CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mulaudzi, what language would you prefer to use?
MR MULAUDZI: Venda.
JOSIAS MULAUDZI: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR NDOU: Thank you Honourable Chairman. Mr Mulaudzi, you are an applicant in this matter, in which you are applying for amnesty in respect of a certain incident that occurred at Mufunzi and you have filed an affidavit with the Committee, which appears on pages 16(a) right up to 16(g), is that correct?
MR MULAUDZI: Yes, it is correct.
MR NDOU: Do you confirm the contents of this affidavit?
MR MULAUDZI: Yes, I confirm.
MR NDOU: That is all Honourable Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NDOU
CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Can you please tell us how old you are, Mr Mulaudzi?
MR MULAUDZI: I am 41 years old.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, how old were you on the 21st of March 1990?
MR MULAUDZI: I was 31 years old.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Were you a member of this Youth Congress?
MR MULAUDZI: Yes, after they explained to me, then I decided to join them at the same time, when this incident happened.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Are you saying that before this incident you were not a member of this Youth Congress?
MR MULAUDZI: I used to hear about it, but personally I was not its member.
MR VAN RENSBURG: What did you hear about it?
MR MULAUDZI: I heard about it on that day when I was coming back from work at Hammanskraal, on my arrival, as I was walking I went to a certain homestead of Ramashila and then I heard Joseph, it is Joseph who informed me that they were going to hold a meeting. At that meeting they are going to deal with people who practised witchcraft.
In questioning what was wrong with witchcraft, they said witches are giving powers to these people who are leading this government. It is then that I agree with what they are saying because I was also aware that many things, there are obstacles here in Venda and when we tried to settle matters in the central government, they referred us back to Venda. As such we realised that Venda was blocking us or preventing us from reaching our aims.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes. So the situation is on the date when the deceased was killed, on that very day, you returned back to Venda and you heard all these things, is that correct?
MR MULAUDZI: Yes, it is that day.
MR VAN RENSBURG: So you had no part in this political struggle that the Youth Congress had before that specific day, the meeting or the match that they had to the headman's kraal and all those things, you didn't even know about that?
MR MULAUDZI: When many things happened, by then I was already a married man working for my family. I have already indicated that I joined them and I agreed to their objectives the very same day, and joined them because I accepted what they were saying on the very same day, on my arrival from where I was coming from.
MR VAN RENSBURG: You see I've got a problem with that, because all the other witnesses that came before you, indicated to this hearing that it was a political thing, the youth were organising themselves because of certain reasons and there was evidence that the youth were actually called from their houses to attend this meeting. Do you confirm that or are you saying that all the people from the community, even older people as old as you, could attend that meeting?
MR MULAUDZI: What I can say is that if you can look into, if you can review this thing, these people there were school children and they were used to doing those things together and as older people, we were unable to attend their meetings because they were youth. In the past youth were so very active since 1976 from the central government until now, till the time when the Venda youth were also used.
MR VAN RENSBURG: If that being the position, how did you manage to attend this specific meeting then?
MR MULAUDZI: What I have indicated is that on my arrival from work, coming back home, I only accidentally met these things.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg, are you going to put it to him that he was not at that meeting?
MR VAN RENSBURG: No, I am not going to put it to him, in fact it is my instructions that he was in fact present at that meeting.
CHAIRPERSON: Does it matter how he managed to get into the meeting, by accident or however else?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: The fact of the matter is he went to the meeting?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, except that obviously that contradicts the evidence of the other witnesses who testified that it was a Youth Congress meeting and that they were organising the youth for specific political objectives? I think that is a serious contradiction, Your Worship.
CHAIRPERSON: I think you better consider that, or reconsider that in the context. The idea of the Youth Congress was motivated by youth activities, on this particular day they met specifically to discuss the issue of the witches and its impact on the politics. It is possible, I am just suggesting, that that meeting was convened by the youth, but not necessarily for the youth only. I am not too sure, I am just suggesting to you as a possible explanation.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I accept that, but again I will at the end of the day argue that that is contrary to the evidence of the other witnesses. Thank you Mr Chairperson.
When was the first time that you heard of, or let me ask you this, have you ever heard of the Mufunzi Youth Congress?
MR MULAUDZI: I have already indicated that these people, the school children, when they meet, they do their own things, but I only heard about Mufunzi, that there is a Youth Congress that very same day, because they explained it to me, that very same day or at that very same time.
MR VAN RENSBURG: And who invited you to attend that meeting?
MR MULAUDZI: I have indicated that it was Joseph Ramatshila.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Were you aware of any marches by the youth or any meetings before that day?
MR MULAUDZI: What I know, I know about it happened before, there at Mufunzi, where the people went to the bone throwers because of the activities of the youth, so I still remember that people went to the chief's kraal, I still remember that many people were made to vacate that village. It is something that I still remember, that ...(indistinct) and others were made to leave the village and another person called Gaga. I think the whole country of ...(indistinct), there were the incidents where it was alleged that they were witches and then later, when those people had left the country, later I heard that there was a meeting which was held, but I didn't question about it further.
But I heard it by Sam Matala. I didn't question him further.
MR VAN RENSBURG: May I refer you to paragraph 14 of your affidavit, that is on page 16(c) Mr Chairperson. It reads as follows
"... Youth Congresses started to be formed in most of the villages. We at Ha-Mufunzi formed ours which was known as the Ha-Mufunzi Youth Congress and a serious ...(indistinct) programme was embarked upon with the assistance of the political organisations like the United Democratic Front."
Isn't that contrary to what you have just testified?
MR MULAUDZI: No, that doesn't contradict because I have agreed that I joined this thing the very same day. Maybe I failed to put it clearly for my advisor here to write this clearly. On that day, it is the very same day that I started to join those people and then I was then following them.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Mr Mulaudzi, from that paragraph it is clear that you were present when this Youth Congress was formed, it is what it says there in that paragraph?
MR MULAUDZI: You mean when it started?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.
MR MULAUDZI: No.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg, I don't want to stop you, I just want to get clarity here. Maybe there is perhaps an embarrassing reason for that, but I just want to check it with the witness.
Mr Mulaudzi, whether or not you are going to embarrass your representative or not, it is besides the point. It is in your interest to explain certain things to us, because we've got to make a decision on your evidence. Do you understand that?
MR MULAUDZI: Yes, I understand that.
CHAIRPERSON: We notice in all of these affidavits which have been submitted on all the applicants', including you, behalf, are very similar, factually and in format with really specific activities differing. Do you understand that?
MR MULAUDZI: May you please repeat that question.
CHAIRPERSON: The way these affidavits have been set out, in many aspects the contents is the same in respect of all three affidavits, the differences being specific activities on the part of each applicant.
MR MULAUDZI: Yes, it is true.
CHAIRPERSON: Even the paragraph numbering, do you understand that?
MR MULAUDZI: Yes, I understand that.
CHAIRPERSON: And nonetheless I signed it, probably when your representative produced it to you? This particular paragraph, 13, is common in the case of all three affidavits, do you understand that?
MR MULAUDZI: Yes, I understand.
CHAIRPERSON: Is it not possible that this particular affidavit was a similar one that was on the computer or in memory of some mechanism of your representative and only the actual activities with which you associate yourself, changed on your affidavit? Isn't that so?
MR MULAUDZI: I think here in my affidavit, another thing which I think you should know is that myself, I am not learned and sometimes when I read it, I don't think I could easily understand it.
CHAIRPERSON: Look here, I am not trying to trap you, I am trying to help you. You are now confronted with a specific paragraph that cannot be true on your own version, do you understand that? I am trying to find out from you whether that paragraph is a mistake in your affidavit.
Mr Ndou, I don't think it should be publicly seen that you people are talking to the witness who is under cross-examination.
MR NDOU: I am not talking to him, he was asking me which paragraph you were referring to, I said you were referring to paragraph 14.
CHAIRPERSON: ... paragraph 13.
ADV SIGODI: 14.
CHAIRPERSON: 14, is it. Any way, there is a common paragraph which is misplaced in the context of your evidence, that appears in your written affidavit. Do you understand that.
On what you tell us now, that paragraph does not belong there in your affidavit. I am suggesting that it is not your fault, but is it possible that your affidavit with only necessary changes was produced to you because it was in some memory mechanism of your Attorney and that is how it finds itself in your affidavit?
MR MULAUDZI: I could agree with you there, because that issue is true what happened in that way, but I would like to, this Committee to ask me or to find what I did so that I can explain, so that the Committee could see as to whether this is in line with what I have said what I have done. That is what maybe the Committee could see.
JUDGE DE JAGER: What did you do on the scene, there at the house, what did you do, what was your function there?
MR MULAUDZI: In the house there, we arrived with Jerry having a petrol bucket and they were unable to open the house. I arrived, then I opened the bucket and then Jerry Mushasha poured the petrol. In pouring the petrol, I retreated and then the deceased remained, stood there in a position similar, maybe next to that table which I am pointing. Before, if we can talk about petrol, I started by sjamboking her. I sjambocked her and in sjamboking her, I said "you will no longer bewitch people".
JUDGE DE JAGER: How did it come that you had a sjambock with you?
MR MULAUDZI: I took that sjambock from Thomas Mudau by force, who was a youth and he was holding it. He was leading people using it, and then I took it from his hand and then I assaulted the deceased by the sjambock, telling her that she will no longer practise witchcraft. Then I opened the petrol and poured it. When the petrol was poured, I went back and stood with another group, and - but at least I was a little bit in front.
What I would like to tell the honest truth is that there is a problem with fire, which the Committee is really wanting to know. I want to say that maybe the Committee might think that the people who are giving evidence, are trying to be stubborn, but when I speak on this incident, Norman whose hand was burnt, maybe he didn't me, because it was dark. It stood next to Norman. As I was standing there, I saw somebody pouring petrol and then I jumped back and then the petrol touched Norman. As we were standing, the fire didn't come from in front of us, what happened is it took a long time, the petrol sprinkled all over the lapa, but when the match was lit, I believe that the person who lit that match, he should have put the stick of the match on the box and lit it. It might have happened from behind us, because in the front, we didn't see that, it should have happened from behind. But what happened, is that something like a bomb happened. A sound like "bguh" happened and some people lay down and then we were running. Some of us were running and any person who was there, feeling like each and every person was burning, because petrol was all over. Then when the petrol was lit, something like a bomb exploded and then we ran away.
Because I was holding a sjambock, it is then that I blocked the people. We were told that the person was not dead, then I blocked the people by using the sjambock. There is another person which I struck by that sjambock, but I cannot remember the person I sjambocked. Then I asked, I forced them to go back to the house. When I entered there, I was from the gate and then I remained there at the gate.
I only managed to see Elvis Makhumbele, he is the person who I saw, because I was from behind, I saw him picking the tyre again. From there, then we dispersed because there was lights of the car and there Police there and soldiers. Then when we dispersed all the youth ran to the bushes and then I went home and slept.
Together with the soldiers, when they arrived, they found me at home. They passed me because I was old.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr van Rensburg, could you continue with your ...
MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairperson. We are still on your statement and I want you to show me where in your statement did you disclose to the hearing that you were actually the person who sjambocked others when they wanted to flee from the meeting.
CHAIRPERSON: How relevant is that to the application, Mr van Rensburg? The application is in respect of a killing of a particular person? That he committed an offence in assaulting other people, is hardly relevant. I don't know if one expects it to be mentioned in this application.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Mr Chairman, I don't want to enter into an argument, but surely if we talk about that all these people were actually having a common purpose, in that sense, they were all actually falling under the legal ambit of murdering that person, but I would suggest that we do have to look at the seriousness of each specific individual's participation in this.
CHAIRPERSON: No, I don't know if I misunderstand it, or if both of us are misunderstanding it. His evidence now is that other than the deceased, he assaulted other people?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that is in fact so.
CHAIRPERSON: I question the relevance of the details of the assault on these other people.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, perhaps I can also motivate the relevance of my question. Will you bear in mind that the motive for this person to be present and for putting the name on the list and for actually helping to pouring the petrol, was that he wanted to murder this specific person, not for political motives, and that specific fact, that he sjambocked the other people, also strengthens that other contention. Thank you Mr Chairperson.
Okay, if I can continue with my question then. Not to waste time, you agree that in your statement, that is pages 16(a) to 16(g) this mentioning of this sjamboking of the other people on the scene of the crime, was not mentioned, do you agree?
MR MULAUDZI: Sjamboking people, we didn't sjambock them in the meeting. We were in the house when I sjambocked those people.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I previously used the word meeting in the wrong context, it was actually on the scene of the murder. You sjambocked some of the people, do you agree that that was never mentioned before?
MR MULAUDZI: Yes.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay. Now the question is simple, why did you sjambock those people who had the same common idea as yourself, namely to murder the deceased?
MR MULAUDZI: Because the people that I sjambocked, they were not prepared to go back to the house, there were too many people inside there and those, the one I sjambocked was behind and they simply was not prepared to go back to the house or homestead.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay, let me ask you this, previously there was evidence that the deceased held a specific position in the church and I think it is common purpose at this stage that the person occupying that position before the deceased, was a Mulaudzi. I want you to tell this hearing what was the relation between that Mulaudzi and yourself?
MR MULAUDZI: If by Mulaudzi, you are referring to Bishop Mulaudzi, he is my father.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes. And the woman occupying the deceased's position before, would therefore be your mother, is that correct?
MR MULAUDZI: Yes, while my father was still alive, the position was held by my mother.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Hm.
MR MULAUDZI: So when my father passed away ...
MR VAN RENSBURG: Do you agree that at the stage when the deceased occupied that position in the church, your mother was still alive and living in that specific area?
MR MULAUDZI: My mother is still alive.
INTERPRETER: Maybe he didn't understand your question, may you please repeat your question.
MR VAN RENSBURG: I will repeat the question. At the time when the deceased was killed, the applicant's mother was still living in that area?
INTERPRETER: Sorry, there was a cut-off there with your microphone, can you just repeat.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, at the time of the deceased's killing, the deceased, or the applicant's mother was still living in that specific area?
MR MULAUDZI: It is not clear.
INTERPRETER: The question is not clear to him.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Let me ask you this, at the time when the deceased was killed, where did your mother live?
MR MULAUDZI: She was staying there at Ha-Mufunzi.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes. And do you agree that there was a kind of strife between your mother and the deceased at the time?
MR MULAUDZI: That I don't know because I haven't seen that before. Those people who were there, older people and I was not a church-goer, then I will not know those things.
MR VAN RENSBURG: The deceased and her husband lived in a big house at the time, is it correct?
MR MULAUDZI: The deceased, you are referring to the deceased? That was not the only big house, even at my home, we are having a big house.
MR VAN RENSBURG: That is not the question, the question is where they living in a big house?
MR MULAUDZI: Yes, it is true. But not saying it was the only big house.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes. Was this mention of a big house, was there any mention made of a big house during the meeting?
MR MULAUDZI: I feel my heart painful, but I am happy that we are now having the TRC, but what you are asking me, I am not worried about it. What I can say, or to tell the honest truth is that maybe the victims looking into it, they think maybe there were some envies between the people, or the State witnesses, maybe in court did advise their legal advisors to say so, that maybe it was the envy between those people regarding the church or any other thing.
We never mentioned of issues relating to the church and the person who organised all those things, the people who organised the meeting was the school children, we don't know about those things. But when you said about that, I am feeling afraid, I don't know what to answer, but I am happy that the TRC is here and it has helped me. I am relieved as long as the truth will be disclosed.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes, we would be happy if you simply answer the questions so that we can carry on with the case.
MR VAN RENSBURG: The question is simple was there mention made of the big house at the meeting?
CHAIRPERSON: He said no.
MR MULAUDZI: No.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay. Can you recall or can you remember that at the criminal hearing it was actually found by the Judge that you made mention of the big house, referring to the deceased's house on that specific meeting, can you remember that?
MR MULAUDZI: The truth I can say as the others have already indicated, there is a sermon which I would like to say.
INTERPRETER: If you can understand this, he is saying one person can try to clean himself using another person, when things are difficult.
CHAIRPERSON: Look here, we don't want to hear sermons, you have been tending to do so now for the last couple of minutes. What the Attorney is getting at is your participation in this murder was not motivated by any political consideration, but rather by jealousy as a result of your mother being in that position as far as the community was concerned, before. And that your participation in this whole affair had nothing to do with the youth's attitude towards politics, but rather a personal issue? What do you say about that?
MR MULAUDZI: I am asking that you ask the question now again.
CHAIRPERSON: Why? What didn't you understand?
MR MULAUDZI: It is because I realised that you were advising me that what we did is a crime of a personal matter, so if you ask me on that, then I will see what I can answer.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, it has nothing to do with politics, it was a personal matter, a private matter?
MR MULAUDZI: That is not true.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Yes, I've just got a few statements to still put to this witness, Mr Chairperson. At the criminal trial, a certain witness, Mr Joseph Ramatshila testified that you were the one at the meeting who suggested that the deceased should be burnt, what do you say about that?
MR MULAUDZI: That is not true, I didn't say that.
MR VAN RENSBURG: At this criminal trial and after the evidence was led, you decided not to give evidence, can you perhaps tell this hearing why you elected not to answer to these serious allegations?
MR MULAUDZI: The Committee will forgive me, it was said that the case was to be closed. You will understand that we are people who are from a typical rural areas and we know nothing legally. By then, our lawyer advised us to do that and then if a lawyer can say this, then we just follow it since we are respecting our respective legal representatives.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Did you know at the time of the killing, that there was a rumour going around that the deceased and her husband were taking the church away from the Mulaudzi's?
MR MULAUDZI: No. That is not true.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Is today the first time that you hear about something like that, that there was such a rumour at the time? The first time today?
CHAIRPERSON: Did you hear about it before today?
MR MULAUDZI: I first heard about it in court and now today it is for the second time.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes. And what do you say about that, was there any truth in that rumour, your personal opinion perhaps?
MR MULAUDZI: No, that is a green lie.
MR VAN RENSBURG: What is a lie?
MR MULAUDZI: It is not true, it is an untruth.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Do you agree that at the time of the criminal trial, there was evidence that you were the one spreading that rumour?
MR MULAUDZI: At court, we cannot dispute that because each and everyone was lying, because they were telling a lot of lies, thinking that they will be discharged.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes. The question is do you agree that that was evidence at the trial, that you spread that rumour, that was the question?
MR MULAUDZI: No, I never heard about it.
MR VAN RENSBURG: The last statement I want to make to you Mr Mulaudzi is that you were actually the one pouring the petrol on the deceased?
MR MULAUDZI: That is not true, what I know is that it was Jerry Mushasha who did that.
MR VAN RENSBURG: And finally I want to put it to you that the reason why you went and in fact forwarded the name of the deceased on this list of people that you know, that is about to be killed, is because of the fact that your mother felt threatened or hurt because of the position the deceased held in the community? That was the reason why she was killed?
MR MULAUDZI: That is not true.
MR VAN RENSBURG: I have no further questions, thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN RENSBURG
MR MAPOMA: I have no questions, Chairperson, thank you.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAPOMA
MR NDOU: No questions, Chairperson, thank you.
JUDGE DE JAGER: In paragraph 16 you state
"... one Jerry Mushasha said he would douse her with petrol, but someone volunteered to set her alight."
Who was this person who volunteered to set her alight?
MR MULAUDZI: As we were standing when those people approached with petrol, the person who agreed to pour the petrol is Jerry. The voice from the group is that who will use the matches, no one agreed, but they were simply saying "we will see what will happen there". It is not true that there is a person who volunteered to use the matches.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Now why do you state it in your own affidavit if it is not true? In paragraph 30 of your own affidavit?
MR MULAUDZI: I think ...
JUDGE DE JAGER: This wasn't on the computer? Can you explain why it was stated that somebody volunteered to set her alight, and now you are saying nobody volunteered?
MR MULAUDZI: I think the difference is that I said somebody volunteered to pour petrol, but this thing of a match box, no, in that meeting, no, it wasn't mentioned.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Read, you can read, can you?
MR MULAUDZI: No, I cannot read.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Can't you read?
MR MULAUDZI: I only passed standard 4.
JUDGE DE JAGER: So you cannot read at all?
MR MULAUDZI: If somebody could read it to me, then ...
JUDGE DE JAGER: I will read it to you
"... one Jerry Mushasha said that he would douse her with petrol but someone volunteered to set her alight."
MR MULAUDZI: No, there I ask the Committee that things could happen that this shall be a mistake, but now what I know, I know of Jerry Mushasha.
JUDGE DE JAGER: And in your statement you never mentioned that you sjambocked her? Why didn't you mention it? Sorry, you did mention it in paragraph 37, after you stated you all ran away, you didn't state it before. Sorry, I apologise for that. Thank you.
ADV SIGODI: At the time of the death of the deceased, what position was your mother holding in the church, was she holding any position in the church?
MR MULAUDZI: No, she was holding no position. I think if the Bishop took a position, then the wife of the Bishop should either be a "juffrou", my mother should automatically then be left out. She was nothing at all. Then everything of the church will go to the person who is appointed next.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You are excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED
MR NDOU: That is all, Honourable Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg, have you got any witnesses?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Mr Chairperson, I see that it is one o'clock now.
CHAIRPERSON: We have just been informed that we need to carry on, the provisions haven't arrived.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Oh, okay. May I then just have 30 seconds just to get final instructions on this point please Mr Chairperson. Thank you Mr Chairman, the situation is that the best witness for the victims in this specific circumstances, would have been the Bishop, that is the deceased's husband. I have been informed and it is my instructions that he is at this stage 90 years old, that he is a blinded old man and in that circumstances, I am not going to call any witness.
CHAIRPERSON: We can appreciate that. What I would like though, Mr van Rensburg is the name or names of victims. Are you able to give that to us now?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you for the opportunity Mr Chairperson, yes, at this stage the list of victims would include Mr Samuel Makulane which is the old person, which is not present today because of illness and old age, Samuel Makulane.
CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps we can cut this short, how many victims are you talking about?
MR VAN RENSBURG: We are talking about three witnesses, three victims.
CHAIRPERSON: Three victims. The husband and two children?
MR VAN RENSBURG: No, the husband, the deceased's daughter, which is present in court and also the deceased's sister which is also present in court.
CHAIRPERSON: The sister wouldn't qualify with the existence of a daughter and a husband.
MR VAN RENSBURG: I understand. In that circumstances, it is only two victims we are talking about.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, have you got an address for Samuel?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, it will be - would you be looking for a postal address or a residential address?
CHAIRPERSON: If necessary, we are going to have to declare these people as victims as defined, and then sent that to the Department dealing with Reparations.
MR VAN RENSBURG: I understand.
CHAIRPERSON: And they then would have to contact whoever we declare as victims, to sort out this. I am not too sure what they prefer.
MR VAN RENSBURG: In that circumstances I would suggest the postal address, I've got it available, it is P.O. Box 80, Elim Hospital, 0960.
CHAIRPERSON: Where is that?
MR VAN RENSBURG: I don't have a clue.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Elim is in the vicinity of Louis Trichardt.
CHAIRPERSON: So it is Elim Hospital, Elim?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that will be Elim yes, district Louis Trichard then.
CHAIRPERSON: What is the postal address there?
MR VAN RENSBURG: P.O. Box 80.
CHAIRPERSON: No, I mean the code, sorry?
MR VAN RENSBURG: The code is 0960. That will be the relevant address for both victims.
JUDGE DE JAGER: What is the daughter's name?
MR VAN RENSBURG: The daughter's name is - I've got so many papers, thank you for the opportunity, the daughter's full name will be Tshiwela - pardon Mr Chairman, I've got the relevant information eventually, the daughter's name is in fact Hilda, her full names I would rather spell it, Tshimangadzo, that is the first name, and then Hilda Makhuba.
CHAIRPERSON: How old is she, do you know?
MR VAN RENSBURG: The identity number is 1947.
CHAIRPERSON: 53?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Perhaps you can give us the identity number too.
MR VAN RENSBURG: The ID number is 470830 0018 08 6.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr van Rensburg. Mr Mapoma, have you got any witnesses?
MR MAPOMA: No Chairperson, no further witnesses.
CHAIRPERSON: That is it with the witnesses?
MR MAPOMA: Yes Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg, have you got anything to argue on this matter?
MR VAN RENSBURG IN ARGUMENT: Mr Chairman, I am not going to waste this hearing's time with a long argument.
My argument regarding all the accused, all the applicants will be that the reason why the deceased was killed, was in fact shown during cross-examination to be of a personal nature, and not of any political nature, that specifically Mr Mulaudzi did not meet the requirements regarding full disclosure and further than that, I am just going to leave it in the capable hands of the Chairperson and the Committee.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma, have you got any comments to make?
MR MAPOMA: None Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou, we don't need you to ...
MR NDOU: Thank you Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn till two o'clock.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
