-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

MR NDOU: Thank you Mr Chairman, before Mr van Rensburg proceeds may I request that the applicant’s now speak in Venda because I realised yesterday that he was struggling in the beginning.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

MR NDOU: Thank you.

ROGER KACHERO RAMATSITSI: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman, I'll proceed.

Mr Ramasitsi can you please tell can you please tell this hearing again as to what charges you were convicted of?

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't that on record?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I just want to confirm that Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well the record says 'murder and arson'.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Arson, okay. The murder and arson that you committed, on which date were those two offences committed?

MR RAMATSITSI: I will start by answering that. All the charges that it is the murder and assault and I was charged on the 6th on the death of Mr Mahvunga, that's the charges I'm ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: The question says or asks you what date did these incidents take place for which you were convicted.

MR RAMATSITSI: It's murder and assault which happened on the 6th of April 1990.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you make an application for any further act except the arson and the murder?

MR RAMATSITSI: No.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Is the murder of Mr Edward, let me just get the page, Edward Mahvunga of Mahvunga village where you stayed, and the arson was in respect of his home.

MR RAMATSITSI: Yes that's true.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman. Let's talk about now of the role that the deceased played before he was killed and there was evidence led during the criminal trial that he was a farmer, and to a large extent a successful farmer. Can you confirm that?

MR RAMATSITSI: No he was not progressing that one but he was trying to be farmer, he was not having so many things.

CHAIRPERSON: Before we carry on, can I ask you one thing on the records? It seems that your defence in the criminal trial was somewhat different to the evidence you now provide to this committee, correct?

MR RAMATSITSI: Yes it's true.

CHAIRPERSON: Which one of the two versions is the truth? The one you're telling this committee or the one you told in court?

MR RAMATSITSI: It's what I explained in court. But the truth is what I'm telling the committee today.

CHAIRPERSON: Which one is the truth? Is the truth the one that you are telling this committee?

MR RAMATSITSI: What I'm explaining here today.

CHAIRPERSON: Was the one that you gave to the judge in the court untrue?

MR RAMATSITSI: What was explained in court, we were intimidated and it was not true and you know it was not proper for one to tell the truth then. But the time we were arrested we were intimidated by the police, so it was difficult for one to tell the truth because we were assaulted and we were not questioned properly because we were being assaulted.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there another version, even on your own version in Xhosa, not so? Your advocate put a different version to the state witnesses correct, now that one's not the script as I understand your evidence.

MR RAMASITSI: I don't understand what you need by your question.

CHAIRPERSON: When you were told you killed Edward in the court, what did you say?

MR RAMASITSI: I disagreed.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you say that you weren't there or what?

MR RAMASITSI: I said I was not present.

CHAIRPERSON: ...correct?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes it was not the truth.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you tell untruths there?

MR RAMASITSI: That statement was taken before the police after I was assaulted, as such I was unable to tell the truth.

CHAIRPERSON: If you weren't then assaulted would you have told them that you killed Elliot or that you were...(indistinct)?

MR RAMASITSI: I think that I would actually have said that. I think I would have told the truth.

CHAIRPERSON: So you say you were assaulted by the police, that's why you did not the court the truth?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes it's true.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Mr Ramasitsi at the criminal trial you even called your brother to testify on your behalf, you were not there on the 6th of April, do you agree with that?

MR VAN RENSBURG: It's not true. I quote from the record, from the judgment on page 207 of the bundle.

He gave evidence as to the exact date when the accused on the 14th left and the exact date that he returned.

MR RAMASITSI: That is not my elder brother but my younger brother who gave evidence.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I did not mention whether it was your older or your younger brother, I said your brother.

MR NDOU: In English and Venda, when you said a brother, it does not distinguish whether it is an elder or a younger one, that's why he's confused.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I think these, when you called your brother ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Do you understand that Mr van Rensburg, that the Venda word used by the interpreter may be - I didn't know, I will clarify whether that was a possibility.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes I will accept that and I will clarify that, thank you Mr Chairman. The point I'm trying to make Mr Ramasitsi is that at the criminal court your brother testified, your brother Ananias testified that you were not at the scene of the crime on the 6th of April can you remember that?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes I can remember.

CHAIRPERSON: So you and your brother led false evidence in the criminal court?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes that's true.

CHAIRPERSON: And the reason for this, you now say is that you were intimidated by the police.

MR RAMASITSI: Yes that's true.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay let's continue and talk about the role of the deceased. As I previously stated to you from the record, criminal record and the judgement of Judge Liebenberg, it appears that the deceased was a well-off man with quite a large house and many possessions, do you agree with that statement?

MR RAMASITSI: No it's not true.

CHAIRPERSON: Why don't you say so? Why don't you agree.

MR RAMASITSI: Because the deceased was next to me and I used to work with his children, I used to stay with him at his home, I know him very well.

CHAIRPERSON: And is it not so that he had a motor vehicle as well as two tractors.

MR RAMASITSI: He was using two tractors and one car, the farm was not that big, it was very small. He was not a farmer because he used to plant two or three onions or potatoes, not that big.

CHAIRPERSON: And is it not so that his house was larger than the other people in the village?

MR RAMASITSI: Ja it was bigger but it was burned long ago before the wife of that person was having something but by the time that he passed away he had nothing, he no longer had that much property.

CHAIRPERSON: So he didn't have that much property.

MR RAMASITSI: The deceased, by the time he was killed he had only a car and a tractor, he did not have so many things that people can say he had much property.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes but the point of the matter is that on your own evidence it's not everybody in that area that had a car. Correct?

MR RAMASITSI: Could you please repeat your question.

CHAIRPERSON: Not everybody in the area had a car, correct?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes that's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And not everybody in the area was the owner of a farm? Correct?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes that's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And not everybody in this area had a tractor?

MR RAMASITSI: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So generally he was better off than an ordinary person in the area? That's all the attorney wants to get to you, do you agree with that?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes I agree.

CHAIRPERSON: No one is saying he was the richest man in the world, what he's trying to say is that the deceased was rather better off by comparison to the rest of the community or most of the community. Do we agree on that?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes I agree.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr van Rensburg.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you. Still talking on the role that the deceased played before his death. There are two statements that you made in your evidence in chief that I think compete with each other and I want your explanation on that. The one is that you said the deceased was a commoner and that he played no significant role on the one hand, that's the one statement that you made, and later in your testimony you state that he acted as if he was the chief in the area. Can you please explain that apparent contradiction?

MR RAMASITSI: Well I can start by saying he was not a better-off person. When he started not co-operating with the people, I was one of those people who used to attend, although he used to have workers, the tractor was not relieved for greasing, it was just an ordinary activity, he did not have a lot or property as it is mentioned. Secondly with regard to co-operation with the people, the reason why he competed with people is because the youth went to tell him he could not allow that to happen, because he didn't want to know what was happening. As time went on ....(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Do you understand the question? The question is you said at one stage yesterday that he was not a significant person, he was in fact a commoner in the area. On another occasion you speak about the deceased and you refer to him as somebody who acted like some type of leader, a chief.

MR RAMASITSI: It was true.

CHAIRPERSON: The simple question that the attorneys ask is for you to explain what you meant by this, by what we think is a difference between the status that you initially gave him as a commoner and in behaving or acting like a chief...run down of his property and that sort of thing, we want you to explain what he spoke about you spoke about yesterday.

MR RAMASITSI: Well when I said that he used to be a commoner, I wanted to say that whatever he used to do was not so difficult in the eyes of the people. He was not really very co-operative, even the ...(indistinct) he was not really very relevant.

CHAIRPERSON: So what you mean is that his actual status was that of a commoner. Do you understand me correctly?

MR RAMASITSI: Well maybe I could not explain vividly yesterday, I did not expect the questions the way - I think now it is quite simpler. Well surely the way he was explained as a commoner, he didn't have really status there, his life did not have any contribution towards the community.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay tell me what you meant by saying that he acted like a chief?

MR RAMASITSI: Well what used to be said in the kraal, he used to renegade, he didn't really cooperate with the chief people or the kraal meeting.

MR VAN RENSBURG: He was acting contrary to the chief, not acting as the chief.

CHAIRPERSON: No I think what he's saying Mr van Rensburg is that when he did not adhere to certain decisions, chiefs could ignore decisions and in that sense he behaved or acted like a chief. I'm just suggesting that that's how I understand his answer.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Let me get this clear, thank you Mr Chairman, you're saying that he was acting like a chief because he went his own way and did not adhere to the chief's instruction.

MR RAMASITSI: Well he used to suppose that matters it's matters being discussed in the chief's kraal, that is finances, he used to say no that was not the correct way of doing things.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And you knew very well that he wasn't the chief or acting chief.

MR RAMASITSI: He was not an acting chief, he was just a royal family member. I can't tell exactly how he was, he was just a relative so he used to claim to be a chief.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ramasitsi the question is, did you know at the time that he was not a chief or an acting chief.

MR RAMASITSI: Yes I knew.

CHAIRPERSON: At which time?

MR VAN RENSBURG: At the time before April 1990.

MR RAMASITSI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Then I want to put it to you and I want to ask you, why did you write your application for amnesty, I'm referring to page 37 of the bundle specifically paragraph 9a.4 and I will quote it to you. It was expected of you to state the nature and particulars and deeds that you have done and you said:

Now the question is simple, why did you put in your application that he was an acting chief when you very well knew that he wasn't a chief or an acting chief?

MR RAMASITSI: Well I would like to present this. It was not put in a very consistent way. What I'm saying today is quite true, maybe it was not put in a very logical way.

CHAIRPERSON: So you agreed that the information supplied by you in the application regarding this paragraph is not correct.

ADV DE JAGER: I don't want to interfere, I think you've got a valid point and a valid question. I just want to put, we've come across things like this very often in our travels, especially where you get a person who writes these things out in English when English is not his first language. And if one has to just fiddle around with this statement that you refer to and said, "..who was acting as a chief in the area", it also makes sense, and then it would be consistent, but I'm just pointing that out, you can carry on on the line you have chosen, I just thought I'd mention to you, that one could manipulate the import.

MR VAN RENSBURG: No Mr Chairman I will not labour the point, I just want to put the language..

CHAIRPERSON: Well you don't have to get the answer to..

...(intervention)

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you. Can I repeat the question for you?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: The question is do you then agree that the information supplied in this paragraph 9a.4 of your amnesty application is not correct as it stands there? Would you care to read what you wrote there?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And also then I refer you to paragraph 10.a where the question was:

and you stated there in paragraph 10.a of your amnesty

application on page 37:

Do you also agree that that is not factually correct as it stands there?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you. Let's start talking about the role of the deceased and your relationship with.. ...(intervention)

ADV SIGODI: Sorry to disturb Mr Chairperson, on this point I just want some clarity. Who filled in this form for you, did you fill it in yourself? Your application form on pages 36, 37 and 38?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes myself.

ADV SIGODI: And did you fill in this paragraph, 9a, 9a.1, 9a.4, 10a and 10b, yourself?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And did you also fill in the name?

CHAIRPERSON: Be very careful, we're going to take into consideration whether you're telling us the truth or not.

MR RAMASITSI: Yes I do have three different hand-writings.

CHAIRPERSON: I was not yet at the point of different handwritings, I was going to ask you, did you fill this form in on the same day at the same time?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes I'm saying that truly.

CHAIRPERSON: Are there three different types of handwritings on this, are there three?

MR RAMASITSI: Well when we see this application we you used to have some tense moments or resting moments and then continue just like that. That is why it seems to be in conflict or quite different.

CHAIRPERSON: So you say all these different hand-writings are your own.

MR RAMASITSI: Yes I will say.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And just on that point were you all together, all the applicants here today, they were all together when you completed the statement?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And everyone filled his own application.

MR RAMASITSI: Well some of us were writing for others, for one-another.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Another apparently conflicting statement that you made regarding the deceased, I want your comment on please. The first is that at two occasions yesterday you referred to the deceased or the person that you thought to be the deceased as a person who's senses had left him, do you remember that?

MR RAMASITSI: Well let me explain first.

MR VAN RENSBURG: We will give you an opportunity to explain, I just want find out if you remember that you testified like that?

MR RAMASITSI: No.

CHAIRPERSON: You can take my word for it, you did.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's accept that you did say that, he was dismissed or what he said to you was dismissed as words of that of an unstable person or words to that effect.

MR RAMASITSI: Well I said that, I didn't actually say he was mad or referring or alluding ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think it was something less than - you used words less than indicating that he was a madman, I think maybe you meant or used the word that he was silly or unstable of mind.

MR RAMASITSI: Yes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And obviously the reason why you used those words was because no person in his right mind can take that man's words seriously and I think the words that were just used, his words was 'dismissed'. That is the one allegation that you made, yet on the other hand you testified that at one instance this man with his sons dismissed a whole crowd, two to three hundred people single-handedly and you said that the girls were screaming and afraid and all that and obviously it eventually resulted that you did take his words seriously because you actually killed him. No I just want your opinion on these two apparent contradictions.

MR RAMASITSI: Regarding what?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Regarding the fact that you said you dismissed these words on one side and then on the other hand you took his words so seriously that you actually killed him.

MR RAMASITSI: Well we denied or we disputed that because we were so surprised why when there was this political awareness, this person was quite ignoring, as if he didn't know anything. If he knew that, what was the reason that he denied or disputed that.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes but can you perhaps explain to us what changed so that at one stage you dismissed his words and later on you took it seriously, you held meetings about it, you eventually killed him for that. What has changed?

MR RAMASITSI: Well it is because we met this person and he was saying the fact that the toyi-toyiing is going to confuse him and he was maintaining that the country was his and it led us into meeting again at the mountain because this person was maintaining that he didn't want these political activities.

CHAIRPERSON: It isn't really what the witness is saying Mr van Rensburg that at the beginning they dismissed it and didn't take notice of it but the consistency with which the deceased approached them led to them taking it seriously. He didn't use those words but he says, he gives the impression that that's what he means.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Ja that is all actually that I want from him is just an explanation Your Worship and I will accept that. Okay let's continue, in your evidence you started off by saying that if you do not get rid of the witches you will never be really free. And then all of a sudden in your testimony you stop talking about the witches and continued about the actions and your reactions thereon of the deceased...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: This is worrying us as well, before you carry on, his actual killing of Edward, the deceased and attack on his house, did that have anything to do with witchcraft or any related matter to witchcraft or traditional healing? Put it that way. Was there any relevance of that witchcraft or traditional healing and his killing? Let's hear that because we're very interested in that.

MR RAMASITSI: What happened was that, when the deceased came to warn us and where we undermined that we thought that he was an ordinary person and an elderly person that when it went on and when we heard about the hit list we also suspected him as on of the persons who were to be eliminated from Mahvunga. That is why we were able to know that he was not really supportive of us because he was really a witch. What was said was quite a mouthful because there were quite a lot of different stories. I was one of the people who used to work in his fields, we used to go there on a tractor with our loaf of bread so that it should help us during the day and we would drop something in a shed, the mealie meal used to be eaten on a daily basis ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Kindly try and control your client. Everything he says should be interpreted by the interpreter. Give the interpreter a chance to interpret.

MR NDOU: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR RAMASITSI: Well I was still saying the deceased was suspected of witchcraft and I even want to mention that in such activities, like I'm saying here, I used to be one of the workers on the farm the referred farm.

CHAIRPERSON: Even if that was true, all I asked was that when he went to his death was that in any way connected with this belief that he was involved in witchcraft?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Why didn't you tell us that?

MR RAMASITSI: I could not say that.

CHAIRPERSON: You were asked to tell us why this man was killed, then you went through the whole story about how he interfered with you people, how he assaulted the girls, him and his sons, how he got the chief to get him a "trek pass" which he ignored and refused to act upon, how you people went to him over 45 hours, begged him to leave and then he attacked the crowd that surrounded his house, a crowd of about three thousand and they got cross and they started stoning him and a group of you then went about, in fact you then went to buy the petrol and the decision was made that he must be killed and his house burned. You even were party to asking his family to leave because they were party to the problem. Nowhere in that whole version did you tell us that one of the reasons at least for his demise was that he was regarded as a witch or wizard.

MR RAMASITSI: Well I said that because I was trying to maintain that we were not really looking for his witchcraft activities, it was only because he was barring us from all the political activities and we were able to realise that he was fighting against us in activities because we wanted the youth to realise that the activities were very important.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr van Rensburg.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I put it to you Mr Ramasitsi that you wilfully mislead this Commission yesterday as to the reasons why you killed the deceased.

MR RAMASITSI: Well I was trying to explain that when the deceased finally met his fate he was not really co-operating with the community. The main reason of this killing was not witchcraft-related, it was because he was fighting against the youth, because were toyi-toyiing, he was not really co-operating.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Ja you've just on several occasions told the chairman that witchcraft was involved in his killing, now I ask you, which role did it play in the killing of the deceased?

MR RAMASITSI: Well it is because whatever happened, we have those ideas, it seems we wanted freedom; when we wanted freedom in rural areas when there are people who were not really co-operating and we were suspecting, we knew that people were bewitched and it was quite visible, the fact that there were so many activities happening, suspicions in those days.

ADV DE JAGER: Did he bewitch anybody?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes?

ADV DE JAGER: Who did he bewitch?

MR RAMASITSI: What happened was that there was no serious indication that he bewitched a particular person, it was alleged that he was found in the early morning of that day on top of a certain woman with whom he was in love, but the woman could not feel that person was a human being, she only realised when the priest arrived that this person was only doing what he was doing, that was when they were able to realise that the women were being taken to that area to sleep with the late, that was why people really could not understand why they thought that many wives were being taken to this man.

ADV DE JAGER: Was that a reason for killing him or one of the reasons for killing him because he took women to his house and slept with them?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes it was one of the reasons.

ADV DE JAGER: Can you perhaps give us any reasons why you killed him?

We've got the women sleeping with him, we've got his opposition to you singing songs and toyi-toyiing, and what else caused his death?

MR RAMASITSI: I can. What led to the death of the deceased is because he refused to relieve the community when he'd already been given the "trek pass" and when he disputed the fact that he had to leave and he experienced an assegai and people lost control, that is why they lost control and it was havoc which led to his death.

ADV DE JAGER: And the fact that he had tractors and land and was a fairly wealthy person. Was his wealth connected with witchcraft?

MR RAMASITSI: No it was not connected.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Did you tell your attorney all this that you're telling us?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes I did.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Explain why you were not led on those things.

MR RAMASITSI: Will you repeat that question please?

MR VAN RENSBURG: You can't explain why you were not led on those aspects?

MR RAMASITSI: Well I did explain that the reason we could not touch on witchcraft was that the deceased, after the meeting, when he was not co-operating with the people, he could not realise that the political activities were quite important, especially that led to the people no longer concentrating on witchcraft but on dealing with the political activities, freedom especially.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on Mr van Rensburg.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman, and you agreed on this topic of witchcraft, that at the meetings that you held, the people were actually chanting that the witches must be burned, isn't that so? Perhaps I should rephrase that, on the meeting that was held about the behaviour of the deceased and his family it was chanted that the witches must be burned.

MR RAMASITSI: Yes it is true.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay now let's turn to the incidents that took place on the 25th to the 28th of February of that year, and I specifically refer to the attacks that were launched at the house of the deceased's brother, Mr Petrus Mahvunga and I want to ask you, were you part and parcel of those attacks?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes I was.

MR VAN RENSBURG: So how many times did you go to Mr Petrus Mahvunga's house?

MR RAMASITSI: We went there twice.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And what did you do there.

MR RAMASITSI: Well the first day we poured petrol around the house and it could not catch fire. Then next time when we did he really ...(indistinct) us or followed us.

MR VAN RENSBURG: The next day, that was on the 26th, correct? That was on the 26th of February 1990, he chased you.

MR RAMASITSI: Yes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And on that specific day you actually successfully burned down his house or his hut?

MR RAMASITSI: The next day we could not burn.

MR VAN RENSBURG: On which date was his hut burned down?

MR RAMASITSI: It was burned during the ...(indistinct) when the news about his move was released and that was when he said he was not going to move and whosoever...(intervention)

MR VAN RENSBURG: Mr van Rensburg has that got relevance on this.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes it is very relevant regarding the question of full disclosure Your Worship. If I can refer you to the statement of the witness or the applicant contained in paragraph 41 of the bundle. The statement there is not completely transcribed, the actual hand-written statement is on page 42 and page 43. This is the statement that was contained in this specific case docket. This statement actually refers to the attack on the house of Mr Petrus Mahvunga, it only says there halfway through the statement, Mahvunga, but I will prove that this actually took place at the house of Mr Petrus Mahvunga, this is the attack.

CHAIRPERSON: Still ask a question, of what relevance is that attack to this enquiry?

MR VAN RENSBURG: As I've said, it is relevant to the question of full disclosure and I'm trying to show to this Commission that the applicant actually was involved in more actions which he in fact did not make application for and in fact which he was not convicted but he was involved in that and then obviously therefore he should have made application for amnesty for those acts.

CHAIRPERSON: But he didn't.

MR VAN RENSBURG: He didn't.

ADV DE JAGER: I'm, perhaps while you mention it, both of you legal representatives could overlook, at the indictment on page 154 and at the judgment. There are three arson, counts 1, 2 and 3 relates to arson. The first one related to Petrus, the second one to Edward and the third one also to Edward. The judge found him guilty of arson and murder. He didn't specify which count of arson.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Ja I think it was specified that he was found guilty on Count 3 and Count 7.

ADV DE JAGER: Oh so he didn't find him guilty of Petrus?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Of Petrus, I actually agree with that, he was actually found not guilty of the arson of Petrus’ house which took place on the 28th as it was stipulated in Count 1...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: In any case he did not make application for that matter.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Why should he have disclosed it then?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Well Mr Chairman this is the Commission where he should make application.

MR VAN RENSBURG: He should make application now, he should have but he didn't.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: He must male full disclosure in respect of those offences committed by his acts for which he applies..

...(intervention)

MR VAN RENSBURG: For amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja. That's the restrictions of the 'Full Disclosure' concept.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I understand.

CHAIRPERSON: Otherwise we'll hear about all his misdemeanours since he was a baby.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I understand that but I suppose there is also a cut-off point relating to the dates. Thank you Mr Chairman, if I can just ask one question on this if you will allow me to finalise this specific point. Mr Ramasitsi, would you agree that your actions as you have now testified relating to your actions at the house of Mr Petrus Mahvunga, would you agree that that amounts to arson or attempted arson?

MR RAMASITSI: Sorry could you repeat your question please?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Would you agree that the reactions that you have now testified about today, actions that you have taken at the house of Mr Petrus Mahvunga amounts to arson or attempted arson?

MR RAMASITSI: Well it has connection to arson.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay and just one thing that I think the Committee will also have a problem with, what was your fight with Mr Petrus Mahvunga?

MR RAMASITSI: Well firstly Petrus Mahvunga was one of the suspects regarding witchcraft. Secondly Petrus Mahvunga was with the deceased on the day we were on being beaten on the mountain. That is why he was deemed to have been incorporated in our...

ADV DE JAGER: You burned his house long before the beating on the mountain occurred? You attempted to burn his house in February, the beating in the mountain was round about April.

CHAIRPERSON: In how many attacks on Edward's house were you involved?

MR RAMASITSI: Twice.

CHAIRPERSON: When was that?

MR RAMASITSI: The first one was when we tried to put his house on fire, the second one was when he went to Edward Mahvunga's house during the day and we were coming from the kraals place,

CHAIRPERSON: Now the question is, when did those assaults of those girls that you talk about with the sjamboks and slings and all that occur, you had already attempted to burn his house?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman. On the date of the 6th of April when that attack took place, the crowd any yourself allowed the deceased's wife and the children to escape, that was your evidence, is that correct?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes it is true.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And the reason why...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...because Mr van Rensburg?

MR VAN RENSBURG: That is in fact common cause, I will put it to the witness, thank you Mr Chairman, perhaps I should do it now. Rossinah will come and testify that they escaped through the narrowest of margins with their own life and through their own actions and it is not a question that you allowed them to escape.

MR RAMASITSI: Truly we realised that the situation was uncontrollable. There was no time in which one could say this one is to separated from their people who were to be beaten, so there was no reason why one really protect a person.

MR VAN RENSBURG: So would you then agree with me that they escaped on their own steam and not because the crowds allowed them to leave?

MR RAMASITSI: That is not true.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Is it not so that Rossinah on that day was also hit by some stones?

MR RAMASITSI: Well she had already been beaten, or she had already been given a slap, not by stones.

CHAIRPERSON: What Rossinah's going to say is that she wasn't opposed to take the children and go to the chief's house, she escaped and ran away.

MR RAMASITSI: Well there was no one who could move out if the crowd didn't want, we made it possible for them to escape, it was just one gateway where we were standing. If we didn't want them to escape we wouldn't have wanted it to be like that.

CHAIRPERSON: Was this crowd of 3000 right around their house?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And she had to go through this crowd from whichever angle she escaped. There was no pass through a part of the crowd in any case?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes she had to escape through the mass.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay and why were there stones thrown at Rossinah on that day?

MR RAMASITSI: She was resisting.

MR VAN RENSBURG: How was she resisting?

MR RAMASITSI: She was also throwing stones.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I see; this will be denied by Rossinah when she gives evidence, she said that she did not throw stones at the crowd.

MR RAMASITSI: She will be lying.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I see. So in your own mind she deserved what she got by being hit by stones, is that correct?

CHAIRPERSON: You'd better ask it, not put it as a proposition.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I don't understand?

CHAIRPERSON: Well was she hit by stones?

MR RAMASITSI: She was resisting, I said earlier.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja but was she hit with stones, at any time?

MR RAMASITSI: There was stone-throwing, I can't say from which direction, it was all over.

CHAIRPERSON: Well did you see her hit by stones?

MR RAMASITSI: I could see her throwing stones. You see these stones, were hitting one-another or each other on the way.

CHAIRPERSON: Listen to me. Was she injured by a stone thrown from the crowd?

MR RAMASITSI: Well yes, finally, eventually it happened like that, she was injured.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, now why did you just tell us a couple of minutes ago that she was not hit by stones, she was slapped?

MR RAMASITSI: Well I was saying that because when it happened, during the time of her escape we were not really fighting because the old man or the deceased was already late.

CHAIRPERSON: Come Mr Ramasitsi, we're all adults here. We're not playing games here. Your co-applicants' futures are also at stake. Please tell us or answer the question properly. Stop giving us added information only when we pose particular questions to you. One of the issues or requirements of the Act is that you must make full disclosure and many occasions now you're saying one thing and a little later you're saying something different, you're not being helpful in your own cause and your co-applicants' cause. Do you understand what I'm saying?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes I am with you.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's proceed Mr..

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Okay it is established according to your evidence that Rossinah was resisting, she threw stones, she was hit by a stone and you say that she was allowed to escape. What I want to know is, why the sudden change, the attack was also launched by her, and then according to your version, was allowed to escape. Why this change of heart?

MR RAMASITSI: Well it is because the person we wanted was already injured or dead.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think she was on the, as you call it, the hit list.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I think she got caught up in the circumstances and perhaps the cross-fire.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes that is our...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: And therefore, what I'm trying to say is that is understandable that she would have been allowed to escape if you want to call it, as opposed to her husband's position.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman, yes, what I'm aiming at and I'll put it to you as a quote from your previous evidence, when you were asked this question by your legal representative or a similar question, you testified that there was no grudge against the family, can you remember that?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes I can.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Meaning that the grudge was only against the deceased?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes.

MR RAMASITSI: Would you describe this word grudge for us, as you have felt it yourself?

MR RAMASITSI: Well the grudge initiated from the witchcraft, the lack of co-operation between the youth and him.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And you felt angry at him?

MR RAMASITSI: He was the one who angered us, the youth.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes if you talk about lack of co-operation, what obligation, what onus was there on him to cooperate with the youth?

MR RAMASITSI: Well he should have wanted to know why the youth were meeting and toyi-toyiing and he could have received that explanation. That is why we said he wasn't co-operating.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I put it to you Mr Ramasitsi that this was a personal grudge, a thing that got personal and that is one of the reasons why he was eventually killed. A personal grudge.

CHAIRPERSON: A personal grudge on the part of this witness?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, and others.

CHAIRPERSON: Well...(intervention)

MR VAN RENSBURG: But obviously I'll only ask his opinion on this Mr Chairman.

MR RAMASITSI: Can you repeat your question please?

MR VAN RENSBURG: The question is, I put it to you that you at that stage held, you yourself, a personal grudge against the deceased?

CHAIRPERSON: Which would be, what would that grudge be based on?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Must I explain?

CHAIRPERSON: If you're saying he did it because of a grudge, tell him what that grudge was.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay I'll do that. Okay a personal grudge based on the fact that he was thought to be a witch, that he was more wealthy than the rest of the community and also that as you say, did not want to cooperate with the youth.

MR RAMASITSI: Well all the above is true except jealousy.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I see, so let's not confuse each other. You will say you will admit that you had a personal grudge against him because he was thought of as a witch and he was uncooperative?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I see.

CHAIRPERSON: May I ask something from him. You've worked for the deceased on the farm, is that correct?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you leave his employment?

MR RAMASITSI: Well I wasn't actually really working there, I was actually helping him. I was a school student, I used to befriend myself with the young kids of the deceased and I would go to the field with them.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you leave helping, or why did you leave, whatever?

MR RAMASITSI: Well I could realise that there were some threatening things, that is why I could no longer be staying myself with them.

CHAIRPERSON: Like what?

MR RAMASITSI: When we used to carry the mealie sacks to the field, there were sort of like some zombies. Secondly on a certain day when I was with the sons of the deceased, the deceased came in a private car in the late evening, he had his friend, they started off-loading meat which all us wondered what kind of meat it was because it was off-loaded in a different manner and we suspected that it could have been meat from a human body because ritual murders and witchcraft was really combined.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: You've been asked why you called this man a witch and why you thought he was a witch on many occasions during your testimony, do you recall that, more than one occasion you were asked why was this man thought of or regarded to be involved or connected to witchcraft? Isn't that so, you were asked that, correct?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes.

MR RAMASITSI: Why did you never mention this off-loading of strange carcasses or carcasses in a strange way?

MR RAMASITSI: Well it was because, well I said yesterday I was referring to the way we were fighting against the deceased, I could not get into witchcraft because it was not risen.

CHAIRPERSON: Look, I don't know if you understand or misunderstand the question. I hope you are being questioned in the language of your choice. All I'm asking is that when you were asked about why the deceased was thought to be connected with witchcraft, why did you not tell us that one of the incidents was when you saw that meat or carcasses were being off-loaded in a manner that led you people to believe that the meat was that of a human kind, that strengthened your belief that he was involved in witchcraft? Why didn't you say so?

MR RAMASITSI: Well it was because, well I didn't have as much time as I'm getting now, because the questions are coming directly to me, which was not the case yesterday.

CHAIRPERSON: No there was a direct question to you this morning and yesterday, why did you think this man was connected to witchcraft, that was a simple, straightforward question. Now you were under no pressure, time pressure or other kind, all I'm asking is why didn't you mention it at that time? You had an opportunity and more than one opportunity.

MR RAMASITSI: Well beg your pardon for what I said, I thought I'll say that...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No don't beg my pardon, my pardon's got nothing to do with the matter, I'm asking for an explanation. Why didn't you raise it before?

MR RAMASITSI: It was because I was referring to the fight barring people from the political activities regarding the deceased, that's what he was doing.

CHAIRPERSON: Don't you understand the question?

MR RAMASITSI: Well I didn't have anything which had a witchcraft related matter as it was being asked yesterday.

CHAIRPERSON: You were asked this morning, never mind yesterday.

MR RAMASITSI: Well yes today I was asked and I already answered that.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja but that's not now, I'm talking about earlier today, you were asked a direct question.

MR RAMASITSI: Well the question wanted me to know why we were fighting against the deceased and I said it was witchcraft related, but I didn't give a full explanation on that.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm going to ask you once more, when you were asked this man was regarded as being involved in witchcraft, you had an opportunity to give this example that you just gave. Why didn't you do that earlier when you were asked what made you think this man was involved in witchcraft?

MR RAMASITSI: Well I gave an example of the mealie sacks which made people believe that he had zombies... ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: When you talked about these carcasses that strengthened your belief on earlier the occasions, why didn't you?

MR RAMASITSI: Well I didn't realise that will be this vital or important.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ramasitsi, surely the dealing in human flesh must be as important as any, if not more important as any other indicator of witchcraft? Surely, we heard expert evidence on the use or the belief that human flesh played a major role in witchcraft or traditional medicines, ritual murders, you were here when that evidence was being given.

MR RAMASITSI: Yes I was.

CHAIRPERSON: So you can't come and tell us that you think it was so important. You were asked a direct question as to why you thought the man was involved in witchcraft or ritual murders or whatever and you never told us that you had witnessed or observed the removal of flesh which led you to believe that they were dealing in human flesh? Now we spent ten minutes on asking you, or me asking you why you never mentioned it before. Why are struggling with an explanation or have you got no explanation?

MR RAMASITSI: Well there is something I can say.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's hear it then.

MR RAMASITSI: The truth is since we realised the human flesh or the flesh, it was a time when many people were busy talking about when formally they were associating with the deceased, they were threatened, they felt that he was busy with witchcraft and ritual killing, that is what led to the people feeling very uneasy. When he was claiming to be the chief and people were surprised as to why he wanted to be the chief when he was the one who was really indicating that he had these terrible things.

CHAIRPERSON: I hope that nobody else is going to make a similar attempt that I made.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I'm not going to try Mr Chairman, I'll rather proceed, thank you. These facts that you had in your own mind that perhaps the deceased was involved in witchcraft, these facts that we were talking about now, is it not so that at the meetings and also at other occasions you and the other applicants and all the people, they would discuss those allegations and facts so that it came to all of their knowledge?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes it is true.

MR VAN RENSBURG: During your testimony you stressed the fact several times that your intention was for the deceased to leave the area and also on the 6th of April, after the meeting that was held at school, I think you said there was something like five hours spent in negotiations and I take it that those negotiations aimed at persuading the deceased to leave the area, is that correct?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes it is true.

MR VAN RENSBURG: So if he would have left, he would not have been killed and his place would not have been arsoned?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes it is true.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Now I put it to you that that specific fact was contradicted by the judge in his judgement and he came to the conclusion, and he listed something like, just pardon me for one second...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I may just indicate that we're not bound by those conclusions, hey.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes I understand that very well, I just want his opinion on that. The learned judge listed ten reasons why he came to the conclusion that you only went to that house of the deceased on the 6th of April to kill him and nothing else. What do you say about that?

MR RAMASITSI: Well we were not going there to kill.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Why did you take petrol with?

MR RAMASITSI: Well we thought we were going to put the house on fire.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I see, so you planned to burn the place but not to kill him?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: During your testimony you also made several times mention that especially on the date of the 6th of April that there were many people, I think you said two to three thousand people and that they were young and old, do you confirm that?

CHAIRPERSON: Girls an boys.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Mostly boys and girls, yes. Can you remember that?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes I can confirm that.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay the point I'm trying to make is, would you agree that this action that was taken against the deceased to burn down this house and to kill him was not an action taken by the youth, it was an action taken by the whole village.

MR RAMASITSI: Yes but basically the youth were very much responsible.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes they might have taken the more active role but the older people were also present there on the 6th of April.

MR RAMASITSI: Yes it is true.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay now lastly, I want to put it to you that you wilfully mislead this hearing to try to convince us that you actually committed this murder and arson because of political motive whilst it is clear from your evidence now that you actually committed it because of witchcraft.

MR RAMASITSI: Well I didn't only mention witchcraft.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg, there has been evidence from the expert that throws witchcraft right into the political arena and in those circumstances, while we haven't made up or minds yet to accept that evidence or not, I think it would be fairer to point out to the witness for his comments in that fashion that you say it was for witchcraft as if it wasn't political, but maybe it was, we don't know yet.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes that is the point that I will argue at the end of ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Ja and then when you put a question like that to the witness, I think that one should then couch it in such terms where the ambit of the political relationship with the, or possible relationship with the witchcraft is included. Let me try to help you here.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr..

CHAIRPERSON: You see what the proposition is from the attorney, is that you wilfully misled the Commission as to the reasons for the death of the deceased and in fact despite what the experts said, that in this area that witchcraft fell within the political arena at some time during the struggle, you actually killed him for witchcraft

activities only, not for political reasons.

MR RAMASITSI: Well it was a combination of the factors above.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman, I think I have no further questions to this witness.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson.

Mr Ramasitsi, just for clarity, can you explain to us, at what stage did your suspicions about the deceased's involvement in witchcraft arise?, was it after you started to have to have problems with him in terms of your political activities or before?

MR RAMASITSI: No.

MS PATEL: No what sir, was it before or after?

MR RAMASITSI: That was before, that was in 1989. It went on further when he refused us in our free political activities so that we decided to talk to him so that we turned to ask him to leave the country so that we remained in our political things freely.

MS PATEL: I'm sorry sir, I don't understand, are you saying that your suspicion about Mr Mahvunga's involvement in witchcraft only occurred after you started having problems with him relating to your political activities?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes.

MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou have you got any re-examination?

MR NDOU: None, none Judge.

ADV DE JAGER: Why was he given a trek pass?

MR RAMASITSI: People were no longer interested in him because he was suspected to be a witch, and on the other hand he was refusing the youth from being involved in political activities.

ADV DE JAGER: No but a trek pass, isn't that something only given to a witch?

MR RAMASITSI: No, it can be give to who maybe the country wants to get rid of him, a person who is not co-operating with the people, a person who is found having killed somebody, even in the past when there were no police, there were people who used to be evicted to the community.

ADV DE JAGER: I see now who went to the headman to ask for a trek pass?

MR RAMASITSI: A boy and a girl were sent to the chief.

ADV DE JAGER: Their names? Anyone connected with you people?

MR RAMASITSI: One of them is the deceased, he is dead, today he's dead.

ADV DE JAGER: And what were the reasons given to the chief when these people approached him to get a trek pass?

MR RAMASITSI: The causes were discussed before the quorum because people were no longer interested in him because they were being bewitched, they were assaulted while they were toyi-toyiing, in the third place he wants to destroy us, he claims to be the leader of the country and then we decided to let him go so that we can build our community up from him because he was not doing it properly, he was not at peace with the people.

ADV DE JAGER: Who was the chief at the time?

MR RAMASITSI: The chief was Adam's father, who was ruling one or two years after the death of the old man.

ADV DE JAGER: Is he still alive today?

MR RAMASITSI: Ja the old man is dead but there is one who will replace the old man who is still alive.

ADV DE JAGER: I understand that he's - but the chief who actually gave the trek pass, is he deceased now?

MR RAMASITSI: No.

ADV DE JAGER: So the man who ordered the "trek pass" is still alive?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes he's still alive.

ADV DE JAGER: And his name is?

MR RAMASITSI: Ruditsani Adam Mahvunga.

ADV DE JAGER: I see.

CHAIRPERSON: Is he related to the deceased?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: This trek pass, is it a written document or what?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes it was written with the Headman's stamp to show that it has been approved.

CHAIRPERSON: Where is that "trek pass" now?

MR RAMASITSI: I think that "trek pass" is with the police because the police were shown it and I don't know where it is now.

ADV SIGODI: At the time of the killing of the deceased did you belong to any political party?

MR RAMASITSI: I was a supporter of the ANC by then.

ADV SIGODI: And the other youth did they also belong to the ANC?

MR RAMASITSI: I think so but we were forming the Youth Congress which were intending to affiliate under the ANC.

ADV SIGODI: So the meetings that you held here, you were discussing ways of affiliating yourselves to the ANC, is that correct?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes it's correct.

ADV SIGODI: You mentioned that the deceased was known for his aggressive behaviour, do you remember when you said that yesterday?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes I still remember.

ADV SIGODI: What had he done before to show that he was an aggressive person?

MR RAMASITSI: One day he chopped a person to death and he was jailed three to four years in the ...(indistinct) prison.

ADV SIGODI: So is that why you were scared of him, because he chopped a person to death and jailed from four to six years?

MR RAMASITSI: That was just an example but the kind of his life, proof that he was aggressive, let me give another clear example. There was a water furrow which used to take water to the kraal, that furrow was used by everybody. During the night I used to water, sometimes I handed it over to another. That water was normally opened somewhere where it is full, then one day, that water, when the deceased fought with the men, fighting with spades, fighting for that water.

ADV SIGODI: Because you mentioned yesterday that he was aggressive that you decided to form SDU's, Self Defence Units, do you remember that, yesterday?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes I remember that.

ADV SIGODI: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Mr Chairman, if I may interrupt; regarding the evidence, the questions put to the witness by the Committee members, there is just one statement that I omitted to make regarding the trek pass, and if the Chairman to give me the opportunity, it will just be a statement. Mr Ramasitsi the deceased's wife Rossinah will come and testify that she had absolutely no knowledge of this "trek pass" that you are testifying about and that she never saw such a document.

MR RAMASITSI: I won't be surprised because the "trek pass" was not meant for her, it was for her husband.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I have nothing further.

CHAIRPERSON: You may be excused.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

MR NDOU: Thank you Chairperson, I now call upon applicant number 2725 Nemakhavani D, and his application appears on pages 120 etc. May I request that he be sworn in?

DAVID NEMAKHAVANI (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR NDOU: Mr David Nemakhavani, you are also an applicant in this matter, is that correct?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: That is correct.

MR NDOU: You have applied for amnesty in terms of Section 18 of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act of 1995, is that also correct.

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes that's correct.

MR NDOU: Now I see in your application you indicate that you are here because of certain offences that you want to state before the Committee and ask amnesty on, that is the charges pertaining to murder, arson and assault TBH, is that correct. Are those the charges that you were convicted in the court?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes that's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: The murder of who?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: The murder of Edward Mahvunga.

CHAIRPERSON: Arson in respect of what?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: In connection with the house of Mr Edward Mahvunga.

CHAIRPERSON: And the assault?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: I assaulted Nkambereni Mahvunga but I wasn't charged on that.

MR VAN RENSBURG: So what are you convicted of?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Of murder and assault.

CHAIRPERSON: But want to make application in respect of the assault TBH as well?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes that is also included.

CHAIRPERSON: Why Mr Ndou, is assault sole TBH for which he has been charged and acquitted, why do we have to deal with that?

MR NDOU: Well apparently at the time when the form was filled in, it was inadvertently filled in, it only appeared now that he was in fact not charged on that count, so we will not delve into that.

CHAIRPERSON: So you're withdrawing it, take instructions on that?

MR NDOU: Yes we have spoken to him and indicated that wont fall within amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you.

MR NDOU: Now I want to find out from you, during 1990, if I look in your application, you were born on the 2nd of April 1970...(intervention)

MR NDOU: Well I don't think there's any dispute as to the formal particulars.

MR NDOU: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there Mr van Rensburg?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes I agree, there's no dispute on that.

MR NDOU: Now during 1990, were you a member of any political organisation?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: I was just a supporter.

MR NDOU: Of which organisation?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: ANC.

MR NDOU: Now in your area was there any formal structure that had been formed politically?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: No it was not yet.

MR NDOU: What did you have?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: There was no structure but before there was the release of Nelson Mandela.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes please explain.

MR NEMAKHAVANI: When Nelson Mandela was released, then we felt that we now understand political issues and accordingly we were happy that he was released. It then led us into knowing what was happening as far as politics was concerned. It is then that we people of Mahvunga decided to be involved in celebrating the release of Nelson Mandela. It was then that we went further because in other countries youth congresses were being formed and then we also decided to form such youth congress of Mahvunga village. What was more important was for us to be involved in politics because we were starting to realise that there are many things which we were expecting in relation to politics. When we formed this youth congress it was then that we started to establish something which we wanted to correct because there were people who were having grievances, not knowing how to overcome them. We were having grievances in connection with ritual murder and witchcraft, some of the obstacles which were disturbing and then that led us into asking our headman by then that we be allowed in that Mahvunga country, that all the people who were involved in witchcraft should be evicted if possible. What happened in which we were interested is that we were happy to free so that we were free.

MR NDOU: Of which headman are you speaking?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: I'm referring to the headman Mr Adam Mahvunga. There are people whom we wanted to be evicted. That letter was written and taken to the headman. We want the following people to be evicted, Mutshini, Tshinakaho, we also have Edward Mahvunga, Makwarela....

MR NDOU: M-A-K-W-A-R-E-L-A. What's the surname?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: The surname is Mamegwa.

MR NDOU: M-A-M-E-G-W-A.

MR NEMAKHAVANI: We also have Liswoga Matamela.

MR NDOU: Liswoga is L-I-S-W-O-G-A and Matamela is

M-A-T-A-M-E-L-A. Ja?

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you want him removed?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Because we want him to be removed because they were alleged to be witches.

CHAIRPERSON: All of them?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, all of them, but I still have some here.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, I know, but I mean all of them that you have mentioned were believed to be witches and that's why their removal was being sought.

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, it's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja.

MR NDOU: Any other names?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Petrus Mahvunga.

MR NDOU: Ja.

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Khangari Mabunga.

MR NDOU: Khangari is K-H-A-N-G-A-L-E Mabunga. Ja, any other person?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: We have Alilali Lafhefho.

MR NDOU: Alilali is A-L-I-L-A-L-I. Mapepu is spelt L-A-F-H-E-F-H-O.

Any other person?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Phophi Muravha.

MR NDOU: Popi is P-H-O-P-H-I and Muraba is M-U-R-A-V-H-A.

Now you say this list comprises of people that were being accused of practising witchcraft, is that right?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, it's correct.

MR NDOU: Now, who drew up this list?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: This list was drafted by us who were appointed to be in the youth congress, so that what we have should have channels.

MR NDOU: Now this list that you're referring to, is it the same list that you took the headman, Adam?

ADV DE JAGER: Could you kindly try - you say "The list was drawn by us. We were appointed in the youth congress", was he elected as a committee member himself or what was his position actually? We are talking in general of "we" and "us", we want to be more specific about his role.

MR NDOU: Thank you. Now this youth congress that you talk about, was it something already formalised, in the sense that you had office bearers?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, there were people who were appointed, who were leading us?

MR NDOU: And were you amongst ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Appointed or elected?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: I was one of the members.

CHAIRPERSON: Elected or appointed?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: I was elected to be the assistant.

CHAIRPERSON: Assistant what?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Assistant to the leader of the marshals.

MR NDOU: And as a marshal, what were you expected to do?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: When there are meetings it was expected that there must be order.

MR NDOU: So there were other people ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: The marshals saw to the discipline amongst the youth at meetings etc., matches and rallies, correct?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR NDOU: And the other office bearers, are they amongst the applicants here?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Up to now some are there, but some are not there.

MR NDOU: Now there you were - having drawn up a list which you then took the headman, Adam. That is the legally appointed headman of the area, is that correct?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: The one we take the list to.

MR NDOU: Now what did he do with the list?

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, just before you proceed on that point, on what basis did you identify these people to be witches? What was your reason?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: All the people in the village, because all the people were gathering, people went on to identify people. So anybody who knows that this person is suspected to be a witch, anybody was given a chance to say who was a witch, then we'll write the name down.

ADV SIGODI: In other words, you just wrote the name on the basis of suspicion, you did not go to any Sangoma, or traditional, or witch-doctor, to identify who were the witches in the village?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: No, we didn't go to the witch-doctors or anybody to find out that, but people were saying that according to their experience as they grew up.

ADV SIGODI: Okay.

MR NDOU: Thank you. Then what happened to the list?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: What happened is that we went to the headman's kraal. On our arrival we gathered there, then two kids were appointed and left and they were given an envelope with that letter, so that they can submit it to the headman and then the headman could come and speak with the people.

And then the headman arrived and read the letter which was written. It's then that letter, he said that he wanted to find out the feeling of the people by himself and the people pointed out that they wanted those people to be evicted because they no longer wanted to stay with them.

What was funny is that the headman concurred with, to such an extent that he gave us a car so that those people should be followed to their homes, so that they can be called and come, but he said they must be allowed to board his car. So that he was supporting our statement, because it seems he was knowing that they were practising witchcraft.

Some of them arrived. Those who arrived, some agreed that no, they will leave the country. Then they were told to go and then they agreed, but Edward Mahvunga did not agree.

CHAIRPERSON: Did all of them agree when persuaded or ...?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Some agreed, except Edward Mahvunga

CHAIRPERSON: How many came?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Three women and Edward Mahvunga.

MR NDOU: And after agreeing that they will leave, did they later on leave?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, later on they left.

MR NDOU: And you say all these happenings were taking place after the release of President Nelson Mandela, is that right?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, that's right.

MR NDOU: Now what happened when Edward refused to go?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Edward pointed out that he won't go in that country or village and mentioned that he cannot be given instructions by the headman who was there at the time.

Then he pointed out that he will not co-operate with anything which will be mentioned in that village. And he pointed out that he will do his own things alone. So meaning that he will not co-operate or listen anything. This is, he will do what he wants, as he wishes and not what the headman intended to do.

At the end the crowd dispersed and the meeting was over. As this went on ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Did he say so in front of everybody?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Could you please repeat your question?

CHAIRPERSON: Did he say so in front of everybody?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, in front of everybody.

CHAIRPERSON: How many people heard this?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: There were many people there.

MR NDOU: Yes?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: There were incidents which occurred later on.

MR NDOU: Which incidents?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Incidents in connection with the deceased, Mr Edward Mahvunga, and others who are amongst us here.

MR NDOU: What happened?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: After when Mr Mahvunga denied to leave the village, what happened is that there were intimidations which were made against some of the youth. And that thing, because of that problem with the deceased of refusing to go, there were meetings which were held in-between.

We tried to gather the whole village. In fact, all the people gathered and went to the place of Mr Edward Mahvunga. On their arrival they requested him to take what belongs to him and leave the country.

MR NDOU: Is that on the 6th of April?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: No, that was not that day.

MR NDOU: Okay.

MR NEMAKHAVANI: It's then that we decided to find out an alternative route which would lead to Mr Mahvunga's eviction. Then we decided to call the commanders of the police, maybe they will help to make him leave the country, or village.

And then people were appointed to go and fetch the police commanders and then they came back with them. The commander who was there was with the leader of the Defence Force. What happened is that we explained what we were fighting for and they were put clear on why they were called upon. And then they went to the home of the deceased and then they negotiated with him. It's then that the deceased refused, saying that he won't go.

Then they tried to persuade him in all ways possible. It's then that he ended up refusing to leave. Those commanders of the police and the Defence Force came back to us and indicated that they are unable to help us in getting the man to leave the village. And the people pointed out that "If the deceased is not going, if something at the end will happened, don't be surprised if we take other steps because we have tried in all ways possible, we even followed the legal routes, we called upon you, the legal people, to come and help us", but they were also unable to get him to go.

At the end that day we dispersed. Then there was an item in which we were supposed to meet again. The people were going to gather at that village, at that home or kraal. It's that day where the incident of killing the deceased happened.

MR NDOU: That was on the 6th of April?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes.

MR NDOU: Okay.

MR NEMAKHAVANI: It's then that the people pleaded with the deceased to leave and the deceased refused to go, saying that he won't do such a thing. And then he did say that he is going to fight on and he will defend himself, so that he cannot be evicted.

What happened is that there were differences, which led to a fight. What happened is that there was a war between the deceased and all the people who were there at that moment.

MR NDOU: And you were also part of the group?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, I was part of the group. What happened is that we tried to find things like petrol, so that it can be used in what would be taking place in that kraal.

MR NDOU: Who brought the petrol?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: The person who was sent to collect the petrol, I don't remember, but it was also in my possession by then. I also collected money for the petrol to be bought.

MR NDOU: Yes?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Again what happened is that the fight was on and the deceased was being assisted by his children and his wife. The fight took a long time. What happened then is that I managed to get inside the yard of that kraal.

On entering the yard I managed to pour petrol in the car and light it and it started to burn. Then I ran away, outside the yard. As the fight was on, people were saying there is a room where people are not allowed to enter and then the people of that home were not allowed to enter that room.

So what I did, I took that petrol and broke the windows of that house, of that room or house and looked through the window what was inside. I found that there was a big jacket and a baby bed. There was a jacket which was very big and a small bed for kids. People said there are things inside, I must be careful, but I said there is nothing. People said "Burn it, you will see them running away, getting out". Then I poured petrol on the curtains and everything which was there. Then I lit inside there. Then I ran away again.

The deceased was not yet dead and the kids and the wife were still there and they tried to make that room ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Just tell me something. When you burnt these curtains in this room, did anything happen?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: We watched to see if something will happen, but nothing happened.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MR NDOU: Yes, proceed.

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Later I saw the deceased, that his eyes were bleeding and he was staggering, running into the house and then kids ran inside the house and the wife. Some were trying to put the fire down. It's then that we - they will fight while they were inside the house. It's here that people decided to request the wife and the kids to get out of the house.

It's then that the person with whom we agreed that the wife and the kids must get out, I'm the person who got inside and took the hand of the wife and took her outside, with these small kids. I escorted them a bit among the group of the people, telling them that these are not the people, we are not fighting with them. Then we escorted them and nothing was done to them. Then I went back again and the fight was still on.

Later on, when entering the house, the deceased was lying on the ground. What happened is that he was being stoned at and I also participated in stoning him. While we were busy stoning him, somebody came with a tube, a wheel tube for a tractor with fire and it was thrown over his body. I'm also one of the persons who took the sponges of the sofas and blankets and threw them over the body. And we went to verify that he died. Then he died while we were watching.

It's then that people who were outside were called to see and verify that of course he's dead. It's then that later, when he's dead, then we dispersed.

MR NDOU: So you admit that by virtue of your presence at the deceased' kraal, when the violence was being committed on the deceased, you were also aware of the assault on the deceased and his family and that you also intended to make common cause with those who were present and who were actually perpetrating the assault, is that correct?

CHAIRPERSON: He says he was part - he actually participated in the assault. He participated in killing the deceased. It's not a question of common cause.

MR NDOU: I thought maybe it will be satisfied(?) whether he actually killed ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: He says he fuelled the flames, he threw things on the flames.

MR NDOU: Okay, fine. I just wanted to cover this aspect later on, as to the question of common purpose. I'll leave it if there's no problem. I don't have any problem.

So you say you participated in the killing of the deceased?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes.

MR NDOU: I see. Now is there any other thing that you wish to tell the Committee? Is there anything that you've left out, as to what you did on the day in question and as pertains these offences that you appear before the Committee to tell them that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You know my personal problem is that you've disclosed, I think enough. I still don't know how you've complied with the other requirement of the Act. The political motive.

MR NDOU: Okay, fine thanks.

Now you say you had formed yourself into a youth congress, now how do you marry the death of the deceased with a political motive?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: The deceased was a person who was fighting by all means, fighting against all those things which were done politically.

MR NDOU: What did he do?

CHAIRPERSON: No. Look here, this is what confused me. As far as I understand this applicant's evidence, it's that this guy, the deceased, was a witch or a wizard, as a result of which a "trek pass" was issued, which he refused to adhere to. As a result of him refusing to adhere to that trek pass, he was assaulted, set alight and killed. How does that become a political act? I'm not saying that it doesn't, I need the evidence to show me.

MR NDOU: Okay, perhaps that needs to come out and it's just that I'm not listening to what the Venda interpreter is saying. Maybe I'll need to put that on. Because as he was giving evidence he indicated that certain incidents, where there was a confrontation between the deceased and the youth of the area took place, even the day before the 6th of April, I thought that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, that was interpreted. The fact of the matter is that his "trek pass" was related to alleged wizardry. What political implications can be attached to his wizardry, in order to comply with the Act?

MR NDOU: Yes, that's why I wanted him to state as to what it is that he did that he says has got a political motive and how he marries that with the question of witchcraft.

CHAIRPERSON: No, he didn't, not yet.

MR NDOU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Or if he did, it's very vague to me.

MR NDOU: Yes, that's why I said he indicated that there was a confrontation. Now I want him to state the confrontation.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou, you're misunderstand me, or maybe you don't understand me properly. That there were confrontations with the deceased may be true. The version of the applicant is not that the deceased was killed because of his confrontations. The version of this applicant is that the deceased was killed because of his arrogance in not wanting to adhere to the "trek pass" instructions and that he said he would do as he pleases. There were various attempts to get him removed, through the police etc., and the inhabitants said well then we're going to take the thing in our own hands. and that is how he met his death.

Now this political motive is a requirement of the Act. How does it play a part, or how do we establish it, if at all, in this application?

MR NDOU: Maybe we're not getting each other. I agree with you, that we're not getting each other. He said that immediately after they had issued a list they called several meetings at which they discussed with these people to leave the area and they refused to leave the area.

Immediately thereafter he had problems with the youth, because then he started confronting them about meetings which they were holding in the area. Now that's why I say perhaps that did not come out clearly, the way maybe it was interpreted. That is why I was putting it to him as to how he marries the actions pertaining to the calling of the meeting that pertained to the question of witchcraft and the resultant confrontation with the youth pertaining to its suppression of the political activity in the area. I think that's what needs to come out.

CHAIRPERSON: Why was he killed?

MR NDOU: According to my instructions, he was killed because he refused to go and also because he was suppressing political activity. Those are my instructions.

CHAIRPERSON: Well then it hasn't come out so clearly from the evidence. Maybe you can have another go at getting it out of your client.

MR NDOU: Yes. As the Chairman pleases.

Now Mr Nemakhavani, I want you to explain very slowly and very clearly as to how you tried to marry what you call firstly as a meeting that pertained to ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: But honestly, Mr Ndou, I don't think you should put a leading question about something that really worries ... and is the crux of the matter. Let him explain why they killed the deceased.

MR NDOU: Ja, okay. They want to find out why you killed the deceased.

MR NEMAKHAVANI: What happened is that firstly, the deceased was a person who was in the list of the people who were accused of witchcraft, who were expected to be evicted and then secondly, or again, what the deceased was doing ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Just hold that. Can the interpreter please repeat that answer. I couldn't hear from the beginning. The whole answer.

MR NEMAKHAVANI: I was showing that the deceased was one of the people who were in the list of the people who were expected to be evicted, who were falling under the ambit of witchcraft. By then, when we were holding some meetings, when we said there were some obstacle which we wanted to remove, which were disturbing us, we took witchcraft as some of the things which we want to remove before us, as we were expecting to have freedom.

Then we reached an extent where witchcraft was taken in this way. It was one of the obstacles which was oppressing us. It's one of the things which were hurting us. It's then that we found it ...(indistinct) that now that we see we are free, then we will remove it. It's then that we found that the deceased was on the list of the witches.

Another measure problem is that after he was listed, he was the person who was fighting very hard with the meetings which were held and he was against the singing of the freedom songs and that and everything which was done under, during those days. He was a person who was fighting with that in all ways possible.

CHAIRPERSON: How was - let me ask you, did you mean to say that witchcraft was politically oppressive? When you said that the witchcraft was an oppressive aspect in your lives.

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Witches were people who were performing very unusual things. We realised that in those days when things were being exposed, especially to the chiefs, they were the ones who were quite aware of their ill-doings. They will not like that to be exposed as that was the requirement from the people in the village.

CHAIRPERSON: Look those unusual things, I think, as I understand the evidence so far, amounted to criminal activities on the part of the witches or wizards. Do you understand?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, I do.

CHAIRPERSON: All I'm asking very simply, the reasons for wanting to get rid of these witches or people you thought were witches, how would that improve the political life of the inhabitants?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well we actually wanted to evict these people from our village because this would lead eventually to the fact that those who were ruling were in the old order and as such the central government would then be able to realise that we were not pleased with the way the old order was behaving. So that we will then take the then government back to Pretoria or to the central government, I mean to say.

CHAIRPERSON: What did the wizards and witches have to do with that? How did they stop that, if at all?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: You mean the evicting of witches?

CHAIRPERSON: No. You say you're unhappy with that order, political order, you needed to see to it that the order is transformed so that the country goes back to the central government of South Africa, correct? That's how I understand your reasoning.

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, it is true.

CHAIRPERSON: Were the witches or the wizards, or the activities a hurdle in that aim to get Venda back to the central government of South Africa?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well the witches, the alleged witches had connections with the people who were involved in ritual murders, because the way it used to happen is that it was very difficult to present this to the leaders of the government of the day.

CHAIRPERSON: Now killing a witch, how would that help getting back to central government?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: The main aim was not to kill.

CHAIRPERSON: You can't tell me that the aim wasn't to kill Edward, you pleaded guilty - not pleased guilty, you say you were guilty of killing him. We're trying to find out why. You've come to the point where you say that you were part of the people who needed to get, or wanted to get Venda back to the central government of South Africa. All I'm asking you, how by killing a person you thought was a wizard or witch, how would that killing assist or contribute or enhance the moving back to Pretoria?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: With regard to the killing of the witch and how it contributed to the eventual transformation of the government to the central government, it does indicate that with regard to the hit list people, we could not indicate that they were going to be killed, we merely said they were to be evicted. Those who agreed with the eviction went, but we did not agree on the killing specifically as to make that we had to achieve our aim. Mainly we wanted them to be evicted.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, we're playing with words now, we've established that. How did the eviction of those wizards or witches, how was their eviction intended to assist the country politically in getting back to the central government?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Will you repeat again? Please repeat the question.

CHAIRPERSON: Please explain to us how the evictions of wizards and witches were going to assist in Venda going back to Pretoria?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well those people who were responsible in giving them accommodation were traditional leaders and they had a confrontation with us. Therefore, it indicated that there was not a good political situation and people realised that there were some big problems in the country.

ADV DE JAGER: But your chief didn't harbour them, he didn't give them accommodation, he evicted them, he gave them a trek pass. So he wasn't approving of what this man was doing, so how could the eviction of the witch or the suspected witch from one district in Venda to another district in Venda, bring back Venda to Pretoria, to the central government?

INTERPRETER: Could you repeat the question, he doesn't seem to be following.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes.

MR NEMAKHAVANI: It was the main aim of us to make the country ungovernable.

ADV DE JAGER: How would the eviction of a witch help to make the country ungovernable?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: It will be mainly through the reasoning behind of the people not being satisfied with the fact that when these people are evicted they had to be put on other districts.

CHAIRPERSON: If they're gone, how would that help to get back to Pretoria? Except there will be less people to go and march to Pretoria.

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well it will be helpful inasfar as ...(indistinct) serious in South Africa, or the country of South Africa. There was this political freedom, so that the then government was not really acceptable. That is why even in the independent homelands the government of the day was not acceptable and the activities thereof. It will lead to the aim that the people had in mind, so that the government of the day was not the real government that was expected of the people, I mean from the people.

CHAIRPERSON: Maybe I must take it from a different angle, I don't know. You've got the witches here and the wizards. The majority of the people want to go back to Pretoria. What did the wizards and witches and these

people who were involved in the ritual murders, what did they do, or how did they contribute to keeping you people from going back to Pretoria, or preventing you from going back to Pretoria?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: You mean what contributions?

CHAIRPERSON: What did they do to prevent the people from going back to Pretoria and getting their freedom?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Actually what we were fighting for was that as people who were not doing things which were acceptable by the people, that is why we decided that it will be a good tool of linking the political events when the political freedom was being sought, so that it will lead to the main aim and achievement thereof.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know how else to ask this. Why couldn't you go back to Pretoria while the witches were in the area?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Witches were doing various activities which were not acceptable in the communities.

CHAIRPERSON: Well maybe it wasn't acceptable, but how did they prevent you going back to Pretoria, which was your political aim?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: I cannot follow the question. Will you repeat the question please.

CHAIRPERSON: Did they stop you from going back to Pretoria, these witches? Did they hinder your quest for freedom?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, because these witches and the traditional leaders, who were also involved in ritual murder cases, were not really in line with the regaining of the political freedom of taking Venda back to the central government, they were the ones who were very influential.

CHAIRPERSON: On who? Who did they influence?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: The traditional leaders were chosen and they were under the then okay central government.

CHAIRPERSON: So you say they were involved with each other with the then Pretoria Government, to prevent a reincorporation?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Now we're getting somewhere. Now how did you people reason that by getting rid of the witches, that you route to Pretoria would be made easier?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Actually we wanted that as all those activities were taking place, it will be in the onus of those central government people that this independent homeland was ungovernable. Therefore ...

CHAIRPERSON: I see. Do I understand you correctly, that the powers that be in Venda at the time could only govern effectively with the assistance of the witches?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, that was - not that they will govern well with the assistance of the witches, but they themselves, the people who were practising witchcraft were having links with these people who were leading.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja. Could they - now getting rid of them, as I understand your argument, would make the country ungovernable, getting rid of the witches?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Were these witches important for the government at the time in Venda to control Venda?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well that is why I'm trying to indicate that these people who were alleged to be witches and who were involved in ritual murders, were linked with each other. That is why we would be able to say those who were involved in witchcraft were also traditional leaders and they were the ones who were leading in those days.

CHAIRPERSON: Was their relationship or their linkage important for controlling Venda and its people?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, there was that link.

CHAIRPERSON: As the Pretoria regime wanted at the time?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Sorry, could you just repeat the question.

CHAIRPERSON: As the Pretoria regime of the time wanted, or required?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Are you talking about wanting witches, or witchcraft practising?

CHAIRPERSON: Wanting the control of Venda, the status quo to remain.

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Your traditional leader was your headman, wasn't it? Your chief.

MR NEMAKHAVANI: He was a man.

ADV DE JAGER: So Adam was your traditional leader in your village, is that correct?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, it is.

ADV DE JAGER: He wasn't involved with witches?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well I'm not too sure about that.

ADV DE JAGER: But he gave them the trek pass.

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So if there was a relationship between them in controlling the government as the Nationalist Government of Pretoria wanted, why would he give the trek pass?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: The situation in those days, when we were telling that they should evict those people they understood it to have been the fact that people had to do what was expected of them from the people.

CHAIRPERSON: I see.

MR NDOU: Is there anything else that you want to add?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: No.

MR NDOU: That is all.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg?

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

This youth congress that you referred to, who was the chairman of that?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well I can't remember exactly how we appointed the leaders in the youth congress.

CHAIRPERSON: We don't ask how you did it, we ask who?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: The chairperson was - that is why I'm saying I've forgotten. Maybe I should consult and find out exactly who the chairperson was, because I didn't expect this line of questioning regarding the members of the committee.

ADV DE JAGER: But he was your leader. Who was your leader at that stage? Because I would presume that the leader would be the chairperson.

MR NEMAKHAVANI: It is true.

ADV DE JAGER: Now who was the leader? Can't you remember?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well that is what I am saying, I have forgotten the composition of the leadership in the Committee.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Was it one of the person now making application for amnesty, or can't you remember that either?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: It's not one of the applicants.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Someone else.

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Mm.

MR VAN RENSBURG: So can you - what was the name of this youth congress, this organisation that you belonged to?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Mabunga Youth Congress.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And on which date were you elected as a Marshall of this congress?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: I can't remember the date really.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg, your instructions are to dispute the existence of this youth congress?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, indeed, Mr Chairman. Thank you.

You can't remember the date. Was it before or after Mr Nelson Mandela was released from prison?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: It was after the release of Mr Mandela.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And where was this meeting held that formed this youth congress?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: In the primary, which was in our vicinity, or in our area.

CHAIRPERSON: Primary what?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Mabunga(?) Primary School.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Did you - what were your links with the ANC, this youth congress' links with the ANC?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: It was - well we didn't really have that direct link with the national ANC, we were not really fully fledged members of the ANC.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Let me put it to you this way, you had no links with the ANC.

MR NEMAKHAVANI: In which way?

MR VAN RENSBURG: The congress, the Mabunga Youth Congress had no links with the ANC, no formal links with the ANC.

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, it is true.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it an alliance and therefore no formal links?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: When we formed the Youth Congress, the main aim was to have a - when the congress was formed the main aim that was that it will be integrated in the ANC structure.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you remember the organisation called the South African Youth Congress, SAYCO?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: No, I don't know that.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Did you have any links with any other political organisation?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well the link that I had was that of the other youth congresses in other regions or other countries.

MR VAN RENSBURG: For instance?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: For instance, if there was another country in which we were invited to have the formation of the youth congress.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, give us the names of those youth congresses that you had links, or alliance with.

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Matanda Youth Congress. M-A-T-A-N-D-A Youth Congress.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And were you democratically yourself, you were democratically elected as a Marshall. So the people took a vote to appoint you to that position?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: When I was appointed I was an additional member who, I mean to those who were democratically elected. That is why I was merely an assistant.

ADV DE JAGER: So you yourself weren't elected, you were sort of coopted as an additional member?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: I was an assistant just like advice, by the people who were already in the Committee. Sort of yes, coopted.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes. I put it to you that in your evidence-in-chief you specifically testified that you were elected to be an assistant or a marshal.

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well I'm trying to demonstrate that I was coopted by those people who were already members.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Man, were you elected or appointed? It's an easy question.

CHAIRPERSON: He's just saying that he was coopted. Cooption is not elected or appointed.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you, I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

MR NDOU: If I may add, the word ...(Venda) in Venda means both appointment and election. So it's the same word.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I will proceed, thank you.

Which of the other members who are now making amnesty applications with you, were also on that forum?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well I can give you the name of Mr Muladi.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Pardon? Can you spell that for me, or just repeat his name.

MR NEMAKHAVANI: M-U-L-A-D-I, Abel.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Anyone else?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: M-A-K-A-T-U, Johannes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Andrew.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Andrew who?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: M-A-I-V-H-A, Andrew ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: He's not an applicant here. Those who you have been previously dealt with.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes. My question is, you must give us the names of the applicants before this Commission, who were members of that Committee.

ADV DE JAGER: Could you perhaps assist, Mr Ndou, you've got an index there.

MR NDOU: Pardon?

ADV DE JAGER: Could you perhaps assist us, you've got an index there.

MR NDOU: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Could the applicant perhaps have a look at the index and tell us whether any of those people mentioned there were committee members or forum members, or on the executive or something in this youth congress.

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well I could not follow your question. Therefore I want to submit that among the people who are applying, one person whom I remember is Abel Muladi.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

ADV DE JAGER: That's number 1 on the list.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's look at it this way. Abel Muladi, was he a member of the executive?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: I think yes, he was one of us.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja. Mudahu(?)

MR NEMAKHAVANI: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Ramasitisi RK? I don't know what's the RK.

MR NEMAKHAVANI: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Masithulelea J?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Muhadi?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Rerani?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: No.

CHAIRPERSON: de Villiers? - Sihoma(?), was he a member of the executive?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Ja, he was also a marshal.

CHAIRPERSON: We're asking if he was a member of the executive.

MR NEMAKHAVANI: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Ragwala?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Johanna Mopane Matheba - no, no, sorry. So we've done all. So the only person of the applicants who was a member of the executive is Muladi?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, he was with me.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

And yourself, you were also a member of the executive, coopted as a member.

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, like I indicated before.

CHAIRPERSON: The previous witness wasn't a member of the executive, the previous applicant? You say Ramasitsi.

MR NEMAKHAVANI: No.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I must say, I find this strange that you can name the members of the applicants who were on the executive, but you can't remember the name of the chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: No that's not absolutely correct, Mr van Rensburg. What has happened here, I've gone through the names of the applicants and he could say whether they were on the executive or not. It's quite different from trying to ask a person to try to remember who else was there. I'm suggesting names to him, I'm giving him names, he's saying look, now that you mention that name, he wasn't or he was. But to ask him independently to try to remember is another matter.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I can accept that, thank you, Mr Chairman.

And the chairman of this Mabunga Youth Congress, can you perhaps remember if he took part in the murder and the arson and the actions that took place on the 6th of April?

CHAIRPERSON: Who is that?

MR VAN RENSBURG: The chairman of this Mahvunga Youth Congress.

Can you remember if he took part in those actions?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: No.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know how fair it is because he doesn't remember who the chairman was.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I can accept if he says he cannot remember. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

The previous witness, I got the impression, gave testimony to the effect that this organisation of yours was not fully formed yet, it was in the process of being formed. What do you say to that?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well, that's true, it was not fully formed.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Was it ever formed at a later stage, as a formal organisation, perhaps after the occurrence of the 6th of April?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well I do have a problem here, that after the even what happened was that we were later arrested and when we were released on bail we were not really actively involved in what took place before.

MR VAN RENSBURG: If I can refer you to paragraph 7(a) and 7(b) of your application. 7(a) you were requested to state the following:

And there you stated:

And also further, at (b), you were requested:

And there you stated:

Now what I'd like to know from you is, why didn't you state there that you were actually an office bearer of this Mabunga Youth Congress.

CHAIRPERSON: A youth congress is not necessarily a political organisation.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Mr Chairman, with all due respect, I think I got the other impression, but I will clear it up in cross-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, ja, please do.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Well let's get to that first, Mabunga Youth Congress, what was the aim of this association or this organisation?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: The youth congress had a main objective, that when were affiliating under the ANC ...

MR VAN RENSBURG: So were you an organisation with political motives?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, it is true.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Were you a political organisation?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: It was not fully fledged as an organisation, political organisation.

MR VAN RENSBURG: But surely it was a body was it not, it was an organised body?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Are you referring to the congress, or to ...

MR VAN RENSBURG: The congress.

MR NEMAKHAVANI: I'm trying to demonstrate that it was formed so that it will affiliate under ANC, so that it should not be an independent body which didn't have a link with the ANC.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes. The question is simple. Why didn't you write down - in those circumstances, having formed a body with political objectives to be associated or registered or aligned with the ANC, why didn't you write in your application that you were a member of such? In fact an office bearer of such an organisation.

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well I knew that I was under the organisation which was affiliating under the ANC. That is why I talk about ANC specifically.

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, Sir ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: What standard did you reach at school?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: I passed standard 10, I reached standard 10.

ADV DE JAGER: Before this incident?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: No.

ADV DE JAGER: Okay, what standard did you reach in 1990?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: I was in standard 9.

ADV DE JAGER: Nine. This form, whose handwriting is it? Could you have a look perhaps. Could you assist him, Mr Ndou? Page 120, your name, who wrote that?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: I wrote it myself.

ADV DE JAGER: Now murder, arson and assault GBH, who wrote that?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: What happened is that as we were filling in these forms ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: No, it's no - because it's a different handwriting here. I don't want to trick you, I only want to know who wrote it. Another person?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well I think it's another person, one of the people who were there when we were filling in.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes. And the same on page 121? The part, paragraph 10, that's also another person?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: And the form on page 123, who completed that one?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well I'm the one who wrote that, except on 11.

ADV DE JAGER: I see. Thank you.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

So surely before you signed the form on the bottom there, you have read through it to see what the other person has written down there?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And you agreed with that?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, I do.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Now the question remains, why didn't you insist that there also be written that you were a member of this youth congress, in fact an office bearer thereof?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well I might have been a little confused by the language.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I put it to you that because not one of the applicants referred to the existence of such a youth congress, and because of the fact that you cannot now remember the name of such an important figure as the leader thereof, that it in fact did not exist as a youth congress, or as an organising body.

MR NEMAKHAVANI: It existed.

ADV DE JAGER: Page 124, where did that originate from and when?

MS PATEL: Honourable Chairperson, these were attached to the application forms. If you see page 123, it says ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, I see it, but on reading it, who typed it ...(intervention)

MS PATEL: No, these came in with the forms, Honourable Chairperson. I believe the applicants would be best in a position to give us the source of the document.

ADV DE JAGER: Thanks. Could you assist us please, page 124. It's referred to on the previous page as:

And that was not your present application, it was the indemnity application. Who completed that, or who typed it for you?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: It was Mr Abraham Ruruli(?).

ADV DE JAGER: Did you read it before it was sent?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: I know the contents.

ADV DE JAGER: Do you agree with that?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, I do.

ADV DE JAGER: Could you then perhaps explain to me the third paragraph:

Now if you agree with this, how could the killing of the witches then be related to any political objective?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Because in whatever manner we were doing in our activities, it was in a logical political manner, like in the singing and the chanting of political freedom songs, ANC and the like.

INTERPRETER: Sorry for interrupting.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I continue.

Let's move on a little bit now to the ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) whether the youth congress existed or not?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I think I have finished by making that statement that in fact he it not exist.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you.

Let's move on a little bit now to the time when the list of witches were informed that they have to evict the area and the deceased refused to leave. You said that the chief's car was actually used to inform those people of the decision of the chief, namely that they should leave, and that includes the deceased, is that correct?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well I said it was used to go and call those people to come to the chief's kraal.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I see. Now were all these people on the list assembled in the chief's kraal, including the deceased?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Not all of them.

MR VAN RENSBURG: But the deceased, he was there?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Did the chief at any stage hand to the deceased a written notice that he must evict the area?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: You saw that?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, I was there, I saw that.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Did you see that paper?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well I didn't really hold that in my hand, but I saw it because I was there.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And you accepted that to be the trek pass, is that correct?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, Sir.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Now was there - and you can tell us if you don't know this, was there cut-off date given to the deceased to leave?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: There was no cut-off date. It was only saying immediately. It was still early in the morning.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Now is it not so then that in the traditional way, the only reason when a chief can actually issue a "trek pass" for a person to move immediately, without an extension, without giving him time, the only instance when he should move immediately is when that person is accused as a witch? Do you agree with that statement?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well could you just repeat the statement.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay, I'll make it simpler. According to you own knowledge, is it not so that a person will an immediate trek pass, only in one instance, and that is when he was pointed as a witch?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Just have a direct and straight question. I'm a little confused in the manner in which you are putting ...

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, alright, just hold on now. Wait and listen then. What is being put to you is that the "trek pass" will be issued with immediate effect only when someone is accused of being a witch. In all other instances when a "trek pass" is issued it doesn't have force with immediate effect?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Petrus Mahvunga, the deceased' brother, was he also at that meeting?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: I can't remember - no, he wasn't in the meeting.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Are you saying ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You said there were three females and the deceased.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you, I missed that. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Was it at this meeting - let's skip that. You say that even after the meeting the deceased continued to intimidate the people, is that so?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, it is true.

MR VAN RENSBURG: How did the accused or the deceased continue to intimidate the people?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well there were several incidents which took place in my absence and I heard about it thereafter. Especially the assault in the mountain. I wasn't there. Like when people went to different individual villages of family members, I wasn't there. When they were threatened with arson, well they couldn't

come to my place, they went to other people's places.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay. Let me ask you this, did you yourself witness any intimidation by the deceased on any member of the community, after that paper was served on him, as you testified?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well what I can recall and what I witnessed is on a particular day when the deceased was indicating that he will chop the youth who were in one meeting in the chief's crawl, there was arson on Petrus Mahvunga's place. That is what I witnessed and that is where he threatened people, intimidated.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, if I understand you correctly, he threatened to do something to the people who had burnt or attacked his kraal, is that correct?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, it is true.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And you saw that as intimidation?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, in the manner in which he was saying it.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay. You testified that the witches that had to be removed was one of the obstacles that oppressed you at the time. Can I ask you, what other obstacles are you referring to if you say the witches were only one of them?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well something as well I can demonstrate are the ritual murder cases.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, and apart from the ritual murders and the witches, witches' actions, anything else?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Those were the main ones, and these were the mere, major obstacles in our case.

MR VAN RENSBURG: So if I put that in another way, if the witches were removed and the ritual killings stopped, that would have gone a long way towards removing the oppression against yourself?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, I believe so.

MR VAN RENSBURG: You have heard the testimony of the professor who gave evidence yesterday, and he was of the opinion that at the time it was a popular belief that the chiefs were supporting the witches and therefore there was a political link between the witches and the chiefs, because the chiefs were part of the establishment. Did you hear that?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, I heard that.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay, now the question is, do you agree that that statement is not applicable in this specific circumstance, because the chief actually did everything in his power to expel the witches and to oppose them?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well he did that because of the prevailing situation.

MR VAN RENSBURG: You can just agree or disagree with my statement. The statement is, the chief opposed the witches.

CHAIRPERSON: No, that was not his evidence. He said he agreed with requests and therefore issued the trek passes, as was the practice, that he had to what the people wanted. That's how I understand his evidence.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I will rephrase that question.

Did you expect the chief to do anything else against the witches, something that he did not do?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Could you repeat the question.

MR VAN RENSBURG: My question is, at the time, before the deceased was killed, did you expect the chief to do something about this problem with the witches, which he did not do?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: No.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I've got no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

Sir, just for clarity's sake, can you - I'm trying to understand your link between the role of the witches, their connection to the chiefs and that link with Pretoria and how that was political in your view. But to bring it back to the facts of this case, we've heard the previous witness say that the deceased didn't even know who Mandela was, that it had to be explained to him, that he didn't have any political understanding. So can you explain to us how the deceased, how Mr Mahvunga had assisted or played a role in maintaining the structures in Venda, the political structures in Venda and thereby oppressed you and the community.

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well what I can say is that the deceased was involved in obstructing the activities. It was when he obstructed the progress as far as political activities were concerned in those days.

MS PATEL: Alright. And then, the previous applicant had said to us that the allegation about Mr Mahvunga being a wizard, only arose after there was intimidation from him regarding your political activity. My understanding of your testimony is that it is in fact the opposite, that the allegation of Mr Mahvunga being a wizard had arisen prior to him interfering in your political activity. Would you like to comment?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Demonstrating that the allegations started in a specific period?

MS PATEL: Yes.

MR NEMAKHAVANI: The allegations Mr Mahvunga, on his witch activities, well we grew up knowing that it was being indicated, especially from those people who knew, the elderly people, they gave examples which really concretises the issue.

MS PATEL: Was this common knowledge, was it discussed at the meetings that were held with members of the youth congress and the community at large?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, I'm trying to demonstrate that it was known that as it was being discussed, especially when it was necessary, just to make sure that the evidence was really concrete.

MS PATEL: And then just - you say you weren't at the meeting on the mountain where people were assaulted, where the girls were assaulted, is that correct?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, I wasn't in the meeting.

MS PATEL: Okay. Can you tell us - just to move to the events on the 6th of April, how many people do you estimate from the community were present there, at the home of Mr Mahvunga?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Those people were many, maybe around 2 000. Because as far as I understand, some neighbouring community people were there.

MS PATEL: Would you estimate it at 1 000, 2 000 or a couple of hundred people? How many would you estimate it at being?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Around approximately 2 000.

MS PATEL: Okay.

ADV DE JAGER: Would you say all the people staying in the village attended this meeting, or were there some people staying at home?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well, one could not judge and indicate that some people were at home.

ADV DE JAGER: It really doesn't help me, but okay.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel, have you still got a long time to go?

MS PATEL: No, no, I won't be much longer. Thank you, Honourable Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, then we can continue.

MS PATEL: Okay, thank you.

Then just the question of the petrol being taken to the home of Mr Mahvunga, this petrol was bought and you collected the money for it, not so?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: I was one of those people who collected the money.

MS PATEL: Okay. And do you know which petrol station the petrol was bought from and how far is this petrol station?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: I know where it was bought.

MS PATEL: Okay. How far is this petrol station from the house of Mr Mahvunga?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Do you mean in terms of kilometres?

MS PATEL: Yes. Or how long would it take to walk there?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Not more than 25 minutes, to and fro.

MS PATEL: Do you have any idea at what stage that decision was taken to get the petrol? Who made the decision?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: You mean the decision on buying the petrol?

MS PATEL: Yes.

MR NEMAKHAVANI: It was done there and then, immediately.

MS PATEL: No, but you were there for some four or five hours, so at what stage during that period? Or was the petrol taken with, on the way to the house of the deceased?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well that was after we had gone into the house, or around the house.

MS PATEL: After you had gained access into the house?

MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, yes.

MS PATEL: Alright. Thank you, Honourable Chairperson, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou, have you got any questions?

MR NDOU: I do not wish to add anything, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you're excused. We'll adjourn for lunch till about half past one.

MR NDOU: Thank you Mr Chairman. I am now calling no.2724/96, that of John Masithulela.

May I also indicate inasfar as this applicant is concerned just finalising the affidavits in respect of all of them so we will be able to submit some of them.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you mean you are going to submit some of them if they are all being finalised? Wouldn't you submit all of them?

MR NDOU: Yes. They will all be ready.

CHAIRPERSON: Who is this applicant?

MR NDOU: Masithulela, John. Page 52.

JOHN MASITHULELA: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR NDOU: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Masithulela I see that in your application that you brought before the Committee is that you indicate that you are here to seek amnesty in respect of offences for which you were convicted during November 1992, it being public violence, murder and arson. Were you convicted of all these three offences?

MR MASITHULELA: Yes.

MR NDOU: And for that you were in prison for a period of 12 years, is that correct?

MR MASITHULELA: That is correct.

MR NDOU: Now we have evidence here, and I want you to explain to the Committee ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Wait before you carry on, public violence in respect of what?

MR MASITHULELA: It's in connection with being involved in a group which were making violence at Hamavonga.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja on whose house or on who or what?

MR MASITHULELA: It is in the house of Mr Edward Mahvunga and Petrus Mahvunga.

CHAIRPERSON: And murder? Mr Ndou do you know in respect of what crimes he's making application?

MR NDOU: Yes I do.

CHAIRPERSON: Please tell us.

MR NDOU: Now you also indicate that you ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No you tell us what you got instructions ...(intervention)

MR NDOU: It is in the murder of her daughter, ...(indistinct) government ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: And arson?

MR NDOU: It's also in respect of the burning ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: And the public violence?

MR NDOU: I think the public violence was generalised in a sense it pertained to the violence that took as an alternative charge to the charge of arson that took place at Petrus' house.

CHAIRPERSON: Petrus.

MR VAN RENSBURG: With respect Mr Chairman I don't think that is so. I think the accused was convicted of arson as an alternative count to count 3 which actually happened on the 28th of February at the house of the deceased. That is how I understand it.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you people are confusing me.

MR NDOU: Are you talking about the arson or the public violence?

ADV DE JAGER: He was accused no.4. He was sentenced for public violence - four years imprisonment. That's on page 213. Counts three and seven taken together to 12 years imprisonment. Three was the arson and seven was the murder of Edward. And three was the burning of the house. So it was public violence, according to the judgment on page 213.

CHAIRPERSON: He was found guilty of public violence in the alternative on count 2, which was the arson charge in respect of the deceased's house on the 28th of February. He was also convicted of murder of the deceased and arson in respect of the deceased's house that occurred on the 6th.

MR NDOU: Now Mr Masithulela I want you to explain to the Committee as to how it came about that this whole incident took place, slowly and very clearly.

MR MASITHULELA: This violence started in 1990. It was during the time when the Venda government was not ruling properly. Myself as a youth I found it fit that I participated in overthrowing the power of the past government so that it can be totally abolished.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay we accept that now. You know you are here before us seeking amnesty in respect of the death and arson on the deceased. The death of the deceased and arson on his house and also public violence in respect of a gathering outside his brother's house. Correct?

MR MASITHULELA: Yes it's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now what did you do in respect of Petrus' house there?

MR MASITHULELA: In connection with Petrus' house I burnt - let me say I started by attempting to burn the house of Mr Petrus Mahvunga and then I went and burnt the house of Petrus Mahvunga and it burnt, that one.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you together with people or?

MR MASITHULELA: Yes I was together with other youth.

CHAIRPERSON: So did the house burn?

MR MASITHULELA: Initially the fire burnt and it went down and it wasn't burnt - the first time. And for the second time we burnt it.

CHAIRPERSON: On the same day?

MR MASITHULELA: Now it was not on the same day.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright. And you were generally in a group whose actions were regarded as violent at that time, when you tried to burn?

MR MASITHULELA: The government of that day took us as if we were doing violence.

CHAIRPERSON: I am not talking about the government, I am asking what you did.

MR MASITHULELA: Could you please repeat your question.

CHAIRPERSON: You tried to burn Petrus' house on a particular day. You failed. When you did so you were in a group of people whose actions were violent, or intended to be violent.

MR MASITHULELA: Yes I can agree.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Now then you left his place, Petrus?

MR MASITHULELA: Yes we left that place.

CHAIRPERSON: And that occurred before the deceased died?

MR MASITHULELA: Could you repeat your question.

CHAIRPERSON: You know the deceased, Edward, the attack on Petrus' house occurred before Edward died.

MR MASITHULELA: Before the killing of Edward we first burnt the house.

CHAIRPERSON: Of Petrus?

MR MASITHULELA: Yes of Petrus.

CHAIRPERSON: But when you tried to burn Petrus' house it happened before the day Edward died, am I correct?

MR MASITHULELA: Yes he was not yet killed.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright. Now let's get on to the attack on Edward's house. What did you do there?

MR MASITHULELA: In Petrus Mahvunga's house I found myself in a group of youths who went there to burn ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Not Petrus, Edward.

MR MASITHULELA: Edward, okay, I didn't get you clear then. In the house of Edward Mahvunga I was in a group of youths who went to Edward Mahvunga to evict him to leave Mahvunga Village. As it has been already explained that he was given a "trek pass" and he was refusing to leave the village.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you believe that there was a "trek pass" for him?

MR MASITHULELA: Yes I agree but being told it was there, by the people who told me.

CHAIRPERSON: Who told you?

MR MASITHULELA: I was told by the youth, I was with them in the meeting.

CHAIRPERSON: Who?

MR MASITHULELA: I can't remember the name because in the meeting people were just speaking collectively or at the same time.

CHAIRPERSON: Whose meeting or what kind of meeting was it?

MR MASITHULELA: It was the youth meeting in connection with arranging the formation of the youth congress.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Then what happened?

MR MASITHULELA: The youth on arriving at Edward Mahvunga's house they tried to talk to him so that he can leave Mahvunga Village. The negotiations with Edward Mahvunga and the youth was such that they were not agreeing with each other because he was refusing to leave the country because he's having the house and the kids.

It happened that while they were exchanging different words where he was refusing to go they started a fight of throwing stones. People were throwing stones to the deceased, at the deceased and in the deceased's house to get that to the kids who were in the yard. The deceased was also throwing stones and the kids were doing likewise towards us.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr van Rensburg as far as what happened at the house, the stone throwing, the setting alight, the killing, the leaving of the women, are we having any disputes about that or can we accept what in broad happened there - there was a stone throwing and the deceased was killed?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes I think that can be accepted. I think there's only about three differences and that's minor differences. One is already on record I think, is if the family, the rest of the family were allowed to leave or escape. And the other one was this fight, was it actually started by the deceased or started by the mob. And I almost can't think of a third one. So regarding the broad events, ja, there is no ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Well I think it's common they've been killed.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: What's not common cause is the reason for the killing.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Isn't that the real dispute in the whole thing?

MR VAN RENSBURG: That is true.

ADV DE JAGER: And you've heard the evidence of the other people about the killing. In broad would he agree with that?

MR MASITHULELA: Yes I agree.

ADV DE JAGER: Is there anything you want to add to what they've already told us about the facts of the killing?

MR MASITHULELA: I don't have something which I want to add but I can just say or explain what I did on the very same day.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't want to add anything to what they say, not yet? Can you think of anything you want to add?

MR MASITHULELA: Ja, there is something new which I can add, but it is something which I heard about it. What I want to add is when the previous speaker, Nemakhavani, saying that he doesn't know the executive members of Myco, that is Mahvunga Youth Congress, I was told about them and they were known in the whole nation who they were.

CHAIRPERSON: He didn't, but that's what you want to add, that you knew the identities of those people?

MR MASITHULELA: Yes I know them.

CHAIRPERSON: Right. Now tell us what you did there at Edward's house.

MR MASITHULELA: The executive members - myself on the killing of the deceased I got into the house on the ...(indistinct) side using - getting into the yard of the deceased. I reached the garage of the car. I saw a car which was burning on the other side of it. I took a tyre which was close by. I made it catch fire and then go and burn the car which was already burning.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that all?

MR MASITHULELA: Yes, that's all.

CHAIRPERSON: You saw the stone throwing?

MR MASITHULELA: Yes I saw them.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you with it, do you associate with it?

MR MASITHULELA: Yes I associate myself with that.

CHAIRPERSON: You knew that the deceased was going to die?

MR MASITHULELA: Could you please repeat your question.

CHAIRPERSON: You were aware that the deceased was going to die?

MR MASITHULELA: No I wasn't aware.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you see them burning?

MR MASITHULELA: Of the house?

CHAIRPERSON: Of the deceased.

MR MASITHULELA: No I didn't see him burning.

CHAIRPERSON: But you knew that there was going to be an attack on him?

MR MASITHULELA: No I was not aware that he is going to be attacked. I only know that they were going to talk with the deceased so that the deceased could leave the Mahvunga Village.

CHAIRPERSON: You saw the stone throwing?

MR MASITHULELA: Yes I saw them.

CHAIRPERSON: So who were the stones being directed at?

MR MASITHULELA: The stones were, most of them were directed to the deceased.

CHAIRPERSON: By a lot of people, not so?

MR MASITHULELA: Yes, by many people.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you throw stones?

MR MASITHULELA: Yes I did.

CHAIRPERSON: And you also directed it at the deceased?

MR MASITHULELA: Yes I directed them.

CHAIRPERSON: At that time you must have realised that he would die as a result of being thrown by the - that he would die as a result of the stone throwing, not so?

MR MASITHULELA: Ja it's quite clear that if one is being stoned at by stones could possibly die.

CHAIRPERSON: You associated yourself because you also threw stones at him?

MR MASITHULELA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And then the house was also burning?

MR MASITHULELA: Yes that's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know how it got burnt, how it started burning?

MR MASITHULELA: I cannot explain that clearly because where I was, the direction I was in there was fire which was burning in the car, but later I saw heavy smoke of fire on the other side of the house. I don't know how the fire started.

CHAIRPERSON: When you saw that smoke coming from the house did you associate yourself with that burning?

MR MASITHULELA: No I don't associate myself.

CHAIRPERSON: But did you agree with the others who had started that fire in that house?

MR MASITHULELA: Yes I agreed that others have started that fire, because if I was with them then I associated myself with them.

CHAIRPERSON: That's what I am getting at. Is that correct?

MR MASITHULELA: Could you please repeat your question.

ADV DE JAGER: You in fact helped burning the car and you would have helped burning the house if you had the opportunity. You helped burning the car, you assisted in burning the car, and you would have helped them burning the house if you had the opportunity, is that right?

MR MASITHULELA: Yes I burnt the car and assisted in the burning of the house simply because I was a member of people who were burning. Then I was supporting what they were doing.

CHAIRPERSON: Why was Petrus and Edward targeted in this way?

MR MASITHULELA: As far as I am concerned ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Let's deal with Petrus first - okay, nevermind deal with it as you want.

MR MASITHULELA: As I was growing there at Mahvunga Village I heard rumours that Petrus Mahvunga is also a witch. On the part of the deceased as I was growing I heard people saying that the deceased is also participating in witchcraft.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you believe that?

MR MASITHULELA: That they are witches?

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, those rumours, you believed that?

MR MASITHULELA: Yes I believed that those people are witches.

CHAIRPERSON: Good. Now you told us in the beginning of your testimony that you wanted a political change in Venda. Venda must go back to Pretoria. Did I understand you correctly?

MR MASITHULELA: Yes it's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now how did what you did to Petrus and to Edward, how was that connected with your political wish that Venda should be reincorporated with South Africa?

MR MASITHULELA: The link is in this way. The leaders of those days of the previous government of the independence of Venda they were people who were leading this country in unacceptable way because there was violences here, there were no more schools; workers were no longer going to work. As I looked I found that that person, because he's participating in witchcraft I say that because the leaders of the past were linked with the medical doctors and witches to find medicine so that they could have power or protect their powers by then.

CHAIRPERSON: You say medical doctors, what medical doctors?

MR MASITHULELA: Traditional doctors or healers.

CHAIRPERSON: Now we've had evidence which linked traditional healers with traditional murders etc, is that what you are referring to?

MR MASITHULELA: Could you please repeat your question.

CHAIRPERSON: You referred to certain people as traditional healers. Earlier in this hearing we've heard that traditional healers were directly responsible for ritual murders.

MR MASITHULELA: Yes that's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Are the traditional healers the same people that you are referring to that was described as having been the cause of ritual murders? That's what I am trying to - are you talking about the same people?

MR MASITHULELA: Yes but I think they are the people who are causing the root of this matter, because in various countries when they find the people who are committing ritual murders they first go to the traditional doctors to find out who was the witch.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you say that your belief was that the people leading this country in such a bad way were linked to the witches and traditional healers in order to sustain their power in the country? Did I understand you correctly?

MR MASITHULELA: Yes I said it like that.

CHAIRPERSON: Good. Carry on.

MR NDOU: Thank you, I am indebted to you Chairperson.

Mr Masithulela you see the victims are before the Committee here, how do you feel now?

MR MASITHULELA: Yes for now at this point of democracy I find it very hurting to see the youth who are sitting in front of me without parents, because it was caused by the previous government. If it was not because of the previous government I think by now their parents will be still alive. As such I feel that I must humble myself before the children of the deceased and tell them that what happened then it happened. So for now I have to cry or sympathise with them.

CHAIRPERSON: You say it wasn't personal, it was just a political circumstance that had to occur?

MR MASITHULELA: Yes it's true.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you happy to go to them privately perhaps and make your peace with them?

MR MASITHULELA: Yes I will be very happy.

CHAIRPERSON: ... attitude would be but I would ask the respective representatives to investigate that possibility.

MR NDOU: Thank you Mr Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NDOU:

ADV SIGODI: What was Edward Mahvunga's position in the community?

MR MASITHULELA: I know that he was the younger brother to the headmen, Adam Roksane Mahvunga.

MS PATEL: ...said to have used witchcraft to protect his power, what power - Edward Mahvunga, in the community.

MR MASITHULELA: It's ....

CHAIRPERSON: Answer?

MR MASITHULELA: I am asking that you repeat your question.

CHAIRPERSON: How was Edward's alleged ability as a witch, how did that help those who were in authority?

MR MASITHULELA: The power of Mr Edward or witch powers? Whose power?

CHAIRPERSON: You said that you believed that Edward was a witch.

MR MASITHULELA: Yes it's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Whose powers were used and helped to sustain the power of the authorities, for example his brother. That's how I understood your evidence.

MR MASITHULELA: Yes it's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Our colleague here has asked you, how did Edward use his power to assist maybe his brother, let's say for example?

MR MASITHULELA: I don't have the powers which I can tell this house that was having this powers of assisting his brother.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you explain it?

MR MASITHULELA: Maybe I cannot understand the powers which people are wanting to know about.

CHAIRPERSON: Because it is witchcraft?

MR MASITHULELA: No I am asking that you ask your question clearly, I don't hear you well.

CHAIRPERSON: ... that witches have - I am not asking you to give me a scientific explanation of those kind of powers. Are you able to describe to us how Edward, if he was in fact a witch or wizard, and had these powers, strange powers, how would he use it to assist someone in authority? Do you know, if you do know can you tell us?

MR MASITHULELA: In connection with Mr Edward I don't know, but in general because of the violence which was happening in Venda witches were assisting in helping the government of the past. With Mr Edward I cannot explain that because I don't know that he was having witch powers which can assist maybe the headman.

CHAIRPERSON: ... in general. How would these witches assist the government of the day then to retain what they had, to entrench apartheid maybe?

MR MASITHULELA: Witches assisted the previous government in this way. They went to extent where they were used. Let me put it this way, the government was comprised by chiefs or headmen or the government of the past was composed of headmen, chiefs, indunas and the like.

CHAIRPERSON: You say chiefs, headmen, indunas and?

MR MASITHULELA: Those are the people.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you say the government was comprised of these kind of people?

MR MASITHULELA: Ja, and others, ordinary people.

CHAIRPERSON: So how would a witch assist these people with their strange powers?

MR MASITHULELA: The chiefs used to consult people at the grassroots level and consult the traditional doctors so that they could assist them by mutis or medicine through which they can prevent or protect the power of their government and these witches were used to destroy the youth who were having politics which were with them by then. Some of the youths were made to be zombis. Some were being killed. Some were being made to become mad. Something like that, and so on.

ADV SIGODI: I just want to get some clarity on the position of Edward Mahvunga. Is it your case that Edward was evicted because he himself was a witch, was practising witchcraft? Or is it your case that Edward was evicted because he was making use of muti to sustain his position in the society?

MR MASITHULELA: What I can say, what I know is that the deceased was killed because he was being suspected in witchcraft, and because I know that witches co-operated with the rulers of the time I realised that it is fit for them to be killed, because they are assisting the people who are ruling at the time so that they can continue with the ruling while oppressing us, the community.

ADV SIGODI: ....in your area at the time was Adam Mahvunga.

CHAIRPERSON: He was the father.

MR MASITHULELA: Yes it's true.

ADV SIGODI: So was there suspicion that Edward was perhaps assisting Adam to sustain or to protect his power in the area?

MR MASITHULELA: I cannot say it's like that because Adam Mahvunga I think by the way he reacted when he wrote a "trek pass" he wrote it due to pressure. I think he was not co-operating with the headman.

ADV SIGODI: Another point which I want to clarify, if you then wanted to have freedom or to have some political change why didn't you get rid of the traditional leaders themselves?

MR MASITHULELA: Well I personally in my view will say not only were witches killed but traditional leaders were killed too.

CHAIRPERSON: Your explanations in respect of Edward and why he was attacked, would that apply to Petrus also?

MR MASITHULELA: Could you just repeat again.

CHAIRPERSON: ....know why Edward was attacked, on what political basis? Would the same apply to Petrus?

MR MASITHULELA: Well it's the same because he too was suspected of the same act because it appeared that they were co-operating with the government.

ADV DE JAGER: One thing I want to clear up. The chief Adam was on the Reef, he was in Johannesburg or somewhere, working there, is that right?

MR MASITHULELA: Yes, true.

ADV DE JAGER: Is that right, it's true, he was working in Johannesburg?

MR MASITHULELA: Yes it is true.

ADV DE JAGER: As I understand it that while he was away Edward sort-of assumed power and pretended to be a chief, is that right or not?

MR MASITHULELA: Yes - well in my view it was perceived that way.

CHAIRPERSON: In your view it was perceived that way you say?

MR MASITHULELA: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: So was he loyal to the chief or did he undermine the chief?

MR MASITHULELA: Well I would say the late who was doing whatever people were doing but he will also disagree with other issues. For example as the previous witness has said, according to the traditional set-up, if the chief had said each house had to contribute one rand for a particular event he will have contributed or he won't contribute.

ADV DE JAGER: So if he was a witch this witch didn't support the traditional leader. He didn't listen to him, he didn't support him.

MR MASITHULELA: Well I won't say he wouldn't support. I don't know whether there was any other underground movement or activities. It could have been true that he was co-operating with the government from above downwards as the whole country in Venda was a little ungovernable or mixed up.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman. I will proceed with the cross-examination.

Mr Masithulela you testified that as far as your knowledge goes there was a "trek pass" ...(intervention)

MR MASITHULELA: Sorry are you speaking above the mike, I can't hear clearly.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Pardon, I will repeat the question. You testified that as far as your knowledge goes there was a "trek pass" issued for the deceased. What I want to know is was that also the situation for Petrus, his brother?

MR MASITHULELA: Mr Petrus Mahvunga wasn't issued with a "trek pass".

MR VAN RENSBURG: Just repeat that, was not? I didn't hear, just repeat your answer please.

CHAIRPERSON: As far as he knows ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: As far as he is concerned he was not issued with a "trek pass".

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman. Now if Petrus was not issued with a "trek pass" why did you participate in trying to burn down his house?

MR MASITHULELA: Well I was involved in the arson case based on the fact that he was suspected of the act.

MR VAN RENSBURG: The act?

MR MASITHULELA: Yes the act of witchcraft.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I was under the impression from the evidence led by the previous witnesses that they tried everything in their power, they went through all the channels, got the police, got the "trek passer" to persuade the deceased ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: Excuse me I do have a technical problem. 

MR MASITHULELA: Yes it's true.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Interpreter are you okay now?

INTERPRETER: It's not me with the technical problem, I seem to be okay.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay whatever is the technical problem sorted out?

INTERPRETER: It seems so yes, thank you.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman. From the previous witnesses I got the impression that they went a long way, and they were very patient to execute all possible measures to persuade the deceased to leave the area. They got a "trek pass" for him; they went to the police, they went to the chief...(tape ends)

MR MASITHULELA: It was not the same as with Mr Petrus.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Then you've got to explain to me what was the difference between these two cases? Why would the one be expected as a witch and all the procedures according to your other colleagues were followed, but in his instance it was not followed, what was the difference?

MR MASITHULELA: The difference was on the fact that Petrus Mahvunga had his house burnt down and he was under pressure and he left Mahvunga Village. The deceased could not leave automatically or voluntarily.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes I'm talking up to the situation where before his house was burnt, because we accept that when his house was burnt he fled. But before that, why was there a difference. Why was his position handled differently? I'm referring to Petrus.

MR MASITHULELA: The difference was that Petrus Mahvunga was not really in dispute with the political activities in Mahvunga Village.

With regard to the deceased he was really disputing that he didn't like that to happen.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Now if Petrus was not disputing that why did you want to evict him?

MR MASITHULELA: Well when I say he disputed I'm saying he never obstructed us in any way.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes we've heard you saying that. The question is why did you still evict him or want to evict him?

MR MASITHULELA: Well Petrus, well it was necessary for him to be evicted because he was suspected of witchcraft.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that the only reason?

MR MASITHULELA: Yes, with regard to Petrus Mahvunga.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Did you at the time have evidence that Petrus, specifically, used his powers as a witch to support the system?

MR MASITHULELA: Well I personally don't have evidence, but what I know is that with regard to the then situation when the Venda government was still in control of the - everybody was saying the traditional healers and witches were in co-operation so that the government should not really be targeted or ended.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes but we are talking about Petrus now. You confirmed that you had no such specific information regarding Petrus.

CHAIRPERSON: What, what specific information?

MR VAN RENSBURG: That he specifically used his powers to uphold the system.

CHAIRPERSON: I think he's already testified that in both cases he did not have any specific knowledge but believed that witches were doing that, and that's as far as he could link both deceased and Petrus to the government, sustaining the government's status quo.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes perhaps I may have missed that point regarding Petrus. Thank you Mr Chairman. I will continue.

You say that you have information for us about this Mavangwe Youth Congress. Can you for instance tell us who the chairman was?

MR MASITHULELA: Yes I can.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Please do.

MR MASITHULELA: The chairperson was Mr Muladi Ntsundeni. The other person I heard of as being treasurer was Nthangeni Calvin Phungo.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I see. And this chairman, let's talk about the chairman first, Muladi Ntsundeni. Was he present on the 6th of April when the deceased was murdered?

MR MASITHULELA: Well I will ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: That can be a dangerous question, because he may implicate that person.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes I do understand that.

CHAIRPERSON: I just want to know what the purpose of your question is.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Well the purpose of my question Mr Chairman also relates of course to the question of full disclosure. I believe that it is obviously one of the functions of this hearing that persons who did not make application for amnesty should be identified through this process.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, that's not one of our jobs. If it so happens so be it, but we are not here to make that enquiry.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Well in that instance I will not press the situation further. If the Chairman will just allow me to get an answer to this question, if he was present. I think it is necessary to know. I think the witness already testified that he was present. Can I just confirm that?

Can you just say if he was present or not?

MR MASITHULELA: Yes I was present.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Not you, the leader that you have referred to, the Chairman, was he present on the 6th of April?

MR MASITHULELA: I can't tell whether he was there or not because there were a lot of people. One could not really identify particular people.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you. I have no further questions for this witness.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you Chairperson. Perhaps just to clear my confusion as to the evidence you've led about Petrus, my understanding is that this applicant was convicted of the public violence case in respect of Edward Mahvunga, not in respect of Petrus Mahvunga and that in fact is an incident that took place on the 28th of February as well.

Perhaps before I pose any questions to the applicant Mr Ndou can clear up ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: Sorry I again have that particular problem. Will the technicians come to my assistance please. Carry on Ma'am.

MS PATEL: If you refer to page 190 of the judgement ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You are quite right.

MS PATEL: He says Count 2, the alternative to count 2.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes I think we've all overlooked it and I want Mr Ndou to pay particular attention. He was convicted and I thought everybody who appears for all the applicants would have known this. He was convicted of count 2 in the alternative, being public violence. Count 2 was a count in respect of an unlawful attack on the property of the deceased on the 28th of February.

He's also convicted on count 3 which was an attack on the same house on the 6th of April.

And he was also convicted on count 7 during this attack at that house on the 6th of April the deceased was killed. So Petrus doesn't feature in this application.

Come on Mr Ndou, you should be aware of this. Proceed Ms Patel.

MS PATEL: Okay, thank you. Given that oversight then Sir, could you just briefly explain to us what your role was at Mr Mahvunga's house on the 28th of February, sorry, Edward yes, the deceased, on the 28th of February. Not on the 6th, not on the day when he was killed, what was your role in that public violence incident?

MR MASITHULELA: Well on the 28th of February at Edward Mahvunga's place I was in the midst of the youth who went to put the house on fire so that he could be evicted from Mahvunga Village. I was one of those people who burned one of the rooms in Edward Mahvunga's house.

CHAIRPERSON: On the first attempt?

MR MASITHULELA: Yes, if I am not mistaken it was on the day when Petrus Mahvunga's house was burned down. I might be mixing the date.

MS PATEL: Maybe I can help you. The public violence matter for which you were convicted occurred on the same day that Petrus Mahvunga's house was burnt down. Does that help you?

MR MASITHULELA: Could you repeat the statement.

MS PATEL: I am saying the public violence charge for which you were convicted, the burning of the house of Mr, or burning of the property of Edward Mahvunga occurred on the same day that the house of Petrus Mahvunga was burnt down.

MR MASITHULELA: Well that is why I in my answer said I could not remember exactly whether it happened on the same day.

CHAIRPERSON: Anyway look what did you do there at the deceased's house on the first attack? That's what we want to know.

MR MASITHULELA: On the first day of the attack we were so many. We found Boshoff Mahvunga, Mtengeni Mahvunga, they were the ones who were in the yard. When we saw the group of the youth coming towards the house they ran away, jumped the fence. When they left the youth who were there started destroying or breaking the windows. I was also involved in doing that. I was also involved in the arson case ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: How did they start ...(intervention)

MR MASITHULELA: Well they were just throwing stones.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. And that was an attack on the deceased's house on the 28th. Was it burnt that day or not?

MR MASITHULELA: Yes it was burned on the same day.

CHAIRPERSON: But not at that attack - or when? When they started throwing the stones was it that same incident where the house was burnt?

MR MASITHULELA: Just when the stones were being thrown the other ones were burning.

CHAIRPERSON: The other incident is when the house was burnt on the 6th of April.

MR MASITHULELA: Could you repeat that please.

CHAIRPERSON: There were two incidents of attack on the deceased's house, correct?

MR MASITHULELA: Are you referring to Edward Mahvunga's house?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, he's the deceased.

MR MASITHULELA: Yes it is true.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja. The one occurred for the purposes of this application on the 28th of February.

MR MASITHULELA: Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And the other one occurred on the 6th of April when Edward was killed.

MR MASITHULELA: What I did was to throw stones ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No wait we are coming - I am just trying to identify the incidents. Do you agree?

MR MASITHULELA: Yes I agree with that.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Now on the 6th of April you were convicted and you make application for amnesty in respect of arson in that that house of Edward was burnt on the 6th of April.

MR MASITHULELA: It is true.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's go to the 28th of February.

MR MASITHULELA: That is what I ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: When the stones were thrown. You threw and other colleagues of yours threw stones, broke windows etc.

MR MASITHULELA: Yes ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Whilst the house burnt on that day.

MR MASITHULELA: Yes, it was burned.

CHAIRPERSON: Now it was burnt a second time on the 6th of April.

MR MASITHULELA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on Ms Patel.

ADV DE JAGER: The first burning of the house in February, did Edward already receive a "trek pass" at that stage?

MR MASITHULELA: Well I don't know. Well I said regarding the "trek pass" I only learnt from my colleagues or other people. When that was happening I had already been arrested on charges of arson on Petrus Mahvunga and Edward Mahvunga. I was already in jail when all those kind of things were happening regarding the "trek pass".

ADV DE JAGER: So you didn't know anything about the "trek pass" until after the arrest?

MR MASITHULELA: Well I didn't know anything. That is why I was saying I had an imaginary view of what happened regarding the "trek pass" and I also learnt it from other people.

ADV DE JAGER: When did you learn it from the other people? When did you for the first time hear of a "trek pass"?

MR MASITHULELA: Well I for the first time when I heard about the "trek pass" was after the death of the deceased.

ADV DE JAGER: So they were not telling him there - "listen here's a "trek pass" you should move out, you should go away and then we leave you", they didn't try to persuade him to go and tell him "listen we've got a "trek pass" for you"?

MR MASITHULELA: Could you repeat the statement.

ADV DE JAGER: That on the 6th of April, the day when he was killed, didn't the people tell him "listen you should move out, we've got a "trek pass" for you. The Chief issued a "trek pass" - go, and then we won't attack you"?

MR MASITHULELA: Well he was told.

ADV DE JAGER: Now didn't you hear it?

MR MASITHULELA: I didn't hear that. I only learned that some people who were on the other side said or declared that -there were a lot of things which were said. No one will really identify that so-and-so said the following things. There were so many people and people were shouting and ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: You are trying to evade my question. Did you hear about a "trek pass" before the man was killed?

MR MASITHULELA: I said I heard about the "trek pass" after this man had already died.

ADV DE JAGER: So on the day of the killing you didn't hear people say, "move out of the vicinity, you've got a trek pass, get away from our village"?

MR MASITHULELA: Well I didn't hear that at the place where I was.

MS PATEL: Did you hear about the list that there was ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Didn't you tell me earlier, or tell us earlier that you heard about this "trek pass" in the meeting, the youth meeting when you people were discussing this whole issue, before the man died?

MR MASITHULELA: I said I heard about the "trek pass" and they said there was a meeting.

CHAIRPERSON: But didn't you tell me earlier that you were called to a meeting where this man was discussed and then you went to his house? That's what you said.

MR MASITHULELA: That was on the day when the late died.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja. Before he died.

MR MASITHULELA: Yes I heard that before he died.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you are telling my colleague that you only heard about it for the first time after he died. You were in jail or wherever.

MR MASITHULELA: Yes, well logically what I want to say is that I was in jail, yes it's true, but I enquired and I was told about it.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja but the whole issue was when was the first time you heard about the "trek pass". Now you've given us two versions of it. One before he died and one after he died. Now what gives - what's the truth?

MR MASITHULELA: Well personally on the day when I heard about the "trek pass" and that he was given was when I was out of jail on the 5th of April. I was released on the day in which Mr Ramushwana took over the government.

CHAIRPERSON: And on the 6th of April the deceased died.

MR MASITHULELA: Yes he died.

ADV DE JAGER: Did Mr Ramushwana take over the government before the deceased was killed?

MR MASITHULELA: Yes he took over the government and the deceased died the next day.

ADV DE JAGER: And did Mr Ramushwana, when he took over the government, announce that he would incorporate Venda with Pretoria again?

MR MASITHULELA: He did not say that - I remember in his speech he alluded to the fact that he made the country governable and minimise the violence and he will end the violence. That is what I heard on his speech.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Ms Patel.

MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson. We've had testimony that there was a list of witches that were to be dealt with by the community, were you aware of this list?

MR MASITHULELA: Yes I am quite aware of that.

MS PATEL: Do you know when the list was compiled? Was it before the first attack on Mr Mahvunga's house, Edward Mahvunga's house?

MR MASITHULELA: The list was - I don't know about the list, I know that so-and-so was suspected of witchcraft, not a list.

MS PATEL: But you have just stated Sir, that you knew about the list.

MR MASITHULELA: I am referring to the logical order of the people who were suspected of witchcraft.

MS PATEL: When did you hear about this?

MR MASITHULELA: When I first heard about that, before the house of Petrus Mahvunga was burnt, I can't remember the date.

MS PATEL: Okay, and can you recall whether by that time, Edward Mahvunga had made his political feelings, or his feelings about your political activity, known or did that happen after the list came out, after you know it was said that these people must be dealt with?

MR MASITHULELA: Could you repeat it please?

MS PATEL: Okay, you say that you heard that there were certain people who were named at witches and wizards and who were to be dealt with, right?

MR MASITHULELA: Yes, it is true. When you say to be dealt with, what are you referring to?

CHAIRPERSON: They will be banished or asked to leave or whatever. There was a list of alleged wizards and witches, not so? Do you know about that list?

MR MASITHULELA: I know about the names of the people who were said to be on the list.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so you know about the list?

MR MASITHULELA: If I know about the names, it seems to be logical to say yes, I know about the list, but I didn't personally handle or hold the list in my hand.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, that is all that was asked of you.

MS PATEL: Okay, thank you sir. This list that was compiled, the names of the people that were on that list, can you tell us whether you know whether any of those people that were on the list, had interfered in the political activity of the Youth?

MR MASITHULELA: Well, regarding the witches, especially the ones who were on the list, the ones who were involved in the politics, was Mr Edward Mahvunga.

MS PATEL: Is he the only one on the list of alleged suspected or alleged, yes, witches and wizards who was in some way linked to political activities?

MR MASITHULELA: Well, I know of him only. I can't tell exactly, I heard about the other people who were being alleged, but I don't know whether there were any difficulties in that regard, but if they had obstructed our way, we could have also realised that they were in support of what I thought that Mr Edward was alleged to be witch and his co-operation with the government of the day.

MS PATEL: Okay. Can you tell us whether you know from your experience, whether Edward had in fact antagonised the youth politically prior to the list having been formulated?

MR MASITHULELA: Could you repeat?

MS PATEL: Okay, can you tell us sir, whether you know that Edward Mahvunga had interfered with the Youth's political activity prior to the list having been formulated or was there the list first and then there was the interference from him with your political activity?

MR MASITHULELA: In my answer I said that I heard about a list of these people who were suspected of being witches after the death of the deceased, whereas I have heard about the other names some of the names, before I was released. I gathered some names like Mtsinya, Wilisoga, Gangari.

CHAIRPERSON: We haven't got time to listen to irrelevant, stuff that you haven't been asked. All you have been asked is did the deceased interfere with the Youth before or after you came to know about that list?

MR MASITHULELA: No, because during that time, we didn't really have this political activities, because it was just an emotional activity from other countries, and it was really flickering down to our community.

CHAIRPERSON: So what you are saying is that he only started interfering with the youth after this list was drafted?

MR MASITHULELA: It could be that he started involving himself after the list.

MS PATEL: So then, if that is the position that he only involved himself with the youth on that level, after the list, is it fair then to say that he would have been dealt with in terms of either banishment or being killed, regardless of his involvement with the Youth, that because there was the list that was out, he would have been dealt with any way by the Youth?

MR MASITHULELA: Well, in my view, I think he would have been dealt with because it was in accordance with those who were also suspected of being witches, so that they shall be banished. Because he was one of those people who were suspected as witches, he could have been taken away as well. He was so aggressive, because he wanted to defend himself, he was not the same as other people.

MS PATEL: And then just finally sir, did you have an axe with you at the house of Edward on the day that he was killed.

INTERPRETER: Sorry are you saying axe?

MS PATEL: An axe, yes.

MR MASITHULELA: I didn't have an axe. However, as I was being cross-questioned in the Supreme Court, I heard that, I learnt from Rosinnah Mahvunga saying that I had an axe. On my recollection, I sold the axe when the deceased died, but I didn't have it in my hand. It was alluded to that I used the axe.

CHAIRPERSON: I am not concerned about what was alluded to, you say you didn't have an axe?

MR MASITHULELA: I didn't have an axe, no.

MS PATEL: Okay, and you didn't have a petrol bomb with you either?

MR MASITHULELA: I didn't have a petrol bomb.

MS PATEL: All right, thank you Honourable Chairperson.

MR NDOU: No re-examination, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON RESUMPTION:

MR NDOU: I now call upon number 2726, Abel Mulady. His application appears from page 1, sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Page?

MR NDOU: 1 to 20.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mulady, what language would you like to use?

MR MULADY: I will use Venda.

ABEL MULADY: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Please proceed.

EXAMINATION BY MR NDOU: Thank you Honourable Chairman. Mr Mulady, you brought an application for amnesty in respect of charges of murder, arson and public violence, in respect of whose murder was it?

MR MULADY: It is in connection with the deceased and what happened in the kraal of the deceased.

MR NDOU: And the arson charge, in respect of which incident? Was it the incident on the 28th or around the 6th of April?

MR MULADY: It is in connection with the 6th of April. Maybe I can also add that it is linked with the 28th of February.

MR NDOU: But for which incident were you convicted?

MR MULADY: I was convicted - in the part of the 28th of February, it was public violence and on the second part, on the 6th of April, I was convicted with murder and arson on the body of the deceased.

MR NDOU: Now, we have heard evidence that a Youth Congress was formed at Mahvunga, were you also part of this Youth Congress?

MR MULADY: In short, I can say that I don't know whether people were taking me as a member, but I was just a person who most of the time, I was there where the Mahvunga Youth Congress was. But that I was a member, I don't know.

MR NDOU: So you were not an office bearer?

MR MULADY: It could have happened, maybe in a particular meeting and then I tried to air my views and tried to give, to make things to be in order, but when people see you that can say that this person is a member, whereas one was not aware that one is a member.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you not an Executive of the Youth Congress?

MR MULADY: Let me say it this way, I was not a member of the Executive Committee of the Mahvunga Youth, but I used to attend all the meetings of the Youth Congress, most of them, I attended them.

MR NDOU: Now could you explain to the Committee ...

CHAIRPERSON: Is there another Abel Mulady? Mr Ndou, wasn't one of the previous witness' evidence that Abel Mulady was a ...

MR NDOU: It was indeed so, that is what he said.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, he was one of the co-applicants?

MR NDOU: That is so.

CHAIRPERSON: He was the only co-applicant?

MR NDOU: That is so.

CHAIRPERSON: That was a member of the Executive?

MR NDOU: That is what he indicated.

CHAIRPERSON: You say that is not true?

MR MULADY: I can repeat and say that personally on my own, I don't remember that I was a member of a Youth Congress of Mahvunga Youth Congress.

CHAIRPERSON: You must remember that, whether it was or was not the case.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, can we get some clarity here, maybe I took my notes, or I did not understand properly, but with the previous witness in my notes, he said the leader was Ntsundene Mulady, or did I get the name wrong? He did not mention, I actually looked and I see this one is Abel so I thought it was another Mulady.

MR NDOU: Yes, he said Ntsundene.

ADV SIGODI: Yes, Ntsundene Mulady, so can we get some clarity as to whether this Mulady is the same one as the applicant here.

MR NDOU: Do you know somebody by the name of Ntsundene Mulady?

MR MULADY: Yes, I know him.

MR NDOU: Is he also a resident of Mahvunga?

MR MULADY: Yes, he is residing at Mahvunga.

CHAIRPERSON: Is he also a co-applicant?

MR NDOU: Is he also a co-applicant?

MR MULADY: No, that I don't know.

MS PATEL: Honourable Chairperson, sorry, if I may come in here.

MR MULADY: He is not here, that is why I am saying I don't know whether he applied for amnesty.

MS PATEL: The previous witness was asked through you, you went through the list as to who he remembered as being part of the Exec and Abel Mulady was one of the people that he confirmed was one of those people. He also mentioned Johannes Muratu and Andrew Mivan, it was at the stage when we mentioned that he wasn't an applicant.

MR MULADY: Muratu is referred to and (indistinct), it is Muratu who is here now.

MS PATEL: That was Mr Nemakhavani.

ADV SIGODI: Yes.

MS PATEL: That testified to that effect.

ADV SIGODI: Yes, but I have notes here and when he was, the previous witness was being cross-examined by Mr Van Rensburg, if we could clarify that.

MR NDOU: Okay.

ADV SIGODI: He mentioned the Treasurer to be Tangeni Pungu under cross-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I am talking about ...

ADV SIGODI: The Executive, the Chairman of the Youth League?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nemakhavani, he said, he was asked is there any of the applicants who were members of the Executive and he said yes, himself and Abel Mulady.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Mr Chairman, I think he also said after we sorted out that he mentioned some names of the persons who are not applicants, he also added Sioma which was a marshal?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: You have the situation right, Abel was not the only other one of the applicants who was pointed out, it was also Sioma.

CHAIRPERSON: No, he retracted Sioma, he said he was a marshal, not an Executive member.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay, I understand, I apologise.

CHAIRPERSON: You asked the question who of the co-applicants were Executive members?

MR VAN RENSBURG: That is true.

CHAIRPERSON: Then he said himself and Mulady.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Abel, yes, yes. And that is the situation.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but that is the position. Any way, you carry on.

MR NDOU: Okay, now you say you never held any office in this Mahvunga Youth Congress?

MR MULADY: Yes, that I don't know. I don't know even in the books of Mahvunga Youth Congress, so if (indistinct), I will be found as one of them.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou, will you find out from that other applicant of yours, who he was talking about now?

MR NDOU: Yes, he did mention the name of Abel, but he wanted to articulate that he was one of the marshals, not an actual office bearer.

CHAIRPERSON: But he did mention Abel Mulady?

MR NDOU: That is so Chairperson. I want you to explain to the Committee as to what you did on the 28th of February 1990.

CHAIRPERSON: That public violence was in respect of the deceased's house?

MR NDOU: That is so. Can you remember as to what you did on the 28th of February at the deceased's house?

MR MULADY: Yes. I still remember.

MR NDOU: What did you do?

MR MULADY: On the 28th, I was one of the people who held Peter who was the member of the family, Peter Mahvunga and then I assaulted him, and then I was one of the people who talked to Boshoff and Eric "where is your father?"

MR NDOU: Is that all that you did?

MR MULADY: That is all I did.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you part of a group of people?

MR NDOU: You were part of a group of people who had gone to the deceased's kraal, is that correct?

CHAIRPERSON: Behaving in a violent manner?

MR MULADY: Yes.

MR NDOU: I see, and then you also proceeded to the deceased's house on the 6th of April, is that right?

INTERPRETER: Could you please repeat the dates.

MR NDOU: Did you also proceed to the deceased's house on the 6th of April with a group of other people?

MR MULADY: Yes, I did.

MR NDOU: What part did you play at the deceased's house on that day?

MR MULADY: I was one of the people who threw stones to the deceased, I was part of the people who took the petrol which was inside the house in one of the rooms and take it and pour it on the tyre and that tyre, I lit it and then I took it and put it over the body of the deceased, while he was laying on the ground.

CHAIRPERSON: You say you went into a room in the house, you took a tyre, did you find a tyre in the room?

MR MULADY: I found the petrol, a find a 25 litre or a 20 litre, I am not clear then, but it was a petrol container inside the house.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes? What did you do with that petrol?

MR MULADY: I took it and get outside with it, there outside in the yard of the deceased, there were tyres and tubes of small cars and tyres for the tractors. I took a tyre of a small car and poured that petrol on it, which I took it from the house, and then I lit it, I lit that tyre and then I took it and threw it on the body of the deceased.

MR NDOU: So what you are telling the Committee is that you actually participated in the killing of the deceased, is that right?

ADV DE JAGER: I think there is no doubt about that.

MR MULADY: Yes, I am saying that.

MR NDOU: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: What did you do about the house and how it burnt, you scattered the petrol there in the house?

MR MULADY: I understand that by pouring petrol or throwing the tyre on the body of the deceased, that light, that fire which was burning the deceased, could have caught or spread to other rooms, but I didn't see that.

CHAIRPERSON: Where was the deceased when you did that, when you threw the ...

MR MULADY: He was inside the house.

MR NDOU: Can you explain to the Committee as to why the deceased was targeted? ... (tape ends) ...

MR MULADY: I can, to avoid wasting time for this Committee, many witnesses here who have applied for this amnesty, have already explained a mouthful, what I can explain, will be very few which I can explain. I agree with what the previous speaker who were applying for amnesty, have mentioned many things which I agreed with.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it Masithulela, do you agree with what he says on the reasons?

MR NDOU: Did you get the question?

MR MULADY: Could you please repeat the question?

CHAIRPERSON: You say you agree with the previous speaker on that score, are you talking about Masithulela, John?

MR MULADY: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR NDOU: Now, how do you feel now with the victim sitting in front of you, about this whole occurrence?

MR MULADY: As the people which I grew up with them, and the people whom I know and as people whom I understand that they are living just like myself, I feel panicking for killing their father or more especially for them to find themselves without a breadwinner at this time. As such, I feel pain, very painful and I feel to say it, humiliating myself, that I am apologising from them, I am asking them to forgive me, with the mother who is there, now with nobody still assisting her as a husband, I think it is important to have a husband as a woman. To the children, I am also humiliating myself to find yourself still young, I think some of you are supposed to still be going to school, but I don't know that maybe you are now unable to further your studies because you no longer have your father or a member of your family who is your father, as such I can say that I am apologising for that, for what happened during those days. I am asking for forgiveness from you.

MR NDOU: I don't wish to take this any further, thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman. I just want certain comments from you regarding the statement that is included in the Bundle, being a statement filed by yourself, I suppose a warning statement. It is page 9, Mr Chairman. ADV DE JAGER: That is a transcription of the statement appearing on pages 12, 13, 14 and 15, etc.

MR VAN RENSBURG: That is correct Mr Chairman. Do you have the statement in front of you, Mr Mulady?

MR MULADY: Yes, that is the statement that I took.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Perhaps we can go down about 10 lines from the bottom, where you said -

Do you see that line?

MR MULADY: Yes, I can see that.

MR VAN RENSBURG: That specific attack on Mr Mahvunga's house, kraal, does that refer to Edward Mahvunga's kraal where we smashed window panes of a house, is that Edward Mahvunga's kraal?

MR MULADY: Yes, Edward Mahvunga, it is Edward Mahvunga that is being referred to.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Does that attack refer to the attack that was launched on the 28th of February?

MR MULADY: Yes, I can link that to the date mentioned before.

Does that mean that after the attack on the 28th of February, the parents of the youths made certain moves to compensate for the window panes that you had broken?

MR MULADY: Well, I think that is what I am saying that after the incident that took place on the 6th of February, after the late had died, we - well the parents sat down and collected the money to contribute towards the restoration of the house or reparation, repairing the house.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And was the money handed to Mr Edward Mahvunga?

MR MULADY: Well, the money that was collected, was sent to the Chief kraal, I am saying the late had already died.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I beg your pardon, I didn't hear that. Just repeat that answer.

MR MULADY: What I am saying that when I made this confession, I was really generalising on the whole case, I was not particularly looking at the dates. I was referring to the 28th, the 6th to the time when the deceased died.

MR VAN RENSBURG: The question is did, was Mr Edward Mahvunga compensated for the window panes that were broken on the 28th of February?

MR MULADY: Yes, there was money that was given out so that, as it was known that there were only children who were left and the deceased had died, there had to be a collection for repair in order to help in the restoration of whatever was destroyed. That is what I am saying.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Do I understand you correctly, you say there was some sort of compensation, but only after the deceased was killed, not before the 28th, or not after the attack of the 28th?

MR MULADY: Let me repeat what I have said and I will also appeal to the people who are asking me that this statement that I took, I said I was generalising all the incidents which took place from the 28th of February to the 6th of April. Therefore as I was writing the statement, I did not write it on my own, there was an Interpreter or Translator, it could have been an omission or a problem or a mistake because I was saying it in Venda and he was interpreting into English.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Mr Mulady, I am not trying to catch you out, I am not asking you what is in the statement, I am asking you what the real situation was. Was there compensation to Mr, to the deceased after, or to his family at least after he died?

CHAIRPERSON: What does the family say?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Actually I have no specific instructions on this, perhaps I can ask, thank you.

ADV DE JAGER: After the first attack on his house, on Edward's house?

MR MULADY: No.

ADV DE JAGER: Did the parents offer any compensation after the first attack?

MR MULADY: No, they didn't offer any compensation of that sort.

ADV DE JAGER: Because in your statement you wrote, or it is written down here that money was offered but he refused the offer. He couldn't have refused it after he had died, unless he was a real witch?

MR MULADY: That is why I am saying I was just making a confession between myself and the person who was interpreting, to the third person. It could have been that the person who was interpreting, was not well versed, and maybe, well as I know, he speaks one of the African official languages, it was being taken into another language. There might have been one confusion in the interpreting, as I was giving the confession and he was writing.

ADV DE JAGER: So you annexed this letter, or this statement, to your indemnity application and you took an oath and said it is the truth thing, in your indemnity application, you took an oath and said everything I said here, is the truth and you included "see Annexure A" on page 7?

MR NDOU: Perhaps if I may just come in here ...

MS PATEL: Sorry, if I may just, sorry, Adv De Jager, if I may just intervene, the statement which Mr Van Rensburg is referring to, is the statement that we got from the docket, it wasn't annexed to the application or to the indemnity application.

ADV DE JAGER: Oh.

MR NDOU: Annexure A is page 8.

ADV DE JAGER: Oh, only page 8?

MS PATEL: Yes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you, may I continue. This statement that we are talking about contained on pages 9 ...

CHAIRPERSON: What does the family say about this money?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I can put that to the witness, I would have preferred to have his answer to that before I put it to him, but...

CHAIRPERSON: Well, maybe you just then.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, thank you. Let's forget about the statement for a moment, are you saying that after the deceased was killed, there was a collection of money and there was some kind of compensation tendered to the family?

MR MULADY: There was that kind of compensation, regarding the compensation and ...

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, then I have to put it to you that Rosinnah who is the victim in this hearing, will state that there was absolutely no compensation and that she has received no money or any compensation from the community.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it tendered?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Or that it was tendered?

MR MULADY: I will say in explanation, am I allowed to say that?

CHAIRPERSON: Answer the question, if you need to say what you need to say to answer the question, go ahead.

MR MULADY: After the whole incident and the death of the deceased, it was discovered that Ms Rosinnah was no longer a member of the household where the deceased used to live. I am basing this on those people who were left in the house, who were the children of the deceased. As I am saying now, Rosinnah could not be aware that he is no longer there, as I speak now.

CHAIRPERSON: You say there was money collected with the intention of compensating the family for the death of the deceased?

MR MULADY: Yes, that is what I am saying, regarding the ...

CHAIRPERSON: What happened to that money?

MR MULADY: Well, all I know is that it was collected and it was taken to the Chief's kraal.

CHAIRPERSON: It was taken to the Chief's kraal? Handed, it was given there, handed in to the Chief?

MR MULADY: Well, when the issue was raised on the collection of the money in order to compensate based on the destruction and the death of the deceased, I believe that whatever was contributed or collected regarding that incident, it used to be handed to the Chief's kraal and I also believe that the same money should eventually be handed to the Chief's kraal so that the Headman would take it to the children of the deceased or the family of the deceased. I am not too sure whether that was true.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't know whether the Chief took it? I don't want a long story, just whether you know or not?

MR MULADY: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it taken or not?

MR MULADY: The money was collected.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and handed over to the Chief. Did the Chief take it further on to the family or don't you know?

MR MULADY: I could not have a logical follow up on that, I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman. The next point, after the Chief took up this problem with the deceased, can you remember that at the time, the deceased responded to these allegations by way of a letter that he had written, can you remember that?

MR MULADY: Well, repeat the question, it should be a live question, it should not be indirect, it should be a live question, directed to me in a direct manner.

CHAIRPERSON: It is not for you to dictate here, do you understand, you answer the question. If you don't understand a question, ask for it to be repeated or to be clarified.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I will repeat the question. The question is can you remember that after the Chief spoke to the deceased about these allegations against him, the deceased responded by writing a letter, do you remember that?

CHAIRPERSON: To whom?

MR VAN RENSBURG: To the Chief or to the community, I am not sure Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Van Rensburg, I mean the community is 10 000 people.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, let me be a bit more clearer.

CHAIRPERSON: To whom would that letter be addressed?

MR VAN RENSBURG: The letter was according to the statement, this is not very clear, I am still on the statement on page 10, the Chief informed the residents that one will read the letter in question of the people at a special meeting called for that purpose, the problem is the transcription is not very clear, that is why I am a bit vague about it.

CHAIRPERSON: You know Mr Van Rensburg, I don't know if it is absolutely fair to cross-examine an applicant on this statement, after all, it bears his signature but it seems to be that it was a statement taken down by a Policeman, am I correct?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, it looks like it formed part of the ...

CHAIRPERSON: Now, we don't know if he agrees with the contents of that statement.

MR VAN RENSBURG: With all due respect Mr Chairman, then the witness can just say that it was a false statement, or that he did not agree with the statement or that it was not the truth.

CHAIRPERSON: I wonder if, did he see the statement Mr Ndou?

MR NDOU: Yes, I showed him the statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Does he know what the contents is?

MR NDOU: But he indicates that most of the things were done by the Police and most of the things were not correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, why wasn't that raised here now? That responsibility of raising that issue falls squarely on your shoulders, not your applicant.

MR NDOU: Perhaps if I may explain this way, it is not part of our application. This document was put in by the Evidence Leader.

CHAIRPERSON: I know, but it is put in to indicate to you that it may be used and you've got to deal with it.

MR NDOU: Yes, I wouldn't have had any problem with it, I thought you would answer, (indistinct)

CHAIRPERSON: Issues like this, you can't leave the applicant in the lurch you know Mr Ndou.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: I want you to listen to me very carefully now. You are being questioned on a statement that you allegedly made to a Policeman, I don't know if you made it freely or voluntarily or what the position was. Any way, the contents of that statement has been read and the Attorney here, Mr Van Rensburg, is using parts of that statement to cross-examine you on. You are at liberty to indicate to us whether you agree that the contents of that statement is true or not, before you answer whatever he asks you, do you understand or do you need further explanations?

MR MULADY: I need further explanation.

CHAIRPERSON: You see when a person wants to use a statement taken down by the Police, allegedly or purportedly being that statement of an accused, then certain warnings must be given to that accused or any person. Sometimes it happens that the wrong thing is written down, maybe deliberately or by accident. The person who is alleged to have made that statement, is entitled to contest the accuracy of that statement and where there is instances of involuntary or where the statement was not made voluntarily, he is entitled to raise a defence that he can't be asked any questions on that. Do you understand that? You are being asked about the contents of a particular statement that bears your signature. We don't know as a Committee what your attitude is towards that statement.

MR MULADY: Well, my request is that the statement shall be regarded as null and void in this application.

CHAIRPERSON: Why?

MR MULADY: Because I now realise that there is a lot of conflicting evidence, when I am listening to the way it had been read.

CHAIRPERSON: All right, now let me tell you, or let me ask you then to be fair, you have read the contents of the statement?

MR MULADY: Yes, I did.

CHAIRPERSON: When you made the statement, did you make a statement to the Police? Did you make this statement to the Police?

MR MULADY: This statement when I was arrested, I was beaten heavily and I was made to say that I had to be a State witness, therefore I had to say in order to protect myself.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you have made a statement had you not been beaten?

INTERPRETER: Sorry, just repeat please.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you have made the statement or signed the statement, had you not been beaten?

MR MULADY: Well, if I had not been beaten before writing the statement, I would have signed although I had already been beaten, I was forced to do that as well.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, would you have otherwise have made the statement if you weren't beaten?

MR MULADY: No. I would not have made that statement in that way.

CHAIRPERSON: There you have it.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman. Okay, let's forget about the statement, can I just ask you have you ever heard of a letter that Mr Edward Mahvunga wrote after the Chief spoke to him about these allegations against him?

CHAIRPERSON: The letter was addressed to the community?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I would say that it was addressed to the community and handed to the Chief, yes, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you heard of such a letter?

MR MULADY: Yes, I heard about the letter.

CHAIRPERSON: Why are we struggling about it for the last ten minutes, the Attorney has been asking you about it for how long, because he has heard about this letter.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Is it not so that the idea was that that letter should have been read by the Chief to the community so that every one can know what the contents of that letter is, that was the plan?

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know about that?

MR MULADY: Repeat the question.

CHAIRPERSON: You know about this letter that was handed to the Chief, was the Chief not supposed to have read this letter out to the community?

MR MULADY: Well, I know the letter which was given to the Chief, the Headman by the people, I don't know about a letter which was given to the Headman by the late.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes. Do you by any chance have heard what the contents of that letter is?

CHAIRPERSON: He says he doesn't know about such a letter.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Oh.

CHAIRPERSON: He knows about a letter that was given by the community to the Chief.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I understand. I just want to get this clear if you can just give me an opportunity, thank you Mr Chairman. So you say you have never heard of a letter which the deceased was supposed to have written and was addressed to the community and handed to the Chief, you have never heard of such a letter?

MR MULADY: No, I never heard about that.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I see. Okay, you were sentenced to five years imprisonment for the public violence count and 15 years imprisonment for the arson and the murder, is that correct?

MR MULADY: Yes, it is true.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And that is the most severe sentence that all the applicants that are here today, has received for their role in this murder and arson? It is the worst sentence, that you have received?

MR MULADY: Well, I did not get what I worked for in an orderly manner.

MR VAN RENSBURG: The question is was any of the other applicants, did they receive a sentence of 15 years for the arson and the murder and five years for the public violence, did anyone receive such a heavy sentence, except you?

MR MULADY: Amongst us, there is no other person who received such a heavy sentence.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay, now what I would like to know is do you know why you have received the most severe sentence of all of them?

CHAIRPERSON: The Judge reasoned that you were the leader? What do you say about that?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR MULADY: Well, I understand that the Judge took that decision after hearing the different statements from many people and the way they were expressing themselves and perhaps he was influenced to take that decision that I shall be the leader in that situation, whereas ...

ADV DE JAGER: Could you just tell us, were you in fact a leader during the operations of the burning of the house and the killing of the deceased?

MR MULADY: Well, I don't regard it like that personally. People may, like I have explained before ...

CHAIRPERSON: You were the one that went to find the petrol, you were the one that found the tyre, you were the one that lit the tyre, you were the one who put the tyre while it was lit, on the body of the deceased? Do you not consider that a leading role?

MR MULADY: Well, today as I am being told, I can say that I was the leader.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MULADY: Today.

CHAIRPERSON: No, but you always knew that you did that, not so? You knew you played a leading role in that man's death and in the whole attack?

MR MULADY: No.

CHAIRPERSON: You didn't know that, someone told you today that you were the one that put the tyre on the man's body? Is that what you are saying?

MR MULADY: Well, what I am saying is that I am trying to express that the judgement that was given in those days and the time, was taken despite the fact that I was not in agreement with that. However, what I am saying today in this Commission, I am trying to say that I agree with them in them saying that I am or I was the leader in the group that was involved on the specific day. I will agree with that.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Mr Mulady, I put it to you that you are trying to downplay this leading role and thereby wilfully trying to mislead the leading role or your involvement, pardon, let me just rephrase that, I put it to you that you wilfully are trying to mislead this Committee by downplaying your leader role that you played on that day.

MR MULADY: What I am saying is that in court when they sentenced me, I didn't realise that I was the leader, however today, I am in agreement with the fact that I was the one who was the leader of a group regarding the role that I played in taking the tyre and putting petrol on it, lighting and putting it on top of the deceased's body. I do agree now that I on that day, played the major role, I agree with that.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you. The leader of the Youth Congress, what was his name again?

MR MULADY: One of the applicants said it was Finnias Mulady.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I am asking you what was his name.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know what was his name?

MR MULADY: Well, the name of the leader of the Mahvunga Youth Congress, I now know that it was Finnias Mulady although when it was selected, I wasn't in. However now, when it is now clear, I can now connect it and say the leader was Finnias (indistinct) Mulady.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, was he there on the day?

MR MULADY: Please say that ...

MR VAN RENSBURG: Was he there on the day of the 6th of April?

MR MULADY: It was so full, I can't tell exactly whether he was in or not, I can't tell exactly whether he was in or not, because it was full.

ADV DE JAGER: I want to know whether this leader in fact as a leader, called you together and said "let's go there, let's go and get this man out of the house", was this a decision of the meeting and did the leader of your organisation say "listen, let's go, let's do this and do another thing" or did you act on your own in doing all these things?

MR MULADY: On the 6th, maybe it was not given to the Committee, I said that I was one of those people who tried to call other members, people who are applying now, that they should come to the meeting.

CHAIRPERSON: So there was a meeting?

MR MULADY: That is what I am saying.

CHAIRPERSON: To discuss the deceased's position?

MR MULADY: That is what I am saying.

CHAIRPERSON: What was the decision of that meeting?

MR MULADY: The decision that was taken was to go to the late's house.

CHAIRPERSON: And?

MR MULADY: So that on arriving there, I was one of those people who on that day, the 6th ...

CHAIRPERSON: What was decided at the meeting, to go to his house for what purpose? To go and have a party, what were you supposed to go and do there?

MR MULADY: It was to try to tell the late that he should leave.

CHAIRPERSON: And in the likely event of him refusing, did you decide what would happen then because everybody knew that he was likely to refuse? He was refusing all the time?

MR MULADY: Well, I understand that it was the last day of him, in the understanding that we were going to chant, sing and shout all the slogans that we would try all available means that he should be evicted.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mulady, I don't think anybody is under any misapprehension as to what we are talking about. We are talking about an important meeting, the decision of what ought to favour you as an applicant, now what was decided at that meeting? In the event of him not listening to your request to leave, what would happen? Was there a decision in that meeting about what would happen to him if he refused to leave or to respect the "trek pass"?

MR MULADY: No, I can't remember, but I think it was said that we would try by all means on that last day to evict him, that was the decision that was taken.

CHAIRPERSON: So there was no decision there to kill him in the event of him refusing?

MR MULADY: That is what I am saying.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so why was he killed?

MR MULADY: Well, in many cases it was explained by the other applicants. I understand that they only said so many things as to what really led to the death of the deceased.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mulady, why in your view, was he killed, why did you put the tyre on his body?

MR MULADY: Well, as we were right in the house after we had tried our best to talk to him, to convince him to leave, the decease tried to dispute that and he said he wouldn't leave.

CHAIRPERSON: That was the decision of the meeting, you will try to persuade him to respect the "trek pass" in effect, he refused, so why was he then attacked?

MR MULADY: He was attacked because he didn't want to leave.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but that wasn't the decision of the meeting according to you?

MR MULADY: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So why was he attacked? Why was his house burnt, why was he burnt if the meeting didn't decide that?

MR MULADY: Well, in the meeting it was said on that specific day we will make it possible to evict the man, but with regard to the crown and the way it was, people had different ideas which were not in line with what was decided.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you then put the tyre, you were party to that meeting decision, why did you then take this tyre, light it and put it on the body or put it on him, we don't know if he was alive?

MR MULADY: I have explained that there were stone throwing and he went on to the house and people kept on throwing stones and then I took the tyre which was already lit by then, I threw it on top of the body of the deceased.

CHAIRPERSON: That was not supposed to happen in terms of the decision of the meeting? That is why I asked you what did the meeting decide if he didn't want to go, which was supposed to be expected in terms of what you say? You should have expected this man to say, "no, I am not going." He was doing so for a long time? That is why I ask you what did the meeting then decide, you say nothing. The only decision you went to that house with from the meeting, was to try and persuade him to respect the "trek pass" and go, not so?

MR MULADY: Yes, it is true.

CHAIRPERSON: Then I am going to repeat myself, why was he then killed?

MR MULADY: The late was killed because he was involved in so many allegations, in so many things. He was killed because he disrespected the instruction of the Headman and the Police and also disrespecting the people who were talking to him. That led to the death of the deceased. By practising witchcraft as it was explained and that also influenced the death of the deceased and also obstructing whatever the Youth were trying to advance in as far ...

CHAIRPERSON: Did you then at one stage decide, I am going to ignore the decision of the meeting?

MR MULADY: Well, on my own I went there with an idea that the late was going to be taken away, but what came to me lately, after he was being thrown at, I also participated in the throwing of the stones and also becoming one, I mean a person who followed him when he was already in the house, then I took the tyre which was already lit and it had already caught petrol, and I threw it over the body of the deceased. I am saying this because it also seems to have been influenced by the rift that I had because I was already furious after the deceased had already been beaten, because when he was being beaten, it came to my mind that I had a lot in my mind which I had, especially from the children of the deceased and the wife. In that way, the stones and the assegai and the shield and also the sling, whatever the deceased was using on the day when there was this fight, influenced me in killing him because if he was able to surprise us all or overpower us, then he would be able to give us a problem individually. Therefore that is why it led to the death of the deceased, after I had seen the assegai and the shield and the sling, whatever equipment he used on that specific day.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that your answer to my simple question? Carry on Mr Van Rensburg?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman. Was Mr Finnias Mulady present at that important meeting on the 6th of April?

MR MULADY: I have already demonstrated that I cannot say whether he was in or not.

CHAIRPERSON: You have not already, the question was was he in the meeting, the question is not whether he was at the house?

MR MULADY: Yes, on the 6th, he was at the meeting at school. When we went to kill the late, I cannot say he was in or not.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, you can just answer what we ask you and then we will go a lot faster. You say that he was at the meeting before you went to kill him, he was there? Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR MULADY: Yes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Did he address the meeting?

MR MULADY: Well, I can only think and quote on what he said.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone was not on, he is still waiting for the response.

CHAIRPERSON: ... in terms of the answer, the leader did address the meeting.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Was it his insistence, I am talking about Finnias Mulady, was it his view that immediately after the meeting, the people must go to that kraal and evict the deceased?

MR MULADY: Well, my request is that, in fact when you talk of Mulady, are you normally, I am not too sure whether you are referring to Abel Mulady or Finnias Mulady, I would like to get clarity.

ADV DE JAGER: He is referring to your leader of the Youth Congress, we are speaking about the leader of the Youth Congress, the man who called the meeting, who sent you to summon the people to the meeting, we are talking about him. Don't pretend to be confused, really you are not persuading us that you are in fact confused.

MR MULADY: Finnias Mulady was in the meeting, however I didn't hear his voice. There is another Mulady, Abel and I am the one who spoke during the meeting.

ADV DE JAGER: Finnias didn't speak in the meeting?

MR MULADY: No.

ADV DE JAGER: The leader of the Youth Congress didn't speak at the meeting, is that correct?

MR MULADY: Yes, he didn't address the meeting.

MR VAN RENSBURG: But Abel Mulady, he did address the meeting?

MR MULADY: Yes, he spoke, he addressed.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Are you now saying that there was another person with the name of Abel Mulady except yourself?

CHAIRPERSON: Or are you the person that spoke?

MR MULADY: Sorry, I am saying I am Abel Mulady who spoke or addressed the meeting, however the leader of the Youth Congress, Finnias Mulady, did not address the meeting.

MR VAN RENSBURG: If you refer to Abel Mulady that addressed the meeting, was that yourself or another person?

MR MULADY: That is why I am saying, I am saying Abel Mulady, me and I am the one who addressed the meeting on that day.

MR VAN RENSBURG: So you acted also as the leader at the meeting.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you chairing that meeting?

MR MULADY: I was not a leader.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you chairing the meeting, it doesn't matter if you are not a leader, were you chairing the meeting?

MR MULADY: Yes, I was chairing the meeting on that day.

CHAIRPERSON: Why are you evading the questions, simple questions?

MR MULADY: Well, I am trying to confuse Mulady with Abel Mulady because these are two different people.

CHAIRPERSON: You say you chaired that meeting?

MR MULADY: Yes, I am saying that.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I put it to you sir, that this Finnias Mulady was not the Chairman and that there was in fact not a Chairman to this Youth Congress and that it was just a loose organisation and that you were one of the leaders thereof.

MR MULADY: I have already explained initially that Finnias Mulady, when he was given this leadership role for Mahvunga Youth Congress, I didn't know about it, I only learnt about that later after the death of the deceased.

MR VAN RENSBURG: The last question is can you perhaps explain, no, I will leave that, thank you, I have no further questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

MS PATEL: You have read my mind, Honourable Chairperson, I don't.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou, do you have any questions?

MR NDOU: I don't wish to take this any further.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you, can we take a five minute adjournment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON RESUMPTION:

MR NDOU: Thank you Mr Chairman, I now call number 2717, Ngomandu Amos Muhadi. His application appears on page 84 on the paginated document. May the witness be sworn in Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Muhadi, what language would you prefer to use?

MR MUHADI: I would like to use Venda.

NGOMANDU AMOS MUHADI: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Please be seated.

EXAMINATION BY MR NDOU: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Muhadi, I see that you are before the Committee seeking amnesty in respect of an offence of murder, arson and assault GBH. This murder, the murder charge all right, on whom was it committed?

MR MUHADI: To Edward Mahvunga.

MR NDOU: And the arson charge, on whose property or house was it committed?

MR MUHADI: Edward Mahvunga.

MR NDOU: The assault GBH, if you still remember?

MR MUHADI: To Rosinnah Mahvunga.

MR NDOU: I see, so these were charged 3, 5 and 7 respectively?

CHAIRPERSON: No, 7, 3 and 5 respectively.

MR NDOU: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: You had the murder first.

MR NDOU: Okay. I want you to explain when did these three offences take place, do you remember?

MR MUHADI: Yes, I still remember, that was on the 6th of February 1990.

MR NDOU: All three of them?

MR MUHADI: Yes.

MR NDOU: I want you to explain how it came about that you committed these offences?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou, before you carry on and before you waste time, his application in respect of the assault, how could he possibly get amnesty for that? On what basis would he comply with the requirement of political motive?

MR NDOU: Well, on that basis, we took it as the facts were the same and everything occurred the same.

CHAIRPERSON: No, but was she a political target? How was assaulting her, going to enhance a political agenda? I am asking, I am inviting you to persuade us.

MR NDOU: I appreciate the problem, but the fact of the matter is that everything took place altogether and I thought it would ...

CHAIRPERSON: So? I will leave it in your hands, I draw your attention to it, but we would appreciate not being asked to make decisions on issues that are really irrelevant.

MR NDOU: Okay, perhaps it will be wise at this stage for us to withdraw it from the statement.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you better consult and you can tell us later or tomorrow.

MR NDOU: I want you to explain to the Committee as to how it came about that you partook in these offences.

MR MUHADI: I can start by on the 6th, when I was at home, I heard my sister saying that there were people who were calling me and on getting out, I realised that it was Abel who said I was expected to attend the meeting because ...

MR NDOU: Abel who?

MR MUHADI: Abel Mulady.

MR NDOU: The previous applicant?

MR MUHADI: Yes.

MR NDOU: Yes?

MR MUHADI: Because there was something which I was still doing at home, I said that I will follow him. Then when I followed him, I realised that the meeting was over, the people were going to the deceased's home and I joined the people who were going to his home. When listening what people were saying or what was decided that day is that people were going to persuade Edward for the last time to go. Edward is a person who was stubborn, then ensues an argument which took a long time which we did not result into us making him to leave. This led into Edward fighting with the group and then the group fighting against him, which resulted in him being killed. In his killing, I also participated, that is I was charged with murder. Rosinnah as the wife of the deceased, she was part of the fight of fighting with the group, I was also charged with assault because while we were busy throwing stones, I am sure that one of the stones which I threw as she has said, hit her. That is why I am charged with assault. As I continue, I was also charged by arson, I was not charged by arson, that is burning the house, but I am involved in the burning of the house, that was because of the evidence given by the witnesses, that I was having a petrol bomb, which is not true.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou, we have a slight technical problem here. Prison Officials are needed to take whoever is in custody back to the prison, they need to do so now, because now arrangements have been made for prisoners to be taken back to jail later. Have you got any objections, then we can adjourn now and carry on tomorrow morning?

MR NDOU: No problem.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Van Rensburg?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I have no objections.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel? Unfortunately, then we will have to adjourn this hearing until tomorrow, nine o'clock because of the necessity to take prisoners back to prison. I would appeal to the Officials of the what do you call this, Correctional Services, to make arrangements such that we can finish at five o'clock tomorrow. Any Officials here from the prison? Have you heard my request, can you make such arrangements? We will adjourn until nine o'clock tomorrow.