formed in Pongola?

MR KHUMALO: When?

ADV DE JAGER: In 1993 or 1994.

MR KHUMALO: No, I don't know.

ADV DE JAGER: Nobody ever asked you to join the ANC?

MR KHUMALO: No-one.

ADV DE JAGER: So you didn't know of any ANC branch there. Did you know of people being members of the ANC?

MR KHUMALO: When?

ADV DE JAGER: In 1993, or around the beginning of 1994.

MR KHUMALO: I only knew of ANC after the deceased was killed. Because before, even the IFP were not that prominent. Before the politics wasn't something that the community was talking about, until after the deceased was killed.

ADV DE JAGER: Now after the deceased was killed, did anybody mention that he'd been an ANC member, or wasn't that mentioned at all?

MR KHUMALO: They never mentioned to me, but I would see ANC meetings after that.

ADV DE JAGER: At the time of the boycott, the taxi boycott, were there any meetings held in the vicinity, community meetings?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, there was one meeting which was called by Mr Dlamini to a certain school called Edwalina.

ADV DE JAGER: This Mr Dlamini, was he the chairperson of the IFP at that time?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, he was.

ADV DE JAGER: And did you attend that meeting?

MR KHUMALO: No, I didn't.

ADV DE JAGER: Could you tell us why you didn't attend it? Because it's been called by the IFP chairperson, you're a member of the IFP and it concerns your problems, the taxi problem, why didn't you attend?

MR KHUMALO: I went to Vryheid to look for a certain part to fix my car and the meeting wasn't for IFP, it was for the community of Pongola.

ADV DE JAGER: If it had been an IFP meeting, would you have attended it?

MR KHUMALO: I've already mentioned that I went to Vryheid to look for a certain part to fix my car and therefore I wouldn't have gone, even if it was an IFP meeting.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes. Did you attend the other IFP meetings called when you were in a position to attend there?

MR KHUMALO: I've already mentioned that before the incident there were no meetings, there were no rallies, therefore I've never attended a meeting.

ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Khumalo, prior to the killing, would it be correct to say that the only source of conflict in Pongola was this problem around the taxis?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, I think this was the only conflict, I don't remember of any other conflict.

CHAIRPERSON: And definitely no conflict relating to politics, political parties, IFP/ANC for example? Would that be correct?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, that's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Then just one other aspect, if you can assist and we're talking only around the time of this incident really. When the IFP collected funds in the community, can you assist, what practice did they follow? Have they for example issued receipts to people who gave money?

MR KHUMALO: I don't remember money being collected at all.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got any knowledge at all of IFP receipts being issued for money contributed to the organisation?

MR KHUMALO: There was never any money which I personally donated, therefore I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Ms Mtanga, have you got any questions?

MS MTANGA: No questions, Chairperson, thank you.

NO QUESTIONS BY MS MTANGA

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Yes Mr Khumalo, thank you, you are excused.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, you had indicated that you intended to call the erstwhile investigating officer, Mr Vermeulen.

MR BIZOS: That is so.

CHAIRPERSON: And that he's got certain difficulties and we need to help him.

MR BIZOS: Problems. We would like if possible - we gave him an undertaking that we will try and finish him this morning because he has commitments this afternoon.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BIZOS: And I would ask for leave to call Hermanus Stephanus Christoffel Antonie Vermeulen.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you confirm your full names as read out by Mr Bizos for the record?

HERMANUS STEPHANUS CHRISTOFFEL ANTONIE VERMEULEN: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Please be seated. Mr Bizos, continue.

EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS: Mr Vermeulen, what are you doing at the moment?

MR VERMEULEN: At the moment I am working for a private company in Kempton Park.

MR BIZOS: Were you an officer in the South African Police during November 1993?

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

MR BIZOS: For how long were you a member of the Police Services?

MR VERMEULEN: 28 years.

MR BIZOS: And when did you retire?

MR VERMEULEN: January 1997.

MR BIZOS: And you spent approximately 22 years in service as a detective in the police.

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

MR BIZOS: And you spent approximately five years being stationed at Pongola.

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

MR BIZOS: And in what section or division of the police were you there?

MR VERMEULEN: I was the Commander of the Criminal Investigations Department for the Detective Branch.

MR BIZOS: Were you the investigating officer in the matter against the applicant? The applicant being Mr Mavuso.

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

MR BIZOS: Which was heard by Justice Myburgh.

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

MR BIZOS: At Piet Retief.

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

MR BIZOS: Now a copy of your evidence was handed over to you this morning.

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

MR BIZOS: Which commences on page 153 and continues until page 174, and a copy of this has been placed before the Committee.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR BIZOS: Have you had the opportunity while you were waiting outside, to study this evidence?

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

MR BIZOS: Do you confirm before this Committee that this evidence was true and is true?

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

MR BIZOS: There are singular questions that I wish to put to you. Firstly, one Mkhwanazi, was he a police officer?

MR VERMEULEN: He was a police officer, that is correct.

MR BIZOS: In which division was he?

MR VERMEULEN: He was connected to the former Security Police, stationed in Piet Retief.

MR BIZOS: And what was his rank during November '93?

MR VERMEULEN: He was a Constable.

MR BIZOS: In your evidence you give a description of how it came to be that you came into contact with the accused and what you did as the investigating officer.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR BIZOS: I don't propose reading it into the record, there are just certain aspects that I want to deal with. What time did you arrived in the presence of the accused?

MR VERMEULEN: It was approximately 11H30.

MR BIZOS: Where?

MR VERMEULEN: At the police station in Pongola.

MR BIZOS: Under whose command was he then?

MR VERMEULEN: He was under the charge of Constable Vermeulen.

MR BIZOS: Another Vermeulen?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, and a Sergeant Terketi.

MR BIZOS: Yes. And were there any pieces of evidence?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, there were.

MR BIZOS: What were they?

MR VERMEULEN: There was an anorak jacket and a balaclava, which had been handed over with the witness.

MR BIZOS: Would you please describe the jacket?

MR VERMEULEN: If I recall correctly it was a reddish windbreaker or anorak jacket.

MR BIZOS: Is there anything about the length or width or any other features which would distinguish the windbreaker as something which would be worn by tall or short people, big or small people?

MR VERMEULEN: No, it was a relatively large windbreakers, I'm sure that it would have fitted any regular-sized person.

MR BIZOS: Who kept the evidence?

CHAIRPERSON: I kept the evidence.

MR BIZOS: Where did you keep these pieces of evidence?

MR VERMEULEN: In my office.

MR BIZOS: Did you simply place the pieces of evidence there in your office, or were they stored in a special place?

MR VERMEULEN: They were locked up in a steel cupboard.

MR BIZOS: And who had the keys, who was in control of those pieces of evidence?

MR VERMEULEN: It is was I personally.

MR BIZOS: Now I want to refer you to page 155 of your evidence, at the very top of the page

"When you received the accused for examination, what did you do?"

"I took the accused to the Detective Branch section of the offices, where I placed him the last office in the passage and left him under the charge of Constable Mkhwanazi."

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

MR BIZOS: Now when you gave this evidence, did you know that Constable Mkhwanazi would be a defence witness or not?

MR VERMEULEN: No, I did not know.

MR BIZOS: When did you hear that a member of the force and furthermore, a member of the Security Division would be a witness for the defence?

MR VERMEULEN: I came to hear of this at the Supreme Court, the day after I gave my evidence and the State closed its case.

MR BIZOS: It has been said to the Committee that it was not permissable to place a suspect in a serious case or matter such as murder alone with one single police officer. What do you have to say about that?

MR VERMEULEN: No, it is not a fixed practice. One could not leave him alone, one had to keep him under the guard of a person.

MR BIZOS: Was the room in which the applicant and Constable Mkhwanazi were, on the front side of the police station building? Was it next to the entry and exit or was it deeper into the building?

MR VERMEULEN: No, it was right at the back of the police station building and there were not entries or exists to that section of the building.

MR BIZOS: Was there any reason why you placed Constable Mkhwanazi with the suspect, or applicant in this matter, alone in that room?

MR VERMEULEN: It was a request from Constable Mkhwanazi's commander.

MR BIZOS: Who was he?

MR VERMEULEN: It was a Sergeant van Staden from the Security Police in Piet Retief.

MR BIZOS: Was any reason given for that practice?

MR VERMEULEN: At that stage it was a fixed practice that if a murder had been committed which could possibly be politically motivated, that the Security Police would take control of the suspects and also undertake the interrogation.

MR BIZOS: Did you know the deceased?

MR VERMEULEN: I knew him from sight.

MR BIZOS: Did you know whether he belonged to any organisation?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct, I was aware that he belonged to the ANC.

MR BIZOS: Did the applicant in the matter, Mr Mavuso, say whether he belonged to any organisation?

MR VERMEULEN: He did tell us that he belonged to the IFP.

MR BIZOS: Were any hairs removed from the head of the applicant?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR BIZOS: Upon whose initiative was this performed?

MR VERMEULEN: My own.

MR BIZOS: And who removed the hairs?

MR VERMEULEN: It was the district physician if I recall correctly, a Doctor du Plessis.

MR BIZOS: Now you know that Sergeant Mkhwanazi gave evidence - or at least he's not a Sergeant, he's a Constable. He gave evidence that the balaclava and the jacket were placed on the head and body of the applicant, that he was forced to do so or that you yourself did this.

MR VERMEULEN: I'm aware of that.

MR BIZOS: Is it true or untrue?

MR VERMEULEN: It is not true.

MR BIZOS: Now if the investigating officer, or as the investigating officer, were you ever approached by the commander of Mkhwanazi, or any person within the South African Police as to whether any such allegation was made by Mkhwanazi and were you ever asked to respond to this allegation before Mkhwanazi entered the witness stand in order to give this evidence in corroboration of the case of the applicant?

MR VERMEULEN: No, I was never approached by anybody, I was never aware that he would give such evidence.

MR BIZOS: Have you heard the evidence of the applicant and was this put to you and did you deny it?

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

MR BIZOS: The prosecutor in the matter, was she ever approached by Mkhwanazi as a member of the South African Police in order to be instructed that he, Mkhwanazi, a member of the police force, had very significant evidence indicating that he was present when you put the clothing of the accused, or forced him to don these items of clothing?

MR VERMEULEN: Not as far as I know. As far as I am aware, the Prosecutor became aware that Mkhwanazi would give evidence after she had closed her case for the State.

MR BIZOS: Are you aware that - if I recall correctly, that there was a police officer by the name of Combrink who received an affidavit from Mdu John Msibi on the 11th of January 1995, at 28 - 18H20, twenty minutes passed six, probably after the Court had adjourned? It's in bundle 2, pages 14 to 15, the typed version and a printed version on pages 16 to 18, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR BIZOS: In which Mr Msibi appears to have had knowledge that Mr Mkhwanazi would give evidence and what the content of his evidence was to be.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct, the day after the Court adjourned, after the case for the State was closed, Colonel Combrink and Swart had an interview with me and the prosecutor and made known to us the knowledge about this statement. That is when it was determined that Mkhwanazi would give evidence the following day for the defence.

MR BIZOS: Now when I was still dealing with criminal trials, I recall that there was a rule that nobody, that would be the defence attorney and the defence advocate or the accused or any of their friends, could approach a police officer to give evidence for the defence without obtaining the permission of his commanding officer. It is in the Bar rules book. What was your experience, could you a police officer at that stage or now, officer evidence for the defence without the permission, or not necessarily the permission, but without notifying his commanding officer by whom he was approached and what the nature of his evidence was to be?

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct, that such a rule existed. In this case it was not observed, because if it had been observed before the time, then an investigation would have been launched to examine the allegations made by Mkhwanazi.

MR BIZOS: Did you attempt to interrogate the then accused and current applicant, Mr Mavuso?

MR VERMEULEN: I did attempt to question him on the day of his arrest.

MR BIZOS: Did he answer any of your questions?

MR VERMEULEN: No, not at all, he did not want to speak to me.

MR BIZOS: Was there any mention of a legal representative?

MR VERMEULEN: That afternoon late he said to me that he wished to be put into contact with a legal representative.

MR BIZOS: Did you make any suggestions?

MR VERMEULEN: Mkhwanazi told me that he didn't have any legal representative in mind, that if he wanted to I should contact anybody and that is why I phoned a local attorney.

MR BIZOS: Can you recall who it was?

MR VERMEULEN: I think it was Mr Chris Smit, or his brother. It was one of the Smit brothers.

MR BIZOS: And did the attorney arrived?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, on that particular day, later on that evening he saw him.

MR BIZOS: And was there any examination in the presence of the attorney?

MR VERMEULEN: No, not on that particular day.

MR BIZOS: Thereafter?

MR VERMEULEN: After that a certain Captain Bonny from the Violent Crimes Unit in Durban questioned the applicant in the presence of an attorney.

MR BIZOS: Was the matter against the accused Mavuso postponed from time to time before the Magistrate?

MR VERMEULEN: There were various postponements before his trial, yes.

MR BIZOS: Was any charge ever made by the accused himself or any legal representative of the accused, that you or any other police officer had committed any inappropriate acts in order to prejudice the defence of the accused?

MR VERMEULEN: No, there were never any such allegations that came to my knowledge.

MR BIZOS: Was there any violence of a political nature before the murder of the deceased in this matter?

MR VERMEULEN: In Pongola there was no commission of violence before the time. There were rallies and meetings, however there was never any noteworthy violence.

MR BIZOS: What was the position after the murder?

MR VERMEULEN: Immediately after the murder, on that very same night, there were various actions of violence among ANC and IFP supporters in the trust area surrounding Pongola, as well as in the black residential area, Motshane.

MR BIZOS: Did you oppose the accused application for bail?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes.

MR BIZOS: For what reason?

MR VERMEULEN: My primary reason was to secure the safety of the accused himself.

MR BIZOS: And eventually bail was granted?

MR VERMEULEN: No, bail was not granted to him.

MR BIZOS: Well there is evidence that eventually - perhaps it wasn't granted at that stage, but subsequently he was released on bail of R3 000.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that was during his trial.

MR BIZOS: Yes, that is correct, it was only during the month of May in the following year.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct, that was after he was found guilty on appeal.

MR BIZOS: No, after he was found guilty and noted an appeal.

INTERPRETER: Thank you.

MR BIZOS: Do you know whether after his appeal, whether a warrant was issued for his arrest?

MR VERMEULEN: The prosecutor in the matter contacted me at a stage and told me that she had given notice that the appeal had not been successful and that a warrant for his arrest had been issued.

MR PRINSLOO: Is that part of the evidence relevant, Mr Chairman, to the issue ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: Well why is it irrelevant, Mr Chairman? The applicant said that he wanted to go out in order to continue with the struggle. We have already suggested that he, that it took a very long time for him to be found. If the witness has any knowledge in order to either confirm or explain or deny these matters whilst he's here, why shouldn't we hear about it, Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no, no, go ahead. It's already been canvassed partly.

MR BIZOS: For how long did the police search for the applicant after his appeal had been denied?

MR VERMEULEN: Chairperson, this warrant never reached me, I never searched for him personally. However I am aware that those at Piet Retief did search for him and asked me for information as to where they could find him, but I never searched for him myself.

MR BIZOS: Certain notes were handed over to you which is an incomplete copy which appears to have been the notes of the magistrate, or at least a portion of the notes of the magistrate. And we could just read there the first name of one Philemon, who gave evidence on behalf of the accused in the application for bail. Can you recall who that Philemon was?

MR VERMEULEN: Chairperson, if I recall correctly he was a close relation to the accused at that stage.

MR BIZOS: Mention has been made of Philemon Mtungwa, can you recall?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, the surname does sound familiar to me.

MR BIZOS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BIZOS

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Bizos. We intend adjourning for exactly 15 minutes.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Vermeulen, I remind you that you are still under oath. Do you understand?

HERMANUS STEPHANUS CHRISTOFFEL ANTONIE VERMEULEN: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, do you have any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Mr Vermeulen, were you stationed in Pongola and never in Piet Retief?

MR VERMEULEN: I was approximately stationed at Pongola for five years.

MR PRINSLOO: Were you ever stationed at Piet Retief before Pongola?

MR VERMEULEN: I was at Piet Retief for two years.

MR PRINSLOO: And are you quite familiar with Piet Retief?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And during your term of work in Pongola, that was approximately in 1993, this incident occurred on the 22nd of November of '93 and we all know that the general election took place in the next year, April of 1994.

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And what preceded the death of the deceased, were there political meetings, that would say be from the IFP and the ANC respectively?

MR VERMEULEN: There were meetings, not any noteworthy meetings, big meetings, but we were aware of meetings that were held.

MR PRINSLOO: And you were attached to the Detective Branch?

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And at that stage as it was known, there was also the Security Branch at Pongola?

MR VERMEULEN: Not at Pongola, but at Piet Retief.

MR PRINSLOO: But was there - could I put it in this way, someone of the Security Branch in Pongola or was there not?

MR VERMEULEN: No, no-one was stationed, they functioned from Piet Retief.

MR PRINSLOO: Was there a Captain Pizer? I'm not quite sure how one would pronounce it.

MR VERMEULEN: It was Andre Pizer, he was attached to the Detective Branch at Pongola.

MR PRINSLOO: Was he in command?

MR VERMEULEN: No, at that stage he was a Sergeant or Warrant Officer, I'm not quite sure.

MR PRINSLOO: Was he under your command?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: The information that was obtained concerning actions of the ANC or the IFP, that had to receive the attention of the Security Branch, was it conveyed by you or anyone else of your personnel, or was it never done?

MR VERMEULEN: Usually it was done by myself when it came to my attention, but if I was not present then one of the other members, or Warrant Officer Pizer, he was most probably second-in-charge, he would then do it.

MR PRINSLOO: So he could also convey it?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, he could also.

MR PRINSLOO: And that would have been conveyed to the Piet Retief Security Branch?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And were you familiar with the people at Piet Retief, the Security Branch?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, I knew them.

MR PRINSLOO: Was there any position of trust between you and Piet Retief?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, I closely worked with Sergeant van Staden, who at that stage was the Commander of the Security Branch, but the Security Branch at that stage was in the process of disbanding. The senior people had already left and he was basically then the commander for the Pongola area.

MR PRINSLOO: So the Security Branch, according to your evidence, at that stage didn't function in full as it did in the past?

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct, a large part had already been disbanded.

MR PRINSLOO: Now the deceased in this specific case, did you know that he was a leader in the ANC?

MR VERMEULEN: No, I didn't really - well, I only knew him from sight. I only got to know who he was after his death, the day with the murder, from the people who were there.

MR PRINSLOO: Could you at that point ascertain that he was a leader in the ANC?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And could you ascertain what his support was in that area? That was for the purposes of your investigation?

MR VERMEULEN: At that stage what I could ascertain was that he had some support in a certain part of the community, but not that much.

MR PRINSLOO: Now according to your opinion, was it a predominantly IFP area or ANC?

MR VERMEULEN: Definitely IFP.

MR PRINSLOO: During this - or let me put it in this way, during the meetings were you aware or not aware of recruitment of votes or to recruit people for the different parties?

MR VERMEULEN: No, I didn't have any knowledge of that personally, it was always just what I heard from the information conveyed to me by the Security Branch.

MR PRINSLOO: And you didn't go into it any further?

MR VERMEULEN: No.

MR PRINSLOO: It wasn't your function?

MR VERMEULEN: No.

MR PRINSLOO: And the youth of Piet Retief, who - could I just repeat it, I'm not putting it correctly, the youth of Pongola, do you know who they supported?

MR VERMEULEN: I understood that mainly the high schools in the area of Motshane was ANC.

MR PRINSLOO: That was the death of the deceased?

MR VERMEULEN: No, only the deceased died I got to know that.

MR PRINSLOO: And you ascertained that the accused was a member of the IFP at that stage?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Your investigation then at that stage would have been centred around political involvement?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, it seemed to me personally to be the case based on the position of the deceased and I could not see any other reason or could not observe any other reason for the murder.

MR PRINSLOO: And the following appearance of the applicant, Mr Mavuso in the Court in Pongola, there was also a lot of support from the IFP at the Court.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And also from the ANC.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And according to information there were also soldiers, police officers, to keep the peace.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, because there was a lot of strife between the two parties.

MR PRINSLOO: Could you determine why that was the case, that there was strife between the two political parties?

MR VERMEULEN: It seemed to me that from the ANC's side they held the accused responsible for the death of their leader and from the IFP's side it was for the arrest of the accused at that stage. He had support from the IFP.

MR PRINSLOO: Was that the reason why you also got the assistance from the Security Branch of Piet Retief to investigate that part?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And during the proceedings in the High Court, in the Circuit Court in Piet Retief, which followed on that, there was also great support from both sides?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: That is IFP as well as ANC?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And at that stage you were still the investigating officer in the case, during the trial?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And during the trial the accused was still under arrest?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that was the case.

MR PRINSLOO: So he was never released on bail, or can't you remember? That was during '94, if my instruction is correct it seems that the trial took place at the end of November.

MR VERMEULEN: I'm not quite sure, but it might be that during the trial he could have been released on bail, but with the start of the trial he was still ...(intervention)

MR PRINSLOO: I don't want to belabour the point, but it's been quite some time and I don't have any documentation in this regard, but at some stage before he was convicted he was released on bail. Or don't you know?

MR VERMEULEN: I'm not quite sure whether it was before he was convicted or after he had been convicted, but he was released on bail.

MR PRINSLOO: And during the trial - I want to put it to you in this way, do you know a certain person known as Captain Molapo? - Malapo.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, I met the man. As far as I can remember he was attached to the Ministerial Investigation Department in Nelspruit.

MR PRINSLOO: And that was under the command of a certain Mr Steven Mabona?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Who was the Minister of the Police?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And during the trial of the applicant, the accused, this Captain was present.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, I saw him there on several occasions.

MR PRINSLOO: Did he participate in any way during the trial, did he do any investigation?

MR VERMEULEN: No, not as far as I know. I was aware that he was busy with the investigation, but I don't know in what regard. He had a lot to do with Colonel Combrink and Smit.

MR PRINSLOO: There was also a Warrant Officer Hall?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Who is now an officer.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, they were attached to the same unit.

MR PRINSLOO: And Mdu Msibi, did you also see him as a witness there during the trial?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, he did testify.

MR PRINSLOO: Can you say to the Honourable Committee whether someone else approached him?

MR VERMEULEN: He was not involved in my case. I arrested him at Pongola Court during a postponement of the applicant, on information that I received from the Security Branch in Piet Retief. They told me that they were looking for this particular person. I then handed him to the Security Branch and I never saw him again and as far as I know he testified in the case and that was on request of this Colonel Swart and Combrink and that Captain.

MR PRINSLOO: That is Captain Molapo?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes. They brought him to the Court and then they negotiated with the prosecutor for his testimony, but he never involved in my case.

MR PRINSLOO: So you were never notified in this whole issue, that they approached this person and that this person had been consulted with and that they would call him as a witness?

MR VERMEULEN: No, it came to my attention just shortly before he testified.

MR PRINSLOO: And at that stage you were the investigating officer?

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And according to your evidence if I understand you correctly, Mr Vermeulen it was the interest of the Security Branch of Piet Retief, they were interested in the arrest of this specific person Mdu Msibi, who is present at the meeting?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Just behind you?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes. That was Warrant Officer Freek Pienaar, who was the Commander then of the Security Branch, who informed me that he was looking for this specific person and it was told to me that this person is a brother of the applicant. And this person was - during the applicant's appearance at the Court in Pongola, he was indicated to me to be the person who was looked for in Piet Retief and I arrested him there and handed him to the Security Branch. Further than that I had nothing to do with him.

MR PRINSLOO: And at that stage the person whom you had named as Mkhwanazi, the police officer, that he would also have been on the staff of Freek Pienaar?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: In Natal and Piet Retief, what preceded the death of the deceased was a lot of politicking and strife between the IFP and the ANC. Was it known to you?

MR VERMEULEN: Well before the deceased died I was aware of a lot of political activities. In Pongola, not really, but lower down in Natal there was a lot of activity.

MR PRINSLOO: And there was also an incident which also served before another Amnesty Committee, where there was an application made by several members of the ANC, inter alia one Gushu, who was convicted in the High Court and who was serving a sentence where he was charged that he was one of the potential witnesses, that he would have tried to kill him and that one of his workers in his liquor store, that he would have shot him dead and would have robbed him.

MR VERMEULEN: I heard about that.

MR PRINSLOO: And that this person, Gushu, has also in the meantime received amnesty. Do you know of that?

MR VERMEULEN: No.

MR PRINSLOO: I put it to you that that is indeed the case.

MR VERMEULEN: It could be.

MR PRINSLOO: But besides that incident there were also other political incidents in Piet Retief, the strife between the IFP and ANC.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Now these two places, Piet Retief and Pongola, now relatively speaking they see one another as places in the same province?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, at that stage they were in the same province, Pongola was still in the old Transvaal and after the election Pongola was given to Natl.

MR PRINSLOO: You have already testified that you confirm your evidence that you had given in the High Court concerning the allegations that had been made by the applicant, concerning the balaclava and the jacket.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And you had already said that you deny that it had happened.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: At that stage when you testified initially on the merits of the case, you also testified that if you had not been aware that there had been such allegations.

MR VERMEULEN: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you also have on your staff during the investigation, a certain person, Hendrikus van Niekerk?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Now this Hendrikus van Niekerk, according to his statement that has been submitted in bundle 2 - I don't know what the page number is, my apology, there is a statement and it seems as if you - is there a copy for - Ms Mtanga, do you have one?

MR VERMEULEN: I have one.

MR PRINSLOO: Now the written part ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, the first page of that statement would be 112.

MR PRINSLOO: 112, thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And the rest would follow.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you. May I continue, Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Vermeulen, you only had a short opportunity to look at this statement, is it your handwriting?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, it is. Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Now if I can have a look at - not that I say that your handwriting is not very legible, but I'm going to look at the typed section, it will be easier for me to read it. Now as it is paginated now, 113, that is the second typed page that you have in front of you, it is said in paragraph 8

"The accused was never assaulted by me or anyone in my presence and the balaclava and the jacket that was found on the scene was never showed to him and he never put it on. The accused was left in the presence of Constable Mkhwanazi, who questioned the accused."

Do you have that?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And that is also in the written part.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And you took this statement from van Niekerk?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Why did you let him add that specific part in his statement?

MR VERMEULEN: It had to do with the pieces of evidence. It's more a procedure to add that in a statement.

MR PRINSLOO: But in this one section where he says

"... in my presence the balaclava and jacket that was found near the scene was never shown to the accused and he did put it on."

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Why is that specific section included

"... and he didn't put it on"?

MR VERMEULEN: That is basically just put there - well let me put it to you in this way, when you send a piece of evidence for forensic investigation then you have to present proof that it was not in the presence of the accused.

MR PRINSLOO: At that stage there was no suggestion even that the applicant or the accused then, would make any such, not refute that in any case in the Court.

MR VERMEULEN: No, not as far as my knowledge goes.

MR PRINSLOO: Now this statement, as far as has been indicated here, this was an affidavit made on the 7th December 1993.

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Shortly after the incident.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, quite shortly after the events.

MR PRINSLOO: Now Mr Vermeulen briefly, you know what the accused's version was regarding the balaclava and he maintains that it did happen as he gave evidence in the Court, that the balaclava was on his head and that he put the jacket on. And I put it to you briefly.

MR VERMEULEN: No, it was not like that.

MR PRINSLOO: And he says that he was never left alone in the absence of Mr Mkhwanazi.

MR VERMEULEN: I left him in the presence of Mkhwanazi with the clear instruction to Mkhwanazi to not allow him to leave the office and personally I spent the rest of the day at the scene. And when I returned later that afternoon I found him alone, once again in the presence of Mkhwanazi, in the office where I had left them. If people had visited the office in-between with Mkhwanazi, I would not have any knowledge about that.

MR PRINSLOO: And according to the accused and in terms of your evidence which you have given, his attorney brought it to the attention of the magistrate during one of his appearances, that he was threatened during one of the interrogation sessions. Do you know anything about that?

MR VERMEULEN: No, as far as I can recall, the accused was only interrogated at one occasion, it was a day or two later, after his arrest by Captain Bonny of the Violent Crimes Unit and during that session the legal representative of the accused was consistently present and at no other stage did I ever question the accused personally.

MR PRINSLOO: Was there any initial interrogation shortly after his arrest by you yourself?

MR VERMEULEN: Directly after his arrest I used Mkhwanazi as an interpreter and attempted to determine what had happened and the accused indicated that he did not wish to tell me anything.

MR PRINSLOO: And at that stage there was no legal representative.

MR VERMEULEN: No, not at all.

MR PRINSLOO: And he didn't have the opportunity at that stage to obtain legal representation.

MR VERMEULEN: He could have, but he did not request it at that stage.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you inform him that he may make use of such a legal representative?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, I did make him aware of that. He did not speak to me at all and at that stage I did not know whether the accused was in fact truly connected to the crime.

MR PRINSLOO: Just a moment's indulgence please, Chairperson.

Did Mkhwanazi act as an interpreter for you?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, when we met.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you know one Gerrit Erasmus?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And was he involved in any way in this matter?

MR VERMEULEN: He was also connected to the Security Police, and he arrived along with Mkhwanazi at my office. They were together.

MR PRINSLOO: Was he involved in the interrogation of the applicant or not?

MR VERMEULEN: No, not as far as I know.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you, or are you aware that after that an investigation was launched, during your presentation of your matter with regard to the accused, when you were the investigating officer? That an investigation was launched and that various statements were taken by the investigating team?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, I'm aware of that.

MR PRINSLOO: And were any further statements taken from you?

MR VERMEULEN: No, there was one statement which was taken from me after the course of the Court proceedings.

MR PRINSLOO: And do you know why you were not further permitted to investigate the matter?

MR VERMEULEN: No, my case had been finished after the accused had been found guilty.

MR PRINSLOO: But according the evidence, the incident took place in your area of jurisdiction and now they were obtaining people from elsewhere, from Nelspruit.

MR VERMEULEN: I don't know exactly what the investigation was about. I was aware that these people were all from the Ministerial Department of Investigations. I was aware that Mkhwanazi had been charged at a certain stage for the same matter for which the accused had appeared in Court. I was subpoenaed for that particular case in the Court, but the case never proceeded.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you know one Nlangamandla or Sandaneswe or Sanda Nlangamandla.

MR VERMEULEN: I knew him by the name of Sanda.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you know him?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And did you know him as a leading figure in the IFP?

MR VERMEULEN: Well I don't know whether he was actually a leader, but I regarded him more as an inciter during meetings and rallies.

MR PRINSLOO: Would that be political meetings?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, political meetings and rallies. I don't believe that he was really a title bearer, or anything as such.

MR PRINSLOO: But was he prominent in the eyes of the community when you say that he was the type of person who incited?

MR VERMEULEN: Well among the younger generations he enjoyed a level of support.

MR PRINSLOO: And with regard to the other members of the IFP, or at least the other persons who are present here during these proceedings, from Pongola, do you know them?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, I know some of them, I've met some of them this morning.

MR PRINSLOO: Some of them?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And those whom you've met, I know that I've mentioned Velaphi Khumalo, do you know Sam Khumalo?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Is he according to you, an IFP member or not?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, according to me he is an IFP member.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you know one Amos Mtungwa?

MR VERMEULEN: I also knew Amos Mtungwa.

MR PRINSLOO: And which position did he occupy within the IFP?

MR VERMEULEN: I understood that he was quite a figure of leadership.

MR PRINSLOO: And were you involved in any way in anything that he had submitted to the IFP or not?

MR VERMEULEN: I did attend community committee meetings where the IFP made certain submissions to the police, during which he was one of the speakers, but he never really had anything to do with crime as such.

MR PRINSLOO: And did you know a Mr Rasta Mcwangu?

MR VERMEULEN: Mcwangu.

MR PRINSLOO: Mcwangu. I beg your pardon.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And in what capacity did you know him?

MR VERMEULEN: I got to know him as someone who was very involved in taxi matters as I understood it and later after the election he entered the town council. He was involved in the Town Council of Pongola.

MR PRINSLOO: Was a leader in the IFP?

MR VERMEULEN: As far as I know he had always been one who had arranged IFP marches. He was also a spokesperson who applied to the police for permission for prospective marches and rallies which they wanted to hold.

MR PRINSLOO: That was then on behalf of the IFP?

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Just a moment's indulgence please, Chairperson. I'm indebted to you, Mr Chairperson, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Prinsloo. Ms van der Walt, do you have any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

Mr Vermeulen, when you gave evidence during the criminal case in Court for the applicant, at that stage the applicant pleaded not guilty and denied everything.

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: So it was absolutely necessary for the State to prove the crime against the applicant.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: And one of the most important witnesses, or pieces of evidence, was the balaclava which contained hairs from the applicant and the jacket and the firearm which had been found in the bushes.

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: You as an investigating officer and an experienced investigating officer at that stage, knew what it was about, that the balaclava was not to be brought close to the applicant at all.

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Now when you received the balaclava and the jacket, what did you do with it? You did not receive these items in the office, is that correct, you received them outside the office?

MR VERMEULEN: No, I received these items in the charge office with the accused.

MS VAN DER WALT: And what did you do then?

MR VERMEULEN: I went to my office where I stored these items in the cupboard.

MS VAN DER WALT: And what happened to these items afterwards?

MR VERMEULEN: They were handed over to the criminal investigation team. I think it may have been Sergeant Joubert.

MS VAN DER WALT: You never removed them and handled them during the interrogation?

MR VERMEULEN: No.

MS VAN DER WALT: Why not?

MR VERMEULEN: I had no purpose in removing these items.

MS VAN DER WALT: Not even to ask the applicant, is this your jacket?

MR VERMEULEN: We asked them that question upon the day of his arrest and he denied that it was his property.

MS VAN DER WALT: You see as I've understood your evidence as given in Court and as you have also initially said, you took these items and stored them and you did not state that you had showed these items to the applicant in any way.

MR VERMEULEN: I received the items and the applicant in the charge office and asked him before the other officers who were there, if this was his property.

MS VAN DER WALT: Was Sergeant van Staden present?

MR VERMEULEN: No, not one of those persons was as yet present.

MS VAN DER WALT: You see there is a statement by Mr van Staden, I think that it is in bundle - just a moment please, Mr Chairperson. We have only one bundle, so it could be somewhat problematic. This would be in bundle 2 and Mr van Staden's statement starts on page 44. On the second page, 45, Mr Chairperson. That is Mr van Staden, the person from Piet Retief?

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: He was not present when the applicant was arrested?

MR VERMEULEN: No.

MS VAN DER WALT: He arrived somewhat later?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, he did arrive later.

MS VAN DER WALT: So when he arrived there the applicant was no longer in the charge office.

MR VERMEULEN: No.

MS VAN DER WALT: That is where you received the jacket and the balaclava.

MR VERMEULEN: No.

MS VAN DER WALT: Are you certain, because this is some time ago?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, I am certain. We saw Mr van Staden on the road, or in the street outside.

MS VAN DER WALT: I want to refer you to paragraph 7

"I determined that the suspect who had been arrested was one Emmanuel Mavuso. The suspect was questioned in an office at the police station. Sergeant Mkhwanazi and Themba Nxumalo were also present. I cannot recall which role every person played during the interrogation. At certain stages I left the office. However, I can recall that Sergeant Warrant Officer Vermeulen ..."

That would be you.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT

"... showed the items of clothing to the suspect and asked him whether or not they belonged to him."

MR VERMEULEN: That may be so.

MS VAN DER WALT: So you did not only handle the items of clothing in the charge office, but also in the room where the interrogation took place?

MR VERMEULEN: In my office yes, probably.

MS VAN DER WALT: So you locked the clothing away and then unlocked the clothing and continued with the interrogation?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: So then your evidence is not correct, that immediately after having received these items you locked them away and never again handled them.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, I did lock them away immediately after receiving them, but I may have used them or handled them again after that.

MS VAN DER WALT: Then I want to put it to you that any experienced policeman will attempt to find out as much as possible about pieces of evidence and that you did indeed place the balaclava and the jacket on the person of the applicant.

MR VERMEULEN: No, I didn't.

MS VAN DER WALT: Why would you then remove the items?

MR VERMEULEN: No, I would not be as foolish to ...(intervention)

MR MEIRING: Mr Chairperson, may I please interrupt and I apologise for the interruption to Mrs van der Walt. This is about an amnesty application and if I understand the evidence thusfar correctly, the applicant is denying that, or admitting that he killed the deceased in the matter. That is the basis of his application. I don't understand the necessity for the cross-examination of this witness to further this case. What does it matter whether or not he followed the correct procedure or used the correct investigating methods? The fact of the matter remains that the applicant admits to having killed the deceased. It is totally irrelevant whether or not this investigating officer followed correct procedure. Aren't we wasting time?

CHAIRPERSON: It would appear to me - and I accept that that is the point about which this is, this is the point of dispute which has arisen here, that being whether the balaclava was placed over the head of the applicant by the police. In other words, whether or not he was forced to don the balaclava. So if I understand it correctly, that is what all of this is about. That would be the point of dispute here.

MS VAN DER WALT: Might I just gain a better level of understanding, because my understanding of this might be unclear. Since Mr Bizos has put the applicant under cross-examination on behalf of the family, and that was when Mr Meiring was not present, my client Mr Mkhwanazi has been accused of telling lies in order to assist the applicant.

Furthermore, statements made by Mr Mdu have also been submitted, in which Mr Mkhwanazi is once again accused. Mr Bizos on behalf of the family, argued that at the end of the day they will tell this applicant that he is not making a full disclosure of relevant facts and that my client, Mr Mkhwanazi was indeed involved and that is the only reason why this witness was called. Because I do agree with Mr Meiring, it is not the point of dispute. The applicant maintains that it is his balaclava, that is why it contains fragments of his hair. But this is not about the applicant, it is about Mr Mkhwanazi and ultimately this applicant will not obtain amnesty because it will be argued that he did not make a full disclosure of facts and that is why I'm continuing this line of questioning, otherwise I would not do so.

CHAIRPERSON: And I think that in the documents before us, it would appear that your client supports the applicant in his evidence that the balaclava was forced over his head. And this witness confirms his own evidence which he gave during the trial where he denied it.

MS VAN DER WALT: Well then I do have the right to question him about this. I assume that this is what it is about.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well, continue.

MS VAN DER WALT: Why did you remove the jacket and the balaclava after you had locked them away?

MR VERMEULEN: It may be that a number of the investigating officers who became involved wanted to view the items.

MS VAN DER WALT: But that isn't what Mr van Staden says, he says that you showed the items of clothing to the suspect and asked whether they belonged to him and you had already done that in the charge office.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, I had.

MS VAN DER WALT: Why did you do it again?

MR VERMEULEN: I don't know which office Mr van Staden is referring to here.

ADV DE JAGER: But you said that he wasn't present in the charge office.

MR VERMEULEN: No, he was not present in the charge office.

ADV DE JAGER: And that was the only place according to you where you showed the clothing to the accused and asked whether they belonged to him.

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: So either van Staden is incorrect or you are incorrect.

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Was this in Mr Pizer's office?

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MS VAN DER WALT: I beg your pardon. Was this in Mr Pizer's office?

MR VERMEULEN: The accused was in Mr Pizer's office.

MS VAN DER WALT: Yes, Pizer.

MR VERMEULEN: That because that is where he was detained with Mr Mkhwanazi.

MS VAN DER WALT: So it was in that office where these items of clothing were once again shown to the accused?

MR VERMEULEN: I don't know whether Mr van Staden is referring to that office.

MS VAN DER WALT: No, I'm referring to Mr Erasmus, who also came from the Security Branch in Piet Retief.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, he's also from that Security Branch.

MS VAN DER WALT: And a statement was also submitted in bundle 2, a statement which he made with regard to this matter, in which he stated that an interrogation did indeed take place in the office of Mr Pizer.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that's correct, the Security Police interrogated the accused in Mr Pizer's office.

MS VAN DER WALT: So is that where the clothing was shown to him?

MR VERMEULEN: According to me the clothing was never in that office. While it was in my possession it was never in that office.

MS VAN DER WALT: But you removed it there according to Mr van Staden.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: The hair samples which were taken from the applicant were taken on either the 23rd or the 26th. There was a difference in the State case, Dr du Plessis said the 26th and you said the 23rd.

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: So it would have been either one of those two dates?

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: At that stage you were the investigating officer and the Security Branch of Piet Retief was not involved in the taking of these samples.

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Because it would appear that these samples were taken in the mortuary.

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: So Mr Mkhwanazi would not at that stage have known that hair samples were being taken because he was not involved?

MR VERMEULEN: No, he was not present.

MS VAN DER WALT: Very well. I would then like to refer you - just a moment please, Chairperson, I want to refer you to a statement in bundle 2, page 14 and that would be the statement which Mr Prinsloo has examined you about regarding this Mr Molapo and Mr Smit and Mr Combrink or Hall, where you were not present as investigating officer.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: It was strange that they did not approach you, wasn't it?

MR VERMEULEN: No, because all these statements via van Staden and the others, do not have to do with my investigation. They were not taken by me and they did not form part of my dossier. This is the first day that I have viewed them.

MS VAN DER WALT: Could you explain that.

MR VERMEULEN: It was part of the investigation which was run by Combrink and the others, whatever it was that they were investigating.

MS VAN DER WALT: So this statement to which I have referred you, the one made by Mdu John Msibi on page 14, he stated that during November 1993, when he was in Nelspruit, Mkhwanazi contacted him and told him that - this is paragraph 5, that the property was not found in the possession of Mavuso. Sergeant Mkhwanazi then said that he would assist Mavuso by giving evidence in Court that the police had forced Mavuso to put on the balaclava and the jacket. At that stage there had been no talk of the fact that Mkhwanazi would be giving evidence?

MR VERMEULEN: No.

MS VAN DER WALT: And no questions were asked by anybody?

MR VERMEULEN: No, not during the course of my investigation.

MS VAN DER WALT: Not by the attorney and also not any accusations by the applicant?

MR VERMEULEN: No, not at all during the entire course of the trial.

MS VAN DER WALT: So Mkhwanazi would shortly after the incident - and there is no specific date here, but shortly after the incident in November, he would not have known that there would be a forensic investigation with regard to hair samples, because he was not present during the investigation and he was also not present when the hair samples were taken.

MR VERMEULEN: Well he wasn't present, but I wouldn't say that he didn't know about it because he was involved on a daily basis. He, van Staden and Erasmus, the entire Security Branch was at Pongola on a daily basis for a month thereafter and they would have had insight to the documents and the dossiers at that stage.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did he know what the defence of the applicant was?

MR VERMEULEN: No.

MS VAN DER WALT: Because he would not have known about it on the first day when you, according to your evidence, left him alone there in the office, because nothing was going on at that stage yet.

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Then it would be interesting that Mr Mdu Msibi would be taken out of the prison on the day after you gave evidence, or at least after Mkhwanazi gave evidence and also made a statement.

MR VERMEULEN: No, Mkhwanazi and I had nothing to do with Mdu.

MS VAN DER WALT: It was put to you that "Isn't it so that there is a rule that if a police officer was to give evidence in Court, it was first said that permission had to be given by his commanding officer?" But later, if my notes are correct, it was said that the commanding officer had to be notified. Do you recall that?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you said that that was the procedure.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that was the regular procedure, but in this case it was not followed.

MS VAN DER WALT: How do you know that?

MR VERMEULEN: Because if it had been followed then we would have known about it, because if it had been reported to the commanding officer an investigation would have been launched and what the allegation was, was that I committed perjury in Court.

MS VAN DER WALT: Yes, but the State wouldn't know what the defence for the witness would say.

MR VERMEULEN: But if it had been reported to the commander, the commander would have taken steps.

MS VAN DER WALT: But in his evidence he says that he did not report it because it wasn't something illegal to him.

MR VERMEULEN: It may have been like that to him, but I'm just saying that there was a rule that stated that he was supposed to have reported this to his commanding officer.

MS VAN DER WALT: If there was something illegal?

MR VERMEULEN: If something inappropriate had taken place.

MS VAN DER WALT: But according to him it was not inappropriate. He says this in his evidence and I will read it to you if you can no longer recall it. He says - or at least it was put to him whether he had reported it, that the balaclava and the jacket had been fitted. That is on page 252, Chairperson, of Mkhwanazi - I think it is bundle 1, but this is not the paginated bundle. It would appear that they are using the typed page numbers, page 252.

"I could not report this because I was busy with an investigation and there was nothing wrong with it if he tried them on, it was one of the methods in which we could investigate the matter. I cannot say that it was necessary for me to report it. And also there my senior was present."

He did not regard it as inappropriate.

MR VERMEULEN: Well then that was his opinion.

MS VAN DER WALT: But now I want to return to what Mr Bizos put to you with regard to the fact that a police officer was to give evidence in Court and according to Mr Bizos, there was a rule that if a policeman was going to give evidence in Court on behalf of the defence, then his commanding officer would have to be notified.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that was a rule.

MS VAN DER WALT: Now what do you say, do you know whether Mkhwanazi's commanding officer was notified or not?

MR VERMEULEN: No, I would assume that he wasn't, but I cannot say with certainty that he wasn't.

MS VAN DER WALT: Why would you assume that?

MR VERMEULEN: If he had notified his commanding officer I would have been involved in this matter.

MS VAN DER WALT: But why, because the commanding officer wouldn't know what he was going to say, he wasn't allowed to know what he was going to say because it was privileged information for the defence.

MR VERMEULEN: Mkhwanazi would have informed his commanding officer and his commanding officer would have asked him then if he had been subpoenaed by the defence to appear in Court.

MS VAN DER WALT: But he was asked on the very same day by the advocate who represented the applicant and the following day he gave evidence, but at that stage he was not stationed at Pongola.

MR VERMEULEN: No, he was stationed somewhere in Northern Natal.

MS VAN DER WALT: Yes, that's correct, he wasn't even stationed in Piet Retief.

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: He was stationed in Empangeni.

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: So you wouldn't know whether or not he notified his commanding officer and told him that he was going to appear on behalf of the defence?

MR VERMEULEN: No, I don't know.

MS VAN DER WALT: Because you see I want to submit to you that Mr Mkhwanazi consistently maintained in Court that they were busy with an investigation of the matter and if he really wanted to assist the applicant, because apparently the applicant gave evidence that he sat in the office crying, then Mr Mkhwanazi would have confirmed this if he had been co-operating with the applicant so to speak. And on the very same page, page 252, it is put to him

"Did you at any stage see that he (that is the applicant) sat there crying in the police station?"

"No, I did not notice that he was crying. What I did notice was that he was angry."

Is that the evidence that a man would give if he was attempting to assist somebody?

MR VERMEULEN: I have no idea what Mr Mkhwanazi's agenda was or what his story was, all that I can say is that is allegation was completely unfounded.

MS VAN DER WALT: About the crime?

MR VERMEULEN: No, about the balaclava.

MS VAN DER WALT: Just a moment please, Chairperson. Furthermore, I want to put it to you that which was said by Mr Erasmus in his statement. It is a statement which is confirmed by Johannes Swart. Do you know him, he comes from Ermelo?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: He says that on that particular day, the 22nd - this is in bundle 2, I beg your pardon, my documents are not paginated.

"On the 22nd of November at approximately 11 o'clock we were busy with our usual managerial meeting and I received an order from Warrant Officer Botha ..."

Did you know him?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT

"... to follow up alleged information in Pongola. Warrant Officer Botha informed me that he had heard rumours that there would be an attempt on the life of Mike, ANC leader at Pongola and that I was to go and see him."

Did you know about that information?

MR VERMEULEN: No, not at all.

MS VAN DER WALT: But there were informers who were handled by the Security Branch, who dealt specifically with political matters and violence, which was not available to you at all?

MR VERMEULEN: No, not at all.

MS VAN DER WALT: So that which appears here could be the truth?

MR VERMEULEN: Well if Erasmus says so, yes, but I don't know anything about it.

MS VAN DER WALT: Do you know that Mr Mkhwanazi was ill for three months before that particular day?

MR VERMEULEN: No, I don't know.

MS VAN DER WALT: So you were not really much involved with him?

MR VERMEULEN: No, I saw him, but I didn't have anything to do with him in actually fact.

MS VAN DER WALT: This statement which was shown to you by Mr Prinsloo, the statement which van Niekerk made in - bundle 2, page 112, Chairperson, and specifically the handwritten statement on 115. I have noticed that it has been marked as A1, is that correct?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: That would usually be the first statement in a dossier?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that would be the usual practice.

MS VAN DER WALT: Is there any reason why it was made on the 7/12?

MR VERMEULEN: It may be that it was not in the original dossier, A1 and that it became A1 after the document was restructured. It my have been something else initially.

MS VAN DER WALT: But what about the documents which have to be recorded on a daily basis and begin with A1?

MR VERMEULEN: It was practice to restructure the dossiers, so that those persons dealing with these documents would understand what was going on.

MS VAN DER WALT: I have no further questions, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms van der Walt. Mr Meiring, any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MEIRING: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Vermeulen, during the death of the deceased, do you know whether any dispute arose in the taxi industry?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, there were disputes in the taxi industry in Pongola.

MR MEIRING: Do you have any knowledge of a so-called taxi boycott during that period of time?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, there was if I recall correctly, a dispute which was about buses who were also present in the Pongola area.

MR MEIRING: What I want to know from you is whether this was during the period when the deceased passed away.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, it preceded that time.

MR MEIRING: Just one further aspect. Mr Amos Mtungwa, you say that you know him?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, I did know him.

MR MEIRING: Do you know where he resided at that stage?

MR VERMEULEN: If I recall correctly he resided in the trust area. I know where his home was, but I'm not entirely certain precisely where it was situated.

MR MEIRING: Now if he lived in the Piet Retief area, would he have been involved in community meetings at Pongola?

MR VERMEULEN: He was involved in the community meetings at Pongola, because he lived in the trust area and as far as I know this was in the Klipval area which also fell within the jurisdiction of Pongola.

MR MEIRING: Thank you, Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MEIRING

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Meiring. Mr van der Heyde?

MR VAN DER HEYDE: No questions, thank you.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DER HEYDE

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr van der Walt?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DER WALT: Chairperson, just one aspect.

Mr Vermeulen, is it correct that the problems which existed surrounding taxi boycotts in the vicinity had been solved approximately two months preceding the death of the deceased?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Chairperson, no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DER WALT

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van der Walt. Mr Botha?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BOTHA: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Vermeulen, just one aspect. You gave evidence regarding a question put by Mr Prinsloo, that you only became involved in political activities after the election.

MR VERMEULEN: That was when I saw that he was openly involved in political activities.

MR BOTHA: And specifically at the time of the death of the deceased, do you know whether or not he was involved in such activities?

MR VERMEULEN: No, I only knew that he was involved in taxi activities.

MR BOTHA: Thank you, Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BOTHA

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Shubane, have you got any questions?

MR SHUBANE: Thank you, Chairperson, no questions.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR SHUBANE

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mtanga?

MS MTANGA: I have no questions to put to the witness, Chairperson.

NO QUESTIONS BY MS MTANGA

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Ma'am.

ADV DE JAGER: You say that you gave evidence that the Security Police took over because they would take over if the incident was politically related.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, they would take over in such cases.

ADV DE JAGER: Well on that very same morning they took over the interrogation.

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Why did you suspect that this incident may be politically related, or why did they suspect that it may be politically related?

MR VERMEULEN: I basically began to suspect this when I arrived at the scene of the murder and saw who the victim was. I could surmise no other motivation or motive for the murder and I personally suspected that it may be a politically related matter and that is why I informed them.

ADV DE JAGER: Is that because the person who had died had been a political figure?

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct.

ADV DE JAGER: And you also regarded him as a political figure within the area?

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Would you have regarded him as an ANC leader in that area, or one of the leaders in that area?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, I regarded him as such and I also understood that he was one of the leaders.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you know somebody else by the name of Ernst?

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct, I met him.

ADV DE JAGER: What was his position within the society and the political situation there?

MR VERMEULEN: Chairperson, I'm not certain. I always viewed him or saw him when meetings were held, specifically ANC rallies. I saw this man there and he was also always present at trials and postponements, but I didn't know exactly who he was or what his position was.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you know somebody else by the name of Krush?

MR VERMEULEN: Krushev Ndandwene I knew very well, yes.

ADV DE JAGER: What was his role in society?

MR VERMEULEN: I was under the impression that he was the secretary to the person who died in this case. I knew him reasonably well and I knew that he was usually involved in ANC rallies. He was also involved in arrangements and negotiations for marches. Among others, his own brother was one of my staff members. So I knew him very well.

ADV DE JAGER: So these marches and the arrangements for these marches and the obtaining of permission for such marches, were there any such arrangements before the death of the deceased?

MR VERMEULEN: No, it was only after the death of the deceased that these arrangements began.

ADV DE JAGER: Were there any meetings before the death of the deceased?

MR VERMEULEN: Before his death there were IFP meetings that we had been aware of and there were ANC meetings, but on a very small scale. The police were not very involved in these meetings, they simply knew that such meetings were being held.

ADV DE JAGER: Now according to your experience, you told us that this was a predominantly IFP area, that is how you regarded it.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that's correct.

ADV DE JAGER: And the political parties at that time were not eager for another party to take control of that area?

MR VERMEULEN: There was a very clear opposition to the ANC at that stage.

ADV DE JAGER: Let me just understand this correctly, you say that at that stage there was a clear opposition to the ANC in Pongola.

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: However, there was no open conflict?

MR VERMEULEN: No, the ANC had a very small representation and we knew that they were having meetings, usually at the home of the deceased, but in very small numbers, never in large numbers.

ADV DE JAGER: And were you aware or not aware whether the IFP showed opposition towards the ANC meetings?

MR VERMEULEN: No, not openly before the death of the deceased.

ADV DE JAGER: This taxi problem, was there any accompanying violence to this problem?

MR VERMEULEN: There were certain instances of violence where taxis were stoned and upon certain occasions taxis were stolen from persons. However, these were not very serious cases of violence against people.

ADV DE JAGER: In your evidence you said - you were asked whether there was any violence of a political nature before the murder, and your answer was

"Not any noteworthy violence, however there were meetings."

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Now when you speak of violence that was not noteworthy, what do you mean by that?

MR VERMEULEN: What I mean by that is that we later came to hear of it that a meeting had been held at a certain house and that it had been an ANC meeting and somebody had thrown stones at the house, but it was not a case that someone had to come and report the matter to the police.

ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Vermeulen, after the investigation by the Security Branch into the matter, with regard to the suspicion that there may have been a political element within this incident, what was the result of their investigation? Was the matter even approached on that basis?

MR VERMEULEN: Chairperson, I don't know, I never had insight into the results of their investigations and I was also not notified as to the progress that they had made with their investigation. I simply continued with the criminal aspect of my investigation. I don't know the extent of the progress that they made.

CHAIRPERSON: So with regard to the criminal trial, there was never any mention of a political element to this incident?

MR VERMEULEN: No, not obviously. It was mentioned that the deceased was an ANC leader, but that is where it remained.

CHAIRPERSON: So the case was never argued on the basis of a political case?

MR VERMEULEN: No.

CHAIRPERSON: It was handled as a usual murder trial?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: One further matter, the balaclava. How many hairs could you obtain from the balaclava upon your investigation? Was it one hair, was it more than one hair?

MR VERMEULEN: Chairperson, I cannot recall what the forensic expert's name was. She gave evidence in Court that she found three hair samples in various levels of the fabric of the balaclava and she was called back by the Court after Mkhwanazi had given evidence and she gave evidence that one of the hairs was so deeply embedded in the fabric of the balaclava that it could not have been put there with one fitting or after having been worn for one day, this would have been the result of the regular wearing of such a balaclava.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Vermeulen. Mr Bizos, have you got anything else?

MR BIZOS: Have we given you a copy of Miss Ras' evidence? I thought that we had.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm not sure. I think you have alluded to that at one point, to the forensic evidence, the expert evidence, testimony about the hair samples.

MR BIZOS: Can we check on that because if we haven't, perhaps we should had it up.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Bizos as I see it, it's not disputed, that it was his and he had worn it for a long time.

MR BIZOS: It's not in dispute now, so we don't have to worry ...(no microphone) whether it was his balaclava or not.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, obviously that is no longer the point before us, the point seems to be a different one. It seems to be what happened during the investigation, whether he was compelled to put on the ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: Precisely and I think that it's ...(no microphone) summarised our position, that is really for what reason. If the evidence of this witness is acceptable it would mean that the applicant and Mkhwanazi lied and what business did Mkhwanazi have to lie on behalf of the applicant, having regard to Msibi's evidence. That is really the ... But, there is just one question.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes please.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS: It was put to you Mr Vermeulen, that the question of the hairs of the applicant offered very significant evidence. Was that the only evidence in a matter which the applicant or the former accused had been connected to the crime?

MR VERMEULEN: No, we also had two eye witnesses, who were not present during the trial, who disappeared and have never been traced until this very day.

MR BIZOS: And what about the pistol?

MR VERMEULEN: As far as I know the pistol offered no evidence which connected the applicant to the case, no fingerprints could be found on the pistol.

MR BIZOS: An experienced Security Police officer such as Mkhwanazi, who according to you may have had the dossier in his possession, would he have known that this was very important evidence?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: I'm not certain whether that would be the correct statement. Perhaps the witness can assist here, but I don't think that he ever gave evidence that Sergeant Mkhwanazi was in possession of the dossier.

MR BIZOS: The Security Police of which Mr Mkhwanazi was a member, he would have, or would he have known if he consulted the dossier, whether or not this was very important evidence against the witness?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, he would have known.

MR BIZOS: Thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BIZOS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Bizos.

ADV DE JAGER: You say that it was never a factor during the trial as to whether or not this was a political murder.

MR VERMEULEN: Not in the true sense of the word, Chairperson, it was about the murder of the deceased. There was never any noteworthy political relation which could offer any kind of explanation as to the murder of the deceased.

ADV DE JAGER: Could you obtain any motive for the murder?

MR VERMEULEN: None. As far as I could determine, the deceased and the accused had never known each other, had never seen each other.

ADV DE JAGER: I would assume that you tried everything in your power to determine the motive?

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct, but we could obtain no motive because the accused denied responsibility for the murder from the very beginning and I could not find anybody in that environment who knew the accused, because he was completely unknown in Pongola. Until the very day of the murder not one of the residents in Pongola had seen him.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Vermeulen, you are excused.

MR VERMEULEN: Thank you, Chairperson.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn and reconvene at 2 o'clock.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Meiring, you had indicated that it would be convenient to take the testimony of Mr Amos Mtungwa.

MR MEIRING: Yes, thank you, Mr Chairperson. I believe that Ms Mtanga will lead his evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Yes, is Mr Mtungwa available?

MR MEIRING: He is available.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, will he please come forward then. Won't you please stand, I want to administer the oath. Please give your full names for the record.

MR MTUNGWA: Amos H-L-U-M-E-N-T-A-B-E-N-I. My surname is Nkosi, also known as Mtungwa.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

AMOS HLUMENTABENI MTUNGWA: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, please be seated. Ms Mtanga?

EXAMINATION BY MS MTANGA: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Mtungwa, what is your current employment or occupation?

MR MTUNGWA: At the moment I am in KwaZulu Parliament, I am a parliamentary officer.

MS MTANGA: What was your occupation in November 1993?

MR MTUNGWA: In November 1993, I was a chief at Nlangamandla. I was acting chief and also I was a member of the parliament in the KwaZulu Government.

MS MTANGA: Did you own any taxis in 1993, Mr Mtungwa?

MR MTUNGWA: No, I never owned taxis before 1993 and in 1993 and after 1993.

MS MTANGA: And do you still not own taxis to this day?

MR MTUNGWA: That is so.

MS MTANGA: In 1993, that is November 1993, what was your political affiliation?

MR MTUNGWA: I was a leader of the IFP and I am still a leader of the IFP.

MS MTANGA: I understand you must have been briefed by your attorney about the evidence led by the applicant, implicating you in the murder of Mike Mncetshwa and the role you played as alleged by the applicant. Did you receive this information from your lawyer?

MR MTUNGWA: Yes, he had told me.

MS MTANGA: Mr Mtungwa, do you know the applicant?

MR MTUNGWA: No, I don't know the applicant. I only hear about the applicant, but I don't know him.

MS MTANGA: How do you hear about the applicant, Mr Mtungwa?

MR MTUNGWA: I heard after the deceased, Mr Mncetshwa was killed. I heard that there was a person called Mavuso and he is saying that he is a member of the IFP and now I heard from the Commission that I have called to come and testify.

MS MTANGA: How did it come to your knowledge that the applicant had killed Mr Mncetshwa?

MR MTUNGWA: Today I am here because the people who were sent by the Commission told me that I must come here and give testimony.

MS MTANGA: Are you saying you first heard about the applicant when you were notified by the Truth Commission?

MR MTUNGWA: No, I heard first after the deceased was killed. That's when I first hear about Mr Mavuso, or the applicant.

MS MTANGA: Mr Mtungwa, did you know Mr Mike Mncetshwa?

MR MTUNGWA: No, I don't know Mike Mncetshwa and I've never known him before.

MS MTANGA: The applicant has given evidence that yourself, your brother Philemon Mtungwa, Sam Khumalo, Velaphi Khumalo, Malebele Buthelezi, Jabulani Kunene and Rasta Mcwangu had planned the murder of Mr Mike Mncetshwa and you further gave him the order to kill Mr Mike Mncetshwa. Do you know Philemon Mtungwa?

MR MTUNGWA: Yes, I do know Philemon Mtungwa.

MS MTANGA: How do you know Philemon?

MR MTUNGWA: He is my brother, a distant brother, not from the family.

MS MTANGA: Do you know Sanda Nlangamandla?

MR MTUNGWA: Yes, I do know him.

MS MTANGA: How do you know him?

MR MTUNGWA: In the following manner. He was a resident in an area where I was a chief. I also know him by seeing him in the rallies and the meetings of the IFP.

MS MTANGA: Do you know Sam Khumalo?

MR MTUNGWA: Yes, I do.

MS MTANGA: How do you know Sam Khumalo?

MR MTUNGWA: They are in a taxi industry which is operating at Pongola and they are also affiliated with the IFP.

MS MTANGA: When you say "they are", who is "they"?

MR MTUNGWA: I mean Sam Khumalo, he's one person I used to see in rallies and the other is Sanda, he also belonged in the organisation and as a leader.

MS MTANGA: Do you know Velaphi Khumalo?

MR MTUNGWA: Yes, I do.

MS MTANGA: And how do you know Velaphi?

MR MTUNGWA: ...(no English interpretation)

MS MTANGA: Do you only know Velaphi in ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: I know them because they were in the taxi industry. I'm sorry, I went on channel 3.

MS MTANGA: Do you only Velaphi Khumalo in his capacity as a taxi owner?

MR MTUNGWA: No, him as well I used to see him in the meetings, IFP meetings which I attended. I cannot specifically say it was just the IFP meetings, because as I've indicated before that I am also a member of the legislature or the Parliament of KwaZulu Natal, so there were other meetings as well where I used to see him, or see them in various meetings.

MS MTANGA: Do you know Rasta Mcwangu?

MR MTUNGWA: Yes, I do.

MS MTANGA: And how do you know Rasta?

MR MTUNGWA: As a member and a leader of the IFP.

MS MTANGA: Do you also know that he is also in the taxi industry?

MR MTUNGWA: Yes, even though I don't have full knowledge, but I would say where I used to see them I used to see all of them. But I will say I know him very well because he is the leader in the organisation which I am also affiliated to.

MS MTANGA: Do you Jabulani Kunene?

MR MTUNGWA: Yes, I think he's the one that I know as Mr Kunene, even though I'm not certain of his first name. He's working at the Court or the Magistrates Court. That's how I know him.

MS MTANGA: Do you know Malebele Buthelezi?

MR MTUNGWA: Yes, I do.

MS MTANGA: And how do you know Mr Buthelezi?

MR MTUNGWA: I know him. I do see him in the meetings and also in the taxi industry.

MS MTANGA: Mr Mtungwa, the people I've just mentioned to you have all been implicated in the murder of Mr Mike Mncetshwa and according to the applicant, Philemon Mtungwa, that is your brother and yourself brought the applicant to the rest of the group that I've mentioned, where you conspired to kill Mr Mncetshwa at the Wimpy in Pongola and that you gave him the order to kill Mr Mncetshwa. What do you say to this?

MR MTUNGWA: No, I do not know anything about that and I'm certain that he knows in his heart that I do not know anything about that. It never occurred.

MS MTANGA: The applicant has also testified that there was political conflict between the ANC and the IFP in Pongola. What do you say to this?

MR MTUNGWA: Maybe I can distinguish something here. Before the killing of Mr Mncetshwa and after the killing of Mr Mncetshwa, before we never heard or I personally, I never heard where people were saying or claiming to be ANC members in Pongola, let alone the fact that there was conflict between IFP and ANC.

MS MTANGA: The applicant has testified that Mr Mike Mncetshwa was killed for political reasons, do you dispute that there could have been - do you dispute that you as an IFP member, that there could have been political reasons to kill Mr Mike Mncetshwa, who was an ANC member?

MR MTUNGWA: I do not have sufficient information or knowledge. As I've already indicated that I do not know the applicant, I will need to have more knowledge so that I would come to the conclusion that he was murdered because of political reasons, or that his death was resulting from any other reasons. I don't know.

MS MTANGA: Mr Mtungwa, during 1993, did you ever participate in the political rallies or meetings of the IFP in the Pongola area?

MR MTUNGWA: Yes, I do think there were meetings. I do not remember, but if I can check my diary I can give appropriate information on this. It is a usual thing to do rallies. As a member of the parliament I think I may have gone to IFP meetings. Sometimes we will have meetings in the community to report to the community about things which were discussed in parliament, but I cannot remember right now as to what meetings were held for what purpose.

MS MTANGA: Mr Mtungwa, do you know of a taxi boycott by the community of Pongola, that took place in 1993?

MR MTUNGWA: Even though I cannot remember whether it was in 1993, but I do remember that there was a conflict between the taxi owners and the bus. I don't know - when I'm referring to Nxwane, I'm referring to a township near Pongola.

MS MTANGA: Were you at any time in 1993, involved in trying to settle the dispute that existed between the taxis and the community, by attending a meeting of the community?

MR MTUNGWA: Yes, that is so.

MS MTANGA: Who had asked you ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mtanga, just excuse me. Will that gentleman at the back there reading the newspaper, please don't read in this venue.

Carry on.

MS MTANGA: Mr Mtungwa, who had asked you to come and address the community at that meeting? Sorry, before you answer that question, do you know the date of the meeting that you attended? What date was that meeting on?

MR MTUNGWA: No, I do not remember, I don't remember the date.

MS MTANGA: My next question is, who had asked you to attend that meeting?

MR MTUNGWA: The council requested me, Mr Sobaba Dlamini, Israel Dlamini wrote a letter or requested me to be there.

MS MTANGA: In what capacity were you attending that meeting?

MR MTUNGWA: As a chief or a leader from Sidlangmenga, that's a magisterial district near Paulpietersburg. I am one of the members. I was there because I was representing the chiefs, because there was a conflict.

MS MTANGA: I have no further questions, Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS MTANGA

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Mtanga.

MS MTANGA: I'm sorry, Chairperson, there's evidence that I forgot to put to the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, do that.

FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MS MTANGA: Mr Mtungwa, there is a statement written by Mr Ketla Krushev Ndandwene, I'm not sure if your representative has shown this to you. Do you know about this statement?

MR MTUNGWA: No, I don't know.

MS MTANGA: Well in this statement, on paragraph 5, as I will indicate to you now, Mr Krushev states that

"On the 19th of November 1993 I went to town in Pongola and I met Mr Amos Mtungwa, who was a half-brother to the late Sandineswe Nlangamandla, who was a member of Pongola Taxi Association. He, that is Amos, asked me about the progress in the community concerning the taxi conflict and I told him that everything was normal. In Amos Mtungwa's car there were two people inside who were unknown to me."

Do you confirm what Mr Ndandwene alleges in that paragraph? Do you know about what he is saying there?

MR MTUNGWA: I do not remember very well, but if he is claiming that he knows Sandineswe Nlangamandla, it is not true that Sanda is my half-brother, because we are not half-brothers. In other words, he is not telling the truth. Maybe he wrote this statement before he got the information accurate. We are not related or so closely related.

MS MTANGA: Mr Mtungwa, the rest of that paragraph also deals with the fact that on the 19th of November you were at Pongola and you spoke to Mr Ndandwene and you were with two other people in your car, who were unknown to Mr Ndandwene. What do you say to this?

MR MTUNGWA: I do not remember and I don't even remember myself asking him about the conflict between the taxi owners and the community. I do not remember that. And I don't know, he's talking about two people he didn't know. I can have people he doesn't know, they were in my car. I do not know whether he's supposed to know everyone that I know. I don't know even know who was with me on that day. I don't understand what he is trying to say about this.

MS MTANGA: Mr Mtungwa, Mr Ndandwene will give evidence at a later stage and he will - I wish to put it to you that he will confirm that on the 19th of November he had seen you with these two people, unknown people and you had spoken to him. So what do you say to this?

MR MTUNGWA: With all due respect, I will hear him saying so. I am also from Pongola, Pongola is the town which I use. I do not remember, not unless it was an angel in my car that will make me remember that he was in my car. I don't know, I don't even know who was in my car.

MS MTANGA: Chairperson, I have no further questions to Mr Mtungwa.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS MTANGA

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Mtanga. Mr Prinsloo, have you got any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

Mr Mtungwa, are you the owner of a white Cortina sedan vehicle, at that stage in November 1993?

MR MTUNGWA: Yes, I used to own one.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Mtungwa, Philemon Mtungwa who you have already mentioned, is that the person who worked at Byson Board in Piet Retief?

MR MTUNGWA: Yes, I was referring to that one who was working in Piet Retief. I think he was working for Byson Board.

MR PRINSLOO: And Mr Mtungwa, the applicant, Mr Mavuso, is he totally unknown to you?

MR MTUNGWA: Even now I cannot point Mr Mavuso, I don't know him.

MR PRINSLOO: You don't know him and he is a stranger in Pongola. I will put that to you.

MR MTUNGWA: That's what I can say. I am not saying he is a stranger in Pongola, and also I've never heard if he is a resident or he's not because I don't know anything ... him.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you attend any meetings or address any meetings in Piet Retief and Dumbe?

MR MTUNGWA: That is so.

MR PRINSLOO: And you are a prominent figure within the IFP.

MR MTUNGWA: That is so.

MR PRINSLOO: And in November 1993 you were a prominent figure and you were regarded as a leader within the IFP at that stage, is that correct?

MR MTUNGWA: That is so.

MR PRINSLOO: At that stage you resided in an area, Jejelelo - if I have pronounced it correctly, perhaps I have mispronounced it. Jelejuba, I beg your pardon.

MR MTUNGWA: Itshelejuba. I think it's Itshelejuba, I-T-S-H-E-L-E-J-U-B-A.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Mtungwa, you have corrected me and that is the area to which I have referred.

CHAIRPERSON: Just a minute, Mr Prinsloo. Won't you please repeat that spelling, Mr Mtungwa.

MR MTUNGWA: I-T-S-H-E-L-E-J-U-B-A.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Mtungwa, the applicant - and I put it to you, that he along with Philemon Mtungwa, a person who worked with the applicant at Byson Board, went to your residence in Itshelejuba, that they arrived at your house, that would be Philemon, entered and you were bathing. They waited inside, you got dressed and as far as the applicant recalls you were wearing khaki-coloured clothing. What he also recalls within the house which he regarded as - within the room where he was, there were books on the table. You sat there and spoke with the applicant. Firstly, you were introduced to him by Philemon. What do you say about that portion of the evidence? I put it to you.

MR MTUNGWA: I do not remember this specific day. As I've already mentioned that I do not remember him, but if he's saying that we spoke together, I think Philemon could have done that, could have brought someone at home and waited for me if he's claiming that I was still taking a bath at the time when they arrived. It's just that I do not remember the day.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you sometimes wear khaki-coloured clothing?

MR MTUNGWA: Yes, I think I do have, or maybe I should say I had khaki clothes. They are almost a uniform, boer's uniform. It's almost green or off-green. One can say they are khakis, but they are like greenish, an old boer's uniform sort of.

MR PRINSLOO: So it could be regarded as khaki? And after Philemon had introduced the applicant to you and the conversation had taken place, it was said by you that one Mike Mncetshwa, an ANC member and a leader within the ANC who was creating problems in Pongola for your party, along with two other persons who were often referred to as Krushe, but it would appear to have been Krushev Ndandwene, the other person being one Ernst, who appears now to have been Ernst Cele. Did you mention the names of those two persons in the presence of Philemon in your home?

MR MTUNGWA: No, I do not remember.

MR PRINSLOO: And furthermore, the conversation was about the elimination of those persons. Did you say that or discuss it?

MR MTUNGWA: No, I've never said this.

MR PRINSLOO: While this conversation was under way at your house an elderly person arrived there, Philemon and the applicant were requested to wait outside and you had a conversation inside with the elderly person. Do you recall that?

MR MTUNGWA: No, I do not remember.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you not recall it or did it not take place?

MR MTUNGWA: No, I do not remember. I don't even remember their visit and the fact that someone came and I requested them to go outside so that I talk to this elderly. But I will say something like this may have happened, or it can happen. It is something that happens whenever - you will have other visitors whereby you will excuse other people, so that you talk to that person privately, but I do not remember when it happened and whether it happened.

MR PRINSLOO: I will put it to you further that after this elderly person had departed, the applicant and Philemon once again entered your home and the conversation continued. You presented a 9mm pistol which you attached to your person, in your pocket or on your person and after that you and the applicant and Philemon departed in a white Cortina sedan vehicle. The applicant was seated behind and Philemon sat in front with you and you then drove to a school which was known as Hlananigahle School. What do you say about that portion of the statements that I have put to you?

MR MTUNGWA: No, I do not remember. I do not even remember driving together with the applicant and Philemon. Maybe Philemon can put some light on this because he had been in my car many times, not once. Because most of the time whenever he comes to visit his mother, he will also come to my place as well. And I don't even remember. I heard you mention a school, but I'm not sure whether you've pronounced the name of the school correctly, Hlananigahle. I never heard of any school called Hlananigahle.

MR PRINSLOO: Just a moment's indulgence please, Mr Chairperson, I just want to determine whether I've pronounced it correctly.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I don't know whether that will take it any further.

MR PRINSLOO: To assist you with the school, the school was situated near to this area, Itshelejuba that you have mentioned. The hospital is also close by. Does that assist you in any way?

MR MTUNGWA: There are three schools. There is one, a primary school and its name is Itshelejuba Primary School and there's Siazenzela H P and Sikamise Higher Primary School. These are the only three schools in that area, there isn't any school like the one you've mentioned.

MR PRINSLOO: Is there a hospital near a school in that area that you have mentioned?

MR MTUNGWA: Yes, there is a hospital.

MR PRINSLOO: Near a school?

MR MTUNGWA: Yes. I will say there's a national road, the main road and the hospital is opposite. I cannot say it's nearby. The school is on the opposite of the main road and the hospital on the opposite.

MR PRINSLOO: According to the applicant you drove into the premises of that school, made enquiries there, returned to the vehicle and drove to Pongola. In Pongola you met with Amos and Velaphi Khumalo and Amos Khumalo and the others were called together, that would be Amos Khumalo, Velaphi Khumalo - I beg your pardon, that's Sam Khumalo and Velaphi Khumalo, Rasta Mcwangu, Malebele Buthelezi, Jubulani Kunene, Sanda Nlangamandla, and the group rendezvoused in the Wimpy in Piet Retief. That amounts to eight persons excluding the applicant, it would then be nine including the applicant. There in the Wimpy a discussion was held with regard to the murder of the person that has been mentioned to you ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Prinsloo, perhaps could he just answer up to a stage and then proceed, because you're putting almost a page now and maybe he'll admit something and deny another thing.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Mtungwa, did you hear what I put to you or would you like me to return? Are you able to respond to what I have put to you?

MR MTUNGWA: I heard you saying we left the school and we went to Pongola and you also mentioned that we met with the others, Sam Khumalo and them. I deny all this. I don't remember all this. I was listening as you were reading that statement and I thought you were going to mention something about Israel Dlamini, but now I heard you mentioning all the names, but I do not remember these people, I've never met with them on that day.

MR PRINSLOO: I did not mention Mr Dlamini.

MR MTUNGWA: I'm glad you didn't.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you. After this meeting there at the Wimpy, you returned to the vehicle and you then saw Mr Krushev Ndandwene, you then told the applicant that you would go over to him and have a conversation with him and then he would be able to see the person to whom you were referring and you did indeed walk over to a person and begin a conversation with him. What do you say about that?

MR MTUNGWA: No, I do not know this. I think maybe Krushev and the applicant made this statement together. I know Krushev, but I don't know what is being put to me.

MR PRINSLOO: And the applicant says that this took place near a Standard Bank, as he recalls it, there in Pongola. Although he was not entirely familiar with Pongola as such. Do you recall this?

MR MTUNGWA: I do not remember this incident and I still maintain that I do not remember this.

MR PRINSLOO: And the applicant regarded you as a respected leader in the IFP and he regarded this order which he would execute as an act which would be committed on behalf of the IFP. And subsequently - just to put it briefly, I'm not going to put anymore particulars because it is denied, he shot Mr Mike Mncetshwa dead at a later stage in Pongola. What do you have to say about that, Mr Mtungwa?

MR MTUNGWA: No, I'm saying he is not telling the truth if he is saying so, but he's telling the truth if he's saying I was a leader of the IFP. And yes, he may know me because many people do know me as a prominent leader of the IFP, but I have never issued any instruction to him to go and kill the deceased.

MR PRINSLOO: Can you furnish us with any reasons why the applicant, who is also an IFP member, would falsely implicate you who is a respected IFP leader, in the matter of this murder?

MR MTUNGWA: I am glad I got this opportunity to say something here. I did mention in my evidence-in-chief that I've never regarded the deceased as a leader of the ANC, because - I didn't at the time that he was a leader of the ANC and even other people who were there. If he's claiming that he was an IFP member, that at the time in that area ANC was not prominent at all. And I would like to answer why I personally think he is saying what he is saying. I do agree that he knows me as a prominent leader of the IFP and I know what people are saying, that it is easier for one when requesting amnesty, it is easier for one to get amnesty if you claim that you received instructions from the leader or from someone who is prominent.

I feel sorry for him because he might be lying because he's in the position where he is. Maybe his acts were criminal, but today he is claiming that they were political and that he was sent or instructed by someone who is in a position, so that his application be in a better position.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Mtungwa, are you aware - and this is the evidence which was given when the applicant appeared initially in the district Court in Pongola, was there a great measure of support from the IFP when he appeared in Court? Do you know about that?

MR MTUNGWA: I heard that IFP members did go to Court and also that the ANC supporters as well attended the Court or the case. I only heard, but I do not have firsthand information.

MR PRINSLOO: It is evidence before this Committee that that is indeed the case, that there was a great extent of support for the applicant.

Now Mr Mtungwa, can you give any reason why the applicant, who was a stranger in Pongola would enjoy such tremendous IFP support if he had been involved in any other actions except a political murder?

MR MTUNGWA: I will mention two facts. One is that if IFP was satisfied that he was a member of the IFP, even though his actions were criminal, they would support him. This is one reason.

The second reason is, when you ask me a question that he is someone who is not known at Pongola, I did answer that I do not know whether he is unknown or known to the Pongola residents. Myself as a member of parliament, I was - my jurisdictions were Piet Retief, Pongola and the trust nearby these two towns. I heard that he was from Piet Retief and he was from Dumbe, Paulpietersburg.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Mtungwa, is it then your evidence that even though an IFP member may for example have been involved in an armed robbery, the IFP members would still have supported him in Court? Is that what you are trying to say? Or a rape for example.

MR MTUNGWA: IFP does not support criminal actions, but the Court must find someone guilty of criminal acts. The applicant, after he killed the deceased, the rumour was he had killed a leader of an ANC. I think the reason they supported him was that they wanted to ascertain as to whether he did that. As an organisation we cannot decide on behalf of the Court whether someone is guilty or not guilty. It is good to first ascertain the evidence before you can actually sentence someone or crucify someone.

MR PRINSLOO: You said at the end of your evidence-in-chief, or you referred at least to conflict in the area. To which conflict are you referring? Where you acted as such a meeting as a chief?

MR MTUNGWA: I said I attended a meeting at Xotjane, a trust near Pongola. The reason I was there is because there was conflict between taxi owners and the bus owners. This resulted to the community deciding to walk from home to town. The mayor of Xotjane - at the time we were still under apartheid, they mayor said we should come and resolve this because people resulted in walking from their places to work and he said this was unhealthy. We as leaders we called the meeting so that we could resolve the problem. This is what I said.

MR PRINSLOO: Now Mr Mtungwa, I refer you to bundle 1 -page 46, Chairperson. That is the sentence of the applicant in his trail by Justice Myburgh, in the circuit Court in Pietersburg.

CHAIRPERSON: Would that be the application documents?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that would be the paginated portion, page 46.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR PRINSLOO: Justice Myburgh, on page 46 as paginated, just after line 10, said the following

"The Court has no explanation for these crimes. On the face of them they were cold-blooded, well planned, committed in public on a defenceless man. What are the probabilities? The probabilities are that this was a political assassination."

Do you have any commentary about what Justice Myburgh remarked on here, with regard to the probabilities? Any comment? Do you differ from this?

MR MTUNGWA: No, I do agree with what the Justice had found, more especially when he said it may happen, it may be that. I was never there listening to his judgment, but in that portion I do agree that it may have been the case.

MR PRINSLOO: He continued

"The Court knows that the accused says he's a member of the Inkatha Freedom Party and the deceased was a leader of the ANC in the Pongola area. The probabilities are therefore that the accused was sent by someone to assassinate the deceased. Someone illegally acquired a firearm and ammunition, placed the accused in possession and arranged for the killing."

What do you say about that remark in the sentence which Justice Myburgh gave?

MR MTUNGWA: I will say exactly what I've just said. I am not commenting on this, I am not also denying. I don't have enough information as the Judge. When the Judge said this in Court, he had all the evidence in front of him. I as a member of the IFP, I heard about this afterwards, but the Judge had enough information and evidence to comment the way he did.

MR PRINSLOO: And Justice Myburgh sums it up in line 20

"This is not a way to solve political differences. The crimes were committed in November 1993, in a run-up to the first democratic election. The fact that there are differences between Inkatha and the ANC, does not justify the killing of an ANC or Inkatha leader."

MR MTUNGWA: I do understand even though the Judge made these comments in my absence, but this is what I also found out. In 1993 this was the issue and those societies we've considered peaceful, began to be violent prior to the elections. This is what leaders in organisations were facing as a problem. And today leaders are ruling peacefully.

There are other leaders who are peaceful, or at peace with the others. I myself, I have neighbours who are ANC leaders. He's staying at Itshelejuba, he was involved or he has been involved all along, he's been canvassing recruiting for ANC. He's been doing this in front of me and I've also been doing the same, but we were never in conflict. What the Judge said is true.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Mtungwa, did you regard the deceased as a leader of the ANC in that area?

MR MTUNGWA: No, I do not remember knowing the deceased very well before his death. If I knew him, I didn't know that he was Mike Mncetshwa, or John Mncetshwa. I'm not sure whether his name is John. But I didn't know him as a member or anything because what happened is that I heard over the news, over the radio news, that the leader of the ANC has been murdered. And we did ask ourselves in the parliament, and we realised that we didn't know him as a leader. We were still at Ulundi. That's when I heard that he was a leader of the ANC. I heard over the radio before I could even arrive home.

MR PRINSLOO: Just a moment's indulgence, Mr Chairperson. Thank you, Chairperson, no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Prinsloo. Mr Bizos, have you got any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS: Yes. Mr Mtungwa, let me make my position clear, Sir. I am acting on behalf of the family. I am obliged to ask you questions both on the basis that the applicant who killed the father and husband of the persons that I represent - I am therefore not going to contend that his evidence against you is the truth, but I must ask you questions in order to clarify matters, particularly in what you have said, that it is not unusual for people to claim a political motive and in order to prove that political motive, to point to a top leader in the area. So this is going to be the main purpose of my questions to you.

Now as to whether this was an IFP act or an act ordered by taxi owners who may have had some connection with the IFP, is the issue that I want to investigate with you. Let me start with the organised structures of the IFP. Was there an IFP structure in Pongola and also in Xotjane ...(intervention)

MR MTUNGWA: Xotjane.

MR BIZOS: Yes, the apartheid name for Pongola's black area presumably. Was a Mr Israel Bongumusi Dlamini the chairman at the time of the death of the deceased in this case?

MR MTUNGWA: I wouldn't remember if he was still a chairman, but if I can try harder and remember, I think he was a chairman, but I do not remember whether someone else had succeeded him at the time when he called me for a meeting. I think this is an appropriate question from the lawyer who is representing the family, because it is true that you need, or the family need to know the truth as to what happened.

The structures of the IFP, if I remember very well, there was Isigo branch at Xotjane and the chairman of that branch, who had been a chairman for a long time, it was Mr Israel Dlamini. And at Pongola there was another branch at a sugar refinery. And outside in the rural areas or the trust, in each and every trust we had structures because IFP was telling people that if you have already acquired a certain number of people, then you will have your own structure.

We had a region and our region included Pongola, Piet Retief and Paulpietersburg and this will include Xotjane, Bulanjoni. These are the townships near these towns. These are the structures which we had.

MR BIZOS: Were they properly constituted structures in terms of the constitution of the IFP, with a chairman, secretary, treasurer and committee members?

MR MTUNGWA: Yes, it was like that. All the structures were like that.

MR BIZOS: You see it is significant here that Mr Dlamini, the chairman, who had a committee with proper office bearers, has made an affidavit in which in paragraph 7 he says the following

"I have read the list of the people from whom the applicant, Emmanuel Mavuso claimed he received his instructions and confirm that Sandineswe Nlangamandla, Sam Khumalo, Malebele Buthelezi and Rasta Mcwangu were all taxi owners."

Do you know that as a fact? Do you know these people as taxi owners?

MR MTUNGWA: I do not have sufficient information as to one by one, but myself as a leader and a chief, sometimes I will meet with taxi owners and I will meet with these people, these people you have just mentioned. They will appear as taxi owners.

MR BIZOS: He says in 7.2 - what you will agree with

"Amos Mtungwa, a member of parliament at the time, and Sam Khumalo were the only two members of the IFP at the time."

MR MTUNGWA: I don't know. I cannot say he's telling the truth or he's not telling the truth, because he is saying this on his behalf, but I don't think he's saying this on behalf of Xotjane because I myself as a member of IFP, I do know these taxi owners and also I do know them as members of the IFP. I cannot be certain as to when they joined the IFP. Maybe he is referring to the Xotjane structure where he was involved as a chairperson.

MR BIZOS: Yes, all these people come from Xotjane, except yourself of course. But as to who was a member of the IFP there or not, Mr Dlamini would have been the person in the best position, he's the local person.

MR MTUNGWA: Yes, if you look at the structure, the chairperson will be the one with more information. But if I can go further than that. IFP, one becomes a member after you've pad a certain amount to join as a member and you do not pay the money to the chairperson, you pay the money to the treasurer or the secretary. Or the treasurer will tell the secretary to take the money from the people and issue the receipts to the people who are joining as members. I do agree that as a chairperson you will have this information more, but ...(no further interpretation).

I said with regards to the structure, seemingly it is the chairman who should possess such knowledge, but according to the working relations in the IFP branches you find out that the treasurer issues receipts. Alternatively it's commonly arranged that even the secretary, because you become a member of the IFP only through paying membership subscription fees ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: Subscription fees. Yes.

MR MTUNGWA: So it is the chairman, who in his executive committee ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: Yes, I can understand that. Mr Dlamini was chairman for 14 years, right up to the end of '93, he tells us. If there were prominent people in the people, important taxi drivers and they were members of the IFP, you would have expected him to have better knowledge than you as to who were the local members and who were not.

MR MTUNGWA: Yes, you would expect him to have much more knowledge. As a leader of the IFP ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: Yes. And here - sorry, have you finished?

MR MTUNGWA: Yes, you do find that the chairperson has no full information ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: Yes. But his information would be fuller than you who are away at a distance? You not your head, is that correct?

MR MTUNGWA: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Now you see here, of the eight people mentioned by the applicant - in order to support his case that he did it on behalf of the IFP, he mentions eight names, only two of whom, yourself and Sam Khumalo, are known IFP members to him. Now assume that to be correct, would a group of five or six persons who are not known as members of the IFP to the chairman, have the right to speak on behalf of the IFP or give instructions of any great import?

MR MTUNGWA: If they were not members they cannot. I said Mr Dlamini alone has the information. It is true that I cannot know these people better than Mr Dlamini. I only said that I've seen them in rallies. If Dlamini can say so, then we will take that because I'm only speculating.

MR BIZOS: Thank you, then we can proceed. But you agree that if he is correct about the absence of membership of five out of the seven that he has mentioned, besides yourself, that that cannot be a decision of the IFP in that branch or in that area.

MR MTUNGWA: I do agree if Mr Dlamini said what he said on behalf of the Xotjane branch.

MR BIZOS: Yes. And did the IFP meetings take, formal IFP meetings take place in Wimpys, on a table in Wimpys or ...(indistinct) coffee, or were they meetings at which there was a chairman, a vice-chairman, where minutes were kept? How were the affairs of the IFP conducted?

MR MTUNGWA: The branch meetings were held at Xotjane township. I would sometimes be invited in a school, at Xotjane School. In 1994 or just before 1994, when we were preparing for the general elections we met at Wimpy. Israel Dlamini called a meeting at Wimpy and other members, white members who were IFP, and we planned as to how we were going to visit each other. We had a meeting once at a Wimpy.

MR BIZOS: At Wimpy. A planning meeting?

MR MTUNGWA: I don't know, we used to call it hotel. If a hotel and Wimpy is one thing, then I will say we did attend a meeting. I thought first when I was asked about holding a meeting, a meeting being held in town, I thought they were referring to the one I'm speaking about now, but then he mentioned these names and that's not the meeting I was talking about, or I thought it was.

MR BIZOS: Now in relation to the support that is said to have been given to the applicant at his trial, do you know whether the support was on the basis that he was guilty of killing the deceased, or was he protesting his innocence and did he hold himself out as a possible victim because of his IFP membership?

MR MTUNGWA: I wasn't present myself, but what I personally concluded after I heard that IFP had supported the applicant, was that we IFP members here in South Africa, we had experience a lot where our people were killed. Every town in South Africa we were burying our members. When I heard that they were supporting him, and I didn't have enough information about this, but I thought that people, or IFP members were supporting him because they felt in their hearts that they should support him because they had suffered a lot and whites had divided us in South Africa. This is what I thought myself, alone. I came to the conclusion. I said to myself, is he an IFP member? Why did he kill? I just asked myself quite a number of questions and I interpreted myself the situation as I've put it to you, but I don't know the facts.

MR BIZOS: Did you know whether he pleaded not guilty, or he went into the witness box to say that he was not guilty of any crime, that the police were framing him?

MR MTUNGWA: No, I didn't know.

MR BIZOS: Do you think - well, I'll leave it at that, you didn't know the facts. Very well. Now I want to come back to '93. You heard about the death of the deceased.

MR MTUNGWA: That is so.

MR BIZOS: Do you recall whether or not, a day or two or three before that date, you were in Pongola or not?

MR MTUNGWA: No, I do not remember being at Pongola, but what I know is that when he was murdered I was at Ulundi. I was no residing at Ulundi. My wife, my children, everyone home were residing at Ulundi.

MR BIZOS: I accept that you were in Ulundi on the day. Please, so that we can make some progress, let us have some direct answers to the questions so that we can please get on. Was the fact that the deceased was killed in Pongola, widely reported on the media on the very day that it happened?

MR MTUNGWA: Yes, that is so.

MR BIZOS: Did you, when you heard that on that day, cast your mind back and ask yourself, was I not there a day or two or three before this death, in Pongola?

MR MTUNGWA: No.

MR BIZOS: Was there any publicity that a person claiming to be a member of the IFP, had been arrested more-or-less on the spot and that the deceased was a member of the ANC? Were those facts reported and did you hear them on the day that you were, that the death took place, or a day or two thereafter? Did you hear it more-or-less contemporaneously with the death of the deceased?

MR MTUNGWA: Nothing came back to my mind. I don't remember. There's no picture which came back to my mind.

MR BIZOS: This is your constituency, this is the area of which you bear some responsibility for the wellbeing of all the people living in it. Did not a amber light go on, was there no indication to you to cast your mind back? - well I haven't been there for weeks, I've been there only a couple of days, when can I go back there, what happened, let me find out what - wasn't it a matter of grave concern to you?

MR MTUNGWA: No, it didn't cross my mind as to when was the last time I've been to Pongola. If I may tell you, it disturbed us. We were residing at Ulundi and we met about this issue after we heard on the radio and we decided that we were going to meet the leaders of the chiefs of the area and hear from them as to what happened.

MR BIZOS: May I ask for a very short adjournment, not more than a minute?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we'll stand down briefly.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: The witness is no longer around. I'm hope you're not the cause of any of that.

MR BIZOS: He should be here now.

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

AMOS HLUMENTABENI MTUNGWA: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS: (cont)

... may not remember the 19th, but Kela Krushev, known as Krush Ndandwene, remembers it very well. He's made an affidavit about it to the Commission ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: May the speaker repeat the first part of his questioning.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Krush made an affidavit to the Commission on the 25th of May 1999. I believe that it's not before you. The Evidence Leader intended to hand it in when he gave evidence, but if copies are available it may be as well if you have the document before you. Are copies available?

MS MTANGA: Yes, Mr Bizos, everyone has got copies.

MR BIZOS: ...(no microphone)

MS MTANGA: The statement of Krushev Ndandwene you should have.

ADV DE JAGER: Is that the handwritten document?

MS MTANGA: Yes, Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: We have a copy, but it may be - we have a handwritten document and also I have a typed one. Can we proceed on the handwritten one?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think so. You can continue, Mr Bizos.

MR BIZOS: Thank you.

"During the meeting, somebody from the ..."

Paragraph 5.

"... somebody from the Taxi Association, the late Dumisani Masuku, arrived and told me that the people, that both associations have decided to bring the fares down back to normal until further notice. The following day everything went back to normal.

On the 19th of November (and this is really what I want to put to you) on the 19th of November 1993, I went to town, Pongola, and I met Mr Amos Mtungwa, who was a half-brother to the late Sandineswa Ndlagamandla, who was a member of the Pongola Taxi Association. He, Amos, asked me about the progress in the community concerning the taxi conflict and I told him that everything was normal. In Amos Mtungwa's car there were two people inside who were unknown to me.

On the 20th of November 1993, a white kombi arrived at my place, but nobody came out of it and it drove away. A few minutes later two people came to my house looking for me. Because they did not know me, I cheated them and told them that Krush was not at home and they left. To my understand the whole thing was about the conflict between taxi situations and the community, it had nothing to do with politics."

Let's leave the last bit out for a moment. Let me just add to you what Krush will add, that his suspicions were aroused by the two strangers at the back of your car. You obviously - this is the question I'm asking you, everything in this was by way of background, you knew Krush didn't you?

MR MTUNGWA: I knew Krush.

MR BIZOS: At the time that you saw him, prior to the deceased's death, did he have a distinctive afro haircut style? A big afro style, no? Very distinctive.

MR MTUNGWA: I don't remember any of that. He is the only one who is eligible to say that.

MR BIZOS: Yes, well he will say that and he will also say that he was so frightened by the strangers behind in your car that he went and had a haircut and this is why these people didn't recognise him the next day when he told them that he was not Krush. Would you like to - well you can't remember what he looked like, accept that as correct for the time being. But what is important is that he well remembers the 19th of November.

MR MTUNGWA: I have reservations, many reservations about Krush.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Well let me tell you why he remembers it - excuse me, let me just tell you why he remembers it. Because it was a day or two before the death of the deceased, and we know from the applicant, that Krush was one of the three intended victims. Now you can tell us whether you admit or deny that you could possibly, that you possibly were in Pongola on the 19th, without remembering it. Because you can't remember.

MR MTUNGWA: I don't remember and I would also like to explain this fact, because I think there are these facts from the question that I have to furnish response thereof.

Firstly, he knows me, I agree. Secondly, he claims to know me better than he does. In his affidavit he claims me to be a brother of the late Sanda Nlangamandla. If that alone could judge his statement, he's a liar. The next point. He claims or he wanted to claim leadership in the ANC. To be acceptable he want - they were expected to attack IFP leaders. If they didn't do that they never featured anywhere. I met him so many times and of course did not take any cognisance of him. And our meeting, wherever we could meet, could not click anything because I never knew him as a leader of any political party, let alone the ANC.

MR BIZOS: Anything else that you want to say about it before I continue with the next question? You see - nothing else? Can I continue?

MR MTUNGWA: Yes, please continue.

MR BIZOS: Here we have the person that says he was mandated to kill him and his own statement saying that you were at Pongola on the 19th. You can't remember whether you were in Pongola on the 19th of not and you can't remember whether there were two people at the back of your car. Can we accept as a fact that you were probably in Pongola on the 19th?

MR MTUNGWA: I repudiate all of that, although I don't have a clear recollection as to when last was I in Pongola. But I've already responded to the question prior to that. If I had been in Pongola I should have a clear recollection, especially around that period. Therefore, I repudiate all of what you've just said. I will also have other people who will stand for me and utter words on my behalf to the effect that I was not there.

Now how many people would have known Krush, because I don't reside in Xotjane. If I can't know all the people, residents of Xotjane, how dare he claim to know all the people that could be in my car?

MR BIZOS: How can you be confident that you will find people to say you were not in Pongola, if you yourself do not know whether or not you were in Pongola on that day? Because there is something very sinister in that statement, Sir, that you can get people to say that they(sic) were not in Pongola, when you yourself don't know whether or not you were in Pongola.

MR MTUNGWA: Fortunate enough, the Honourable Commission, I was in Ulundi. As members of parliament we are assigned to undertake some task, we just never do it on our own interests. Then I will be able to tell what happened. In fact, if you attend there is a register that you have to fill and you will be registered whether you were present of not. So the evidence that I propose to give if this becomes necessary, is an objective statement.

MR BIZOS: I would like to believe that if there is an entry that you were in Pongola(sic) on that day, that it will still be in existence and that people will say yes, he was in Pongola, if that was the case. But you tell us that you will produce people that you were not in Pongola. That is my difficulty with your evidence.

MR MTUNGWA: You see this Truth Commission has already determined as to who is credible inasfar as telling the truth is concerned. He has already lied on his very first sentence in his statement.

Now if the Commission is prepared to gather as much evidence as possible, it will indeed. Now it's up to the Commission to gather all the credible from the incredible. He is lying through his teeth and telling a blatant lie. He wanted to appear as a leader when he wasn't one.

MR BIZOS: Right.

MR MTUNGWA: I wouldn't have claimed to say I have seen Krush today when I did not, but we were in Ulundi on this particular day in question when this incident took place.

MR BIZOS: The 19th was not the date on which the incident took place. The incident did not take place on the 19th.

MR MTUNGWA: I don't mean that when the deceased was murdered we were in Ulundi. When I say we were in Ulundi - in other words, we were in parliamentary sessions. It can be a caucus session or an ordinary session. When I mean I was in Ulundi, that's what I'm referring to.

MR BIZOS: I thought Sir, that your evidence was that you didn't remember where you were on the 19th.

MR MTUNGWA: I've already said that I will consult with my diary inasfar as the accuracy of my evidence is concerned, to establish exactly as to when and the dates was I in Ulundi. Although I don't quite remember as to when the deceased was murdered, in relation to dates I mean. Although the family had said it just happened the previous day. But then if that is the evidence you want so much, I will furnish you with that kind of evidence especially that I know this is a credible Truth Commission.

MR BIZOS: Yes, very well. Perhaps you could hand whatever evidence you have, say by tomorrow, to the counsel for the Commission, so that we can examine it as to where you were on the 19th of November 1993. Will you try and do that, Sir?

MR MTUNGWA: Very well, very well, I will ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: Yes, because ...

MR MTUNGWA: ... but I don't think it will be tomorrow, it is at short notice.

MR BIZOS: If there is such credible evidence then of course, then of course the family will be satisfied that the applicant falsely accuses you of being a party to this in order to get amnesty. And as far as the family is concerned that is opposing the amnesty, it will welcome such evidence if it exists.

Now I don't want to enter into a long debate about relationships, but is Philemon at least your half-brother, or cousin or whatever?

MR MTUNGWA: In Zulu, on our culture he is my brother. There is that relationship between myself and him.

MR BIZOS: Is he working at Bysons?

MR MTUNGWA: Yes, I think he was working for Byson Board, although he had left the area a long time ago. He's no longer residing there.

MR BIZOS: We're talking about 1993.

MR MTUNGWA: He was not residing there in 1993, he has his own house not in Itshelejuba.

MR BIZOS: Was he working at Bysons in 1993?

MR MTUNGWA: I think that is correct. He was employed though, in Piet Retief. That is a fact.

MR BIZOS: Was he a co-employee and a friend of the applicant?

MR MTUNGWA: I have no information thereof. It may so happen if he has said that himself, the applicant that is.

MR BIZOS: Are you close to your half-brother?

MR MTUNGWA: We are 22 boys by my father and I'm established in Ulundi and he is in Piet Retief. We know, all of us, that we have one father. So each time we encounter each other we know we are brothers.

MR BIZOS: Did he ever discuss the applicant's arrest with you?

MR MTUNGWA: No.

MR BIZOS: Did he ever tell you that he was the friend who stood by the applicant and gave evidence in his application for bail?

MR MTUNGWA: No, he did not give me that information.

MR BIZOS: Is your half-brother, Philemon a member of the IFP?

MR MTUNGWA: I knew him as one and I think he's still one to date. He was on in 1993.

MR BIZOS: Is he a keen supporter of the IFP?

MR MTUNGWA: Piet Retief will be in a position to respond to that ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: Yes, please try and help us, we don't want to go to Piet Retief whilst we've got you here. Please tell us whether he was a keen supporter of the IFP.

MR MTUNGWA: Yes, he had all the points and that indicates him as a fully keen member of IFP.

MR BIZOS: As a political organisation?

MR MTUNGWA: Very well.

MR BIZOS: If he said that he knew nothing about politics and he was not interested in politics at all, at the bail application, would that have been true or untrue?

MR MTUNGWA: I would know that far, he is the one who would be in a position to respond to that, but at the rallies I recall that he would be present.

MR BIZOS: Well we'll ask him as well when he comes. Now do you know Mr Mkhwanazi, a policeman in the Security Police?

MR MTUNGWA: Yes, if he's the one who used to work for the Flying Squad in Piet Retief, then I know him.

MR BIZOS: No, a Security Policeman.

MR MTUNGWA: I think I'm also referring to the same man. There was one Mkhwanazi I knew, who worked for the Police Force in Piet Retief. I would not know his first name, though I don't even know his rank.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Well I'm sure that we're talking about the same Mr Mkhwanazi. Was a keen supporter of the IFP, or not?

MR MTUNGWA: I don't know, because each time I saw him he would be driving an official vehicle.

MR BIZOS: And official vehicle.

MR MTUNGWA: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Did you ever have any personal dealings with him?

MR MTUNGWA: No.

MR BIZOS: Do you know Mr Ali Msibi?

MR MTUNGWA: Yes, I do know an Ali Msibi from Piet Retief, who was the mayor and a supporter as well and a follower of IFP, according to my knowledge.

MR BIZOS: He owns a bottle store.

MR MTUNGWA: Yes, I'd heard that he owned a bottle store.

ADV DE JAGER: Who was the chairperson in Piet Retief, of the IFP?

MR BIZOS: According to my knowledge it was the late Mr Mpungose. I knew him as Mr Mpungose.

MR BIZOS: Now the taxi drivers in Pongola - I beg your pardon, the taxi owners in Pongola, were your sympathies with the people who were boycotting the taxis, or with the taxi owners?

MR MTUNGWA: We were sympathising with the community as well as the mayor also conveyed and it was in his best interests to quell this whole thing.

MR BIZOS: To put an end to the boycott of the taxis?

MR MTUNGWA: I was told - I was also invited. The fued was between the buses and the taxi owners, because in my address, when I was addressing them, I was addressing both the buses and the taxis.

MR BIZOS: The deceased was there?

MR MTUNGWA: I don't know, it may well have been the fact that he was there, because I could not recall him when I was told subsequently that a certain person by the name of Mncetshwa has died. I could not put the two together.

MR BIZOS: Was Krush there?

MR MTUNGWA: I did not see him, because we were not connected, the two of us. It may be the fact that he was there, but I would not know that much.

MR BIZOS: Do you recall whether you were booed when you tried to speak?

INTERPRETER: May you please repeat your question.

MR BIZOS: Were you booed when you tried to speak?

MR MTUNGWA: I understand that my word was misinterpreted, because of the lack, maybe the way I'm pronouncing it. Did they try to shout you down when you spoke?

MR MTUNGWA: Yes, there were a group of young men that were drunk and they were just, they had rendered the whole area, the whole place ungovernable due to the fact that they were intoxicated.

MR BIZOS: I think we get the picture, thank you. But now, do you recall what your response to that was?

MR MTUNGWA: I don't remember the words exactly, but I do remember the report of the day that I had brought to the people. I did convey the report that I'd intended to, though the circumstances brought themselves ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: Were difficult.

MR MTUNGWA: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Yes. You were telling people to go back to the taxis, to the taxis.

MR MTUNGWA: No, you're feeding me words. In other words, you're putting words in my mouth. I was mainly addressing the fact that this whole feud must come to a stop, this conflict between the buses and the taxis. The situation - I went there to call for a return to normality and I did that.

MR BIZOS: That you wanted returned to normality without reduction of fares.

MR MTUNGWA: I do remember the fact that we had discussed with the councillors. I conveyed my opinion to them, because even this whole money that caused problems, because apparently there was money involved as well that they were losing. That is related to the loss they suffered.

Now I emphasised the fact to them that they should at least co-operate with me and adhere to what I had to say to them. My speech was based on that, that there should be that stability. Because people will walk to places where they want to get to, because of the conflict that was going on between the buses and the taxis. Now I was there to bring stability until there was was this peace agreement.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Well let me just try and make some progress so that we can finish off. You see I am going to suggest to you that you came there possibly together with the council elected during the apartheid era, to tell people to call the boycott off. Is that a fair summary of the message that you had for the meeting?

MR MTUNGWA: It's a wrong interpretation of my message.

MR BIZOS: Well what was it in your message that caused the people to shout you down?

MR MTUNGWA: End of the conflict. The conflict which started between bus operators and taxi owners spilt over to the community of which I was a leader.

MR BIZOS: And how did you suggest that the conflict should be ended on the vital issue, was there or was there not to be a continued increase of the fares?

MR MTUNGWA: I was not going to impose a solution, I suggested that the conflict should like all other conflicts, be ended, be addressed through dialogue, through communication, through consultation.

MR BIZOS: And peacefully?

MR MTUNGWA: Peacefully.

MR BIZOS: Yes. But you see there will be evidence that you said that they didn't want to listen to you and what you were saying, they would get into trouble if they were going to listen to this Xhosa(?). With an X, I can't ...

MR MTUNGWA: Well I don't know who the who are that are being mentioned. I did say that there was a click of young people who looked very drunk. The leadership and the elderly people present in the meeting tried to calm them. Now this who being referred to as who, and these Xhosas, of course it's pointing out to what I said earlier. For a young leader to be recognised there was been sown an understanding that he must attack people of high profile, especially of the IFP. That is blatant attack on me. What had I to do with that Xhosa acts. I mean, referring to the person who claims that I said that.

MR BIZOS: You say you didn't say that.

MR MTUNGWA: No.

MR BIZOS: You didn't say it, oh. You see I'm going to put to you that in 1993, particularly in November, the IFP policy was one of peaceful coexistence and participation in the Codessa negotiations, is that correct?

MR MTUNGWA: It's true, the IFP was more often chucked out and neglected from Codessa, it was however the principle ...(indistinct) by the IFP.

MR BIZOS: Oh, it had its complaints, I remember that well enough, but it was participating in the process. It was not part of its policy to commit acts of violence, and particularly murder of any political opponent. That was the policy.

MR MTUNGWA: I agree.

MR BIZOS: That policy was well-known at the that time.

MR MTUNGWA: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Now we now have a person convicted of murder. Speaking for myself, I don't know whether he's telling the truth or not, but that doesn't matter, it's for the Committee to decided. If you were in any way involved, and I'm not saying that you were, if you were in any way involved it would appear that the point in issue in Pongola was the conflict between the community as a whole, IFP and ANC supporters both, against the taxi owners who wanted to increase the fee. Would you agree that that was the basis of the conflict?

MR MTUNGWA: I have no comment on that.

MR BIZOS: You have no comment, very well. And that if you did anything suggested by the applicant, you did it to assist the taxi owners on whose behalf you addressed the meeting, rather than in your capacity as a high-ranking IFP member.

MR MTUNGWA: I rejec that with the contempt it deserves, and I would like to add that in fact the issue of Xhosaism, we don't have as far as I know, Xhosas in our areas. If we do have them they become assimilated ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: They become good Zulus.

MR MTUNGWA: They become good Zulus.

MR BIZOS: Okay.

MR MTUNGWA: I've got one induna specifically in my area, he's of Xhosa origin. We only enjoy when he speaks, but he is a Zulu. He will tell you, I am a Zulu.

MR BIZOS: Okay, yes. Now you understand what the family's position is. That he, the applicant, you will agree, certainly did not act on behalf of the IFP in killing the deceased.

MR MTUNGWA: Yes, I don't have facts to support that he did it on behalf of the IFP.

MR BIZOS: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BIZOS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Bizos. Mr Meiring?

EXAMINATION BY MR MEIRING: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

Mr Mtungwa, is it corect if I understand your evidence, that as far as you are concerned, being a high-ranking IFP official, there was no such an order or instruction to kill the deceased issued either by you or any other high-ranking IFP official?

MR MTUNGWA: Correct.

MR MEIRING: Did you have any particular interest in the conflict regarding the taxis and the community?

MR MTUNGWA: None whatsoever.

MR MEIRING: Would you have issued such an instruction to have the deceased killed because you were as it were, siding with the taxi operators?

MR MTUNGWA: Not at all.

MR MEIRING: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MEIRING

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Meiring. Mr van der Heyde?

MR VAN DER HEYDE: I have no questions, Mr Chairperson.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DER HEYDE

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr van der Walt?

MR VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Mr Chairman, no questions.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DER WALT

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Botha?

MR BOTHA: No questions, Mr Chairman.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR BOTHA

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Yes, Mrs van der Walt?

MS VAN DER WALT: I have no questions, thank you Chairperson.

NO QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I see that we've lost Mr Shubane. I don't know if anybody has any idea what has happened to him, because I was going to go to you, Ms Mtanga, but let's just make an effort to see if we can locate him. He might have had a biological problem.

Yes, Mr Shubane, have you got any questions?

MR SHUBANE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. Sorry for the delay. No, I have no questions for this witness. Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Mtanga?

MS MTANGA: No further questions, Chairperson.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MS MTANGA

CHAIRPERSON: Adv Gcabashe?

ADV GCABASHE: Mr Mtungwa, even as you look at the applicant now, you do not recall meeting him at any stage anywhere? There he is seated over there. You've been here all day, he's been sitting there all day. His face doesn't ring a bell at all?

MR MTUNGWA: No, this face I have never seen before. I've never seen this face before. As a leader of the people, for you to be able to recall that person it may be a bit difficult as a leader, but then I don't recall any situation where I have encountered with him or where I have seen him. I've seen Mdu and it may so happen that I have seen him before, but I don't recall the face. This Mdu we are talking about, as for him - this is a rough picture I'm giving here, it can so happen that as a leader or being a leader in a certain environment it may be the fact that I have seen him before as well as Mdu, but I don't remember. And this comes from the bottom of my heart. I'm speaking out of hte heart, because the Honourable Commissioners are here for the truth, they are seeking the truth.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you. Money was collected for him, says the applicant and as I understand the evidence, certainly R3 000 was collected by somebody and that money was used to pay his bail. Further requests for money apparently were made, according to some of the other witnesses who talk of a R20 000 request from this particular applicant. Do you know anything at all about either the R3 000 or the R20 000, whether it was collected or not?

MR MTUNGWA: I heard through Dumbe leadership that there was some collection being made, that was when we were receiving the full report as leaders.

ADV GCABASHE: When would that have been?

MR MTUNGWA: I mean during the trial, I can't remember.

ADV GCABASHE: During the trial. And who was driving that collection process?

MR MTUNGWA: Oh no, we never received that as a specific project, but as a global report that indeed the man came from Dumbe or Pieterburg area and that he was know, they knew him as an IFP member and that there were collections being made.

ADV GCABASHE: Now what was your understanding of the basis for collecting this money? Was it purely because he's an IFP member, or was it because they believed in his innocence? Do you know anything at all about the basis for collecting this money?

MR MTUNGWA: I wouldn't say any specifics, but I said earlier on that people will collect, make such collections for various reasons.

ADV GCABASHE: Were you a contributor to this fund?

MR MTUNGWA: No, I never contributed.

ADV GCABASHE: As standard practice, would those who did make a contribution be given a receipt in return?

MR MTUNGWA: Yes, that's the normal practice. I know -I think it could have been done if indeed collections were eventually made.

ADV GCABASHE: That was standard practice?

MR MTUNGWA: It is possible - it's a practice for the IFP, to receipt, that is issue receipts for money collected.

ADV GCABASHE: You see because that is part of the applicant's case. He says indeed he was shown some receipts. That is his case.

MR MTUNGWA: I wouldn't have knowledge pertaining to that, specific knowledge.

ADV GCABASHE: And then just finally, coming back to where you may have been on the 19th, that's two days before the deceased was killed. I've heard you say that you will try and find what objective evidence you can get hold of, but are you saying to us that as you sit here right now you cannot recall where you might have been the day before the killing - because we know that on the day of the killing you were in Ulundi, and then the day before that? You can't cast your mind back a day at a time and assist us?

MR MTUNGWA: If my memory serves me well, I reckon I was at Ulundi and that is - the promise I gave was to the effect that I will come with an objective statement that I was at Ulundi from which day to which day, with whom and what other than what I say, what other things or evidence would add word to what I say.

ADV GCABASHE: You heard about this incident on the 22nd, on the day that it happened. Did you go back to Pongola on that very same day?

MR MTUNGWA: No, I didn't.

ADV GCABASHE: When did you go back? Can you recall?

MR MTUNGWA: I can't recall, but a few days or a week, a few days to a week.

ADV GCABASHE: And when you got there, was this one of the first matters you attened to?

MR MTUNGWA: Well I had nothing, done nothing specifically regarding this. It was indeed one of the things on which we were reported. And for the information of the Honourable Commission, to us in KwaZulu Natal, it was not a matter of one incident, in a day's time we could have five/ten reports, especially regarding the IFP members that were assassinated.

ADV GCABASHE: But that is not your evidence with regard to Pongola.

MR MTUNGWA: No, no, no.

ADV GCABASHE: You're not saying that that was the case in your area?

MR MTUNGWA: Fine, find. I said, when I came back, it was one of the ordinary incidents, not that we regarded it as something acceptable in the IFP. But I'm saying this to put the Honourable Commission to understanding that wherever we met, a long list will be cited of people who have been murdered ...(intervention)

ADV GCABASHE: I'm sorry, Mr Mtungwa, I don't mean to be rude, but I must stop you there because I'm not looking at the regional picture, I'm looking strictly at your area. And my understanding is that in your area, that's Pongola, Piet Retief, your general area of jurisdiction, there wasn't any political violence until after this particular incident. So the figures you're referring to don't relate to your area at all. This was the first serious incident in your area, and this is why I'd like to know what you then did as one of the leaders of the area.

MR MTUNGWA: The question is what we did?

ADV GCABASHE: You in particular, you were just about at the top for that region.

MR MTUNGWA: We organised the meeting of members of the Legislative Assembly, the meetings of amaKhosi, and we received further briefing on this.

ADV GCABASHE: And that was while you were in Ulundi?

MR MTUNGWA: No, no, we started in Ulundi and we planned the meetings, political meetings and traditional meetings. That we did.

ADV GCABASHE: But I'm just trying to ascertain that by the end of November - this incident happened on the 22nd, by about the end of November, or the end of the first week of December, you personally were fully briefed about this particular matter.

MR MTUNGWA: We were briefed and we had meetings held, Honourable Commissioners.

ADV GCABASHE: And you did not spearhead any investigation into anything to do with your members, regarding this serious incident?

MR MTUNGWA: There was no political obligation for a single members of parliament to follow a certain investigation. In a political party we worked collectively and we even assigned people, we assigned leaders to do certain things for the iformation of ... I participated in such meetings in my area, in my constituency, because it pertained, it had to do with my constituency. But on the other hand, I was being assigned to other areas. My area for instance was in Gwavuma and Ubombo, specific area of assignment, but indeed I did something, I did partake in the meetings of ivestigating this political violence that had started emerging.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you, Mr Mtungwa. Thank you, Chair.

ADV DE JAGER: Sir, you told us that the applicant didn't act on behalf of the IFP and that it wasn't the policy of the IFP to kill people, is that correct?

MR MTUNGWA: It wasn't the policy of the IFP, it's correct.

ADV DE JAGER: And you say that the IFP, or representatives of the IFP never instructed anybody to kill members of opposition parties.

MR MTUNGWA: According to my knowledge, that's correct, my Honour.

ADV DE JAGER: So all the ANC people who have been killed in KwaZulu Natal were killed without any authorisation or without it being the policy of the IFP, or without any authorised instructions of any leaders?

MR MTUNGWA: To my knowlege, Your Honour, there were never instructions or orders given by the ANC(sic) to kill, wherever.

ADV DE JAGER: So they all acted on their own?

MR MTUNGWA: That's a possibility, Your Honour, but there were no specific orders, there were no instructions as far as I know the IFP.

ADV DE JAGER: And it was never the policy of the IFP?

MR MTUNGWA: It never was the policy of the IFP, Your Honour.

ADV DE JAGER: Not even to retaliate?

MR MTUNGWA: Not even retaliate, Your Honour, our people spoke in the presence of leadership, that they were not going to allow a person to put a finger on their eye. That is as far as it went

ADV DE JAGER: Ja. So ANC people who died, who have been murdered, were murdered by people acting without the party ranks of the IFP? Or did you acknowledge that you from - members of party did in fact kill other members?

MR MTUNGWA: As far as I know, no such direction was ever given.

ADV DE JAGER: You were the leader in Piet Retief, Pongola and Paulpietersburg area, is that correct?

MR MTUNGWA: Correct, Your Honour.

ADV DE JAGER: That was a peaceful area, according to the evidence.

MR MTUNGWA: No, I said, Your Honour, Xotjane township was initially a potentially peaceful area. There were violent eruptions in Piet Retief, yes and also in Paulpietersburg and later on in Pongola. That's what I was trying to explain, Your Honour.

ADV DE JAGER: Ja. And Pongola was a predominently IFP area.

MR MTUNGWA: That's correct, Your Honour, as was the other areas.

ADV DE JAGER: Ja. And we know, at that stage it was three to five months before the election that political parties were fighting for political turf, isn't that so? Did the ANC in your area form branches?

MR MTUNGWA: No, not that I'm aware of. Your Honour, in my area where I was acting as an nkosi, I kept encouraging people of political parties to come forth. I made mention here of one Eshemon Mtungwa, who ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Who was your neighbour.

MR MTUNGWA: Who was my neighbour. It didn't come up -however, we were aware of people that were later on identified as members, only members of the ANC.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you know of any ANC member in the Pongola area, round about November 1993?

MR MTUNGWA: Not specifically Your Honour, through hearsay I heard that some youth may be now members of the ANC.

ADV DE JAGER: There were no rumours or even information that the deceased was a member of the ANC?

MR MTUNGWA: I only heard more about the deceased, or about the deceased and his membership and leadership, on the day when we heard it over the radio.

ADV DE JAGER: Didn't he play a role in the taxi conflict? Didn't he act as a mediator in the taxi conflict?

MR MTUNGWA: He might have acted so, but not to my knowledge, Your Honour. I only got involved at the invitation of the mayor, Mr Israel Dlamini. It was a one day affair as far as I was concerned.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, there's only one other thing I'd like to know. You've mentioned, I think at least three branches, maybe more than three branches of the IFP, within your area. Was there any branch at the hostel at Piet Retief?

MR MTUNGWA: Ja, Your Honour, for the correction of my statement, we had many branches and each district then will have a constituency committee, comprising X number of branches. Coming to the question, Your Honour, yes there was - eventually there was another branch in Piet Retief hostel.

ADV DE JAGER: Ja. And in this organisation you were, I think, the leader and you would have known the leading IFP personalities throughout the constituency.

MR MTUNGWA: Ja, wherever - only wherever possible. For instance for the hostel branch, I remember taking, I took an active initiative and I think I spoke through Mpungose, who was the chairman. And then one of the young men in the hostel was Gumbi(?). And because of the vastness of the area, my constituency alone we only knew some people.

ADV DE JAGER: Ja. Could you tell us, in Pongola, could you give us say the names of the members of the committee in the Pongola area?

MR MTUNGWA: No, unfortunately, Your Honour, I'm not in position or was not in a position even to know all the names of the committee members.

ADV DE JAGER: Okay. Well who did you know in Pongola, as being the leaders, the local leaders of the IFP in Pongola?

MR MTUNGWA: For many years it was Israel Dlamini and later on it might have been somebody else, but then later Rasta Mcwangu became the chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: At the time of the election?

MR MTUNGWA: I think I must refresh my memory here to be correct, but just to say off the hat, I think then Rasta, if he had not already taken control or had already been elected, he later on was involved in the organisation for the elections. He was in the committee.

ADV DE JAGER: But while Mr Dlamini has been chairperson he was assisted by members, didn't Rasta assist him on the committee? Wasn't he one of the leaders at least at that stage?

MR MTUNGWA: That is my expectation, Your Honour, it should have been like that.

ADV DE JAGER: And Sanda?

MR MTUNGWA: Ja, Sanda, I think he was still in Pongola by that time. I would expect to follow the leadership of the IFP, that is the elected chairman and the executive committee.

ADV DE JAGER: And the Khumalo brothers?

MR MTUNGWA: They would be expected to be members of that branch. But having said that, Your Honour, even during that time we kept preaching the gospel.

ADV DE JAGER: What was the gospel at that time?

MR MTUNGWA: That each ward - if IFP members in each ward were interested to form a branch, they owed that to themselves and we did preach that gospel to the ward councillors. I return to what I said earlier, I don't specific knowledge about that, but we were expecting it to be I think like almost as it is now. There are many branches now in Xotjane. Then Xotjane as a whole, as a township, is a constituency.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, and all these constituencies would have been represented in the region?

MR MTUNGWA: Absolutely.

ADV DE JAGER: Now in your region, who were your regional representatives sitting with you at the top, in the top committee?

MR MTUNGWA: During those years we were using just an ad hoc committee, which comprised members of KwaZulu Legislative Assembly and there were five of us, and then coopting the chairman from constituencies.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, thank you.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS: ...(no microphone) clarify one point arising out of Adv de Jager's questions and one of the answers.

Rasta, wasn't he a new recruit to the IFP, from the PAC, as the election was nearing?

MR MTUNGWA: Your Honour, I'm not specific, I can't remember the times. I know that before he belonged to the PAC.

MR BIZOS: To the PAC.

MR MTUNGWA: I have that knowledge.

MR BIZOS: So you won't be able to deny the suggestion that far from being a member of the IFP at the time of the death, he politically belonged to the PAC, rather than the IFP?

MR MTUNGWA: I don't have specific knowledge about that.

MR BIZOS: I just thought I would clarify that, Mr Chairman, thank you.

NO FURHTER QUESTIONS BY MR BIZOS

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Bizos.

Mr Mtungwa, thank you very much, you're excused.

MR BOTHA: I'm sorry, Mr Chairman, if I may also just clarify in regards to the questions put by Adv de Jager.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Botha.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BOTHA: Mr Mtungwa, you testified just now that - or I got the impression that you were not quite clear what and who assisted Mr Dlamini during November 1993, in the IFP, is that correct?

MR MTUNGWA: Repeat your question please.

MR BOTHA: I got the impression when you answered Adv de Jager's question, that you are not quite clear or cannot quite clearly remember who assisted Mr Dlamini in the operations of the IFP, during November 1993.

MR MTUNGWA: That's correct, I said that I cannot remember all the names of the executive committee.

MR BOTHA: Okay. You also do not clearly remember who occupied which position in the Pongola branch of the IFP, during November 1993.

MR MTUNGWA: No, absolutely, that's correct.

MR BOTHA: My instructions are that Mr Mcwangu only joined the IFP at least three months after this incident of the murder of Mr Mncetshwa. You cannot deny or confirm that, is that correct?

MR MTUNGWA: I can never deny or confirm, it's a matter of fact, I have not the facts.

MR BOTHA: You don't have the facts?

MR MTUNGWA: Concerning this, it can be investigated.

MR BOTHA: Yes. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BOTHA

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Botha.

Yes, Mr Mtungwa, you're now excused. Of course you have the opportunity to present whatever further objective evidence you wish to us, in regard to your whereabouts, if you are so advised. But for the moment you are excused from further attendance.

MR MTUNGWA: As the Honourable Commission pleases.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR BIZOS: ...(no microphone)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I was going to excuse Mr Meiring as well. You're also excused, Mr Bizos.

MR BOTHA: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Your wanted to be excused.

MR MEIRING: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well we'll excuse you.

MR MEIRING: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Well we've come to the end of the day. We will adjourn the proceedings and reconvene tomorrow morning at 9o'clock.

WITNESS EXCUSED

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS