CHAIRPERSON: Before we start today's proceedings, can we place on record that the membership of the Committee has changed and now consists of myself, Judge Wilson, Advocate Sigodi and Mr Lax.

Could the legal representatives put themselves on record please.

MR SAMUEL: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I appear for both the applicants. I am an attorney, S Samuel. I'm assisted in these proceedings by my request, by Mr Ndlovu from the offices of Mr de Klerk.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you, Chairperson. My name is Zuko Mapoma, the Evidence Leader.

CHAIRPERSON: What is going to happen now?

MR SAMUEL: Mr Chairman, we're ready to proceed with the ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Are you calling the first applicant?

MR SAMUEL: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: He appeared to indicate in an affidavit that he wished to withdraw his application and not to appear.

MR SAMUEL: That is correct, Mr Chairman, but that - what appears to be a contradiction in his position will be explained by him in his evidence.

MR LAX: Mr Ntanzi, do you have any objection to taking an oath?

N D NTANZI: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR SAMUEL: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, may I proceed?

Mr Ntanzi, you have made two affidavits to the TRC, which one do you stand by, the first affidavit or the second one?

MR NTANZI: The second one.

MR SAMUEL: For clarity are you saying that you, do you want amnesty, do you request amnesty from this Committee?

MR NTANZI: Yes, I seek amnesty.

MR SAMUEL: Now the first affidavit you made was the, was made on the 8th of April 1997 and in that one you requested amnesty ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Mr Samuel, just for the record, that is the actual application form which is attested by the applicant at the end of it? Just so we don't confuse ourselves. That's the actual application form, the affidavit is a separate document.

MR SAMUEL: Thank you for the guidance.

Do you stand by your initial application form, that you want you amnesty?

MR NTANZI: Yes, I do seek amnesty.

MR SAMUEL: Thank you, Mr Ntanzi. Will you explain to this Committee who the deceased was in the criminal trial that you faced, was he related to you?

MR NTANZI: He was my brother.

MR SAMUEL: Okay, when you say brother, do you mean blood brother?

MR NTANZI: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: Now what were the circumstances under which he was killed?

MR NTANZI: There was violence in 1993, there was fighting between the ANC and the IFP. Some unknown persons would visit my brother. I did not know where they came from. At that point IFP people were dying and I was puzzled at what was going on.

The people that I was with at Luthuli where we held our camp, we met and discussed about what we should do because there were people who were regular, be coming to my home. I expressed the opinion that there was nothing I could do or say but we would just discuss the issue.

It was discussed and decided that my brother should be attacked because IFP people were being killed and no-one knows who is responsible for that. Then we went to carry out the attack, it was myself, Nkosinati Ngwenya, and Mfana Neyao.

MR LAX: Can you just repeat those names for us please, we didn't catch them as you said them quite quickly and the translation wasn't that clear.

MR NTANZI: Vana Wenaywo, myself and Nkosinati Ngwenya.

MR SAMUEL: When you say Mr Nkosinati Ngwenya, who are you referring to?

MR NTANZI: The person who was my co-accused.

MR SAMUEL: And he's the second applicant in these proceedings?

MR SAMUEL: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: How many of you altogether went to your brother's house to carry out this attack?

MR NTANZI: There were three of us.

MR SAMUEL: Proceed.

CHAIRPERSON: When you say your brother's house, was this your family house?

MR NTANZI: Yes, it was.

MR SAMUEL: For some clarity on that, did you have one house in which your family lived?

MR NTANZI: Yes, we stayed in one house.

MR LAX: I think what Mr Samuel is asking you, was it a homestead with different huts or different rooms separated, or were they all in one, like a four-roomed house or a six-roomed house or whatever the case was?

MR NTANZI: It was just one big house.

MR SAMUEL: Okay, proceed, tell us what happened when you went to carry out this attack?

MR NTANZI: We met at Ntuli's house, we discussed and then we went out to carry out the attack. When we arrived there were other people with my brother and they fled and there were gunshots fired from the neighbour's homes. I knocked and my brother opened the door and Nkosinati Ngwenya shot him.

MR LAX: I just want to check something, Mr Samuel, if you'd kindly allow me just to interpose.

You say that there were other people with your brother who fled when you arrived?

MR NTANZI: Yes, they fled and only my brother remained. He closed the door and I knocked on that door and he opened it, at which point Nkosinati Ngwenya shot him.

MR LAX: Okay. Just hold it. You said that there were shots fired from the neighbour's house, explain that for us a little bit.

MR NTANZI: There were gunshots fired in the area in the evening and some unknown cars would arrive in the area. After the death of my brother the people were free to live in peace because these unknown persons did not frequent the place any more.

MR LAX: Mr Ntanzi, we're ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: We're not asking about general questions, we are asking about what you have just said:

MR LAX: Just so you understand, we're asking you to explain what you said to us as part of the attack that night, we're not asking you about generalities, about what happened in general terms before your brother died. You were describing to us how you were attacking and what happened on that night, so you were telling us that on your way to attack, these people saw you coming, they fled, your brother went into his room, he closed the door, you said there were shots from the neighbours' houses. That is what we are asking you to explain. The impression you gave is that that happened contemporaneously with you attacking. Do you understand what we're asking you?

MR NTANZI: I knocked on the door and Nkosinati Ngwenya shot at him ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Ja, we're asking you about before you knocked on the door. You said to us in the earlier part of your evidence that you approached your home, these people fled, these unknown people fled the area, your brother went into the room and closed the door, you said there were shots from the neighbours' houses. That is what we are asking you to explain. Who was shooting at who at that point in time? This is before you got to the door and before you called your brother and the door was opened.

MR NTANZI: It was unknown persons. When we actually arrived they were on the yard and my brother was inside the house.

CHAIRPERSON: You have told us there were shots from neighbours' houses, who was shooting when you were coming towards your house?

MR NTANZI: I think it was those persons who were actually fleeing from my home because we had already seen them. When we approaching they were on the yard.

CHAIRPERSON: But that is not what you said, you said those people fled and there were gunshots from neighbours' houses. You didn't say those people fled and fired shots as they ran, or anything like that. You're changing your version now. Were there shots from your neighbours' houses?

MR NTANZI: There were shots fired because there was a war. When we approached, they fled and there was shots fired.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did they flee?

MR NTANZI: They saw us approaching unexpectedly.

CHAIRPERSON: Were they standing outside?

MR NTANZI: Some were standing outside on the yard and some were inside the house.

CHAIRPERSON: How many were there?

MR NTANZI: It was a group of people, I could not estimate how many there were.

CHAIRPERSON: And they saw three of you approaching?

MR NTANZI: Yes, there were three of us.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR SAMUEL: ...(inaudible). Now you say Mr Ngwenya shot your brother?

MR NTANZI: Yes, it was Mr Ngwenya who shot my brother.

MR SAMUEL: Where did he get this firearm from?

MR NTANZI: He actually received it from one of our comrades with whom we'd met at Ntuli's home.

MR SAMUEL: Now you mention that various people were visiting your home regularly, do you know who these people were?

MR NTANZI: The people who were visiting my brother?

MR SAMUEL: That is correct.

MR NTANZI: I did not know them. It was when they arrived, IFP would be killed. After we had killed my brother, the killing of IFP people in the area stopped.

MR SAMUEL: When did you take this decision to kill your brother? What were your suspicions relating to these people, what did you think they were doing and what did you think your brother's role in this whole situation was?

MR NTANZI: I thought that he was actually the one sending these people to kill IFP people. We were actually protecting the area in which we resided.

MR SAMUEL: Was your brother ever a member of the IFP?

MR NTANZI: He was not.

MR SAMUEL: It must have taken some deep seated feeling for you to do nothing to stop your own brother from being killed, can you explain to the Committee what went through your mind before he was killed?

MR NTANZI: My brother opposed us. He would not attend meetings or conferences. In that area we were being killed and no-one knew who was responsible for those deaths.

I even left my home and moved to another area because I could see that I was in danger. We then met with other IFP members and discussed about what we should do because there were people who kept on visiting my home and I told them that I did not know what to do because I no longer stayed at home.

We decided that he is the one who should be attacked. He was attacked and killed and thereafter the situation improved because those people no longer came to my home and those cars were no longer seen in the area, and the people also had peace in the area.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you tell me what date it was when you attacked and killed your brother?

MR NTANZI: I cannot remember the date but it was on a Saturday in 1993. I don't remember the month.

CHAIRPERSON: Well the judgment in your case says that it was on the 25th of September, would you agree with that?

MR NTANZI: ...(no English translation)

MR LAX: No you haven't understood or there's been a mistake in the translation, what the Chairperson is saying to you is that when the Court found you guilty, the Court made a finding that the incident occurred on the 25th of September 1993, you wouldn't dispute that would you?

MR NTANZI: No, I would not.

CHAIRPERSON: And what was the area?

MR NTANZI: At Ezendopi.

CHAIRPERSON: Ezendopi?

MR NTANZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Where is that, near where?

MR NTANZI: Near Eshowe.

CHAIRPERSON: Near Eshowe. I'm asking you this because we are going to see if we can obtain figures as to attacks in that area over that period.

MR SAMUEL: It's now 1998, you've spent some three years in prison, how do you feel about what you've done?

MR NTANZI: I deeply regret what I did but it was because of the political situation. There was a war, my brother was killed, I did not gain anything from that. I am deeply remorseful.

MR SAMUEL: Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAPOMA: Thank you, Sir.

Mr Ntanzi, you say your brother was not a member of the IFP, is it so?

MR NTANZI: I was an IFP member.

MR MAPOMA: I'm talking about your brother, Sir.

MR NTANZI: He was not a member.

MR MAPOMA: Was he a member of the ANC?

MR NTANZI: I think so because IFP people were being killed.

MR MAPOMA: Would the reason be why you think he was a member of the ANC is because people were killed?

MR NTANZI: The reason I say that he was an ANC member is because ANC people used to come to the area and kill people and no-one knew who was responsible. We were also trying to defend ourselves and then discussed the issue of killing him.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you ever discuss the issue with your brother?

MR NTANZI: No, we did not discuss the issue because we were not on good terms.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you not on good terms with your brother?

MR NTANZI: Yes, we were not.

MR LAX: Sorry, if I could just interpose.

Why were you not on good terms with your brother?

MR NTANZI: He would criticize the IFP, that it actually belonged to people who were ignorant and he was opposed to the organisation.

MR MAPOMA: You do not know the people who used to visit your brother, is it so?

MR NTANZI: I don't know them.

MR MAPOMA: And you do not know whether they were members of the ANC or not, is it not so?

MR NTANZI: I would see them wearing ANC T-shirts when they visited my home, some of them would have jackets on. That is why I also decided to flee.

CHAIRPERSON: So they came into this area, openly wearing ANC T-shirts?

MR NTANZI: If perhaps it was hot they would be walking on the road wearing these T-shirts. Sometimes they would have those T-shirts under jackets. If perhaps there was a meeting in the area, they would first come to my home and then thereafter leave to go to their meetings which would be at a venue not known to me.

MR LAX: Was there an ANC branch in the area, so that there were ANC members who were also living in the area as well as IFP members?

MR NTANZI: The area was mixed, there was ANC and IFP members.

MR LAX: If this was - what did the rest of your family feel about these people coming to your home?

MR NTANZI: There was nothing that my parents could do because even my family would actually go and not sleep at home. I myself was also forced to move away from home to stay with other relatives because I was no longer safe.

MR LAX: So you didn't meet as a family and discuss this problem and say we're going to talk to this brother and make sure that he stops this behaviour or keeps the politics out of the family or something like that?

MR NTANZI: There were no good relations between me and my brother because ever since I was an IFP member we have never been on good terms. I was even once attacked by some unknown people who, those people had actually been visiting my brother, and we as family enquired about why they should attack me after having visited my brother. And I decided to leave home because I felt that I was no longer safe.

MR LAX: Mr Ntanzi, the question was, did you as a family not meet and discuss this matter with your brother, not whether you discussed it with your brother personally. We know the answer to that already.

MR NTANZI: Yes, we did meet and discuss it but it was difficult because my brother is the eldest at home and he would not listen to anyone. I then realised that there was no point in me remaining at home.

MR LAX: Carry on, Mr Mapoma, thanks.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, when did you join the IFP?

MR NTANZI: Sorry?

ADV SIGODI: When did you join the IFP?

MR NTANZI: In 1982.

CHAIRPERSON: '82?

ADV SIGODI: And how many are you at your home?

MR NTANZI: ...(no English translation)

MR NTANZI: Do you have brothers and sisters?

MR NTANZI: I have two sisters and three brothers. We are altogether five.

ADV SIGODI: Were you all staying at home?

MR NTANZI: Before the violence erupted we were all living at home.

ADV SIGODI: Do you have both of your parents?

MR NTANZI: My father is late but my mother is still alive.

ADV SIGODI: When did your father die?

MR NTANZI: I do not quite remember because he died when I was still very young.

ADV SIGODI: And did your family belong to the ANC or did they belong to the IFP, the other members of your family?

MR NTANZI: My mother and the two sisters and myself belonged to the IFP but my younger brother is an ANC member?

ADV SIGODI: The younger brother is an ANC member, is that what you said?

MR NTANZI: Yes, my younger brother.

ADV SIGODI: Is the one who died?

MR NTANZI: No, it was my eldest brother who died.

ADV SIGODI: Thanks.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know that your mother made a statement to the Magistrate, in which she said she asked you and Qwamez and Ngwenya to kill your brother Tulani because he was a nuisance at home?

MR NTANZI: That was incorrect. There was war in the area between the ANC and IFP. I do not know of that particular thing.

CHAIRPERSON: You knew that she had made that statement, didn't you? You know that she did.

MR NTANZI: I do not know about it.

CHAIRPERSON: But evidence was led about it at your trial.

MR NTANZI: I don't remember much from the trial because I was confused at the time, because I was even pleading not guilty in Court.

CHAIRPERSON: You say you don't remember something like that from the trial?

MR NTANZI: I would not say whether it was led or not, but I do not remember.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR MAPOMA: You did make a statement to the police, is it so?

MR NTANZI: Yes, I did make a statement.

MR MAPOMA: And in that statement you said that you killed your brother because he was a nuisance, do you recall that?

MR NTANZI: I did say it but I meant that he was problematic to me because we differed on the issue of political allegiance.

MR MAPOMA: You said he was a nuisance because he used to attack your mother at some instances, did you not say that?

MR NTANZI: I did say that but he also traumatised and terrorised us as members of the IFP, which is why we decided on that action to kill him.

MR MAPOMA: And you also said that he was a political, do you recall that?

MR NTANZI: I do remember it. I said this because I was in Court and I was trying to get myself acquitted, that is why I have actually appeared before this Committee, to actually tell the truth and make a full disclosure about what happened.

MR MAPOMA: How would it make you acquitted by saying he was a political?

MR NTANZI: I was protecting myself in Court.

MR MAPOMA: Are you not telling this Committee what you are telling the Committee now because you want to get amnesty, not because it is not true?

MR NTANZI: I am telling the honest truth because I deeply regret what I did, that is the killing of my brother, because he should have actually been my father because he was my eldest brother, but I did this because of the political situation in the area.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, could I come back for a moment. You said he made a statement to the police and he did say: "He was a nuisance because he attacked my mother", is this statement before us?

MR MAPOMA: Would the Chairperson just bear with me. There is a statement on page 79 of the bundle of documents, of the typed version of the statement and the original of that statement is on page 78.

MR LAX: Sorry, are you referring to the passage that says:

I think that may be something. I can't read it properly but I think that may be something:

Is that what you are referring to?

MR MAPOMA: There are a number of statements that he made, Chairperson. There is also another statement which appears on page 76, and I'm just trying to read this part where he said about the brother would attack the mother. That part appears on page 86.

CHAIRPERSON: The statement where he said his brother was a nuisance and attacked his mother, was a statement in which he admitted killing his brother.

Do you remember that, that you made a statement saying, and I think you should read the whole statement:

Do you remember saying that in the statement?

MR NTANZI: Yes, I did make such a statement.

CHAIRPERSON: And then you went on to say:

Did you say that to the police?

MR NTANZI: Yes, I did say it.

MR SAMUEL: Mr Chairman, this statement was made to the Magistrate. It appears to be the confession that was utilized in the judgment or it was part of ...

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, thank you.

You said this to the Magistrate, do you remember that?

MR NTANZI: I do remember saying it but I did it because I had been assaulted by the police.

CHAIRPERSON: That is where you said that he was a nuisance and that he attacked your mother.

MR NTANZI: I was confused at the time because I was trying to protect myself, not to divulge the whole truth about what happened. What I am saying here today is that we were protecting ourselves, because after his death there was peace in the area.

ADV SIGODI: How were you protecting yourselves if you admitted that you were part of the group that shot him, how could that have protected you?

MR NTANZI: We were protecting ourselves against the enemy who used to attack us, the unknown persons who used to come and attack us. After the death of my brother, there was peace in the area.

ADV SIGODI: So when you made this statement to the Magistrate, what were you protecting yourself from?

MR NTANZI: Please repeat the question.

MR MAPOMA: When you made this statement to the Magistrate, admitting that you killed your brother on the instructions of your mother, how did you think that was going to protect you?

MR NTANZI: I was speaking just because I was ignorant and confused. I had been assaulted by the police, they had actually stuck me in the mud and demanded that I tell the truth.

What I mentioned there was incorrect, it was all a mistake, it was not true. What I'm saying today is actually the truth.

ADV SIGODI: What truth did the police want from you?

MR NTANZI: ...(no English translation)

ADV SIGODI: I say, when you say that this is, you said this because you were beaten by the police because they wanted to hear the truth, what truth did the police want to hear from you?

MR NTANZI: They wanted to know who had killed my brother because at first I had not divulged who had killed my brother.

ADV SIGODI: And then when you said that you decided to kill him because he assaulted your mother, where did you get that from?

MR NTANZI: Those were lies because I was confused at the time. I was just trying to protect myself, that in case I was released, that my comrades would not kill me because I would not have divulged any information about other people's names who had been involved. But what is contained in this statement is not true, the truth is that we actually met at Luthuli's home and we decided to attack and kill my brother in trying to protect ourselves.

CHAIRPERSON: You see, it appears from the evidence at your trial, that your co-applicant testified that it was your suggestion that your brother should be shot.

MR NTANZI: Please repeat the question.

CHAIRPERSON: It appears from the judgment that there was evidence at the trial by Ngwenya that it was your suggestion that your brother should be shot because he was a member of the ANC.

MR NTANZI: That is true.

MR LAX: If I could just add this. From the judgment at page 72, just below line 20, for the record's purposes, Ngwenya is recorded as saying the following by the presiding Judge. He said prior to this night in question he had had discussions with accused number 1, that is yourself, who told him that he was being badly treated by his brother, the deceased, and that all his brothers, including the deceased was a member of the ANC. ...(end of tape)

MR NTANZI: I planned that my brother should be killed because he hated me because I was an IFP member.

MR SAMUEL: So it wasn't because he was badly treating you?

MR NTANZI: He did treat me badly with regards to my political organisation because he used to speak badly of the organisation and then I decided that I should hit him first.

MR LAX: Thanks. Carry on, Mr Mapoma, sorry for ...

MR MAPOMA: Thank you.

Are you aware that your mother did make a statement to the Magistrate?

MR NTANZI: I do not have knowledge thereof. She was alone when she made such statements, so I do not know about those statements.

MR MAPOMA: Your mother made a statement which appears on page 88 of the bundle, for the record, Chairperson, where she made the following ...(indistinct) and I want to read it for you:

That is, she refers to your brother.  She goes on to say:

That is what your mother said, what do you say to that?

MR NTANZI: I heard about that in Court. I cannot really have knowledge about that. What she actually asserted here is not true.

All I know is that there were people who used to visit my home, visit my brother and kill IFP people. After his death those people stopped coming to the area.

ADV SIGODI: What was your brother doing at the time that he died, was he employed?

MR NTANZI: He was self-employed.

INTERPRETER: Excuse me, that must have been a mistake in the interpretation, he was actually a policeman in the kwaZulu Police.

CHAIRPERSON: Was he a policeman?

ADV SIGODI: Was he a policeman?

MR NTANZI: He was a security guard.

ADV SIGODI: He was a security guard?

MR NTANZI: Yes.

ADV SIGODI: Where?

MR NTANZI: ...(no English translation)

ADV SIGODI: Zulu Government?

MR NTANZI: At Gizenzela township in Eshowe.

ADV SIGODI: Do you know who his employer was?

MR NTANZI: No, I don't because I no longer resided at home.

ADV SIGODI: When did you leave your home?

MR NTANZI: When the violence started I was no longer staying at my home on a fulltime basis, I would just visit. I could not even stay at home and my comrades used to ask me about this, why I had to leave home because of this one particular person, and they actually suggested that he should be attacked, with which I agreed.

CHAIRPERSON: Who suggested this?

MR NTANZI: ...(no English translation)

CHAIRPERSON: No, I didn't hear, I just asked you to repeat what you said. Who suggested that he should be attacked?

MR NTANZI: It was people from my organisation who actually suggested that he should be attacked because I had actually left home because of him, and he was involved in the fighting.

ADV SIGODI: My question was, when did you leave your home?

MR NTANZI: I left for a month and I would just visit my home at intervals, and my comrades would ask me why I had to leave home because of this one person ...(intervention)

MR LAX: The question is really simple, we're just trying to know when you left your home. You don't have to give us a long story about what you told your comrades and what they asked you. Can you remember, was it one month your brother was killed, was it two months before your brother was killed, was it six months? That is all we're trying to understand. How long before your brother was killed did you leave home?

MR NTANZI: The violence at about April or May, people were attacking one another and we met as Inkatha youth members and decided on a strategy to protect ourselves.

MR LAX: Is that when you left home?

MR NTANZI: Please repeat the question.

MR LAX: Is that when you left home, once you decided on the strategy you left home? The strategy would have entailed camping, is that right?

MR NTANZI: I did stay at home for a while and we would actually go camping until I eventually left. I would sometimes come to visit my mother and we would meet with other IFP comrades and discuss this issue.

I told them that my brother because of his ANC membership, was a problem to me and we felt that they were responsible for killing IFP members. Even after the death of my brother, those people were free to live peacefully.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you at school then?

MR NTANZI: Yes, I was.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you continue going to school?

MR NTANZI: Yes, I continued schooling where I was residing.

CHAIRPERSON: What school was this?

MR NTANZI: At Phoso.

CHAIRPERSON: Phoso?

MR NTANZI: Ja.

CHAIRPERSON: And when did you start there?

MR NTANZI: In 1993 I actually requested to join the school but I could not be accepted until 1995.

MR LAX: But this thing happened in 1993, are you making a mistake? Do you mean '83?

MR NTANZI: There was violence in 1993 and all school children did not attend school because they were attacked. I did not go to school in 1993 and 1994. In 1995 I managed to attend school.

MR LAX: But you see, the Chairperson asked you: "Were you at school while all of this was going on?", you said: "Yes". Now you've just told us that the schooling was interrupted because of the violence, there wasn't any schooling, please explain this.

MR NTANZI: In 1993 we were at school, then there was violence and no schooling took place when the violence occurred. I actually moved from my home and I managed to get into a school called Phoso.

MR LAX: Carry on, Mr Mapoma, sorry.

MR MAPOMA: Now on the 11th of November this year you wrote a statement to the Amnesty Committee, do you remember that?

MR NTANZI: Yes.

MR MAPOMA: Who wrote this statement for you?

MR NTANZI: I wrote it. I can even explain why I wrote it.

MR MAPOMA: Go on.

MR NTANZI: I was told in prison that if I appear before the TRC and admit that I did commit these atrocities, I would be given another sentence. Therefore I decided that I should withdraw(?).

MR LAX: Who told you this?

MR NTANZI: Co-prisoners.

MR LAX: So you lied in this affidavit?

MR NTANZI: ...(no English translation)

MR LAX: So you lied in this affidavit?

MR NTANZI: The statement dated the 11th is incorrect. I was told by other prisoners that if I actually go and admit to the crimes, I would be given another sentence and then I decided to make the statement.

MR LAX: The point I'm putting to you doesn't change. So the things you wrote here are lies, they are not the truth?

MR NTANZI: The are not true.

MR MAPOMA: How far did you go to school?

MR NTANZI: ...(no English translation)

MR MAPOMA: How far did you go to school?

MR NTANZI: Standard six.

MR MAPOMA: Is it not correct that this statement was written on your behalf by Captain Madlala, who is a member of the South African Police Services?

MR LAX: He's an Investigator with the TRC.

MR MAPOMA: Oh, I'm sorry.

MR LAX: But he is also a policeman, ja.

MR MAPOMA: Yes.

MR NTANZI: Yes, he came to me.

MR MAPOMA: And this statement in fact was written by him on your behalf?

MR NTANZI: That is correct.

MR MAPOMA: So you were lying before this Committee when you were saying that you wrote the statement yourself to the Committee on the 11th of November 1998?

MR NTANZI: Maybe I did not understand you correctly, but it was the TRC Investigator who helped me and he wrote what I said to him. After I had enquired from other prisoners about what happens at the TRC process and they told me that I've mentioned here, he was indeed the one who wrote the statement.

MR LAX: Why didn't you ask him before he wrote this statement, why didn't you ask this Investigator of the TRC, tell me something, this is what people are saying, is this true?

MR NTANZI: I did not tell Mr Madlala about it. I decided that I should actually tell it to you so that you also know.

MR LAX: But if this statement had gone through you would not have appeared before us, you would never have got the opportunity to tell us. So I'm asking you again, why didn't you ask Madlala?

MR NTANZI: It did not occur to me to ask Mr Madlala.

MR MAPOMA: Mr Ntanzi, I put it to you Sir, that you keep changing statements to suite your needs at a particular point, what do you say to that?

MR NTANZI: What I am saying here is the truth, the whole truth.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you, Sir, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

MR SAMUEL: No re-examination, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I just want to clear up something. I don't know if I've heard you correctly, did you say that your brother was working as a security guard in Eshowe?

MR NTANZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: In your amnesty application you were asked for the name of the victim and you said:

and you were asked for the occupation and addresses of the victim and you said:

Why did you say that?

MR NTANZI: When he started working he used to cut trees but as time went on he became a security guard.

CHAIRPERSON: Any questions?

ADV SIGODI: Did you know if your brother was an ANC supporter or did you suspect that he was an ANC supporter?

MR NTANZI: I did not suspect. If there were ANC meetings, he would go and attend them.

MR LAX: So you're saying you knew?

MR NTANZI: Yes, I did know.

ADV SIGODI: So when you had arguments, political arguments between yourselves, he would come out clearly that he was ANC, to you?

MR NTANZI: Yes, it was obvious because he would actually insult me and say that he would not support my organisation because their members were ignorant and uncivilised.

ADV SIGODI: These unknown people who kept on visiting your brother, when did they start visiting him?

MR NTANZI: When the violence started we started noticing these unknown persons coming to visit my brother, although I cannot remember now just which month it was.

ADV SIGODI: Was it after you had left your home or was it before you had left your home?

MR NTANZI: When the violence started I was still living at home and the area was still then an IFP stronghold, but as time went on people started joining the ANC as well and then these unknown people started visiting my home, visiting my brother.

ADV SIGODI: Would they come for one day at a time or would they stay over at your place for days on end, when they visited?

MR NTANZI: They would come and some of them would leave on that one occasion and some would remain.

ADV SIGODI: Did they stay at your home?

MR NTANZI: Some would stay and some would leave.

ADV SIGODI: And how many were they roughly?

MR NTANZI: I would not be in a position to give an estimate because there were many.

ADV SIGODI: Would you say 10 or 20?

MR NTANZI: Sometimes there would be 10 or maybe even 20 and some of them would leave and maybe 5 would remain.

ADV SIGODI: Would they hold meetings at your home or what, what would they do when they come to your home?

MR NTANZI: At about seven in the evenings they would leave. There was a big river near my home called Nkukuze and they would actually go and hold meetings near that place and I did not know what time they returned.

ADV SIGODI: Did your brother hold a high ANC political profile, or did he have any political position in the ANC?

MR NTANZI: He was just a member, I don't think he had a position.

ADV SIGODI: Who were the leaders of the ANC in that area at that time?

MR NTANZI: There was one, Sipho Ndlovu.

ADV SIGODI: Do you know what position he held in the ANC?

MR NTANZI: No, I do not know his position because my brother would not tell me what positions people held, just as I would not have told him about my organisation.

MR NTANZI: But you say he was not a leader, he was not holding any high position in the ANC as far as you know?

MR NTANZI: No, he was not a leader but he was just a member.

ADV SIGODI: And then shortly after he died, all the violence simply stopped?

MR NTANZI: Yes, the violence stopped.

ADV SIGODI: Were there any other ANC members who were killed at that time, besides your brother?

MR NTANZI: No, it was the IFP members who were being killed.

ADV SIGODI: But did the IFP not kill any other ANC members at that time?

MR NTANZI: I would be making a mistake if I said there were. I was even - it was suggested to me that I should leave because IFP members were the ones who were mostly killed in the area.

ADV SIGODI: Yes, I'm trying to get the picture as to what was actually happening there. If you're saying that there was strife between the ANC and the IFP, and if you're saying that your brother wasn't holding such a high political position in the ANC, and your evidence is that when he was killed then all the violence suddenly died down and yet there were no other ANC people who were killed.

MR NTANZI: He was a trusted member, that he was brave.

ADV SIGODI: Was your brother married?

MR NTANZI: No, he was not.

ADV SIGODI: Did he have any children?

MR NTANZI: No.

ADV SIGODI: Was there any money paid out to him after his death?

MR NTANZI: I don't know, I do not remember because after his death I was arrested.

ADV SIGODI: Do you know if your mother got any monies from his employers?

MR NTANZI: I would not have knowledge thereof because I was actually arrested and I spent a lot of time awaiting trial.

ADV SIGODI: Thank you, Chairperson.

MR LAX: Thanks, Chairperson.

You said the violence died down after your brothers death. Now you were arrested within a couple of days after his death, isn't that right?

MR NTANZI: We committed the crime on a Saturday and I was arrested on a Monday.

MR LAX: And not only you but a whole lot of other people were also arrested, is that so?

MR NTANZI: Please repeat the question.

MR LAX: Not only you, several other people were also arrested, is that not so?

MR NTANZI: Yes, I was not the only one arrested.

MR LAX: Isn't that why the violence suddenly died down in your area?

MR NTANZI: Most of the people who were arrested belonged to the IFP and they were suspects in the crime.

MR LAX: You haven't my question.

MR NTANZI: Please repeat it.

MR LAX: I said, because these IFP suspects were arrested, isn't that why the violence died down?

MR NTANZI: Thy were arrested but later released. I was the one who remained in the cells, but some were released.

MR LAX: Some were released, but you and Ngwenya and others remained in the cells, isn't that so?

MR NTANZI: Yes.

MR LAX: Now you've said to us that your brother took part in this violence, how did he take part in this violence?

MR NTANZI: My brother was influential because if he instructed not to do something, they would not do it and the ANC members used to visit and come to my home because they trusted him. He was able to fight and control the situation.

MR LAX: You see you're saying ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: How do you know this, you were never there were you? You were never at the meetings of the ANC people, were you?

MR NTANZI: I would get information from IFP members that my brother was busy in the fight against them and they wanted to know how best to attack him.

MR LAX: You never saw him involved in the fighting?

MR NTANZI: Please repeat the question.

MR LAX: You never saw him involved in the fighting yourself?

MR NTANZI: No, I've never seen him.

MR LAX: But you were part of the group that was defending the IFP, how come you never saw him involved in the fighting, if you were one of the defendants?

MR NTANZI: Because there were ANC people, unknown persons who used to visit my home. It was IFP members who used to tell me about how my brother used to fight. I was no longer residing at home by that time.

MR LAX: So did you leave the area, is that what you are saying?

MR NTANZI: Yes, I left the area.

MR LAX: And where did you go and stay?

MR NTANZI: At Mhawulu, I stayed with relatives there.

MR LAX: How far is that from your area?

MR NTANZI: It's quite a distance.

MR LAX: So is it far from Ezendopi?

MR NTANZI: Yes, it is far because I'd take a bus from there to Ezendopi.

MR LAX: Where is Luthuli's place, is it at Ezendopi?

MR NTANZI: It is at Ezendopi.

MR LAX: But you were busy camping at Luthuli's place when the decision was taken to kill your brother.

MR NTANZI: Yes, I was.

MR LAX: And you also told us that you were part of the people who were defending this area with your camping, is that not right?

MR NTANZI: That is correct.

MR LAX: So how could you be staying somewhere far from the area and still be camping in the area and defending the area?

MR NTANZI: I used to visit my mother and on such occasions I would meet with my IFP colleagues, and also during school holidays I would come and stay at home and then I would go to camps with the other IFP members.

MR LAX: Now how old was your brother?

MR NTANZI: I am not sure but I think he was about 30.

MR LAX: And you were about 19 at that time?

MR NTANZI: Yes, I was 19.

MR LAX: So apart from what you may have been told by people, you have no idea about how your brother played a role in the ANC fighting the IFP?

MR NTANZI: My brother was an ANC member because these people who were not known to me used to come and visit him at my home.

CHAIRPERSON: You've just said they were not known to you, you don't know who they were, do you, you didn't know.

MR NTANZI: I did not know them because they were not residing in the area.

MR LAX: Why didn't you go to the police and say to them; listen chaps, there are a whole lot of people who regularly come to my house, these people seem to be involved in the violence, won't you just come and we'll let you know when they arrive and you just arrest the whole lot of them, why didn't you do that?

MR NTANZI: The police could not do this because they were unable to arrest them. A person would be killed but no-one would be arrested. The Induna went to report to the police that there was a problem in the area and they were unable to assist.

I think that the police from Eshowe also played a role in this violence because one of my father's brothers was killed by the police.

MR LAX: So why didn't you go to the kwaZulu Police then?

MR NTANZI: Please repeat the question.

MR LAX: Why didn't you go to the kwaZulu Police then? They would have been more favourably disposed towards you.

MR NTANZI: There was no kwaZulu Police Station in the area. The one was at Mbongulani which is very far from where I lived.

MR LAX: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: We started and have been going on for some time, is there anybody who requires an urgent adjournment at this stage? You're alright, we can continue? Very well.

ADV SIGODI: Thank you, Chair.

This killing took place at night, didn't it?

MR NTANZI: Yes.

ADV SIGODI: And immediately after shooting your brother, you ran away, you left the scene, you did not want to be discovered, is that right?

MR NTANZI: We actually went to where we had camped, to Luthuli's.

ADV SIGODI: The four of you after killing him, you went back to where you had camped?

MR NTANZI: Yes, and when I went home in the morning I pretended as if I did not know who had killed him.

ADV SIGODI: So this killing was supposed to be done in a clandestine manner?

MR NTANZI: Yes, it was actually the secret of us as IFP members.

ADV SIGODI: How many of you were there when you decided to kill your brother? How many of you as IFP members were there at that meeting where you were camping?

MR NTANZI: There were many, it was a group of IFP youth members.

ADV SIGODI: Approximately how many, 100, 30, 40?

MR NTANZI: Maybe we were about 30.

ADV SIGODI: And when this decision was taken, was it taken by the whole group or was it just a few of you who decided that you are going to go and kill your brother?

MR NTANZI: The decision was taken at that meeting.

ADV SIGODI: Was it taken by the whole group of you?

MR NTANZI: It was taken by us as the youth.

ADV SIGODI: Who was the leader at that meeting?

MR NTANZI: Our leader had been shot and killed, so there was no leader.

ADV SIGODI: At that meeting as the IFP youth, who was the leader, who was responsible for convening the meeting?

MR NTANZI: ...(no English translation)

ADV SIGODI: Was he still alive at that meeting?

MR NTANZI: The meeting was held just between us as members because the chairperson was already late.

CHAIRPERSON: But you an assistant youth leader?

MR NTANZI: Yes, I was the assistant.

ADV SIGODI: Who was responsible for identifying your brother as a target to be killed on that day?

MR NTANZI: We discussed this amongst all of us and we just decided that we should go and attack, kill him.

CHAIRPERSON: Didn't you say earlier that you suggested that your brother should be killed?

MR NTANZI: We discussed this matter as youth members because I could not just suggest it just for myself.

ADV SIGODI: Yes, I understand that, but surely one person ought to have come up with a name to identify a target. Now what I'm asking you is, who is the person who came up with your brother's name, that he is the one who should be killed?

MR NTANZI: ...(no English translation)

ADV SIGODI: Who?

MR NTANZI: Nyawa Zinjama said that he should be killed.

ADV SIGODI: And then who decided who should go and kill him?

MR NTANZI: He is the one who also suggested that three people should go and then the three of us then went on the attack.

ADV SIGODI: He suggested that three people should go, did he say who must go? How were the three of you chosen?

MR NTANZI: He is the one who said who should go.

ADV SIGODI: Why did he choose you?

MR NTANZI: So that my brother would not have a problem in opening the door.

ADV SIGODI: Tell me what is it that had happened on that day, were there any IFP members who had been killed on that day?

MR NTANZI: The IFP youth leader had been killed a month prior to this attack.

ADV SIGODI: In other words, at the time that you held this meeting, no IFP members had been killed at that time, prior to your brother's killing?

MR NTANZI: That is the chairperson.

ADV SIGODI: He had been killed a month before? Is it the one you say had been killed a month before your brother was killed?

MR NTANZI: Yes, he is the one.

ADV SIGODI: Now what I want to know is, what is it that precipitated or that prompted you to want to go and kill on this particular day?

MR NTANZI: There was actually no opportunity to carry out this act because the police were milling around the area, but we saw this opportunity on this day and we went to kill him.

ADV SIGODI: You say the police were milling around the area, in other words there was no violence because the police were milling around the area, is that correct? Do I understand you correctly?

MR NTANZI: Please repeat the question.

ADV SIGODI: Are you saying that there were no killings because the police were milling around the area, you did not have time to kill people?

MR NTANZI: The police would normally be present in the area but they would sometimes leave. The incident was carried out at night.

MR LAX: No, you're missing the point of the question completely, or maybe you're just avoiding answering the question, we don't know for sure but let me explain what is being said to you.

MR NTANZI: Please repeat the question.

MR LAX: You tell us the police were there, therefore you couldn't carry out any revenge for the killing of your leader, your youth leader. That is how I understand your answer, is that right?

MR NTANZI: Yes, we were unable to carry out an attack immediately thereafter.

MR LAX: So the question then goes, if the police were in the area and that was the reason why you were unable to carry out your attack to retaliate for this killing of your leader, therefore there was no violence in that intervening period, is that correct or isn't it? A simple yes or no would suffice.

MR NTANZI: Attacks would be carried out at night because even that chairperson was killed at night.

MR LAX: Then why did it take you so long to revenge the attack of the killing of your leader, if you could have done so at night?

MR NTANZI: We wanted to get the perfect opportunity.

MR LAX: But you see you did kill him at night. So if it was possible to attack at night, why didn't you do so earlier, why did you wait a whole month before you did it? That's really the question.

MR NTANZI: There was violence in the area and we as IFP members were protecting ourselves.

MR LAX: But you see, you weren't even in the area, you've told us you went and you left the area to another place and you came back every so often, once or twice, so how come you could have been in the area and know exactly what was going on there? You've got to make up your mind now, you can't have it every way.

MR NTANZI: I would sometimes come to check on my mother because of the violence in the area.

MR LAX: Sorry, I interrupted your question, can I carry on, just one issue if I may?

You've told us that up to 20 people were sometimes at your brother's house, at your home there, correct?

MR NTANZI: That's correct.

MR LAX: Now I want you to try and tell us, how many were there on that night, how many people did you see running away on that night?

MR NTANZI: It was dark and there was no moonlight and no electricity, so it was dark.

MR LAX: Well then how did you see them running away?

MR NTANZI: We heard the rustling of trees and leaves when they were running away.

MR LAX: So you don't know whether it was just the wind blowing or what, you don't know whether it was ghosts or people?

MR NTANZI: It was people because we could see the shadows.

MR LAX: How many shadows did you see, 5, 19, 15, 20?

MR NTANZI: I would not be able to give you a figure because when they fled, they fled in different directions and we carried out that act quickly and fled.

MR LAX: Now you also said to us in your evidence that once they had fled, your brother went inside and closed the door.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think he said he went inside, he said he closed the door, you kept on saying he went inside.

MR LAX: Okay. Well maybe you can clarify that for us. Was your brother standing in the doorway, was he inside, what was your brother doing while you were approaching?

MR NTANZI: If I'm not mistaken he was inside the house because there were some people also inside, and when these people fled I knocked and the door and he opened the door and Nkosinati Ngwenya shot him.

MR LAX: You see, what puzzles me is if his comrades had just run away out of terror on your approach, why would he just have opened the door?

MR NTANZI: He heard my voice.

MR LAX: But you just said that you and he were on bad terms, you didn't see eye to eye, and if his comrades had run away he would have been worried about who was coming here to attack.

MR NTANZI: I managed to trap him to open the door and he did open the door.

CHAIRPERSON: Because you see, I have the same problem, that for some reason or another this group of people, some of whom were inside the house, some of whom were outside the house, fled into the dark when the three of you came walking up also in the dark with no moonlight, no electricity, they must have been terrified to do this, weren't they?

MR NTANZI: It could be so because when a person approaches you unexpectedly, you cannot just stand and watch and see what he is going to do to you, you think of fleeing because you don't know what that person is armed with.

CHAIRPERSON: And they ran away and they fired shots?

MR NTANZI: I think they were just trying to frighten us because they fired these shots as they were fleeing.

CHAIRPERSON: But you weren't frightened, you went up to the door and knocked on the door and your brother wasn't frightened by the noise and the shouts, he opened the door for you, is that what you are telling us?

MR NTANZI: I managed to actually convince him to open the door. Neo Zinjama was standing guard, just on the lookout of who would approach.

CHAIRPERSON: And you didn't know how many people might have still remained in the room, you didn't know that they had all run away, did you?

MR NTANZI: We did not know how many people were inside and we did not know how many had fled.

CHAIRPERSON: So there may have been dangerous ANC killers inside the room and you stood outside and knocked on the door.

MR NTANZI: It would have been possible but we did not see them.

MR LAX: Just one last aspect, Chairperson, and that is this.

You were an assistant youth leader, you've told us that and it's in your form?

MR NTANZI: Yes.

MR LAX: Your leader had already been shot a month earlier than that?

MR NTANZI: Yes.

MR LAX: Didn't that make you the leader?

MR NTANZI: No, there was still going to be a meeting to discuss who would be appointed, whether I would step into his shoes and become the chairperson or maybe somebody else would be elected. We were still going to discuss that.

MR LAX: Yes, but until such time as somebody is elected, isn't it normal practice that the assistant takes over until such time as someone is ... That's the whole purpose of having an assistant, is that you have someone who can take over when something happens to the leader, isn't that so?

MR NTANZI: That is correct, but I requested from them that somebody else be elected because my problems, I was attending school. I requested that they elect somebody else and that matter was still going to be discussed.

MR LAX: You see if you were in fact the leader then what you've told us previously and what Ngwenya says, that you suggested that your brother be killed, is very very probable, it all fits together neatly. Do you understand?

MR NTANZI: I concurred with Neo Zinjama when he suggested that we should kill my brother.

MR LAX: But you see Ngwenya says you suggested that.

MR NTANZI: I concurred with the suggestion that he should be killed.

MR LAX: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what was put to you was that it was you who made the suggestion, that is what Ngwenya said. What do you have to say about that?

MR NTANZI: I also contributed that he should be killed because he was a problem.

ADV SIGODI: Were you armed when you went to kill your brother, you?

MR NTANZI: I had a home-made firearm but I did not use it.

ADV SIGODI: And who else was armed?

MR NTANZI: Nkosinati Ngwenya and Neo Zinjama.

ADV SIGODI: What did they have?

MR NTANZI: With home-made firearms.

ADV SIGODI: All three of you?

MR NTANZI: Yes.

ADV SIGODI: And where did you get these home-made firearms?

MR NTANZI: I had actually borrowed the one I had from the group at Luthuli's house.

ADV SIGODI: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR SAMUEL: No questions, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I take it that the other applicant is sitting next to you and they're now going to change places?

MR SAMUEL: No, Mr Chairman, the second applicant is seated.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, I'm sorry.

MR LAX: You're not going to lead - you're going to lead your next applicant now?

MR SAMUEL: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: We have in the past permitted people from the floor to ask questions if they are interested parties, but I think it would be better after we have concluded the evidence of both applicants.

MR SAMUEL: Mr Ntanzi, will you change places with Mr Ngwenya?

MR LAX: Mr Ngwenya, can you hear me?

MR NGWENYA: Yes, I can.

MR LAX: Do you have any objection to taking an oath?

MR NGWENYA: No objection whatsoever.

N NGWENYA: (sworn states)

MR SAMUEL: Sorry, Mr Chairperson, I notice that Mr Ntanzi left the room. I'm not sure, I think he should be present.

CHAIRPERSON: I think he's paying a short visit.

EXAMINATION BY MR SAMUEL: Sure. Maybe I'll proceed then and hopefully he will be back to hear the gist of the evidence, thank you.

Mr Ngwenya, you pleaded guilty in the murder trial that you faced, in which Mr Ntanzi's brother was killed, do you recall that?

MR NGWENYA: Yes, I do recall that.

MR SAMUEL: In fact you admitted to firing the shot that killed the deceased.

MR NGWENYA: Yes, that is true.

MR SAMUEL: Can you tell us the circumstances under which you fired the shot?

MR NGWENYA: There was violence in the area and that prompted us as IFP members to go and stay at Luthuli's house, or camp at Luthuli's house as he was the most elderly in the area as our leader had already been shot.

That was some concern for concern and we had to discuss around that, and it came to surface that at Ntanzi's house there would be strangers, unknown people who keep frequenting the area. Therefore we decided that as you can see how problematic and troublesome is your brother, maybe it will be ideal for us to eliminate him because we are not safe with his presence or as long as he still lives and we had to implement this action now. Evidently that happened.

It was myself and Mfana Neyao plus Mr Ntanzi. We left, we went to the place and Ntanzi knocked at the door. Mfana was standing by me and as he opened the door we shot and he died on the spot or instantly and we went back to Luthuli's place where we were residing or camping.

MR SAMUEL: Now why was it necessary to take this action against the deceased?

MR NGWENYA: It is because there will be unknown people who would arrive to the area, not coming from the area, plus they were not even relatives to the family and we did not even know those people.

MR SAMUEL: And if unknown people arrived in the area, how was that of concern to you as residents of the area?

MR NGWENYA: That raised some concern because there was now violence that was erupting in the area and kept intensifying, therefore we suspected that this was being brought by these unknown people who were in the area.

MR SAMUEL: When did the violence start?

MR NGWENYA: It started in 1993. I will not be in the position to furnish you with the exact month.

MR SAMUEL: How long before the April 1994 elections would you say the violence in this area started?

MR NGWENYA: I think it was about two months or three months before Xmas.

MR SAMUEL: Who was being killed in the area?

MR NGWENYA: One other leader, our leader, that is Ntutugo was killed, plus another one from the opposite direction. Although I don't know the details, but he was also a sympathiser of the group.

MR SAMUEL: What group is this?

MR NGWENYA: Each time we will be having meetings he will come and join us.

MR SAMUEL: So these two people that were killed, who were they, what organisation were they the sympathizers of?

MR NGWENYA: IFP organisation that is.

MR SAMUEL: Who did you suspect were killing IFP members in the area?

MR NGWENYA: We suspected Ntanzi's brother because he knew pretty well that we were IFP members, that it could have been that those were his friends visiting him and he will identify us to them.

MR SAMUEL: Which organisation did you believe was responsible for the death of the IFP members?

MR NGWENYA: We believed - we in fact thought it would be ANC.

MR SAMUEL: Now how did you conclude that the deceased was involved with the ANC?

MR NGWENYA: We gathered that from Ntanzi.

MR SAMUEL: What did Mr Ntanzi tell you?

MR NGWENYA: He said the brother was an ANC member.

MR SAMUEL: And the visits by these various people to Mr Ntanzi's house, who brought that to your attention?

MR NGWENYA: It was him, Ntanzi that is.

MR SAMUEL: Did anybody else bring that to your attention besides Mr Ntanzi, the first applicant?

MR NGWENYA: No-one.

MR SAMUEL: When you met at Luthuli's house, was there any discussion concerning the death of the deceased or the possible attack on the deceased?

MR NGWENYA: As we had gathered in that house we did bring that to our attention at Luthuli's house.

MR LAX: The question was, had you discussed the matter.

MR NGWENYA: Discussing with who?

MR LAX: Amongst yourselves.

MR NGWENYA: Yes, we did discuss the matter.

MR LAX: Thank you.

MR SAMUEL: And what did ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Did anyone suggest that you should do something about it?

MR NGWENYA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Who?

MR NGWENYA: It was Mr Ntanzi.

CHAIRPERSON: What did he say you should do?

MR NGWENYA: He said we should enlist some help to him, assist him so that his brother should be shot.

MR LAX: Why did he need help?

MR NGWENYA: Because we were working hand-in-hand, all of us.

MR LAX: Yes, but what help did he need? I know you were going to help him because you were together, that much we understand. Why did he say he needed help with his brother?

MR NGWENYA: Maybe it was difficult for him to kill and shoot his very own brother.

MR LAX: Why did he want to kill his brother?

MR NGWENYA: It is because the things happened the way they happened.

MR LAX: Please explain what you mean by that, you're being very vague.

MR NGWENYA: There was violence in the area and it had intensified.

MR LAX: And that is why he wanted to kill his brother?

MR NGWENYA: Yes.

MR LAX: Carry on.

MR SAMUEL: Thank you.

Now did the meeting take a decision regarding an attack on his brother?

MR NGWENYA: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: And what was the motivation again for the attack?

MR NGWENYA: The motivation here was that we were not living peacefully in the area.

MR SAMUEL: Would this attack have been carried out if Mr Ntanzi was having personal problems with his brother, would the IFP have condoned such an attack, would you as the IFP youth have carried out such an attack?

MR NGWENYA: Please repeat your question.

MR SAMUEL: If it was not a political thing - it appears to me that you're saying that you suspected the deceased to be an ANC person responsible for the death ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, he's saying isn't he, that the first applicant told them that his brother was an ANC member.

Did you believe Mr Ntanzi when he told you that his brother was an ANC member?

MR NGWENYA: Yes, I did believe him.

CHAIRPERSON: And did you believe him when he told you about these mysterious visitors that his brother was having?

MR NGWENYA: Yes, very true.

CHAIRPERSON: And did you get all the information about his brother from him?

MR NGWENYA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And you thought he was being honest?

MR NGWENYA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Because there was trouble in the area at the time?

MR NGWENYA: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: As far as you are aware, was the deceased ever a member of the IFP?

MR NGWENYA: I will not know about the previous occasions or before this whole incident.

MR SAMUEL: Well you met as IFP youth, did the deceased ever attend any IFP youth meetings in your area?

MR NGWENYA: No.

MR LAX: Now to be fair, he was a good 10 years older than you, wasn't he?

MR NGWENYA: Not 10 years older than me.

MR LAX: Well his brother says ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: 10 years older than his brother.

MR LAX: Sorry, 10 years older than his brother, I beg your pardon.

MR NGWENYA: Yes, him, not myself.

MR LAX: Would he have been a member of the youth at that point?

MR NGWENYA: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: It has been suggested that he was around 30 at the time of his death, were you born on the 16th of December 1965?

MR NGWENYA: Yes, that's very true.

MR SAMUEL: So that would make you around 28 at the time of this incident?

MR NGWENYA: Yes, that's true.

MR SAMUEL: And you would be more or less, well you'd be two years younger than Mr Ntanzi, the deceased?

MR NGWENYA: Yes, that's true.

MR SAMUEL: Now being in almost the same age group, would he have - I think you've answered this question,but just for a little bit more clarity, would he have to have, would he if he were a member of the IFP, belong to the IFP adult section or would he still belong to the group that you belonged to, him being 30 and you being 28?

MR NGWENYA: He would have been together with us as youth.

MR SAMUEL: And how long was this youth group - how long were you a member of the youth group?

MR NGWENYA: From my youth days.

MR SAMUEL: What year was that?

MR NGWENYA: From when I went or started school.

MR SAMUEL: Do you have any idea what year that would be?

MR NGWENYA: Maybe it was 1976, if my memory serves me correct.

MR SAMUEL: Do you know which school the deceased attended?

MR NGWENYA: Yes, I know.

MR SAMUEL: Were you and him at the same school or were you at different schools?

MR NGWENYA: Same school.

MR SAMUEL: Okay. And from 1976 until his death in 1993, did he ever attend any IFP youth meetings?

MR NGWENYA: No, except that when we were still young as boys, we were ignorant about politics and the issues surrounding politics. We started at a fairly later age to attend and be active in youth meetings.

MR SAMUEL: So when it was suggested to you by the first applicant that the deceased was in fact an ANC member, did you have any reason to disbelieve him at the meeting? Let me clear this up, when was the first time it was suggested to you that the deceased was a member of the ANC?

MR NGWENYA: I think it was in 1993.

MR SAMUEL: How long in relation to the day of the deceased's death did you gather this information?

MR NGWENYA: It could have been - it's quite difficult to recall that because this happened some time ago.

MR SAMUEL: You told us that the first applicant told you about the deceased's affiliation to the ANC, can you remember if anyone else suggested this to you?

MR NGWENYA: No, no-one.

MR SAMUEL: No-one except the first applicant?

MR NGWENYA: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: Now at the meeting itself, the elimination of another human being must have required some debate and discussion, did it follow that course at your meeting?

MR NGWENYA: The way the situation was, we did not even have any arguments, that was put to our attention and we all agreed and concurred with that suggestion.

MR SAMUEL: What was the reason for making the decision in such haste, didn't you want to debate and discuss it?

MR NGWENYA: It is because there were people who were invading the area, who would be coming and visiting his house or his home.

MR SAMUEL: Now you described deaths of IFP people in the area, what did this do to you and other people psychologically, how did you feel when these deaths of your comrades occurred in the area?

MR NGWENYA: That hurt us a great deal and it was posing some kind of threat to us, that we are no longer safe anymore.

MR SAMUEL: Would you say that you still lived the way you were, did you feel safe to walk down the road or were you living in fear?

MR NGWENYA: We were still residing in the same area but we were no longer as free because at night we would not go to sleep, it would only have to be during the day when we go to sleep.

MR SAMUEL: What did you do during the night?

MR NGWENYA: We would go to camp and be alert and be vigilant.

MR SAMUEL: Did you ever confront any of the people that you suspected were killing ANC members in the area, killing IFP members in the area, I beg your pardon?

MR NGWENYA: Please repeat your question again.

MR SAMUEL: At any stage did you ever have a confrontation, a fight or a skirmish with these people whom you suspected were killing IFP people in the area?

MR NGWENYA: No, that never occurred because all the incidents took place at night. They would shoot and disappear.

MR SAMUEL: Now the targets that were being chosen, were these ordinary IFP people or were they key, important IFP people?

MR NGWENYA: One of them was a secretary of the organisation and the other was just an ordinary just like myself.

MR SAMUEL: And you mentioned that the youth leader was also killed.

MR NGWENYA: Yes, true.

CHAIRPERSON: Was he the secretary or was he someone else?

MR NGWENYA: He was our leader, the youth leader that is.

CHAIRPERSON: So there were three people killed?

MR NGWENYA: The ones I remember perfectly well are the two. There might have been a third one, although I don't remember.

CHAIRPERSON: Well who are the two?

MR NGWENYA: It was Ntutugo who was killed and another one by the surname of Mahai. I've forgotten his name.

CHAIRPERSON: Now which was your leader?

MR NGWENYA: Please repeat that question again.

CHAIRPERSON: Which was your leader?

MR NGWENYA: Ntutugo was our leader.

MR LAX: That was your cousin, wasn't it? ...(indistinct)

MR NGWENYA: Yes, that was my cousin. You mean Ntutugo?

MR LAX: Correct.

MR NGWENYA: Yes.

MR LAX: And his surname was Ntuli?

MR NGWENYA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Ntuli?

MR LAX: Ntuli: N-T-U-L-I. Just for record purpose, if one looks at page 43 of the record, the translation of Ngwenya's letter to us details all that information.

So you've said - you were just explaining there what, which of your relatives were killed, and you just said that:

and you said:

That's what you said in your letter to us, do you remember that?

MR NGWENYA: I explained that perfectly clear.

MR LAX: Well can the translators just look at page 40 of the papers and just read the reply to question one, the question and the answer and tell us whether the translation is in fact correct.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm not sure that the questions have been put down on page 40, that I think is just the answers. The questions I think are on page 39.

MR LAX: The main thing I'm interested in is whether the answer is translated correctly. Well let's get the translation.

CHAIRPERSON: Well can we take the adjournment at this stage and can arrangements be made during the adjournment to check the interpretation of questions and answers from page 39 to 44. We'll adjourn now till 2 o'clock.

CHAIRPERSON: ... report on this interpretation?

INTERPRETER: Yes, there is. The first answer would read thus:

MR LAX: Please continue Mr Samuel, that clears up the problem.

MR SAMUEL: Thank you.

MR LAX: Sorry, just for the benefit of the Chairperson, the answer was:

So in fact instead of being in the negative it's in the affirmative.

MR SAMUEL: Does the witness have to be sworn in again?

CHAIRPERSON: No, just remind him he's still under oath.

CHAIRPERSON: You're still under your previous oath, you know that don't you?

MR NGWENYA: Yes.

N NGWENYA: (s.u.o.)

MR SAMUEL: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Now we were at a point when we said that the two IFP members that you knew who were killed, one was the secretary and youth leader, that is your cousin and there was one other person that was killed. Would you say that outsiders would know them well, outsiders from the community ...(indistinct) would know them well and know where they lived etc?

MR NGWENYA: Yes, they will know better.

MR SAMUEL: Now you were at camp at Luthuli's house on the day the deceased was killed, was this the 25th of September 1993?

MR NGWENYA: Yes, I will agree but I don't quite remember as to what date it was.

MR SAMUEL: Which of you left Luthuli's house to go and attack the deceased?

MR NGWENYA: It was myself, Nicholas and Mfana Neyao.

MR SAMUEL: Yes? Anyone else? You say it was yourself, Nicholas, who is Nicholas?

MR NGWENYA: My co-accused.

MR SAMUEL: I see. You point to Mr Ntanzi?

MR NGWENYA: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: And you mentioned another name.

MR NGWENYA: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: What's the name of this other person?

MR NGWENYA: Dobo.

MR SAMUEL: No, that's ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Isn't Dobo Mr Ntanzi? You spoke of Mfana Neyao.

MR SAMUEL: I think you misunderstood me, I didn't ask what Mr Ntanzi's other name was, I said you mentioned another name, who is this other person?

CHAIRPERSON: Another person, what is the name of the third person?

MR NGWENYA: Mfana Neyao was the third person.

MR SAMUEL: What happened when you left Luthuli's house?

MR NGWENYA: We left and we went straight to Nicholas' home or house. We got there, we got inside the premises. When we got inside the premises, Nicholas came and knocked at the door. As he opened the door, I shot and soon after that we left and went back to Luthuli's house.

CHAIRPERSON: Did anything happen before you arrived there?

MR NGWENYA: We only heard some noise, far off, not within our vicinity.

MR SAMUEL: When you say you heard some noise, can you describe what you heard?

MR NGWENYA: There were people who were far, fairly far from us that we heard.

MR SAMUEL: When you got to the deceased's house, was there anyone in the vicinity of the deceased's house?

MR NGWENYA: I would say when you leave the premises or around the premises, not too far away from there, there are trees there, I'm not too sure if there were people there but there was some noise that was emanating from that direction.

MR SAMUEL: When you got to the deceased's house, where was he?

MR NGWENYA: He was inside the house.

MR SAMUEL: How did you get him to open the door?

MR NGWENYA: Nicholas knocked at the door and he was the one talking to him and he opened for him because he knew that was the brother talking.

MR SAMUEL: And was it arranged that you would fire the fatal shot?

MR NGWENYA: Yes, I was the one who had this firearm that was a bit bigger than the others.

MR SAMUEL: Are you saying it was agreed that you will fire the shot, before you got there?

MR NGWENYA: Yes, that was agreed before.

MR SAMUEL: What happened after you fired the shot?

MR NGWENYA: I shot him, he screamed and we left with immediate effect.

MR SAMUEL: And at the trial you pleaded guilty to the murder of the deceased?

MR NGWENYA: Yes, that's true.

MR SAMUEL: I have no further questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAPOMA: At the trial when you've pleaded guilty, you told the Court what happened, the way it happened, is it not so?

MR NGWENYA: That is so.

MR MAPOMA: And in fact, before you told the Court what happened, there was a written statement that was prepared where you admitted guilt, is it not so?

MR NGWENYA: That is so.

MR MAPOMA: And that statement reflected what you had to tell the Court, is that right?

MR NGWENYA: Yes, that's true.

MR MAPOMA: Now you say it was yourself, Mr Ntanzi and Mfana Neyao who were involved in the shooting, was there no other person involved apart from the three of you?

MR NGWENYA: There were some.

MR MAPOMA: And who are those?

MR NGWENYA: We were quite a number. I've forgotten the others' names because this transpired a long time ago, but the people I am sure of, beyond reasonable doubt, are the two I've referred to shortly and they are the ones I have no doubt about.

MR MAPOMA: So is it your evidence that you were a group of people when you went to attack the deceased?

MR NGWENYA: Yes.

MR MAPOMA: Can you estimate how many were you?

MR NGWENYA: The ones who were following us behind, I will not be in a position to give you an estimation.

MR MAPOMA: No, no, you were a group when you went there, I want you to estimate the number of the group that you were when you went to attack.

MR NGWENYA: We were going there. We went in various ways, some were taking another direction and we took another direction. We could not go as if we were going to a party or something like that, this was war we are talking about.

MR MAPOMA: Now before you went, you left for the attack, you as a group discussed the killing of the deceased person, that's correct hey, is it not?

MR NGWENYA: Yes, that's correct.

MR MAPOMA: Who was there in the discussions, apart from yourself and Mfana Neyao and your co-applicant, who else was there?

MR NGWENYA: I don't quite understand if you want me to furnish you with their names.

MR MAPOMA: Yes, I want you to disclose their names.

MR NGWENYA: It was Nzameleni, Mhakauwe, Moosa. I've forgotten the rest because we were quite a big number.

MR MAPOMA: And these three were also present when you went to attack?

MR NGWENYA: They were not part of the ones I was with in front, could have formed part of the group that was following behind.

MR LAX: If you'll just allow, Mr Mapoma.

Why were they following behind you?

MR NGWENYA: Because they were keeping guard somehow to see who could be coming our way.

MR MAPOMA: Mr Ngwenya, for your benefit I must explain to you that for you to be granted amnesty you must make full disclosure of the relevant facts of the act for which you seek amnesty, and that full disclosure means amongst other things, that you must fully disclose to the Committee who were your co-perpetrators. Do you understand that, Sir?

MR NGWENYA: I heard you perfectly well.

MR MAPOMA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And have you tried to do that?

MR NGWENYA: I am trying to do that.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps we should read another paragraph of your statement:

Is that the position, were you under the influence of liquor at the time?

MR NGWENYA: No, I was only trying to defend myself, to sort of let the sentence to be lighter.

CHAIRPERSON: So that's not true?

MR NGWENYA: That's not true.

MR MAPOMA: I propose to read for you the statement that was prepared in Court before you gave evidence. On page 55 of the bundle, on paragraph 6 you said as follows:

(accused number 1 is Mr Ntanzi).

(accused number 3 is Nzamaleni).

Then you go on, on paragraph 10 of this statement you say:

Then you go on. You would agree with me, Sir, that in this statement these people whom you have just now mentioned, whom you did not disclose in your evidence-in-chief, were in your company when you went to attack? ...(intervention)

MR LAX: You might just add, Mr Mapoma, the last paragraph 13, which is that:

MR NGWENYA: The ones that I was with in front, we were three in number as I've already explained. It was myself, Nicholas and Mfana Neyao, plus the others were following behind.

MR MAPOMA: So those others who were following behind, are they the three men you have just mentioned later?

MR NGWENYA: I will concur with that because they formed part of the meeting when we held it.

MR MAPOMA: Then why did you not disclose that to the Committee in your evidence-in-chief?

MR NGWENYA: As I am also saying now, that the ones that I am definitely sure about, beyond reasonable doubt, are the ones who were in my company in front but the ones who were following, I could not stand here and state that I know them.

MR MAPOMA: I put it to you Sir, that you don't want to disclose that these people, Nzameleni, Mhakauwe and Moosa were part and parcel of your attack because they are not dead, you only disclose Mfana Neyao because he is deceased, you are covering them up. That is what I suggest, what is your response to that?

MR NGWENYA: If I was trying to keep that away from you, I wouldn't even have pleaded guilty at the Court of law.

MR MAPOMA: Now when you arrived at that place where the deceased was, you said in the vicinity there - you were asked a question whether in the vicinity of that place were there some people and you said you heard some noise, are you in a position to tell the Committee whether there were people there or not, apart from the deceased?

MR NGWENYA: I would say there were people because I heard some sounds.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you. Thank you, Chairperson, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

MR SAMUEL: No re-examination.

MR LAX: When you approached the kraal of the deceased, where was the deceased as you were approaching it?

MR NGWENYA: We found him inside the house and the door was closed.

MR LAX: So the door was already closed when you saw him?

MR NGWENYA: The door was closed upon our arrival.

MR LAX: Your co-applicant says that on your arrival there, these people ran away and he saw your brother closing the door.

MR NGWENYA: I may say that he was scared of, because whatever was going to be happening there, it was happening to his brother. So it could be that he was scared and thought that he was closing the door, because we are talking about his brother here.

MR LAX: But you think he's mistaken, you didn't see that happen?

MR NGWENYA: I did not see that.

MR LAX: You also didn't hear any neighbours firing shots?

MR NGWENYA: I did hear gunshots but far away, not close to where we were.

MR LAX: Not the neighbours, it might have been other people from far away?

MR NGWENYA: Not too close, but a distance.

MR LAX: And are those the noises you eluded to when you first testified in your evidence here today? You said you heard some noises in the area but far away, is that what you were referring to, the gunshots?

MR NGWENYA: No, I was talking about noise that was being made by people.

MR LAX: What sort of noise are you referring to, shouting? We don't know, so you will have to tell us.

MR NGWENYA: The kind of noise that you will hear from people who would be walking around trees or in the vicinity of trees and you would heard the rustling of trees and leaves, plus wood, that kind of forest sound.

MR LAX: So you didn't hear voices, you just heard the crackling of branches and leaves and rustling and so on?

MR NGWENYA: Yes.

MR LAX: You're quite sure that the information about the deceased came to you as you put it, only from your co-applicant?

MR NGWENYA: Yes, that's true.

MR LAX: You never saw his late brother involved in any fighting with members of your organisation?

MR NGWENYA: No, I never saw him in possession of a firearm or fighting.

MR LAX: So in essence you are telling us that you relied on what he told you?

MR NGWENYA: Yes, I relied upon that information that he gave to me because we would attend together, IFP members, and he will not be there, the brother that is.

MR LAX: Now your co-applicant was the assistant leader of the Inkatha youth, did you know that?

MR NGWENYA: Yes, I knew that.

MR LAX: Now in the light of your cousin being deceased, wouldn't that make him the leader until the new person was elected?

MR NGWENYA: It would have been from him if he accepts that or not.

MR LAX: You see you told us in your evidence that the suggestion about killing his brother and the information about his brother came directly from him at your meeting and that there was very little debate about the matter, you heard him, you believed him and you decided well, then we must kill him.

MR NGWENYA: Yes, that's true.

MR LAX: And I'm suggesting to you that if this came from your leader, that would explain why there was so little discussion about the matter, you just, that's what your leader said, you all believed him and you decided to do it.

MR NGWENYA: No, it's not like that.

MR LAX: So he was just a trusted member of your group, you believed the information and there was no dispute about killing this brother of his?

MR NGWENYA: Yes.

MR LAX: Did he tell you that his brother was - let's find the exact words, just give me one second, did he tell you that his brother was treating him badly?

MR NGWENYA: You see as brothers you are bound to have misunderstandings or fight over some issues.

MR LAX: Did he tell you that his brother was treating him badly? I heard you "Xa" in your answer, but that wasn't translated, did you mean no?

MR NGWENYA: He did say that at the meeting.

MR LAX: So he did say it?

MR NGWENYA: Yes, he did.

MR LAX: How was his brother mistreating him, as far as he explained it to you? What was his brother doing to him that ...

MR NGWENYA: He was harassing him inasfar as the organisation was concerned.

MR LAX: You never witnessed any strangers at his brother's house?

MR NGWENYA: I was not frequenting that area quite a lot, I would occasionally go there.

MR LAX: How often did you see the first applicant at that time?

MR NGWENYA: Quite often. And I'm thinking that maybe like during the day we would sit and relax together and he will even have dinner by our house.

MR LAX: Where was your house?

MR NGWENYA: At Ezendopi, the same area.

MR LAX: You say that happened quite often?

MR NGWENYA: Yes, that's true.

MR LAX: You see his evidence was that he only visited the area occasionally to visit his mother, so do you think he's mistaken about that?

MR NGWENYA: I don't know but I don't think that's the point or that's the facts because we were residing in one area.

MR LAX: You see he told us that he fled the area and he went and lived in another place and he only came back there to visit his mother from time to time. That is how he put it. You say that's not true?

MR NGWENYA: He's mistaken.

MR LAX: Thanks Chairperson, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Was your house burnt?

MR NGWENYA: Please repeat your question.

CHAIRPERSON: Was your house burnt?

MR NGWENYA: Yes, my house was burnt.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that before or after this incident?

MR NGWENYA: Before this incident?

CHAIRPERSON: How long before?

MR NGWENYA: Approximately two to three weeks prior.

CHAIRPERSON: And was it burnt as part of the violence?

MR NGWENYA: Yes, that was part of the violence.

CHAIRPERSON: And did this effect you and effect your emotions?

MR NGWENYA: Yes, this traumatised me because I lost so much of my possessions due to that fire, or my house being burnt.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you say in your application for amnesty, and I'm reading now from page 31, I'm not sure where it comes from:

CHAIRPERSON: Did you say that?

MR NGWENYA: Yes, I did say that.

CHAIRPERSON:

MR NGWENYA: Yes, that's true.

CHAIRPERSON:

MR NGWENYA: Yes, that's true.

CHAIRPERSON:

MR NGWENYA: Yes, that's true.

CHAIRPERSON:

MR NGWENYA: That's true.

CHAIRPERSON: And was that how you were feeling at the time?

MR NGWENYA: When my cousin died and my relatives as well as my house burnt, that traumatised me quite a lot emotionally and otherwise.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

ADV SIGODI: Thank you, Chairperson.

At the time that you decided that - that this decision was taken that the deceased be killed, were you told that you were the one who was going to shoot the deceased?

MR NGWENYA: I borrowed the firearm myself out of my initiative.

ADV SIGODI: Is there anybody who told you to shoot?

MR NGWENYA: I told them out of my own volution that I will execute the action.

ADV SIGODI: But did you hear the first applicant saying that it was decided by Mfana Neyao that you were going to shoot, who was going to shoot?

MR NGWENYA: Is it me?

ADV SIGODI: The first applicant.

MR NGWENYA: No, I think he's mistaken.

ADV SIGODI: Didn't it strike you as being funny or unusual that the applicant, first applicant would say, would want to go and kill his brother? Wasn't this a rather unusual thing?

MR NGWENYA: Please rephrase your question, I didn't get it.

ADV SIGODI: My question is, when the first applicant said that his brother must be killed, didn't this strike you as being unusual, didn't you question this request?

MR NGWENYA: There were things that were happening or happened, we all witnessed so much of what he explained to us because he kept telling us that there are people who are coming, unknown people, strangers who were coming to his house and we fully agreed with his suggestion because we were not certain about could transpire next as the situation was getting volatile.

ADV SIGODI: Why didn't you question why - I mean why didn't you target the people who came to visit instead of the applicant's brother?

MR NGWENYA: We did not know those people and we did not know where to find those people.

ADV SIGODI: Had you seen these unknown people, had you seen them before?

MR NGWENYA: I personally did not see them.

ADV SIGODI: Did you stay in the same village?

MR NGWENYA: Yes.

ADV SIGODI: Did you stay far away from the deceased?

MR NGWENYA: It was quite a distance, although I could be able to see their house from my home.

ADV SIGODI: Would you be able to see if there were unusual people at the deceased's house?

MR NGWENYA: I saw a group of people but I was not in a position to identify as to who they were.

ADV SIGODI: This is exactly what I'm trying to get at. Why didn't you target the unknown people, the people whom you suspected of causing the violence? If you saw them and you saw that these people you do not know and you suspect that these are the people who are bringing violence, why didn't you target those people?

MR NGWENYA: We wouldn't have been able to do that. We only could target the person who would be calling them, not the people themselves.

ADV SIGODI: Why not?

MR NGWENYA: Because we did not have sufficient firearms or enough firearms.

ADV SIGODI: How many people were there in the IFP Youth League?

MR NGWENYA: You mean the ones were with on the day in question?

ADV SIGODI: Alright, let's start with those you were with on that day in question, how many of you were there?

MR NGWENYA: We were three of us.

ADV SIGODI: In other words, was it just the three of you who decided that the deceased must be killed?

MR NGWENYA: It was not the three of us who decided but the whole group at large decided so.

ADV SIGODI: Yes, how many people were there in that group?

MR NGWENYA: We were many. I won't be able to give you the hypothetical figure as to how many we were.

ADV SIGODI: 20?

MR NGWENYA: About 20/25, that would be my rough estimation.

ADV SIGODI: And then all of you didn't have enough weapons to go and target the unknown people?

MR NGWENYA: That's very true.

ADV SIGODI: Thank you, Chairperson.

MR LAX: Just one last aspect. You say in your application form that the deceased never worked.

CHAIRPERSON: No, not never worked, he was not working.

MR LAX: No he says he never worked.

If you look at the translation on page 34, is that right?

MR NGWENYA: Yes, that's right.

MR LAX: And his brother tells us that he had at least two different jobs, you didn't know about that?

MR NGWENYA: No, I did not know about that.

MR LAX: But he was your age group and ...(intervention)

MR SAMUEL: Sorry, I understand that the Zulu word says unemployed, not never worked.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

MR SAMUEL: He was unemployed but not that he never worked.

MR LAX: Be it as it may, the way I put it to him he's confirmed that.

As far as you knew he didn't work?

MR NGWENYA: I knew him as somebody who was just available, around, who was not working.

MR LAX: He was somebody of your age group?

MR NGWENYA: Yes.

MR LAX: You would have known if he had a job?

MR NGWENYA: Yes.

MR LAX: And you never heard about it?

MR NGWENYA: At the time when this transpired he was not working.

MR LAX: Thanks, Chairperson.

MR SAMUEL: May I?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR SAMUEL: Mr Ngwenya, you indicated that your house was burnt a few weeks before this incident.

MR NGWENYA: Yes, that's true.

MR SAMUEL: And at some stage when Mr Lax questioned you, you indicated that the accused used to visit you regularly at your house.

MR NGWENYA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: The first applicant. You said the accused used to visit him regularly.

MR SAMUEL: I apologise. That is, Mr Ntanzi used to visit you regularly at your house?

MR NGWENYA: Yes, that's true.

MR SAMUEL: Now, so for at least three weeks before this incident he could not have visited you at your house because your house was burnt, am I correct?

MR NGWENYA: My house was burnt. Our house is a homestead sort of set-up so when that one particular hut was burnt, I had to move to the next hut.

MR SAMUEL: Okay. Now regularly, often, are also very relative terms. When you say he used to visit you regularly, do you mean he visited you once every day, once very week, once every month?

MR NGWENYA: I would occasionally see him passing on the road and he will stop by our house and we will relax a bit and go and come back as he goes back to his house. So I won't be in a position to tell you exactly how often or how many times he would pitch up at my house.

MR SAMUEL: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you calling any further witnesses?

MR SAMUEL: No, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, shall we deal with the question whether there is any questioning from the floor? Do any of the members of the audience who are not represented, wish to put any questions to either of the two applicants who have given evidence so far? Right, there is no response to that. We will carry on with the hearing.

Are you now closing your case?

MR SAMUEL: That is correct.

MR MAPOMA: There is no further evidence, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Can we hear argument?

MR SAMUEL IN ARGUMENT: Thank you.

The applicants have applied for amnesty over the death of the deceased, Mr Ntanzi who was killed on the 25th of September 1993 at or near Eshowe area.

The basis of the application and the reason why it falls within the ambit of this Committee it is argued is because it was a politically motivated killing.

The two applicants are members of the IFP Youth Committee. One of the them, the first applicant, was the assistant youth leader. And what is also perhaps important in this matter is that the deceased was the blood-brother of the first applicant.

We are talking about a time in this country which hopefully we have surpassed forever, when prior to the important democratic election there was obviously jockeying for political positions and votes.

We are talking about a time when it became apparent to all the powers that be that areas should in fact, ground should be made in areas that fell outside their sphere of influence. The applicants have argued that the area in fact was an IFP stronghold and gradually it became a mixed area.

They have testified that certain key IFP members were killed and the suspicion was that it was in fact the ANC that were committing these atrocities and that it was people from the outside that in fact were killing the IFP people.

The suspicion obviously must have been for these important leaders of the IFP to be killed, that information was coming within the community and the fact that the deceased was seen to be associating with people, large numbers of people from outside the area under some strange circumstances, must have at least created the perception in the minds of the applicants amongst others, that he may have been involved in the, if not the perpetrating of the acts against them but at least in giving some information which led to the attacks on their members.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you argue that on behalf of the applicants? Surely you can only argue that on behalf of the first applicant. The second applicant has said that he had no such information, he only received information from the first applicant.

MR SAMUEL: There are two points that one may argue on the evidence of the second applicant. Firstly, when questioned by Advocate Sigodi, he indicated that he saw a large group of people at or in the vicinity of the deceased's house.

CHAIRPERSON: On one occasion.

MR SAMUEL: One occasion. The second point is that he indicated that he was informed of this by the first applicant. Now we are dealing with times of terror, times unimaginable today, times when, even he testified where he was psychologically in fear. His house was burnt down, his friends were dying. And whether or not - it's not important I submit, that this Committee makes a determination whether or not the deceased was in fact an ANC member or involved, but it's what were the perceptions at that time.

If they perceived the deceased to be an ANC member and to be in some way related to the violence in the area, that is important because the killing I submit, was done in furtherance of their self-defence as they argued.

It must have taken some great mental and emotional for the first applicant to in fact allow a situation where his brother would be killed. Even most abusive brothers one submits, one would not willingly allow them to be killed or kill them.

MR LAX: Mr Samuel, the evidence of the second applicant is that the first applicant went out of his way to persuade them to kill his brother. He tried to impress upon them how important it was and what a threat his brother was. That was his evidence.

MR SAMUEL: I think his evidence was that it was, the information he gathered was supplied by the first applicant, that the first applicant in fact advised him that this is the situation.

CHAIRPERSON: The first applicant advised a meeting of young IFP youth that his brother was an ANC activist and was responsible for the people coming in and killing in their area and ought to be killed.

MR LAX: If I could just add so that we are clear on this point. Advocate Sigodi asked him: "Wasn't this an unusual thing, didn't this strike you as strange that here was this guy pushing for his brother to be killed?", and your client in his answer said, the second applicant said: "No, he was adamant about it, he was insistent on it", words to that effect. So I just want to say that for you then to say this must have been a difficult thing for him isn't borne out by the evidence.

MR SAMUEL: Well let's argue this, with respect Lady and Gentlemen, the following situation. We're dealing with a situation where a township is pretty much a war zone.

Let's assume that that committee discovered strange people were coming to the first applicant's house without the first applicant disclosing this, wouldn't the first applicant himself be under suspicion from the group? Wouldn't the group itself turn against the first applicant and say: well you were aware that your brother is harbouring ANC members in your house, your alliance lies to the IFP, why didn't you disclose that to us? Shouldn't he as a member of the IFP be forthright and put this on the table.

MR LAX: Ja, we hear you on that except to say that on the second applicant's evidence and version, the whole origination of this idea that his brother should be killed came from him.

CHAIRPERSON: You see Mr Samuel, it's a very different matter. If he goes to the leaders of the IFP and says: please help me, I've got this problem at home, my brother is doing this, what should I do? But he doesn't, he waits until there is a gathering of young men and puts to them that they should go and kill his brother.

MR SAMUEL: I accept that ...(end of tape) lots of issues should be debated and there should be organisational responsibilities where you challenge even the simplest of decisions in your area.

We're not - with respect, Mr Chairperson, we're dealing with a time ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: We're dealing with somebody who decides to get his brother killed.

MR SAMUEL: That is correct, Mr Chairperson, but I'm arguing ...(intervention)

MR LAX: You can take it as given that we understand the context. We've heard hundreds and hundreds of cases involving the political conflicts both in this province and elsewhere, so you can take it for granted that we do understand that these were difficult times, however what you are seeking to address us and argue on is to say that he must have experienced some qualms about this, and clearly he couldn't have because he originated the idea. That is really the simple ...(indistinct).

MR SAMUEL: Thank you. What I am saying as well is that we should not accept as gospel the descriptions of that meeting, given some years after the incident. We cannot accept even the first applicant's version as this meeting, I mean the first applicant merely stated that his brother should be killed and everyone accepted it. I'm saying that even those decisions would have been debated and the second applicant may have forgotten the discussions. For instance, at some level he introduces the gentleman by the name Mfana Neyao.

However, what he may remember clearly is the role that the first applicant played because the first applicant faced trial with him and was in prison with him. So those kind of things will stick out in his memory, even today.

The roles that the other players played, who no longer associated with this matter, may have been forgotten. Logically the situation is that if the first applicant went to a meeting and just said lets kill this person, it seems improbable and illogical that everyone would have joined him and merely went and killed the deceased. There must have been some discussion and debate and there must have been other submissions by other members because you can fool some of the people but you can't fool 30 people ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Would anyone suspect they were being fooled when someone is saying: "My brother is the person responsible, kill him?" Surely that is a matter, Mr Samuel, that if you believe you don't discuss any further, it is an emotional matter, and this is what he did.

MR SAMUEL: What he says he did was he raised this at the meeting and other people at the meeting also confirmed their suspicions relating to the brother being involved with the ANC. That is his memory, that Mfana Neyao was also the one who was engaged in the discussion and other people must have also discussed their suspicions at the meeting.

The second applicant doesn't seem to remember this, he merely remembers the first applicant's role in this. But what I'm saying is that you would not get 30 youth who are involved in defence, merely taking the word of one person.

So we are actually missing something here and maybe with the fluction of time and the manner in which this matter has gone, that is why we are getting this kind of evidence before the Commission. However, we should not place too much reliance on simply what the second applicant has said.

The suggestion appears initially in the summary of facts, that it was based on a family dispute, that the deceased was a nuisance. And that emerges in all the statements that are attributed to have been taken by the police. And the first applicant testified he was assaulted by the police. But the Judge in his judgment seems to have indicated that this was in fact to an extend a political killing.

If one views the conduct of the police at that time, and the Committee must have heard hundreds of such cases of the conduct of police at that time, it was not uncommon for them to literally put words in the mouths of people. What is significant is that the mother of the first applicant was found not guilty.

CHAIRPERSON: And you saw the reasoning, because her confession, if it's that, couldn't be affixed to this particular killing. The Judge did not reject the fact that she had said that she spoke to these men and asked them to kill.

MR LAX: He simply argued that the nexus for the purpose of forming a common purpose was sufficiently remote for her not to be convicted on that basis. In other words, the time at which she spoke to them and the time at which the killing happened there was sufficient efluction of time for there not to be a strong enough nexus. That was the only reason he found her not guilty.

MR SAMUEL: I suppose that he would have had some difficulty, with respect, to have accepted one confession and rejected the other. So I'm saying that even that one is suspicious. A mother does not go willingly and say: "Kill my son because he's a nuisance."

CHAIRPERSON: Well the Court accepted that did say that, that that's what she said to the Magistrate. That confession was not rejected.

MR LAX: Can you just address us on this, the probabilities tend to favour, based on the second applicant's version, that what is in fact said in those statements is correct. The probabilities tend to favour the fact that because half the family was IFP, they saw this brother as a nuisance and he appeared to be harassing them because they couldn't exercise their political world. So that backs up - the probabilities back up everything about the ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You will recollect that the first applicant said on more than one occasion, that the deceased used to say: Oh well the IFP, they're just a bunch of morons, they don't don't what, they're stupid, and he found this particularly insulting. That was what was causing trouble, that there was this family feud going on, that the deceased was being a nuisance in the family.

MR SAMUEL: If you look at nuisance in that perspective, yes, I accept that but the perception that I got when reading it, a nuisance would probably be somebody who is getting drunk and creating a disturbance. I suppose the broader meaning, I would take my guidance from the Committee on that.

If that is the situation then in fact I submit that there is some level of merit in that argument. However, the second applicant has in no way corroborated or confirmed the meeting with the mother or the discussions with the mother.

Now in his 112(2) (sic) plea, he's implicated the first accused, he's implicated other people but he does not implicate the mother.

CHAIRPERSON: No.

MR SAMUEL: So I'm saying that that alleged instruction is subject to some degree of suspicion.

CHAIRPERSON: Well she said it. It is she who said she gave that instruction to her son and others.

MR SAMUEL: That is in a form of a confession.

CHAIRPERSON: Right.

MR SAMUEL: I don't think that was her evidence in the matter itself. I think the judgment deals with the confession that she made before a Magistrate.

MR LAX: Do you have any other submissions?

MR SAMUEL: My further submissions are that what is clear from the evidence is that the deceased was not a member of the IFP. It is also clear that the deceased did not want to belong to the IFP, because he must have had ample opportunity, he actually used derogatory terms on members of the IFP and that in itself I submit, is some basis for the suspicion that the person would go out of his way to provoke IFP persons, to call them uncivilised and barbarians, would he not in some way be responsible for the attacks.

There appeared to be some contradictions in the evidence between the first and second applicant. The first applicant speaks of a group of people running away etc. His mother, and the judgments reflects this, says even on the next morning when she saw him he was nervous and he was shivering etc.

So his perceptions on that day may have been influenced by the fact that he was getting involved in this big decision to kill his brother, this big act to kill his brother. So one is likely to find in these kinds of contradictions in the evidence. However, by and large they have disclosed fully what they have done. They have disclosed I submit, in substantial and material details their act of murder. And I'm saying with respect, that both of them should be granted amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any submissions?

MR MAPOMA: I have no submissions, Chairperson, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll take time. Does that conclude today's hearing?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, Chairperson, that concludes today's hearing.

CHAIRPERSON: Does that conclude your appearance here?

MR SAMUEL: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for your assistance.

MR SAMUEL: Thank you, thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll now adjourn till 9 o'clock tomorrow morning.