HARRIOT MATHEBULA: (sworn states)
MR NDOU: Thank you Honourable Chairman and Members.
EXAMINATION BY MR NDOU: Mr Mathebula, we've heard from the previous two applicants that there was a meeting in the evening when the deceased was killed. We've also understood that you were chairing the meeting, is that correct?
MR MATHEBULA: Yes, it is true.
MR NDOU: And apart from chairing the meeting, what else did you do at the scene?
MR MATHEBULA: Before I explain, I think I noticed something on the affidavit which is not properly put. I just want to look at that as well.
MR NDOU: Yes.
MR MATHEBULA: Paragraph 28 which says
"The crowd then proceeded to the deceased's house",
which should read differently.
The same goes to 29:
"After the deceased had been identified and the tyre had been placed on his neck, he ran away. The crowd gave chase."
And 31, it should end at the word sword. The rest should be deleted.
And on page 37 where there is - it starts with "we", it should read "they" and there where it reads: ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou, why don't you tell us what it should read then?
MR NDOU: Okay. Since he says that whatever was happening, it was a group of other people who were doing it, he says that instead of the word reading "we", it should read "they" because it is the other people and he was not part of the people who were doing those acts.
MR MATHEBULA: And number 42, the whole paragraph should be deleted, because no property was damaged.
CHAIRPERSON: Now have you read this whole affidavit?
MR MATHEBULA: Yes, I did.
CHAIRPERSON: And you're satisfied that you have made all the corrections you want?
MR MATHEBULA: Yes, I think that I corrected all that I need to do.
CHAIRPERSON: The only place I can see that you implicate yourself physically is that you chaired a meeting. Nowhere else do you say whatever, you did this, that or the other. In paragraph 37 you specifically now change the word we to they, indicating that other people did it, not you. Is that correct?
MR MATHEBULA: Yes, it's correct.
CHAIRPERSON: So, do I understand you correctly, you did nothing to the deceased?
MR MATHEBULA: Yes, directly in the deceased's body, I've done nothing.
CHAIRPERSON: Were you - in the meeting did you argue against the killing?
MR MATHEBULA: Yes, I did, but referring to other people, but with regard to the deceased then I was in favour of him to be killed.
CHAIRPERSON: So is what you wrote in your application in the first place more or less correct, where you say you addressed the meeting, it was agreed, "I did not participate for I was against it". You say that was with reference to the other people, but not to the deceased.
MR MATHEBULA: Yes, I was referring to the killing of other people's who were on the list.
CHAIRPERSON: Except now the deceased you were in favour of?
MR MATHEBULA: Yes, it's true.
CHAIRPERSON: Now in paragraph 9(c)(i), there you say then you're making application or your application refers to the death of victim, Johannes Sondana Malatje.
MR MATHEBULA: Yes, it's true.
CHAIRPERSON: So how can't 9(a)(i) refer to others when in fact your application is centred around what happened to the deceased?
MR MATHEBULA: In filling that form, I thought it was inclusive of all the things which were discussed or I've decided in the meeting.
CHAIRPERSON: No, I have difficulty with that. You applied for amnesty in respect of offences which you committed. The naming of the other people on the 19th of March 1990, which is the day the deceased died, why would you then have asked for amnesty in respect of people who were just named in the meeting and nothing happened to them? There wasn't a crime that was - strictly speaking no crime committed, in any case you didn't apply for any crime committed in respect of that listing of people. Can you answer it?
MR MATHEBULA: I'm applying because of the contribution I made regarding the death of Mr Malatje.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Ndou.
MR NDOU: I don't wish to take this any further.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NDOU
MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN RENSBURG: You did give evidence during the criminal trial, is that correct?
MR MATHEBULA: Yes, it's correct.
MR VAN RENSBURG: The evidence you gave at the criminal trial, was that the truth, or did you lie to the Judge, trying to get off as lightly as possible?
MR MATHEBULA: In fact in Court I was having a problem. Most of the things I mentioned in Court was just giving evidence, because I was badly treated before I can give evidence before the Court, then I decided to just speak because I was already informed of the sentence which was going to be imposed and then I decided to just speak whatever I felt like speaking.
MR VAN RENSBURG: You lied, is that what you're trying to say? You lied in the criminal trial?
MR MATHEBULA: It was a mix-up of both.
MR VAN RENSBURG: You can't speak the truth and lie at the same time. Please don't waste our time.
CHAIRPERSON: The whole bit of evidence can be described as that, but put specific things to him and maybe you can ask him whether he lied on it or not.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Okay. You testified that you were against the idea of burning of witches and that you expressed that viewpoint at the meeting, is that correct? That's what you testified.
MR MATHEBULA: I was advised to do so because I was told that if I give evidence in other way, I will be given a heavier sentence.
CHAIRPERSON: But was that the truth?
MR MATHEBULA: You are referring to what?
CHAIRPERSON: That you did not agree with the killing of witches and that you said so in the meeting.
MR MATHEBULA: I refused with the burning of other people and then I agree with them the killing of this Mr Malatje.
CHAIRPERSON: So you lied in Court?
MR MATHEBULA: Yes, I did.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Is it not further so that when you were asked why you were opposing to the witches being burned, you testified that you had never been bewitched and that you never came across a person who was said to be practising witchcraft. Wasn't that you evidence in Court?
MR MATHEBULA: That I can't remember.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay. I put it to you that was your evidence. Perhaps you can tell us, when you testified like that, were you lying or were you speaking the truth?
MR MATHEBULA: That I have never been bewitched is true.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Ja, that's not the question. The question is that you were in favour of the witches because you've never been bewitched. That is what you testified and that is what I want to know if that was the truth.
MR MATHEBULA: That is not true.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay. You've heard your colleague Mr Leshaba giving evidence to the effect that at the meeting you in fact spoke in favour of the burning of the witches. Did Mr Leshaba lie when he testified like that?
MR MATHEBULA: He was telling the truth.
CHAIRPERSON: Will you just put your case to him?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Okay. I put it to you Mr Mathebula, that in your application you did not make mention of the fact that you're actually making amnesty application for murder and that on that basis you should not qualify for amnesty. What do you say about that?
MR MATHEBULA: I think the reason was that the act that I did was just that of addressing the meeting, which led to the death.
MR VAN RENSBURG: I also put it to you that this common cause that you refer to in paragraph 39 of your affidavit is in direct contradiction to your amnesty application and your evidence here today.
MR MATHEBULA: That in paragraph 39 contradicts with which section?
MR VAN RENSBURG: With your application and also your evidence today.
MR MATHEBULA: I don't think it contradicts.
MR VAN RENSBURG: I've no further questions, thank you Mr Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN RENSBURG
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma, have you got any questions?
MR MAPOMA: I know of no questions, Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MAPOMA
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou.
MR NDOU: No further questions.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR NDOU
CHAIRPERSON: At the meeting where it was decided that they should kill witches, did you agree with that or didn't you agree with that?
MR MATHEBULA: Which meeting, the one in the morning or in the evening?
JUDGE DE JAGER: Whenever they named these five people and decided to kill them, did you agree with it or didn't you agree?
MR MATHEBULA: Well, we discussed these people individually and gave reasons and when it came to the deceased, I supported that.
JUDGE DE JAGER: And the others?
MR MATHEBULA: No, I didn't support. What happened is that we as youth agreed that we did not have a problem with the four people, but we were targeting the particular person, the deceased.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Now why were they all named and all the others that it was agreed that they should all be killed, all the witches?
MR MATHEBULA: Initially, it was just generalised that all the witchcraft practising people in the community should be killed.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Ja, but in your affidavit you say that you decided to kill those five people, all of them. if I understand it correctly.
MR MATHEBULA: The decision was taken during the meeting, but I demonstrated that we did not have problems with the other four but we had a problem with the deceased.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Sorry could you, Mr Interpreter, I couldn't hear you.
INTERPRETER: He's saying that they had a problem with the only person, the deceased, the four other people they didn't have problem with according to the decision taken.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Now in your affidavit, paragraph 20
"It was at this meeting that it was decided to go and kill the following four people who had been identified as witches and wizards, namely"
and then five people are named, but you state that it was decided to kill the following four.
MR MATHEBULA: Well I demonstrated that we investigated and checked individually and it was Mr Malatje, the deceased, who had to be killed, but the initial agreement was to kill all of them, but individually we finalised that the target was the deceased.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Ja, but - okay, you've individually, but at the beginning you agreed to kill all of them. Were you in agreement with that decision?
MR MATHEBULA: You mean initially?
JUDGE DE JAGER: Ja, because you state it here in the affidavit, Mr Mathebula.
MR MATHEBULA: Yes, initially we had agreed to kill all the four people. After screening them we realised that it was wrong.
JUDGE DE JAGER: How far have you been educated?
MR MATHEBULA: I passed matric.
JUDGE DE JAGER: And after matric, what did you do then?
MR MATHEBULA: I was in the teachers' college.
JUDGE DE JAGER: For how long?
MR MATHEBULA: I was in my third year when I got arrested.
JUDGE DE JAGER: So you are quite well-educated.
MR MATHEBULA: I can't precisely say that.
JUDGE DE JAGER: And you understand what's the meaning of an oath?
MR MATHEBULA: Yes, I do.
JUDGE DE JAGER: And even at that time you understood what's the meaning of the oath, to speak the truth.
MR MATHEBULA: Are you referring to the Court ...?
JUDGE DE JAGER: And when you made these affidavits, the application and this annexure which appears on page 30, etc.
MR MATHEBULA: Yes, I was aware.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, you're excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED
MR NDOU: No further evidence.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg, have you got any witnesses?
MR VAN RENSBURG: No witnesses on behalf of the victims, Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma.
MR MAPOMA: There's no other evidence, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg have you got the names and addresses of victims?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, Mr Chairperson, I have in writing, can I just hand it up? It is unfortunately only hand-written, if that's okay.
CHAIRPERSON: It doesn't matter, as long as I can read it. I always like to say that at least attorneys and lawyer's handwriting can be read as opposed to other people.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Other professionals. Yes, just for the record, perhaps I can just put on record that the victims in this instance and they are present at the hearing are Anna Silema, that's the wife of the deceased and also Joyce Rikotso, that's the daughter-in-law of the deceased. She was in fact present on the day when the deceased was killed.
CHAIRPERSON: What has happened to his son?
MR VAN RENSBURG: I don't know, perhaps I can enquire first.
CHAIRPERSON: You see, if there's a son, then the son would be the victim.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Mr Chairperson, it is my instructions that the son of the deceased, his name is Samuel and he's working in Louis Trichardt and that is the reason why he's not present at the hearing.
CHAIRPERSON: Samuel who?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Pardon. He's got the same name as the daughter-in-law reflected on that list. Unfortunately I don't have it here with me right now.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay.
JUDGE DE JAGER: ...his name be the same as the deceased?
CHAIRPERSON: No, looks different.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Ja, perhaps they're following the maternal.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Mr Chairperson if I can just explain. You will see that the deceased's surname was actually Silema-Malatje as indicated on the documents and it is in fact my instructions that the son's name is Silema, that is the real surname of the deceased as well. In fact Malatje would then be one of his first names. On the documents he's indicated as Silema-Malatje.
CHAIRPERSON: Can we use the address as you put for the daughter-in-law and the mother?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, the same address can be used.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Ndou, is there anything you want to submit?
MR NDOU: Nothing Chair.
NO SUBMISSIONS BY MR NDOU
CHAIRPERSON: I assume there's nothing that anybody else wants to submit in respect of ...?
MR VAN RENSBURG: No, there's nothing further Mr Chairperson.
NO SUBMISSIONS BY MR VAN RENSBURG
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma.
MR MAPOMA: Nothing Chairperson.
NO SUBMISSIONS BY MR MAPOMA
CHAIRPERSON: That brings us then to the end of a very productive hearing and it is left for me to make a few comments. We wish to thank firstly the logistics officers for making this hearing a success and for everything they've done to put it into operation. We wish to thank the interpreters for being in attendance most of the time, or all the time and assisting in interpreting.
We wish also to thank those people who presented the food and refreshment. And finally we wish to thank the people who participated in these hearings. But before we finish, I just need to make a comment. Maybe I'm going to tramp on some toes.
A belief in witchcraft seems to be at the root of these crimes and as I understand it the practice of witchcraft and particularly ritual offences are still rife in the area. When the decisions of all the hearings related to this area are published, it will signify an important milestone in the lives of the communities in the various districts of this area. Especially to those who would be granted amnesty, a new South Africa would have arrived. Unfortunately this will come with the effects of the activities of what has been referred to as these witches. Of great concern to me is the continuous taking of lives of young children in order to obtain body parts for the use of producing what has been referred to as muti. In a democratic society where we all strive to be civilised, this cannot carry on. Those who seek such assistance and involve themselves in ritual murders, should remember that it could happen to your offspring in future. In my view and I speak for myself, nothing good can come out of such activities because by its very nature it is legally and morally wrong. Even more reprehensible is the advice given to the so-called patients with regard to such ritual murders. Perhaps the prosecuting authorities of the country should consider taking steps against those who advise others to commit these horrendous crimes. It is to be hoped that once these aspects have been properly dealt with, people of this area can really progress and enjoy the hard-fought freedom they've obtained.
It's been good being here. It's been an honour to try to sort out these problems with the help of the Act and now all we can do is wish you well for the future. I thank you. We're adjourned.
HEARING ADJOURNS
