MR MOHLABA: ... Mohlaba and Moshwana(?).

MR MAVUNDLA: N M Mavundla, I'm representing the family of the deceased.

ADV PRIOR: Advocate Paddy Prior, representing the TRC, as Evidence Leader in these proceedings.

Mr Chairman, may I place immediately on record that the requirements of Section 19 of Act 34 of 1995 have been complied with insofar as proper notice was served on all the interested parties, including implicated persons, Andries Monyai and Joseph Ndlazi. We've been informed by Ms Mohammed that the other implicated person is present and is properly represented.

There was also notice served on the African National Congress, the ANC, at their offices in Johannesburg as well as the offices of the PAC, in respect of the agreement that was alleged to have occurred in Munsieville at the time of the conflict. I understand that there will evidence tendered to this Committee from that quarter. I'm satisfied that the proper notification has been granted.

Mr Chairman, the matter is summarised on page 1 of the prepared bundle and involves the murder of Mr Abinaar Rhapomane Mongwagelwa, a PAC member, in the circumstances set out there. He was stabbed to death and set alight. May I have leave to hand up the bundle. I have discussed the status of the bundle with my learned friends, and the indication at this stage is that we can accept the bundle as reflecting, or the documents therein as reflecting the facts contained therein. In other words, we can accept the record for example, of the criminal proceedings and the other documentation and by your leave, to possibly mark it Exhibit A or give it some identification.

ADV SANDI: As I understand it, the background and political context is common cause.

ADV PRIOR: Mr Chairman, yes, we also discussed before we commenced this morning, that the various legal representatives of the various interested persons would indicate before cross-examination, that they would limiting their questions to the limited issues in this matter. To that extent the background and

the facts of the incident are common cause, as set out in the applicant's Section 112 pleading before the High Court of the Supreme Court, as well as the judgment handed down in that matter.

My understanding with respect, and this could be confirmed, is that the victims object on the basis of a non-political objective, which would certainly limit to a very large extent the evidence or evidentiary material before this Committee. But I think my various colleagues can maybe confirm that in more clarity, but that is the sense of it. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you, Chairperson. I call the applicant and he elects to testify in Tswana.

ADV SANDI: Mr Thage, can you please give us your full names please.

WASHINGTON SENTI THAGE: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR MOHLABA: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Thage, you are the applicant in this matter and you born on the 18th of May 1971, is that correct?

MR THAGE: That is correct.

MR MOHLABA: You are presently serving a prison term, is that correct?

MR THAGE: That is correct.

MR MOHLABA: And you're serving a term in respect of - you have been convicted for murder of Abinaar Rhampomane Mongwagelwa, is that correct?

MR THAGE: That is correct.

MR MOHLABA: And you are applying for amnesty in respect of this very killing, and the basis on which you are applying for amnesty is that this killing was committed with a political objective, is that correct?

MR THAGE: That is correct.

MR MOHLABA: At the trial where you were facing a charge of murder, you were duly represented and you pleaded guilty, a statement was handed into the trial Court, is that correct?

MR THAGE: That is correct.

MR MOHLABA: When consulting with you this morning we went through the bundle and in particular page 29 to 33, wherein the statement handed in to the Court was summarised by the trial judge, is that correct?

MR THAGE: That is correct.

MR MOHLABA: Do you confirm the facts as contained in the pages mentioned, that is page 29 and page 33?

MR THAGE: I agree.

MR MOHLABA: May I briefly take you through your application form. In particular I want to refer you to page 4 of the paginated bundle, that is paragraph 11(b), where you were requested to state the particulars of the order, approval and the date thereof and the name and address of the person who approved such orders. You in response to that question, the following was said:

I want you to explain to this Committee, to expand on that and explain if you in fact received orders from Motingwa. Did you receive orders from him directly?

MR THAGE: No.

MR MOHLABA: Can you explain how these orders, if any, were given to you, or the decision to kill the deceased?

MR THAGE: It was a mass meeting as a result of the conflict between us and the members of the PAC. There were meetings held to try and resolve the issue. That was after the death of one of our comrades. There was an agreement between the comrades and the masses. I mentioned Oupa Motingwa's name because he was the chairperson, but he did not issue out an order, it was an agreement among the members of the ANC and the community of Munsieville.

MR MOHLABA: And you have mentioned a comrade that was killed at an earlier stage, are you referring to Joseph Khule?

MR THAGE: That is correct.

MR MOHLABA: And were you present at the burial of Joseph?

MR THAGE: I was present.

MR MOHLABA: And how did you as a comrade feel about the death of Khule?

MR THAGE: I was the pioneer organiser and he was serving under me. This hurt me a lot.

MR MOHLABA: And was anything mentioned at the burial about how you should go ahead with regard to the animosity which was there, between the ANC and the PAC?

MR THAGE: We were told that the fight would go on even if one of the comrades has died.

MR MOHLABA: So it was - rather let me put it this way, let me put this question to you. If your comrade was not killed, would you have still killed the deceased as you did?

MR THAGE: Yes, this was a fight, this was a war.

MR MOHLABA: Did you benefit anything from the death of the deceased, personally?

MR THAGE: No.

MR MOHLABA: That's the evidence-in-chief, Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MOHLABA

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAVUNDLA: Mr Chairperson, the name is Mavundla, representing the family. If I may cross-examine the witness, thank you.

Mr Thage, is it correct that at the time, particularly when this incident occurred, the country was still under the then racist minority regime?

MR THAGE: That is correct.

MR MAVUNDLA: Is it correct that PAC and ANC, at one or other stage were banned organisations?

MR THAGE: That is correct.

MR MAVUNDLA: Is it correct that they were being perceived by the communities as waging a struggle against the them racist regime, with the purpose of bringing about democracy in the country?

MR THAGE: That is correct.

MR MAVUNDLA: Is it then correct that the enemy at that time was the racist regime and its structures?

MR THAGE: That is correct.

MR MAVUNDLA: Is it then correct that PAC was not the enemy of the community in the country as it was part of the broad liberatory movement?

MR THAGE: That is correct.

MR MAVUNDLA: Is it also correct that the war was in that context, focused to the racist regime of the time?

MR THAGE: that is correct.

MR MAVUNDLA: And the war that you are talking about, that's the war against, or directed towards to over throw of the then racist regime?

MR THAGE: There's a part that I do not understand quite well.

MR MAVUNDLA: During 1991, in particular, the broad liberatory movement was still waging a struggle against the apartheid racist minority regime, is that correct?

MR THAGE: That is correct, organisations were fighting for the liberation, but it happened that there was a fight in Munsieville, between the PAC and the ANC. It is true, the organisations were fighting for the liberation of the country, but in Munsieville, this was the situation.

MR MAVUNDLA: And the general objective of the masses in waging the struggle, was to have themselves emancipated from the yoke of the racist regime. That is a portion you concede?

MR THAGE: I concede.

MR MAVUNDLA: Now during the trial - that is in your trial, you indicated that on the fateful day you recognised the deceased as being the person who had assaulted you with an iron rod on the 26th of December 1990, is that correct?

MR THAGE: That is correct.

MR MAVUNDLA: Going back to 1990, are you in a position to advise this Honourable Commission whether the fight of the 26th of December 1990, is it the fight that revolved around a girl and consequently - or let's put it this way, it revolved around a girl who had been to a party with an ANC member and another person from the, a PAC member, came to retrieve the lady concerned?

MR THAGE: I was not fighting with him over that.

MR MAVUNDLA: What was the fight all about at the time?

MR THAGE: I did not fight. I was with Tabang, who was eight years, if not seven, and a friend of mine who was a comrade, we met him. I did not attack him, I was not even aware that he would appear. I was on my way to somewhere with a comrade and this child, he just picked up an iron bar from a child nearby and he attacked me that. I tried to stop it, but it hit me. I did not fight at all. The comrades appeared, they assisted me because I got a blackout, I did not see what was happening. I did not fight him.

MR MAVUNDLA: No on the fateful day, when you recognised him as your assailant, how did you feel about that?

MR THAGE: I got angry. I did not only get angry at him, I got angry at them. There was another way that they could have approached the township, but they decided to take the other route. They actually disregarded the decision that was taken by the masses. I was not angry at him, I was angry at them as being members of the PAC, whom we were fighting.

MR MAVUNDLA: Did the fact that he had assaulted you also contribute to your anger?

MR THAGE: Yes.

MR MAVUNDLA: And you say in your submissions during the trial, that they had, that is the deceased and other PAC members, had entered the township in defiance to your wishes, is that correct?

MR THAGE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: When you say "your wishes", do you mean his individual wishes or the communal wishes?

MR MAVUNDLA: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, perhaps I'll clear it up with him.

Was this now your individual desire or wish that they must stay out of the township, or was that now the collective wish of the community?

MR THAGE: It was the wishes of the community at large.

MR MAVUNDLA: You have referred to various meetings that were taking place between ANC and PAC, during the period of 1990 and 1991. Are you aware of those meetings?

MR THAGE: Yes.

MR MAVUNDLA: Right. Is it correct that on the 14th of November 1990, in particular - rather '91, I'm sorry, there was a meeting which had been arranged between the ANC and PAC, to focus particularly on the return of those PAC members that had been banished from the township?

MR THAGE: Yes.

MR MAVUNDLA: And you do know that that meeting did take place, is that correct?

MR THAGE: I don't understand your question.

MR MAVUNDLA: We'll try it differently. During your submissions in the trial you indicated that there had been a meeting that was between ANC and PAC, where the question of the return of the banished PAC members and their return was to be discussed, is that correct?

MR THAGE: They called a meeting, their headquarters contacted our headquarters so that we meet and solve the problem. It was not to decide that they come back to the township. We decided as the masses that this is the only way that they should follow if they want to come back, but then they decided to take their own route. Now that caused a conflict and the decision was then - it does not affect us at all whether they come at a certain time or at a certain stage.

We decided that the situation will explain itself. They had to look at their own security, we had to look at our own security.

MR MAVUNDLA: I want to put it to you that on the 14th of November 1991, a meeting did take place between PAC and ANC, and that meeting was chaired by Uhuru, a member of ANC, as well as Gasi, a member of PAC, and this meeting was held in Kagiso. Do you dispute that?

MR THAGE: I agree with you.

MR MAVUNDLA: And in that meeting it was decided that the PAC members who had been banished can return to the township.

MR THAGE: That was not a decision, there were no decisions.

MR MAVUNDLA: You were present in that meeting, is that correct?

MR THAGE: That is correct.

MR MAVUNDLA: Now was the question of the return discussed during that meeting?

MR THAGE: They were going to discuss it. Our point was that those who killed our comrade must not come back to the township. Those who would be accepted were those who would only come through the - were those who would come according to the way set by the masses, but they decided to take their own way of coming back to the township. That was not the agreement as to how they should come to the township. They told us that they will come to Munsieville and they will also look at the safety of their lives. When they would come to Munsieville, they did mention. It was not an agreement between us.

MR MAVUNDLA: So you do concede that you knew that they were to return to the township, is that correct?

MR THAGE: I don't quite understand your question.

MR MAVUNDLA: Let's forget about the conditions of return. You do concede that it was decided that they must return to the township?

MR THAGE: It was not agreed.

MR MAVUNDLA: Now in your application and also your evidence-in-chief, you say that Mr Steven Oupa Motingwa is a person who gave instructions.

MR THAGE: There was someone who assisted me in filling this application and I explained to that person that he assisted in chairing the meeting. I think the mistake was committed by the person who filled the form. I did not say Oupa Motingwa issued out an order, I said he was at the meeting. The people issued out an order, but he was the chairperson of that meeting.

MR MAVUNDLA: Was there any person at any stage, who gave instructions to you that you must kill the deceased?

MR THAGE: Nobody gave me instructions to kill the deceased.

MR MAVUNDLA: On the fateful day you saw the deceased, according to your submissions in trial, and you then stalked him, is that correct? You followed him as he was moving around in the township.

MR THAGE: This is what happened. We were still announcing about the meeting, we were concerned, not about the deceased only, but we were concerned about all of them. They followed us from the previous night, that was on the 14th when we were from the meeting. They followed us and this was not accepted.

On the 15th, when we were announcing the meeting - I was on the way to the taxi to announce this meeting, when I opened the door I saw him with his comrades and we carried on with the announcements for about 10 minutes, together with other comrades and we said to each other "Comrades, those chaps are back in the township and they are not supposed to be here, so they are showing, they are proving a point and now we'll have to see to it whether they can stand this.

We went out as comrades to go and accost them. It just happened that the deceased was killed, we were not heading straight for the deceased. Had we found one of his friends, maybe he would also have been killed. It was just unfortunate that the deceased was the one we met on that day.

MR MAVUNDLA: In your submission you created the impression that you were actually stalking them like a prey, you kept on following them.

MR THAGE: We left them to enter the township. When we saw them at that time, the comrades said "Let's attack them" and I said to them "No, let's not attack them, let's just rejoice to see them in the township". And other comrades were aware as well and they would not go anywhere unnoticed.

We met first with the comrades, they told us as to where they went, they went first to the, they went to the first comrade and they left their clothes, they went to the second house of their comrades and they went to the deceased' home thirdly. And they were seen moving around the township. Other comrades, our comrades informed us as to where they were and I said to them "Guys, we shouldn't approach them as a group, we can divide ourselves into groups of two and go and get them".

When we arrived the deceased was still talking to someone, his friends were not with him anymore, they were inside a certain house, he was waiting outside. That's where we met him.

MR MAVUNDLA: And when you approached them, with whom were you?

MR THAGE: There were five comrades, I was behind. I am not a patient person, if there was something to say I would have been with them, but I was left behind because mine was just to do the work if there was anything to be done. So the four comrades who went ahead were four and they were talking, asking them as to what they were doing in the township.

CHAIRPERSON: Can I interrupt for a moment. Have you got page 6 of his statement?

ADV PRIOR: Mr Chairman yes, it's unfortunate, we were unable to retrieve page 6, despite the efforts that the Investigators carried out.

MR MOHLABA: If I may assist, Chairperson. It would appear that in page 28 of the bundle, the 112 statement was repeated by the judge verbatimly and it covers the missing page six. From page 29, from line 20, Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: ... not the entire Section 112 statement, admission of guilt, which goes right up to page 33, line 17.

CHAIRPERSON: The missing pages, from line 27 on page 30 to 12 on page 31. And this was the statement that was prepared for him by his legal advisor at his trial, which was handed in with his plea. Is that so? It's not a question of somebody, written out by somebody who didn't understand what was being said?

MR MOHLABA: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR MAVUNDLA: Thank you, Chairperson.

Now you have just today said that they were trying to - I'm sorry, they wanted to, it was as if they were trying to prove a point, is that correct? And you further went on to say that you'd want to see whether they can stand it.

MR THAGE: No.

MR MAVUNDLA: Did you perceive them as - that is the deceased and the people he was with at the time, as if they are defying the decision that they must not return to the township?

MR THAGE: Yes, they were - those who killed the comrade were not supposed to come back and those who were given certain rules to follow to come back to the township, were supposed to come back, but they did not follow that route.

MR MAVUNDLA: So they were in defiance, is that right?

MR THAGE: That is correct.

MR MAVUNDLA: And you wanted to teach them a lesson?

MR THAGE: We were supposed to show them that they were supposed to follow the law. The law was put there because of certain reasons. We were trying to create peace with them until at the point where they killed our comrade and we felt, after the death of our comrade we saw it necessary that those who killed the comrade should not come back to the township, those who want to come back to the township must follow our route.

MR MAVUNDLA: And when you saw them, you then decided that you must go and arm yourself, is that correct?

MR THAGE: That is correct.

MR MAVUNDLA: And you then took a knife, is that correct?

MR THAGE: That is correct.

MR MAVUNDLA: And you had since ...(indistinct) took the knife intended to use that knife, is that correct?

MR THAGE: If it was necessary for the knife to work, then it would work, but if it wasn't necessary it wouldn't work at all.

MR MAVUNDLA: And you did foresee indeed that if you use the knife you can cause a fatal blow to whoever you used it against?

MR THAGE: Yes.

MR MAVUNDLA: You say that the purpose - that is in your application, the purpose was to bring about stability in the township, is that correct?

MR THAGE: I don't understand your question.

MR MAVUNDLA: You say that your action was politically motivated and the political motive was to bring about stability in the township.

MR THAGE: That is correct.

MR MAVUNDLA: And the purpose of the meeting of the 14th was to bring about peace, is that correct?

MR THAGE: No. The meeting of the 14th was not organised by us. They arrived at Munsieville. When they arrived, we followed them with the comrades and we were armed, but we did not take any action because we did not trust them, they have killed our comrade while we were still negotiating peace, and the same peace caused the death of our comrade.

Now when we saw them we did not know as to their reason bringing them back to the township. They must have got scared. They went to their offices and they told whoever in their offices, that we chased them out of Munsieville and our offices were contacted so that a meeting be arranged to resolve this issue.

As members of the ANC, we did not say to them "Can we please meet on the 14th for a meeting", no, it's them who decided to come back, it's them who wanted a meeting. That is why the meeting was held. We did not call that meeting to solve the problem.

MR MAVUNDLA: Are you then denying that the purpose of that meeting was to bring about peace?

MR THAGE: I deny.

ADV SANDI: Mr Mavundla, a lot of this is very unclear to me, especially pertaining to this so-called meeting of the 14th. Can I just ask one or two questions.

Mr Thage, on the 14th, how many people were there at this meeting?

MR THAGE: Members of the ANC from Munsieville, we were about 14/15/16, ANC members from Johannesburg, there were three in number. I can't remember very well. And there were other supporters of the ANC, and members of the PAC who were outnumbering us. All in all we might have been 60.

ADV SANDI: You say Uhuru and some other person from the PAC were chairing that meeting, how did it come about that these two people were chairing this meeting? Who suggested that they should be chairpersons?

MR THAGE: I don't remember who was chairing that meeting.

ADV SANDI: But as you say - what happened briefly at this meeting, what happened?

MR THAGE: They put their problem on the table and it was mentioned that the aim of the meeting is to resolve the problem that was between us, and they told their story and we told our story.

Now the problem began with the agreement. It was impossible for us to get into any agreement with them, having agreed with the community, it would be a conflict. We were not prepared to change. Now we would not compromise and let them come back to the township. Now there was this misunderstanding, they did not want to come to the township according to the ways we were setting, they wanted to have a say.

They told us that Munsieville belongs to them. When they will come back, how they will come back they will see to it that they do it. We just stood up and we got out of the meeting. The leadership of the ANC and their leadership tried to convince us, tried to beg us to sit down and solve the problem, but that did not help, the meeting was ended.

CHAIRPERSON: So the leadership of the ANC tried to get you to solve the problem, but you refused to?

MR THAGE: It tried to solve the problem, but because the decision had been taken with the community already, it was difficult for us to change that decision.

ADV SANDI: Yes, but your leadership in the ANC, were they not also part of the community?

MR THAGE: It was, but this time I'm referring to the decision that was taken by the community of Munsieville. Yes, they were part of the masses of South Africa, but they were not residents of Munsieville.

ADV SANDI: Would I be correct to think from what you've said, you guys were defying your leaders from the ANC, you did not want to listen to them?

MR THAGE: Not that we did not want to listen to our leaders. Can I put it this way, we are the masses here and we come to a decision and we were the delegates from the masses and the masses had taken a decision. We did not have the authority. It doesn't matter whoever we were going to meet, we did not have the right to change the decision that was taken by the masses. They had reasons why they took that decision. It doesn't mean we did not want to listen to the ANC, the reason is that the masses took the decision. We were only delegates, we did not have power to change what the community agreed upon.

ADV SANDI: Would it be the position that at this meeting emotions were quite high?

MR THAGE: That is correct, emotions got high when they - the reason why there were emotions is because we said to them "Yes, come only if you follow this", but then they said "No, that's not what we're going to do", and then the emotions got high.

ADV SANDI: What did you think would happen if you had just allowed these PAC people to come back to the community?

MR THAGE: I don't think we would have agreed, we would have allowed them to come back because the community did not mandate us to say that.

CHAIRPERSON: So you're saying you were not there ...(indistinct) as a member of the ANC Youth League, but as a delegate of the community?

MR THAGE: I was a member of the ANC Youth League. We were meeting with the community even before this conflict. Anything that we did, we did with the community of Munsieville. Now we were - the masses delegated us to the meeting, still as members of the Youth League ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: But you would not listen to the leaders of your party, you felt you were there on behalf of the masses. You've told us that repeatedly.

MR THAGE: That is correct, we did not listen to our leaders because we had reasons. It's because anything that happened in the township$was the responsibility of the people who lived there. The leadership was up there and they have security guards and we also had to maintain law according to how we deemed it fit. It doesn't mean we were undermining our leadership, we would not compromise and say "Yes, come back to the township because the leadership is saying so". We did not have an alternative, we could not change the people's agreement.

CHAIRPERSON: So your political objectives were the political objectives of the people of Munsieville?

MR THAGE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You'll be some time won't you?

MR MAVUNDLA: A little time, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I think this would be a convenient stage to take the short adjournment.

WASHINGTON SENTI THAGE: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAVUNDLA: (cont)

Mr Thage, I seem to understand you to be saying that there were certain conditions that had been laid down for the return of the banished PAC members, is that correct?

MR THAGE: That is correct.

MR MAVUNDLA: What were those conditions?

MR THAGE: Those who killed the comrade were not supposed to come back and the others were supposed to come back. They were supposed to inform their parents and their parents were supposed to accompany them to the mass meeting so that the community at large could see that they are back.

MR MAVUNDLA: Now on the day when you saw the deceased you did not know whether he was going to his parents or not, is that correct?

MR THAGE: They had told us the previous day that they were coming back and they followed us, which means that they were back in the township.

MR MAVUNDLA: Now on the day when the attack on the deceased took place, are you in a position to indicate with whom were you at the time?

MR THAGE: Those I remember, it was Isaac Bopape, his nickname is Nyamazane, Andries Monyae, Joseph Ndlasi, Shadrack Mase. I do not remember the others.

MR MAVUNDLA: Did they also participate in the attack?

MR THAGE: Yes.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, Mr Mavundla.

These people whose names you've just mentioned, these were people of about the same age as you? You're talking about the youth?

MR THAGE: Nyamazane was older than me, but only in months and Andries was six years older than me and the rest were younger than me, but the age gap was not that much.

MR MAVUNDLA: Did I understand correctly that there was no instructions by the community that you must go and kill people or any person?

MR THAGE: That is correct, the community did not issue out an order to kill people.

MR MAVUNDLA: When was ...(intervention)

ADV PRIOR: ... evidence on mine. Sorry, I don't want to delay the proceedings, I just never got that answer. Did he say ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: There were no instructions.

ADV PRIOR: No instructions.

MR MAVUNDLA: When was the late comrade Joseph Khule killed?

MR THAGE: It was on the 6th of January 1991.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you sure of that date?

MR THAGE: Yes.

MR MAVUNDLA: Is it correct that there had been various meetings between ANC and PAC in Munsieville, during which an effort - during which meetings, discussions centring around the violence in Munsieville will be discussed?

MR THAGE: I know two meetings, the other one was at Munsieville. That was the first meeting. The leadership from Johannesburg and their leadership came to Munsieville for that meeting. That was before the other meeting in Kagiso.

While we were still busy with the meeting, the youth and the masses had attacked their cars already. Now they wanted to gain forced entry into the meeting. The first meeting was disrupted in that fashion, then the decision was taken that the second meeting of 14 November 1991, be held in Kagiso.

The first meeting was in Munsieville, the youth damaged the vehicles outside. Now to ensure their safety the meeting ended. The other meeting was arranged, this time it was not to be held in Munsieville, but it was in Kagiso. Those are the only two meetings I know of.

CHAIRPERSON: Which youth was this that damaged the motor vehicles?

MR THAGE: The youth affiliating under the ANC damaged the vehicles.

MR MAVUNDLA: Thank you. Is it correct that in those meetings, particularly those that you are referring to, you were also present?

MR THAGE: That is correct.

ADV SANDI: Did you have anything to say at those meetings, did you participate?

MR THAGE: Yes.

ADV SANDI: What was your contribution in the discussions that were taking place in those meetings?

MR THAGE: During the discussions, or rather at the beginning of the meeting they defended their side and we were supposed to give our story as well and I explained in that meeting that we were in the process of peace. Our chairperson tried to meet with them to talk peace, but he was attacked. And I even mentioned the fact that I was attacked and I was not fighting, it was a holiday before Xmas, we were enjoying the holiday and I was attacked. Those are the issues that I mentioned.

ADV SANDI: This chairperson who was attacked, where was he attacked? Was it at the meeting or before the meeting?

MR THAGE: He was attacked before the meeting, before the meetings were held.

ADV SANDI: And who was that?

MR THAGE: It's Oupa Motingwa.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

MR MAVUNDLA: Is it correct that there was a meeting on the 22nd of January 1999 in Kagiso, in which meeting you were - or rather, which meeting was calculated to facilitate achieving peace in the township, is that right?

MR THAGE: Can you please repeat your question.

MR MAVUNDLA: There was a meeting on the 22nd of January 1999, between PAC and ANC, correct?

MR THAGE: 1999?

MR MAVUNDLA: My apologies, 1991. My apology.

MR THAGE: I do not remember such a meeting.

MR MAVUNDLA: Is there any meeting where you were seconded to be one of the people who monitor the situation in the township and also facilitate the achieving of peace?

MR THAGE: I do not remember what you have just mentioned.

MR MAVUNDLA: There would be testimony from Mr Gasi Mangope, who will inform this Honourable Commission that in a meeting of the 28th of January 1991, in Munsieville, you were seconded to be a monitor of the situation and facilitator.

MR THAGE: Was it the meeting of the ANC or a meeting between ANC and PAC? I just want clarity on that. Maybe it will trigger my memory.

MR MAVUNDLA: It was a meeting between ANC and PAC.

MR THAGE: I do not know such a meeting.

MR MAVUNDLA: are you the saying that - let's put it this way, is there any meeting which you know of between ANC and PAC, that took place during 1991?

MR THAGE: I do not recall that there was a meeting. The war intensified during that period. I do not recall having a meeting, but we were just meeting with the masses. Whether there was a meeting or not, I do not recall.

MR MAVUNDLA: Do you know of any meeting where five people from ANC and five people from PAC were chosen to be in the steering committee?

MR THAGE: I do not recall.

MR MAVUNDLA: Do you know Trompie Tobejane?

MR THAGE: There's a certain Trompie that I know, but I do not know his surname.

MR MAVUNDLA: Do you know Carl Khumalo?

MR THAGE: Carl?

MR MAVUNDLA: That's correct.

MR THAGE: I do not know Carl, I only know Guy.

MR MAVUNDLA: What's his surname, Guy ...?

MR THAGE: I don't know his surname.

MR MAVUNDLA: This Guy and Trompie, the one you know, were they part of the leadership in any form whatsoever?

MR THAGE: Trompie was just a member of the Youth League and Guy was also just a member, they were not in leadership.

MR MAVUNDLA: As I've already told you, Mr Gasi Mangope will testify that you were one of the people who had been seconded to be the monitor of the situation as well as the facilitator for achieving peace in the township. You say you deny that?

MR THAGE: I do not - I'm not saying it's not like that, I do not recall a meeting where facilitators were chosen. They were not present, these people, in the township. The masses called us and said "Please come and talk peace" and that's when we said "We cannot talk peace while we do not know what's in the mind of them". The agreement with the masses was that all the pastors and the businessmen and the teachers will go and meet them where they were hiding. Those are the meeting I remember. They were not present in the township in 1991.

ADV SANDI: Mr Mavundla, let's just get this clear.

Are you saying that you have no knowledge whatsoever of you having been given a task by the community to be one of the people who would facilitate efforts to make peace in the community?

MR THAGE: I do not recall.

MR MAVUNDLA: Now there will be ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

MR MAVUNDLA: Are you in a position to dispute that on the 10th of April 1990, there was an attack, or rather not an attack, a group of people went to the deceased's home at night looking for him?

MR THAGE: Sorry, 19?

MR MAVUNDLA: 1990.

MR THAGE: It happened in 1990 that some of our comrades got injured. At night we went out looking for members of the PAC. I think we did reach his home. I do not remember the date and the month, but that was before 1990. I remember we took two of them. We found them at home, we took them to the veld, but we released them. It might have happened that we even managed to reach the home of the deceased.

MR MAVUNDLA: And would you be in a position to dispute that on the 26th of December 1990, the home of the deceased was attacked?

MR THAGE: I do not know such an attack.

MR MAVUNDLA: And the said attack on the 26th of December 1990, was during the day.

MR THAGE: On the 26th of December 1990, I remember the deceased injuring me. After that we went to the home of the PAC Chairperson. I was together with some members of our leadership. I was injured to an extent of not articulating properly. I was then taken home to go and rest. I don't what transpired thereafter. I am not saying an attack did not take place, I'm not saying it took place. I do not recall.

MR MAVUNDLA: There will be an affidavit, if the Honourable Commission allows it, which will be handed in where it will be stated that you were seen in the midst of this group that attacked the house of the deceased on the 26th of December 1990.

MR THAGE: I do not agree with that. After being injured, I got home, I went home to rest. I do not recall attacking, I do not recall comrades attacking. I can't say anything on that issue.

ADV SANDI: Why did the deceased attack you on that day?

MR THAGE: Sometimes it would happen that there are four members of the ANC and two members of the PAC, then sparking, there would be fighting among the people. We would call them "Zimzim" and they would refer to us using derogatory terms, then there would be a fight. On this certain day I do not recall saying anything, I do not recall him saying anything, he just picked up an iron bar from the child and he hit me with that.

ADV SANDI: Was he attacking you because there had been a quarrel between the two of you before?

MR THAGE: I think he hit me because I was a member of the ANC and there was a conflict between ANC and PAC.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you report this assault to the police?

MR THAGE: I did not report it to the police.

ADV SANDI: Why?

MR THAGE: We were an organisation hated by the government, there was no use as a member of the ANC being against the same policemen and go and report anything because they were regarded as our enemies as well.

MR MAVUNDLA: The comrade who was killed, that the ANC comrade who was killed, Joe Khule, do you know who killed him?

MR THAGE: The people who were in his company were Tsimi and the two brothers, Kenny and Colin. They were four when they were attacked, they were attacked by two people. I still remember the name Tonto. I do not remember this other person, because after the attack they came straight home, to my home, and they told me that he was shot on the thighs.

I'm the first person who received information that Tonto was shot and he fell. It was difficult. I had a firearm, but it was difficult for me to go out because I didn't know where they were, I had to wait for my brother. I can't remember whether he arrived with somebody else. A whistle was blown because that was a sign in the township. When there was something, a whistle was supposed to be blown.

MR MAVUNDLA: Would I be correct to say that the deceased Abinaar is not one of the people who you have just mentioned as being the killers of comrade Khule?

MR THAGE: I agree with you.

MR MAVUNDLA: Would I then be correct to understand that he, Abinaar, would not be one of those people, according to you, who the community refused them to return because of their involvement in the killing of the comrade Khule? Is that correct?

MR THAGE: You are correct, he was not one of those who were refused entry because they killed a comrade, but he refused to follow the process that was set by the community and us.

CHAIRPERSON: So he was killed because he didn't go home to his parents and ask them to take him to the meeting?

MR THAGE: He was killed because he was a member of the PAC and he did not follow the route that was set. That was the cause of his death.

CHAIRPERSON: And if I understand you, you told us the route was that you should go to your parents and get them to take you to the mass meeting if you wanted to return.

MR THAGE: That is what I told you.

CHAIRPERSON: And that is the reason you killed him, because he didn't do that?

MR THAGE: That is correct.

MR MAVUNDLA: Would it be a fair comment to say that when these comrades were returning according to you, in defiance of the conditions you have said, it would have been proper to say to them "Comrades, we had a meeting yesterday night, we lay the conditions, you are therefore not to return until you have complied to those conditions"? Without having to attack them.

MR THAGE: That is correct. Even before the deceased was attacked, he was told "You know, Sir, that you are not supposed to be back in the township if you do not follow this procedure". We did not just arrive and attack him, we told him of this before.

CHAIRPERSON: Where was it that you told him this?

MR THAGE: Can you repeat question, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Where was it that you told him, where did you meet him and talk to him and tell him this?

MR THAGE: We were at the place where he died.

ADV SANDI: What did he say when you reminded him of the conditions of returning to the community?

MR THAGE: Four comrades spoke to him. There's a certain comrade Lebwang, who threw stones. One comrade stopped him. When he came with stones, the other four comrades wanted to create space so that he can hit the deceased. At that time the deceased produced a gun, one comrade reprimanded the other comrade who had stones, he told him to drop the stones and that's what he did.

DR TSOTSI: Tell me how many of the PAC members were expelled from Munsieville?

MR THAGE: I do not quite remember, but there were more than 10, less than 30.

DR TSOTSI: Now all of them had their homes in Munsieville?

MR THAGE: That is correct.

DR TSOTSI: And you expelled them from there, but they left their families with them, in Munsieville?

MR THAGE: They had a base, they would attack and run to their base. During the day they would attack us and run. From our side we had never produced a gun. All the time we were talking peace. Our chairperson was missed with a - he was fired at, but missed ...(intervention)

DR TSOTSI: Just confine yourself to the answer to my question. We haven't got the time to listen to all your ...(indistinct). Now when you expelled these PAC men out of your ... where did you send them to? You expelled them to go where to, to what place?

MR THAGE: We attacked them, we did not tell them where to go, they just left the township. Where they went I do not know.

DR TSOTSI: You were not concerned where they, what happened to them after you expelled them from their homes?

MR THAGE: Yes.

DR TSOTSI: Now who gave you the right to expel them?

MR THAGE: This came from the youth, the word was "Gentlemen, these people undermined us, let's show them that we also have guns", but we did not approach them with the concept of driving away from the township, we were attacking them. Now they had their base and their base is right, is in the last street. We did not say to them we're driving them out of the township.

DR TSOTSI: Alright. Now the leaders of both organisations, that is of PAC and of ANC, did not like this state of affairs to continue, they wanted peace and they wanted the people to come back to their homes, is that right?

MR THAGE: Provincial leaders of branch leaders, Sir? Which leadership are you referring to, provincial leadership or branch leadership?

DR TSOTSI: I don't know, you tell me because you said the leadership held meetings here and tried to persuade you to allow these people to come back and you refused because you had no instructions from the community.

MR THAGE: The peace meetings - we had a mass meeting after the death of our comrade and we talked peace, there was no leadership, it was us and the masses. They launched a complaint at their headquarters. Their leadership approached our leadership and a meeting was held with other comrades from Kagiso, to come and intervene in Munsieville.

DR TSOTSI: We've heard this story before, please don't make it unduly long. Now my question then is, is your leadership in Munsieville, of the ANC, not subject, or leadership of the ANC?

MR THAGE: ...(no English interpretation)

DR TSOTSI: ...(indistinct) my separation between the leadership of your little area and ...(indistinct) the ANC.

MR THAGE: I really do not understand what you are saying.

DR TSOTSI: Yes.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

MR MAVUNDLA: Mr Chairperson, may I be of some assistance to canvass this question of the difference of the leadership.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MAVUNDLA: Thank you. In Munsieville there's a branch of the ANC, is that correct?

MR THAGE: Correct.

MR MAVUNDLA: Right. And it would then be under the jurisdiction or the command of the regional - there would then be above it, a regional leadership of the ANC.

MR THAGE: That is correct.

MR MAVUNDLA: Right. And is it correct that the regional is accountable to the provincial, or rather to the national leadership?

MR THAGE: That is correct.

MR MAVUNDLA: And is it correct also that in the efforts to bring about stability, the regional leadership of the ANC as well as the regional leadership of the PAC, were coming together with that purpose of bringing about that stability?

MR THAGE: That is correct.

MR MAVUNDLA: And do I understand you then correctly that you belonged to the Youth League at the time?

MR THAGE: That is correct.

MR MAVUNDLA: Do I also understand you correctly that you were a leader in a certain capacity at the time?

MR THAGE: Yes.

MR MAVUNDLA: And that as a Youth League, you take or you are expected to take instructions from the local branch leadership?

MR THAGE: Can you repeat your question.

MR MAVUNDLA: I'll rephrase it. Were you part of the local Kagiso branch leadership? That is the branch executive, were you a member thereof?

MR THAGE: Yes.

MR MAVUNDLA: Right. And what was your portfolio in the branch leadership?

MR THAGE: I was the pioneer organiser.

MR MAVUNDLA: Of the youth?

MR THAGE: That is correct.

MR MAVUNDLA: And is it correct, as you've already conceded, that as a nucleus of the ANC in that area you are expected to respect the decision of the regional leadership?

MR THAGE: That is correct.

MR MAVUNDLA: Now you have earlier said that there was no agreement reached during the meeting of the 14th of November 1991, is that correct?

MR THAGE: That is correct.

MR MAVUNDLA: And is it correct then to understand that you were in that meeting, not in your individual capacity, but as a member who belongs to the control structure, namely the branch executive?

MR THAGE: That is correct.

MR MAVUNDLA: And during that meeting there was also present the regional ANC leadership, is that correct?

MR THAGE: That is correct.

MR MAVUNDLA: And in that meeting these leadership members had come together with the purpose of establishing a mechanism of bringing about peace in Kagiso, is that correct?

MR THAGE: That is correct.

MR MAVUNDLA: And you associated yourself with that effort to bring about peace, is that correct? Is that correct, Sir?

MR THAGE: Yes.

MR MAVUNDLA: And it was not a decision of the leadership that you must attack and kill PAC members, is that correct?

MR THAGE: That is correct.

MR MAVUNDLA: And on the 15th of November 1991, when you attacked the deceased, there had been no instruction from the ANC leadership that you must launch this particular attack, is that correct?

MR THAGE: That is correct.

MR MAVUNDLA: Now do you know comrade Ronnie Mamuyepa?

MR THAGE: Yes.

MR MAVUNDLA: He's in the National Office of the ANC, is that correct?

MR THAGE: That is correct.

MR MAVUNDLA: Do you still recall in what capacity is he in the National Office?

MR THAGE: I do not recall.

MR MAVUNDLA: You wouldn't dispute that he's a spokesperson of the National Office?

MR THAGE: I would agree with you on that.

MR MAVUNDLA: And would I be correct that a person occupying that position is expected to make - when he makes reports of when he makes announcements in the media, he is expected to do so in a responsible manner?

MR THAGE: That is correct.

MR MAVUNDLA: And he is not expected to make reckless statements ...

...(end of side B of tape)

MR MAVUNDLA: ... when he is being reported in the newspapers, in the news media, it can be expected and assumed that what he is being quoted to have said would be factually correct, or would be a responsible statement.

MR THAGE: That is correct.

MR MAVUNDLA: Now I do have in my possession here, and with the leave of the Commission I would want to show you some of the paper cuttings. May I apologise to the Commission that I haven't made sufficient copies. I'm going to refer you to a paper cutting which refers to an article by Mr Kaiza Njatsumba, political staff, where he refers to an ANC/PAC violence condemned and in particular in the second column. If I may read it:

Now we - perhaps before I go to that, would you accept this report to be correct?

MR THAGE: That is correct.

MR MOHLABA: I have a little problem with this because this has just been given to us and the applicant here has not even looked at it, it was just given to me now. I believe it will be unfair to expect him to comment as he sits here. It has hardly been ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: It's been read to him, he can understand what's being said to him, can't he? If he does want it to be repeated, it can be.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you, Chairperson.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

MR MAVUNDLA: Mr Thage, you've just conceded that this statement could be accepted to be factually correct, is that right?

MR THAGE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: What exhibit number should this be given?

ADV PRIOR: B.

CHAIRPERSON: 3?

ADV PRIOR: B.

MR MAVUNDLA: Then on the same Exhibit B, there is also another article headed "Student Teacher is killed in WR Clash", which is West Rand Clash. Will the leave of the Honourable Commission I will read it out to you, particularly the last three paragraphs.

We have read now to you a statement which has been issued by a PAC member or PAC official. I've also read to you a statement issued by comrade Mamuyepa, Ronnie, and they both seem to be saying that there was a truce for the return of these comrades, reached on the 14th of November 1991 and we have heard you persistently saying that there was no truce reached. You have also conceded that you had attended that meeting in your official capacity.

Now what I want to understand from you is, why would two officials claim and create to the public that there was a truce and yet you as an office bearer of the branch ANC leadership, would deny that there was a truce reached.

MR THAGE: The meeting that I attended on the 14th of November 1991, the meeting dispersed without any decision, they were not told "Gentlemen come back home, there's peace now", no. The meeting did not even officially conclude, there were misunderstandings and the meeting haphazardly ended.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, Mr Mavundla.

I thought you had said you walked out of the meeting, you and your group, you did not agree with what was being suggested by your ANC leaders. Is that how the meeting came to an end?

CHAIRPERSON: As far as you're concerned.

MR THAGE: I said the meeting ended because the members of the PAC said they will come on their own day and they will secure their own safety. Now we realiwed that it was - there was no use at all to remain in the meeting while - there was no way that we would change or compromise at that meeting.

If they did not get angry we would go back, we would have gone back to the masses and tell the masses that those people want peace. Now it was a decision of the masses.

CHAIRPERSON: But it was you who told us it was not a decision of the ANC leadership, that they wanted the meeting to continue, but because you felt you represented the masses, you left the meeting. Do you remember telling us that in your evidence?

MR THAGE: Yes, I said we left the meeting after the members of the PAC indicated that they will come back to the township in their own way. That forced us to leave, because there was no reason to remain in the meeting ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Please stop talking about the PAC, we're talking about the ANC leadership, and you said you ignored them, you would not be directed by them. Didn't you?

MR THAGE: I'm beginning to have a problem now. If I'm told to stop about the, talking about the members of the PAC. The reason why we left the meeting was because of the members of the PAC. I have to explain the cause, why we walked out of the meeting.

CHAIRPERSON: You have explained that many times. What I want to know is, you ignored the instructions of the ANC, didn't you? Who told you they wanted to continue with the meeting.

MR THAGE: I would say that was a conflict that erupted then. Emotions were high on both sides and there was no conclusion to the meeting.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you go on, shouldn't you put the last newspaper cutting to him, the 24-hour watch?

MR MAVUNDLA: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

Mr Thage, there is also another article on the exhibit which has already been handed in and because it's short I will read the entire article. It's:

That is another article which clearly shows that there was indeed a truce that was reached on that day. Now on this point that you were representing the community on that particular day, are you then saying to the Commission you were there as a representative of the community?

MR THAGE: I am saying I was the representative of the Youth League. Now the youth was part of the community and the community was ANC. Now the Youth League and the community, majority of the community, were members of the ANC.

MR MAVUNDLA: Do you know of any meeting in Munsieville, where the community said that for those comrades who had been expelled from the township to return, here are the conditions? Do you know of any such meeting?

MR THAGE: Yes.

MR MAVUNDLA: When was that meeting?

MR THAGE: It was after the death of the comrade, but I do not remember the day, but it was in January in 1991. I am not certain of the day.

MR MAVUNDLA: What were those conditions?

MR THAGE: It was decided that those who killed the comrade must not come back to the township. Those who did not kill, but they want to come back to the township, they must meet with their parents and their parents must inform us.

There was a mass meeting every Friday, so they were supposed to come to that mass meeting and be welcomed and accepted by the masses. The mass which was ANC and us as members of the ANC, were supposed to accept them back.

MR MAVUNDLA: And there would be the need for those banished comrades to go to their homes to be in a position to comply with the said conditions, is that correct?

MR THAGE: There were not supposed to go home first, they had to report to their parents, their parents to report to us. Because if they arrived in the township not having information about them, anything would have happened. For him to come back we must have information first, he's not supposed to just come into the township and go home. We must have information before entering the township, that such and such a person is coming back.

MR MAVUNDLA: And on the 14th of November 1991, you were informed that these comrades would be coming to the township, is that correct?

MR THAGE: I was not told that these people will come back.

MR MAVUNDLA: But earlier, Sir, you had testified to the effect that in that meeting the PAC comrades said that they are coming and you even said that the followed you.

MR THAGE: That is correct, they said they were coming. But can I say this? The leadership did not tell us that they were coming, but they said it that they were coming and it's true, we saw them.

MR MAVUNDLA: And you were also part of the leadership.

MR THAGE: That is correct.

MR MAVUNDLA: Is it then correct that in spite of the leadership's advice that these comrades are coming, you still wanted to avenge the killing of comrade Khule?

MR THAGE: No, we wanted the procedure to be followed, we were not avenging the death of comrade Khule. We wanted the procedure to be followed.

MR MAVUNDLA: Are you then saying that in mitigation during your trial when you stated that avenging, you killed Abinaar because you were also avenging. That aspect, you proffered it merely to gain advantage so that you can get a lesser sentence, but it was not factually correct.

MR THAGE: I did not say anything in Court. We gave an advocate our statement and there was an interpreter. I do not recall saying I killed this person to avenge. There must be a mistake, I never mentioned that we were avenging.

MR MAVUNDLA: So today what you are saying is that the reason why this comrade was killed is purely because he was in defiance of the instructions to comply with certain conditions?

MR THAGE: That is correct.

MR MAVUNDLA: As a person who is in leadership, did you on that particular day try to restrain the other comrades from launching this attack?

MR THAGE: Can you repeat your question.

MR MAVUNDLA: I'll put it differently. You were armed on that particular day, is that right?

MR THAGE: That is correct.

MR MAVUNDLA: And at a certain point you and the other comrades accosted Abinaar, the deceased, is that right?

MR THAGE: That is correct.

MR MAVUNDLA: And you say that you stood behind while others were talking to him, because you are an impatient person, yours is to do things. Can I say to execute?

MR THAGE: No.

MR MAVUNDLA: Did you not stand behind while other comrades were talking to him?

MR THAGE: That is correct, I was at the back.

MR MAVUNDLA: And as a leader, as a person in leadership, why did you stand behind while others were talking to him?

MR THAGE: I had a problem. When there is something that has hurt me, I tend to keep quiet, I don't just talk. I saw it necessary for them to ask him questions, not me. I get angry very quick. I realised that my going there would mess the situation.

DR TSOTSI: Who was the first person to attack the deceased?

MR THAGE: It's Isaac Bopape. His nickname was Nyamazane.

DR TSOTSI: But you also joined in the attack.

MR THAGE: That is correct.

MR MAVUNDLA: Now before you joined in the attack, did you try to restrain the other comrades from attacking the deceased?

MR THAGE: No.

MR MAVUNDLA: And finally, I want to put it to you that your participation in the killing of the deceased was not politically motivate, nor was it carried out with achieving a particular political objective. It was a sheer revenge or avenge killing.

MR THAGE: I do not agree with you.

MR MAVUNDLA: Mr Commissioner, I do not have any further questions, thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV PRIOR: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

At page 19 of Exhibit A, that is the bundle, in your Section 112 statement you plea of guilty, you said in paragraph 5 the reason why you attacked the PAC and the deceased in particular, on the 15th of January, was because they had not been granted permission to return to Munsieville.

MR THAGE: Yes.

ADV PRIOR: You then said:

Is that correct?

MR THAGE: That is not correct. I explained that there was an interpreter when I gave this statement to the advocate. I do not recall saying I killed him because I was revenging.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you suggesting that an interpreter invented the whole of this sentence? It's not just a question of one word. Are you suggesting the interpreter invented the sentence:

MR THAGE: He made a mistake.

ADV PRIOR: ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: I beg your pardon. At page 20, the statement, paragraph 12, you indicated to the Supreme Court:

Is that correct?

MR THAGE: Yes.

ADV PRIOR: And then on page 21 of Exhibit A, paragraph 14 of your guilty plea, you admitted the following:

Is that correct?

MR THAGE: Yes.

ADV PRIOR: So the decision to attack the deceased and his two friends was your decision, a decision that you had made as community leader, as you had indicated.

MR THAGE: Yes.

ADV PRIOR: And that is why you had difficulty in persisting with your allegation in your amnesty application, that it was - the order to kill him was given by Mr Steven Oupa Motingwa. Because that was untrue, wasn't it?

MR THAGE: I explained the problem. The person who assisted in the filling of this form, I explained to that person that the decision was that those who killed the comrade must not come back to the township because when they come back there is going to be a problem. Because when they come back to the township they would not come according to the desire of the masses, now it's going to create a problem for us. And I added on to say, but the person who chaired the meeting on that day is Oupa Motingwa.

ADV PRIOR: I want to just suggest to you, hearing your evidence it would seem that the PAC and ANC leadership for that area were trying to act in a very responsible manner by first of all resolving the conflict, facilitating such conflict resolution and also not ordering any further escalation of the violence. And yet you made a decision in the light of all that, to go and attack and kill PAC supporters. Can you explain that?

MR THAGE: The truth of the matter is, the ANC wanted peace, both provincially and regionally because we are all Africans. We agreed in the township, as the community, that any problem that we account in the township will be solved with the community.

Now what I'm saying is, had we been given a chance on the day of the meeting, had we been given a chance to go back to the township and sit down with the community and to discuss this, maybe it would have been possible to change the decision.

Now the problem came because we were not offered a chance, because what they said was they would come to the township anyway. Peace was desirable from both organisations, but there was a misunderstanding on the issue of following the right procedure.

They did not want to come according to the way they were told to. Now we had to meet with the masses first. It's not a question that we did not want to listen to our leaders, what we needed was a chance. They could have said to us, gentlemen, go back to the masses who delegated you and discuss this with them. We as the PAC provincial and ANC as provincial, we are willing to have peace. But we were not given that opportunity. On that day there was no decision taken, nothing, there was no solution. Had we been given a chance to go back and sit with the community and come back. After the death of the comrade we went to the community and we said to them "You've been talking peace ..."

ADV PRIOR: Thank you, you've answered the question. I don't want to stop you, but you're rambling on, you don't answer the question. One final aspect. You've had a lot of time to reflect on what you did in 1991, would you agree that it was unnecessary to kill the deceased as you did?

MR THAGE: It was necessary.

ADV PRIOR: He was standing alone, talking to another man at a street corner, he had returned, as we understand, in the spirit of some arrangement that they could return if they followed a certain procedure, he wasn't aggressive, on your version in Court, he wasn't apparently armed, as you have told the Court. Why was it necessary to attack him, stab him to death with a garden fork and then set his body alight?

MR THAGE: I want to set the procedure again. If it was your intention to come back to the township, you were supposed to inform. Had he gone to his parents and told them that he was coming with peace, this would never have happened.

Now the words that they uttered the previous day, that they will come back to the township and they will see to their security, prompted the problem.

ADV PRIOR: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

ADV SANDI: Just explain one thing here, Mr Thage. After walking out of this meeting, did you make any attempt to contact Mr Steven Oupa Motingwa to find out from him what happened after you left the meeting, whether any decision was taken after you had left?

MR THAGE: No, when we left, we all left as members of Munsieville. All the people who went to Munsieville, left the meeting.

ADV SANDI: But you were leaving the ANC and the PAC leadership behind?

MR THAGE: Yes, we left the meeting. They were also on their feet. We left them behind.

ADV SANDI: Steven Oupa Motingwa was the Chairman of the ANC in this area, did you go back to him after you had killed the deceased, to say to him look, this is the action we have taken?

MR THAGE: I do not recall going back to him.

ADV SANDI: Did you submit any kind of report to the ANC, after you had killed the deceased?

MR THAGE: What happened was that there was a mass meeting held and I remember it was reported in the mass meeting that the deceased has died. There was a mass meeting on that day. The mass meeting continued.

ADV SANDI: Who was giving this report?

MR THAGE: It's myself.

ADV SANDI: Did you say who had killed the deceased, or did you just say the deceased had died?

MR THAGE: I explained that we as comrades killed him.

ADV SANDI: Was any subsequently taken against you by the ANC?

MR THAGE: No.

ADV SANDI: Did you receive any kind of warning or reprimand that, look you should not carry on with such acts again?

MR THAGE: Nobody.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: You've told us - I'm a little confused now, that the deceased did wrong, he didn't comply with the, follow the route laid down and that is come home, go to his parents and get them to take him to the meeting.

MR THAGE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: But you've told us in your evidence that you saw him and he did go to his home and you then said, "We must go and get them".

MR THAGE: Can you repeat your question, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: In your evidence earlier you said that these people had visited one house, a second house and then they visited the deceased's home. At that stage you said to the others "We must go and get them".

MR THAGE: What I was saying was that we knew that they would go to the first house and leave clothes and to the second house and the third house would be the home of the deceased.

CHAIRPERSON: Which is where he was supposed to go, in terms of the directions or the agreement.

MR THAGE: To go where, to the members of the PAC?

CHAIRPERSON: He was supposed to go to his parents, you've told us.

MR THAGE: Everybody who wants to come back must explain that before, he must supply information before entering, so that there is no problem at all. That is why they come to the meeting where everybody is gathered. When you come in that fashion there would be no problem, but if you just haphazardly come, we would not be sure as to which reasons bring you here, back.

CHAIRPERSON: Stop talking nonsense. You have said he must to - his parents must take him to the meeting. For that to happen he must go to his parents and say "I want to come home, take me to the meeting", mustn't he?

MR THAGE: He must report to the parents and on the day of the mass meeting the parents must come with him to the meeting. That's the procedure.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And he reported to his parents and you said "Come on, we must get them". He went to his home, you've told us that.

MR THAGE: There is something that I don't understand here. Before a person could enter the township he must report. He reports to them while he is still outside and they give a notice and on the day of the mass meeting he comes in and he goes to the mass meeting. When you come in without us having information, we would not know what brings you back. That's why we were saying you have to first report this to the parents and when the mass meeting is arranged, then you come to the mass meeting.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't understand what you're saying at all, but I will leave it there.

Are we going to have evidence from the PAC?

ADV PRIOR: ...(no microphone)

CHAIRPERSON: Well shouldn't it - in fairness to this applicant, be putting - I'm thinking, you've got the PAC document, page 75, and I take it that the applicant has a chance of glancing at it.

What I think should be put to him - I don't propose to put all the attacks on PAC people, but page 76, paragraph 1.9 and onwards, about the meetings, that the PAC apparently state that a meeting was arranged on the 1st of January 1991, to discuss the problems facing Munsieville. The meeting was to take place on the 2nd of January. It did not take place because the ANC, Munsieville branch, did not attend. It was postponed till the 8th of January and once again they did not attend. Are you aware of this?

MR THAGE: That there was supposed to be a meeting I did not know, what I know is that before comrade was killed, that is the 6th of January 1991, the mass said "Solve your problem first". Now the business men and the ministers and the teachers were delegated to go and meet them. Now in the whole process of meeting with them, they attacked. I don't have any information regarding the other meetings and their postponements.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know of a meeting on the 14th of February at Kagiso, which was attended by the regional leadership of both parties?

MR THAGE: I do not recall that.

CHAIRPERSON: And the ANC suggested there should be a joint violence monitoring committee and that PAC members return to Munsieville, except for the branch executive members and five others, suspected of having been involved in the killing of the comrade. Do you remember that?

INTERPRETER: Chairperson, the interpreters request you to repeat the last part.

CHAIRPERSON: The PAC members be allowed to return to Munsieville, except for the branch executive members and the five other members, suspected of being involved in the killing of the comrade.

MR THAGE: I don't have any information regarding that.

CHAIRPERSON: And that the PAC refused the second proposal. The Munsieville branch of the ANC then proposed a meeting on the 28th of February, which took place and which was disrupted by the Munsieville ANC, who damaged motor vehicles.

MR THAGE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You know of that.

MR THAGE: Yes, I know that.

CHAIRPERSON: And then the meeting you have been asked of, I don't think there's need to put that on record further, of the 14th of November. Where the PAC says it was agreed that PAC members should return home unconditionally and a committee be formed between the PAC and the ANC, to create a climate of tolerance. Do you know of that? That's the meeting you say you left.

MR THAGE: Yes.

DR TSOTSI: Just one question. Do you have any regrets about killing the deceased?

MR THAGE: Yes.

DR TSOTSI: What are your regrets, what do you say?

MR THAGE: I want to ask from him first. What I did to him, there were reasons that led us to killing him. I want to say to his family and to his friends, please forgive me. I know it would be difficult for them to forget what I did, but I am asking for their forgiveness.

CHAIRPERSON: Has anyone any further questions ...(indistinct)

MS MOHAMMED: I have no further questions, or no questions at all.

MR MOHLABA: No re-examination, thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

ADV PRIOR: Mr Chairman, may I place on record, it is apparent from the evidence of the applicant, that the implicated person represented here today is not an implicated person. There is no likelihood that he would be - any finding to his prejudice would be made. We certainly do not have any evidence, other than what was contained in the amnesty application, linking Mr Mangwepe and - well we leave it in the hands of the Committee to determine whether his presence here is, as an implicated person, is required.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) don't know if anyone else has any views on it. It does appear from the applicant's present attitude, that he certainly is not an implicated party in the present application.

ADV PRIOR: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Are we going to proceed with this at 2 o'clock?

ADV PRIOR: Mr Chairman, I think we are very close to the end of this matter. I don't know how much more evidence ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Is there more evidence that is to be led?

MR MOHLABA: Chairperson, just on the aspect of the meeting held on the 14th of November, the agreement reached or the lack of an agreement, I have Mr Motingwa who was present at the meeting, who is prepared to give evidence in that regard.

CHAIRPERSON: Well shall we do that now or later?

ADV PRIOR: Mr Chairman, may I propose that the parties get together and maybe discuss what's already been read out and the evidence and maybe come to some understanding as to what the meeting had decided, without to-ing and fro-ing because I can understand if there's divergent positions, we could sit here for days having different versions as to what was discussed at that meeting. Obviously that's with the view of resolving that issue. If we can't, then the evidence must then be properly tendered and canvassed, but in an attempt to circumvent that, may we ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, so we'll adjourn now and you can get together and see if you can reach some agreement. And we start when?

ADV PRIOR: What is the time now, Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Ten past one.

ADV PRIOR: Quarter to two.

CHAIRPERSON: Quarter to two?

ADV PRIOR: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll adjourn now until a quarter to two.

ADV PRIOR: ... should be switched off. There seems to be an interference with the recording equipment because of cellphones being left on.

CHAIRPERSON: Right.

ADV PRIOR: Mr Chairman, may I place on record that although there was an indication from both the applicant as well the families of the deceased that there would be some viva voce evidence regarding the meeting in Munsieville on the 14th of November 1991, between the PAC and the ANC to resolve those differences, it was discussed during the luncheon adjournment that without some resolution as to what was discussed and what was proposed and what was decided upon, it may burden the record unnecessarily with evidence regarding an event to which there was no formal record available.

I understand that the legal representatives of all the interested parties and also in conjunction with their contacts within those political groups, the ANC and the PAC, have come to some understanding and agreement, which will certain short-circuit or can I not say short circuit, but curtail the further necessity of evidence. I think Mr Mavundla has been charged with placing the understanding on record. Thank you, Sir.

MR MAVUNDLA: Thank you, Mr Chairperson and your co-Presiding Officers. It has indeed, as stated by my learned colleague, been agreed amongst ourselves that we should place on record the following. Namely, that there was indeed a meeting on the 14th of November 1991, which was attended by the provincial leadership of ANC as well as the regional leadership of PAC, as well as the local leadership of ANC, Kagiso branch and Munsieville branch and the Youth League of ANC was also present in that meeting. Also present was the Kagiso local branch PAC leadership, as well as the Munsieville local branch of PAC. And it was resolved in that meeting that:

CHAIRPERSON: Was it the PAC Kagiso branch that refused to accept the conditional return, that the Munsieville branch said they would return unconditionally, also the PAC?

MR MAVUNDLA: No, Chairperson, the branch needs to be called Kagiso/Munsieville. It was one branch which was responsible for Kagiso and Munsieville, they were not separate branches.

CHAIRPERSON: And they said they would refuse to accept the conditional return, that they would return unconditionally.

MR MAVUNDLA: That will be all.

ADV PRIOR: Mr Mavundla did indicate earlier, with respect, that he intended to, on behalf of the family, submit an affidavit. I don't know whether these are general submissions relating to the death of their son, but I will leave that up to him if he needs to canvass that. I don't know if there are any further witnesses to be called.

MR MOHLABA: No, Chairperson, I've got no other witnesses to call. That will be the evidence for the applicant.

MS MOHAMMED: I have nothing further to add.

MR MAVUNDLA: Mr Chairperson and your co-Members, there is an affidavit which has been prepared on behalf of the family of the deceased and we would seek the leave to hand this affidavit. The family is opposed to the application and further argument would be delivered.

ADV PRIOR: May this affidavit be introduced as Exhibit D?

CHAIRPERSON: There is one problem I have with it, I have not seen the affidavit, but my recollection is that during the course of cross-examination an extract as to a factual event was put to the witness, which the witness contradicted and I don't think it would be right to accept an affidavit as against evidence which has been given directly. I don't think it affects the outcome, but it just we will not use that to discredit the applicant.

MR MAVUNDLA: Mr Chairperson, I would nonetheless request that the affidavit nonetheless be accepted ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) I'm just talking about one particular factual portion.

MR MAVUNDLA: Mr Chairperson, perhaps to - I can call the deponent who without getting into the details, will merely confirm that she's the person who has made this affidavit.

CHAIRPERSON: What was ...(no microphone)

MR MAVUNDLA: That would be paragraph 7.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(no microphone)

MR MAVUNDLA: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you wish to call the deponent? The affidavit surely already confirms that it is correct.

MR MAVUNDLA: I merely want to call her to confirm that she is the person who has made this - I mean she has deposed to this affidavit and she agrees to the contents thereof, then leave it at that.

ADV PRIOR: It would certainly be fair for the applicant to test whatever he doesn't agree with, albeit on a limited basis. So I think it would be proper that she be called to simply confirm and if there is any aspect the applicant doesn't agree with, he can ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, call her. What are your full names?

MANUNU ONICA MONGWAGELWA: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

EXAMINATION BY MR MAVUNDLA: Mrs Mongwagelwa, is it correct that this handwriting on page 5 is yours? That is the signature just on top of "deponent", is that yours?

MS MONGWAGELWA: That is correct.

MR MAVUNDLA: And you have signed an initialled this affidavit, is that correct?

MS MONGWAGELWA: Yes.

MR MAVUNDLA: And the contents contained therein, you stand by them?

MS MONGWAGELWA: Yes.

MR MAVUNDLA: Thank you, Your Worship.

CHAIRPERSON: Any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MOHLABA: Just one aspect, Chairperson.

Ma'am on paragraph 7 of your affidavit it reads as follows:

Mr Thage, the applicant, believes that you have probably made a mistake, he was not present within that group of people.

MS MONGWAGELWA: Can you please repeat your question so that I can clearly understand it.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you. Mr Thage, the applicant, believes that you are probably making a mistake, he was not forming part of the group of people which attacked your house on the 26th of December 1990.

MS MONGWAGELWA: He was among the group.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you, Chairperson, I've got no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Any questions?

ADV PRIOR: No questions.

CHAIRPERSON: You've told us in your affidavit, that Abinaar was doing a teacher's course at Moratella and returned home during the school holidays.

MS MONGWAGELWA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Where would he return home to? When you refer to "home", where was that?

MS MONGWAGELWA: He came to Munsieville.

CHAIRPERSON: So he was in Munsieville during school holidays and away during the term time?

MS MONGWAGELWA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So he wasn't one of the people who had been driven out of Munsieville?

MS MONGWAGELWA: They were driven out after the 26th.

CHAIRPERSON: No, this is before.

MS MONGWAGELWA: Yes, it was before, before the 26th.

CHAIRPERSON: In that paragraph you said "1990 and '91", but you're referring - if he came home to Munsieville for holidays in 1990, in 1991 he'd been driven out.

MS MONGWAGELWA: We were attacked in 1990, on the 10th. He was at home for the school holidays. It was justa 10 days holiday and afterwards he went back to school. He came back in June and it was then this chaos.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR MAVUNDLA: Mr Chairperson, there would be no further evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

ADV PRIOR: ... no I have - there's no further evidence and that it seems concludes the evidence in this matter. May we just receive the affidavit as Exhibit D.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV PRIOR: Thank you.

ADV PRIOR: ... mark the affidavit as Exhibit C then.

MR MOHLABA: Am I expected to address, Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: I think so.

MR MOHLABA IN ARGUMENT: Thank you, Chairperson.

Chairperson, it is not in dispute, it's common cause that the applicant here was a member of the ANC and that he was an office bearer in the local leadership of the ANC.

CHAIRPERSON: There has not been the slightest suggestion has there, that anything that was done was done for or on behalf of the ANC? The applicant has not made any attempt to suggest that it was for the political objectives of the ANC.

MR MOHLABA: In his Section 112 statement, Chairperson, which - it is clearly explained that he was a member of the ANC, and even the judgment which forms part of the record which was handed in as an exhibit and accepted for the - that the factual position is that, allude to the fact that he was a member of the ANC and that that was done in, if I may call it, furtherance of the interests of the ANC.

CHAIRPERSON: What was it furthering? Tell me, what interests of the ANC? The ANC was in the process of negotiating a settlement to bring about peace in the district.

MR MOHLABA: Certainly Chairperson, there is in the evidence of the applicant here - and he has often referred to a war, and it is known that there was a conflict which was of a high intense, so as to justify the use of the word "war" under the circumstances. And Chairperson, further, it came to the attention of the ANC and the PAC leadership on the regional levels that they need to address the situation, and a meeting was held on the 14th, Chairperson, and apparently the meeting was held during the night and as Mr Mavundla has already recorded, a position was reached and an understanding was reached on several aspects.

However, there was a deadlock, Chairperson, about the conditions on which the PAC could return to the township. We know for instance, Chairperson, that there was this war - for lack of a better expression, resulted in the death of people and there was - we had at least the death of one person before the deceased, who is the subject matter of this application. So Chairperson, it can safely be inferred that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: There's nothing before us at all to suggest that the death of that person was for any political reason, is there?

MR MOHLABA: Certainly we know that this person was a member of the ANC and we ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ... may have taken somebody else's girlfriend, a girlfriend of a member of the PAC.

MR MOHLABA: That could be a possibility, Chairperson, but the state of the mind of the applicant, there has been perception in the township and ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: His state of mind was he had no orders from the ANC to do this killing, he was never instructed by them to kill anyone. That's what he's told us in his evidence. He didn't think he was doing it on behalf of the ANC. That's what he has told us, didn't he? He specifically told me, when I asked him, that this was not an act done on behalf of the ANC.

MR MOHLABA: I would concede, Chairperson, but he did not - that is when he did not specifically say that he was doing it for the ANC, but he participated in a war which was known to be taking place between the ANC and the PAC. And I may further go on, Chairperson, and say that this war needed to be won, the enemy had to be confronted and be engaged and be defeated. And that was the state of mind of the applicant at the time of ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: He didn't say so. He didn't say "I was doing this as part of the war against the PAC", he said "I was doing this because of the community of Munsieville, which is not one of the recognised liberation movements.

MR MOHLABA: The applicant, Chairperson, was in a leadership position in the ANC, he mentioned and ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: But he does not say he was acting in that position, that is the problem I have. He did not make the slightest attempt to suggest that he was acting on behalf of, or in his position as a leader of the ANC.

MR MOHLABA: Yes, I will agree. But Chairperson, the picture which has been painted here, there was a state of affairs which was taking place at the time, there was a war between the ANC and the PAC. And he did not say that he got orders from anyone to carry that out. It even created a little problem about him defying the orders of the ANC when walking out in the meeting. His - on cross-examination he put that into perspective and said that "We needed to consult the community and this community was primarily ANC?. So he was the community link between the ANC leadership on top and him being the leader who acted with the grassroots, being the community. I think it could have been understood in a different context, but the community - he had further explained that the community was ANC, primarily.

ADV SANDI: Yes, but in terms of the relevant portion of the Act, is he as an applicant, is not supposed to show that this thing he did, this crime he committed, he was carrying out an order from his organisation? And the Act goes even further to say that that must be a recognised liberation movement. He says he was acting on behalf of the community, the masses. Can one say that is a political structure of any existence?

MR MOHLABA: Certainly that could not be a political structure, but that was an institution which had placed him in that position and therefore when we talk ANC leadership in Munsieville, he was part of it and he needed to go back to his principle ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ... in support there, he needed to show on reasonable grounds that he believed he was acting in the course and scope of his duties and within the scope of his express or implied authority as a member of a recognised liberation movement. He has made no attempt to do that, has he?

MR MOHLABA: I'm in the hands of the Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: Given the facts and the evidence before the Committee, can you say there was an implied order that he should go out an kill this gentleman?

MR MOHLABA: My understanding of the expression "war", when he defined the situation as it occurred, that is the hostilities which were there between the ANC and the PAC then, it would mean that in defeating the PAC he will necessary be doing a service to the ANC as opposed to the ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Stop talking about war, when the night before the regional council had had meetings together. The regional council of the ANC and the regional council of the PAC had gathered together, discussing peace. This was not a war in any ordinary meaning of the word "war", this isn't where you kill the enemy on sight, was it? There had been competition between the ANC and the PAC for support in the struggle, but their objective was the same, to achieve freedom for the people of South Africa. Wasn't it?

MR MOHLABA: Certainly, Chairperson, that was ...(indistinct). And that will conclude my address unless the Chair wants to hear me on any other aspect.

ADV SANDI: Just one thing. You see, Mr Mohlaba, the problem here, even if one accepts it for the sake of argument, that he had an order from his organisation to kill the deceased, would that be - now if you look at the reason for killing the deceased, the applicant said it was because the deceased and his group were refusing to follow this procedure which was one of the conditions of returning to the community, don't you think you have a problem of proportionality there as well?

ADV SANDI: ... use a hammer to kill an ant?

MR MOHLABA: Chairperson, one could not easily say yes or no under those circumstances, because we were talking of a situation where people were killed. I don't know ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: ... and he's supposed to give notice that he's coming to talk to his parents about arranging to come back. His crime is he didn't give notice that he was coming to talk to his parents, he just went to talk to them. Can you possibly argue ...(indistinct) applying proportionality, that is a basis for killing a man?

MR MOHLABA: Not that only, Chairperson, but if the - as the applicant has indicated, if certain routes were to be followed in coming back into the township and with the background of the hostilities which were there and if somebody comes in without following those channels, suspicions become there that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, he comes in openly, he goes to see his parents at their house in the broad daylight, what suspicions are there?

MR MOHLABA: Chairperson will remember that there was a mention of a deadlock with regard to the local leadership, and there was a suggestion by the ANC local leadership that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Not the ANC local leadership, the township leadership.

MR MOHLABA: The township leadership. That certain routes need to be followed, but the local leadership of the - the township leadership of the PAC, had nothing to do with that and ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No routine had been agreed at the meeting, they hadn't settled anything. They had refused to accept the suggestion. So they are now following, not following a non-existent routine and for that they kill him. Because it was not agreed at the meeting, was it? That they would follow this procedure.

MR MOHLABA: Before the meeting was held, the status quo has been that these people who are expelled will remain outside the township, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: That has been their policy, it has not been agreement and at the meeting nothing was agreed.

MR MOHLABA: Certainly, Chairperson, the meeting was amongst other things, facilitated to try and resolve that question, to get them back into the township.

CHAIRPERSON: And they said they would not agree to that.

MR MOHLABA: Certain agreements were raised, but the modalities ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: So they had not agreed, it was a just a proposal put forward by these people and because they didn't follow that proposal they killed them.

MR MOHLABA: There was no agreement and the status quo was allowed to prevail, Chairperson, that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: But it wasn't that you killed people. He was coming in to see his parents, for that he got killed. They didn't ask him what he was doing, they made no attempt. Can you seriously suggest applying a proportionality test, that the killing was justified?

MR MOHLABA: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: We don't think it necessary to hear the representatives of the victims or Mr Prior. We will take time, adjourn shortly to proceed again with the next matter. Thank you all for your assistance, it's a rushed and rather complicated day, except for one of you who has had rather an easy day, but thanks to the rest of you.