F MAKONYA NDIMANDE: (sworn states)
MR DEHAL: Thank you Sir.
EXAMINATION BY MR DEHAL: Mr Ndimande, is it correct that this application which I show to you, for the record pages 12 onwards in the bundle which refers to all four of the applicants in the heading thereof, is your application, your application for amnesty?
MR NDIMANDE: It is.
CHAIRPERSON: My bundle is headed "Additional Bundle", is yours?
MR DEHAL: Yes, indeed, of the Additional Bundle, thank you. And is it correct that this affidavit on pages 19 to 23 of the same bundle, which is the English transcript of the hand-written aspect, pages 1 to 23, is your affidavit?
MR NDIMANDE: Yes, it is.
MR DEHAL: You confirm the correctness of them both, do you?
MR NDIMANDE: Yes.
MR DEHAL: I see in the application, page 13 of that bundle, you say the only aspect, the only incident in regard to which you seek amnesty is that relating to the killing of the deceased, Mr Lembede, correct?
MR NDIMANDE: Correct.
MR DEHAL: And at the bottom of that page you say you were approached by Mr Ernest Mahlane, who told you that the deceased was supplying weapons to the IFP people and was responsible for the ANC killings. You then continue on the next page to say Mr Mthambo instructed us to kill Mr Lembede.
"We went to the shop and Pops Nyawuza, that's the first applicant who has just testified, had shot the deceased."
Correct?
MR NDIMANDE: Correct.
MR DEHAL: And then at the bottom of page 14 in paragraph 10(a) as political objectives for the event that you sought to achieve, you say the following
"We had to eliminate the deceased because he was responsible for supplying weapons to the IFP members who killed ANC people."
Do you confirm that?
MR NDIMANDE: Correct.
MR DEHAL: You then go on in that last paragraph (b) thereof to say
"Mr Lembede, the deceased, was supplying arms to IFP members, there was constant fighting between ANC and IFP people. Mr Lembede would supply these IFP people with weapons and attacked the ANC people. We had to eliminate him so that we could live in peace without fear of being killed by the IFP."
Is that correct?
MR NDIMANDE: That's correct.
MR DEHAL: And then you say in paragraph 11(a), contained on page 16 of that bundle
"Mr Mthambo was the head of the ANC in the area of Umbumbulu."
MR NDIMANDE: Correct.
MR DEHAL: When dealing with orders or approvals given to you, under paragraph (b) of the same page, you say
"The order was given in June 91 at the meeting on Wednesday. The place was Nzamane in Umlazi."
MR NDIMANDE: Yes.
MR DEHAL: Then of course you deal with your criminal charge - or sorry, you're being charged criminally with this incident, you are being convicted of murder and sentenced in that regard.
MR NDIMANDE: Yes.
MR DEHAL: Now just background, Mr Ndimande. In your affidavit on page 19 you deal with your ANC involvement. Before I begin to question you on that, may I ask you, you were present in these proceedings when the first applicant, Mr Nkosinati Emanuel Nyawuza testified. Do you confirm the correctness of his testimony insofar as it relates to you?
MR NDIMANDE: It is true what he testified on.
MR DEHAL: And do you confirm that the incident and the execution of the deceased Mr Lembede took place in the way, in the manner that Mr Nyawuza, the first applicant testified?
MR NDIMANDE: Would you please repeat your question? I didn't quite follow.
MR DEHAL: Mr Nyawuza who testified earlier, the first applicant, described in detail how the elimination of the deceased took place. He spoke of which vehicle was used, that his father's vehicle was used, that you went to the shop of the deceased and how the events there followed up and how the deceased came to be eliminated. Now do you agree with the testimony in that regard?
MR NDIMANDE: Yes, I do confirm that.
MR DEHAL: Thank you. I want to now deal with some aspects that my learned colleagues were concerned with, especially in their cross-examination of the first applicant. Firstly, there was a camp and there were meetings at this camp and decisions were taken at this camp to eliminate the deceased, is that correct?
MR NDIMANDE: Yes, that's correct.
MR DEHAL: Can you give us some background about this camp and describe what it is? Is it an underground camp, is it an over ground camp, is it a shebeen?
MR NDIMANDE: It was a camp in an area where we were staying but it wasn't an open space. It was hidden.
MR DEHAL: Why was it hidden?
MR NDIMANDE: The reason it is because at that period if police were to discover that ANC people were hiding in such places, they will come and shoot at us.
CHAIRPERSON: So it was somewhere that you could reside in? It was a place you lived in?
MR NDIMANDE: It was a bushy area, we used to hide ourselves there.
MR DEHAL: Did you hold meetings in this camp, or did you live there and hold meetings in this camp? I'm talking of ANC meetings.
MR NDIMANDE: Yes, it was an area which we used to hold meetings in it and also camp there.
MR DEHAL: Mr Mbambo whom you heard the first applicant speak of, was one who featured very prominently in ANC circles in that area. What was his role in the ANC affairs in that area?
MR NDIMANDE: His duties in the area as a member of the ANC, he used to call us and tell us about meetings which were supposed to be held. We used to listen and follow whatever he told us.
MR DEHAL: In the leadership of the ANC within your area, would you have considered him as being your leader, equal to you, or below you?
MR NDIMANDE: His position was above me. His activities showed it that way.
MR DEHAL: Do you know whether Mbambo was an MK trained activist cadre or do you not know?
MR NDIMANDE: Mbambo told me that he was an SDU, this is what he told me.
MR DEHAL: Now did you and the other applicants form a part of the Self Defence Units? Were you members of this unit?
MR NDIMANDE: No, we were members of ANC.
MR DEHAL: Apart from this single act for which you seek amnesty, did you participate in any other ANC activities prior to this act and if so, can you briefly tell us what they were?
MR NDIMANDE: I took part in quite a lot of activities of the ANC. Sometimes when meetings were to be held, I used to go around telling people to come to that meeting and sometimes we used to recruit people to be members or supporters of the ANC.
MR DEHAL: Did you hold any placard demonstrations, any marches in the area, deliver any petitions to any persons?
MR NDIMANDE: Yes, our leaders sometimes used to give us pamphlets to go and distribute to the community.
MR DEHAL: Now as a member of the ANC, did you carry an ANC card?
MR NDIMANDE: Yes, I had one.
MR DEHAL: Did you ever previously take instructions from this Mbambo?
MR NDIMANDE: Yes, I did. In fact most of the instructions which he issued, we used to follow them.
MR DEHAL: When you speak of we, does that include the other applicants?
MR NDIMANDE: Yes.
MR DEHAL: So you would confirm what the first applicant said, that all of you, namely yourself, Mr Elijah Nyawuza and Mr Meyiwa were all ANC activists of this area, regarding Mr Mbambo as your leader and took instructions from him?
MR NDIMANDE: Yes.
MR DEHAL: Now when you received instructions from Mbambo to eliminate Mr Lembede, did you consider it necessary to carry out intelligence gathering, reconnaissance that is, on whether Lembede is such a man, namely an IFP man, ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Did they receive instructions from Mbambo to eliminate him?
MR DEHAL: That's been the evidence thus far.
CHAIRPERSON: I thought it was Mbatha
MS THABETHE: It's Mthambo.
MR DEHAL: Forgive me, it's Mthambo.
MR NDIMANDE: The person who brought this information was Mr Mbambo to Mr Mthambo, who in turn instructed us.
MR DEHAL: Sorry, bear with me, Sir. So it's actually - forgive me, Mr Ndimande, is it Mthambo that gave the instructions and was it Mthambo that was the senior, the leader in the area?
MR NDIMANDE: Yes, it was.
MR DEHAL: Yes, my question was, I'm not too sure if I followed your answer, did you do any reconnaissance, any intelligence gathering or were you told that that was unnecessary for it was done already?
MR NDIMANDE: After Mbambo reported this to us, he told us that he had done everything. He had investigated the matter.
MR DEHAL: So as you understood it, there was no need for you, correct me if I'm wrong, to carry out any further intelligence, but purely to carry out the act of eliminating Lembede?
MR NDIMANDE: Yes.
MR DEHAL: Now why did you, sorry, one of the Committee Members had a problem with this, why did you not go to the house of the deceased and eliminate him there perhaps in the late hours of the night when your identity will not be exposed, as opposed to going to the shop where clearly on a Friday, there must be some clients there, some people buying things and your identity is exposed?
MR NDIMANDE: ; The reason we went to the shop, it was because information was that in his home, there were weapons and we decided to attack him in his shop.
MR DEHAL: Yes and where did you get this information from that the weapons were in his home?
MR NDIMANDE: This is what Mbambo told us because he was the one person who was intelligent.
MR DEHAL: Okay. On another aspect altogether. One of my colleagues had difficulty with the previous applicant in regard to whether people stopped dying after Lembede was killed. Can you tell ...(end of tape) the area, especially the ANC people, had stopped dying in numbers as they were dying previously?
MR NDIMANDE: The killing subsided, it didn't stop but it was decreased.
MR DEHAL: And until Lembede was executed, were people dying in great numbers at the hands of the IFP with the use of firearms?
MR NDIMANDE: Well they were and they were being murdered by firearms.
MR DEHAL: And finally, during your trial, of course you stood trial, you did not disappear like the Nyawuzas did, did you - sorry, why did you not mention this political content of the incident to those Courts?
MR NDIMANDE: The reason was at that time, I perceived the Judges as people who were discriminating, that is why I didn't put this evidence before the Court.
MR DEHAL: And much evidence has been heard from the first applicant about why those two State witnesses who testified against you lied, for on your version they must have lied. Can you suggest reasons why Joseph Mkhize and the other State witness had lied? Sorry, not the other State witness, the first accused in the matter, Ernest Mahlane, otherwise known as Mbambo, him and Joseph Mkhize, can you suggest why they lied against you?
MR NDIMANDE: I will put it clearly this way and say that Mbambo was supposed to give evidence the way he did in Court because he was now a State witness and he knew even the place where the deceased lived, we didn't know and I think Mkhize as well joined Mbambo but I am not quite sure why Mkhize joined Mbambo, on Mbambo's version. If I were to say why I'd be just suspecting why, but I'm not certain.
MR DEHAL: And what appeared common cause during the trial with which I take it you'd agree, the visit to the shop by you and the others did not benefit you in any way in that nothing financial, no money was stolen and no goods were stolen from that shop, isn't that true?
MR NDIMANDE: No, we didn't take anything.
MR DEHAL: Bear with me, Sir. Mr Chairperson, that is all, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DEHAL
MR PANDAY: Just one question, Mr Chairman.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PANDAY: Mr Ndimande, after Mr Lembede was shot, would it have been still possible for you and Nkosinati Nyawuza to rob the place if you all had set out to do so, according to Mbambo's evidence? Can you understand my question?
MR NDIMANDE: Yes, I do. Yes, it would have been easy if the intention was to rob the place, we would have taken something, but we didn't because it wasn't the intention.
MR PANDAY: Okay and just let me rephrase ... After having shot Mr Lembede were there any obstructions to your robbing the place?
MR NDIMANDE: No, there wasn't any obstruction because after we had shot him we left.
CHAIRPERSON: Isn't it correct that you had a gun with you when you went in there?
MR NDIMANDE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Somebody grabbed it and you struggled and then you left the gun, you let it go.
MR NDIMANDE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: So now there was at least one armed man in the shop?
MR NDIMANDE: I didn't see anyone who was armed, because the person who grabbed me was not armed.
CHAIRPERSON: But you left your gun there with him.
MR NDIMANDE: The gun fell down and I left it down and I ran away.
CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.
MR PANDAY: ...(indistinct - mike not on)
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PANDAY
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS REDDY: Do you have any documentary proof to support your statement that you belonged to the ANC?
MR NDIMANDE: Since I am in prison I don't have it, but everything I left at home. Right now I don't have anything to produce because my membership card remained behind at home.
MS REDDY: I actually appreciate what you're saying, that you were fully aware that today was your hearing and that the membership card would provide documentary proof that you did belong to the ANC. Didn't you make any endeavours to retrieve that document from home?
MR NDIMANDE: I tried because I've written a letter to my home, but if they had responded, it might not have reached me because I've been changed from my cell to another cell, I'm not sure whether they did receive the letter or they tried to write back to me. Even if we can find my card, probably it has expired because it has been a long time.
MS REDDY: Was it known to the large part of the community that you belonged to the ANC?
MR NDIMANDE: Yes, it was.
MS REDDY: Why didn't you ask somebody to come here today on your behalf and corroborate your evidence?
MR NDIMANDE: As I've already mentioned that we've been changed in prison. I'm no longer using the same cell and I couldn't reach anyone.
MS REDDY: Didn't you ask your legal representative to assist you on that extent?
MR NDIMANDE: I couldn't get any chance to use a telephone, I couldn't even telephone my attorney.
MS REDDY: How long were you a supporter of the ANC prior to the incident in question?
MR NDIMANDE: I think it was in 1989, I'm not certain.
MS REDDY: So the version of Mr Mbambo today will be that you did not belong to any political organisation, that you were notorious for actually being part of criminal activities. What would you respond to that allegation or version?
MR NDIMANDE: It is easy for Mbambo to say it was allegations today, because he was actually turned into a State witness. He collaborated with the police and the Judge, that is why it's easy for him to stick to his original story.
MS REDDY: Do you confirm that Mr Mbambo actually alerted you to the fact or to the allegation that Mr Lembede, the deceased, was actually supplying weapons to the IFP members?
MR NDIMANDE: Would you please repeat your question?
MS REDDY: Do you confirm that it was Mr Mbambo who alerted you to the fact or to the allegation that Mr Lembede, the deceased in the matter, was supplying weapons to the IFP? Do you confirm that statement?
MR NDIMANDE: Yes, I do.
MS REDDY: Did you do any intelligent work to confirm what Mbambo actually told you was the real situation?
MR NDIMANDE: Mr Mbambo himself was responsible for the intelligence gather or this intelligence, he had done so before he came to see us.
MS REDDY: So notwithstanding the fact that Mbambo could be mistaken on the assumption you were reckless enough to be part of the killing?
MR NDIMANDE: I think the question is fair but the way it's phrased is unfair.
JUDGE POTGIETER: What is that question?
MS REDDY: What I actually asked him was the fact that he didn't do any intelligence work to confirm what Mbambo was relating to them was the actual fact, he was reckless enough to go ahead and be part of the killing.
JUDGE POTGIETER: He was just happy to accept what Mbambo was saying.
MS REDDY: Exactly, that is what I want to know what's his response to my statement that I made.
JUDGE POTGIETER: Ms Reddy says, Mr Ndimande, says that you were just happy to go along with what Mbambo said, you did nothing to confirm whether it was true or not. She said that was not proper on your part. You can respond to that.
MR NDIMANDE: We took everything that Mbambo said to us as the entire truth. We used to do things which Mbambo told us, we never investigated anything he said to us.
ADV SANDI: Sorry, Madam. The people Mr Lembede was alleged by Mbambo to have supplied with arms, did you ask him who those people were?
MR NDIMANDE: Let me just clarify something. Mbambo was not suspecting the deceased but he was certain that the deceased was distributing weapons to the IFP people.
ADV SANDI: Yes, but where did he get that from?
MR NDIMANDE: I wouldn't be able to say where he got that, but he can clarify that matter when he comes before this Commission and gives his testimony, he can answer that question.
ADV SANDI: Did he tell you what kind of weapons or firearms were being supplied to these IFP people?
MR NDIMANDE: No, he didn't tell us what type of weapons but what he told us is that there were different types of weapons.
ADV SANDI: Didn't he - did he tell you in which particular area such IFP people were being supplied with arms?
MR NDIMANDE: Yes, he did say that he was giving these weapons to IFP members who were residing in 17 Section and also at Ngonyameni.
ADV SANDI: When he conveyed this information to you, did you ask him any particular questions to get more picture as to what exactly was going on?
MR NDIMANDE: Mthambo was in a position to question those things to Mbambo because we were far below Mbambo, Mbambo would instruct us and sometimes he would tell Mr Mthambo and Mr Mthambo will instruct us. We were just foot soldiers who were just taking instructions.
ADV SANDI: Thank you Madam. Thank you.
JUDGE POTGIETER: How many weapons did Mr Lembede supply to these IFP people?
MR NDIMANDE: No, I wouldn't be able to say how many because Mbambo didn't say how many.
JUDGE POTGIETER: And nobody asked him?
MR NDIMANDE: No, among the applicants, no one in my presence.
JUDGE POTGIETER: What did he actually do? Did he give it to the IFP, or did he sell it to the IFP, or what?
MR NDIMANDE: I don't have that information whether he was giving them for free or selling them.
JUDGE POTGIETER: Did Mbambo tell you anything in that regard?
MR NDIMANDE: No, he just told us that he was giving firearms to IFP members.
CHAIRPERSON: When you say giving, do you mean supplying?
MR NDIMANDE: Yes, supplying.
JUDGE POTGIETER: Now were you not concerned when you were going to confront Mr Lembede that you were now going straight into the stronghold of an arms supplier, a man presumably with a supply of arms? Did that concern you at all?
MR NDIMANDE: That is why we attacked him in the shop, because we were scared to attack him in his home because we knew that the weapons were in his home.
JUDGE POTGIETER: How did you know that, that the weapons would be in his home?
MR NDIMANDE: Mbambo said so. Mbambo said he kept these weapons in his home and he sometimes took them from his home and supplied them to the IFP people, so we trusted Mbambo.
JUDGE POTGIETER: Yes, but didn't you think that look here, Lembede can actually be sitting with some of these firearms in his shop and you might walk right into it?
MR NDIMANDE: No, we didn't think so, but what we thought was that even if he had those guns or firearms, they were not in his shop, but they were at home in his home.
JUDGE POTGIETER: And you mean under those circumstances, knowing that you're going to confront this supplier of arms to the IFP, Nyawuza goes with a home made pistol or whatever you might call it, a home made firearm and I assume you go with a pistol, would that be a correct summary of your sum total of your weapons inside the shop?
MR NDIMANDE: We were being trusted and the people who had instructed us knew that we can carry this job.
JUDGE POTGIETER: Yes, thank you. Ms Reddy.
ADV SANDI: Ms Reddy if I could just on this same aspect? Did Mbambo tell you how long Mr Lembede had been supplying the IFP with arms? How long had he been doing this?
MR NDIMANDE: ; No, he didn't.
ADV SANDI: Did you ask him?
MR NDIMANDE: No, I personally I didn't, I don't know about others.
ADV SANDI: Did he tell you where he was getting these arms from?
MR NDIMANDE: No, he didn't.
ADV SANDI: And none of you asked him that?
MR NDIMANDE: No, not in my presence.
ADV SANDI: Did he tell you who else was involved with him?
MR NDIMANDE: No, he only told us about Mr Lembede.
ADV SANDI: None of you were interested to know who else was involved in this dangerous exercise?
MR NDIMANDE: We never used to question Mbambo on anything, we used to listen to what he had to say and follow what we were instructed to do.
ADV SANDI: I suppose at that stage you also had a problem of getting arms? Didn't you have a shortage of arms as an ANC structure?
MR NDIMANDE: Yes, we had a problem of not having enough firearms.
ADV SANDI: Were you not interested to know where firearms could be obtained?
MR NDIMANDE: This used to happen because Mr Mbambo and Mr Mthambo used to inquire about where they can obtain firearms and they will do this, not us.
ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you Ms Reddy.
MS REDDY: Mr Ndimande, would you agree that it would have been less risky to attack Mr Lembede in the car whilst he was travelling, rather than attacking him in the shop where there's a possibility of eye witnesses?
MR NDIMANDE: No, the easy way was the one we chose, to go and attack him in the shop.
MS REDDY: Mr Nyawuza related in his cross-examination that they attacked the shop because it was a specific instruction by the ANC Leader Mr Mthambo that that was the location that they should attack him, yet you today in your evidence-in-chief say to this Committee that you all actually chose to attack Mr Lembede in the shop because you were under the assumption that firearms were kept at his home, so there's two different contradictory evidence led by you and Mr Nyawuza. Could you just respond how come there is a contradiction in your evidence?
MR NDIMANDE: Would you please clarify that to me? Where is the contradiction?
MS REDDY: Mr Nyawuza who just gave evidence previous to you, when I asked him in cross-examination why they actually chose the shop as the location to attack Mr Lembede and he said that they chose the shop because it was a specific instruction given by Mr Mthambo that that was the location they should attack Mr Lembede and you now in your evidence-in-chief say to this Committee that you all chose the shop because the shop was the more safe place to do it because at Mr Lembede's home there were weapons that were stored there. So there's a contradiction in both the evidence, I just want you to explain why so, if you know, or tell me whose version is the truth?
MR DEHAL: Sorry, before he answers, may I just clarify at the level of objecting that there is no clear conflict or contradiction, in fact this applicant's testimony-in-chief was premised on the basis that he followed instructions to execute Mr Lembede in the shop and that is the instruction he followed. When subsequently asked questions as to why he did not go to the home as opposed to the shop, he reasoned on the basis that it was more prudent to go to the shop, believing that the firearms would be in the home. Now there is no contradiction there.
MS REDDY: Yes, I would just clarify the point. He actually said in his evidence-in-chief now that they chose the shop and the not home because the home was a place where they had weapons and it was Mr Nyawuza's evidence that they chose the shop because of a specific instruction, so there is a clear contradiction.
CHAIRPERSON: Didn't Mr Nyawuza say to you: "We did not choose where to attack, Mbambo took us there. He said we would find him there."?
MS REDDY: No according to what I actually - I may be incorrect, but I ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: If he had told us we would find him at home, that is where we would have gone. I understood his evidence that they had no choice, they just followed Mbambo blindly.
ADV SANDI: Ja, it didn't matter where they would find him.
MS REDDY: I'll actually allow that, it's probably a mistake on my part. Mr Ndimande, it's Mr Mbambo's version that you were the one who actually confronted him on Friday, that's the 21st of June, the date in question and asked him to be part of the robbery that you all were actually going to commit.
MR NDIMANDE: I dispute that completely and the reason being Mbambo was working in Toyota and I was at home and I don't understand why I would choose a certain shop far from where I was to just go and rob and get less money. I dispute that, I wouldn't have chosen that shop.
MS REDDY: Is it correct that one of the people in the shop disarmed you?
MR NDIMANDE: He grabbed me and then we struggled and then the gun fell down.
MS REDDY: If I were to put it to you that the only reason you and your companions didn't succeed in robbing the store was because Edgar had actually fired a shot and that was when you all actually fled the scene.
MR NDIMANDE: I will dispute that. When we left the place, the deceased had already fell down and I didn't see Edgar and probably we would have fought with Edgar.
MS REDDY: It is also Mr Mbambo's evidence today, or his version that he will say to this Committee today that it was only once that you and your companions entered the shop and not twice. Can you just respond to that?
MR NDIMANDE: If he would say he only entered the shop once, that's true, but not that entered the shop once. We went to the shop together with Mr Mbambo and second time we went without Mr Mbambo.
MS REDDY: I'm not actually talking Mr Mbambo now, I'm talking about you and the other applicants, besides Mr Mbambo, he's not the applicant here today.
MR DEHAL: Yes, but he's answered the question.
MS REDDY: Just repeat what you said please.
CHAIRPERSON: He said that the first time Mr Mbambo went into the shop with them but he did not do so the second time.
MS REDDY: ; According to Mr Mbambo's version which will be put to this Court, it seemed that the applicants here today only entered the shop once and that once was without him. We're not including Mr Mbambo in any of the entry into the shop.
JUDGE POTGIETER: Yes, Mr Ndimande, what is being put to you is that according to Mr Mbambo, you and Nyawuza that went into the shop with you, only went in once, not twice, that's really what's being put to you. Do you agree with that or disagree?
MR NDIMANDE: I disagree completely. We entered the shop two times. We first went together with him because he was supposed to point the deceased to us and the second time we entered the shop, it was without him.
MS REDDY: Did you know Mr Lembede, the deceased in the matter, prior to the killing?
MR NDIMANDE: No, I didn't know him at all.
MS REDDY: According to Mr Mbambo, it seemed as if you knew the deceased quite well prior to the killing.
MR NDIMANDE: If he is saying that we knew Mr Lembede, he must say how we knew him because that is not the truth. I do remember him saying so in Court and he said in Court: "I, Mr Ndimande, had a relative in Ngonyameni" and I don't have a relative there. If one can take Mr Mbambo's testimony as true, even the TRC can investigate this, I don't have any relative in Ngonyameni, I don't even know Mr Lembede.
MS REDDY: Thank you, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS REDDY
MS THABETHE: No questions, Mr Chair.
NO QUESTIONS BY MS THABETHE
CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?
MR DEHAL: No thank you.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DEHAL
ADV SANDI: Were you wearing any balaclavas or anything to hide your faces?
MR NDIMANDE: No. Mbambo had a balaclava, we didn't because we were not known to the area.
ADV SANDI: Did you have any hand gloves to protect the identity of your thumb prints, your fingers?
MR NDIMANDE: No, we had nothing.
ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you Chair.
JUDGE POTGIETER: Sorry, can I just pick up on that? You say Mbambo had a balaclava?
MR NDIMANDE: Yes.
JUDGE POTGIETER: When did he wear that?
MR NDIMANDE: Yes, he had it on even though his face was not hidden by it, but he had it on.
JUDGE POTGIETER: So was the balaclava rolled up like a cap, on his head like a cap, not covering his face?
MR NDIMANDE: Yes, he had it on like a hat.
JUDGE POTGIETER: So you could see his face?
MR NDIMANDE: Yes, one could see his face.
JUDGE POTGIETER: Yes, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR DEHAL: Perhaps for the sake of completeness, could I just deal with this aspect?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DEHAL: If you look at page 128 of the main bundle, that is the statement of Mr Mbambo otherwise known as Mahlane, sorry I'll show it to you. Do you see he says here in his own statement in the second line
"I was given a hat to wear it because I was known in the area"?
You agree with that?
MR NDIMANDE: I disagree about the part that he was given, because his hat was his hat, he was not given by any of us.
MR DEHAL: But you agree that he wore a hat to protect his identity because he was known in the area?
MR NDIMANDE: Yes, I do agree with that.
MR DEHAL: Thank you. Thanks Chair.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DEHAL
WITNESS EXCUSED
MR DEHAL: I call as the next applicant Mr Elijah Nyawuza, the father.
