MR NDOU: Thank you Chairperson, I now call upon applicant number 2725 Nemakhavani D, and his application appears on pages 120 etc. May I request that he be sworn in?
DAVID NEMAKHAVANI: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR NDOU: Mr David Nemakhavani, you are also an applicant in this matter, is that correct?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: That is correct.
MR NDOU: You have applied for amnesty in terms of Section 18 of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act of 1995, is that also correct.
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes that's correct.
MR NDOU: Now I see in your application you indicate that you are here because of certain offences that you want to state before the Committee and ask amnesty on, that is the charges pertaining to murder, arson and assault TBH, is that correct. Are those the charges that you were convicted in the court?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes that's correct.
CHAIRPERSON: The murder of who?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: The murder of Edward Mahvunga.
CHAIRPERSON: Arson in respect of what?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: In connection with the house of Mr Edward Mahvunga.
CHAIRPERSON: And the assault?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: I assaulted Nkambereni Mahvunga but I wasn't charged on that.
MR VAN RENSBURG: So what are you convicted of?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Of murder and assault.
CHAIRPERSON: But want to make application in respect of the assault TBH as well?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes that is also included.
CHAIRPERSON: Why Mr Ndou, is assault sole TBH for which he has been charged and acquitted, why do we have to deal with that?
MR NDOU: Well apparently at the time when the form was filled in, it was inadvertently filled in, it only appeared now that he was in fact not charged on that count, so we will not delve into that.
CHAIRPERSON: So you're withdrawing it, take instructions on that?
MR NDOU: Yes we have spoken to him and indicated that wont fall within amnesty.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you.
MR NDOU: Now I want to find out from you, during 1990, if I look in your application, you were born on the 2nd of April 1970...(intervention)
MR NDOU: Well I don't think there's any dispute as to the formal particulars.
MR NDOU: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Is there Mr van Rensburg?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes I agree, there's no dispute on that.
MR NDOU: Now during 1990, were you a member of any political organisation?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: I was just a supporter.
MR NDOU: Of which organisation?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: ANC.
MR NDOU: Now in your area was there any formal structure that had been formed politically?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: No it was not yet.
MR NDOU: What did you have?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: There was no structure but before there was the release of Nelson Mandela.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes please explain.
MR NEMAKHAVANI: When Nelson Mandela was released, then we felt that we now understand political issues and accordingly we were happy that he was released. It then led us into knowing what was happening as far as politics was concerned. It is then that we people of Mahvunga decided to be involved in celebrating the release of Nelson Mandela. It was then that we went further because in other countries youth congresses were being formed and then we also decided to form such youth congress of Mahvunga village. What was more important was for us to be involved in politics because we were starting to realise that there are many things which we were expecting in relation to politics. When we formed this youth congress it was then that we started to establish something which we wanted to correct because there were people who were having grievances, not knowing how to overcome them. We were having grievances in connection with ritual murder and witchcraft, some of the obstacles which were disturbing and then that led us into asking our headman by then that we be allowed in that Mahvunga country, that all the people who were involved in witchcraft should be evicted if possible. What happened in which we were interested is that we were happy to free so that we were free.
MR NDOU: Of which headman are you speaking?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: I'm referring to the headman Mr Adam Mahvunga. There are people whom we wanted to be evicted. That letter was written and taken to the headman. We want the following people to be evicted, Mutshini, Tshinakaho, we also have Edward Mahvunga, Makwarela....
MR NDOU: M-A-K-W-A-R-E-L-A. What's the surname?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: The surname is Mamegwa.
MR NDOU: M-A-M-E-G-W-A.
MR NEMAKHAVANI: We also have Liswoga Matamela.
MR NDOU: Liswoga is L-I-S-W-O-G-A and Matamela is
M-A-T-A-M-E-L-A. Ja?
CHAIRPERSON: Why did you want him removed?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Because we want him to be removed because they were alleged to be witches.
CHAIRPERSON: All of them?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, all of them, but I still have some here.
CHAIRPERSON: Ja, I know, but I mean all of them that you have mentioned were believed to be witches and that's why their removal was being sought.
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, it's correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Ja.
MR NDOU: Any other names?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Petrus Mahvunga.
MR NDOU: Ja.
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Khangari Mabunga.
MR NDOU: Khangari is K-H-A-N-G-A-L-E Mabunga. Ja, any other person?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: We have Alilali Lafhefho.
MR NDOU: Alilali is A-L-I-L-A-L-I. Mapepu is spelt L-A-F-H-E-F-H-O.
Any other person?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Phophi Muravha.
MR NDOU: Popi is P-H-O-P-H-I and Muraba is M-U-R-A-V-H-A.
Now you say this list comprises of people that were being accused of practising witchcraft, is that right?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, it's correct.
MR NDOU: Now, who drew up this list?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: This list was drafted by us who were appointed to be in the youth congress, so that what we have should have channels.
MR NDOU: Now this list that you're referring to, is it the same list that you took the headman, Adam?
ADV DE JAGER: Could you kindly try - you say "The list was drawn by us. We were appointed in the youth congress", was he elected as a committee member himself or what was his position actually? We are talking in general of "we" and "us", we want to be more specific about his role.
MR NDOU: Thank you. Now this youth congress that you talk about, was it something already formalised, in the sense that you had office bearers?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, there were people who were appointed, who were leading us?
MR NDOU: And were you amongst ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Appointed or elected?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: I was one of the members.
CHAIRPERSON: Elected or appointed?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: I was elected to be the assistant.
CHAIRPERSON: Assistant what?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Assistant to the leader of the marshals.
MR NDOU: And as a marshal, what were you expected to do?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: When there are meetings it was expected that there must be order.
MR NDOU: So there were other people ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: The marshals saw to the discipline amongst the youth at meetings etc., matches and rallies, correct?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes?
MR NDOU: And the other office bearers, are they amongst the applicants here?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Up to now some are there, but some are not there.
MR NDOU: Now there you were - having drawn up a list which you then took the headman, Adam. That is the legally appointed headman of the area, is that correct?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: The one we take the list to.
MR NDOU: Now what did he do with the list?
ADV SIGODI: Sorry, just before you proceed on that point, on what basis did you identify these people to be witches? What was your reason?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: All the people in the village, because all the people were gathering, people went on to identify people. So anybody who knows that this person is suspected to be a witch, anybody was given a chance to say who was a witch, then we'll write the name down.
ADV SIGODI: In other words, you just wrote the name on the basis of suspicion, you did not go to any Sangoma, or traditional, or witch-doctor, to identify who were the witches in the village?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: No, we didn't go to the witch-doctors or anybody to find out that, but people were saying that according to their experience as they grew up.
ADV SIGODI: Okay.
MR NDOU: Thank you. Then what happened to the list?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: What happened is that we went to the headman's kraal. On our arrival we gathered there, then two kids were appointed and left and they were given an envelope with that letter, so that they can submit it to the headman and then the headman could come and speak with the people.
And then the headman arrived and read the letter which was written. It's then that letter, he said that he wanted to find out the feeling of the people by himself and the people pointed out that they wanted those people to be evicted because they no longer wanted to stay with them.
What was funny is that the headman concurred with, to such an extent that he gave us a car so that those people should be followed to their homes, so that they can be called and come, but he said they must be allowed to board his car. So that he was supporting our statement, because it seems he was knowing that they were practising witchcraft.
Some of them arrived. Those who arrived, some agreed that no, they will leave the country. Then they were told to go and then they agreed, but Edward Mahvunga did not agree.
CHAIRPERSON: Did all of them agree when persuaded or ...?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Some agreed, except Edward Mahvunga
CHAIRPERSON: How many came?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Three women and Edward Mahvunga.
MR NDOU: And after agreeing that they will leave, did they later on leave?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, later on they left.
MR NDOU: And you say all these happenings were taking place after the release of President Nelson Mandela, is that right?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, that's right.
MR NDOU: Now what happened when Edward refused to go?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Edward pointed out that he won't go in that country or village and mentioned that he cannot be given instructions by the headman who was there at the time.
Then he pointed out that he will not co-operate with anything which will be mentioned in that village. And he pointed out that he will do his own things alone. So meaning that he will not co-operate or listen anything. This is, he will do what he wants, as he wishes and not what the headman intended to do.
At the end the crowd dispersed and the meeting was over. As this went on ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Did he say so in front of everybody?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Could you please repeat your question?
CHAIRPERSON: Did he say so in front of everybody?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, in front of everybody.
CHAIRPERSON: How many people heard this?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: There were many people there.
MR NDOU: Yes?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: There were incidents which occurred later on.
MR NDOU: Which incidents?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Incidents in connection with the deceased, Mr Edward Mahvunga, and others who are amongst us here.
MR NDOU: What happened?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: After when Mr Mahvunga denied to leave the village, what happened is that there were intimidations which were made against some of the youth. And that thing, because of that problem with the deceased of refusing to go, there were meetings which were held in-between.
We tried to gather the whole village. In fact, all the people gathered and went to the place of Mr Edward Mahvunga. On their arrival they requested him to take what belongs to him and leave the country.
MR NDOU: Is that on the 6th of April?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: No, that was not that day.
MR NDOU: Okay.
MR NEMAKHAVANI: It's then that we decided to find out an alternative route which would lead to Mr Mahvunga's eviction. Then we decided to call the commanders of the police, maybe they will help to make him leave the country, or village.
And then people were appointed to go and fetch the police commanders and then they came back with them. The commander who was there was with the leader of the Defence Force. What happened is that we explained what we were fighting for and they were put clear on why they were called upon. And then they went to the home of the deceased and then they negotiated with him. It's then that the deceased refused, saying that he won't go.
Then they tried to persuade him in all ways possible. It's then that he ended up refusing to leave. Those commanders of the police and the Defence Force came back to us and indicated that they are unable to help us in getting the man to leave the village. And the people pointed out that "If the deceased is not going, if something at the end will happened, don't be surprised if we take other steps because we have tried in all ways possible, we even followed the legal routes, we called upon you, the legal people, to come and help us", but they were also unable to get him to go.
At the end that day we dispersed. Then there was an item in which we were supposed to meet again. The people were going to gather at that village, at that home or kraal. It's that day where the incident of killing the deceased happened.
MR NDOU: That was on the 6th of April?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes.
MR NDOU: Okay.
MR NEMAKHAVANI: It's then that the people pleaded with the deceased to leave and the deceased refused to go, saying that he won't do such a thing. And then he did say that he is going to fight on and he will defend himself, so that he cannot be evicted.
What happened is that there were differences, which led to a fight. What happened is that there was a war between the deceased and all the people who were there at that moment.
MR NDOU: And you were also part of the group?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, I was part of the group. What happened is that we tried to find things like petrol, so that it can be used in what would be taking place in that kraal.
MR NDOU: Who brought the petrol?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: The person who was sent to collect the petrol, I don't remember, but it was also in my possession by then. I also collected money for the petrol to be bought.
MR NDOU: Yes?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Again what happened is that the fight was on and the deceased was being assisted by his children and his wife. The fight took a long time. What happened then is that I managed to get inside the yard of that kraal.
On entering the yard I managed to pour petrol in the car and light it and it started to burn. Then I ran away, outside the yard. As the fight was on, people were saying there is a room where people are not allowed to enter and then the people of that home were not allowed to enter that room.
So what I did, I took that petrol and broke the windows of that house, of that room or house and looked through the window what was inside. I found that there was a big jacket and a baby bed. There was a jacket which was very big and a small bed for kids. People said there are things inside, I must be careful, but I said there is nothing. People said "Burn it, you will see them running away, getting out". Then I poured petrol on the curtains and everything which was there. Then I lit inside there. Then I ran away again.
The deceased was not yet dead and the kids and the wife were still there and they tried to make that room ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Just tell me something. When you burnt these curtains in this room, did anything happen?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: We watched to see if something will happen, but nothing happened.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay.
MR NDOU: Yes, proceed.
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Later I saw the deceased, that his eyes were bleeding and he was staggering, running into the house and then kids ran inside the house and the wife. Some were trying to put the fire down. It's then that we - they will fight while they were inside the house. It's here that people decided to request the wife and the kids to get out of the house.
It's then that the person with whom we agreed that the wife and the kids must get out, I'm the person who got inside and took the hand of the wife and took her outside, with these small kids. I escorted them a bit among the group of the people, telling them that these are not the people, we are not fighting with them. Then we escorted them and nothing was done to them. Then I went back again and the fight was still on.
Later on, when entering the house, the deceased was lying on the ground. What happened is that he was being stoned at and I also participated in stoning him. While we were busy stoning him, somebody came with a tube, a wheel tube for a tractor with fire and it was thrown over his body. I'm also one of the persons who took the sponges of the sofas and blankets and threw them over the body. And we went to verify that he died. Then he died while we were watching.
It's then that people who were outside were called to see and verify that of course he's dead. It's then that later, when he's dead, then we dispersed.
MR NDOU: So you admit that by virtue of your presence at the deceased' kraal, when the violence was being committed on the deceased, you were also aware of the assault on the deceased and his family and that you also intended to make common cause with those who were present and who were actually perpetrating the assault, is that correct?
CHAIRPERSON: He says he was part - he actually participated in the assault. He participated in killing the deceased. It's not a question of common cause.
MR NDOU: I thought maybe it will be satisfied(?) whether he actually killed ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: He says he fuelled the flames, he threw things on the flames.
MR NDOU: Okay, fine. I just wanted to cover this aspect later on, as to the question of common purpose. I'll leave it if there's no problem. I don't have any problem.
So you say you participated in the killing of the deceased?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes.
MR NDOU: I see. Now is there any other thing that you wish to tell the Committee? Is there anything that you've left out, as to what you did on the day in question and as pertains these offences that you appear before the Committee to tell them that ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: You know my personal problem is that you've disclosed, I think enough. I still don't know how you've complied with the other requirement of the Act. The political motive.
MR NDOU: Okay, fine thanks.
Now you say you had formed yourself into a youth congress, now how do you marry the death of the deceased with a political motive?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: The deceased was a person who was fighting by all means, fighting against all those things which were done politically.
MR NDOU: What did he do?
CHAIRPERSON: No. Look here, this is what confused me. As far as I understand this applicant's evidence, it's that this guy, the deceased, was a witch or a wizard, as a result of which a "trek pass" was issued, which he refused to adhere to. As a result of him refusing to adhere to that trek pass, he was assaulted, set alight and killed. How does that become a political act? I'm not saying that it doesn't, I need the evidence to show me.
MR NDOU: Okay, perhaps that needs to come out and it's just that I'm not listening to what the Venda interpreter is saying. Maybe I'll need to put that on. Because as he was giving evidence he indicated that certain incidents, where there was a confrontation between the deceased and the youth of the area took place, even the day before the 6th of April, I thought that ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: No, no, that was interpreted. The fact of the matter is that his "trek pass" was related to alleged wizardry. What political implications can be attached to his wizardry, in order to comply with the Act?
MR NDOU: Yes, that's why I wanted him to state as to what it is that he did that he says has got a political motive and how he marries that with the question of witchcraft.
CHAIRPERSON: No, he didn't, not yet.
MR NDOU: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Or if he did, it's very vague to me.
MR NDOU: Yes, that's why I said he indicated that there was a confrontation. Now I want him to state the confrontation.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou, you're misunderstand me, or maybe you don't understand me properly. That there were confrontations with the deceased may be true. The version of the applicant is not that the deceased was killed because of his confrontations. The version of this applicant is that the deceased was killed because of his arrogance in not wanting to adhere to the "trek pass" instructions and that he said he would do as he pleases. There were various attempts to get him removed, through the police etc., and the inhabitants said well then we're going to take the thing in our own hands. and that is how he met his death.
Now this political motive is a requirement of the Act. How does it play a part, or how do we establish it, if at all, in this application?
MR NDOU: Maybe we're not getting each other. I agree with you, that we're not getting each other. He said that immediately after they had issued a list they called several meetings at which they discussed with these people to leave the area and they refused to leave the area.
Immediately thereafter he had problems with the youth, because then he started confronting them about meetings which they were holding in the area. Now that's why I say perhaps that did not come out clearly, the way maybe it was interpreted. That is why I was putting it to him as to how he marries the actions pertaining to the calling of the meeting that pertained to the question of witchcraft and the resultant confrontation with the youth pertaining to its suppression of the political activity in the area. I think that's what needs to come out.
CHAIRPERSON: Why was he killed?
MR NDOU: According to my instructions, he was killed because he refused to go and also because he was suppressing political activity. Those are my instructions.
CHAIRPERSON: Well then it hasn't come out so clearly from the evidence. Maybe you can have another go at getting it out of your client.
MR NDOU: Yes. As the Chairman pleases.
Now Mr Nemakhavani, I want you to explain very slowly and very clearly as to how you tried to marry what you call firstly as a meeting that pertained to ...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: But honestly, Mr Ndou, I don't think you should put a leading question about something that really worries ... and is the crux of the matter. Let him explain why they killed the deceased.
MR NDOU: Ja, okay. They want to find out why you killed the deceased.
MR NEMAKHAVANI: What happened is that firstly, the deceased was a person who was in the list of the people who were accused of witchcraft, who were expected to be evicted and then secondly, or again, what the deceased was doing ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Just hold that. Can the interpreter please repeat that answer. I couldn't hear from the beginning. The whole answer.
MR NEMAKHAVANI: I was showing that the deceased was one of the people who were in the list of the people who were expected to be evicted, who were falling under the ambit of witchcraft. By then, when we were holding some meetings, when we said there were some obstacle which we wanted to remove, which were disturbing us, we took witchcraft as some of the things which we want to remove before us, as we were expecting to have freedom.
Then we reached an extent where witchcraft was taken in this way. It was one of the obstacles which was oppressing us. It's one of the things which were hurting us. It's then that we found it ...(indistinct) that now that we see we are free, then we will remove it. It's then that we found that the deceased was on the list of the witches.
Another measure problem is that after he was listed, he was the person who was fighting very hard with the meetings which were held and he was against the singing of the freedom songs and that and everything which was done under, during those days. He was a person who was fighting with that in all ways possible.
CHAIRPERSON: How was - let me ask you, did you mean to say that witchcraft was politically oppressive? When you said that the witchcraft was an oppressive aspect in your lives.
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Witches were people who were performing very unusual things. We realised that in those days when things were being exposed, especially to the chiefs, they were the ones who were quite aware of their ill-doings. They will not like that to be exposed as that was the requirement from the people in the village.
CHAIRPERSON: Look those unusual things, I think, as I understand the evidence so far, amounted to criminal activities on the part of the witches or wizards. Do you understand?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, I do.
CHAIRPERSON: All I'm asking very simply, the reasons for wanting to get rid of these witches or people you thought were witches, how would that improve the political life of the inhabitants?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well we actually wanted to evict these people from our village because this would lead eventually to the fact that those who were ruling were in the old order and as such the central government would then be able to realise that we were not pleased with the way the old order was behaving. So that we will then take the then government back to Pretoria or to the central government, I mean to say.
CHAIRPERSON: What did the wizards and witches have to do with that? How did they stop that, if at all?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: You mean the evicting of witches?
CHAIRPERSON: No. You say you're unhappy with that order, political order, you needed to see to it that the order is transformed so that the country goes back to the central government of South Africa, correct? That's how I understand your reasoning.
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, it is true.
CHAIRPERSON: Were the witches or the wizards, or the activities a hurdle in that aim to get Venda back to the central government of South Africa?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well the witches, the alleged witches had connections with the people who were involved in ritual murders, because the way it used to happen is that it was very difficult to present this to the leaders of the government of the day.
CHAIRPERSON: Now killing a witch, how would that help getting back to central government?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: The main aim was not to kill.
CHAIRPERSON: You can't tell me that the aim wasn't to kill Edward, you pleaded guilty - not pleased guilty, you say you were guilty of killing him. We're trying to find out why. You've come to the point where you say that you were part of the people who needed to get, or wanted to get Venda back to the central government of South Africa. All I'm asking you, how by killing a person you thought was a wizard or witch, how would that killing assist or contribute or enhance the moving back to Pretoria?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: With regard to the killing of the witch and how it contributed to the eventual transformation of the government to the central government, it does indicate that with regard to the hit list people, we could not indicate that they were going to be killed, we merely said they were to be evicted. Those who agreed with the eviction went, but we did not agree on the killing specifically as to make that we had to achieve our aim. Mainly we wanted them to be evicted.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, we're playing with words now, we've established that. How did the eviction of those wizards or witches, how was their eviction intended to assist the country politically in getting back to the central government?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Will you repeat again? Please repeat the question.
CHAIRPERSON: Please explain to us how the evictions of wizards and witches were going to assist in Venda going back to Pretoria?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well those people who were responsible in giving them accommodation were traditional leaders and they had a confrontation with us. Therefore, it indicated that there was not a good political situation and people realised that there were some big problems in the country.
ADV DE JAGER: But your chief didn't harbour them, he didn't give them accommodation, he evicted them, he gave them a trek pass. So he wasn't approving of what this man was doing, so how could the eviction of the witch or the suspected witch from one district in Venda to another district in Venda, bring back Venda to Pretoria, to the central government?
INTERPRETER: Could you repeat the question, he doesn't seem to be following.
ADV DE JAGER: Yes.
MR NEMAKHAVANI: It was the main aim of us to make the country ungovernable.
ADV DE JAGER: How would the eviction of a witch help to make the country ungovernable?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: It will be mainly through the reasoning behind of the people not being satisfied with the fact that when these people are evicted they had to be put on other districts.
CHAIRPERSON: If they're gone, how would that help to get back to Pretoria? Except there will be less people to go and march to Pretoria.
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well it will be helpful inasfar as ...(indistinct) serious in South Africa, or the country of South Africa. There was this political freedom, so that the then government was not really acceptable. That is why even in the independent homelands the government of the day was not acceptable and the activities thereof. It will lead to the aim that the people had in mind, so that the government of the day was not the real government that was expected of the people, I mean from the people.
CHAIRPERSON: Maybe I must take it from a different angle, I don't know. You've got the witches here and the wizards. The majority of the people want to go back to Pretoria. What did the wizards and witches and these
people who were involved in the ritual murders, what did they do, or how did they contribute to keeping you people from going back to Pretoria, or preventing you from going back to Pretoria?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: You mean what contributions?
CHAIRPERSON: What did they do to prevent the people from going back to Pretoria and getting their freedom?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Actually what we were fighting for was that as people who were not doing things which were acceptable by the people, that is why we decided that it will be a good tool of linking the political events when the political freedom was being sought, so that it will lead to the main aim and achievement thereof.
CHAIRPERSON: I don't know how else to ask this. Why couldn't you go back to Pretoria while the witches were in the area?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Witches were doing various activities which were not acceptable in the communities.
CHAIRPERSON: Well maybe it wasn't acceptable, but how did they prevent you going back to Pretoria, which was your political aim?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: I cannot follow the question. Will you repeat the question please.
CHAIRPERSON: Did they stop you from going back to Pretoria, these witches? Did they hinder your quest for freedom?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, because these witches and the traditional leaders, who were also involved in ritual murder cases, were not really in line with the regaining of the political freedom of taking Venda back to the central government, they were the ones who were very influential.
CHAIRPERSON: On who? Who did they influence?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: The traditional leaders were chosen and they were under the then okay central government.
CHAIRPERSON: So you say they were involved with each other with the then Pretoria Government, to prevent a reincorporation?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Now we're getting somewhere. Now how did you people reason that by getting rid of the witches, that you route to Pretoria would be made easier?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Actually we wanted that as all those activities were taking place, it will be in the onus of those central government people that this independent homeland was ungovernable. Therefore ...
CHAIRPERSON: I see. Do I understand you correctly, that the powers that be in Venda at the time could only govern effectively with the assistance of the witches?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, that was - not that they will govern well with the assistance of the witches, but they themselves, the people who were practising witchcraft were having links with these people who were leading.
CHAIRPERSON: Ja. Could they - now getting rid of them, as I understand your argument, would make the country ungovernable, getting rid of the witches?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Were these witches important for the government at the time in Venda to control Venda?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well that is why I'm trying to indicate that these people who were alleged to be witches and who were involved in ritual murders, were linked with each other. That is why we would be able to say those who were involved in witchcraft were also traditional leaders and they were the ones who were leading in those days.
CHAIRPERSON: Was their relationship or their linkage important for controlling Venda and its people?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, there was that link.
CHAIRPERSON: As the Pretoria regime wanted at the time?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Sorry, could you just repeat the question.
CHAIRPERSON: As the Pretoria regime of the time wanted, or required?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Are you talking about wanting witches, or witchcraft practising?
CHAIRPERSON: Wanting the control of Venda, the status quo to remain.
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes.
ADV DE JAGER: Your traditional leader was your headman, wasn't it? Your chief.
MR NEMAKHAVANI: He was a man.
ADV DE JAGER: So Adam was your traditional leader in your village, is that correct?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, it is.
ADV DE JAGER: He wasn't involved with witches?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well I'm not too sure about that.
ADV DE JAGER: But he gave them the trek pass.
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: So if there was a relationship between them in controlling the government as the Nationalist Government of Pretoria wanted, why would he give the trek pass?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: The situation in those days, when we were telling that they should evict those people they understood it to have been the fact that people had to do what was expected of them from the people.
CHAIRPERSON: I see.
MR NDOU: Is there anything else that you want to add?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: No.
MR NDOU: That is all.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
This youth congress that you referred to, who was the chairman of that?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well I can't remember exactly how we appointed the leaders in the youth congress.
CHAIRPERSON: We don't ask how you did it, we ask who?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: The chairperson was - that is why I'm saying I've forgotten. Maybe I should consult and find out exactly who the chairperson was, because I didn't expect this line of questioning regarding the members of the committee.
ADV DE JAGER: But he was your leader. Who was your leader at that stage? Because I would presume that the leader would be the chairperson.
MR NEMAKHAVANI: It is true.
ADV DE JAGER: Now who was the leader? Can't you remember?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well that is what I am saying, I have forgotten the composition of the leadership in the Committee.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Was it one of the person now making application for amnesty, or can't you remember that either?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: It's not one of the applicants.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Someone else.
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Mm.
MR VAN RENSBURG: So can you - what was the name of this youth congress, this organisation that you belonged to?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Mabunga Youth Congress.
MR VAN RENSBURG: And on which date were you elected as a Marshall of this congress?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: I can't remember the date really.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg, your instructions are to dispute the existence of this youth congress?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, indeed, Mr Chairman. Thank you.
You can't remember the date. Was it before or after Mr Nelson Mandela was released from prison?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: It was after the release of Mr Mandela.
MR VAN RENSBURG: And where was this meeting held that formed this youth congress?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: In the primary, which was in our vicinity, or in our area.
CHAIRPERSON: Primary what?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Mabunga(?) Primary School.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Did you - what were your links with the ANC, this youth congress' links with the ANC?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: It was - well we didn't really have that direct link with the national ANC, we were not really fully fledged members of the ANC.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Let me put it to you this way, you had no links with the ANC.
MR NEMAKHAVANI: In which way?
MR VAN RENSBURG: The congress, the Mabunga Youth Congress had no links with the ANC, no formal links with the ANC.
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, it is true.
CHAIRPERSON: Was it an alliance and therefore no formal links?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: When we formed the Youth Congress, the main aim was to have a - when the congress was formed the main aim that was that it will be integrated in the ANC structure.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you remember the organisation called the South African Youth Congress, SAYCO?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: No, I don't know that.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Did you have any links with any other political organisation?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well the link that I had was that of the other youth congresses in other regions or other countries.
MR VAN RENSBURG: For instance?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: For instance, if there was another country in which we were invited to have the formation of the youth congress.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, give us the names of those youth congresses that you had links, or alliance with.
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Matanda Youth Congress. M-A-T-A-N-D-A Youth Congress.
MR VAN RENSBURG: And were you democratically yourself, you were democratically elected as a Marshall. So the people took a vote to appoint you to that position?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: When I was appointed I was an additional member who, I mean to those who were democratically elected. That is why I was merely an assistant.
ADV DE JAGER: So you yourself weren't elected, you were sort of coopted as an additional member?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: I was an assistant just like advice, by the people who were already in the Committee. Sort of yes, coopted.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes. I put it to you that in your evidence-in-chief you specifically testified that you were elected to be an assistant or a marshal.
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well I'm trying to demonstrate that I was coopted by those people who were already members.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Man, were you elected or appointed? It's an easy question.
CHAIRPERSON: He's just saying that he was coopted. Cooption is not elected or appointed.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you, I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr Chairperson.
MR NDOU: If I may add, the word ...(Venda) in Venda means both appointment and election. So it's the same word.
MR VAN RENSBURG: I will proceed, thank you.
Which of the other members who are now making amnesty applications with you, were also on that forum?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well I can give you the name of Mr Muladi.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Pardon? Can you spell that for me, or just repeat his name.
MR NEMAKHAVANI: M-U-L-A-D-I, Abel.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Anyone else?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: M-A-K-A-T-U, Johannes.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Andrew.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Andrew who?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: M-A-I-V-H-A, Andrew ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: He's not an applicant here. Those who you have been previously dealt with.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes. My question is, you must give us the names of the applicants before this Commission, who were members of that Committee.
ADV DE JAGER: Could you perhaps assist, Mr Ndou, you've got an index there.
MR NDOU: Pardon?
ADV DE JAGER: Could you perhaps assist us, you've got an index there.
MR NDOU: Yes.
ADV DE JAGER: Could the applicant perhaps have a look at the index and tell us whether any of those people mentioned there were committee members or forum members, or on the executive or something in this youth congress.
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well I could not follow your question. Therefore I want to submit that among the people who are applying, one person whom I remember is Abel Muladi.
INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.
ADV DE JAGER: That's number 1 on the list.
CHAIRPERSON: Let's look at it this way. Abel Muladi, was he a member of the executive?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: I think yes, he was one of us.
CHAIRPERSON: Ja. Mudahu(?)
MR NEMAKHAVANI: No.
CHAIRPERSON: Ramasitisi RK? I don't know what's the RK.
MR NEMAKHAVANI: No.
CHAIRPERSON: Masithulelea J?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: No.
CHAIRPERSON: Muhadi?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: No.
CHAIRPERSON: Rerani?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: No.
CHAIRPERSON: de Villiers? - Sihoma(?), was he a member of the executive?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Ja, he was also a marshal.
CHAIRPERSON: We're asking if he was a member of the executive.
MR NEMAKHAVANI: No.
CHAIRPERSON: Ragwala?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: No.
CHAIRPERSON: Johanna Mopane Matheba - no, no, sorry. So we've done all. So the only person of the applicants who was a member of the executive is Muladi?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, he was with me.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
And yourself, you were also a member of the executive, coopted as a member.
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, like I indicated before.
CHAIRPERSON: The previous witness wasn't a member of the executive, the previous applicant? You say Ramasitsi.
MR NEMAKHAVANI: No.
MR VAN RENSBURG: I must say, I find this strange that you can name the members of the applicants who were on the executive, but you can't remember the name of the chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: No that's not absolutely correct, Mr van Rensburg. What has happened here, I've gone through the names of the applicants and he could say whether they were on the executive or not. It's quite different from trying to ask a person to try to remember who else was there. I'm suggesting names to him, I'm giving him names, he's saying look, now that you mention that name, he wasn't or he was. But to ask him independently to try to remember is another matter.
MR VAN RENSBURG: I can accept that, thank you, Mr Chairman.
And the chairman of this Mabunga Youth Congress, can you perhaps remember if he took part in the murder and the arson and the actions that took place on the 6th of April?
CHAIRPERSON: Who is that?
MR VAN RENSBURG: The chairman of this Mahvunga Youth Congress.
Can you remember if he took part in those actions?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: No.
CHAIRPERSON: I don't know how fair it is because he doesn't remember who the chairman was.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I can accept if he says he cannot remember. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
The previous witness, I got the impression, gave testimony to the effect that this organisation of yours was not fully formed yet, it was in the process of being formed. What do you say to that?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well, that's true, it was not fully formed.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Was it ever formed at a later stage, as a formal organisation, perhaps after the occurrence of the 6th of April?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well I do have a problem here, that after the even what happened was that we were later arrested and when we were released on bail we were not really actively involved in what took place before.
MR VAN RENSBURG: If I can refer you to paragraph 7(a) and 7(b) of your application. 7(a) you were requested to state the following
"If you are/were an official/office bearer/member/supporter of any political organisation/institution/body or liberation movements, state the name thereof."
And there you stated:
"ANC."
And also further, at (b), you were requested:
"State capacity in which you served in the organisation/institution/body or liberation movement concerned. If applicable, and member number if any."
And there you stated:
"Supporter."
Now what I'd like to know from you is, why didn't you state there that you were actually an office bearer of this Mabunga Youth Congress.
CHAIRPERSON: A youth congress is not necessarily a political organisation.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Mr Chairman, with all due respect, I think I got the other impression, but I will clear it up in cross-examination.
CHAIRPERSON: Well, ja, please do.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Well let's get to that first, Mabunga Youth Congress, what was the aim of this association or this organisation?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: The youth congress had a main objective, that when were affiliating under the ANC ...
MR VAN RENSBURG: So were you an organisation with political motives?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, it is true.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Were you a political organisation?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: It was not fully fledged as an organisation, political organisation.
MR VAN RENSBURG: But surely it was a body was it not, it was an organised body?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Are you referring to the congress, or to ...
MR VAN RENSBURG: The congress.
MR NEMAKHAVANI: I'm trying to demonstrate that it was formed so that it will affiliate under ANC, so that it should not be an independent body which didn't have a link with the ANC.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes. The question is simple. Why didn't you write down - in those circumstances, having formed a body with political objectives to be associated or registered or aligned with the ANC, why didn't you write in your application that you were a member of such? In fact an office bearer of such an organisation.
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well I knew that I was under the organisation which was affiliating under the ANC. That is why I talk about ANC specifically.
MR VAN RENSBURG: No, Sir ...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: What standard did you reach at school?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: I passed standard 10, I reached standard 10.
ADV DE JAGER: Before this incident?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: No.
ADV DE JAGER: Okay, what standard did you reach in 1990?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: I was in standard 9.
ADV DE JAGER: Nine. This form, whose handwriting is it? Could you have a look perhaps. Could you assist him, Mr Ndou? Page 120, your name, who wrote that?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: I wrote it myself.
ADV DE JAGER: Now murder, arson and assault GBH, who wrote that?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: What happened is that as we were filling in these forms ...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: No, it's no - because it's a different handwriting here. I don't want to trick you, I only want to know who wrote it. Another person?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well I think it's another person, one of the people who were there when we were filling in.
ADV DE JAGER: Yes. And the same on page 121? The part, paragraph 10, that's also another person?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes.
ADV DE JAGER: And the form on page 123, who completed that one?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well I'm the one who wrote that, except on 11.
ADV DE JAGER: I see. Thank you.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
So surely before you signed the form on the bottom there, you have read through it to see what the other person has written down there?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes.
MR VAN RENSBURG: And you agreed with that?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, I do.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Now the question remains, why didn't you insist that there also be written that you were a member of this youth congress, in fact an office bearer thereof?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well I might have been a little confused by the language.
MR VAN RENSBURG: I put it to you that because not one of the applicants referred to the existence of such a youth congress, and because of the fact that you cannot now remember the name of such an important figure as the leader thereof, that it in fact did not exist as a youth congress, or as an organising body.
MR NEMAKHAVANI: It existed.
ADV DE JAGER: Page 124, where did that originate from and when?
MS PATEL: Honourable Chairperson, these were attached to the application forms. If you see page 123, it says ...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: Yes, I see it, but on reading it, who typed it ...(intervention)
MS PATEL: No, these came in with the forms, Honourable Chairperson. I believe the applicants would be best in a position to give us the source of the document.
ADV DE JAGER: Thanks. Could you assist us please, page 124. It's referred to on the previous page as
"See Annexure A"
And that was not your present application, it was the indemnity application. Who completed that, or who typed it for you?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: It was Mr Abraham Ruruli(?).
ADV DE JAGER: Did you read it before it was sent?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: I know the contents.
ADV DE JAGER: Do you agree with that?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, I do.
ADV DE JAGER: Could you then perhaps explain to me the third paragraph
"Unfortunately many youths didn't celebrate in an organised manner (that was about the release of President Mandela), they seized the opportunity to deal with the so-called witches. These youths ran around the villages burning the old men and women and also burning down their huts and houses. What was peculiar about the whole incident was that the youth in he process of burning, were singing and chanting songs and slogans of the African National Congress."
Now if you agree with this, how could the killing of the witches then be related to any political objective?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Because in whatever manner we were doing in our activities, it was in a logical political manner, like in the singing and the chanting of political freedom songs, ANC and the like.
INTERPRETER: Sorry for interrupting.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I continue.
Let's move on a little bit now to the ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) whether the youth congress existed or not?
MR VAN RENSBURG: I think I have finished by making that statement that in fact he it not exist.
CHAIRPERSON: Alright.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you.
Let's move on a little bit now to the time when the list of witches were informed that they have to evict the area and the deceased refused to leave. You said that the chief's car was actually used to inform those people of the decision of the chief, namely that they should leave, and that includes the deceased, is that correct?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well I said it was used to go and call those people to come to the chief's kraal.
MR VAN RENSBURG: I see. Now were all these people on the list assembled in the chief's kraal, including the deceased?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Not all of them.
MR VAN RENSBURG: But the deceased, he was there?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Did the chief at any stage hand to the deceased a written notice that he must evict the area?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes.
MR VAN RENSBURG: You saw that?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, I was there, I saw that.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Did you see that paper?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well I didn't really hold that in my hand, but I saw it because I was there.
MR VAN RENSBURG: And you accepted that to be the trek pass, is that correct?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, Sir.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Now was there - and you can tell us if you don't know this, was there cut-off date given to the deceased to leave?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: There was no cut-off date. It was only saying immediately. It was still early in the morning.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Now is it not so then that in the traditional way, the only reason when a chief can actually issue a "trek pass" for a person to move immediately, without an extension, without giving him time, the only instance when he should move immediately is when that person is accused as a witch? Do you agree with that statement?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well could you just repeat the statement.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay, I'll make it simpler. According to you own knowledge, is it not so that a person will an immediate trek pass, only in one instance, and that is when he was pointed as a witch?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Just have a direct and straight question. I'm a little confused in the manner in which you are putting ...
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, alright, just hold on now. Wait and listen then. What is being put to you is that the "trek pass" will be issued with immediate effect only when someone is accused of being a witch. In all other instances when a "trek pass" is issued it doesn't have force with immediate effect?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Mr Petrus Mahvunga, the deceased' brother, was he also at that meeting?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: I can't remember - no, he wasn't in the meeting.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Are you saying ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: You said there were three females and the deceased.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you, I missed that. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Was it at this meeting - let's skip that. You say that even after the meeting the deceased continued to intimidate the people, is that so?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, it is true.
MR VAN RENSBURG: How did the accused or the deceased continue to intimidate the people?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well there were several incidents which took place in my absence and I heard about it thereafter. Especially the assault in the mountain. I wasn't there. Like when people went to different individual villages of family members, I wasn't there. When they were threatened with arson, well they couldn't
come to my place, they went to other people's places.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay. Let me ask you this, did you yourself witness any intimidation by the deceased on any member of the community, after that paper was served on him, as you testified?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well what I can recall and what I witnessed is on a particular day when the deceased was indicating that he will chop the youth who were in one meeting in the chief's crawl, there was arson on Petrus Mahvunga's place. That is what I witnessed and that is where he threatened people, intimidated.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, if I understand you correctly, he threatened to do something to the people who had burnt or attacked his kraal, is that correct?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, it is true.
MR VAN RENSBURG: And you saw that as intimidation?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, in the manner in which he was saying it.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay. You testified that the witches that had to be removed was one of the obstacles that oppressed you at the time. Can I ask you, what other obstacles are you referring to if you say the witches were only one of them?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well something as well I can demonstrate are the ritual murder cases.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, and apart from the ritual murders and the witches, witches' actions, anything else?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Those were the main ones, and these were the mere, major obstacles in our case.
MR VAN RENSBURG: So if I put that in another way, if the witches were removed and the ritual killings stopped, that would have gone a long way towards removing the oppression against yourself?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, I believe so.
MR VAN RENSBURG: You have heard the testimony of the professor who gave evidence yesterday, and he was of the opinion that at the time it was a popular belief that the chiefs were supporting the witches and therefore there was a political link between the witches and the chiefs, because the chiefs were part of the establishment. Did you hear that?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, I heard that.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay, now the question is, do you agree that that statement is not applicable in this specific circumstance, because the chief actually did everything in his power to expel the witches and to oppose them?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well he did that because of the prevailing situation.
MR VAN RENSBURG: You can just agree or disagree with my statement. The statement is, the chief opposed the witches.
CHAIRPERSON: No, that was not his evidence. He said he agreed with requests and therefore issued the trek passes, as was the practice, that he had to what the people wanted. That's how I understand his evidence.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I will rephrase that question.
Did you expect the chief to do anything else against the witches, something that he did not do?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Could you repeat the question.
MR VAN RENSBURG: My question is, at the time, before the deceased was killed, did you expect the chief to do something about this problem with the witches, which he did not do?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: No.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I've got no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN RENSBURG
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.
Sir, just for clarity's sake, can you - I'm trying to understand your link between the role of the witches, their connection to the chiefs and that link with Pretoria and how that was political in your view. But to bring it back to the facts of this case, we've heard the previous witness say that the deceased didn't even know who Mandela was, that it had to be explained to him, that he didn't have any political understanding. So can you explain to us how the deceased, how Mr Mahvunga had assisted or played a role in maintaining the structures in Venda, the political structures in Venda and thereby oppressed you and the community.
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well what I can say is that the deceased was involved in obstructing the activities. It was when he obstructed the progress as far as political activities were concerned in those days.
MS PATEL: Alright. And then, the previous applicant had said to us that the allegation about Mr Mahvunga being a wizard, only arose after there was intimidation from him regarding your political activity. My understanding of your testimony is that it is in fact the opposite, that the allegation of Mr Mahvunga being a wizard had arisen prior to him interfering in your political activity. Would you like to comment?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Demonstrating that the allegations started in a specific period?
MS PATEL: Yes.
MR NEMAKHAVANI: The allegations Mr Mahvunga, on his witch activities, well we grew up knowing that it was being indicated, especially from those people who knew, the elderly people, they gave examples which really concretises the issue.
MS PATEL: Was this common knowledge, was it discussed at the meetings that were held with members of the youth congress and the community at large?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, I'm trying to demonstrate that it was known that as it was being discussed, especially when it was necessary, just to make sure that the evidence was really concrete.
MS PATEL: And then just - you say you weren't at the meeting on the mountain where people were assaulted, where the girls were assaulted, is that correct?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, I wasn't in the meeting.
MS PATEL: Okay. Can you tell us - just to move to the events on the 6th of April, how many people do you estimate from the community were present there, at the home of Mr Mahvunga?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Those people were many, maybe around 2 000. Because as far as I understand, some neighbouring community people were there.
MS PATEL: Would you estimate it at 1 000, 2 000 or a couple of hundred people? How many would you estimate it at being?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Around approximately 2 000.
MS PATEL: Okay.
ADV DE JAGER: Would you say all the people staying in the village attended this meeting, or were there some people staying at home?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well, one could not judge and indicate that some people were at home.
ADV DE JAGER: It really doesn't help me, but okay.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel, have you still got a long time to go?
MS PATEL: No, no, I won't be much longer. Thank you, Honourable Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, then we can continue.
MS PATEL: Okay, thank you.
Then just the question of the petrol being taken to the home of Mr Mahvunga, this petrol was bought and you collected the money for it, not so?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: I was one of those people who collected the money.
MS PATEL: Okay. And do you know which petrol station the petrol was bought from and how far is this petrol station?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: I know where it was bought.
MS PATEL: Okay. How far is this petrol station from the house of Mr Mahvunga?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Do you mean in terms of kilometres?
MS PATEL: Yes. Or how long would it take to walk there?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Not more than 25 minutes, to and fro.
MS PATEL: Do you have any idea at what stage that decision was taken to get the petrol? Who made the decision?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: You mean the decision on buying the petrol?
MS PATEL: Yes.
MR NEMAKHAVANI: It was done there and then, immediately.
MS PATEL: No, but you were there for some four or five hours, so at what stage during that period? Or was the petrol taken with, on the way to the house of the deceased?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Well that was after we had gone into the house, or around the house.
MS PATEL: After you had gained access into the house?
MR NEMAKHAVANI: Yes, yes.
MS PATEL: Alright. Thank you, Honourable Chairperson, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou, have you got any questions?
MR NDOU: I do not wish to add anything, Mr Chairman.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR NDOU
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you're excused. We'll adjourn for lunch till about half past one.
WITNESS EXCUSED
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
