CHAIRPERSON: Mr Honnorat, who would be the next applicant?
MR HONNORAT: The next applicant, Mr Chairperson, will be applicant number 2, Ndumiso Patrick Nyaluka.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, will Mr Nyaluka come forward please. Yes, Mr Nyaluka, do you hear the interpretation on your headset?
MR NYALUKA: Yes, I can hear you.
CHAIRPERSON: Please stand. Are your full names Ndumiso Patrick Nyaluka?
NDUMISO PATRICK NYALUKA: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: Please be seated. Is it Mr Honnorat or Mr Zulu?
MR HONNORAT: I'll be leading him, Mr Chairperson.
MR HONNORAT: Yes, Mr Chairperson.
EXAMINATION BY MR HONNORAT: Mr Nyaluka, do you know about the murder of Mr Jacob Manoto in April 1993?
MR HONNORAT: At the time were you a member or supporter of a political organisation involved in a struggle against apartheid or liberation movement?
MR NYALUKA: I was an ANC Youth League member in Diepkloof.
MR HONNORAT: Do you know about a meeting having taken place at the Lutheran Church in Diepkloof, on the 21st of April 1993, the same day the deceased was killed?
MR NYALUKA: Yes, I remember the meeting. Comrade Hector informed me about this meeting.
MR HONNORAT: Did you attend it?
MR NYALUKA: Yes, I was present.
MR HONNORAT: What was the outcome of the meeting?
MR NYALUKA: When I arrived at the meeting the meeting was already in progress. They were talking about Jacob Manoto, quoting him as a police informer. I sat in the meeting and listened. And since there were other people staying at Dada and I was staying in the upper side, the people who were neighbours stood up to add some input to say that this Manoto was an informer and he's involved with police and they were asking that the people or the forum should take some steps against him.
MR HONNORAT: What steps were eventually taken?
MR NYALUKA: As the ANC gathered in the church, we took a decision that we should got to Jacob Manoto's place to discuss this matter with him.
We left the meeting as a group of Youth League members, to go and discuss this with him, leaving the others in the church. We tried to talk to him after finding him on top of the roof and we were not able to talk to him because he started throwing stones at us.
As he was throwing stones at us we picked up stones and as members of the organisation we started throwing stones back to him. He ran into the house.
MR HONNORAT: Did you also throw stones at him?
MR NYALUKA: Yes, that's correct. He was also throwing stones at us from the roof of the house, his own house.
MR HONNORAT: Okay, what was your participation, if any, in the assault against the deceased and events leading up to his death on that day?
MR NYALUKA: My involvement was, as he was throwing stones at us I went to the next-door house. I opened a window in comrade Fakude's house. I went into the roof of comrade Fakude's house and I threw an iron object into the roof of his house and the other comrades who had already the house and they had already dragged him and pulled him outside.
MR HONNORAT: What was your purpose Sir, for going to the roof and throwing an iron at the roof?
MR NYALUKA: I was trying to destroy his roof so that we can get access to him or take him out of the house, as an informer. I realised if I were to throw the stones inside I might even injure some comrades who were inside, so I alighted from the roof of the house and at the time when I arrived in his yard the comrades were already assaulting him. And personally myself I burnt the car.
MR HONNORAT: Did you associate yourself, I mean in your feelings, in your perception of what an alleged informer deserved, with the deceased being dragged out and put to the death by the other comrades? Did you associate yourself with that?
MR NYALUKA: Yes, it's because in the situation we were in at the relevant time, as an ANC member, we all knew that if someone was an informer that person should be burnt.
ADV SANDI: Ja, but if that is what you say, then - sorry, Mr Honnorat. If you say the position was that any person who is suspected or accused of being an informer should be killed, surely it cannot be true that you had gone there to speak with Mr Manoto?
MR NYALUKA: No, as I explained, as members of the organisation - I'm saying that since we're going to his house and when arriving in the house we found him on top of the house and he started throwing stones at us and we didn't get a chance to speak to him, that's when the fight started.
ADV SANDI: Ja, but why did you not shout at him and say look, we have not come to fight with you, we want to talk to you?
MR NYALUKA: He didn't want to listen to us, anything whatever, he was very angry when we arrived, he was fighting and he was throwing stones. It took about one and half, half hour he was fighting and then it ended up when we had to enter the house where we took him out and assaulted him.
ADV SANDI: Ja, but why did you not just leave him alone and - I mean, seeing that the man does not want to talk to you, he thinks you've come to fight with him and he's throwing stones at you, some people are even throwing hot water at you. Why don't you just leave these people, you go back to the church or wherever you want to go, you just leave them?
MR NYALUKA: As members of the ANC we couldn't have stood that kind of behaviour. As people who were in the Diepkloof community and as comrades and as people who were responsible for issues like this and we were dealing with things like rape and thieves and robbers and also informers, we were dealing with those issues, so we had to do something.
ADV SANDI: Were you armed when you went to see him?
MR NYALUKA: We were not armed, we were empty handed, we only picked up stones next to his house and also the stones which were used to decorate the gardens of the nearby houses. And myself, the iron that I got and I used to throw into his house, I got it from his yard and I took it to the roof.
ADV SANDI: How big was this group that had come to see Mr Manoto?
MR NYALUKA: I wouldn't be able to estimate, but we were many. As the African National Congress members we were many members and the church was full.
ADV SANDI: Thank you. Sorry, Mr Honnorat.
MR HONNORAT: Yes, Mr Nyaluka, did you perceive that as a result of the violent retaliatory attitude by the deceased when you came as a group to his house, did you perceive that that was something which proved to you that he was indeed a police informer?
MR NYALUKA: Yes, we took like that because he didn't even want to listen to us. When we arrived he started fighting, he was violent.
MR HONNORAT: So after the violent reaction, was there any doubt in your mind that he was in fact a police informer?
MR NYALUKA: Yes, that convinced me that he is an informer because as ANC members, as we were coming to him to speak to him and if he knew that you were a police informer and you see ANC members coming, you knew - I mean, normal people will fight back.
MR HONNORAT: Did you achieve any financial gain from your actions and your participation in the assault against the deceased on that night?
MR NYALUKA: No, I didn't gain anything, I was working for the organisation.
MR HONNORAT: Did you know the deceased before the date of the assault?
MR NYALUKA: I didn't know him, I was staying on the upper side, that's Fidelitas(?).
MR HONNORAT: And did you do your actions because of any personal malice against him, ill will towards the deceased?
MR NYALUKA: No, we were not in bad terms. I didn't even know him, I saw him the first time the day we attacked him.
MR HONNORAT: What was the action of the comrades who were higher than you in your organisation, towards the news about what happened to this alleged police informer?
MR NYALUKA: I would say what we did that's what all the people in the organisation expected us to do.
MR HONNORAT: Did you hear any voice of criticism, disapproval, censoring of your actions, from people higher than you in your organisation after the event?
MR NYALUKA: No, what I heard is that many people who were staying next to the deceased, were happy that an informer has been removed.
MR HONNORAT: Seeing the matter in retrospect, do you feel somewhat remorseful and willing to offer your apologies and extend your request for forgiveness to the family of the deceased?
MR NYALUKA: In all the things that I did, I feel very sorry, but I was forced by the situation to act as I did. As comrades we were fighting along with the struggle and I would like to ask the family of the deceased to forgive me.
MR HONNORAT: Did you put I mean before this house, this Honourable Committee today, all the facts that are connected to your participation in the assault which led to the death of the deceased in 1993? Did you mention all the relevant facts?
MR NYALUKA: I haven't left anything, I have explained to the Committee all the things that I did.
MR HONNORAT: I have no further questions, Mr Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HONNORAT
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Honnorat. Ms Vilakazi, any questions?
MS VILAKAZI: I have some questions, Honourable Chair.
MS VILAKAZI: Mr Nyaluka, you have just said that you have said everything that needs to be said. I would like to refer you to page 12 of the bundle, which is your application. Under number 9, paragraph A.1, it says that
"Together with a group we burnt a person titled a witch"
Is it you who wrote this application?
CHAIRPERSON: No, Ms Vilakazi, that is a translation of the original application, that was done by the Amnesty Committee office. So I don't know what language the applicant is using and I'm not sure whether the original application is in here, but if - I don't know where the original is, but you know perhaps it is better to refer to the original and just see what word he's used. Because this is a translation that was done in our office.
MS VILAKAZI: Okay. Perhaps I could revisit the question and phrase it differently.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Yes, can I, whilst you have raised that, on page 18 of the record there's a profile, a document headed "Profile", which seems to have been signed by this applicant and under that heading "Political Motive", the fourth line - or let's look at the third line
"The deceased, who was perceived as an informer of the police within our community"
So that seems to be also relevant to this question and that is why I raised the fact that this is a translation by our office and unfortunately few of us are able to read in the original language. Perhaps you must just see what word was used in the original amnesty application. At least on page 18 it seems as if it was a question of a police informer.
MS VILAKAZI: May I clarify. The reason why I'm asking this question is because even in the court record, in the judgment, in several areas it says - I cannot make specific reference at the moment, but the words which were used, were referred to, that the group said they were going to kill the witches.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh yes, I'm not aware of that.
MR ZULU: Can I just clarify, Mr Chair, on that one.
MR ZULU: In fact it's a literal translation of the songs that were sung by the group from the church to the deceased's house. They were slogans to the effect that "bulanan abatagati" you know, informers were referred to as "abatagati", not directly meaning they were actually the witches, but it was just a word used when an attack was about to be staged. So during evidence it transpired, Mr Chair, that there were songs and praises and slogans that were uttered, so the presiding judge requested that there should be an interpretation or a translation of those slogans.
CHAIRPERSON: And the translation that was given, the interpretation that was given at the court proceedings, used the term "witch"
MR ZULU: Witch. That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON: In the context of the songs.
MR ZULU: That's correct. And that word is now used here as well.
ADV SANDI: Ja, that is on page 68, where they say the people shouting from the top of the roof, they were saying "we have come to kill the witches, the wizard, the informers".
CHAIRPERSON: Oh I see, yes. So you say this was like - "abatagati", is that a generic term ...
CHAIRPERSON: ... for persona non grata, the term undesirable people?
MR ZULU: That's correct, Mr Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Zulu.
MS VILAKAZI: As a follow-up to your discussion, Honourable Chair, my instructions are that at some stage there was talk in the neighbourhood that Mr Manoto was a witch in the literal sense. So it is on that basis that I wanted to get clarification from him as to whether he believed there was any talk of Mr Manoto being a witch, in the literal sense of ...(indistinct)
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no, I follow that, I follow that. This discussion was entirely premised on what is on the papers here, obviously that's a new dimension that you referred to, so perhaps you must deal with that one with this applicant.
MS VILAKAZI: Mr Nyaluka, you got information - although this is a translation of what you wrote in your application, I just want to get clarification from you. The information that you had about Mr Manoto, you got from Mr Zondo, is that correct?
MR NYALUKA: No, what I got is that he was an informer, that he was hated.
MS VILAKAZI: No the question is, the information that you had about Mr Manoto, you got it from Mr Zondo.
MR NYALUKA: I got it from comrade Hector.
MS VILAKAZI: So the group that was told that there's a person titled a witch, you were not told by Mr Zondo, is that what you are saying?
MR NYALUKA: I arrived in the meeting with comrade Hector, who has already briefed me that we're going to discuss about an informer. When I arrived there they had already discussed most of the things. I did see comrade Zondo in the church in the meeting, however he never said anything to me.
MS VILAKAZI: Honourable Chair, I have a problem. I think I would be greatly assisted if I could have a copy of the original application.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. ...(no microphone)
MS VILAKAZI: ... is the one who completed the form.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(no microphone)
MS VILAKAZI: Mr Nyaluka, did you complete the application form for amnesty? It is dated 23/04/96.
CHAIRPERSON: Can you just show it to him, I don't think they've got the original.
CHAIRPERSON: Let him look at the whole document, Mr Honnorat.
MR ZULU: I understand, Mr Chair, it's not his direct handwriting, somebody was completing the form on his behalf.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Zulu. Do you want that back, Ms Vilakazi? Just get it please.
MS VILAKAZI: Thank you, Honourable Chair. The information I was looking for does not appear to be in the application, so I will not pursue that line of questioning anymore.
MS VILAKAZI: Mr Nyaluka, you said that you believed that Mr Manoto was an informer, is that correct?
MR NYALUKA: Yes, that's correct.
MS VILAKAZI: Did you know for a fact that he was an informer?
MR NYALUKA: I didn't know it myself personally, but I got it from the church. His neighbours were also present in the meeting and those were the people who were alluding to the fact that he was an informer and that's where we got the whole information.
MS VILAKAZI: Thank you. Let us now go back to your evidence about the actual incident at the house of Mr Manoto. Did I hear you correctly that after a decision was taken at the meeting, part of the group went to Mr Manoto's house?
MR NYALUKA: What are you referring to?
MS VILAKAZI: You said that after the decision was taken that steps must be taken against Mr Manoto, I just want to get clarity, did I hear you correctly ...(intervention)
ADV BOSMAN: Excuse me for coming in here, but you're putting the wrong information to him. He said that a decision was taken that a group should go and speak to Mr Manoto.
MS VILAKAZI: That is what I was trying to verify.
Now was it the whole group that was at the church that was supposed to go and talk to him, or part of the group?
MR NYALUKA: Yes, that's correct.
MS VILAKAZI: Are you able to say approximately how many ...(intervention)
ADV SANDI: Sorry, that can hardly be an answer to the question. The question ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Just ask him if that's correct.
ADV SANDI: What is correct here? The question was, was it just part of the group or the entire group to go and talk to Mr Manoto?
MR NYALUKA: As I've said, there were other people. Four people were in front, but the others were following. When we arrived as a group we could see that he was fighting and that's where we started attacking him.
CHAIRPERSON: Carry on, Ms Vilakazi, I'm not sure whether that assists.
MS VILAKAZI: So from what you are saying, you were not part of the group that was supposed to go and talk to him, is that correct?
MR NYALUKA: No, I was with the group which left the church with all the other comrades and when we arrived we found him, he was throwing stones, he was on top of the roof.
MS VILAKAZI: So you joined the four that were already there. Do I understand you correctly?
MR NYALUKA: Yes, because they were also our comrades.
MS VILAKAZI: And then you decided to fight with him, is that correct?
MR NYALUKA: I would say he is the one who took a decision to fight because he's the one who started fighting, and we realised we couldn't speak to a person who was fighting and then we started fighting with him.
MS VILAKAZI: I'm putting it to you that it was not impossible for you as a large group to get Mr Manoto under control because he was alone, as you are saying he was alone on his roof. What is your comment?
MS VILAKAZI: I will deny that because I told you that he was fighting, I mean how are we going to talk to him if he was fighting?
MS VILAKAZI: I also put it to you that it is improbable that Mr Manoto alone sitting on top of the roof of his house, could have enough stones to throw at you for half an hour as you were saying. What is your comment?
MR NYALUKA: This is true because there was construction in progress in his yard and there were bundles of bricks in his yard. Those were the bricks he had on top of the roof, parked there and there were others on the ground.
MS VILAKAZI: But I'm putting it to you that you as a group were the ones who had access to the bricks that were enough to throw for half an hour and not Mr Manoto. What is your comment?
MR NYALUKA: We were throwing stones at each other, meaning our group and him. The deceased himself, he was throwing stones at us and we were throwing stones at him.
MS VILAKAZI: I'm also putting it to you that you had digressed from the decision that was taken at the church because you yourself have said the decision was that the group should go and talk to Mr Manoto. What is your comment?
MR NYALUKA: I would say I align myself with the decision taken in the church because the deceased was throwing stones at us when we were coming in a peaceful way to talk to him and if he started to do that, then we had to pick stones and start throwing back at him. As I've already explained, we got those stones or bricks in his yard. And at the time when I had to jump the wall to this comrade's house and get into the roof and try to break his roof, the other comrades already got into his yard and picked up stones and threw them at him.
MS VILAKAZI: I'm putting it to you that nothing prevented you from walking away from Mr Manoto, if he wasn't prepared to talk to you, but then you chose to fight. What is your comment?
MR NYALUKA: As I have explained, he fought with us, he never even wanted to know why we are coming to him place.
MS VILAKAZI: And I'm also putting it to you that you fought with him, not because it was the decision and that by fighting with him you dissociated yourself from the decision that was taken inside the church. I will repeat and say that he fought with us, he started the fight and we fought him back.
As I have explained before, when there were complaints they would be sent to us and we'll deal with these complaints. And most people who had complaints laid against them, they will always co-operate with us or sit and talk to him. And that was the process that we used, but this one we couldn't even get a chance to sit down and talk with him. He didn't even want to hear anything, he just started fighting and as an organisation we realised that we could not stand it where one person will fight against us.
MS VILAKAZI: Okay. You've also said that you are the one who burnt Mr Manoto's car, is that correct?
MR NYALUKA: Yes, that's correct, that's correct.
MS VILAKAZI: And what was the reason for that?
MR NYALUKA: It's because we already - now we have found the police informer. I didn't only burnt he car, I also destroyed his roof. It's myself, Ndumiso, who burnt his car.
MS VILAKAZI: But it is not the car that was the informer and you went there to deal with the informer, why burn the car?
MR NYALUKA: I beg your pardon? The car belonged to the informer and as an organisation if someone has laid a complaint we would attend to it and if need be we will hit you and it's possible that we can hit you to death or if there are some other property like anything or your car, we also will burn your car or your house.
MS VILAKAZI: I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VILAKAZI
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Vilakazi. Mr Masagela, have you got any questions?
MR MASAGELA: Thank you, Mr Chair, I've got no questions.
CHAIRPERSON: Has the Panel got any questions?
ADV BOSMAN: Yes. Mr Nyaluka, yesterday your co-applicant, Mr Peter Shabangu, said that the decision was taken that e group of old people would be elected to go and speak to Mr Manoto, is that correct or is that not right?
MR NYALUKA: Yes, I know about that. As I'm saying that when we were arriving there, now as a full house, we found that he was fighting with the others.
ADV BOSMAN: No, no, no, my question is, did you hear that the decision was that a group of elderly people should go and speak to Mr Manoto, not the young people, a group of elderly people? Did you hear that decision?
MR NYALUKA: As I've said, when that decision was taken I was outside. When we have a meeting as an organisation, usually we will enter the house to listen, but some people will stand outside to watch the police because the police will disrupt our meeting. So at that time I was outside guarding the police in order to alert the people that police are coming, if ever they come.
ADV BOSMAN: Okay, then you ...(intervention)
MR HONNORAT: Mr Chairperson, can I interrupt because I object to the question, it has not been factually correct. In my notes, Sir, I've got that after Mr Zondo spoke and then sat down, thereafter a certain man spoke and he suggested that they should elect an older person to go and speak to Mr Manoto. It was not a decision as such of the people gathered at the church, that that should take place. That is ...(indistinct) reading of the evidence.
CHAIRPERSON: It also seems that there was some lady who then spoke and said the people there don't know anything about politics and that informers are dealt with just in one way, they should be killed.
ADV BOSMAN: Chairperson, I was coming to ...(intervention)
MR HONNORAT: Yes, I dispute the fact that however, Mr Shabangu said that was the decision taken, it was just the contribution of one man he couldn't name because probably he didn't know and thereafter Mrs Gumede said what Mr Shabangu said she said.
ADV BOSMAN: I stand to be corrected, it was a suggestion, not a decision. Thank you, I apologise for that.
Did you hear a suggestion that a group of elderly people should go and speak? You said you were outside, you did not hear this.
MR NYALUKA: Saying that elderly people should be sent, that was discussed inside? As I've said, I was entering and coming out so that we were interchanging. People would go out to guard and others will come back in, so I might not have heard that.
ADV BOSMAN: Did you hear Mrs Gumede say that the women don't know how to deal with informers, Mr Manoto should be killed? - informers should be killed.
MR NYALUKA: I heard that word, but I won't be able to say who said those words. As I've said, also the neighbours of the deceased were present, they were present in number in church. I heard someone saying such words, but I can't say who said it. I can't say so and so said it, but it was an elderly woman.
ADV BOSMAN: I was under the impression that you heard the decision that you should go and speak to Mr Manoto. Is my impression correct, or did you hear this from someone else?
ADV BOSMAN: No, did you hear the decision being taken that you should go and speak?
MR NYALUKA: I was only present when we were leaving the church and we were going to Jacob Manoto.
ADV BOSMAN: So who told you that you were going there to speak to him and not to kill him?
MR NYALUKA: May you please repeat the question?
ADV BOSMAN: Who told you that you were going to speak to Mr Manoto? How did you know that you were going to speak to Mr Manoto?
MR NYALUKA: As I said, there were a lot of people in the meeting and people will speak during the meeting. Other people were of the view that we should go and speak to him and a decision was taken that we should go to his place.
ADV BOSMAN: I won't take that any further. Tell me, if you look at page 8 of the bundle, do you see there that it was said by Mr Thanjekwayo that Vusi Fakude, Sipho Tshabalala, Themba Zondo and Mandla Mbatha are innocent. Do you know those four people, Vusi Fakude, Sipho Tshabalala, Themba Zondo and Mandla Mbatha?
MR NYALUKA: Thanks for the question. As a member of the organisation, the only people I knew it was Pete Shabangu and Mandla Thanjekwayo. Those were the people whom I knew in the structures. Comrade Vusi Fakude, Zondo and Mandla Mbatha, they were staying on the lower section of the township. I didn't know them very well, I only saw them on that specific day.
ADV BOSMAN: Where did you see them?
MR NYALUKA: I saw them on the specific day, the day of the incident when we were going to the deceased place, at the time when we were leaving the church.
ADV BOSMAN: Did you see them at the deceased's place?
MR NYALUKA: No, when we get out we are a big group and we the youth were running in front, so I didn't actually get a chance to notice who was next to me while we were attacking at the deceased's place, I was doing exactly what I was doing. There were so many people, so I didn't notice them.
ADV SANDI: Sorry, just one thing about this meeting. Did you have a person chairing this meeting at the Lutheran Church Hall?
MR NYALUKA: It was comrade Hector.
ADV SANDI: According to Mrs Manoto, when she gave evidence in court she said when you came to their house you were a group of about 200. Would you dispute that?
MR NYALUKA: As I explained that we were a very big group of the organisation, I wouldn't be able to estimate.
ADV SANDI: Would that figure of 200, would it be more-or-less the number, the size of the ...(intervention)
MR NYALUKA: I wouldn't be able to know. I wouldn't be able even to estimate the number of people who were present, but we were many.
ADV SANDI: Yes. When you approached the house of the family of Manoto, what sort of mood were you, were you walking quietly towards the house or were you singing songs of whatever nature or kind?
MR NYALUKA: We were just walking, ordinary walk, but we were singing slogans.
ADV SANDI: What did these slogans say?
MR NYALUKA: Those were the usual songs, slogans, all things like we're going to burn the informers and we'll deal with ...(indistinct). And as I've explained, people in Diepkloof already knew that if they had a complaint they will take it to us and we will take it to the comrade in the afternoon, to his school where we will all sit and discuss it.
ADV SANDI: Did you say these songs were about what, killing informers?
MR NYALUKA: The slogan was "an informer should be killed, we are going to "kanjemazana" and the witch should be killed, we are going to "kanjemazana".
ADV SANDI: Now do you still call that a peaceful way of approaching this man?
MR NYALUKA: Yes, because this is to involve the spirit of the people. That's what we normally sing and even if we go to meetings we sing such slogans.
ADV SANDI: Ja, but you had no appointment with this man, did you? Was an appointment set up to come and see him?
MR NYALUKA: No, we didn't have an appointment. What surprised us is it looked like he was ready because he was waiting for us on top of the roof. He didn't even want to hear what we're coming to say.
ADV SANDI: Being quite a large group, which one of you was going to be addressing him? Were you all going to be talking to him at the same time?
MR NYALUKA: There were people who were supposed to go inside and we will wait outside and if possible that he agrees to go with us to go and talk, we would take him together with his family to go to talk to him and if there's a warning to her that what kind of warning we will give to him.
ADV SANDI: Was it not dark at the time you came to his house?
ADV SANDI: And I take it that many of you were young people, not so?
MR NYALUKA: Yes, most of us were ANC Youth League members and some of the people were his neighbours and those were a little bit older and they were the people who spoke at the meeting about Jacob Manoto.
ADV SANDI: Did you have elderly people as part of your group?
MR NYALUKA: I would say most of the elderly people remained behind and most people who could run, who were still young, joined the group.
ADV SANDI: One last question. What exactly were you going to be talking to Mr Manoto about?
MR NYALUKA: If he didn't fight with us people as I've already explained, some people will enter the house, speak to him and come out with him and if he doesn't understand we'll take him back to the venue where we were and we will sit, give him a hearing and tell him his neighbours are saying about him and we will ask him to respond, telling him that we are hearing from them that he is an informer and he will have to answer. And if he says no, he doesn't know anything about it, maybe we would have warned him to say "We don't want to hear anything like that, that you are an informer", and then send him home.
ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Were you an ordinary member of the ANC Youth League?
MR NYALUKA: I was in the Crime Committee. As I've said, all reports in the townships will be sent to my home at my place, to report to me and I will take it to the comrades in the church after school. They will come early in the morning to report to me and even at 2 o'clock in the afternoon and even my mother knows that. She will come at home to find people are there to lay a complaint and I will take the complaints to the meeting and to the other comrades, specifically other people like comrade Hector, and then we'll meet as comrades and discuss the issue. And if there's a need to go and collect some witnesses or other people to explain something, we will do so.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but you were an ordinary member of the ANC Youth League, you were not in the leadership? You were not in the Executive Committee, for example?
MR NYALUKA: I was just an ordinary member.
CHAIRPERSON: When you got to this meeting it was already in progress, is that right?
MR NYALUKA: Yes, it was in progress, people were discussing things.
CHAIRPERSON: You were in and out, you were not sitting inside the meeting throughout the proceedings, would that be right?
MR NYALUKA: I would go in to listen, when I see cars passing I will run outside to see what's happening and we will interchange, people will go in and others go out.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you speak at that meeting at all?
MR NYALUKA: No, I didn't say anything.
CHAIRPERSON: And when the people left the hall, you went along with the group?
MR NYALUKA: Yes, when the whole organisation gets out, as a member I joined them.
CHAIRPERSON: You were not leading the group, you simply joined the group, would that be right?
MR NYALUKA: I would say just I was in the middle of the group. We were so many and the road was full.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Honnorat, any re-examination?
MR HONNORAT: No re-examination, Mr Chairperson.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR HONNORAT
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Yes, Mr Nyaluka, you are excused, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: We will now adjourn and reconvene in 30 minutes time.