CHAIRPERSON: The applicant is still under oath to tell the truth. Does he understand that?

LANGANANI FOSTER MUNYAI: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN RENSBURG:

Mr Munyai, can you start off by telling us what is your date of birth please?

MR MUNYAI: I was born on the 25th February 1965.

MR VAN RENSBURG: If I can refer you to paragraph 5 of the first page of your application it is stated there that your date of birth is the 21st February 1972?

MR MUNYAI: Those are the years I've used while I was arrested. During those days I used those years so that they must make my sentence to be a little bit low.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Are you saying that you lied on this application form?

MR MUNYAI: Yes I did, I did lie.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And now except for paragraph 5 where else on this application form have you lied?

MR MUNYAI: There's no other place where I have lied.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Are you sure about that?

MR MUNYAI: Yes I'm sure about that.

CHAIRPERSON: So you decided to tell the truth in the other places?

MR MUNYAI: Yes I've decided to tell the truth in other places.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you think you needed to lie in the one paragraph?

MR MUNYAI: It's the years I used while I was arrested.

CHAIRPERSON: We're quite aware of that, I'm asking you why?

MR MUNYAI: It's because during those days when a person was still under the police in the past if you give low years which are not many then if they think that you're still a youth then I think if they will think you are young then they will give you a light sentence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes that's very clever but in the court did you tell the court that you killed these people or you participated in the killing?

MR MUNYAI: Yes I did agree that I've killed.

CHAIRPERSON: So you pleaded guilty in the trial?

MR MUNYAI: No I didn't find myself guilty.

CHAIRPERSON: In the court did you tell them that you were guilty, that you did kill these people?

MR MUNYAI: In court I agreed that I participated in the killing but when I was asked whether I'm guilty or not I said no, I'm not guilty.

CHAIRPERSON: So even in the court the age is the only thing you lied about?

MR MUNYAI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr van Rensburg?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Chairperson.

The reason why what you have supplied for giving your age or your date of birth as 1972 you said that you used that date because you wanted to get a lighter sentence. Okay but surely you agree then that that argument and the reason for lying and using that date is not relevant for the purposes of the application for amnesty, don't you agree?

MR MUNYAI: Yes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay now tell us why did you lie in the application for amnesty?

MR MUNYAI: In the application I don't think I lied but the people who assisted us in filling the forms when we sent them to Cape Town were using years which were appearing in the requisition which is the one which is in the application.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Are you now saying that you didn't see that they used the wrong date and that the date was just copied from another document?

MR MUNYAI: When the forms were sent to Cape Town they were not in our possession, they were in the hands of my representative who maybe it didn't come to his or her mind to question me about it.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Is it not your signature on the end of that document on the third page?

MR MUNYAI: Yes it's my signature.

MR VAN RENSBURG: So Mr Munyai, when you were consulted in respect of this application did you put all your trust in your representatives to properly make the application?

MR MUNYAI: Yes I put all my trust in my representative.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you speak or read English?

MR MUNYAI: I can read.

CHAIRPERSON: How well?

MR MUNYAI: Sometimes I can but sometimes I cannot even hear what's being said.

CHAIRPERSON: When you signed this document did you read through the document before you signed it?

MR MUNYAI: Yes I did.

CHAIRPERSON: And you were aware when you signed it that the wrong date of birth was in it?

MR MUNYAI: In terms of the year to tell the truth I didn't take that into consideration while I was reading it through because it was done in a hurry.

CHAIRPERSON: Now that's what I'm asking you did you read through the document properly before you signed it?

MR MUNYAI: I did proof read but maybe I didn't understand the English well.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I'm talking about whether you understood it well or whether you briefly read through it, were you aware that your application form is going in with the wrong date of birth?

MR MUNYAI: I didn't take that into consideration, I didn't identify that.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Chairperson.

You see Mr Munyai, the problem that we're now sitting with is that you are here today in order to confirm also what you have said in this application form. Now what I want to know from you and you've got to confirm that, are the rest of the information on this application form correct or not and do you know what is in that form or not?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg, I think we'd better define what the application form is. How far are you referring to. Did you include the annexures or only the roneoed form?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes I will at this stage also include the annexures as well. Can I put that to him? Thank you Chairperson.

Yes in this regard I want you to look at the application form through pages 1, 2 and 3 and also the annexures annexed thereto, pages 4, 5 and 6 and I want you to confirm that you know what is in those forms and annexures and that it is the truth?

CHAIRPERSON: Can you tell me something, was this part of the document not drawn to your client's attention?

MR NDOU: Thank you Chairperson. In fact what transpired was apparently a Committee was formed which did the applications and sent some of the documents through with this attachment. When one goes through all the applications one finds this similar document in them but now in general when you speak to them they do confirm some of the contents. Now the only problem that I have is to whether pertaining to specific incidents and pertaining to specific points, some people do agree with what's written in the document, some are not aware of the contents but in general, that the document was put in almost each and every application.

CHAIRPERSON: I accept that but during your consultations?

MR NDOU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm not asking for what answers he may have given you.

MR NDOU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Was this not part of the documentation that you dealt with when you consulted with him?

MR NDOU: Yes I think what he's trying to go through the document to check with what he agrees with and what he doesn't agree with.

CHAIRPERSON: No, but at that time when you consulted with him was he not in a position to do so?

MR NDOU: Yes, he had the document.

CHAIRPERSON: Then I can't understand why he's having to do that now?

MR NDOU: No, I think he's through with it now.

CHAIRPERSON: Because it takes up time. We've got to sit here until he's completed it.

MR NDOU: Yes maybe the problem stems from the fact that - I suggest that my learned friend just puts specific questions because it's very, very difficult if I say do you agree with the whole document, it will be very, very difficult to say I agree with the document unless I'm shown this specific point.

CHAIRPERSON: That was not his question, his question was or the effect of the question was do you know that part of the document then he reads through it in order to be able to say yes or no.

MR NDOU: What I understood the question to mean was whether he agrees, is there any other thing that he doesn't agree with in the document and I thought at that stage it will be very dangerous for him just to say yes or no unless he ...(indistinct)

CHAIRPERSON: Look, I can appreciate that. All I'm concerned about is of the import of the question was does he know that document and then he decides to read it to find out if he knows the document. Let's proceed because I'm not very happy that people come sit and read documents that they should be reading long before they come here.

MR NDOU: Maybe the problem is he didn't understand the question because I also didn't understand the way you're putting it to me now.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you. Okay now the answer or the question was do you know the contents of that document plus the annexures?

MR MUNYAI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that bit of the document, that annexures intended by you to be part of the application?

MR MUNYAI: All those things which are in this document, this is what is exactly the truth.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I'm not asking whether it's the truth, listen to the question. When you made your application did you intend the annexures to be part of your application?

MR MUNYAI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr van Rensburg?

MR VAN RENSBURG: And you there with that answer you agree with the contents of these documents because it has been included, is that correct?

MR MUNYAI: Could you please repeat your question?

MR VAN RENSBURG: You agree with the contents of this document because you consented it to be included in your application?

MR MUNYAI: I didn't hear your question properly, could you please repeat?

CHAIRPERSON: By the very fact that you agreed that document, your application must be supplemented by the annexures. The question is that you wanted the contents thereof to be part of the application?

MR MUNYAI: Yes I agree.

CHAIRPERSON: Now I'm going to be quite fair to you and I want you to think very carefully on the question. Think about it, don't answer as a matter of convenience. All the facts as contained in those annexures, 1 and 2, do you agree with everything or only part of it or what is the position. Do you want both to be part of your application or sections of it?

MR MUNYAI: All the sections in annexure A and B, I want them to be part of my application, all of them.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) section?

MR MUNYAI: Yes.

ADV SIGODI: When was the first time that you saw these annexures?

MR MUNYAI: If I can remember well I think I've seen them for the first time in 1997.

ADV SIGODI: So when your application was sent to Cape Town had you already seen these annexures?

MR MUNYAI: When my application was sent to Cape Town by then I have not seen them, but I have seen them when my application was already gone to Cape Town or sent to Cape Town.

ADV SIGODI: Who gave you these annexures.

MR MUNYAI: A certain representative of us who is working with, there is a certain gentleman in a committee we formed who is working with our representative and I think his name is Abraham who is working with Mr Ndou will see to it that our things will go in order.

ADV SIGODI: Okay.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

Now when you consulted with your legal representative, did you bring to his attention the fact that the date of birth is incorrect on the form?

MR MUNYAI: Yes I did explain to him.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay. Can you just tell this hearing what offences have you been convicted of?

MR MUNYAI: It's murder and arson and assault.

MR VAN RENSBURG: How many counts of murder?

MR MUNYAI: Three counts.

CHAIRPERSON: For what do you make amnesty application?

MR MUNYAI: I'm making amnesty application in all those counts seeing that all these counts in which I was found guilty had happened on the same day.

CHAIRPERSON: Now in respect of whom do you make the murder applications, who are the victims there?

MR MUNYAI: It's Maphaha and Madadzhe.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes and the third one? Who is the third person you have been convicted of murdering?

MR MUNYAI: There's no other third person that we were alleged to have killed.

MR VAN RENSBURG: You've just testified that you've been convicted of three counts of murder, who is the other person?

CHAIRPERSON: I think what he intended is to say three offences, two murders, one assault, one arson. Did I understand that correctly?

MR MUNYAI: Yes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: Because it's two counts of murder, arson and assault, it's four?

MR MUNYAI: Yes, it's four.

CHAIRPERSON: The assault, GBH, on whom was that?

MR MUNYAI: Assault, GBH, occurred Chinak Simete, if I'm giving the right surname, I'm not sure of the surname.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you say the surname was?

MR MUNYAI: Simete.

CHAIRPERSON: And the arson?

MR MUNYAI: We burnt the house of Mr Mbatha.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

Now what was your sentence for each of these four counts that you've been convicted of?

MR MUNYAI: In these counts I was sentenced to 46 years. The difference is that all counts would run concurrently so if they're running concurrently it was decided that I will be in jail for 20 effective years of which three years was suspended and so it remained being 17.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, what I want to find out is for each of the offences what was your sentence, each separate.

CHAIRPERSON: Well at best it must be 20 years or less.

MR MUNYAI: Count one, I was sentenced for 20 years. Count 2, I was sentenced for 20 years, count 3 it was 5 years, count 4 it was 12 months.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay and tell us about the assault on this Mrs Simete. When did this happen?

MR MUNYAI: It happened on the very same day on which all these counts were happened, that was on the 2nd February 1990.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And how did you assault her?

MR MUNYAI: The only lady Chineko Simete is the person who was being interrogated before being assaulted. She was asked to name the people you used to commit those crimes with and it was seen that she was not prepared to talk and then we decided to use our bare hands and then I used to lashes and today two people who were there who was using sticks in their possession.

CHAIRPERSON: What was she doing with other people?

MR MUNYAI: Could you please repeat your question?

CHAIRPERSON: What was she doing that you were wanting to know she was doing with other people?

MR MUNYAI: I think yesterday I explained that while we were in the meeting people were naming other people, I was writing the list, she was falling under the people who were in the list of witches.

CHAIRPERSON: So you wanted to find out from her who the witches were with that she was working?

MR MUNYAI: Yes on that day we were intending to find out from her other people with whom she used to work in witchcraft.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Were you trying to extract from her information about other witches, also to add them onto the list?

MR MUNYAI: Yes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And did she give you those names?

MR MUNYAI: Yes she gave us those names.

MR VAN RENSBURG: How many people were added onto the list because of this interrogation on the old lady?

MR MUNYAI: Two names.

MR VAN RENSBURG: What two names?

MR MUNYAI: They gave us Kambani, I don't know the first name and again Makawu's name.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Was Makawu's name already on the list at that stage?

MR MUNYAI: It's the second Makawu, we have the first Makawu who is on the list and this second Makawu was mentioned later by the lady in question.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Now at what stage did you assault this old lady with open hands, was that before the murders took place, between the two murders or after the murders?

MR MUNYAI: The beating of this lady happened before we killed anybody. We were on our way to commit the murder.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Was this old lady's name on the list?

MR MUNYAI: Yes it was on the list.

CHAIRPERSON: Why didn't you kill her?

MR MUNYAI: It's because that lady explained that she doesn't kill in the witchcraft which she commits. She knows Kambani and Makawu whose witchcraft is intended to kill.

CHAIRPERSON: So you were only after witches who committed ritual murders?

INTERPRETER: He doesn't understand the question because ritual murder and witchcraft murder is two different things.

CHAIRPERSON: Who performed witchcraft involving the killing of people?

MR MUNYAI: The people we were intending to kill, it's people who used to give people for example Sangomas who used to give people medicine to kill and the people who practice witchcraft of killing people. It's true we were looking after these people because there were stumbling blocks in reaching our objective.

CHAIRPERSON: Now what about witches who did not perform that were they exempted from being dealt with?

MR MUNYAI: So there was no witch who was exempted. On that day Chinako Simete was her luck that she was not killed after making the statement of giving us those two people.

CHAIRPERSON: Well this doesn't make sense to me because I asked you just now why she wasn't killed. You had her in your custody to the extent that she was assaulted. I asked you why then if she was on the list why she wasn't then killed and your answer was to the effect that she explained that, her activities in witchcraft, it did not involve killing people and therefore she was not killed. Do you remember saying so?

MR MUNYAI: Yes I remember.

CHAIRPERSON: So am I correct then by saying it follows that only people who were involved with witchcraft related to killing people that were the targets of your attack and that they were intended to be killed. Am I correct in understanding you?

MR MUNYAI: Yes I understand.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the correct position, I'm asking.

MR MUNYAI: Yes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

Can you remember yesterday you testified that you decided to kill the witches because you wanted to make Venda ungovernable, can you remember that?

MR MUNYAI: Yes I still remember.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Now this lady, the old lady was as a witch put on the list so won't you say that that would have furthered your cause to make Venda ungovernable to kill this old lady, wouldn't that have furthered your cause?

MR MUNYAI: It would have furthered our cause but on that day I have indicated that I beat her using my bare hands and others assaulted her by sticks and she fell down and the people thought she was dead. Unfortunately she was not dead that is why I've indicated that it was lucky that she didn't die on that day.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Are you now saying that you actually intended to kill her, actually thought that you have killed her but she wasn't killed, is that what you're now saying?

MR MUNYAI: Yes when we left her room, it's only after she gave us the incident of witches who were participating the same thing together and then we thought she was dead when we left.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Why didn't you burn her place, her hut?

MR MUNYAI: It's because we realised that the person we were after was already attacked.

CHAIRPERSON: What did you do to her that you thought she was dead?

MR MUNYAI: After falling down I decided to shake her and I realised that she was not speaking.

CHAIRPERSON: Was she stabbed, hacked, poisoned or what?

MR MUNYAI: She was oozing or bleeding because she was being beaten by sticks but she was not stabbed.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes carry on?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Can you remember that yesterday the Chairperson explained to you that in order to qualify for amnesty you've got to make full disclosure of the facts, can you remember that?

MR MUNYAI: Yes I still remember that.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay now the question is why didn't you tell us this story about attempting to kill the old lady yesterday?

MR MUNYAI: Yesterday as I was trying to explain or where this thing started and the Chairperson asked me to ask people who didn't make - I mustn't talk about the people who didn't apply for amnesty and then he advised me to give my evidence on two cases Maphaha and Madadzhe.

MR VAN RENSBURG: But you are making application for assault on this old lady as well, aren't you?

MR MUNYAI: I'm also doing that, that is why I'm trying to explain that yesterday where we have travelled that day.

CHAIRPERSON: You see, I want to point out something to you. I don't know if it helps you to answer the question. When I told you to leave out incidents for which amnesty is not being applied for, you were already on the murders. The first murder was Madadzhe, you'd already described that, then I told you just keep all the other incidents in between and go straight to the other matter that you're applying for, do you remember?

MR MUNYAI: Yes I still remember.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you say this lady was assaulted before any murder?

MR MUNYAI: Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So the time you were supposed to have spoken about this lady, I had not yet asked you to get to the crimes for which you apply for amnesty, do you understand?

MR MUNYAI: Yes I understand.

CHAIRPERSON: Now that's why the attorney is asking you the question that why didn't you explain all this yesterday. You on your own went straight to the meeting, you went straight to Madadzhe. Whether that is true or not, I mean you went in your evidence, you went straight there. I'm not saying that's what actually happened.

MR MUNYAI: That is not true, what I've said yesterday is that after the meeting we went to Makawu, that's where I've started, it's then that when I was giving my evidence there and then the Chairperson advised me to concentrate on two cases for which I'm applying for amnesty. That's why I've started to talk about Madadzhe and Maphaha after being warned by the Chairperson that we are only talking about the cases in which I have applied for amnesty and we're not talking about the cases for which I didn't apply for amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: Then why didn't you include this one about the lady if you're applying for it?

MR MUNYAI: Yesterday I would have talked about her if I was given a chance to do so. If I was given a chance to explain that from Mamakawu, we went to which place and which place, I would have reached that item.

CHAIRPERSON: You see, I want to point out to you yesterday also when you were asked what you were applying for you said two murders and arson, that's what your evidence was. Do you recall that?

MR MUNYAI: Yes I still remember that.

CHAIRPERSON: So you didn't even tell us you were applying for assault?

MR MUNYAI: Maybe all that or as I was trying to give the whole story, when the Chairperson interjects ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You had not yet got onto your story, we asked you first what are you applying for. It's very near the beginning of your evidence.

MR MUNYAI: I'm should have, maybe I have forgotten to mention it, if I didn't mention it yesterday.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I'm sure if you didn't mention it, I'm telling you that you didn't mention it, you said it was a mistake?

MR MUNYAI: Yes I agree it's a mistake.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't want to know the details of what you told your attorney but did you tell your attorney about it, the assault?

MR MUNYAI: I didn't understand that question?

CHAIRPERSON: When you consulted with your attorney, did you tell him you're applying for assault of Mrs Simete?

MR MUNYAI: I didn't tell him because I was not having the idea thereof, I thought because I'm applying for amnesty because all these four counts where I was sentenced on the same day and they were all grouped together, I thought in the application I'm applying for all those counts, that is why maybe I didn't inform my attorney about that because I thought everything was - all charges were included.

CHAIRPERSON: And that explains why he never raised it.

Anyway, carry on.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

Now I put it to you that the reason why you failed to mention this assault GBH count to your attorney was the same reason why you put the wrong birth date on the form and that is to make your liability smaller than it actually is?

MR MUNYAI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you agree with that?

MR MUNYAI: So maybe if he can repeat? Sometimes I tend to be confused when I'm being questioned.

CHAIRPERSON: What are you confused about?

MR MUNYAI: More especially because this case I'm applying this amnesty happened long ago so when I'm being questioned sometimes I get confused although sometimes some of the things I have forgotten.

CHAIRPERSON: Look here, I want to tell you something in your own interest.

MR MUNYAI: Could you please repeat your question?

CHAIRPERSON: I want to tell you something in your own interest, that you're not sitting in a court of law now. We are not going to sentence you, do you understand. I explained to you yesterday that one of the requirements necessary for the granting of amnesty is for you to make a full disclosure in respect of the crimes you committed for which you make application for amnesty, do you understand that?

MR MUNYAI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You're not confused about that?

MR MUNYAI: No with what you have just explained, I'm not confused about that.

CHAIRPERSON: And if we are going to find that you did not make full disclosure or that we can't believe you, then we are going to refuse amnesty, do you understand?

MR MUNYAI: Yes I understand.

CHAIRPERSON: So let's cut out all this nonsense about forgetting and being confused and why didn't tell your attorney certain things etc. Let's not blame him, do you understand? If there are acceptable reasons why you didn't tell him then tell us. Well let's not beat about the bush because many other people who are in jail. We are going to try to complete most of those cases so that they can get out of jail because we haven't got time to beat about the bush about being confused etc, etc, we're busy with important things here. There are thousands of people still in jail who could possibly get out, do you understand? And it's in your own interest to make full disclosure. Now let's get on with it.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I will move onto another aspect. Okay, let's talk about the meeting that you had. I presume that meeting was held on the same date than the murders were committed, is that correct?

MR MUNYAI: Yes it's correct.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay, now at that meeting you decided that because you can't enter into rent boycotts and things like that and therefore you decided to attack people who participate to work with the government, is that correct?

MR MUNYAI: Yes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay, now what I want to know is, if you now want to hurt or injure people that participate to work with the government and to further the causes of the government, why didn't you for instance attack a police station?

MR MUNYAI: It's because it was difficult for us to go and attack a police station because the police were always armed during those days and we were armless.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay, so why didn't you attack the local magistrate's office?

MR MUNYAI: It's because even there in court police are always there with guns so we thought they would see us and then throw teargas on us or shoot at us.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay, so why didn't you attack a local school because there are also government employees at that school?

MR MUNYAI: It's because teachers who were teaching in those schools were not part of the people, we thought they assist the rulers of those days for an example the going out of the rulers to the Sangomas to get medicine so that they can have more powers and be respected at work and that they ensure that their government is not disturbed, it means that it was not possible for us to go and attack mistresses and the teachers because they were not falling under that category. The people who we were intending to attack were people who were giving rulers medicines which makes those high officers to protect themselves and to protect the government by those medicines because it was ruling, using medicines or muti.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Did you believe that, did you believe it is so that the government members used witches and witchcraft to protect their own power and to strengthen themselves. Did you believe that?

MR MUNYAI: Yes I believe.

CHAIRPERSON: Then why didn't you say so, why didn't you testify that. Whole of yesterday or whatever period you were sitting here yesterday and some of this morning your attorney was asking you, I asked you, the panel has asked you, why didn't you confirm it then?

MR MUNYAI: Maybe it's because I was not understanding the question properly.

CHAIRPERSON: How did you understand the question now? Same question?

MR MUNYAI: I think I understand it now.

CHAIRPERSON: Maybe Mr van Rensburg you have more powers than I have.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I doubt that Mr Chairperson, but I'll try.

I want to ask you an easy question. If you now did believe that a member of the government could go to a witch and get some muti there in order to strengthen him or protect his position and if you believed that really worked, why didn't you and your group go to a witch and get some muti to protect you against that power?

MR MUNYAI: It was difficult for me because I was not prepared, but those days I was not thinking of promoting witchcraft that is why I didn't just think of going to the witchcraft to help me in that day but then I never believed that the witchcraft can assist me in that way, that is why I didn't go there.

CHAIRPERSON: So what made you believe they're assisting the politicians?

MR MUNYAI: It's because high members of government which was ruling here in Venda were able or I think what I believe is that they used to go to the witches and the witches informed them that if they want to have high position or to be rich or for their government to remain intact, they must go and kill a person and attack the parts of the person and bring them to me and I will make them with muti then your things will be in order, that makes us to believe that high officials and the government of the day were working hand in hand with witchcraft and Sangomas.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm going to ask you the question again. Do you believe that witches have these powers that they say they have?

MR MUNYAI: Yes in Venda or in Venda culture we agree.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm talking about you.

MR MUNYAI: Yes I agree, I believe.

CHAIRPERSON: Why didn't you go to a witch then and say "look here, I will pay you like these people pay you, give me something to make me overthrow the government because that is my aim"?

MR MUNYAI: As far as I'm concerned, during those days I was not in need of powers which I could find by using muti. What we were trying to do is that people with fight powers shall not continue to exercise such powers. It's not that I was aiming to get those powers.

CHAIRPERSON: Tell me, I'm going to ask a straight question, those actions that day, were those directed at eradicating witchcraft for witchcraft reasons in the area or were they directed at eradicating or reducing the power of witchcraft because they assisted the politicians?

MR MUNYAI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes what?

MR MUNYAI: I'm agreeing that what happened that day was directed to making sure that witchcraft is no longer practised because it was stopping us in overpowering the government of Venda which by then we thought it was being protected by muti which they used to receive from the Sangomas.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay, so part of the problem that you had at the time is that you found that some activists were mysteriously dying, can you remember testifying that?

MR MUNYAI: Yes I did mention that is true.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And the impression that you had and also the other people had was these activists were actually killed by the witches in order to further the aims of the politicians, is that correct?

MR MUNYAI: To put it clearly I can say that people who were in the Venda government, high officials, the rulers were using witches and Sangomas to destroy the activists who were present to ensure that or because they know that if they send Sangomas or witches because they were working hand in hand to destroy the activists it means that they were going to be weak people to oppose the government so it means that a person who was in power was going to be affected in no way in the death of the activists so it was our - we were obliged to follow the witches instead of the rulers.

ADV DE JAGER: Okay, could you tell me the name of the activist that's been killed?

MR MUNYAI: I know two of them.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, give me the names?

MR MUNYAI: The first one is Pandele Ramaru.

ADV DE JAGER: How old?

MR MUNYAI: By then he was 21 years old.

ADV DE JAGER: The other one?

MR MUNYAI: The other one is called Tihuri weInzene.

ADV DE JAGER: How old?

MR MUNYAI: Plus minus 25 years.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry and how did these activists die, how were they killed?

MR MUNYAI: The other one was struck by lightning when they were from school.

ADV SIGODI: Yes?

MR MUNYAI: And the other one was a person that day he just fell down and then he died and he was not sick.

ADV SIGODI: And what role were they playing politically, these two people, what was their role?

MR MUNYAI: These guys most of the time they were recruiting people and to show people the policies of the ANC and the PAC, to show the people that we have this kind of organisations which are permitting us these kind of things so to a certain extent if we support them they will help us while they will be in power.

ADV SIGODI: You say the policy of both the ANC and the PAC?

MR MUNYAI: Yes, the other one was a supporter of the ANC and the other one was a supporter of the PAC, that is why they were guiding us on those two different organisations.

CHAIRPERSON: Did the PAC and the ANC work together?

MR MUNYAI: Those days or during that time, I don't know that they were co-operating but simply because we were all under the apartheid government, people tended to believe that PAC and ANC co-operated or worked together because those two organisations were banned and their leaders were in exile.

CHAIRPERSON: And then both parties recruiting offices in the area died?

MR MUNYAI: Those people were supporters, they were not card carrying members, in other words it means they were trying to unite ...(indistinct) for us, the Blacks, so that we can understand the direction of the politics of the country.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

Now except for these two activists that you have mentioned, are you aware of any other activists that were killed or went missing?

MR MUNYAI: I only remember of a certain child whom we just thought on our own that this child when she grows she will be an activist is the one who was missed and I've forgotten her name or his name because the incident happened quite long ago.

MR VAN RENSBURG: What was the age of that child?

MR MUNYAI: Yesterday I mentioned that she was 12 to 13 years.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Are you saying that she wasn't an activist yet but she was about to become an activist?

MR MUNYAI: Yes, this child that is on our own perception. We used to call her or him the activist because she used to show that in the meetings she used to participate and she was interested in asking questions here and there.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Let me ask you this, don't you think the government would have rather benefited from killing you rather than a thirteen year old child?

MR MUNYAI: Yes I think the government would have benefited.

MR VAN RENSBURG: So can you then explain how the cause of the government was furthered by killing this thirteen year old child?

MR MUNYAI: In that child we can't say that the government participated. The government only participated in ensuring that the true activists mentioned above must be killed but with this child it was a jealousy by the witches, that is why they led her or him into getting missed and including with the case of this child it makes the situation to be worse.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Now can you just explain that, I don't understand how it was the jealousy of the witches that killed the child?

MR MUNYAI: In the case of this child considering his or her age because he was twelve or thirteen years it means that we thought she was under age and she was not having that clear ideas that she can be an activist to such an extent. It means the part played in her being killed I think it was the jealousy by witches because she was intelligent.

ADV DE JAGER: So that had nothing to do with the politics of the day and the government being kept in power?

MR MUNYAI: It participated after the missing of this child. Many things we would try to just not do anything about it, sometimes we just kept quiet sometimes we tried to talk to the government and the government refused but in our village the missing of this child made things to be worse and we vowed to make sure that this government must be ungovernable.

ADV DE JAGER: But isn't it still happening today that children disappear?

MR MUNYAI: Yes but it might be happening but not to extent of what was happening in the past.

ADV DE JAGER: So it had nothing to do with politics?

MR MUNYAI: I didn't understand that, could you please repeat your question?

ADV DE JAGER: It's still things that's been happening up to this present day and it happened long in the past, it had nothing to do with politics?

MR MUNYAI: Now it might not link with politics but in the past it was identical with politics which was happening here in Venda.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

This child, this thirteen year old child that vanished, you testified that that child was last seen in the company of Mr Maphaha, is that correct?

MR MUNYAI: Yes that is correct.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay, now at the time when you decided to kill Mr Maphaha because the child was last seen with him, you knew that Mr Maphaha's reason for killing the child was because he was jealous of that child, is that not so?

MR MUNYAI: When we went to Mr Maphaha we would not have killed him if he handed over the child because on that day he failed to hand over the child who was last seen with him resulted into him being killed.

CHAIRPERSON: Subsequently, was that child found?

MR MUNYAI: From there I didn't know whether she was found because I was immediately arrested because of this cases I'm now applying for amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: It's about ten years ago, have you heard whether she was found or not?

MR MUNYAI: Up to now to tell you the honest truth I have not received that information because they're in jail, there are not many people who used to come and visit me.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

You constantly are saying that you wanted and planned to make Venda ungovernable or the area ungovernable. Why did you want to make the area ungovernable?

MR MUNYAI: It's because the Venda citizens, not ...(indistinct) citizens only, all Venda citizens were intending to make the government to fall or be incorporated into South Africa because we were tired of it.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay, so that was the main goal, you wanted Venda to be incorporated back into South Africa. Was that the main goal?

MR MUNYAI: Yes that was our main goal.

CHAIRPERSON: Let me ask you something. Under the Nationalist apartheid government that would not happen, do you know that?

MR MUNYAI: You mean what will not happen?

CHAIRPERSON: Under the old government, reincorporation would not occur, do you know that?

MR MUNYAI: Yes it will not happen, that is why people were striking and trying to do all things to make the government ungovernable, to make it be incorporated although it would be difficult.

CHAIRPERSON: That's why I'm asking you now, this question, which government are you talking about. One small government in Venda or are talking about the real corporate government of South Africa?

MR MUNYAI: Could you please repeat your question?

CHAIRPERSON: When you say you wanted to make the government, country ungovernable and see to the demise of the government, are you referring to the small government of Venda or were you referring to the real controllers of the country, the Nationalist government?

MR MUNYAI: I'm talking in terms of the small government of Venda.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay, let's turn to the murder of Mr Madadzhe on that 2nd February. What was this person's position in the community?

MR MUNYAI: She was a headman or Ingoma.

CHAIRPERSON: Was she a female?

MR MUNYAI: He was a male.

CHAIRPERSON: It was interpreted as she.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

You see that is exactly my problem, is it not so that the head person at that stage was in fact a female by the name of Tina Vuyo Madadzhe, namely the deceased's wife?

MR MUNYAI: What you are saying I don't understand it, would you please repeat your question?

MR VAN RENSBURG: What I'm saying is that the person that you killed was not in fact the headman, his wife was in charge, the person with the ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You know Mr van Rensburg, I often wondered to myself how these tribal communities handled the gender issue of the constitution because we've on many occasions been told that never ever will a woman be a headman, only men can do that. My colleague refers to that as headperson, I'm not too sure if she's right?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairperson. I don't think I'll continue with this line, I just wanted his reaction on that.

You testified that at a meeting a person pointed his finger at you and said that as long as that person is in charge the government will not fall, can you remember that?

MR MUNYAI: Yes I still remember but that was not on the 2nd February. I indicated even yesterday that it happened before the 2nd February.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes I appreciate that, I know that it was before the date of the murder. What I want to know from you, who is that person who pointed the finger at you and promised that as long as he is in power the government will not fall?

MR MUNYAI: It's a certain chief who was called Norman Chicororo who on that day he was troubled with the old man, Mr Madadzhe and Madadzhe, both of them, they pointed at me with their fingers.

MR VAN RENSBURG: So you were actually ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: What's the problem with pointing to somebody with a finger?

MR MUNYAI: There is a problem in the Black culture because a person can point me and say you will say it and if I look down upon that sometimes I can find myself in trouble or the following day I died. Then when he pointed me with a finger the people next to me said you must take cognisance of that thing, that person has pointed you by a finger and you mustn't look above that thing seeing that there are people dying mysteriously. It's possible that you can also die unfailing.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm happy one previous state president was not in Africa because he used to point fingers.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

When you testified in your evidence in chief you mentioned a person uttering these words. Let's not now worry about the pointing of the finger, let's worry about the uttering of the words. The person who said this government will not fall as long as he is the chief, that person when you testified that you were referring to Chief Chicororo, is that correct?

MR MUNYAI: Yes that is correct.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay now and yesterday you only testified that it was that same person, Chicororo, who pointed the finger at you, is that correct?

MR MUNYAI: Yes, yesterday I indicated that Madadzhe pointed me by a finger in the car of Mr Chicororo. Maybe where I didn't put it clear yesterday is that even Chief Chicororo pointed me with a finger, I think that is where I didn't indicate yesterday, they all pointed a finger at me that day.

CHAIRPERSON: Of course you didn't die you lived to tell the tale.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay, now the person at that meeting, that person with the higher rank was obviously Chief Chicororo, is that correct?

MR MUNYAI: On that meeting Chief Chicororo was not invited. It's only the youth who were invited, it's only the people who - Mr Chicororo wasn't in the meeting so I'm asking that you rephrase your question?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, I'm not worried if he was there, what I'm asking is, of the two persons between Madadzhe and Chicororo, Chicororo was the highest ranking person, is that correct?

MR MUNYAI: Yes that is correct.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And Chief Chicororo was openly defending the government of the day by saying it will not fall as long as he is in power, is that correct?

MR MUNYAI: Yes that is correct.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Now what I want to know is why didn't you attempt to kill Chief Chicororo?

MR MUNYAI: Those attempts were made before. We once went to his home at Mdisane and we tried to attempt to kill him but we failed because he wasn't there and then we destroyed everything which was there, we attempted to do so because what he was - the way in which he was ruling us was not to our will.

ADV DE JAGER: ...(inaudible)

INTERPRETER: The interpreters cannot hear you, could you please repeat?

ADV DE JAGER: You're appearing for both families of the deceased?

MR VAN RENSBURG: That is correct, yes.

ADV DE JAGER: And do you also appear for the assaulted person, Simete?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No Mr Chairperson, I do not have instructions from the said person, Mrs Simete.

ADV DE JAGER: Do you know whether she's present?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I am not aware if she's present or not, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Was she notified?

MS PATEL: Honourable Chairperson, if I may respond? We requested that these application forms be supplemented because they were vague also in terms of what specifically the applicant was applying for, the information regarding the assault is information that surfaced only today so unfortunately there was no notification in that regard.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

Okay, we're still on the murder of Mr ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry could I just interrupt you? You're appearing on behalf of the families. Are they opposing the amnesty applications?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes they are indeed opposing the applications.

ADV DE JAGER: On what basis an with what do they disagree so that we could focus on that and see whether we could solve that problem?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, the objection is basically twofold and firstly it is that the murders were not committed with a political motive or for a political motive and secondly that there is no full disclosure of the relevant facts.

ADV DE JAGER: But is it common cause that what one can call a crowd of about 500 people approached the homes of the deceased and that they were killed in a manner testified?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, that is definitely not in dispute although my instructions are because it was dark, we cannot put an estimation on the amount of people but obviously then it can also not be disputed but the rest of the facts, as you put it now are not in dispute.

ADV DE JAGER: If a crowd of about 500 or say 200 or whatever, a large section of the community, took part in the assassination, what was the reason for that if it wasn't political? Could it have been that it was only to get rid of somebody who was not popular and who was perceived to be a witch without being politics at all?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes that is in fact my instructions that the killing of these people was not for political reasons but because they were perhaps identified as witches and put on the list as it was advertised or testified. The reasons for that was eradication of witchcraft for some other reason basically for the reason that the community felt that witches were bad at that stage and it had nothing to do with political motivation or to make the government or the country ungovernable at the time. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: So Mr van Rensburg, I think I understand the objection that it was rather a venture to eradicate witchcraft rather than any political motive. Can't we concentrate on that?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, we will do that.

Can we just turn to the murder of Mr Madadzhe then? You testified that you were in fact the leader or the chairman at the meeting that was held earlier that day, is that correct?

MR MUNYAI: Yes that is correct.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Is it fair to assume that you were also in control of the proceedings that happened after the meeting?

MR MUNYAI: Yes it would be fair.

MR VAN RENSBURG: So it was you that decided which houses should be visited in which order?

MR MUNYAI: No, it's not myself that was being said by people who were in the meeting. In case of Chineko Simete, he was identified by a certain person called Rexin Maurousi.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I'm not talking about putting the names on the list, I'm talking about the events that followed after the meeting and the sequence of events. Who decided what sequence of events to follow?

MR MUNYAI: As a chairperson on that day, it's true I was reading the names as they appear on the list from the first one.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And when you arrived at the old lady's hut, the one that you were eventually convicted of assaulting, you led the interrogation, is that correct?

MR MUNYAI: Yes that is correct.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And when you arrived at the deceased, Madadzhe's house, you also asked if he is present, is that correct?

MR MUNYAI: Yes that is correct.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay, let's follow on then from that time. What happened after you shouted or asked if he is present, can you just tell us what happened?

MR MUNYAI: But I think we didn't ask because they were asleep, I think what happened is that we broke the window in the hut in which they used to sleep with this old lady and then we dragged him out, it's that what happened on that day.

MR VAN RENSBURG: So you participated in dragging him out of his hut, is that correct?

MR MUNYAI: No, I participated in assaulting.

MR VAN RENSBURG: So why do you say "we" dragged him out of the hut?

MR MUNYAI: I'm saying it in that on that day I was not alone, so we were many, that is why I'm saying we dragged him out.

MR VAN RENSBURG: What were you doing, you yourself doing when the people dragged him out of the hut?

MR MUNYAI: At that time while she was being dragged outside the house I was standing outside waiting to interrogate her since I was intending to do so.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg, when you get to a convenient stage, will you just indicate?

ADV DE JAGER: Are we now talking about Mr Madadzhe or are we talking about a female?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, we're talking about Mr Madadzhe.

ADV DE JAGER: It's been interpreted as while she was dragged out. Are you referring to a woman or a man?

MR MUNYAI: On that day we dragged out a male person.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, it was Mr Madadzhe?

MR MUNYAI: Yes that is correct, it's Mr Madadzhe.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay and what did you ask from him, you said you interrogated him. What did you want to know from him?

MR MUNYAI: While he was dragged out I'm the person who asked him the first question. The first question which I've asked him seeing that he was on the list of the people who were supposed to be killed, I asked her who are the other people he committed witchcraft with. He said no, he committed witchcraft alone and he said burnt me with my basket which was fully of muti or medicine.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Would you just please repeat the last part of your question regarding the muti, I didn't follow that?

MR MUNYAI: I asked him to tell me the other person, they practised witchcraft together. On that day he said he practised witchcraft being alone and he said if you want to kill him we must kill him together with his basket which was full of bottles which was containing muti or medicine.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Did you see that basket there at his hut?

MR MUNYAI: Yes I'm the person who go and fetch it after mentioning that we must burn him with it since he was saying he must be burnt with it.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Where did you fetch it from?

MR MUNYAI: It was in that room from which he was dragged out of.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes and after you fetched the basket of muti, what did you do then?

MR MUNYAI: I took the basket, then when I was reaching him I realised that he was dead so he was dragged to the house of that boy who is wearing a white shirt behind you there and then I threw that basket inside that house which was burnt with the deceased inside.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Are you now saying that at the time when the deceased was killed you were not even there?

MR MUNYAI: While he being killed I was there but I just hit him four times and then I went into the hut to take the basket which he was saying he must be killed with it.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Who lit the fire.

MR MUNYAI: Who lit the fire on that day is the fifth suspect who is ...(indistinct) Marausi.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Did you assist to drag ...(inaudible)

INTERPRETER: The interpreters cannot hear, the speaker's mike is not on.

ADV DE JAGER: The Chairperson asked you to indicate when you come to a convenient stage for the short adjournment.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I apologise Mr Chairperson. I can just as well continue from this point after the adjournment, that's fine.

LANGANANI FOSTER MUNYAI: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN RENSBURG: (cont) Thank you Mr Chairperson.

Mr Munyai, we're still talking about the first murder. Can you tell me, except for the fact that you hit the deceased four times with a stick and you fetched the muti and threw it on the fire, what was the rest of your involvement in this murder?

MR MUNYAI: Nothing I did.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay, who put the name of Mr Madadzhe on the list?

MR MUNYAI: It's the one who is called Tatini Ramwashe.

MR VAN RENSBURG: At the time of the murder, did you owe Mr Madadzhe any money?

MR MUNYAI: Not at all.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Is it not so that a few months before the murder you took R50 from Mr Madadzhe and your family had in the meantime arranged to pay back that money?

MR MUNYAI: That's not true, I would not kill Mr Madadzhe just because I owe him R50.

ADV DE JAGER: But that is not what's being put to you, it's not being put to you that you killed him because you owed him money, you've only been asked whether you in fact owed him R50?

MR MUNYAI: No.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And I put it to you that at the time of Mr Madadzhe's death, his family has already paid back R10 out of the R50 that you have owed him?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg, is it eventually going to be put to him that the reason for the killing had something to do with the debt?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes I will include that.

CHAIRPERSON: It's been put to you that R10 of the debt has already been repaid. What have you got to say about that?

MR MUNYAI: Could you repeat your question?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes I will repeat it. I put it to you that at the time of Mr Madadzhe's murder, your family has already paid back R10 of this R50 that was owing to him by you?

MR MUNYAI: I don't know about this.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I further put it to you that Mr Madadzhe was not a witch, that he was not involved in witchcraft and that he had no muti in his house on the night that he was murdered.

MR MUNYAI: That's not true.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I further put it to you that the reason why you participated in murdering Mr Madadzhe was to get rid of this debt that you owed to him?

MR MUNYAI: That's not true.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it your instructions that the whole group of people did it for the same reason?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, Mr Chairperson, I will not go that far to put that statement to the witness.

The last question regarding the murder of Mr Madadzhe, what was Mr Malaudzi's the other applicant in this specific event or incident, what was his involvement in the murder of Mr Madadzhe?

MR MUNYAI: Can you repeat your question?

MR VAN RENSBURG: What was Mr Malaudzi's involvement in the murder, what did he do in order to kill Mr Madadzhe?

MR MUNYAI: What I'd seen on that day is that Mr Mulaudzi left the hut.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay, apart from setting fire to the hut what else did he do?

MR MUNYAI: Nothing I seen what he did, I only seen what he did, I just seen only when he was leaving the house.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay. If we can turn to the murder of Mr Maphaha then on the same date can you again just briefly or now can you again just tell us what was your personal involvement in the killing of Mr Maphaha?

MR MUNYAI: I beat him.

MR VAN RENSBURG: With what did you beat him and how many times?

MR MUNYAI: With a stick, if I'm not mistaken three times.

ADV DE JAGER: Could you just indicate to me, was it a knobkierrie, was it a stick? How thick was it, how long was it?

MR MUNYAI: It was a stick which was used as a wood for fire, it was not so thick. I can take for an example here in this house it was like this steel of the chair, it was just like this steel of the chair.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And do you say that if you hit a person with that stick you can kill him?

MR MUNYAI: As that day I was not beating him alone, it was possible that he could die because he was being beaten by many sticks.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I'm only talking about the stick that you hit him with. If you hit him alone, would he have been killed?

MR MUNYAI: I wouldn't have killed him, it would be broken.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Why would you then say, were you found guilty because you only hit him with a stick that was too thin to kill him?

MR MUNYAI: It was because I participated in the killing of him that is why I'm pleading for amnesty.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I see, okay. Regarding the murder of Mr Maphaha, I have to put it to you that the reason why you and the group killed him was because of jealousy and not because of any political motive?

MR MUNYAI: That's not true.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Did you not earlier testify that - pardon me, one second please Mr Chairperson? I will rephrase that question please.

Would you say that Mr Maphaha was a rich man?

MR MUNYAI: Mr Maphaha, I cannot say he was rich.

MR VAN RENSBURG: How many rooms did his house have?

MR MUNYAI: The house had three rooms.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Who put his name on the list?

MR MUNYAI: The name of Mr Maphaha was put by a certain man called Mampo Grogo.

MR VAN RENSBURG: In your evidence in chief you testified that a person's name was not just put on the list and then he was murdered. I want you to describe to this hearing if one of the people on the meeting where you made the list mentioned a name what happened after the mentioning of the name and before it was put on the list?

MR MUNYAI: As I was a chairperson of that meeting, I intend to ask the person who is putting that name, that person was alleged to be a witch, that why are you saying for an example Mr Maphaha was witch, he would also describe the reason why.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And if he gave a good reason the name would go on the list?

MR MUNYAI: There was no way.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Pardon, I don't understand the answer, just repeat it please?

MR MUNYAI: Yes there was.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay, what was the reason that was forwarded to motivate Mr Maphaha's name to go on the list?

MR MUNYAI: It is after there was a missing of that child that I made that she was plus or minus twelve years, there was claim that she was last seen with Mr Maphaha.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Now before that person who put Mr Maphaha's name gave that motivation, had you heard this rumour before that the child went missing went it was last seen with Mr Maphaha?

MR MUNYAI: On that time that was about two weeks the child was already missed I've heard about that rumour.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And therefore you agreed for the name to go on the list?

MR MUNYAI: Yes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Now I have to put it to you again that Mr Maphaha was no witch, that he did not practice witchcraft and that the reason why he was murdered was because he was richer than the other people in the community?

MR MUNYAI: That's not true.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I have no further questions, thank you Mr Chairperson.

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

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

MR NDOU: None, thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Just one actual question I've got.

So when you got all this information when people were talking about who must get on the list you honestly believed what the people were saying about those others?

MR MUNYAI: Could you repeat your question?

CHAIRPERSON: You accepted as the truth that - I'm talking about in the meeting?

MR MUNYAI: When we were in the meeting, what was considered it was what we consider what we call in Venda, I don't know how can I put it, I can say popular view that is that thing being having more support.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

NAME: NNDWELENI MULAUDZI

MR NDOU: Thank you Honourable Chairperson, Honourable Members, I now call the case of Nndweleni Mulaudzi. It's the same matter, it's the second applicant pertaining to the same facts.

CHAIRPERSON: Which language would you prefer to use?

MR MULAUDZI: I will prefer to use Venda.

NNDWELENI MULAUDZI: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR NDOU: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

Mr Mulaudzi, you have made application before this Committee and I have your form here which you've used to apply for amnesty. Now what is your date of birth?

MR MULAUDZI: I was born in 1973 on the 4th May.

MR NDOU: I see. I see here in your application that your date of birth is reflected as the 5th April 1973?

MR MULAUDZI: No, it was during May, it was on the 5th of the 4th month.

MR NDOU: So you were born on the 5th of the 4th month 1973?

INTERPRETER: He is saying he was born on the 4th May.

CHAIRPERSON: Not the 5th April?

MR MULAUDZI: Yes.

MR NDOU: I see. Are you able to explain why in your application ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: It's obvious that is swopped.

MR NDOU: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Now I see here that in your application you've applied for amnesty in respect of murder alone, is it right?

MR MULAUDZI: Yes that is correct.

MR NDOU: Is that the only offence for which you were convicted?

MR MULAUDZI: It was four counts in all but they were all made to run, to be grouped into murder, they were all grouped into a murder case.

MR NDOU: No, just listen to the question. For which offences were you convicted?

MR MULAUDZI: It's murder.

MR NDOU: Murder in respect of which victim?

MR MULAUDZI: Mr Maphaha and Mr Madadzhe.

MR NDOU: So were you convicted of both murders?

MR MULAUDZI: Yes it's true.

MR NDOU: I see and you now come to seek amnesty in respect of the two murders, is that right?

MR MULAUDZI: Yes it's true.

MR NDOU: Now would you explain to the Committee as to how it came about that you murdered these two victims?

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, he is not applying for arson and he's not applying for any assaults?

MR NDOU: Did you understand the question?

MR MULAUDZI: I'm also applying for both of them simply because when I was charged it was charged as murder only although I did commit these other things but it was in murder only.

MR NDOU: Yes, what I've asked you is what offences were you convicted?

MR MULAUDZI: It's murder, arson and assault, it's two murders, arson and assault.

MR NDOU: And you've now come to seek amnesty in respect of all of those four charges?

MR MULAUDZI: Yes, yes it's true.

ADV DE JAGER: Now I'm afraid we can't deal with it in that way because he didn't apply for assault and he didn't apply for arson in his form. He can't apply now, he should have applied at the time.

MR MULAUDZI: What I can explain is this. All these counts were grouped together and they were seen as murder, meaning that arson and assault were included in that murder. That is how I've put it.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou, tell me something, the arson he is talking about, is that the burning of the house when one of the murders were committed?

MR NDOU: That is so.

CHAIRPERSON: Whose house?

MR MULAUDZI: Mr Maphaha.

ADV DE JAGER: So it was part and parcel of the same incident?

MR NDOU: That is so.

CHAIRPERSON: The assault that we speak about is something that is independent of the two murders?

MR NDOU: That is so.

CHAIRPERSON: That one is separate.

MR NDOU: That's why I wanted him just to explain on which offence he was convicted. Thank you Mr Chairperson.

Now would you explain to this Committee as to how it came about that you were involved in all these activities?

CHAIRPERSON: Well, let me put it this way, you were in this hearing when Mr Munyai gave evidence?

MR MULAUDZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you agree with what he says in respect of what occurred at those two incidents?

MR MULAUDZI: Yes I agree.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there anything you want to add?

MR MULAUDZI: No, no there's nothing.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there anything you want to say that you don't agree with what he said in respect of what actually happened at the houses?

MR MULAUDZI: I disagree with nothing, I agree with everything.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright. Now let us take Madadzhe. What did you do in that incident?

MR MULAUDZI: In the case of Mr Madadzhe, I participated in him being dragged out and I'm the person who lit the house in which he was dragged into and then burnt the house in where he was dragged into.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Madadzhe?

MR MULAUDZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and anything else in between?

MR MULAUDZI: There is nothing which I did except lighting the house, the hut.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm not talking about the house, I'm talking about what you did to him. You dragged him out of the house, did you do anything else to him?

MR MULAUDZI: When the deceased was dragged out while he was assaulted by sticks I was behind but when he was dragged to another hut I was there and then I took the matches and lit it. In the case of the people who dragged him out of the house in the first place I didn't see that because it was during the night and there were so many people.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that all you did to Mr Madadzhe?

MR MULAUDZI: Yes, it's only that.

CHAIRPERSON: When you dragged him out or helped drag him out, you knew he was going to be killed?

MR MULAUDZI: When he was dragged out he was dragged by the people who were in front and I was still behind by then so I was in the middle of a group which was in front and the other group which was behind me.

CHAIRPERSON: But you knew what he's been dragged out for?

He was going to be killed?

MR MULAUDZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And you agreed with it?

MR MULAUDZI: Yes I agree with that.

CHAIRPERSON: And you were party of the group that went there to do that?

MR MULAUDZI: Yes I was one of the people who went there.

CHAIRPERSON: In order to see to it that Mr Madadzhe gets killed?

MR MULAUDZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Now let's talk about Mr Maphaha. What did you do to him during that incident?

MR MULAUDZI: In the house of Maphaha, on our arrival there, when the group reach the house I was the first person to break the windows of the house belonging to Mr Maphaha. When Maphaha got out of the house I didn't see how he escaped because I was on the under window or western window and he was running to the eastern side and then I broke the windows in the western side of his house and I looked through the window to see who is inside, if there was anybody inside the house. Then we realised that Mr Maphaha has escaped and is now running away and another group started to chase him and he was running next to the house of a certain Reverend called Mr Chivas. It's there where he was assaulted but then unfortunately I didn't arrive and then I remained here back watching the house or in guard, guarding the house.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that how he was eventually burnt?

MR MULAUDZI: Only the window panes were broken.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou when you indicated that there's an application in respect of arson in respect of whose house was that?

MR NDOU: It was in respect of - I think it was just a different name, it was supposed to be Madadzhe.

CHAIRPERSON: And the previous witness? I always thought that it was Mr Maphaha's house that was being burnt in respect of the arson application. Did I misunderstand it or what is the position?

MR NDOU: I thought at that stage that the house that was burnt down, the other one was just damaged by the mob.

CHAIRPERSON: Now whose house was that?

MR NDOU: Maphaha house was damaged.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you didn't do anything to Mr Maphaha?

MR MULAUDZI: On the deceased I have done nothing even when he was lying on the ground.

CHAIRPERSON: You knew what the group was going there for?

MR MULAUDZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And did you agree with that?

MR MULAUDZI: Yes, I agree with that.

CHAIRPERSON: And you considered yourself party to that murder and to attack his house?

MR MULAUDZI: Could you please repeat your question?

CHAIRPERSON: You considered yourself party to the killing of Mr Maphaha and the attack on his house.

MR MULAUDZI: Yes I see myself as part of the group because I also participated.

CHAIRPERSON: Now can you speak English?

MR MULAUDZI: No.

CHAIRPERSON: I just want you to deal with this. In your application, paragraph 9(a)(i) you were asked to say what act you committed in respect of the offences for which you make application. There you say you assaulted the deceased with a stick. At best for you the deceased is the plural there. I just want you to explain even if it was one of the deceased that was referred to there. Explain that to me if you say in your evidence that you never hit anybody?

MR MULAUDZI: What happened is that on the deceased I didn't manage to reach him but I'm the only person who broke the window panes.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm not asking that, I'm asking to explain in your application form, you say that:

MR MULAUDZI: It means maybe I didn't manage to put in the right order but what is true is that on the deceased I never assaulted the deceased but I broke the window panes of the house belonging to the deceased.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I'm talking about any of the deceased. There's two deceased.

MR MULAUDZI: The deceased, Mr Madadzhe, while he was thrown in the house once by the stick on the leg but then he was already dead.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you hit him with a stick then if he's already dead?

MR MULAUDZI: Because I was expected to participate seeing that we were doing the same thing so I should also participate in the other way as the others are doing or were doing.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Ndou?

MR NDOU: That is all.

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

Mr Mulaudzi, where on this application form of yours is it indicated that you're making application for amnesty for a murder?

MR MULAUDZI: Could you please repeat the question?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I will repeat the question. I want you to show me from the amnesty application form where it is indicated that you're making application for murder that you have committed?

ADV DE JAGER: Could we perhaps try and solve something before we - can you read?

MR MULAUDZI: No.

ADV DE JAGER: Who explained the form to you?

MR MULAUDZI: It's my colleagues who were working together jointly with the Committee.

ADV DE JAGER: So you didn't fill in the form and you don't know what's been written there because you can't read and check it?

MR MULAUDZI: All in all it can also be myself because I'm the person who explained how this case came about even if I'm unable to read.

ADV DE JAGER: No, I understand that. Did you sign the form or did anybody else sign the form?

MR MULAUDZI: I signed it.

ADV DE JAGER: Can you write?

MR MULAUDZI: Yes I can write but I'm unable to read English.

ADV DE JAGER: Alright, thank you.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

So you don't know anything what is included in your application form?

MR MULAUDZI: I know some of, not the contents, it is talking about the murder case and arson and assault.

MR VAN RENSBURG: So how do you know what is in the form if you can't read English?

MR MULAUDZI: ...(inaudible) that they indicated that I've committed the murder, arson and assault, GBH crimes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: That's not what I'm asking you, I'm asking you if you can't read, how can you know what is included in the form?

MR MULAUDZI: I can know if I can call a person who is illiterate who can read and explain the contents of the form.

CHAIRPERSON: Look here, we're not asking for some smart answers. It seems to me that you can't say that you know what the contents are, now let's say that, it's nothing to be ashamed of, do you understand? You're not able to say what the contents of the form is so let's leave it like that. We won't hold it against you for not knowing.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Now if I asked you for instance to look at paragraph 9(a)(i) of page 1 of your application form will you be able to tell us what is written down there, what acts, omissions or offences you committed or not? Will you be able to tell us or not? Look at the form please?

MR MULAUDZI: Because I'm unable to read I cannot tell what's written there. If maybe somebody could read to me and ask me whether I know these things.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay. Now I think you agree with me that this form and the information that it contains is very important for your amnesty application, is that not so?

MR MULAUDZI: Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Who helped you fill this form in?

MR MULAUDZI: Mr Abraham Ruali.

CHAIRPERSON: Who is he?

MR MULAUDZI: Somebody who was assisting us in this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Is he an attorney?

MR MULAUDZI: No, he's not an attorney.

CHAIRPERSON: What does he do, where does he work.

MR MULAUDZI: He's a mayor.

CHAIRPERSON: He's a mayor?

MR MULAUDZI: He's working in Messina, he's a mayor in Messina.

CHAIRPERSON: At the time when he filled this form in for you or helped you what was he?

MR MULAUDZI: By then he was a mayor, by the time he assisted us in doing these things he was a mayor.

CHAIRPERSON: And as I understand your evidence you're not exactly sure what was filled in here?

MR MULAUDZI: I'm sure of the contents but the only problem is that I cannot read.

CHAIRPERSON: No you can't be sure of the contents because you don't know what is in there, you can't read? You've got to take the word of somebody else if they tell you what is in there. Not so? But you yourself cannot say what is in there?

MR MULAUDZI: Yes it's true.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and I don't mean to be insulting, there's nothing to be ashamed of. So can you explain if there is something wrong in this statement, your application, you are unable to tell us why it's so because you never filled the form in, it was filled in on your behalf, is that correct?

MR MULAUDZI: Yes it's correct but he filled in when he was explaining to him how these things came about because he was not aware of my crimes, then I explained everything to him.

CHAIRPERSON: But if he recorded it incorrectly you can't explain it, not so?

MR MULAUDZI: So because I'm blind simply meaning I cannot read, if there's something incorrect then maybe he would have identified this and this is wrong is this and this is in this way then I would have explained to him that this is not true.

ADV DE JAGER: Can you tell us why did you kill these two people, why did you assist or associate in killing these people, what was your reason?

MR MULAUDZI: The main idea he raised when we were told about the meeting in the playing ground, what was discussed there is when we were discussing on the issue that the Venda country is not well governed because the people who are in the higher offices in the government were people who were co-operating with witches so for us to read our objective of making the government to fall is for us to sit down and find out that how we can make this government fall which is supported by the witches. It's then that we decided to kill or to target the people who are supporting those people in the government.

CHAIRPERSON: In this case, witches?

MR MULAUDZI: Yes, we targeted the witches.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

Can you read any language or is it just English that you can't read?

MR MULAUDZI: I can read Venda and then it's English that I cannot read or I'm unable to read.

MR VAN RENSBURG: What is your highest academic qualification?

MR MULAUDZI: Standard 3.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Did you tell that person who helped you to complete the application form, did you tell him that you can't read English?

MR MULAUDZI: Yes I did.

CHAIRPERSON: That's probably why he needed assistance.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Did you tell that person that you assaulted one of the deceased persons with a stick?

MR MULAUDZI: Yes I did.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Is that the truth, did you hit one of the deceased with a stick?

MR MULAUDZI: Yes it is true?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Who?

MR MULAUDZI: Mr Madadzhe.

MR VAN RENSBURG: At what stage did you hit Mr Madadzhe with a stick?

MR MULAUDZI: I beat him while he was being dragged into the house.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Now why didn't - or I put it to you in your evidence in chief you did not testify to that effect?

MR MULAUDZI: I did mention here that I beat while he was being dragged into the house.

CHAIRPERSON: You said you hit him once after he'd died?

MR MULAUDZI: Yes, while he was being dragged into the house, that is what I'm still explaining.

CHAIRPERSON: After he died?

MR MULAUDZI: Yes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: So when he was dragged he was already dead, is that correct?

MR MULAUDZI: Yes, seemingly he was dead because he was dead and no eyelashing and he was no longer speaking.

MR VAN RENSBURG: The question is, was he dead or was he weak?

MR MULAUDZI: I think he was dead.

MR VAN RENSBURG: What makes you think he was dead at that stage when he was dragged?

MR MULAUDZI: He was no longer breathing and there was no eyelashing and he was so weak.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Do you think it's an offence to hit a dead person with a stick?

MR MULAUDZI: Yes I think it's a very big offence because it make you to seem as if you have participated in the killing of that person.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Did you tell that person who wrote down on the form that you set the house alight?

MR MULAUDZI: Yes I did.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Did he write it down?

MR MULAUDZI: I'm not sure.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Now I put it to you that that person did not write it down, do you agree with me or do you accept that?

MR MULAUDZI: Okay, I accept that.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Do you have any reason to think why that person would have written down only some of the things that you said and not the others?

MR MULAUDZI: Maybe I can try and explain that the thing which makes this thing difficult is that the ticket I received from jail is that is was written that I've committed murder and those other charges were incorporated in that murder that is why maybe while he was writing he doesn't include arson and assault.

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, that is not the answer to the question. What I want to know is why would a person that wants to help you only write down half of the things you're saying and leave out the others.

CHAIRPERSON: Let me help you, I don't think you can really say why somebody else did certain things but what is going to be suggested to you is that in all probability it's not contained in this application form because you did not tell him. What do you say about that?

MR MULAUDZI: I have tried to explain this thing. I explained to him that it's murder, arson and then assault.

CHAIRPERSON: I know you did say so. If I suggest to you that that can't be true because otherwise he would have written it in, have you got any comment about that?

MR MULAUDZI: Could you please repeat your question?

CHAIRPERSON: That because it is not contained in your statement you did not tell him, do you agree with me or not?

MR MULAUDZI: No, I don't agree.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Now is there anything else that you've told this person that you have done that he also did not write down?

CHAIRPERSON: He can't say, he doesn't ...(indistinct)

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes perhaps I can rephrase that. If we accept that that person who wanted to help you only wrote down that you assaulted the person with a stick and nothing else what else except for the fact that you set the house alight, did you tell that person which he did not write down?

CHAIRPERSON: He's telling the same story.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr van Rensburg, I think it's common cause that he's been convicted. He is serving a sentence. There must have been common purpose at least to kill the two deceased. If that's the position and he's applying for amnesty for killing the two deceased whether he was convicted or not and he's telling us now that he's applying for that, it's a matter of argument whether it's a good application or not but that's a legal argument. You could argue that he didn't apply for those offences and therefore we can't grant it. He's only mentioning it now but that's an argument he can't give us the answer on, it's a legal argument that you'll have to address and we'll have to decide but apart from that it seems to me as though it's sort of common cause that he was present, that he's associated himself with the killings whether he in fact hit the body of a deceased person or hit him just before he'd been certified as dead I don't know but he associated himself with the killing and I think the only thing is why did he kill or why did he associate himself, was it associated with any political purpose or was it something else?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes I think that question has already been put to him by the Chairperson, there's just one aspect I want to clarify and then I will be finished.

Did you tell your legal representative that you don't know what is on this application form?

MR MULAUDZI: No I did not explain.

MR VAN RENSBURG: But why not?

MR MULAUDZI: It's because I just think that everything inside there is what I've mentioned.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I don't follow your answer?

CHAIRPERSON: He says he didn't find it necessary to indicate to his representative that it may or may not be a problem because he assumed that everything as contained in there was in order.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

Can I ask you in the annexures which is annexed to your application it is mentioned that one of the objects was or the main object was to make the area ungovernable? Do you agree with that, that that was one of the reasons why you acted in this way?

MR MULAUDZI: I agree.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay can I just again ask you to explain how would killing these persons from a list make the area ungovernable?

MR MULAUDZI: I can explain.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Please?

MR MULAUDZI: As I've mentioned when I started that here in Venda in the past government it was in turmoil, the officials were working together with the witches and the people in high offices used to get mutis from the Sangomas and the witches.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes and how would by killing them the area would become ungovernable?

MR MULAUDZI: To kill the people like witches will assist that the high official, if we kill the witches which the high official get the mutis from them, it left that the power that they were using which they were getting from the witch they will no longer get it.

CHAIRPERSON: You cut off their muti, you'll stop the muti going to the politicians therefore the politicians wouldn't be able to govern the country and therefore the country would be ungovernable? In actual fact the witches were running the country.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I don't understand that but I'll leave it there. I don't think I have further questions, thank you Mr Chairperson.

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

Mr Mulaudzi, there's just one aspect that I'd like clarity on. You stated that your main purpose was to make Venda ungovernable. Did that have anything to do with apartheid?

MR MULAUDZI: Yes.

MS PATEL: Can you explain to us what, can you draw the link for us, how did you understand that?

MR MULAUDZI: They linked when we found that the people who were Whites in the high positions and the Blacks who were next to the Whites who were working in the higher posts used to protect themselves by the muti so that the Whites must not see the evil deeds of these Black people so that they remain as if they are working in order or in a proper way.

MS PATEL: And what has that got to do with apartheid?

MR MULAUDZI: It shows us that with apartheid here when the Whites segregate the Blacks by not considering the cases which we used to lodge in the high offices, that's all.

MS PATEL: Sorry, I don't understand. Can you explain that a bit further?

MR MULAUDZI: I've explained that with apartheid how it linked with those things, it linked because Whites who are co-operating with Blacks are the people who again, I mean these Whites, take us who would take grievances to the offices and then the Whites chased us saying that they don't want to hear things from Blacks and then they said go and discuss this in the chief's kraal.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you support apartheid?

MR MULAUDZI: No I never supported it.

CHAIRPERSON: Now who was actually in real terms running Venda, who were the bosses of Venda? The actual bosses.

MR MULAUDZI: I think it was Reveira because ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Who was he?

MR MULAUDZI: He was working for the Venda community as president.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja but where did he take orders or don't you know?

MR MULAUDZI: The people who used to give him orders I don't know.

MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson, it's obvious we're not going to take it much further than that. I have no further questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou, have you got any questions?

MR NDOU: None thank you Mr Chairperson.

ADV SIGODI: At the trial how many of you were accused of this crime?

MR MULAUDZI: The first time we were five and then only two were found guilty.

ADV SIGODI: In other words the others were acquitted of this crime, the other three?

MR MULAUDZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you believe in this alleged power of witches?

MR MULAUDZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you agree with killing children for the muti?

MR MULAUDZI: Yes I agree on that.

CHAIRPERSON: And what happens to your child tomorrow, you will agree?

MR MULAUDZI: If it's my child tomorrow, I think if it happened like that something that I will sit down and discuss with the government to find out what the present government is doing if such things are still happening because in the previous apartheid government when we used to launch the complaints in the government we tended to be sjambokked, teargassed and everything.

CHAIRPERSON: I asked you a question, if you believe in it yourself, do you believe it works?

MR MULAUDZI: I believe it works.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you resort to such things yourself, you want a job you go to a witch and he or she says you must kill and child and eat whatever, you'll do it?

MR MULAUDZI: No, that is what I won't believe in doing in having muti in my pockets. I don't want muti in my possession because I think that muti will make a person to be a fool or that the person will look like he or she is mad.

CHAIRPERSON: Because I ask this question very seriously because it seems to me that people believe in this and they'll resort to such things when it doesn't affect them themselves but tomorrow when it's their own children what is the position? And yet those children are innocent but you say you won't resort to that?

MR MULAUDZI: You mean that the sangoma must tell me to go and commit ritual to a child or a witch gave me say medicine to go do this and this then I don't agree with that because I think I'll be making pains to other people here in this country.

CHAIRPERSON: Now is it still happening?

MR MULAUDZI: Up to now where I'm staying I'm not sure whether it's still happening because it's long that I've been in prison.

CHAIRPERSON: Now there's been Venda was made ungovernable, there was a change of government, there was re-corporation, what is the position then about witches?

MR MULAUDZI: Up to now I think because I'm in prison I think when listening to people from outside they are no longer crying like before just like they are being killed like that or so but I think now things have improved.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

MR NDOU: Thank you Honourable Chairperson. I see it's now almost quarter to one, I was going to start with the matter with three applicants but in this one we have prepared affidavits.

CHAIRPERSON: Before we carry on to the next matter have we got any argument on this one? Before you carry on, let us hear if Mr van Rensburg has any issues to raise?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I have no witnesses to lead. Would you like me to address you?

CHAIRPERSON: Before then I'd just like to hear from Ms Patel if she - have you got any witnesses Ms Patel?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg, I'd appreciate you arguing first, it may save us time.

MR VAN RENSBURG IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think you need argue on the question of the application in respect of assault, that application as far as we are concerned has never been made.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes and I immediately also would like to argue that that also goes for the arson of the second applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Well maybe you need to argue that because I think it can be strongly argued that in the events leading to the murder of one of the accused, his house was attacked and burnt in the same schedule of events and perhaps it can be considered as one event and therefore all crimes that flow from that event may be covered in the application for murder. I'll tell you why, that when people haven't got a legal background completes such application forms it's not to be expected of them to know what's small or how to deal with different crimes and elements of crimes and therefore perhaps we have a sympathetic attitude towards that kind of thing as opposed to an assault charge where it's a separate incident and where nothing of that incident has been mentioned in the application form we can't even have a generous view like that in that case.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, if I can address you on that specific question then, I think we've also got to take into account that the forms and the annexures thereto was certainly designed to give persons who are not legally trained as much as possible opportunity to come forward and be open in their application and not in order to mislead them there are no difficult questions asked in this form. If it is stipulated in specifically paragraph 9(a)(i) that the acts, omissions or offences must be written down, I cannot in my wildest dreams imagine that if a person has set alight another person's house whilst he murdered him at the same time would just write down "I assaulted deceased with a stick".

CHAIRPERSON: I think you are quite correct when you're talking about normal circumstances but we've got to take cognisance that we have people who in educational terms are special victims of apartheid. In fact I think one of them said they couldn't read English. We are not to know or we cannot know, neither of us, as to what went through the mind of the person recording the instructions onto this and I'm loath to penalise the applicant in respect of what someone else had to write maybe incorrectly. But I take your point, I think it's a valid criticism.

MR VAN RENSBURG: If we can continue then, perhaps if we are already in the wrong order, if I can continue with the second applicant with your permission, Mr Chairperson?

Yes it is so that the second applicant has testified that he cannot read English and therefore does not, can confirm the contents of his application form. We only have his word to test that on but I would suggest that in a normal, if we take into account the normal circumstances that will take place herein which would be that his advocate would go or his legal representative would go through the form with him during the consultation, I cannot accept that it is just a simple fact that the second applicant did not understand or did not know what is contained in this form. We've had absolutely no indication from his legal representative that there was a problem as we normally could expect in the circumstances because normally if you consult with your client going through the form it would have been put to him, you wrote down here:

"Is that all you did?"

And then the whole story would have come out. This is not what happened in this instance. I don't think we can just explain the whole evasiveness of the second applicant to take responsibility for the omissions in his statement just on the fact that he cannot read English. The version that he raised that he did not even mention the fact that he cannot read English to his legal representative is to me farfetched version as I've explain in the normal sequence of events, it would have come under the attention of the legal representative that this man cannot understand what is written in his forms during the consultation and in those circumstances there was an onus on him to have informed the ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: That may be so but is it really a relevant factor as far as the crime, the offence is concerned, whether he could read English or whether he couldn't understand it or whether he told his legal representative? He should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts as far as the offences are concerned and can we say let's look at his evidence, didn't he tell us what his participation was and can we say he's not speaking the truth as far as that is concerned?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes I can certainly not argue on the evidence that is before this hearing that his version regarding his involvement should be totally dismissed, I cannot go that far but I think we are dealing here with the question can his credibility in general be implicated or prejudiced by the fact that there's a difference between his application form and his evidence. If we argue that in the ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Suppose we accept that he doesn't tell the truth about his application form can we then reject his evidence on the material issues as far as offence is concerned?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes again I can't argue that we can in total reject his evidence, I am merely trying to argue that there must be some factors that seriously ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Be careful in considering whether he is speaking the truth.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Prejudicing his credibility, that is the only point I'm trying to make regarding that, yes.

Regarding then the motivation if we stay with the second applicant for the moment, I'm not going to argue or waste this hearings time on that matter, I'd merely like to suggest that at no stage did the second applicant convince or was convincing in his answers when he was asked regarding the motive for these killings. He certainly did not make a logical connection between the killing of the witches and the area or Venda becoming ungovernable. He certainly gave no logical answer to make the connection how the real enemy, namely apartheid, could be fought by killing the witches and in that sense I would just argue that he did not persuade this hearing in my view that the killings was in fact politically motivated. That argument would by and large also holds true for the first applicant who in my view was an even weaker witness than the second applicant. It is clear from his evidence that he blatantly lied on his form, his application form, at least regarding to his age and who knows what else. It is clear that he was the leader, the chairman of the meeting and it is therefore unlikely that his actual participation in the killing and the burning was so small. I would suggest that as I've put to him that we have here again a situation where he is trying to mitigate his own involvement in the whole incident and it is also illustrated by the fact that he totally omitted to take this hearing into his confidence regarding the assault, GBH, that took place on that specific day.

The first applicant was also not convincing in his explanation as to how the killing of the witches would fulfil any political aim to say the least and in that sense I would conclude that his motivation for this killing was in fact not political, it was probably witchcraft related and the anti-witchcraft feeling was high at that stage which I also plan to illustrate with evidence in a later case but it is also important to take into consideration at this stage the aspect that the learned Chairperson has raised, namely that the killing of the witches has actually not stopped immediately after the election took place and therefore we've got to deduct that it was not politically motivated that it is some other reasons, cultural reasons or purely fear, jealousy, all these reasons could have played a role and I suggest that the evidence rather a point into that direction mainly because the witnesses one after the other struggled to make the connection between the political aim and the killing of the witches.

To sum up then, I'm of the opinion that these two persons, the applicants, and that is my instructions to request such a finding from the hearing should not qualify for the amnesty as they have applied for. That is all, thank you Mr Chairperson.

MS PATEL IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Honourable Chairperson.

My submission in respect of the question of the application for arson in respect of the second applicant, my submission in that regard is very different to that of my learned colleague. I do believe that it sufficiently related to the main act for which the applicant has applied and that it therefore should be considered. However, in respect of the assault, GBH, my submission is it's an entirely separate incident and cannot fall within the ambit of what he is applying for, for what we are able to consider here today.

Regarding my learned colleagues submissions in respect of both applicants not having complied with the criteria of either full disclosure or political motivation, I agree with him wholeheartedly in respect of those submissions. I do not believe that either of the applicants have any political understanding or if there is that it is very limited. Also that their political understanding did not at all relate to any of the conflicts of the past, it merely related to a dissatisfaction with an administration at the time which they could not link or they had no understanding of the link between that and apartheid and therefore the conflicts of the past and my submission is that on that ground that they do not fall within the political objective within the Act.

CHAIRPERSON: Can I ask you a question because you raised it now? If what they did was directed only at the Venda government then it's an offence or offences that occurred outside South Africa and then where do we stand?

MS PATEL: With respect, Honourable Chairperson, I do not agree with that technical understanding of the manner in which the apartheid regime chose to divide the country. Post part of the negotiations - let me rephrase, the question of the TBVC States, at the time of negotiation there was no question of those States not being formally a part of the South African territory.

CHAIRPERSON: I accept the political realities of the time. As I understand your submission that these two particular applicants had no understanding of the apartheid effects on this country and in so saying you say that it should be refused? From that submission flows the questions, if that be the case and they didn't link it to apartheid, which means South Africa, and they directed it at the government illegitimate as it may be, of Venda, how competent are we to deal with the application or is the application a good application? I raised the question because of your submission, I don't necessarily agree with the submission but if you are correct, we find your submissions correct, then of course the question I posed to you then follows?

MS PATEL: Perhaps I should re-explain the basis of my submission, Honourable Chairperson, from my submission I am trying to say and I don't think I have stated it clearly enough, what I'm trying to say is that the applicants have raised their political motivation to the extent that they are dissatisfied with the particular administration. Now that administration in my understanding or in the lack of their understanding could hold true today so that extent it's not related to apartheid and to the past, that argument that they have raised in terms of their objections to the administration can be raised at any place, at any time.

ADV DE JAGER: That government was opposed to re-incorporation into the R.S.A. and wouldn't that link that government in the R.S.A. and to the conflicts of the past?

MS PATEL: Certainly they stated at some stage that the government was opposed to re-incorporation but they didn't explain or they didn't go further and state that that was the reason for their conduct that at the end of the day that is what they really sought, that they sought re-incorporation. Their problem that they sought to solve was the manner in which the Venda government officials were managing Venda itself and not a question of whether re-incorporation was going to improve that situation or not and that is the link, that is how they chose to draw the link between the officials and the witches, it never went further than the witches, the officials and the apartheid regime or the question of re-incorporation?

CHAIRPERSON: But what is being posed to you is that your submission is that their political motives never extended to apartheid because they didn't understand it, they didn't know how to link what they were doing to actual apartheid and I think you forget the following, that they say that they wanted incorporation into South Africa, not under apartheid, rather a new government but the apartheid structures were being propped up and this I say on interpretation of their evidence. They didn't actually say it in so many words, propped up by the lackeys of the National government in the Venda government who maintained their power with the assistance of witches and therefore they targeted witches. What do you say about that?

MS PATEL: With respect, Honourable Chairperson, I'm not sure from what evidence we are able to draw the inference that they drew that link between the apartheid government using the Venda government officials to then control and that is my difficulty with their testimony.

ADV DE JAGER: Could I perhaps pose this to you? Section 22(a) summarised would read as follows:

Wouldn't this be against a form of State if they'd directed it against the government of Venda and wouldn't that then be part of the conflicts of the past in terms of the definition?

CHAIRPERSON: It has to be, Ms Patel?

MS PATEL: Yes I have to concede, yes. Then I have to concede.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

MS PATEL: No thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou, we don't need to hear you unless you want to specifically address us on something special?

MR NDOU: I would just be ...(indistinct), I won't take the matter further.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We will reserve this judgement and we will adjourn for lunch till 2 o'clock.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Ms Patel, which one are we doing now?

MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson, the next matter on the roll is according to your list number 2, it involves the applicants Nimoloyde and Molovetsi and the victims Masithi, Netshivhumbe, Mafulani, Ralulimi and Nemandandila.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou, you represent the applicants?

MR NDOU: ...(inaudible)

CHAIRPERSON: That Mrs Masithi in this matter, is that perhaps the same Mrs Masithi in the previous matter?

MR NDOU: No, in fact in the previous matter it was a different person altogether.

CHAIRPERSON: Who have we now here in front of us?

MR NDOU: In fact all in all there are two applicants but the first applicant, Mamelodi, although he has been made aware of these proceedings has decided not to come because he has already been released from prison.

CHAIRPERSON: You're withdrawing that matter?

MR NDOU: As far as they are concerned because they've made him aware and if he's not turning up we'll have to withdraw the application.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you any specific instructions?

MR NDOU: I don't have specific instructions from him himself.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel have we got proof that the notices were properly served?

MS PATEL: Honourable Chairperson, we had an arrangement with Mr Laruli who is in fact the co-ordinator and we agreed with him that the notices would be given to him and that they would then be properly served.

CHAIRPERSON: Now what is the position with Mr Nemoloydi?

MS PATEL: It's the first that I hear that there's a problem with him. Mr Laruli also instructed Mr Ndou from what I understand to appear for all the applicants in this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: How soon can we find out about whether this notice has been properly served?

MS PATEL: I can make a phone call now.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we'd better adjourn then to find out what's happened.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Ms Patel?

MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson, I've made the enquiries, unfortunately it appears that this applicant has been released from prison, his whereabouts according to Mr Laruli are unknown to him. He unfortunately failed to inform us that that applicant had been released. We are accordingly not in a position to serve the notice on him. I would accordingly in the circumstances request that we postpone this matter in order to give us an opportunity to at least try to get hold of him.

CHAIRPERSON: Any comments?

MR NDOU: Nothing thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the position of this applicant, is he in custody?

MR NDOU: This one is in custody.

CHAIRPERSON: Were they sentenced together?

MR NDOU: Yes they were.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you any idea why the one is out and not this one?

MR NDOU: Well the other one, depending on what he was convicted of, he was sentenced I think to ten years and because of parole he was released this year.

CHAIRPERSON: Is he on parole?

MR NDOU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Well that's going to be a help, if he's on parole then Correctional Services ought to be helpful. Mr van Rensburg, have you got an interest in this matter?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes indeed I do have.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got any comments to make about the postponement?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No I have no comments I can't object to that.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for your approach. Then this matter is postponed sine die. Mr Ndou, will you explain to your client it's upsetting and it's inconvenient as it may be to him there's really not much we could do in the circumstances. We'll try to speed it up, I can't make any promises. Thank you.

MR NDOU: Thank you. In fact perhaps just to bring this to the Committee's attention, this applicant yesterday as we understood from one of the victims, he did come here but apparently said he was no longer interested in continuing with the thing but he didn't come to tell me that he was not interested and that's why we just assumed that he ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: But we know that he wasn't given a notice and we can't take the chance of somebody coming to say that you know, you didn't give me a chance to place my case if you never gave me a notice? Had he received a notice and not reacted I would have continued.

MR NDOU: But that's why we're trying to take precautions. We have a similar matter where two of them have been released. We've sent people now to try and get them to be here tomorrow just to avoid that situation. If they're here they're able to tell me that I shall withdraw their applications if they're not interested. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

MS PATEL: Yes there is, Honourable Chairperson, it's according to your list number 9, it's the murder of France Khomogwe and the name of the applicant is Mashamba.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou, the gentleman that was - an attempt can be made to get him here tomorrow as well and maybe we get lucky and maybe we can help this applicant out sooner?

MR NDOU: ...(inaudible)

CHAIRPERSON: Please I'll really want him to help this man out.

MR NDOU: I'll put it on my shoulders to try and go and find him.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you explain to him then his application will not be proceeded with now, we'll postpone it to tomorrow then in the hope that we get special instructions. If not then we'll have to postpone it sine die.

MR NDOU: I'll do so, he's a different applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh.

MR NDOU: This is Mashamba now.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that number 9?

MR NDOU: That's right.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Mashamba, what language would you prefer to use?

T MASHAMBA: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR NDOU: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

Mr Mashamba, I see in your application here you indicate that you were born on the 2nd February 1963? Is that your correct date of birth?

MR MASHAMBA: Yes.

MR NDOU: Now you're appearing here before the Amnesty Committee on charges. Which are the charges which you appear here for?

MR MASHAMBA: Murder and arson.

MR NDOU: Murder of who?

MR MASHAMBA: France Khomogwe

MR NDOU: And the arson in respect of whom?

MR MASHAMBA: In connection with the house of Mafune.

MR NDOU: And where do these two people reside?

MR MASHAMBA: France Khomogwe is staying at Chikane ...(indistinct)

MR NDOU: Yes?

MR MASHAMBA: Mafune is staying at ...(indistinct)

MR NDOU: Explain to this Committee as to how it came about that you committed these offences?

MR MASHAMBA: Yes.

MR NDOU: When did these offences take place?

MR MASHAMBA: It took place on 11th February 1990.

MR NDOU: Is that the same date on which the former president Mandela was released?

MR MASHAMBA: Yes it's correct.

MR NDOU: Now could you explain to the Committee as to what transpired?

MR MASHAMBA: Yes I could.

MR NDOU: Please do so.

MR MASHAMBA: On that day of the 11th February 1990 I found people celebrating about the release of President Mandela and people who were talking and then I reached my hand and said how do you we feel this issue of the people who are committing ritual murders and witchcraft which is such an extent they are not working properly with the people.

MR NDOU: Proceed?

MR MASHAMBA: It's then that the majority of people that what we think we must do or was the solution on that? I said that where I am staying there is a person called Joseph Tshimbupfe.

he is a ritual murderer and he is disturbing the community.

MR NDOU: Yes?

MR MASHAMBA: It's then that a certain TV Mapulani who is staying in the same village said that France Khomogwe is a witch from there, he said a certain person from Dindela called Thomas Ndau said ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: When was all this when you were talking about these witches?

MR MASHAMBA: It was during the meeting.

CHAIRPERSON: What meeting?

MR MASHAMBA: Of celebrating the release of Mandela.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: I'm sorry, you mentioned a name, you said Joseph and what was his name was a man committing ritual murders. What was the name of this man?

MR MASHAMBA: Joseph Tshimbupfe.

CHAIRPERSON: Spell it?

MR MASHAMBA: T-S-H-I-M-B-U-P-F-E.

MR NDOU: Now you say you were at this meeting and you started raising the issue of witches and ritual murders?

MR MASHAMBA: Yes it's true.

MR NDOU: Why were you raising these issues?

MR MASHAMBA: It's because those two people were not making the community to live well or they were not on good terms with the community.

CHAIRPERSON: What were they doing to the community.

MR MASHAMBA: They were committing ritual murders and others were practising witchcraft.

MR NDOU: And did that have anything to do with politics?

MR MASHAMBA: It's because the person who was committing ritual murder he was a member of parliament. I think if I'm sure he was the speaker of parliament, he was holding a high position in government, I think he was the speaker of the parliament.

ADV DE JAGER: Was that Joseph?

MR MASHAMBA: Yes.

MR NDOU: Yes and then?

MR MASHAMBA: Then as a community we agreed that this way we are celebrating we must also involve him in this.

MR NDOU: How involve him? How were you going to involve him?

MR MASHAMBA: By following him and then killing him.

MR NDOU: Please explain to the Committee.

MR MASHAMBA: We agreed that it is better as we are celebrating we must also stand there and go there. We followed him and found him in his cave and then we found that it was past about 6 or 7 ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you want to kill him?

MR MASHAMBA: Could you please repeat your question?

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you want to kill him?

MR MASHAMBA: It was just because he was participating in ritual killings.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's be careful now. You know, you come here to apply for amnesty. I want you to listen very carefully and I want you to consider your answers very carefully. In order to obtain or to be granted amnesty the act or offence for which you apply for amnesty must have been committed for a political reason. In other words that act must advance or intended to advance a political position. Do you understand that?

MR MASHAMBA: Yes I understand.

CHAIRPERSON: And secondly, when you testify you must make full disclosure in relation to that act for which you apply for amnesty, do you understand that? Full disclosure is you must tell us all the relevant aspects of what you did and why. Do you understand?

MR MASHAMBA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I want you to explain to us, this decision to kill the witches, how did that relate to a political objective or how did that advance a political stance or position?

MR MASHAMBA: It is because those people who were in power at the time were working together with both which the power they used they were getting from the Inyanga and the witch.

CHAIRPERSON: Just repeat that I didn't understand you?

MR MASHAMBA: They were participating in ritual killings, it was coming from the witch and the Inyanga so that they can be getting respect or just tell everything in the way that we will just admit it.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't follow you. How would killing a witch improve the political stance that you had?

MR MASHAMBA: It is because those people who were in power, the power to kill the people who they were getting it from the witch and the witchdoctor.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so? How did that become political?

MR MASHAMBA: It is related because the people who were ruling by the time they were the ones who was practising ritual murder getting order from the witchdoctor and the witch, that we as Venda we believed that there is no person who can kill a person ritually and not getting order from the witchdoctor or the witch who knows how these things works.

CHAIRPERSON: I want you to listen very carefully to me. You must remember what I explained to you about the Act, the requirements you need to fulfil in order to be granted amnesty. Remember you must make full disclosure and the acts for which you apply for amnesty must have been done with a political motive that includes advancing your political position. Okay, do you understand?

MR MASHAMBA: Yes I understand.

CHAIRPERSON: Now I'm going to try to help you now. I've been struggling to find out from you what political motive was the killing of witches committed or how did it advance your political position or even that of your political organisation. We are also aware of the fact that at the time there was an approach towards witches where people were starting to reject the idea of the witches practices especially witches murders. That was quite apart from any political stance or political activity, do you understand. It's quite separate, there was nothing political about that in some quarters while in fact we also know that in other quarters the attack on witches indeed took on a political flavour. Now I'm going to ask you a simple question, I'm going to ask now which category did you fall in when you made this decision or party that decision to kill witches but before you answer I may as well tell you now that whatever answer you give, I'm going to ask you why you say so, do you understand?

MR MASHAMBA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there anything you don't understand? You can ask now, feel free.

MR MASHAMBA: I don't have.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, then I'm going to ask you the question. In which category did you fall when you took the decision that the witches should be killed?

MR MASHAMBA: I was supporting that they must be killed.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes because they were involved in ritual killings or because there was political reason to do so, which one of the two or perhaps there was a third one that we don't know, you can tell us?

MR MASHAMBA: I was supporting because those people who were killing people ritually I checked and found that there are people who are holding high position in the government who are high officials in the government and even those which who are witching they were working together with those who were high officials in the government. Those people who were in power they get the power from the witch.

CHAIRPERSON: To rule you, do I understand you correctly? In order to stay in government they got the power to rule from the witches?

MR MASHAMBA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Ndou?

MR NDOU: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Now you were explaining to the Committee as to what transpired on that fateful day on the 11th February 1990 and you had just explained that the group had decided to proceed to the kraal so that the people who had been identifying as witches and ritual murderers. Now you've already indicated that you proceeded to the kraal of Joseph Tishumbupfe. What transpired when you arrived at Tishumbupfe's kraal?

MR MASHAMBA: On our arrival we were singing those freedom songs. When he saw we were entering and just because we were many he was coming out from the cave. When he stood in a plain place he said if you come near me I will kill you then he showed a warning then we go back.

MR NDOU: Now when you say we approached, approximately how many people are you talking about here?

MR MASHAMBA: We were about 150.

MR NDOU: Yes and after Thishumbupfe had fired some shots in the air?

CHAIRPERSON: Do you belong to a political organisation?

MR MASHAMBA: Yes I'm just a supporter.

CHAIRPERSON: Of?

MR MASHAMBA: Of ANC.

CHAIRPERSON: You were a supporter at that time?

MR MASHAMBA: Yes I was a supporter.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, carry on.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes but could I put it to you that the ANC never instructed or asked people to kill the witches, isn't that so?

MR MASHAMBA: It's true.

ADV DE JAGER: Now why did you do so if the ANC didn't ask you to act in such a way, how do you think would you by killing the witches support the ANC?

MR MASHAMBA: We were looking at the government which was ruling us in Venda at the time of Ravello.

ADV DE JAGER: Was Ravello acting with the government of South Africa or was he on the side of the ANC?

MR MASHAMBA: Ravello's government was ...(indistinct) opposite to the ANC.

ADV DE JAGER: So in fighting the Ravello government you were fighting the enemy of the ANC?

MR MASHAMBA: Yes it's true.

MR NDOU: May I proceed? Thank you Honourable Chairperson.

Now you were there at Joseph Thisumbupfe's kraal, he comes out, he fires several shots in the air, what happens to you people there?

MR MASHAMBA: It's then that we go to the house of France Khomogwe. There when we arrived I asked the house which he used to sleep because I was not knowing it then I was shown it by the one who pointed him who mentioned the name that this person is a witch. In the house there was a light then I opened the door then I get in together with ...(indistinct). I was holding a big stick, I hold him and then beat him. I beat him four or five then he get out then he fall to the people.

CHAIRPERSON: Who was that?

MR MASHAMBA: France Khomogwe.

MR NDOU: Is that the deceased in this matter?

MR MASHAMBA: Yes it's the deceased.

MR NDOU: Yes and after you pulled him out and hit him several times with a stick and pulled him outside what transpired?

MR MASHAMBA: When he get out people started to beat him with sticks and stones until he fell down and died.

MR NDOU: Yes and what you did, is all that you did according to the way you explained that you only hit with a stick and dragged the deceased out of his hut?

MR MASHAMBA: Yes.

MR NDOU: Yes and what transpired then?

MR MASHAMBA: From there we proceeded to Mafune, we didn't find Mafune we found him already flat. I think that I took out the matches and then I lit the house he used to store medicines.

MR NDOU: Yes?

MR MASHAMBA: Then under that guy who was called Frederick he also later and Thomas Ndaw also lied.

MR NDOU: Yes you can proceed, just explain?

MR MASHAMBA: Then the whole homestead came to be on fire then we get out.

MR NDOU: Yes?

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Ndou, the name of the owner of hut that's been set on fire?

MR NDOU: It's Mafune.

ADV DE JAGER: This is not France, it's not his family either, it's a third?

MR NDOU: Yes a third ...(indistinct) that they proceeded to.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that in relation to the arson?

MR NDOU: Arson charge yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So he didn't burn anything at France's house he just murdered him?

MR NDOU: That's right.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you spell that name please?

MR NDOU: Mafune's spelt M-A-F-U-N-E.

CHAIRPERSON: Mafune, what's the other name?

MR NDOU: Mafune is the surname but he says he doesn't know the first name.

CHAIRPERSON: So it was that house that was burnt?

MR NDOU: That's right.

CHAIRPERSON: Where the house full of medicines were also burnt? Was he there, Mafune?

MR MASHAMBA: No he was not there. We didn't find there on our arrival.

MR NDOU: And according to your evidence three huts were burnt is that right?

MR MASHAMBA: Yes that is correct.

MR NDOU: And you only participated in the burning of one?

MR MASHAMBA: Yes I'm the person who burnt the first one which was containing the medicines.

MR NDOU: I see. Is there anything that you wish to tell the Committee?

MR MASHAMBA: Yes, I want the Committee to forgive me for all these deeds I have done.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I'm afraid we can't forgive you but you can certainly ask the victims or the deceased, family of the deceased and the owner of the house that was burnt. You can ask their forgiveness. I'm not too sure if they're present but they are the people to whom the request for forgiveness should be made.

MR NDOU: Have you ever seen any member of the family of these two families?

MR MASHAMBA: Yes.

MR NDOU: Who did you see?

MR MASHAMBA: I am seeing Jerry Khomogwe who is the son of the deceased.

CHAIRPERSON: Anybody else?

MR MASHAMBA: I'm seeing the only person here.

CHAIRPERSON: Nobody from Mafune's house or Mr Mafune himself?

MR MASHAMBA: Even Mr Mafune and any person from that family I'm unable to identify that person.

CHAIRPERSON: In any event if they are here you can still to them even in their absence I suppose but if you want to say something to the deceased's son please go ahead.

MR MASHAMBA: Myself here, I'm asking him to forgive me. I don't have much to say.

CHAIRPERSON: Why you asking for forgiveness if you don't have much to say?

MR MASHAMBA: It's because I have committed a crime.

MR NDOU: That is all, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg is this one of the cases in which you appear for the families?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes Mr Chairperson, I have only

instructions from Mr Jerry Khomogwe which is the son of the deceased, that is the only instructions and by and large I'd like to confine my cross-examination to that specific incident.

MS PATEL: Honourable Chairperson, if I may just at this stage? Regarding the arson incident and the victims in that matter, the names of those victims are not mentioned in the application, we accordingly didn't notify, were unaware of it.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you, may I proceed? Mr Mashamba, there's just thing I want you to explain to me. If you now succeeded in killing all the witches in the whole of Venda, how would that act cause the people in government in power to become powerless?

MR MASHAMBA: They were going to become powerless because most of their power they get them from the witches.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes but you've got to explain me would they be so powerless that they can't get out of bed in the morning or will the people not hear them or understand them or will the people not follow them? How would they become powerless?

MR MASHAMBA: Having killed the witches I think that is why the people in power in those times are no longer ruling the country because they were unable to rule.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Because you killed the witches? That's they become incapable of ruling, because you kill the witches.

MR MASHAMBA: I think where they used to get their power and medicine we eradicated those places.

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, you're still not answering my question and I have to insist on that. How did they fail in having power because you killed a few witches?

MR MASHAMBA: All the witches who were known I think they were all killed because up to now since I was arrested those cases of witches are no longer heard about.

MR VAN RENSBURG: No that's fine but that's still not an answer to the question. Can you answer this question?

MR MASHAMBA: Can you please repeat the question?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, the question is if you've now succeeded in killing a few witches or even all the witches, how did that cause the people in power to lose their power, to become powerless?

MR MASHAMBA: By killing the witches we were limiting the power of the rulers who were ruling during that period so that they will no longer have power so that they will get out of the government and then the government be re-incorporated.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Mr Chairperson, I will not labour that point any further, I will continue.

ADV DE JAGER: But perhaps then I could put an example? The government is like a torch. If you take out the battery it wouldn't shine and now the witches, they were the batteries of the government?

MR MASHAMBA: Witches and ritual murderers were batteries of the government because those people who were ruling, they used to get this thing of ritual murder because of these witches and witchdoctors.

CHAIRPERSON: Tell me, what did the deceased do that he had to be killed, what was he?

MR MASHAMBA: The deceased it was alleged that he made a certain boy who was a soccer player to get missing or to disappear.

CHAIRPERSON: No, but was he a witch, a ritual murderer of a politician or what?

MR MASHAMBA: He was a witch.

CHAIRPERSON: How do you know that?

MR MASHAMBA: That is known by the person who pointed him, who mentioned his name in the meeting.

CHAIRPERSON: Now what is this about a soccer player?

MR MASHAMBA: It's that he mysteriously, the soccer player mysteriously disappeared after being called by him.

CHAIRPERSON: And so?

MR MASHAMBA: And until now we don't know his whereabouts since his disappearance.

CHAIRPERSON: Had his disappearance anything to do with the playing of soccer?

MR MASHAMBA: He was a soccer player and he was called by that old man and then he disappeared and he was no longer seen.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV SIGODI: There's just one thing which I want to get from you. If the witches were responsible for giving power to the people in government what concerns me is the fact that on this day it was a day when President Mandela was being released. Wasn't that an indication that the power of the witches was waning, why was it necessary to kill them because at that time there was an indication that the ANC was unbanned and the leader of the ANC had just been released so why was it necessary to do something to make the country ungovernable and to remove the witches, especially on that day?

MR MASHAMBA: It's because we were fighting against the government who was ruling us here in Venda so that it must be reincorporated back in South Africa.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Madame.

Did you know the soccer player that allegedly went missing because of the action of Mr France Khomogwe?

MR MASHAMBA: Could you please repeat your question?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Did you know the soccer player that went missing?

MR MASHAMBA: Yes because since then I have not yet seen him again.

MR VAN RENSBURG: What was his name?

MR MASHAMBA: We used to call him by a nickname, soccer nickname, called Pula.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Now when you met Mr France Khomogwe in his house did you ask him where this Pula is?

MR MASHAMBA: No, he was no longer asked about that.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Why didn't you ask him?

MR MASHAMBA: We didn't ask because we had already decided that those people must be killed.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Didn't you think that perhaps his family would have liked to have known his whereabouts before you killed this man who is linked with them?

MR MASHAMBA: The parents of the missing person were losing hope because it was long that the person had disappeared.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Exactly then it was the last chance that you can find out what happened to him by asking the man that you're going to kill? Must I repeat the question?

MR MASHAMBA: Yes please.

MR VAN RENSBURG: You see you testified that the parents of the soccer player was now desperate because they're losing hope because the man was missing for a long time and the only link between the missing person as far as you're concerned is Mr France Khomogwe which you are about to kill so if you kill him his family will have absolute no means to ever find out what happened to him? Now in those circumstances, I ask you, why didn't you ask him before you kill him?

MR MASHAMBA: It's because we realised that it's long this thing had happened and the parents of the person have already lost hope and they were no longer interested in that matter.

ADV DE JAGER: Could you tell us, when did Pula disappear? You say it was a long time?

MR MASHAMBA: I think it was in 1989.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Was his disappearance reported to the police?

MR MASHAMBA: I think so but I'm not sure.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Did you know Mr France Khomogwe before that specific date?

MR MASHAMBA: Yes he was known to me.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you know he was a witch?

MR MASHAMBA: No I used to hear the hearsays about that.

CHAIRPERSON: Before the disappearance of the soccer player or only after?

MR MASHAMBA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes what?

MR MASHAMBA: I'm saying yes that I used to hear about him practising witchcraft before the disappearance of this soccer player.

CHAIRPERSON: So even the disappearance of the soccer player was hearsay?

MR MASHAMBA: No it was true that he disappeared.

CHAIRPERSON: And did you believe the people who told you that the deceased was practising witchcraft?

MR MASHAMBA: Yes I believed.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Did you find any medicine in Mr France Khomogwe's house?

MR MASHAMBA: Yes, medicines were there.

MR VAN RENSBURG: What medicine?

MR MASHAMBA: It was a medicine in bottles.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I want you to give me a description of the medicine in the bottles.

MR MASHAMBA: Those medicines were sitting in different bottles differently as they are.

MR VAN RENSBURG: You see, why I give you an opportunity to describe this is to give you an opportunity to tell this hearing that it was in fact traditional medicine and you failed to do that. Should we therefore deduct that it was medicine like cough syrup and things like that?

MR MASHAMBA: Those medicines were the traditional medicines not like cough remedy medicine.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I put it to you that you killed an innocent old man who was never in his life involved in witchcraft?

MR MASHAMBA: I don't agree with that.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Except for beating Mr Khomogwe with sticks, was he assaulted by the group in any other way?

MR MASHAMBA: Yes he was also assaulted by a group immediately when he got outside the house the group that were there began to attack him.

MR VAN RENSBURG: How?

MR MASHAMBA: In beating, when I get inside the house immediately when he went outside the house I failed to see what was happening because the group of people or a mob was on top of him attacking him.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Surely you could see how he was beaten or not?

MR MASHAMBA: I can see what was happening because I was close by.

MR VAN RENSBURG: So tell us, how did they beat him, how did the crowd beat him and with what?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg is it in dispute?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Mr Chairperson, I will come to the point in a question or two if you will just allow me this please?

What I want to know is was he only beaten with sticks until he died or was other instruments used as well?

MR MASHAMBA: He was being beaten by sticks and stones.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay and you see the reason why I'm asking you this is because Mr Jerry Khomogwe who found his father's body the next day says that his head was actually flattened, beaten to a pulp. What do you say about that?

MR MASHAMBA: No, I can't dispute that.

MR VAN RENSBURG: You agree with that?

MR MASHAMBA: I can agree.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Then I have to put it to you that you are seriously trying to downplay the attack on the deceased and the viciousness thereof?

MR MASHAMBA: I have explained that I attacked him inside the house and that when he got out the house there were people waiting for him who started to stone him and beat him by sticks by the people who were outside.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I have no further questions, thank you Chairperson.

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

Sir, can you tell us, Mr is it Mafune? His three huts were burnt, not so and you were responsible for setting the first house alight?

MR MASHAMBA: Yes I'm the person who burnt the first house which was containing the medicine.

MS PATEL: Okay and this was done because Mr Mafune was pointed out by someone as being a wizard, is that correct?

MR MASHAMBA: Yes that is correct.

MS PATEL: Who pointed him out?

MR MASHAMBA: It's Thomas Mete.

MS PATEL: And what did he say about Mr Mafune?

MR MASHAMBA: He said Mafune was taking people, making them or turning them into zombis.

MS PATEL: And which people would this be?

MR MASHAMBA: One of the persons who was mentioned, Florence Mashia, who was alleged to have been taken by that person.

MS PATEL: And what did Florence do, what type of work did she do.

MR MASHAMBA: She was a churchgoer.

MS PATEL: Okay, was she involved in politics at all?

MR MASHAMBA: No, she was a church churchgoer as such, she never participated in politics.

MS PATEL: Okay and anybody else that you know that he supposedly turned into a zombi?

MR MASHAMBA: Others I heard about them but for now I can't recall the names, I'm unable to recall the names of those people.

MS PATEL: Okay now from what you're able to tell us, it doesn't appear that any of the victims of Mr Mafune were involved in politics?

MR MASHAMBA: Florence Mishia was a churchgoer and she was not participating in politics.

MS PATEL: Okay so the intention even though only his house was set alight, the intention was to kill him, not so, initially? If he was found he would have been killed?

MR MASHAMBA: Yes that is correct.

MS PATEL: Okay now what political purpose would that have served?

MR MASHAMBA: We would have ...(indistinct) the powers of the people who were ruling during those days.

MS PATEL: But you've just told us that none of the victims of, alleged victims of Mr Mafune were involved in politics so I don't understand your response?

MR MASHAMBA: As I have mentioned Florence Mashia only as a person participating in the politics.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry. The people you have mentioned are people who are victims of Mr Mafune. Now what I want to find out from you, of the people who were ruling or who were in power in Venda who do you know had received assistance from Mr Mafune either by way of muti or some other powers from Mr Mafune who had been assisted by Mr Mafune?

MR MASHAMBA: Joseph Thithbupfe, most of the things he used to receive from him.

ADV SIGODI: Is Joseph the one who was a member of parliament?

MR MASHAMBA: Yes.

MS PATEL: How did you know this that Joseph had received assistance from Mr Mafune?

MR MASHAMBA: Because I used to see him seeing that they've got relationship because Joseph used to go to him.

MS PATEL: So what, just because he went to visit him how do you draw the inference that he was being assisted by him to maintain his power?

MR MASHAMBA: It's because even when he go and commit ritual murder he was told that if he wants these things to move smoothly he must do like that. I think most of things he was receiving it from him. In Venda it is said a person cannot just go out and commit a ritual murder without knowing the reason for doing that.

MS PATEL: I'm sorry, I don't understand your response, perhaps I should ask the question again. How do you know that Joseph was receiving assistance from Mafune to maintain his power. What did you see that led you to this conclusion?

MR MASHAMBA: Because he cannot frequent the place without there is nothing ...(inaudible)

MS PATEL: What if they were just friends, can you dispute that, is it a possibility?

MR MASHAMBA: I can dispute that.

MS PATEL: On what basis do you dispute that?

MR MASHAMBA: I can dispute because those people they were not of the same age to a certain extent that they can be friends.

MS PATEL: Did you know Joseph personally?

MR MASHAMBA: Yes I know him.

MS PATEL: Did you know him personally?

MR MASHAMBA: Yes I know him personally.

MS PATEL: Okay. Why was he not approached if your dispute was with him and you knew him personally, why was he not approached?

MR MASHAMBA: His person I mentioned that he shot two warnings while we approached him.

MS PATEL: Okay, sorry yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Is he still alive?

MR MASHAMBA: Yes he is still alive.

ADV DE JAGER: Is he involved in politics these days or wouldn't you know?

MR MASHAMBA: I don't know because it's long that I've been in jail.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes.

MS PATEL: Honourable Chairperson, if you would just grant me a moment?

ADV DE JAGER: The soccer player, Pula who disappeared, was he involved in politics?

MR MASHAMBA: Yes he was involved in politics.

ADV DE JAGER: How was he involved, what was his function in politics?

MR MASHAMBA: He was a secretary who used to write letters to call the meeting.

MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson.

Okay, besides Joseph was there anybody else that knew of that Mr Mafune assisted?

MR MASHAMBA: No.

MS PATEL: Okay and you say he assisted them by turning people into zombis or he assisted Joseph by turning people into zombis, is that correct?

MR MASHAMBA: I didn't hear your question properly, could you please repeat?

MS PATEL: Okay, did Mafune assist Joseph by turning people into zombis?

MR MASHAMBA: Mafune was the person who turned people into zombis.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you ever seen this thing, a zombi?

MR MASHAMBA: No I've not yet seen that.

CHAIRPERSON: Now how come you can testify that someone changed whatever into a zombi?

MR MASHAMBA: It's because the ...(indistinct) where I'm coming from there is a place which that person was alleged to have put all these things and nobody can gain access to that place, not anybody, people don't reach that place, it's the only person who can gain access to that place. I mean Mafune is the only person who can gain access to that place.

CHAIRPERSON: But I'm not talking about where he can get access, I'm taking about this thing called zombi. Do you believe in that it exists?

MR MASHAMBA: Yes I believe they are there.

CHAIRPERSON: How long have you had such a belief?

MR MASHAMBA: I think at the age of 15 by then I happened to believe that zombis are there.

CHAIRPERSON: And you are now how old? You are 36 years old now?

MR MASHAMBA: Yes I'm 36.

CHAIRPERSON: So for 20 years you've believed now that there exists zombis?

MR MASHAMBA: Yes I still believe.

CHAIRPERSON: And through that 20 years you've never seen anyone, any zombi?

MR MASHAMBA: No I've never met one.

CHAIRPERSON: Why do you continue believing that they exist?

MR MASHAMBA: It's because where I'm referring to at Chimbuve there's a no go area which is said to be a place for the zombis and nobody will have ever reached that place.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes but you haven't seen it?

MR MASHAMBA: It's not possible to see them because you can't reach that place where they are.

CHAIRPERSON: Now let's assume that they only stay there.

MR MASHAMBA: Maybe it's the place for them, maybe during the time that they want to be released to do their job outside there.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, well I was getting to that now. You say that Joseph used zombis?

MR MASHAMBA: No, I've said Joseph was the person who committed ritual murder, I didn't say he used the zombis.

CHAIRPERSON: You said Mafune made these zombis for Joseph or did you not say that?

MR MASHAMBA: No, I didn't mention that.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, whoever made it, what is wrong with the zombi? What is so bad about it?

MR MASHAMBA: It's a problem because there will be a person who will be taken and then be turned into a zombi and that person it's believed he or she is not dead, by then they will be making him to work very hard.

CHAIRPERSON: A slave?

MR MASHAMBA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Now where would they work?

MR MASHAMBA: I think they used to work in the fields which used to be cultivated.

CHAIRPERSON: And you've never seen over 20 years any zombi in this field or any field?

MR MASHAMBA: Yes but I'm not staying in the same village with that person, I'm staying in the other village. The only thing is that the villages are close by.

CHAIRPERSON: In your village there's no zombis?

MR MASHAMBA: No, there's no zombis we were only disturbed by this person who was committing ritual murder.

CHAIRPERSON: After 20 years don't you doubt the existence of the zombi? You've never seen one in 20 years, have you never ask yourself do these things really exist?

MR MASHAMBA: I simply believed that just there is a name that was a name zombi, it means that a thing called zombi did exist.

CHAIRPERSON: But have you never doubted that it exists?

MR MASHAMBA: No I have no doubt, I think from my perception I think they are there.

CHAIRPERSON: And you were told now these people involved themselves in zombis?

MR MASHAMBA: Could you please repeat your question?

CHAIRPERSON: You were told that Joseph and Mafune and those types of people were involved in the use of zombis?

MR MASHAMBA: With Joseph, Joseph was involved in ritual murder. Mafune was involved in zombis including his friends. They were involved also including witchcraft but Joseph was only involved in ritual murder.

MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson.

From your knowledge who in government did Joseph assist?

MR MASHAMBA: I didn't hear your question, could you please repeat?

MS PATEL: The question was from your knowledge who did Joseph assist, who did he help with his ritual murders?

MR MASHAMBA: He was helping himself.

MS PATEL: Did he himself hold any political position or position in government?

MR MASHAMBA: Yes he was speaker of the parliament.

MS PATEL: Okay I think I misunderstood your initial testimony then. Well perhaps you can explain, excuse my ignorance but if Mafune's speciality if one can call it that, was turning people into zombis and Joseph's was in ritual murders, why would Joseph go to Mafune for assistance?

MR MASHAMBA: It's because Joseph was a ritual murderer but he doesn't know the medicines that is why he had to go to Mafune who knows about the medicines.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand it, he would commit the ritual murder, dissect the victim and take the necessary parts to Mafune to manufacture a pharmaceutical result. Do you follow?

MS PATEL: I do, thank you Honourable Chairperson.

So then it seems that we sit here with the unusual position of somebody who holds some kind of political position who committed his own ritual murders in order to enhance his own power.

CHAIRPERSON: Sure enhance the idea that they used witchcraft to keep their political powers?

MS PATEL: Perhaps - well then I'm slightly confused, perhaps you can clarify this for me, would ritual murders be necessary for turning people into zombis?

MR MASHAMBA: No.

MS PATEL: Then I don't understand why Joseph would have gone to Mafune.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand Ms Patel, Mafune was an expert in various fields.

MS PATEL: Sorry, according to the applicant, his expertise was turning into zombis and that is why he killed.

CHAIRPERSON: In addition to being a witchdoctor and he was able to make this muti or whatever was necessary to maintain power of Joseph.

MS PATEL: I'm sorry then Honourable Chairperson, my understanding of the applicant's testimony when I asked him initially why was Mafune pointed out by Thomas Madaw and he said because Mafune was turning people into zombis and then I went on to question him about well, who?

CHAIRPERSON: He said that, it's just that a specific issue there was he was pointed out by someone who informed them that he made people into zombis but another source told him about witchcraft and he believed that.

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

ADV SIGODI: Do you remember the people who were with you when you went to kill France?

MR MASHAMBA: Yes I still remember them.

ADV SIGODI: Who were they, who were with you?

MR MASHAMBA: Eric Matosi, Frederick Matata and Thomas Madawe and the fourth one I think Richard Jawuke.

ADV SIGODI: Were they also charged in the criminal trial with you?

MR MASHAMBA: Yes they were also charged but differently.

ADV SIGODI: I mean for the same offence of killing France Khomogwe?

MR MASHAMBA: Yes that is correct.

ADV SIGODI: Were you found guilty do you know?

MR MASHAMBA: They were found guilty.

ADV SIGODI: Do you know if they've applied for amnesty?

MR MASHAMBA: No they did not apply.

ADV SIGODI: Are they still in prison?

MR MASHAMBA: They are out.

ADV SIGODI: How many years where you sentenced to?

MR MASHAMBA: I'm sentenced to 12 years of murder and one year of arson.

ADV SIGODI: And now this no go area in the village where the zombis are being kept, what is the name of that area?

MR MASHAMBA: Dindele.

ADV SIGODI: So if we wanted to go there and have an inspection in loco who would stop us there?

MR MASHAMBA: I'm told that something will come which you won't see disturbing you, preventing you from going there.

CHAIRPERSON: Who would say so? Who said that you'd be prevented from going there?

MR MASHAMBA: It's what I grew up hearing people talking like that and I've never heard of any person who have reached that place.

CHAIRPERSON: So you can't tell us where it is, you can't give us a place or a road to go?

MR MASHAMBA: I can assure you the road to that place, that that place I can assure you or point that place, that that is the place.

CHAIRPERSON: You can take us there?

MR MASHAMBA: Yes I can.

CHAIRPERSON: You're not scared?

MR MASHAMBA: I think I will not reach that place.

CHAIRPERSON: Don't you think it's time you start thinking about the existence of this place? I mean accept you've believed it all the years but don't you think it's time you started thinking for yourself about it whether it really exists or not?

MR MASHAMBA: I believe they are there.

ADV DE JAGER: ...(inaudible) of what association or movement or party or what?

INTERPRETER: The interpreters didn't hear that first statement, could you please repeat?

ADV DE JAGER: The soccer player, Mr Pula who disappeared, you told us that he was the secretary of some association. What was the name of that association?

MR MASHAMBA: I didn't say he was the secretary of the organisation, he was the secretary of the meetings which we used to hold, he was the secretary who used to write the minutes.

ADV DE JAGER: Now who were you people holding these meetings where he was the secretary? Who was the chairman and what was the name of this meeting?

MR MASHAMBA: We'd simply just hold meetings if say that there is a person who is not living in a good way with other people then we just hold meetings and discuss about it.

ADV DE JAGER: The whole community or the youth or who?

MR MASHAMBA: The youth.

ADV DE JAGER: I see, so he was a secretary, he acted as secretary for a youth meeting?

MR MASHAMBA: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.

MR NDOU: Thank you Mr Chairperson, no further witnesses.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Chairperson, I have no witnesses to call.

MS PATEL: Same here Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg, have you got any argument?

MR VAN RENSBURG IN ARGUMENT: Yes, just a short argument, Mr Chairperson.

As the learned advocate has pointed out the 2nd February, the 11th February was a very significant day in the history of this country. I can hardly think of any other event that symbolised freedom for the majority of the citizens of this country more than the release of Mr Mandela on the 11th February but at the same time there were a group of people running around still fighting a war that was already won. This just doesn't make sense. The applicant has certainly not been able to give an explanation for this strange behaviour. The applicant has furthermore not been able to explain how the politicians would become powerless if they did succeed to kill all the witches in the country.

It is significant that this applicant is not basing his application on the attempt or an attempt to make the area ungovernable as the previous applicants did. The fact of the ungovernability of the country was never raised by himself.

In the circumstances I'm of the opinion that is my instructions Mr Chairperson that the element of a political motive was again not proved and found in this instance and again I have to argue that this application has to fail on this basis. That is all.

MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson, I have no address.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg, do you accept that there was a belief in the community that members in political authority resorted to some kind of assistance with the strange powers that witches allegedly had?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes I can well concede that but I still don't think that that should be end of the argument.

CHAIRPERSON: I accept that, I just want to know what your instructions were on this belief whether your clients or the deceased was party to that or not is another matter.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes I understand that.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm just talking of a general perception in the area here.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes but I would just add that that would be the can I say supernatural powers available to any other member of the community as well?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Thank you. Mr Ndou, we don't need to hear you?

MR NDOU: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Is this the end of this matter?

MR NDOU: That is so.

CHAIRPERSON: We will reserve judgement on this as well.

MR NDOU: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there any point in starting a new matter now?

MS PATEL: It's already 4.15, almost 4.20 Honourable Chairperson, I believe that there's a problem with the sound technicians.