--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: You are still under oath to speak the truth, do you understand?

MR MUHADI: Yes I understand.

NOGAMANDU AMOS MUHADI: (s.u.o.)

MR NDOU: Thank you Mr Chairman, honourable members. I have prepared affidavits and I have already made the original and copies available to members as well as the evidence leader and Mr van Rensburg on the other side. In fact we are just waiting for the other applicants who have gone to sign the affidavits at the police station so that all the affidavits are in today.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got that general one you also had?

MR NDOU: Yes, yes. What I intend to do, I wanted to read the affidavit into the record and then allow the applicant to confirm and then allow him to be cross-examined.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't need to read it into the record.

MR NDOU: I don't need to do that.

CHAIRPERSON: You can ask him - well let me - is that affidavit before you?

MR NDOU: Yes it is.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Muhadi have - do you see that affidavit before you?

MR MUHADI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: At the end of that affidavit there are signatures.

MR MUHADI: Yes it's true.

CHAIRPERSON: The first signature, do you know whose signature that is?

MR MUHADI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Whose signature is that?

MR MUHADI: It's mine.

CHAIRPERSON: No Mr Ndou the other pages have not been initialled.

MR NDOU: I've sent people to have them typed now, they're just from the police station, I'm sure the police there didn't realise but we'll have them initialled.

CHAIRPERSON: What do we do now? Well, Mr Ndou, I'm going to allow this in on a provisional basis. Perhaps after lunch you can see to it that it's properly attested to and signed. One would have expected you to attend the police station to see that that in fact was done. But be that as it may, there's nothing we can do about it now, I would expect it to be done by after lunch. In other words, we'll use lunch time to rectify these technical problems.

MR NDOU: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Muhadi, this affidavit is not properly attested to in terms of the requirements of the law but, I've explained to your attorney what to do about rectifying the situation, do you understand that?

MR MUHADI: Yes, I understand.

CHAIRPERSON: In the meantime, we can proceed with your evidence.

MR NDOU: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you read this affidavit?

MR MUHADI: Yes, I did.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you aware and do you understand the contents? Has it been explained to you?

MR MUHADI: Yes, I understand.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you confirm the contents of this affidavit?

MR MUHADI: Yes, I confirm.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there anything that comes to mind at the present moment that you wish to add?

MR MUHADI: Up to now there's nothing.

CHAIRPERSON: You fully understand that you can be cross-examined on the contents of this affidavit?

MR MUHADI: Yes, I agree.

CHAIRPERSON: Good. Yes, carry on Mr Ndou, is there anything else?

EXAMINATION BY MR NDOU: (cont)

Thank you. You remember yesterday, when we adjourned, I just asked you as to what action did you do at the deceased's house and you said that you threw stones at the deceased's (indistinct) wife was still outside. And then, that later on you also entered the house and continued to throw stones at him. And that in the process you also hit Rosinnah with a stone during the stone throwing, is that correct?

MR MUHADI: Yes, that's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: (Microphone not picking up) he testify that the deceased directed a spear at the crowd, (indistinct).

MR NDOU: Pardon?

CHAIRPERSON: Did this witness not say that the deceased threw a spear at them? Or was it a stone?

MR NDOU: (Indistinct) I cannot follow yesterday as to how far he had gone but remember him indicating as to what he did, that he entered the house, threw stones with the rest of the group and - did you do anything else?

MR MUHADI: There's nothing else which I did except throwing stones.

MR NDOU: Now, I also see in paragraph 46 that you submit that you have made a full disclosure of the events as they unfolded.

MR MUHADI: Yes.

MR NDOU: And you also indicate from paragraphs 47 to 50 that you humble yourself and generally apologise to the family of the deceased, (indistinct)?

MR MUHADI: Yes, it's correct?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Muhadi, you say that the deceased threw stones at the crown.

MR MUHADI: Yes, that's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he throw anything else?

MR MUHADI: Yes. A spear.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR NDOU: Is there anything else that you want to add apart from what you've said already in the affidavit.

MR MUHADI: No, no, there's nothing, since I made application as far as this affidavit is concerned.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I don't want to stall the proceedings but this affidavit has just been handed to me, I didn't have an opportunity to read through it and I think as it will be the same for...(intervention)...

CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn for ten minutes to give everybody an opportunity to read it.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION:

NGAMANDU AMOS MUHADI: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Van Rensburg?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Before I start, may I just get a directive from the Chairperson regarding the application made by this Applicant regarding the assault GBH. I think yesterday it was indicated that we would ask the legal representative to give an indication if he's going to withdraw this part of the amnesty application.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that was an undertaking, Mr Ndou.

MR NDOU: (Indistinct).

CHAIRPERSON: Have you consulted about it?

MR NDOU: (Indistinct)

CHAIRPERSON: And what is the position?

MR NDOU: We're withdrawing (indistinct).

ADV DE JAGER: (Indistinct), I'm not sure. Could we just have a look at a sentence of the sentence of this particular witness before you - where's the sentence? Number 13 is on page 203 it seems. Okay, no, I only want to say that three counts were taken together for purposes of sentence. And I had the problem that this is a legal problem so, we'll have to deal with that, what would the effect be for instance if one of the counts are not proceeded with for amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct) Mr Ndou, paragraph four of Mr Muhadi's affidavit indicates that he applies for amnesty in respect of offences listed above. I assume you're talking about the offences listed in paragraph two?

MR NDOU: That is so.

CHAIRPERSON: But you've abandoned the one.

MR NDOU: Now that we've abandoned that paragraph, let's take it as if it's been taken out.

ADV SIGODI: (Indistinct).

MR NDOU: Not the whole paragraph as such.

CHAIRPERSON: Must we, when we have regard for this affidavit, must we read it as if to exclude an application in respect of the assault?

MR NDOU: That is so, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Good. Yes, Mr Van Rensburg.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Muhadi, may we start on your affidavit, do down to paragraph five thereof on page one, the very last line.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we'll make this Exhibit A.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. The sentence reads there:

Now, what I want you to explain to us is this phenomenon of ritual sacrifice for political and economic gain, what does that mean in that context?

MR MUHADI: If I can expand clearly, I mentioned that referring to the ministers who were working for the government starting by political gain, they were protecting and they were committing ritual sacrifices, protecting their positions and or their powers which they were having in ruling the government.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay, and more specifically, did you have information that the deceased actually used ritual sacrifice for political and economic gain? Let's start with the political first.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct) was the deceased a person in political power?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I think from the drift of this affidavit, it is in fact the case of the Applicant. If we specifically look at paragraph 13 thereof, you'll see they make the allegation there in paragraph 13 that there were no structures, rent boycotts or things that they could do, the only thing that they could was to attack the witches.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, the purpose of my question is to distinguish whether the deceased was a person in political power who would use the witches' power to retain and sustain his position...(intervention)

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: ...or was the deceased looked upon as a witch who assisted people in sustaining their political power.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you, I think that will actually the position better than my question. Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: Then you could look at paragraph 19.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes. Indeed, that links up with that. So, if I can rephrase my question, Mr Muhadi, perhaps you can explain to us which one of these two situations was the truth at that stage? Was the deceased using ritual sacrifice for political gain himself or was it the situation that it was thought that he used his powers to assist...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: His powers as a witch.

MR VAN RENSBURG: ...his powers as a witch, to assist the institution and the government of the day in any way? Which of these two was the situation?

MR MUHADI: I will answer in this way. This Committee will agree with me that I have never seen the assist committing murder or witching anybody but, what I heard is that the deceased was practising witchcraft. As such, if I can continue, I don't think I can say the deceased was doing that in order to protect his power politically because politically he was not involved in politics because, as far as the institution which he or allegations were saying that he is committing ritual murder in order to protect a certain institution, I don't know that institution.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I see. So, what you are in fact saying is that none of the two alternatives that I have given you are the truth. The truth is you heard he was a witch, full stop.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no. He heard he was a witch and, as far as his knowledge, whether it was hearsay or not, was that he used that power in his capacity as a witch to sustain the position of the political institutions.

MR VAN RENSBURG: So that's the second alternative that I put to him.

CHAIRPERSON: As near as we can get, yes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay. Can you be a bit more specific about that? Can you give us some instance of a rumour that you have heard, how he used these powers to assist the political powers?

CHAIRPERSON: Well, let's put it this way, before you answer that question, did you in fact hear the he was a particular who used to assist the political institutions or did you know that specifically about him?

MR MUHADI: That that was assisting as a witch as far as politics was concerned, I never heard about that because, in the past politics here in our rural areas was something which was not popular.

CHAIRPERSON: Then, if that is so, how did you attach the deceased or how was he earmarked as far as you're concerned for political attack?

MR MUHADI: I will explain in this way. The deceased, when it comes in a way that he was killed as far as politics is concerned is that by that time, while there were violences, people were recognising that the government which was leading us was leading us with things such as witches and ritual murder. And here in the rural areas because...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct) asked a simple question. How did the deceased become a political target? We know that you made the allegation that witches assisted political authorities to retain their power. In particular the deceased, Edward, was there anything specific that you heard or saw that he did or was he just regarded as a witch who assisted these political powers?

MR MUHADI: The deceased was attached with politics in our village because when youth were singing freedom songs, he used to obstruct them and when they held meetings, he used to prevent them from holding meetings.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct) we've heard that. In his capacity as a witch, was he a political target? We've heard that he was a political target because of his political attitude towards the youths and meetings, etcetera. In his capacity as a wizard which you believed he was, was he a political target because of being a witch?

MR MUHADI: No, I'm asking that you repeat your question.

CHAIRPERSON: Look, we know you've told us that in particular Edward used to oppose political meetings, political songs especially that of the youth, we know that. Let's forget about that now, let's assume we accept that, that in that he would be a political target. But we also know that you say he was thought of to be a witch. We also know that you have indicated that witches were thought of at least to assist in sustaining the wrong political powers as far as you people were concerned. Do you follow so far?

MR MUHADI: Yes, I agree.

CHAIRPERSON: Edward, you say you believed, was a wizard. In his capacity as this wizard, as you thought, was he a political target?

MR MUHADI: Yes, I agree because his killing was making the government to feel that there is pressure.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct) besides that, before he was (indistinct), before he was killed, was he a political target because he was a wizard?

MR MUHADI: He was a political target because he was against the politics that was being done by them.

CHAIRPERSON: But that's not what I'm asking. He was a witch, now because he was a witch, was he a political target or not? That's all I'm asking.

MR MUHADI: In our village he was a political target because they were the people whom we decided to deal with because to do that, to us was important in assisting us in making sure that the government will understand what we are doing.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct) understand if you kill a witch?

MR MUHADI: It's pressure, what the government was supposed to hear.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct), why kill a witch? What was so important about killing a witch to show the government something? What did this witch do, or any witch do that made them a political target, if anything?

MR MUHADI: The Committee will agree with me...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct) agree with you, we're asking you questions.

MR MUHADI: I'm asking that you repeat the question.

ADV DE JAGER: Could I try and help? Why did you decide to kill a witch and not for instance decide to kill businessmen in the area?

MR MUHADI: It has been explained several times that killing a witch, we were looking into that the government which was ruling us was ruling us with things or dealing with things such as ritual murder and witches so, we see witches and traditional doctors and the government as one thing which was cooperating together. And the government was funding the medicine from those people. So, if we killed those people we would have had the government.

ADV DE JAGER: That's what we're trying to find out.

MR MUHADI: Thank you.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Fine. Let's turn to the next one now, the phenomenon of ritual sacrifice for economic gain. And all I want to know from you is did you have any information that the deceased used this phenomenon of ritual sacrifice for economic gain himself?

MR MUHADI: No, I didn't have any information to that regard.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Let's continue to the next page, paragraph six which says:

Now let's establish first, according to you, who was the traditional leader in your area? Mahvunga?

MR MUHADI: Adam Mahvunga was the traditional leader.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Now was this paragraph, as you have put it down there, was this also the situation if you make it applicable on Adam Mahvunga?

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct) Mr Van Rensburg, are we correct in honing in geographically and individually on the principle of attacking witchcraft? Is the import of this affidavit and its evidence not that look Venda as a whole, we were of the view that it should be reincorporated into South Africa under the Pretoria government. In general all these government officials, traditional leaders and institutions and mechanisms which Pretoria had used to manipulate power (indistinct) assisted by ritual murders, and witchcraft, etcetera. And in general we are going to deal with the witchcraft situation for that purpose...(intervention)

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: ...as apposed to 'Look, did this witch deserve it?' or 'That wizard deserve it?' I'm not saying the position was one or the other, I'm speaking for myself, I just get the impression that the import of the evidence is that we weren't honing on individual people but we were honing in on the concept and the institution of witchcraft.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And the general perceptions at the time?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I agree with you. That is in fact the case of the Applicants. My line of cross-examining is trying to point out that that in fact could not be the situation in that specific area.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no. That may be so, I'm just saying that let's assume you are able to prove that Edward was not one of those people who assisted the Nationalist Government, would that make in difference in the perception of the people? I just raised the question, don't answer it if you don't want to.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I understand.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm just raising the question to emphasise a point I'm making, and if we're going to go into individual and geographical perceptions, we may sit here the whole two weeks.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I understand that.

CHAIRPERSON: And at the end of the day, the import of the evidence is that we didn't attack particular people in a particular geographical situation or a particular individual but we attacked the whole phenomenon of witchcraft.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Because at least we perceived that they were assisting to entrench Apartheid and its mechanisms.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I understand that. And I will address that issue during my address, thank you, Mr Chairman. I'm not going to deal with this specific issue very long.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I can just perhaps get this answer on record.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct).

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you. Mr Muhadi, can you just answer this question for us then, regarding paragraph six. If you say that at the time it was the perception in the community that traditional leaders were perceived as condoning the practise of ritual sacrifices and also protecting people practising witchcraft, was that the situation in that specific area where you lived as well?

CHAIRPERSON: Where did you stay? Mahvunga?

MR MUHADI: Yes, at Mahvunga.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct) Mahvunga, did the people think that witches and wizards were being protected and what they were doing in terms of ritual sacrifices was being condoned by the traditional leaders?

MR MUHADI: I wouldn't say traditional leaders at the time, some of them, well in other areas, might have been condoning that.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you say whether in your area that was the situation or can't you say?

MR MUHADI: Well, I can only say that is was not so because leader in our village was not really at home. He used be on the Reef.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct).

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Going down to paragraph 11 on page two, it reads as follows:

What do you mean by de-establishing?

CHAIRPERSON: Our affidavit reads destabilising.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I would concede that that would make more sense.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I don't know, maybe...(intervention).

MR VAN RENSBURG: I don't know why I have a different one then.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, the one that's officially signed reads 'destabilising.'

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Destabilising. Perhaps I should ask you then if you can explain to this hearing, how the burning of the witches and wizards would destabilise the government?

MR MUHADI: Well, the burning of the witches or the traditional healers will contribute to the rival government as someone who was taking over from Mr Mphepo could not really be governable because that was our main aim when we were practising those things, so that when it was ungovernable, the South African government will then interfere.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct) area, let's say for example of Venda, was governable precisely because those who were governing were assisted by the witches. And if you got rid of the witches, it follows then that the area of Venda would become ungovernable and therefor Pretoria would then come to its senses. Do I understand you correctly?

MR MUHADI: What I'm saying is the removal or the burning of the witches in all the countries in Venda, the different countries in Venda, will make the government of Venda feel the pressure, also, having a problem regarding the burning and who is in the government, what is it that we should do in order to put them in a particular place and they will have that pressure.

UNKNOWN: (Indistinct).

MR MUHADI: The pressure will then really be in line with the killing of the witches and if that will continue, that will really give the government attention that it will lead eventually to the eventual wiping out of people and that will really give a problem to the central government.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct) and not businessmen or the politicians themselves?

MR MUHADI: I've said that we targeted the witches and the wizards because our (indistinct) in our village, they were the ones who were really torturing us, in our view. And they were our real target to be used because...(intervention)

UNKNOWN: (Indistinct).

MR MUHADI: Because...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: What were they doing?

MR MUHADI: They were torturing us and bewitching us and they were really instilling bad spirits, etcetera.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct) not helping those who were in government, the real reason they were killed was because they were torturing you and putting evil spirits on you, is that the position now? Because earlier you told us that the reason they were killed was because they were assisting the government pockets to sustain their powers. That's what you said, now you're telling us 'No, they were actually killed because they were casting evil spirits on you, evil spells, and they were torturing you.'

MR MUHADI: What I understand is that the Committee is asking me that witches definitely where I stay, it's just to give an example, what they do on my side especially regarding myself.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct) the question. Earlier you told me that the witches were targeted on a political basis because they assisted those in government to retain their powers and govern Venda on behalf of Pretoria. Now you tell me 'No, they were targeted and killed because they cast evil spells on you and that they were the real people who were torturing you.' Now which one is the truth?

MR MUHADI: What is true is what I'm explaining, namely the fact that when they were doing that, they were regarded as people who were cooperating with the government so that they should retain their power because whatever they were using, this medicine which was found in traditional healers and they were used in supernatural powers that they had.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct), are you telling us all these about being tortured and being victims of evil spells and all that? I don't know if it was explained to you that this enquiry involves an enquiry into political motives for certain actions and whether you've made full disclosure. Now, you must be very careful about what you tell us. Because you've in fact given us two versions now, that's why I've asked you which is the truth. And it's important for us to know on what political basis those witches were targets. Do you understand? If there was no political basis, then I'm afraid then you don't comply with the Act, do you follow?

MR MUHADI: Yes, I do.

CHAIRPERSON: Proceed, yes, Mr Van Rensburg.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. If I understand your evidence then, you are saying that it was actually decided to kill those witches and to get rid of them for political motives, it was actually planned, it was part of your strategy?

MR MUHADI: I'm not too sure whether you are actually giving me the timeframe or you saying since when it was planned. Perhaps you could repeat your question.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct) if it was planned in the first place.

MR MUHADI: It happened - that was during the time of the release of Mr Mandela. It was not planned beforehand, before the release of Mr Mandela.

CHAIRPERSON: We're not asking when, was it planned? Why are we struggling, it's a simple question. Was there a plan to kill the witches? We're not asking when, was there a plan? Was there a decision to kill witches or wizards?

MR MUHADI: Are you talking - with regard to the decision now, I can't say I'm too sure but all I know is that they had to be burned.

CHAIRPERSON: You say you don't know whether there decision (indistinct) to do so, all you know that they had to be burned? Do I understand you correctly?

MR MUHADI: That was quite from rumour.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you hear that there was such a decision or plan?

MR MUHADI: Yes, I heard about that.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct) hear? That the witches had to be burned? Is that what you heard?

MR MUHADI: That they should be burned or be removed from that community.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct) the furthest we're going to get, Mr Van Rensburg.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Was there at any meeting that you attended a decision taken to burn, to kill the deceased because he was a witch?

MR MUHADI: I didn't attend any meeting which decided on that regard.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay, now that we have established that you at least heard that there was a plan to kill the witches and that formed part of the political strategy, I want to refer you to the Annexure A which was attached to your application. And specifically paragraph three thereof.

CHAIRPERSON: Page number?

MR VAN RENSBURG: That is page number 88, Mr Chairman. Paragraph three:

You see, my problem is if I understand your evidence to be at this stage, that it was strategy, it was planned, it was decided at some meetings that this is the way that you're going to go, is it not contradictory now to what is contained in paragraph three where the drift of the contents is that it was ...(tape ends )

CHAIRPERSON: Compared to?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Compared to his evidence today.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, isn't paragraph three of Annexure A a generalisation whereas his evidence is dealing specifically with the death of Edward where he says 'Look, when I was called to a meeting, by the time I went to the meeting the meeting was over and, I just joined this crowd who told me, or some people told me 'Look here, this is what is going to happen.''

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, but his evidence this morning, as we've just established, was that is was actually part of the political strategy that witches should be killed.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. It's not contradictory to Annexure A's paragraph three. It just says that the opportunity was seized to deal with these so-called witches.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Be it by agreement or design or spontaneous, we're not too sure from that document.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Well, Mr Chairman, with respect, I think if you read paragraph three, there's actually no indication, and that is the point I'm trying make, there's no indication that it was organised, that it was planned.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, yes. We agree on that.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: But it doesn't mean that it wasn't planned. There's no indication that it was planned.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: But it doesn't follow that it wasn't planned. What I'm saying is you must find out from him what the position is about this Annexure A.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I'll do that. If I can focus your attention then on paragraph three of Annexure A.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know who was the author of Annexure A?

MR MUHADI: But I don't know who wrote this.

CHAIRPERSON: You see, Mr Van Rensburg, as it was pointed out to me now, Annexure A was completed in terms of a completely different act. It was an application for indemnity, in terms of an act of 1992 which had different requirements and maybe, I'm not too sure what those requirements were but, perhaps those requirements didn't compel the Applicant to be as specific as this act in terms of which we sit here, wanted him to be. I'm not too sure. I'm just raising those problems in fairness to the Applicant.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I have to agree that that is definitely one view whilst on the other hand it is included in the bundle which forms part of the supporting documents for the amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but it wasn't included by the Applicant. It was included by the Commission.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I understand. I would rather then leave that point for argument. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Let's turn to page three, paragraph 12, I think the third page of Annexure A. I read it to you, paragraph 12:

CHAIRPERSON: It should read 'conscientisation' I think.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I think it does read that, perhaps it's just my pronunciation that it was a bit...

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I want you to explain to us, firstly, were you a member of this Mavunga Youth Congress?

MR MUHADI: I was not a member.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you sympathise with it? While you may not be a card carrying member of that youth organisation, did you follow its principles?

MR MUHADI: I was a mere supporter.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Why were you not a member?

MR MUHADI: Well, I believe that when you are said to be a member, you definitely have to have a card, but I didn't have a card because I don't think that committee really had any cards or people who had cards.

MR VAN RENSBURG: It doesn't go about the card only, it goes about attending the meetings, doing what the executive tells you to do, things like that. Why weren't you part of that?

CHAIRPERSON: He didn't say he wasn't part of that, he just explained his perception of membership is that you must produce - you must be a card carrying member. Maybe we must find out if he avoided attending their meetings and activities.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Did you attend the meetings of this Mavunga Youth Congress?

MR MUHADI: Well, the only meeting that I remember was the first one, that is the one I attended.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Perhaps you can tell us about that one? When did it take place and what was discussed?

MR MUHADI: I can't remember the date because I don't know exactly but what was said in that meeting, what was being discussed was the issue regarding the freedom which people realised they got upon the release of Mandela, that was one week after the release of Mr Mandela and also the fact that there had to be a formation of a congress which will affiliate under the ANC organisation.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Did you say it was the first meeting of the Mavunga Youth Congress?

MR MUHADI: Yes, I said that.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Now, can't we expect that at the first meeting there should be an executive formed, for instance?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Van Rensburg, from my experiences on the Commission, when issues like that were formed, the inauguration or when they met to discuss the feasibility of establishing such a committee or organisation did not include the formation of the body. It was an investigative meeting, with the community and if the community supported a further meeting, then it would be held to formulate all these things.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Muhadi, perhaps you can enlighten us, was that first meeting of the Youth Congress, was it one of those investigative meetings where it was discussed if a body should be formed?

MR MUHADI: Yes, I believe that it was discussed because, well, there can't be an institution which could not have an executive.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Who was the chairperson at that meeting that you attended?

MR MUHADI: Well, I've already said that as it was a first meeting, I cannot say who the chairperson was because I couldn't see any person being elected or chosen.

CHAIRPERSON: (indistinct) about the election, come, let's not play with words. Who was sitting there in front and taking questions and asking people to explain and making speeches, etcetera? Who was the person saying 'You can talk' or 'You can talk' or 'You can ask a question?'

MR MUHADI: Well, I can remember Mr Mtangeni, Phungo Mtangeni.

CHAIRPERSON: (Microphone not picking up) person who was the chairperson of that meeting?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Phungo Mtangeni, thank you, Mr Chairperson. Did you attend the meeting on 6 April?

CHAIRPERSON: He said he only attended one, that was the first one.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Of the Youth Congress, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: That's all. And he indicated that he was invited to the meeting on the sixth, when he got there it had finished.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I think the evidence that was lead was to the effect that when, on the 6 April, you arrived at the school, the meeting was just over and the people were dispersing, is that correct?

MR MUHADI: Well, I didn't really meet the people at the school but the meeting was already dismissed.

CHAIRPERSON: (Microphone not picking up) after the group, on their way to the deceased's house, does it matter whether they were in the school or in the street or nearby the house?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I understand. Did the people inform you what was discussed at that meeting on the sixth?

MR MUHADI: Yes, they told me. We were going to Mr Edward so that he should be begged that he should leave, to be persuaded to leave. Well, mainly that was just to persuade him to leave.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Just a last question regarding paragraph 12, because you had only attended one meeting I would - would you agree with me or would you say that you cannot give us information about the assistance from the other political organisations that the Youth Congress was involved with?

MR MUHADI: Could you repeat the question?

MR VAN RENSBURG: (Microphone not picking up) put it to you more simply. You see, in paragraph 12 there, it says that there was a:

The last line of paragraph 12.

MR MUHADI: Well, what I can say is that on that day, as I remember, the Youth Congress was not the Mavunga Youth Congress, there was another one called Matanga Youth Congress. It means that there were other people who were assisting that congress.

MR VAN RENSBURG: So you knew about that assistance from the Matanga Youth Congress?

MR MUHADI: I didn't know. I only realised it then. I've said that is was during the first meeting that was held.

MR VAN RENSBURG: When did you realise that there was liaisons and assistance from the other Youth Congress?

CHAIRPERSON: (Microphone not picking up) at that meeting that he attended, that's when he realised that there was assistance from other organisations.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, I will (indistinct). If we can continue with paragraph 14 now. I'm reading from the Applicant's statement thereof, or second sentence:

You see that sentence there in your statement?

MR MUHADI: Yes, I can see that.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Now, you must tell me and, if I'm not correct, but what I deduct from your statement is that all the actions, all the meetings, all the things that you have done for political motive was aimed at the released of Mr Nelson Mandela?

CHAIRPERSON: What makes you say that, Mr Van Rensburg?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I make that deduction from the sentence which says that 'release him' and 'we saw him as the Messiah who would deliver us from hell.'

CHAIRPERSON: That may be so, but I mean the whole crux of his evidence was also that we wanted to incorporated into South Africa. And we saw the witches as a pillar of support to sustain the Apartheid mechanisms. I don't think it's fair to put to him that what they did was only for the sole reason of ensuring that Mr Mandela was released. It can't be the case because his evidence says otherwise. Even this document says otherwise.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I will also reserve that question then for argument, thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Paragraph 15:

And then there's a list of the alleged witches and wizards. What I want to know from you, when were these people identified? Was it at a meeting, was it just like in the street or how and when were they identified?

CHAIRPERSON: Well, let's be helpful. In your affidavit you make this list, when did you find out about the names that you put down here?

MR MUHADI: Well, let me answer as follows. These names, I can't say I've seen them written elsewhere, what I know is that the allegations or the hearsays were derived from a long time as we were growing.

CHAIRPERSON: You say in this statement in your affidavit that there was a list, people who were identified, how did you find out who was identified? How do you know so that you can include it in your affidavit?

MR MUHADI: Well, these names, I was told about these names.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you indicate to us when you were told about it?

MR MUHADI: Well, I'm saying I heard this from serious allegations and hearsays.

CHAIRPERSON: But when did you hear about this? That's what I'm asking, can you indicate when you heard about it? Or can't you tell us?

MR MUHADI: Well, I can't say exactly when and when I was told because, there was no meeting which I attended where this list was discussed.

MR VAN RENSBURG: The point is, is it not so that this list was compiled over a very long time.

CHAIRPERSON: (Microphone not picking up) are you able to say how long it took to compile this list or not?

MR MUHADI: I can't talk about the list, I can talk about the hearsays from the people while if I talk about the lists I might seem to be saying the list was ready and it chose to be displayed for people to see.

CHAIRPERSON: We're not trying to catch you out. We want to be as helpful as possible. We asked you a simple question, we don't need a long explanation. In your interest I wish to point out to you that while you're talking too much, more questions are going to be asked of you. So answer the question and get finished. It for that attorney to ask the questions and you answer it as simply as you can. Do you understand? And I'm not trying to be funny, I'm telling this in your own interest, do you understand?

MR MUHADI: Yes, I do.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, the only thing that we want to know is, let's not call it a list, the assembly of names or the identification of these people as witches, did it take place round about February 1990 or was it over a long a period before that that the villagers identified these people as witches? Which one of the two?

CHAIRPERSON: Is he able to say, Mr Van Rensburg? Maybe I can help again. When you heard that this group of people were identified as witches as wizards, did you know that these names were being gathered before you heard about these names or was it the first time you heard of these identifications when you did eventually hear about it?

MR MUHADI: It was not the first time.

CHAIRPERSON: Then we're getting closer to the question then. Can you give us an indication over what period it took the people to make these identifications of all these witches and wizards that needed to be dealt with? Over what period, are you able to say?

MR MUHADI: Regarding the evictions, I can't say it took a long time.

CHAIRPERSON: (Microphone not picking up) eviction, identification of these people. Look at paragraph 15, do you see those names there? These one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight people's names?

MR MUHADI: Yes, I can see that.

CHAIRPERSON: You say they were identified as wizards and witches in your affidavit, okay?

MR MUHADI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: (Microphone not picking up) if you are able to tell us over what period of time it took the people to identify these eight people as being witches and wizards.

MR MUHADI: It had taken a long time.

CHAIRPERSON: (Microphone not picking up) able to say what period or not?

MR MUHADI: I cannot.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, Mr Van Rensburg, we've at least established that it took a long time.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you, that's all I was looking for. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Whatever.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay, if we ignore the names of Edward Mahvunga and also the one of Petrus Mahvunga on that list, what I want to ask you is the other people on that list, were they also evicted from your village?

MR MUHADI: Yes, they were evicted eventually.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Everyone? You can go through the list quickly.

MR MUHADI: Yes. I agree.

MR VAN RENSBURG: It was not necessary to burn them, when you informed them they must leave, they left?

CHAIRPERSON: (Microphone not picking up) say that they were evicted.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Oh, okay, I'll accept that, thank you, Mr Chairman. Paragraph 16 then:

Did you attend that rally?

MR MUHADI: I did not attend, I heard about it.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Can you give us some indication why this was included in your affidavit in support of your application?

MR MUHADI: Well, I wanted to indicate that the whole country was celebrating.

MR VAN RENSBURG: If we continue on the next page, paragraph 19:

I want to know from you, on what basis do you say that the deceased wanted to assume the position of acting headman?

MR MUHADI: It is because when, in the absence of Adam, when there was something that the villagers needed to do, Edward wanted to be so much involved as the real person in leadership when it was not so. Like the collection of money for the village towards the chief's kraal, when the collection was done - when the money was collected, he would take the money and use it. I can give you an example of one incident when there was this mula (indistinct), he will collect the money and take it as his. Circumcision - that's mula.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Are you saying the deceased collected that money for his own benefit? He took it, perhaps I misunderstood the interpreter, are you saying that the deceased took that money for the circumcisions for himself?

MR MUHADI: I'm not saying he collected, he wanted it to be collected to be his own.

MR VAN RENSBURG: So, he wanted to, he did not actually receive the money? He wanted to take it for himself?

CHAIRPERSON: It seems that there was a practise that at every initiation, the headman will receive a payment of some sort.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: The appointed headman being away in Johannesburg, the was an opportunity for someone to make this collection.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I understand, that is what I am trying to establish.

CHAIRPERSON: And it seems what he's saying is that the deceased, despite not being appointed, wanted to take advantage of that opportunity.

MR VAN RENSBURG: He attempted to - okay.

CHAIRPERSON: He of course gives as an example in response to your question as to 'What makes you say that he wanted to assume this position?'

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, no, that is a good answer I'd say. Was this a well-known fact in the community that he wanted to collect the money on behalf or in the capacity of a headman? Was this a well-known fact or do you think it is only you who knew of this?

MR MUHADI: Could you repeat the question in a nice fashion?

MR VAN RENSBURG: (indistinct) repeat it nicer than that?

CHAIRPERSON: (Microphone not picking up) people know about this, how did you come to know about it?

MR MUHADI: Edward said it in front of me.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he say in front of you 'Listen, I want this money to be collected and I want it for myself?'

MR MUHADI: Just for the money to be collected for myself, yes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Can you give us an indication of when this took place?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Van Rensburg, is it the victim's case that he didn't do that?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that would seriously be (indistinct).

CHAIRPERSON: Were any of his family members present when that was happening?

MR MUHADI: I can't say there was anybody because it was in the evening. They might have been in.

CHAIRPERSON: (Microphone not picking up).

MR MUHADI: Well it happened circumcision school.

CHAIRPERSON: (Microphone not picking up) his family members there, that you saw? His wife and his children?

MR MUHADI: I said that I cannot remember, I can't remember what they were in.

CHAIRPERSON: (Microphone not picking up) to have been at the circumcision school?

MR MUHADI: Very unlikely. Likely.

CHAIRPERSON: To have been there?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you, Mr Chairman. If we can continue to paragraph 21, I think it's on the fourth page:

Did you see the deceased doing this?

MR MUHADI: No, I heard about it.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Paragraph 24:

And that ties in with the previous paragraph which described the events on 28 February 1990, is that correct?

MR MUHADI: Yes, it is true.

MR VAN RENSBURG: (Microphone not picking up) is it not so that one that specific day, 28 February 1990, the deceased's house was also damaged?

CHAIRPERSON: (Microphone not picking up) there was a series of attempts to at lease damage his house.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I think the windows at least were broken.

CHAIRPERSON: We're not too sure exactly what happened.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know about that?

MR MUHADI: Yes, I wasn't there. I heard about it when this happened.

MR VAN RENSBURG: (Microphone not picking up) of February?

MR MUHADI: What I can remember, this happened when I was practising at a driving school and I used to come back at around 16h00 and, I will go to the practise after 16h00. And I will attend many of these activities.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you. If we can jump ahead then.

ADV DE JAGER: Can I just ask something about paragraph 25?"Further meetings were held where at we resolved to allow the deceased..."

You didn't attend any further meetings?

MR MUHADI: No.

ADV DE JAGER: (Microphone not picking up) really got a problem with this affidavit. This man is making statements under oath and he knew nothing about it, he wasn't there:

"We resolved..."

It's including him. We had a lot of hearsay in here which he knew nothing about.

MR NDOU: May I comment?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR NDOU: That's fine, I don't have any problem with that.

CHAIRPERSON: You should (indistinct).

MR NDOU: What I want to indicate is that I'm worried there is a slight problem of with the reading of these sentences like I see sometimes my learned friend struggles in trying to interpret what's written.

ADV DE JAGER: Allow me just to put my problem. My problem is it's not his affidavit, it's yours.

MR NDOU: I don't understand that.

ADV DE JAGER: He knows nothing about this.

MR NDOU: But you're not at my explanation, how do you come to that conclusion? Do you want me to (intervenes).

ADV DE JAGER: Yes.

MR NDOU: I'm saying when you read the affidavit, it talks about the youth in general and then it goes to specific instances where that particular Applicant states as to what he or she did. Now, here if you read paragraph 25, it says:

Now, what you read in that is that what he's saying is that the Youth held further meetings whereas they resolved that the deceased must be removed to allow for political activity which is a fact. But then he'll go on to point out as to the time when he was there and just what he did at the time when he was there. Because all that he then tries to do is to give a broad outline of what the facts are and, most of the facts are not in dispute. What I think would be in dispute will be that which the particular Applicant is said to have done, even on that paragraph, I don't see any contradiction, I don't see any trying to take the situation out of ambit.

The import of that sentence says to us that this Applicant was party to that decision. In order to be party to that decision, he must have been at that meeting to be party to that decision. He now tells us he wasn't at that meeting. Do you understand?

MR NDOU: I don't have any problem although it doesn't talk about 'a meeting,' it talks about 'meetings.'

CHAIRPERSON: Well, that's the point. He wasn't there, he only attended one meeting.

MR NDOU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: There are a number of other issues here in this affidavit where he tells us no, he has no personal knowledge of those facts, he heard about them. Now there is nothing wrong with inserting hearsay evidence in affidavits but it must be pointed out that it's hearsay. And on those issues it only explains why he took certain actions, it doesn't mean it's the truth, do you follow?

MR NDOU: I don't have any problem. I took it that the Committee also understands that he never indicated as to when he attended the meeting of Mahvunga Youth Congress.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I'm not arguing with you, I'm not even talking about what you thought and what you assumed, I'm pointed out to you what the rules and regulations are regarding affidavits in terms of the laws of this land. And the practises as it developed over time. And we have adopted the attitude that we will have regard for affidavits in terms of those practises as it was developed. Do you follow?

MR NDOU: Yes. If you go back to paragraph 3, it says:

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Now, this decision at those further meetings, is it in his personal knowledge?

MR NDOU: No, but if you ask him, he'll tell you that they reported to him, he knew about it, he heard about it.

CHAIRPERSON: Then you are misunderstanding personal knowledge as apposed to hearsay. Personal knowledge means 'I know about it myself, I experienced it myself.' That's what it means when it says 'In my personal knowledge.' And are true and correct. How can you say hearsay is true and correct? Do you follow what I'm saying? If you haven't seen it.

MR NDOU: Okay, it's fine. I don't have any problem with personal knowledge. The problem that I had was information and belief but, it's fine. Perhaps what we will say that, then maybe we will add on paragraph 25 that it is not (indistinct), that he heard about these meetings.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what Mr De Jager's pointing out to you is that we're going to have serious difficulty relying on this document. I'm not going to tell whether you must supplement these affidavits or not, that is for you to decide. You're representing these Applicants. I think he's being fair to you when he points out to you that there are difficulties that we experience with these documents. Anyway (intervenes).

MR NDOU: Although what I don't agree with him is that it is my affidavit. That I don't agree with him.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Ndou, okay, you didn't sign it, it's okay, it's not your affidavit in that sense, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So we've pointed out the problems that we may have at the end of the end of the day. We're not here to give you advice, you must make certain decisions yourself.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you, Mr Chairman. If we can jump right to paragraph 31 on page five, at the bottom.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I'm glad to hear that, a big leap. We'll get to the end of this business.

Now I'm going to ask you a really simple question...(intervenes)

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, you've jumped so far...(intervenes).

INTERPRETER: Speaker's mike is not on, please.

ADV DE JAGER: ... so far, I haven't got that page.

MR VAN RENSBURG: It's at the bottom of page 5, paragraph 31.

ADV DE JAGER: Unfortunately it's not included in my...(intervenes)

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, it was also not included in mine originally but if you look on the other statement, I suppose it should be included, perhaps we can just get that from Mr Ndou.

ADV SIGODI: I don't have it either.

MR NDOU: Which paragraph is that?

ADV SIGODI: 31.

CHAIRPERSON: Look, I tell you what, it's 11h00, I'm going to have some tea. Mr Ndou, will take these documents back and see that they are properly formulated, please. We have extreme difficulty in proceeding with this bit of evidence.

ON RESUMPTION:

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Van Rensburg.

NGAMANDU AMOS MUHADI: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN RENSBURG: (cont)

Thank you, Mr Chairperson. During the tea break it was brought to my knowledge that the witness, Mr Muhadi actually wants to effect certain amendments to his affidavit and I don't know exactly what the position is regarding this.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou, what is the position about that now?

MR NDOU: Well, we thought that the Applicant will be able to cure the problem in the affidavit because we couldn't just go there and change it and let him sign because there will be a problem with the attestation. So, we thought perhaps if, it's only two instances that pertain to paragraph 25 and 31, I think where (indistinct).

CHAIRPERSON: What does he want to do? What does he want to...(intervenes).

MR NDOU: It's just that the wording, just slightly change to on paragraph 25 to read:

without indicating whether he was there not.

CHAIRPERSON: And then will he initial that amendment?

MR NDOU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And where's the other amendment?

MR NDOU: And then on paragraph 31, the sentence will now read that:

CHAIRPERSON: And he'll sign and initial there?

MR NDOU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got any objection to that, Mr Van Rensburg?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I just want to put on record that I don't think I really have, in the circumstances of the whole scenario at this stage, have a problem but, formally, obviously the regulations also stipulates that the Commissioner of Oaths should normally also be requested to initial...(intervenes)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well, I've asked Mr Ndou to see to it that every page is initialled by those who must sign it.

MR VAN RENSBURG: In those circumstances...(intervenes).

CHAIRPERSON: That - not instruction - that proviso still applies.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I understand.

CHAIRPERSON: If it isn't done by the time we finish with this matter, we will have complete disregard for the affidavit.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I understand that and under those circumstances I will have no objection, thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Van Rensburg, if we can push along, please, sir.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you, I will do that.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm hoping to finish today.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. I had previously referred to paragraph 31 on page five, I will in view of the amendment also skip that and proceed to paragraph 37 on page six. It reads, Mr Muhadi, that:

Now this is interesting because it's the first time that we have evidence to that effect that the police were actually involved on the 6 April, can you just tell me, did the police arrive there or what was the role of the police on that day?

MR MUHADI: The police spoke with the deceased to leave.

MR VAN RENSBURG: On 6 April, did you see the police there?

MR MUHADI: Yes, I mean on that date.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And did the police leave while the crowd was still there at the house?

MR MUHADI: Yes, the police left and left the crown behind.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I also have to put it to you that the victim will testify that the crowd only arrived in the afternoon and not 10h00 like you've stipulated in paragraph 37.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you able to give further details, Mr Van Rensburg, like only ten people came and a bigger crowd arrived later the afternoon or what is the position?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I think the situation from the victim's side is, let me put it this way. After the meeting was dispersed, the first people went there. So, I got the drift from the evidence that immediately after the meeting, the people went there in a huge crowd.

CHAIRPERSON: My problem is the understanding of what you're saying to the witness by the witness himself. Your client may have a view of what a crowd is. He may have a different idea of what a crowd is and that's relative.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I understand.

CHAIRPERSON: So, tell him that your instructions are that a crowd didn't come there. Twenty people may be a crowd to him.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And that's why I'm saying, maybe in fairness to him, we get more details.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Better details on that, thank you, I'll do that. In paragraph 37 you state:

Can I just establish from you, did you yourself also arrive at the deceased's home at 10h00?

MR MUHADI: On the house of the deceased, I arrived but I cannot say at exactly 10h00 but it was round about that time.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Were there already other people there when you arrived there or were you of the first people to arrive at his house?

MR MUHADI: There were no other people.

MR VAN RENSBURG: (Indistinct) some, you were part of the first people to arrive at this house?

MR MUHADI: Yes, that's correct.

MR VAN RENSBURG: (Indistinct) can put it to you that it is not so according to the victims. They say that the first people arrived at the house only in the afternoon, 14h00 perhaps.

MR MUHADI: I won't deny what the victims are saying. Maybe that is the way they perceived it which is different from my own perception.

MR VAN RENSBURG: The reason why I'm putting this to you is, and perhaps I can refresh your memory, one of the previous witnesses testified, the Applicants testified that there was a lengthy four to five hour consultation with the deceased before the house was attacked. Do you agree with that evidence?

MR MUHADI: Yes, I agree.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And then I put it to you that the victim will testify that that was not the case, she will say immediately, in the afternoon, when the crowd arrived at the house, they immediately attacked the house.

MR MUHADI: I won't dispute on their behalf, that is evidence that they can give.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that they say correct? Is what the attorney is putting to you correct? That the attack only occurred when the large crowd came to the house at about 15h00 that afternoon? In other words they're saying at 10h00 that large crowd wasn't there.

MR MUHADI: No, it was there.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel, have you got any questions?

MS PATEL: No I don't, thank you, honourable Chairperson.

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

MR NDOU: None.

ADV SIGODI: No questions, Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: No thank you, no questions. You can go.

CHAIRPERSON: This will be Exhibit B. Mr Sioma, what language would you prefer to use?

MR SIOMA: I will use (indistinct) Venda.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Have you got any objection to the taking of the oath?

MR SIOMA: No objection.

MR SIOMA: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed.

EXAMINATION BY MR NDOU: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Sioma, you have an affidavit in front of you.

MR SIOMA: Yes, it's true.

MR NDOU: Do you agree that your signature appearing on the last page of the document is yours?

MR SIOMA: Yes, I agree.

MR NDOU: (Indistinct) that this affidavit may be handed in as your evidence?

MR SIOMA: Yes, I agree.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct) that you wish to bring or effect on the affidavit?

MR SIOMA: No, at this stage, no.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct) is that in terms of your instructions?

MR NDOU: That is so.

CHAIRPERSON: So you also as a legal advisor are comfortable that no amendments need to be brought.

MR NDOU: Yes, I made sure that where there were problems, those are clarified.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there anything that you want to add to your affidavit that comes to mind now?

MR SIOMA: No, at this stage.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct) Mr Van Rensburg?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN RENSBURG: Mr Sioma, I just want to put it to you that the reason why you attacked the house of the deceased and burned down his house and killed him was because he was suspected of being a witch and the community was frightened of witches.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, let's do it one by one.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Pardon?

CHAIRPERSON: It's been put to you that the reason why you participated in killing the deceased was because he was a witch, true or not?

MR SIOMA: Some of it, that's one of it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, secondly it's been put to you, well Mr Van Rensburg, can you carry on then?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you. And that that was the most important reason why you killed him, because he was a witch?

MR SIOMA: That is not the only one.

MR VAN RENSBURG: The most important one?

MR SIOMA: The most important one is that he was in the midst of witches and that he was disturbing the activities of the youth.

MR VAN RENSBURG: You agree that there was prior to the day that he was killed, no decision to kill him?

MR SIOMA: The decision of killing him was not there, was never made.

MR VAN RENSBURG: (Indistinct), thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel?

MS PATEL: No, thank you, honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou?

MR NDOU: None.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct)

ADV SIGODI: No questions, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Tell me, what do you feel about what you did that day? What do you feel today?

MR SIOMA: For now I'm feeling in my heart very painful, since it happened I'm feeling very concerned when seeing the children of the deceased in front of me now. In the past I was unable to meet them so that we can forgive each other as we are living together at home...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct) are you prepared to make attempts to come to terms with the family?

MR SIOMA: Yes, I'm fully prepared that we can live together like before.

CHAIRPERSON: I would appeal to the respective representatives to make attempts to facilitate such a meeting. I don't know if it will occur but at least I'm hopeful that it could. Mr Ndou?

MR NDOU: I agree.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mudau, what language would you prefer to use?

MR MUDAU: Chief Venda.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, have you any objects to the taking of the oath?

MR MUDAU: No objection.

PUMELANE LAWRENCE MUDAU: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR NDOU: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Mudau, you are also an applicant in this matter and you have signed an affidavit. If you look at the last page that there is a signature appearing thereon, is that your signature?

MR MUDAU: Yes, it's mine.

MR NDOU: Do you agree that this affidavit may be handed in as your evidence?

MR MUDAU: Yes, I agree.

MR NDOU: Is there anything that you wish to add to the affidavit?

MR MUDAU: No.

MR NDOU: That is all.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NDOU

CHAIRPERSON: Is there anything you would like to amend in this affidavit?

MR NDOU: (Indistinct), we're satisfied, I've consulted with him, we're quite satisfied.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou, the first two affidavits, is it not possible to rectify them in the meantime, that these Deponents can go the police station now to...(intervention)

MR NDOU: And have them stamped?

CHAIRPERSON: Whatever, you rectify - there are problems in it and I...(intervention)

MR NDOU: We'll definitely do so.

CHAIRPERSON: Well here, you had better take the...(intervention)

MR NDOU: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou.

MR NDOU: Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: The Committee is in agreement that every page must also be initialled by the Commissioner of Oaths. I see Mudau's one is not...(intervention)

MR NDOU: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: Or Rerani also.

MR NDOU: Oh, let me hand in the ones that have been - apparently they were skipping others, these ones have been done, like the one I have.

ADV SIGODI: The Commissioner of Oaths.

CHAIRPERSON: The Commissioner of Oaths.

ADV SIGODI: (Indistinct).

CHAIRPERSON: These have been done but the Commissioner of Oaths must also initial it.

MR NDOU: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: Can't they do it with - is Rerani next?

MR NDOU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: The person that is going to run down to the police station better wait till these two are finished or whoever. Then while you are arguing, they can go see to this. Yes, Mr Van Rensburg?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. Mr Mudau, do you know what a petrol bomb is?

MR MUDAU: Yes, I know.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Is it not so that on the day that the deceased was killed, you were in possession of a petrol bomb?

MR MUDAU: Yes, I was having it.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I have no further questions to this witness, your worship, on the basis that the allegations as far as these pertain to his motivation for the attack on that day is at this stage still in dispute. I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: I haven't had a chance to read these documents but has he conceded that he was in possession of a petrol bomb?

MR VAN RENSBURG: It was in fact one of the facts found during the criminal trial.

CHAIRPERSON: But I'm talking in his affidavit?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Why didn't you say in your affidavit that you were in possession of a petrol bomb?

MR MUDAU: I might have just left it out.

CHAIRPERSON: Not might, you did. I'm asking why.

MR MUDAU: Maybe I didn't think about it properly.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct) whether you wanted to make any amendments or add anything, why didn't you then do that?

MR MUDAU: I didn't think about it.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct) petrol bomb?

MR MUDAU: I threw that petrol bomb over the house.

CHAIRPERSON: Why?

MR MUDAU: It was on that day of the (indistinct).

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, why? Why did you throw it at the house?

MR MUDAU: I was burning the house.

CHAIRPERSON: There was no decision to do that, wasn't there? You went there with a petrol bomb.

MR MUDAU: It was by the time when the deceased was starting to fight with the people.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct) to fetch a petrol bomb.

MR MUDAU: I don't know if people are in the know of what is a petrol bomb, can I be allowed to explain?

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct) what a petrol bomb is. I know it for years. The point of the matter is all I'm asking you is on your way to the deceased's house, were you in possession of a petrol bomb or did you only go fetch it after you arrived there?

MR MUDAU: It was in my possession?

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct) went there?

MR MUDAU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct).

MR MUDAU: About 12h00.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct) intend to do with this petrol bomb?

MR MUDAU: I was just having it.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct) what? People don't carry petrol bombs for nothing.

MR MUDAU: It was just because something that I was used in holding it.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct) you serious, don't talk nonsense to us. Why were you in possession of a petrol bomb?

MR MUDAU: I was suspected that maybe on our arrival there, after negotiating, if the deceased did not understand, then if a fight broke, then I will throw it in the house.

CHAIRPERSON: Now why are we suffering to get that kind of answer? It's a perfectly understandable answer that, instead of coming to tell me that you carry it because you're used to carrying petrol bombs. I've yet to see people carrying petrol bombs like they carry packets of sweets or money or knives.

MR MUDAU: I apologise for that.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct) help your case when you say things like that. So you in particular knew there was a possibility and I must say you have come closest to the reality and probabilities. You knew that he was likely to resist and therefor you had this petrol bomb with you, just in case, correct?

MR MUDAU: Yes, it's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And you foresaw the possibility that if that happens, he can die. Not so?

MR MUDAU: That didn't come to my mind.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, but when they started throwing stones and you would throw the petrol bomb, it must have crossed your mind 'He can die now' not so?

MR MUDAU: Yes, the fight was now serious.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel, did I ask you if you wanted to ask any questions?

MS PATEL: No, you didn't honourable Chairperson but, I don't, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou, do you have any re-examination?

MR NDOU: No, none.

ADV SIGODI: No questions, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, you're excused.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rerani, what language would you like to use?

MR RERANI: Venda.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there any objection that you may have to the taking of the oath?

N P RERANI: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR NDOU: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Rerani, you've signed an affidavit. If you look at the last page of this affidavit, you'll see there's a signature there, is that your signature?

MR RERANI: Yes, it's might.

MR NDOU: (Indistinct) agree that this affidavit may be handed in as your evidence?

MR RERANI: Yes.

MR NDOU: (Indistinct) also want to add except from what appears on this affidavit?

MR RERANI: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you want to amend anything in that affidavit?

MR RERANI: No.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NDOU

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Van Rensburg?

MR VAN RENSBURG: If you just give me one minute, please. At the criminal trial, you could not give an explanation as to why you threw the stones at the house of the deceased on 6 April.

MR RERANI: Yes, it is true.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Can you now give us an explanation why?

MR RERANI: Yes, I can.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Let me ask you this, why couldn't you give an explanation at the criminal trial as to why you committed these actions?

MR RERANI: When I arrived there, the fight was on. I just joined and participate in throwing the stones.

MR VAN RENSBURG: (Indistinct) why didn't you tell the reason for the attack at the criminal trial? Why didn't you tell the reason?

MR RERANI: Maybe they asked me in a way that you are not asking me now. I might have answered it contrary to what you are expecting of me.

ADV DE JAGER: So, you didn't know the reason for the stone throwing, you just joined?

MR RERANI: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Why did you think they were throwing stones? Throwing stones at a person could kill him. Now why would people do that?

MR RERANI: I thought that if, when arriving there, I could just stand and watch them because they would revolt against me.

CHAIRPERSON: So you had no particular reason for throwing those stones?

MR RERANI: No.

MR VAN RENSBURG: No further questions, thank you.

MS PATEL: In light of that response, I certainly don't have any questions, honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou, have you got any questions?

MR NDOU: (Indistinct) I can't take it. Perhaps, let me try.

CHAIRPERSON: No, well, contrary to the belief that you can flog a dead horse alive, I have serious doubts that you could do it today. There's been no allegation that you practise witchcraft.

MR NDOU: It will be dangerous for me to (indistinct).

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you, very much.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ragwala, what language would you prefer to use?

MR RAGWALA: Venda.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct) have you any objection to the taking of the oath?

MR RAGWALA: No.

CHESTER RAGWALA: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR NDOU: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Ragwala, you are an applicant in this matter and you have prepared an affidavit and, if you look at the last page of this affidavit, is that your signature?

MR RAGWALA: Yes, it's mine.

MR NDOU: Do you also agree that this affidavit may be handed in as your evidence? Is there anything perhaps also that you want to add to what appears on the affidavit?

MR RAGWALA: Yes, I cannot add anything.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there anything you want to amend to that that you can think of now?

MR RAGWALA: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Van Rensburg.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN RENSBURG

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I've lost my way a little bit here.

MS PATEL: Honourable Chairperson, perhaps while my learned colleague is finding his way, we haven't numbered this exhibit nor the previous one.

CHAIRPERSON: I've just sent it for punching, we'll do it as soon as it comes back.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct) I just thanked Ms Patel for pointing it out, I'd forgotten.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Mr Ragwala, can you just tell us, what...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Van Rensburg, can we just number these pages, please? Mr Mudau, his will be Exhibit C, isn't it? Then we have Rerani, Exhibit D and Ragwala, E. Are we all in agreement?

MR NDOU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you, Mr Chairman, thank you for the opportunity. Mr Ragwala, can you just tell us, what acts are you making application for amnesty for?

MR RAGWALA: Throwing stones at the deceased as well as burning the house.

MR VAN RENSBURG: (Indistinct), in what way did you participate in burning the house?

MR RAGWALA: Regarding the burning of the house, it's as follows. I burned the car.

CHAIRPERSON: What did you do in that episode?

MR RAGWALA: I took the tyres, as the car was burning, I added towards the flame.

MR VAN RENSBURG: In paragraph 44 where you describe what your individual participation on that day was, and this fact that you burnt the car is not mentioned there. Can you give us an indication why?

MR RAGWALA: Could you repeat the question please?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Why didn't you tell us through your affidavit and specifically in paragraph 44 that you are asking for amnesty because you burnt the car of the deceased?

MR RAGWALA: It was perhaps out of forgetfulness in explaining.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you talking about the affidavit?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: But at paragraph 42 it does say.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, in fact I did have a look at that, I apologise, I did. Yes, under the circumstances, I will have no

further questions for the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you, honourable Chairperson, just one. Sir, at the time you stated when you were asked the reason for your involvement, you said you were just throwing stones because you felt like it and because everybody else was throwing stones, is that still your position today?

MR RAGWALA: Could you repeat your question slowly?

MS PATEL: At the trial when you were asked as to why you participate in this incident, you said that you were throwing stones because you felt like it and because everybody else was throwing stones, can you remember that?

MR RAGWALA: Yes, I do remember, that was when I was putting a statement or writing a statement before the police. As I was explaining, I did explain that I arrived at the deceased's house and the fight was already on. I joined in the throwing of stones.

MS PATEL: (Indistinct).

MR RAGWALA: Yes, it was true.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct) know why you throwing stones?

MR RAGWALA: I knew that we were fighting against the deceased because the deceased had already been told to leave and he refused.

CHAIRPERSON: Why?

MR RAGWALA: Could you repeat that question?

CHAIRPERSON: Why he was asked, the reason to go?

MR RAGWALA: He was asked to leave because he was suspected of witchcraft plus...(intervention)

MS PATEL: Plus what, sir?

INTERPRETER: He is repeating that.

MR RAGWALA: Because he was suspected of witchcraft practise and also apposing the people at Mahvunga village.

MS PATEL: (Indistinct), thank you, honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou, have you got any questions?

MR NDOU: No.

ADV DE JAGER: In paragraph 20 of your affidavit you state:

Were you discussing at these coming togethers your action that

would be taken against?

MR RAGWALA: The question, please?

CHAIRPERSON: The youth wanted him to go out of the village, correct?

MR RAGWALA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you present at any meeting where the youth discussed (indistinct) 'If he refuses to go, what are we going to do to him?' or about that?

MR RAGWALA: I remember that in one meeting at the chief's kraal when the late was told to leave because he was apposing the children at Mahvunga, the meeting did not resolve well because it was then that Petrus' house was burnt down. As the deceased was really fighting against the people and they started singing towards the house. And that led to the ending of the meeting, not in a peaceful way.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, you're excused.

MR NDOU: That will be all the evidence for the applicants.

CHAIRPERSON: Here are the three original affidavits. They can rectified. Yes, Mr Van Rensburg?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, at this stage I'd like to call to this stand Rosinnah Mahvunga.

CHAIRPERSON: Mrs Mahvunga, what language would you prefer to use?

MRS MAHVUNGA: ChiVenda.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any objection to the taking of the oath?

MRS MAHVUNGA: No.

ROSINNAH MAHVUNGA: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. Rosinnah, can you first start to explain to us what the relationship was between yourself and the deceased, Mr Edward Mahvunga?

MRS MAHVUNGA: The deceased was my husband. We were two.

MR VAN RENSBURG: His other wife, where did she live during February 1990?

MRS MAHVUNGA: The other wife was staying at her original or maiden home at Vereeniging.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct) sound disrespectful but it is important for us to know (indistinct) to us so that if necessary when we declare victims, we know who to declare as victims. Were you formally married to the deceased?

MRS MAHVUNGA: Could you repeat the question?

CHAIRPERSON: Were you formally or by custom married to the deceased?

MRS MAHVUNGA: Yes, customarily so, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And this other lady, who you say was his other wife, was she still his wife while you were his wife or was she divorced from him or what is the position?

MRS MAHVUNGA: They were separated or divorced by then.

CHAIRPERSON: So you were his only wife at the time of his death?

MRS MAHVUNGA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: How many children did you have with the deceased?

MRS MAHVUNGA: Four.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Can you quickly give their names, please?

MRS MAHVUNGA: Peter Mahvunga.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct) is Peter? Or when was he born?

MRS MAHVUNGA: 1980.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MRS MAHVUNGA: Mashudu Mahvunga.

CHAIRPERSON: When was Mashudu born?

MRS MAHVUNGA: 1983.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct) to ask, is this male or female?

MRS MAHVUNGA: Male.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct) of course is male. Mashudu was born in 1983. Next one?

MRS MAHVUNGA: Tshianeo Mahvunga.

CHAIRPERSON: Male or female?

MRS MAHVUNGA: Male.

CHAIRPERSON: Born?

MRS MAHVUNGA: 1987. Tshipifhiwa Mahvunga.

CHAIRPERSON: Male or female?

MRS MAHVUNGA: Female.

CHAIRPERSON: Born?

MRS MAHVUNGA: 1989.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Were there any children from the first wife, the other wife also staying with you at that stage, round about 1990?

MRS MAHVUNGA: Yes, there were.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Please give their names.

MRS MAHVUNGA: Thatheni Mahvunga.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct)?

MRS MAHVUNGA: Male.

CHAIRPERSON: Born?

MRS MAHVUNGA: I can't remember. I don't know exactly.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct) perhaps?

MRS MAHVUNGA: Roughly 1962 or 1961.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct) what was the age of the deceased when he died?

MRS MAHVUNGA: I can't tell exactly unless if I had brought a death certificate, well, I didn't bring that.

ADV DE JAGER: (Indistinct) a fairly senior, fairly elderly person?

MRS MAHVUNGA: Maybe middle aged, not so old.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Mr Chairman, just for information, if I can quote from the charge sheet, it said that he was 52 years old, for what that is worth.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll regard it as his approximate age at his death.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you. Yes, the other - second child of the first wife that was staying with you?

MRS MAHVUNGA: Aubrey Mahvunga.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, any idea when that child was born or what the age is?

MRS MAHVUNGA: 1964.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MRS MAHVUNGA: Boshoff Mahvunga

MR VAN RENSBURG: Male and his age?

MRS MAHVUNGA: Yes, male. Eric Mahvunga.

MR VAN RENSBURG: (Indistinct) that, just give us the age of Boshoff. Approximately.

ADV DE JAGER: I think (indistinct) both of them sitting there so ask him what's his age.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you.

ADV DE JAGER: It's formal.

MRS MAHVUNGA: 1970.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Born in 1970. Yes the next one.

MS MAHVUNGA: Eric Mahvunga.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Male, born in?

MS MAHVUNGA: Mtanga.

MR VAN RENSBURG: When was Eric born?

MS MAHVUNGA: 1971.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Next.

MS MAHVUNGA: Morinsi Mahvunga.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, female born which year?

MS MAHVUNGA: I can't remember. The boy may come back to explain.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Mr Chairperson can we just quickly establish the age of - Morinsi is present today.

MS MAHVUNGA: 1973.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Born in 1973. Okay you've mentioned five children that were living with you at this stage, around about 1990. Any other children of the first wife that lived with you then?

CHAIRPERSON: Are there any children that weren't living with you?

MS MAHVUNGA: Well except these five, I used to live with these five.

CHAIRPERSON: Are there any other children that didn't live with you that he had?

MS MAHVUNGA: No.

CHAIRPERSON: So in total he had nine children?

MS MAHVUNGA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Please carry on.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Okay can you describe for us where did you live at the time when the deceased was killed and the house that you lived in and what were you doing there to support yourself?

MS MAHVUNGA: Well we were staying at Mahvunga Village.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Describe the house.

MS MAHVUNGA: Well he was a hardworker. He had a farm which could be six hectares. It had a number of trees, advocado trees and mango trees and orange trees. He also farmed in tomatoes which he will really export to Delport. Avocados he will also export to Mr Fish. We will also plant mealies and that we didn't use our own hands we were using trekkers which we also use different irrigation schemes, spray method.

CHAIRPERSON: Mrs Mahvunga we all know why we are gathered here. It's an application for amnesty in respect of the attack on your house that day as a result of which the house was burnt and your husband unfortunately killed. Basically most of the versions indicate that there was a belief that your husband was involved in the practice of witchcraft, what do you say about that?

MS MAHVUNGA: I don't know anything about that.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it possible that he was involved in it that you didn't know?

MS MAHVUNGA: I don't know anything about that.

CHAIRPERSON: It was also alleged that he wanted to assume the mantle of the headman in the area, in the appointed headman's absence, have you got any comments about that?

MS MAHVUNGA: No I don't know anything.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it not true, or is it possible, or is it just you don't have knowledge of that?

MS MAHVUNGA: It's not true.

CHAIRPERSON: It was also alleged that he interfered at times, especially after he discovered that he was on a list of people who were thought of to be involved in the practice of witchcraft, that he interfered with political meetings, especially that of the youth. Do you know whether that occurred, or can't you say or what is the position?

MS MAHVUNGA: It's not true.

CHAIRPERSON: You see I asked that question particularly and I gave one of the options is that you may not have knowledge of that because there was an allegation that him and his two sons, I am not too sure if the names of the two sons were mentioned at the time had attacked a group of youth people - oh him and his four sons threw stones at a group of youths who were having a meeting on the mountain and chanting or singing songs involving politics and that was never denied. If you don't know whether that occurred or not then please tell us.

MS MAHVUNGA: I don't know that.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Is it true that his family, or one of his family members was in fact the headman of the village?

MS MAHVUNGA: I don't know of that.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know Adam Mahvunga?

MS MAHVUNGA: Yes that one I know.

CHAIRPERSON: Was he the headman of the village?

MS MAHVUNGA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Was he connected to your husband?

MS MAHVUNGA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So that's what I am asking you, was a member of the family of your husband the headman of the area or the district if you can call it that, is it true?

MS MAHVUNGA: Yes it's true.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Now do you know whether the headmen and the traditional healers and those types of people were actually involved in governmental authority?

MS MAHVUNGA: No I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't know, okay. Do you know whether people who were in governmental authority sought assistance of witchcraft to sustain their power?

MS MAHVUNGA: I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't know. Are you aware that witchcraft was in fact practised in the area? Not necessarily for political reasons but just in general.

MS MAHVUNGA: Could you repeat your question.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know whether witchcraft was practised in the area at that time?

MS MAHVUNGA: No.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't know or was it not practised?

MS MAHVUNGA: I didn't know.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. So you don't know who, if it was practised you wouldn't know who would have practised it because you don't know whether it was practised, correct?

MS MAHVUNGA: Well I can say I don't know because I never heard anything about these kind of things.

CHAIRPERSON: Now let us get back to the 28th of February. Was your house attacked on the 28th of February - that's not the day your husband died.

MS MAHVUNGA: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Your house was not attacked. On the 6th of April ...(intervention)

MS MAHVUNGA: The house was attacked on the 28th.

CHAIRPERSON: Of February?

MS MAHVUNGA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Now I don't want to go into the details of who did it and what time they did it. That attack were you informed as to why that attack took place?

MS MAHVUNGA: No I wasn't told.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you not try to find out?

MS MAHVUNGA: Yes I wanted to find out but I didn't know how I will know and where to get the information.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you not ask your husband if he knew perhaps, or your children?

MS MAHVUNGA: I tried to do that. We asked ourselves because when it was happening there was nobody at home except Boshoff and Eric. When I came back in the afternoon and when the deceased came back he realised that there was this damage or attack and the boys were trying to put down the fire. I asked myself as to what was happening at my place, at my home.

CHAIRPERSON: And you couldn't fathom that out?

MS MAHVUNGA: No we could not fathom that out.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you ask your husband then or your children was there any possible reason why this could have occurred?

MS MAHVUNGA: Well we asked ourselves as to how, what is going to happen, what was going to happen, what was the reason for the attack but we could not get an answer because it was myself and my sons, or the children of the deceased.

CHAIRPERSON: Now at some stage we were informed that your husband wrote a letter to the headman which was intended to be read out to the community, do you recall that?

MS MAHVUNGA: I don't remember that, I don't know that.

CHAIRPERSON: So you don't know anything about a letter that was handed to the headman?

MS MAHVUNGA: I don't know anything about it.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Do you know or did you go to the headman to seek assistance after this initial attack on the 28th of February?

MS MAHVUNGA: Well I didn't go anywhere, I was just at home.

CHAIRPERSON: Did your husband go to ask assistance from the headman for protection or whatever, or to settle the problems?

MS MAHVUNGA: He didn't go anywhere. Well I think - well I don't remember exactly whether when that had happened as to how the police arrived, but I know the police got involved. I don't know how they arrived but it so happened.

CHAIRPERSON: What did they say when they got to you?

MS MAHVUNGA: Well they had already taken the statements and they were discussing the issue with the ...(indistinct) as to whether the boys were identified and it was said nobody identified the boy.

CHAIRPERSON: I see. Now during that time shortly or a couple of weeks before your husband eventually died did the police come there to your husband to say he must leave the area or don't you know?

MS MAHVUNGA: I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: On the day he died did the police come there?

MS MAHVUNGA: No.

CHAIRPERSON: To tell him he must go.

MS MAHVUNGA: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Until the day he died were you aware that the people were wanting him to leave the area with or without his family?

MS MAHVUNGA: Could you repeat the question please.

CHAIRPERSON: Up to the day on this attack where he died were you aware that certain people of the area wanted him to leave the area with or without his family?

MS MAHVUNGA: I don't know because nobody came to bring that kind of information to tell us to leave.

CHAIRPERSON: At the time that there was this attack before he died was the possibility of him leaving the area never raised?

MS MAHVUNGA: No.

CHAIRPERSON: There was just this attack?

MS MAHVUNGA: Yes it was just - that's when I came back on the 28th there was this attack.

CHAIRPERSON: No I am talking about the 6th when he died.

MS MAHVUNGA: Yes, now.

CHAIRPERSON: There was no indication that they wanted him to leave?

MS MAHVUNGA: No.

CHAIRPERSON: When this attack started did they say why they are throwing stones at him?

MS MAHVUNGA: Nobody explained as to why they were throwing stones.

CHAIRPERSON: There was no shouting that he must go?

MS MAHVUNGA: Nobody said a word, they just acted because that was why they were there.

CHAIRPERSON: I see. How long were they there? How long were there visitors or strangers at your house in or just outside your fence?

MS MAHVUNGA: Well it took a long time, a long time.

CHAIRPERSON: I see. Did these people come, maybe a smaller group at about 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock that day?

MS MAHVUNGA: Since the beginning of the day till late afternoon nobody came. They came in the afternoon to do the job.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright. Now were you at home when they came there?

MS MAHVUNGA: Yes I was at home.

CHAIRPERSON: Was your husband there?

MS MAHVUNGA: Yes he was at home.

CHAIRPERSON: Did anybody come inside the house to talk to you or him?

MS MAHVUNGA: No, no.

CHAIRPERSON: Did they just start to throw stones from outside?

MS MAHVUNGA: Yes that's true.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that what drew your attention to the people outside the house?

MS MAHVUNGA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you go outside?

MS MAHVUNGA: I could not go out. I just started looking for the keys and locked the doors and we stood in the passage with the children.

CHAIRPERSON: What did your husband say?

MS MAHVUNGA: He was out.

CHAIRPERSON: Where?

MS MAHVUNGA: Out of the house, within the yard.

CHAIRPERSON: He was talking to them?

MS MAHVUNGA: I cannot tell exactly whether he was talking to them or he was doing something else because I didn't see that. I was in the house.

CHAIRPERSON: So as I understand your evidence you don't know why they threw stones at your house and you don't know why they killed your husband?

MS MAHVUNGA: Yes what I can say briefly is that what I observed on my own was the fact that they were jealous because before there was this burning and destruction and attack they went to the farm and they burnt all the trees, avocados and all the beehives were destroyed.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know who did that?

MS MAHVUNGA: I can't tell you exactly because when it happened I was at home, because it is far. The farm is quite far.

CHAIRPERSON: So you don't know if it is the same people who killed your husband?

MS MAHVUNGA: Well in my own view I think it was necessary to blame the same people - to associate them with the destruction at the farm because it came as an act even at home until his death.

CHAIRPERSON: So that is just an opinion you hold, that it's the same people?

MS MAHVUNGA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You've heard the evidence of most of these applicants. It seems that there was a perception at the very least that your husband was involved in the practice of witchcraft, whether that is true or not is beside the point. And you have also heard that he interfered with the attempt to have political meetings. And you have also heard that their problems with witches, they say, was related to a desire to have a restructured political dispensation in this area. If they would come and want to make peace with you and your family what would your attitude be?

MS MAHVUNGA: Well personally - are you referring to me forgiving these people or trying to come to terms?

CHAIRPERSON: Come to terms and reconcile with the community.

MS MAHVUNGA: Personally if I were to reconcile with these people who destroyed our ...(indistinct) I do have a lot to say and explain to them, because what they did, even if I can live for a hundred years I cannot forget.

CHAIRPERSON: No I can understand that. It's difficult to forget the important things in one's life. I am asking are you able to see your way clear, not to forget, nobody can ask you to forget your husband and what happened, but to reconcile with the community? Are you able to do that or are you able to consider the possibility of doing that?

MS MAHVUNGA: Well personally it cannot be possible.

CHAIRPERSON: So even if they make approaches to you to make friends and to reconcile you are not happy to do that?

MS MAHVUNGA: I cannot do that.

ADV DE JAGER: Where have you been living since the death of your husband?

MS MAHVUNGA: I have been staying near the police station for one year and two months.

ADV DE JAGER: And did you go back to Mahvunga afterwards?

MS MAHVUNGA: No I didn't go back to Mahvunga.

ADV DE JAGER: And today where are you living?

MS MAHVUNGA: I am staying at Chirore.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg are there any other aspects you want to raise?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Ja, just one or two thank you Mr Chairman. If you are staying that from the date of the attack on your house, that was the 6th of April, for a period of one year and two months you lived at the police station, can you just explain to us why? Why didn't you go back to the area and rebuild your house and continue living there?

MS MAHVUNGA: Well it was difficult because firstly as I was living at the police station even my children were afraid of going to the shop because they were going to meet these boys. As their mother I was threatened, intimidated and so hurt because they used to share the same food with my kids. That really led me into saying I cannot go to a very dangerous place because I know I can still see that dangerous zone.

MR VAN RENSBURG: The evidence was led from the applicants that they had absolutely no fight or struggle or grudge against yourself and the boys, and they only aimed their attack at your husband, and even allowed you to escape from the house. What do you say to that?

MS MAHVUNGA: Well let me put it clearly. Well if it were possible and if there was no fight at all between them and my late husband if you consider that they were cooperating they would have really stayed with him and shown him the good way of living, not really through a fight.

And besides as we left the house we did not leave through the gate, we jumped the fence and left the house.

CHAIRPERSON: That may be so but they could easily have attacked you while you were jumping over the fence, isn't it? And perhaps even killed you, couldn't they? There was opportunity to do so.

MS MAHVUNGA: Yes it's true.

CHAIRPERSON: And that's why they are saying they allowed you and the children to get away. I am not saying that that is true, I am just saying that is what their evidence is. And that's why they are saying that they allowed you and the children to escape. Can you understand that?

MS MAHVUNGA: Yes I do understand that.

MR VAN RENSBURG: What or did you sustain any injuries on that day when they attacked the house on the 6th of April?

MS MAHVUNGA: Yes I sustained injuries.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Where and from what?

MS MAHVUNGA: Next to the eye.

MR VAN RENSBURG: What was the injury?

MS MAHVUNGA: Stone throwing.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Now the question is easy, do you believe that when you were hit with that stone that that stone was aimed for yourself or do you think the stone was aimed at your husband?

MS MAHVUNGA: It was directed to me.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you see who threw it at you?

MS MAHVUNGA: Yes I saw the person who threw the stone.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Can you tell us ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Would he not have directed ...(intervention)

MS MAHVUNGA: It was Amos.

CHAIRPERSON: Would he not have directed it at the house?

MS MAHVUNGA: The stone was aimed at a person.

ADV DE JAGER: Were you at that stage outside the house?

MS MAHVUNGA: I was right in the room and I was going to fetch the money which was in the house.

CHAIRPERSON: And was Amos in the house when he threw that stone at you or did it come from outside?

MS MAHVUNGA: It was outside but it directly next to where I was in the room.

CHAIRPERSON: So how were you able to see that it was Amos that threw the stone at you?

MS MAHVUNGA: I was directly looking towards the place where he was?

CHAIRPERSON: At the window?

MS MAHVUNGA: Yes, through the window, I could see him through the window.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Was your husband in that same room at that stage with you when you were hit?

MS MAHVUNGA: No he was in the passage with his children.

MR VAN RENSBURG: From the evidence further led by the applicants they seem to have made the allegations that your husband was not sympathetic, he had no sympathy with these people singing the freedom songs, in fact opposed the people who sang the freedom songs.

MS MAHVUNGA: He did not oppose that.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Can you tell us what, as far as you know, he did oppose?

MS MAHVUNGA: He opposed the issue of burning the houses that the youth were doing.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And these young sons that lived with you and also the daughters that lived with you in the house, did you stop them from taking part in the political activities of the youth in the area?

MS MAHVUNGA: Sorry repeat your question.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Did you stop or discourage the children that lived with you from participating in the political activities of the youth in the area?

MS MAHVUNGA: No I didn't say anything about that.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr van Rensburg the deceased and the family did they support or were they members of any political dispensation?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Perhaps I can ask that question thank you Mr Chairperson.

Can you give us an indication, you lived with the deceased, can you give us an indication what was his political feelings towards freedom and the government of the day?

MS MAHVUNGA: I cannot explain. I never heard him discuss politics or government.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Did you ever hear him opposing the freedom struggle?

MS MAHVUNGA: Not at all.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Can you just give us an indication of what you have lost? Now we know that you have lost the house because it was burned down. You have lost the tractor and the vehicles that were burnt out. Can you give us some indication of what else you have lost because of this attack?

MS MAHVUNGA: Well as it was already explained, the cars, the house was destroyed, the window panes, the beds were burned, the wardrobes were burned; dining room suite and clothes. We didn't have any clothes after the attack.

MR VAN RENSBURG: So you basically lost everything. Okay.

MS MAHVUNGA: Yes everything.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And what I want to ask you is, one of the applicants testified that at a later stage, after this attack on your house, there was some money collected as compensation and this money was handed to the Chief, have you received such compensation or any compensation?

MS MAHVUNGA: No I didn't receive.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Have you heard that the community has collected money for yourself?

MS MAHVUNGA: No I didn't hear that.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Is there anything else you want to add to your testimony?

MS MAHVUNGA: No.

ADV DE JAGER: The four small children, who supported them and paid for their school fees or anything?

MS MAHVUNGA: There are two boys who were working or who are working, Boy Ntheteni and Aubrey. These were the people who were staying on the Reef who after the death of the late when I had gone to the place where I am now staying they were the ones who were supporting us, or are supporting.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou have you got any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NDOU: Just one or two questions.

I just want to find out from you, since you now live at Chirore is it correct that the other children of the deceased never left their home, they remained there all the time? Is that correct?

MS MAHVUNGA: Well I can say that after the death of the deceased these two boys, Eric and Boshoff went to town to their brother. Maureen went to her aunt and the house was empty. When they were in town they thought that it will be difficult to get back home because there won't be - then they came back, sold

the tractor and repaired the house.

MR NDOU: I see. And do you know that the children of the deceased have a good relationship with some of the applicants since some of them were released in April? Are you aware of that? And that they play soccer together, they attend functions together.

MS MAHVUNGA: No I don't know because I am no longer staying with them.

MR NDOU: I see. That is all.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel?

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairperson no further evidence will be led from the victims' side.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel do you intend to call any evidence?

MS PATEL: No I don't Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that - we've done with the evidence now? Mr Ndou have you got any argument?

MR NDOU: Well without trying to be redundant I wouldn't want to - I think the evidence is well placed before the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman. I would actually like to address the Committee and I see it's now five to one, may I just ask what your time - what our time schedules are.

CHAIRPERSON: How long do you plan to argue for?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I think it will take about 20 minutes to perhaps 30 minutes and if it can be accommodated I would like a little bit of a break just to organise it and perhaps and that will also shorten the proceedings.

CHAIRPERSON: How is half-an-hour?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Ja that's fine.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg it's been suggested that we make an offer to you that you submit written argument within seven days. I don't know if that will suit you?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes that will suit me fine. Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel have you got any argument?

MS PATEL: No I will leave it in the hands of my colleague. The only thing I wish to say would be on the question of the approach to witchcraft matters and I am quite willing to file heads of argument in that regard at a later stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes we've come to the end of this hearing. I wish to thank the people who were involved in the logistics of arranging this hearing. In particular I wish to thank the contribution of the interpreters. I know a lot of people taken them for granted but they do a most important bit of work.

I wish to thank all those who were party to this hearing and took the matter seriously.

We have listened to this evidence and we intend to consider the facts of the matter and to determine whether the applicants singularly are entitled to amnesty or not.

I wish to thank the three legal people for the assistance they've rendered, though to differing degrees. And I want to address the applicants and members of the family.

It is true that this country has been ravaged by various actions involved in political considerations. The reasons for those are embedded in the history of this country. Many people have died unnecessarily. We are now living in a new type of country where everybody is regarded as a human-being; where everybody has their rights, in particular that of the vote; there is a democracy in this country now and it is improving as time goes on.

We must realise that there is a society within South Africa. We have got to start living together despite what has happened in the past - black and white and those who held different political views. It is to be hoped that the applicants in this particular application, and those members of the family who were the victims of whatever happened on the 6th of April can see their way clear to entering the society as normal people. And it is to be hoped further that as time goes on that the wounds can be healed. I cannot hope that people would forget their loved ones, but I can certainly hope that they can start living together and bury the hatchet. It doesn't mean that if you are able to forgive that you must forget.

I thank you.