HEARING RESUMED WITHOUT CALLING THE SOUND TECHNICIAN OR CAMERAMAN
MR RAMALATA: Having agreed with others that we will meet under Mpelo's kraal. When people, when they were coming from the direction of the tap, they were singing, they were singing the so-called ...(indistinct) or slogans.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you go and buy that petrol before the meeting or after the meeting?
MR RAMALATA: What happened at the meeting we agreed that we should find petrol, and the petrol was not bought before.
MR NDOU: Yes, you can proceed. You can proceed.
MR RAMALATA: Petrol was found after the meeting was held, while the meeting was on.
CHAIRPERSON: But after the decision was made?
MR RAMALATA: Yes, after the decision was made. We were delegated to go and fetch the petrol in the meeting, which was being chaired by Samuel Matala. And then we were delegated, I think we were about five, five to six.
ADV SIGODI: Who delegated you? Who delegated you?
MR RAMALATA: It is the people who were being appointed by the Chairperson.
MR NDOU: That is not what he said. The question that was put to you was "who delegated you", what was your answer?
ADV SIGODI: Who told you to go and fetch the petrol?
MR RAMALATA: So we were just appointing each other randomly. The person who pointed me ...
MR NDOU: Mr Interpreter, he says he cannot hear you.
MR RAMALATA: The person who appointed me, is Elvis Makhumbele.
CHAIRPERSON: As I understand it, a very loose sort of voluntary group was agreed upon in the meeting to go and fetch the petrol, is that correct?
MR RAMALATA: No, we were appointed to do so.
CHAIRPERSON: Who appointed all of you, that was the question. Don't come tell us about who appointed you and who didn't appoint you.
MR RAMALATA: The person that I can remember who appointed me, is Elvis Makhumbele.
MR NDOU: When you say here pointed you, how did he appoint you?
MR RAMALATA: He raised his hand and he was pointed and then he said "I am appointing Normal Ramalata to be one of the delegates who will go and fetch petrol."
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Interpreter, are you not supposed to use the word "nominate" in stead of "appoint"?
INTERPRETER: In stead of nominating, but appoint, but seemingly he is referring to appointing, by a finger in the first place, that he was pointed by a finger, if I get him right. He was pointed by a finger.
CHAIRPERSON: You know, in a meeting where someone wants another to be a President or a Secretary, he is nominated by name to the meeting. Do you understand that?
CHAIRPERSON: Now, if I, I don't want to sound funny, but to this Petrol Committee, were you not nominated and the meeting agreed that you would serve on this Petrol Committee?
MR RAMALATA: Yes, I was nominated and then the people agreed.
CHAIRPERSON: Agreed, yes. Okay, can we proceed.
MR NDOU: Then you proceeded with the group with whom you were nominated to go and fetch petrol, is that correct?
MR RAMALATA: Yes, that is correct.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Ndou, he is dealing with that in paragraph 26. He has confirmed it. Is there anything he wants to add to this affidavit?
INTERPRETER: He is requesting that you repeat your question?
JUDGE DE JAGER: Is there anything, he has made an affidavit, it is contained in the bundle, he has confirmed it, is there anything that he wishes to add to what has already been said in the affidavit?
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NDOU
CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg, are there any questions that you would like to ask this witness?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I have a few questions. I see that in paragraph 21 of your statement, a certain George Matala actually identified the deceased to be named as a witch. Can I read the paragraph to him, Mr Chairman? I am referring to paragraph 21 as you can find it on page 26(d) of the bundle
"... the deceased had been identified by her blood-brother, George Matala, who told the crowd that she had bewitched him".
MR VAN RENSBURG: Is it because of this nomination of George Matala, that her name was put on the list as a witch?
MR RAMALATA: If you can look here on paragraph 21, it is indicating that if I am not - that George Matala is the person who pointed the deceased as a person who is practising witchcraft.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Was the name of the deceased's husband also mentioned at that meeting?
MR RAMALATA: The name of the husband of the deceased, I never heard about it in the meeting.
MR VAN RENSBURG: This George Matala, was he a youngster, was she part of the youth?
MR RAMALATA: He was not part of the youth, he is older. He is quite an old person.
MR VAN RENSBURG: What was he doing at the meeting of the Youth Congress?
MR RAMALATA: In that meeting there were older people too.
MR VAN RENSBURG: From the previous witness I got the impression that it was a meeting of the Youth Congress and that the people actually, that the previous witness actually went from house to house to round-up or to gather the youth for this meeting. Are you now saying that there were other people except youth as well at this meeting?
MR RAMALATA: Yes, when that man mentioned, he realised that the majority of the people were youth and then he took it for granted that the youth was for the youth only.
MR VAN RENSBURG: This George Matala was not the only older person at the meeting, was he? There were several others as well?
MR RAMALATA: Yes, there were other people like Tshinanne Manyatshe who were the older people.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Would you say that those people actually knew that they were attending a meeting of the Youth Congress?
MR RAMALATA: I have not no idea, I am not sure if they were aware, but there were people who just heard people singing freedom songs and then voluntarily joined.
MR VAN RENSBURG: This George Matala, it says there in paragraph 1 of your statement that he in fact gave some story that the deceased was the one who bewitched him. Can you tell us about what he said at that meeting about that?
MR RAMALATA: Please repeat your question.
MR VAN RENSBURG: In your statement, paragraph 1, you state there that George Matala told the crowd that the deceased bewitched him. Tell us about that.
MR RAMALATA: It is not George Matala, there are two people. There is Thomas Ramashila and George Matala.
JUDGE DE JAGER: What did she do to him? Was he crippled, what did she do to him?
INTERPRETER: Could you please repeat your question?
JUDGE DE JAGER: What did the deceased do to George Matala, did she cripple him, did she make him ill, what did she do to him?
MR RAMALATA: There is nothing which the deceased do to George Matala. What I know is that Thomas Ramashila is a person who indicated that the deceased bewitched his elder brother.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Sorry, I didn't hear the interpretation, the answer.
MR RAMALATA: What I am saying is this, there is no area in which George Matala indicated, it is Thomas Ramashila who pointed out that the deceased bewitched his elder brother. George Matala, is one of the people who indicated that the deceased was a witch, but he didn't indicate how she practised this witchcraft.
CHAIRPERSON: In paragraph 21 it states there that George Matala told the crowd that the deceased had bewitched him. That is paragraph 21?
MR RAMALATA: Yes, it is there. Maybe I was maybe confused or mixing the issue.
CHAIRPERSON: So what is the proper position now, George Matala only confirmed that his sister was a witch, but he didn't say that he had been bewitched by her. In fact it was Ramashila that said so? Do I understand you correctly now?
MR RAMALATA: George Matala indicated that the deceased was a witch.
MR RAMALATA: Using medicines and then in paragraph 22 it is indicated that Thomas Ramashila indicated that the deceased bewitched his elder brother.
CHAIRPERSON: Did he indicate how his elder brother was bewitched? What was the result of the bewitching?
MR RAMALATA: He said he was having a wound in the leg which was unable to heel.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman. At the meeting still, you say that some people delegated or appointed you in fact you said that you did not volunteer to be on this Petrol Committee, is that correct, you did not volunteer?
MR RAMALATA: Yes, I didn't volunteer, it is true.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Who was the one that actually mentioned that petrol must be fetched at all?
MR RAMALATA: I have indicated if you hear me well, that the person who appointed me is Elvis Makhumbele.
MR VAN RENSBURG: That is not what I am asking, I am asking you who first mentioned the word petrol at the meeting?
MR RAMALATA: No, I am unable to recall that, but it was agreed that we must fetch the petrol.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I will refresh your memory and put it to you that it was you who mentioned the fetching of the petrol for the first time, at the meeting? What do you say about that?
MR RAMALATA: No, no, I didn't mention that.
MR VAN RENSBURG: It was further you who suggested where the petrol could be found?
MR RAMALATA: That is not true.
MR VAN RENSBURG: And it was you who volunteered to go and fetch the petrol?
MR RAMALATA: That is not true.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Can you recall the evidence of a certain Joseph at the criminal trial who testified that?
MR RAMALATA: If you can talk of the evidence in the court, I want to put it clear here before this Committee, that the evidence we gave in court, was full of lies.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Mr Ramalata, you didn't even give evidence in court, in the criminal trial, is it not so? You couldn't lie, you didn't give evidence?
MR RAMALATA: Because I was not knowing this legal procedures, my representative who was representing me then advised me to close the case. Simply because I am not legally wise, then I decided to do so.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, so please don't waste this Court's time. The fact is you didn't give evidence, so you couldn't lie, yourself?
MR NDOU: I think there is a misunderstanding. He never said that he lied in court, he said that there was a lot of lies that was said in court. It could have been said by the witnesses, it could have been said by whoever, but he never said specifically he lied.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Perhaps it is an interpretation problem, but he definitely said he lied, that is why I put the statement to him that he couldn't lie because he didn't give evidence.
MR NDOU: It is not a correct proposition.
MR VAN RENSBURG: I will continue Mr Chairperson, thank you. Mr Ramalata, are you saying that this Joseph who gave evidence in court, lied when he testified that you were the one who proposed that petrol must be fetched, you volunteered to fetch the petrol and you volunteered where it could be found? Did he lie?
MR VAN RENSBURG: And in spite of all those lies, you did not elect to give evidence to refute those lies, is that the position?
MR RAMALATA: I advised my representative that what is being mentioned there, I didn't, that is what I didn't do.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Hm. So why didn't you go into the box and deny that allegations?
CHAIRPERSON: He just said that he was advised not to do so.
MR VAN RENSBURG: I will accept that, thank you Mr Chairperson. Okay, let's continue then to the actual, your participation in the murder. When you arrived at the scene, were you carrying this canister of petrol?
CHAIRPERSON: That is what he said about his participation, he was at the meeting, he was party to the decision to kill these alleged witches based on what was said at the meeting, he was nominated, accepted the nomination onto this Petrol Committee and they went to buy this petrol at a place where petrol could be bought. They obtained this petrol, put it in a container and Jerry was the one that carried it. They went to this house and according to his written submission, he was part of the crowd that surrounded the house, that prevented the deceased from escaping.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman, I missed that one point. Mr Ramalata, how far were you from the deceased when the match was struck?
CHAIRPERSON: Do you know when the match was struck in order to burn her?
MR RAMALATA: Could you please rephrase your question?
CHAIRPERSON: Do you know when the match was struck to burn her? Did you see it?
MR RAMALATA: What I know is that the matches were lit when the petrol was already poured on the body.
CHAIRPERSON: We all can deduce that. It would be stupid to do it in reverse, I am asking did you witness it, did you actually see the match being struck?
MR RAMALATA: No. I didn't manage to see that.
CHAIRPERSON: And therefore you are unable to say when it occurred? Correct?
MR RAMALATA: It happened during the night, and as such, I cannot be able to say when it happened.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but you did see the petrol being thrown?
MR RAMALATA: Yes, I saw it being poured, I saw the petrol being poured on the body of the deceased.
CHAIRPERSON: So the pouring of the petrol and the lighting of the body, probably occurred shortly one after each other? How far were you from the deceased when the petrol was poured?
MR RAMALATA: The people, the deceased was in the centre, surrounded by the crowd of people. I was on the ...
CHAIRPERSON: Let's assume you are now where you were standing, point out a place here in this room, where the deceased would have been laying?
MR RAMALATA: No, the deceased was still standing.
CHAIRPERSON: All right, where was the deceased, how far from you?
MR RAMALATA: The deceased was in the direction, as I am indicating, next to the table.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Not the direction, how far, one metre, two metres?
CHAIRPERSON: Point out a place. From where you are sitting now, how far away was the deceased standing when the petrol was poured, more or less?
MR RAMALATA: She was, I don't know, but close to one metre.
CHAIRPERSON: How far is one metre? Show me how is one metre.
MR RAMALATA: I think one metre is from here to where the table is.
CHAIRPERSON: The beginning of the table, nearest to you?
MR RAMALATA: Yes, to the beginning of the table.
CHAIRPERSON: I reckon that is about two metres, more or less?
CHAIRPERSON: So you were two metres approximately away from the deceased when she was doused with petrol? Yes, Mr van Rensburg?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairperson. The next question you must think carefully about and I remind you that you are still under oath. Did you get burnt when the petrol was set alight, you yourself?
MR RAMALATA: To be honest, I didn't burn the deceased.
MR VAN RENSBURG: No, the question is did you get burnt, did you get burnt yourself, did you get injured by the petrol?
CHAIRPERSON: When was that, when the match was lit to burn the deceased?
INTERPRETER: Could you please repeat your question?
CHAIRPERSON: Did your hand burn when the deceased was set alight?
CHAIRPERSON: So you were close enough to that match to get burnt?
MR RAMALATA: I won't dispute that.
CHAIRPERSON: How is it that you are unable to tell us who struck the match?
MR RAMALATA: The truth is that is was not me who lit the matches.
CHAIRPERSON: I am not suggesting that it is you. I am asking how you cannot tell us who struck the match then if you were so close to get burnt?
MR RAMALATA: I was unable to identify the person who lit the match.
MR RAMALATA: It was dark and it was during the night when it happened.
JUDGE DE JAGER: But you could clearly see the petrol being poured, what is the difference between the petrol being poured and the match being struck? And you could even see the match in the hand of somebody and it would light up his face? Why are you all afraid to tell us who struck the match?
MR RAMALATA: I think the person who poured the petrol, was close to me, that is why I managed to identify him. As he was pouring the petrol, the petrol then touched my hand and then I was surprised to find myself in the middle of the fire and I was also burning.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr van Rensburg?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman. It was you who struck the match, was it not?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Do you agree that during the criminal trial the Judge found that it was you who struck the match?
MR RAMALATA: Yes, that is what was found in court but I in formed my legal advisor that it is not me, and then he refused that in court.
MR VAN RENSBURG: And in spite of that you got advice that you should not go and deny this serious allegation?
MR RAMALATA: I have indicated that because I am not a legal person, I agreed after my legal advisor requested me to close that case, and then I agreed.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Who put the tyre around the deceased for the first time?
MR RAMALATA: The person I managed to identify is Thomas Mudau.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Again I put it to you that it was you who put the tyre on the neck of the deceased?
MR RAMALATA: No, I am disputing that.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Do you agree that the criminal trial found that it was you who put the tyre around the deceased's neck?
CHAIRPERSON: Well, even if he agrees, he has already denied that it was him.
MR RAMALATA: I have indicated that most of the evidence given to the Court, most of it was full of lies. If you want me to explain, let me explain this way.
CHAIRPERSON: No, you said you didn't put it on. Thank you.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman. Did you have a knife that day?
MR VAN RENSBURG: After the deceased was set alight and the tyre was put back on for the second time, when the people started to run away, can you remember that?
MR RAMALATA: No, I am unable to remember it very well.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Can you remember that there was someone who stopped or blocked the people from running away?
MR RAMALATA: There was no person who stopped or blocked anybody.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you not say in your written submission that you were part of the crowd that surrounded the house of the deceased to prevent her from escaping?
JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes, but I think that after that the crowd dispersed, somebody tried to stop the crowd.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh, okay. I misunderstood your question.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, perhaps I can just confirm that. My question was after the deceased was already killed and the people started to run away, there was one person, and that is what I put to the witness, who stopped or prevented the crowd from running away. I just cannot remember if he has answered that question or not, I don't think so.
JUDGE DE JAGER: He said no. His answer was no.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman. I just put it to you then again, that when the people started to run away you had a knife in your hand, and you blocked the people so that they could not run away.
MR RAMALATA: No, that is not true.
MR VAN RENSBURG: At what stage did you throw stones at the deceased?
MR RAMALATA: I threw the stone not to the deceased, but inside the house or to the house.
CHAIRPERSON: Paragraph 39 you specifically say you threw stones at the deceased?
MR RAMALATA: Paragraph 39? Yes, stones were thrown, but I cannot refuse that they were thrown at the deceased, but when I threw mine, I was only throwing them to the house.
JUDGE DE JAGER: But taking your affidavit, can you read there paragraph 39?
"I admit that I fetched petrol and also threw stones at the deceased"
not at the house, at the deceased?
CHAIRPERSON: Where was the deceased when you threw the stones?
MR RAMALATA: She was inside the house.
CHAIRPERSON: Why is it in paragraph 39 not stated that you threw stones at the house whilst the deceased was inside it?
MR RAMALATA: I don't remember how it happened.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairperson. I put it to you that you got burnt that day because you were the one that struck the match.
MR RAMALATA: No, that is not true.
MR VAN RENSBURG: I further put it to you that you are downplaying your involvement in this whole incident to get the sympathy of this hearing?
MR RAMALATA: That I came here before this Committee is that I am prepared to tell the truth, but what I am saying that I didn't do, is true. That is the only truth that I have.
MR VAN RENSBURG: I have no further questions, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN RENSBURG
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma, have you got any questions?
MR MAPOMA: No questions Chairperson, thank you.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAPOMA
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou, any questions?
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you are excused.
MR NDOU: Honourable Chairperson, I now call Josias Mulaudzi.