Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: Good morning. We want to start the proceedings, but before we do that we want to apologise for not being able to start a bit earlier than we are doing, but it was necessary to devote a bit of time to some issues of importance for this hearing and that has taken up the extra bit of time, and for that reason we have been unable to start a bit earlier.

For the record, today is Tuesday, 6th July 1999 and we are continuing with the amnesty application of Mr Mavuso. The Panel and the appearances are as indicated earlier, on the record. Just apropos the matter that was raised at the end of the day yesterday, we would simply just like to indicate on the record that it is our view that the matter calls for no further comment and certainly does not call for any specific action from the Panel.

Mr Prinsloo, what is the position?

MR PRINSLOO ADDRESSES: Mr Chairperson, we are grateful to the Committee for the time which it granted us.

Firstly, I would like to put it on record that yesterday evening consultation was undertaken with a senior member of the Bar Council of Pretoria, and this particular problem was sketched to him and he was of the opinion, due to the fact that the documents in this specific case were not compiled by me, but by the applicant himself and by a member of the TRC, Eddie Kalusa, and an affidavit which was furthermore submitted in this

application, which appears in bundle 2. That is an affidavit which the applicant made to a Senior Superintendent of the Police, while he was in the Barberton Prison, and that in these documents which form the core of the situation, there was no clash within the affidavits and with anything which is put forward. And also in consultation with the applicant, there was not clash between what he says and what is argued within the documents.

Secondly, the situation is that unexpectedly, without any prior knowledge, a document was submitted by Mr Bizos, apparently a request for further particulars, which was undersigned by me. After the time, I took the time to study this aspect and the facts are that my colleague, Louisa van der Walt, appeared on behalf of Mkhwanazi. She also received such an instruction from the police to represent him, which she did indeed do during his appearance at Piet Retief. And during that appearance at Piet Retief, the second accused, who was also subpoenaed as a potential witness in this case, appeared.

His legal representative at that stage, Adv Solly Joubert from the Pretoria Bar, was not available on that day and requested me from his attorney firm, to stand in purely for the purposes of the opposition, or postponement thereof. That was the only request. And I appeared on behalf of Ali Msibi there. My colleague, van der Walt, requested a postponement, or opposed a request for postponement, due to the fact that there was insufficient information with regard to the particulars. The Honourable Committee will see in the document which has been submitted by Mr Bizos, that in certain answers a mere reference is made to such and such a statement and Justice Weyers, upon a request of the State, refused a further postponement and the case was consequently withdrawn.

At no stage did I consult with the persons, Mkhwanazi and Msibi with regard to this indictment. It would be ridiculous to consult with somebody if you don't have the full particulars. I'm just mentioning that as a matter of fact.

Furthermore, I have used your indulgence to discuss this matter with my client and to explain to him what has or will be submitted, as submitted by Mr Bizos is chambers before you this morning, and I've explained the entire situation to him. I've also shown him the documents which have been submitted by Mr Bizos and explained the content thereof to him.

Furthermore, I have also stated that insofar as it has to do with the documents which have been submitted, it is a warning statement by Mr Mkhwanazi and that with regard to this specific case for Piet Retief, it has an MR number. And in this specific case my name was mentioned by Mkhwanazi, as a person with whom he would have consulted firstly before making any statement. No consultation was entered into between him and me with regard to this matter and he was consistently the client of my colleague, although this document does not purport that it has anything to do with this matter. I don't know then what the relevance of this document would be. It has also been explained as such to the applicant.

Furthermore, the indictment has been shown to him, as it appears in one of the bundles which has been submitted to the Honourable Committee. It appears in bundle 2, from paginated page 106 to 111.

Furthermore, this morning I have spoken to the legal representative of Mr Msibi, who is standing in today, and explained to him what the situation was with regard to my appearance at a previous occasion there in Piet Retief. Although it does not affect the merits of the case at all, I also put it to the Committee that there is no further reference whatsoever to the case. I am putting these aspects to the Committee, that there exists no possibility of any prejudice, whether it be actual or potential, through which the applicant and his application could be at a disadvantage in any way. I have also told him that he should feel free in any way to tell me, or to make it known to the Committee here, whether he would like to change his legal representation if he feels reluctant in any way to make known any facts which may be different to that which he has already made known to me during consultation and to the Committee, within the documents as well. His answer, or his response was that he

wishes for me to proceed in representing him. Thus, the Honourable Committee may request of him to say whether or not he will confirm these facts. Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Prinsloo. We have noted what was placed on record by Mr Prinsloo.

Mr Mavuso, have you listened to what Mr Prinsloo was telling us?

MR MAVUSO: Yes, I was listening.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you confirm what he conveyed to us?

MR MAVUSO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you very much.

Yes, I have already indicated what the attitude of the Panel is.

Mr Mavuso, I'm going to remind you that you are still under oath. Do you understand?

NKOSINATHI EMMANUEL MAVUSO: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, have you got any further questions?

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, I indicated that there were certain further documents, copies of which were handed to you. We have handed copies to all the parties having an interest in the matter. We would as, for the sake of convenience, that those portions of the record should be attached to bundle 1 - this is the basis of the division of the documents that we've had, they should be put at the end of volume 1, and the affidavit and the map possibly - no, the map in bundle 1 and the affidavit at the end of bundle 2. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we've noted that.

MR BIZOS: May I proceed?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Bizos.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, may I just interrupt Mr Bizos for a moment? I ask for your indulgence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman and Members of the Committee, I respectfully submit, with the regard to the evidence that was given at the trial of Mavuso - as the Committee is already aware of that, I did not represent Mavuso at that stage. The evidence given by Mdu Msibi, I will submit at the end that that evidence was hearsay evidence. Whatever was, if it was said between Mkhwanazi and Msibi in the absence of Mavuso, that that evidence is not admissible against the applicant. And I want Mr Bizos to be aware of that, to bear that in mind during the presentation of the case. I do not agree that the evidence is admissible, what was read from the record, which was admitted by His Lordship, Justice Myburgh during the trial. I will argue to the contrary during the end of this matter. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I don't think you need to respond, unless you fell compelled to do so, Mr Bizos. It seems it's an argument that.

MR BIZOS: Yes, there is argument - we will advance argument on the issue as to whether full disclosure has been made or not. The Committee may take cognisance of information placed before it. But I don't have to argue it, I don't have to argue it now.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may proceed, Mr Bizos.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS: Thank you.

Mr Mavuso, would you please turn your mind back to this incident when you say that the balaclava was put on your head. Did you put it on your head, or was it put on your head?

MR MAVUSO: Which day are you referring to? The day when I was investigated, or when exactly?

MR BIZOS: I'm sorry, may I ask the interpreter to repeat, I was looking at the document and didn't realise that I didn't understand the language that the witness spoke. Could you repeat the translation please, Ma'am.

INTERPRETER: May you please repeat your question, Sir.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Was the cap put on your head, or did you yourself put it on your head?

MR MAVUSO: Which day are you referring to? Do you mean when I was at the police station? It was put on me.

MR BIZOS: You didn't put it on yourself?

MR MAVUSO: No.

MR BIZOS: You're sure about that?

MR MAVUSO: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Will you please have a look at the bundle, page 212, line 15 to 30 - I beg you pardon, bundle 1, page 212. If you have a look at page 212

"What happened to it?"

- He then said that I must pull the balaclava over my head. I then refused and then Mkhwanazi told me that they were investigating the matter and that I should pull the balaclava over my head.

- Is that, Mkhwanazi the State witness?

- Yes, it is my witness.

- Your witness?

- Yes, my witness.

- So now it is another Mkhwanazi, not the State witness who gave evidence?

- No, it is not the Mkhwanazi who testified here in the Court.(sic)

- He then told you that you were to put it on?

- Yes, Mr Vermeulen gave me the instruction that I was to put it on and I then refused. Then Mkhwanazi said that they were investigating the matter and that I was to put it on.

- Yes.

- I then put the jacket and the balaclava on and he said that I looked pretty when I had then on. Later they said that I was to take them off. I then took them off. They then took me to the cells."

Now that's not consistent with your previous answer, is it?

MR MAVUSO: As far as I am concerned, I think it ties in well because I did refuse, but when I was supposed to take it out, I did it myself. Indeed I did not put it on myself.

MR BIZOS: Well, but why did you say that - do you say that there is no contradiction between the two versions, so that I can get on with him, I'm not going to argue with you. Do you say that there is no contradiction?

MR MAVUSO: As far as I am concerned, I don't see any contradiction because you just said also yourself that I refused. Yes, indeed, I refused.

MR BIZOS: But you see, if we have a look at the evidence of Mkhwanazi at page 252, bundle 1, at the bottom of the page, 252, in answer to the Assessor, Mr Rothman

"Sergeant, whose hands handled that cap when it was placed on the head of the accused?

- Warrant Officer Vermeulen handled it. He pulled it over the accused' head."

Did you hear that evidence given by your witness?

MR MAVUSO: May you please repeat just a portion.

MR BIZOS

"Sergeant, whose hands handled that cap when it was placed on the head of the accused?'

MR MAVUSO: I heard that.

MR BIZOS: Is it true?

MR MAVUSO: That it was Vermeulen's hands that put on the balaclava on me?

MR BIZOS: Please answer the question, I've read it to you twice. Is it true or false?

MR MAVUSO: Vermeulen is the one who put on me the kopa head.

MR BIZOS: Is the evidence of Mkhwanazi, as recorded, true or false?

MR MAVUSO: I really don't understand as to what he was witnessing on, because I just indicated to you and explained to you that it was Vermeulen who put the balaclava on me and coercing.

MR BIZOS: I want an unequivocal answer please. Is the evidence of Mkhwanazi true or false, or are you not prepared to say?

MR MAVUSO: What I have said is true. If he has said, given evidence in the manner in which he did, well I don't understand, but what I said to you is the truth.

MR BIZOS: You see I am going to suggest to you, Mr Mavuso, that you are not prepared to cross swords with Mr Mkhwanazi's statements, even if they are contradictory to your own evidence. Do you want to make any comment on that?

MR MAVUSO: Well I'm here for one purpose of requesting amnesty and I am the one who knows what happened and I'm here solely to be granted amnesty.

MR BIZOS: I know that you are here, what I would have liked you to respond to is to the suggestion that you are not prepared to contradict what Mr Mkhwanazi says, even if it is contradictory to your own evidence previously given. Do you want to comment on that or not?

MR MAVUSO: I will reiterate the fact that I'm here to apply for amnesty and I have the better insight of what happened.

MR BIZOS: You see I am going to suggest to you that the reason why you are not prepared to contradict him, and the reason why your evidence was contradictory to that of Mkhwanazi in your trial, was because that that never happened. Have you got any comment to make to that suggestion?

MR MAVUSO: I'm here at the Truth Commission solely for the reason of applying for amnesty, on my own volition. No-one has forced me to be here or to come here, on my own initiative I'm here to apply for amnesty. And I have already said that I have the insight of what happened and indeed that is what happened.

MR BIZOS: I want to read to you statement number A53 on page 40 in bundle 2, paragraphs 3 to 4, the affidavit of Hermanus Vermeulen. I'll read it out ...(intervention)

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, may I ascertain from Mr Bizos as to whether Mr Vermeulen will be called as a witness.

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman please, I don't want my cross-examination to be interrupted by questions. I am not being interrogated by Mr Prinsloo here. I have evidence on oath as to what happened, by a police officer. Whether he is going to be called or not is a matter for decision later and I don't have to disclose it now, so that his client my possibly be confident to deny it or to admit it or to confess or avoid it. I don't know of any procedure where an affidavit is read out, which is relevant to the issues that we are discussing, where the cross-examiner is interrogated as to whether he is going to be called as a witness or not.

MR PRINSLOO: I respectfully submit, Mr Chairman, that I'm not interrogating Mr Bizos and how he could ever suggest that, is beyond my comprehension. It's a simple question, with respect Mr Chairman, as to whether a particular witness is going to be called. Where is a question is put to a particular person without that person having given evidence, or without the assurance that he will testify, what is the value of that evidence?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it seems Mr Prinsloo, that Mr Bizos says that matter will assessed, whether or not it's necessary to call him at a later stage. So he's not in a position to respond at this time. That's how I understand what he says. The weight and so on, obviously it tends for argument. It doesn't look as if you can take it much further at this point.

MR PRINSLOO: I respectfully submit, Mr Chairman, that Mr Bizos seems to be placing reliance upon this statement and if he's applying reliance upon this statement, then surely the witness ought to be called by him, otherwise what is the significance? It will be a waste of time.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it might be that there's a lot of merit in what you say, but that issue will obviously arise at a later stage. But for the moment it seems as if his respond is, he can't tell you at this point.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Bizos?

MR BIZOS: I'll proceed reading the two paragraphs, Mr Chairman.

"On 29.11.94, I gave evidence during the trial against Emmanuel Mavuso. I gave evidence about the guarding of pieces of evidence which were occupied, among others, a jacket and a balaclava. Under cross-examination, I gave evidence that the balaclava was never pulled over the head of the accused by me. He was also never in possession of the balaclava. The balaclava was consistently under my guard.

On the 12th of January 1995, I was in Court, when Sergeant Mkhwanazi gave evidence upon the request of the Defence in the matter, in the matter for the Defence. Sergeant Mkhwanazi gave evidence that I had put the jacket on the accused and pulled the balaclava over his head, with the intention to determine whether or not it would fit him. The evidence given by Sergeant Mkhwanazi is completely untrue. It was clear that it was his intention to benefit the case for the Defence."

Now if this, these statements are found to be correct, as well as the affidavit of J J van Staden, P A J van Staden, on page 44 to 45, paragraphs 7, 8 and 9, but particularly 7, which reads as follows:

"I determined that the suspect who had been arrested, was one Emmanuel Mavuso. The suspect was then interrogated in an office at the police station. Sergeant Mkhwanazi and Themba Mkhwanazi were also present. I cannot remember what role everyone played during the interrogation. I was also absent from the office at a stage.

I can recall that Detective Warrant Officer Vermeulen showed the clothing to the suspect and asked whether these were his clothes. The suspect denied that those were his clothes. Never during my presence, did he try the clothing on the suspect. I know Sergeant Warrant Officer Vermeulen. He is an experienced Detective and I cannot see that he would make such a mistake.

Sergeant Mkhwanazi acted as an interpreter at various stages. Sergeant Mkhwanazi, Constable Erasmus and Themba Khumalo later returned to Piet Retief. I cannot recall at what time that was. I stayed over there and the following morning I returned to Piet Retief."

Now is the contents of this paragraph true or false? - as far as you are concerned?

MR PRINSLOO: Is this now the last paragraph, Mr Chairman?

MR BIZOS: The paragraph that I have read.

MR PRINSLOO: But there were two paragraphs, one from the other witness ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: No, I'm talking about paragraph 7 at this stage. Is it true or false?

MR MAVUSO: The way it is or it seems, I'm not quite certain as to how to respond to that, because there was one other paragraph you read and omitted, and you did not pose any questions to me. Now you are referring to another question, it's a bit confusing to me. And you read a long paragraph, that I'm confused as to where to start in responding.

MR BIZOS: I am confining myself to the paragraph 7 that I have no read. I may return to the other paragraphs that I read to you earlier. I want to know from you whether you admit or deny the correctness of the contents of this paragraph, as far as you are concerned.

ADV DE JAGER: Or if there are certain portions that you agree with, you could tell us and you could tell us whether you agree with the whole paragraph, or disagree with the whole paragraph, or whether you agree with certain sentences and disagree with other sentences.

MR MAVUSO: You see, there at Pongola Police Station the person who was investigating the matter was Vermeulen, together with Mkhwanazi and other policemen. As I've explained yesterday, they were quite many in number, coming in and out, but the main person who was in the forefront here was Vermeulen together with Mkhwanazi.

MR BIZOS: I'll repeat the question. Is there anything that I have read in that affidavit, in that portion of the affidavit, paragraph 7 that I have read, which you say is incorrect?

MR MAVUSO: Well maybe - please repeat that for me.

MR BIZOS: Do you want me to read it all over again?

ADV DE JAGER: Perhaps, Mr Mavuso, could you say whether Sergeant Mkhwanazi and Themba Khumalo present when you were at the police station in Pongola? Could we start there.

MR MAVUSO: Yes, Mr Mkhwanazi and Themba Nxumalo(?), not Themba Khumalo were present.

ADV DE JAGER: Was van Staden present?

MR MAVUSO: I don't remember that particular one, but there were others who were present. I mean the policemen.

ADV DE JAGER: Did Vermeulen show the clothing - I presume that's the jacket and the balaclava, to you and asked you whether it's your clothes?

MR MAVUSO: Yes, that's the very clothing that he put on me.

ADV DE JAGER: But did he ask you whether it's your clothes?

MR MAVUSO: Yes, he did.

ADV DE JAGER: What did you answer him?

MR MAVUSO: I denied.

ADV DE JAGER: Did he try to fit this jacket onto you?

MR MAVUSO: Yes, he put it on, together with the balaclava cap.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, I don't know whether ...

MR BIZOS: Yes, I think ...(indistinct). Thank you, Mr Chairman.

You are saying that the balaclava was put on you by force and you were forced to wear the jacket, and you stand by that.

MR MAVUSO: Yes, I stand by that.

MR BIZOS: I want to refer you to another affidavit which is - it is not yet in the bundle, it's a short one. I want to put it in, Mr Chairman. Oh, I beg your pardon yes, it's the van Niekerk affidavit.

CHAIRPERSON: Which one is that, Mr Bizos? Is it a loose one?

MR BIZOS: That's van Niekerk.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, is it the one that you handed in this morning? Yes, Hendrikus van Niekerk.

MR PRINSLOO: Just for the record, Mr Chairman, this affidavit was only received by me after I have consulted with the applicant with regard to the aspect which I dealt with early this morning. So this was not made available to me for the purpose of consultation with this witness or not, at any stage. I just want to place it on record. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, in fact I think all of us received it this morning. Yes, Mr Bizos?

MR BIZOS: Yes, I actually put the portion that I want to use, Mr Chairman, to the witness yesterday so there is no element of surprise. Paragraph 8, at the end

"The accused was left in charge of Detective Constable Mkhwanazi, who questioned the accused."

Is that correct? It's the last sentence of the paragraph. Is that correct?

MR MAVUSO: Can you expatiate on that fact so I may be able to respond better.

MR BIZOS: I've read you a statement made by a police officer, to the effect that you were - perhaps I should put it again in view of what I am told about the possibility of a misunderstanding between me and the interpreter, Mr Chairman.

"The accused (that's you) was left in charge of Sergeant Constable Mkhwanazi, who interrogated the accused."

Is that true or false?

MR MAVUSO: Before I respond to that question, I would like to ask one question so there is more light shed on me, because I don't understand when you refer to "accused". Because as far as I understand the name or the word "accused", that would a person with whom you would have been arrested.

MR BIZOS: You know I am going to give you notice, so that you can possibly understand what all this is about, that you are not prepared to give direct answers to questions and the reason for that is that your evidence is false evidence and you want to avoid giving direct answers. Do you want to say anything about that?

MR MAVUSO: Yes, I will comment on that.

MR BIZOS: Please do.

MR MAVUSO: The way it is, here, I'm here to tell the truth as to what transpired, because I was the one committing the acts and according to the statement I submitted, the way Mr Bizos is approaching this is not asking me questions directing to the statement, he keeps referring to the trial and to the Court procedures. You dwell more on the facts relating to the Court and the trial, more than to the statement I have submitted here. As I've already explained yesterday, at the police station each time I would be in Vermeulen's office. You will find one or two or three policemen, not necessarily that I will be with one police, strictly one police. At no stage was I interrogated by one police, there were always more.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, may I interpose for a moment? The statements which Mr Bizos is referring to is marked A1, which purports to be the very first statement in a police docket when a case is commenced. And if one looks at the statement, it was signed on the 7th of December 1993, and this incident occurred on the 22nd of November 1993. If one looks at the last page of the statement. And I think it ought to be put to the witness that this person is making a statement which he testified with regard to facts, which it would appear from what Mr Bizos put yesterday to this witness, that this information only came to light at the time when the trial of the applicant was in progress. So how could this person have made the statement, knowing what is going to be said, on the 2nd of December 1993, if the trial only took place long after that?

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, my learned friend can do whatever he wants to do in relation to these matters which may or may not be explained. I want a simple answer to the question, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please go ahead.

MR BIZOS

"The accused was left under the guard of Sergeant Constable Mkhwanazi, who questioned the accused."

MR MAVUSO: I don't know, you expect me to respond to that?

MR BIZOS: I'm sorry?

MR MAVUSO: Are you done? Can I respond to that?

MR BIZOS: Yes. Is it true or false? Please respond directly, if you can or if you want to.

MR MAVUSO: Yes, I was left there.

MR BIZOS: Alone with Mr Mkhwanazi?

MR MAVUSO: Not Mkhwanazi alone, together with the others, with other police.

MR BIZOS: In the absence of the two top investigators ...(end of side A of tape) ... In the absence of Vermeulen, let's say that. In the absence of Vermeulen.

MR MAVUSO: He was present.

MR BIZOS: All the time?

MR MAVUSO: Yes. Others would leave the office, but he was always there. He will never leave for any reason.

MR BIZOS: Let's try - was van Niekerk there all the time?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, first of all it should be established whether this witness knows van Niekerk. There are a number of policemen he says he didn't know. How does he know ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: ... the witness say that he doesn't know van Niekerk, and not get any assistance from my learned friend.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, with respect, I'm not assisting him, but in fairness ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, but ...

MR PRINSLOO: ...(indistinct) anyone to ask me in this room, who are these people here, I wouldn't be able to say. I know some of them.

ADV DE JAGER: Could we kindly calm down and see whether we can make any progress as far as the evidence is concerned.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mavuso, do you know a policeman with the name of - was it van Staden? What was the name - Mr van Niekerk, who was involved in investigating your case?

MR MAVUSO: Maybe if I see the person I will know and be able to recognise the person, but the surname is the one that sort of confuses me.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't recall the surname, van Niekerk, as one of the policemen who were involved in your case?

MR MAVUSO: I don't quite remember, because there were so many police on that particular day in question.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Bizos, he doesn't seem to recall van Niekerk. Will you go ahead.

MR BIZOS: ...(indistinct) will deal with the matter in due course, Mr Chairman.

Now you see, I am going to put to you that the reason why Mkhwanazi gave false evidence at your trial in order to wreck the prosecution against you, was because he owed you. He asked you to do it, he was afraid that you may talk and this is why he arranged, he and Ali Msibi, the affluent bottle store owner, they arranged for your bail and your defence. What do you say to that?

MR MAVUSO: I would like to ask you, Mr Bizos, that Mr Mkhwanazi together with Mr Msibi are IFP members. That's the question.

MR BIZOS: Will you answer my question please.

MR MAVUSO: I thought you're not posing a question, but you wanted a comment from my side. Because I thought you were saying what do I have to say on that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, what do you - Mr Mavuso, what do you say to the - you're given an opportunity to respond to what Mr Bizos is submitting, now do you want to respond to that? You're not forced to, but you're given an opportunity. And if you want to respond, what is the response?

MR MAVUSO: I deny or refute all of what Mr Bizos has just argued.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Mr Bizos?

MR BIZOS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Now you told us yesterday that you don't even know Mr Ali Msibi, is that correct?

MR MAVUSO: That what? Can you please repeat the last part.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I don't think that's correct, because the witness, when I led his evidence-in-chief he was in particular referred to a statement, it's the one that's in bundle 2, and he testified that he knows Msibi.

MR BIZOS: Do you know Msibi?

MR BIZOS: Is that now Ali Msibi or Mdu, Mr Chairman? There are two Msibis.

MR BIZOS: I said Ali Msibi. Do you know Ali Msibi?

MR MAVUSO: Yes, I do know him.

MR BIZOS: I'm going to put it to you that you denied it yesterday.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, that's not correct. If one looks at his statement again, when I led his evidence-in-chief - the record can be replayed for this purpose, he clearly stated that he knows Ali Msibi.

MR BIZOS: I'm ...(indistinct) on my attorney's memory of the matter. I don't want to take it any further, but I will ... How do you know Mr Ali Msibi?

MR MAVUSO: I know him very well now, but then or before, I only knew him as a person you know, just like now as I know you as Mr George Bizos and you don't know me. Then that's how I used to know him.

MR BIZOS: Yes. We understand the parallel that you draw, but could you please tell us how you came to know Mr Ali Msibi well, recently.

MR MAVUSO: I knew him as a famous person and as a significant figure in the area, as you yourself are a senior person that is well-known ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: Yes, confine yourself to your knowledge of Mr Msibi. Try and leave me out, it's not going to do you any good. How did you come to get to know Mr Msibi?

MR MAVUSO: I know him just a person.

MR BIZOS: Just as a person. Do you know him personally?

MR MAVUSO: As for now I think he knows me well, but prior to this, one thing for sure is that he did not know me.

MR BIZOS: Please answer the question. How did you come to know Mr Msibi? I didn't ask you how he came to know you. How did you come to know Mr Msibi, Ali Msibi?

MR MAVUSO: The way I know him, I will give an estimation or draw some picture here. You see Mr George Bizos, I know you very well and you did not know me before this, until I appeared in front of the Commission. I knew you all along. And that is the same that happened between us, I kept knowing him without him knowing me. As is the case with you and I.

MR BIZOS: Well we seem not to be successful in getting direct answers from you, but let us proceed.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Bizos, he says he knew him, as I understand it, as a public figure, he was famous in the vicinity and that's he knew about him, but he didn't ...(indistinct) him.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, probably on his ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: Well we'll proceed from that then.

CHAIRPERSON: ... on his reputation.

MR BIZOS: On his reputation.

CHAIRPERSON: And that seems to be the analogy that he's trying to draw, with yourself. I don't know.

MR BIZOS: I understand that, and thank you, Mr Chairman.

Did you ever attend meetings on various days before your arrest, with Mr Ali Msibi?

MR MAVUSO: Let me ask before I give you an appropriate answer. You refer to which kind of meetings here?

MR BIZOS: Any meetings. Please don't try to evade the questions, I don't think that it will be doing your case any good. Did you attend any meetings with Mr Ali Msibi, yes or no?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, with respect, I think it's valid what the witness is saying. Mr Msibi was a public figure, is it now being referred to a public meeting, a private meeting, what type of meeting? ...(indistinct) a public meeting at the stadium where Msibi addressed it, as one kind of meeting, a private meeting at his residence as another, Mr Chairman, or a hall or whatever.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, perhaps he can just respond, Mr Prinsloo. He can tell us about - if any meetings, all the meetings and what kind of meetings they were.

Won't you please respond, Mr Mavuso.

MR MAVUSO: Not even once did I go with him to any particular meeting.

MR BIZOS: Of any kind?

MR MAVUSO: Yes, that is true.

MR BIZOS: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, I intend to take the short adjournment.

MR BIZOS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes we'll adjourn for 15 minutes.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mavuso, you are reminded that you are still under oath. Do you understand?

NKOSINATHI EMMANUEL MAVUSO: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS: (cont)

Mr Mavuso, do you have a nickname?

MR MAVUSO: Yes, I do.

MR BIZOS: What is it?

MR MAVUSO: Mafuta Ngoku.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Do you Mr Solly Zeke Mtshali?

MR MAVUSO: I don't know him.

MR BIZOS: Have you ever been into Mr Ali Msibi's bottle store?

ADV DE JAGER: The previous name you've asked, Solly ...?

MR BIZOS: Solly Zeke Mtshali.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not activated.

MR BIZOS: Have you been into Mr Ali Msibi's bottle store?

MR MAVUSO: I've never been.

MR BIZOS: Never been. Now I want to refer to you an affidavit marked A66, on page 75, in bundle 2. He says that he worked for approximately two years at the bottle store. Do you know about that?

ADV GCABASHE: This is Mr Mtshali?

MR BIZOS: Mr Mtshali.

MR MAVUSO: First of all, before I respond to your question, I would like you to elaborate.

CHAIRPERSON: On what, Mr Mavuso?

MR MAVUSO: Or I'd like to elaborate myself.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, on ...?

MR MAVUSO: About the Truth Commission.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I assume it's got nothing to do with this question, but go ahead, let's hear.

MR MAVUSO: You see, the previous year in July, I once heard one of the ANC members coming to this Commission, that each time ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: May the speaker be audible.

MR MAVUSO: You see, this previous year there was one of the ANC members who came to this Commission. I heard as they were talking that each he's been questioned and not willing to answer, he will nod and I would like also to thank this opportunity granted by the Commission, the right that I cannot respond to questions that I don't feel or want to.

Now let me respond to George Bizos' question. Mr Bizos, with regard to your question, I would like not to answer it.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the question concerning the statement of Mr Mtshali, that was put to you now? Whether you have any knowledge whether Mr Mtshali was working in the liquor store of Mr Ali Msibi? Don't you want to respond to that?

MR MAVUSO: Yes, everything related to that particular person, I will not, because I have already stated that I know not the person.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, you know not?

MR MAVUSO: The person, I don't know him.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't know the person. Just a minute. Yes, Mr Mavuso, perhaps I should just draw your attention to the nature of these proceedings. As one of the requirements in order to get amnesty, is that you must, what is called "make a full disclosure". In other words, you must tell the full truth about all of the aspects relating to the incident that you are asking amnesty for. So you have to tell the full truth. That's one of the requirements and it is something that you must bear in mind, because you know when you approach the Amnesty Committee, it's a voluntary act. No applicant is forced to apply for amnesty, it's something that you do because you feel you want to do it.

Nobody can really force you to do anything, but it is something that can be taken into account when it has to be decided whether you have complied with the requirements in the law, in order to get amnesty. I'm quite sure that your legal representative would have explained to you what I have just said to you, but I'm simply repeating it because it is important. So whenever you decide whether you would be responding to a question, you must bear that in mind. Do you understand?

MR MAVUSO: Yes, I do understand.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Now Mr Bizos is busy dealing with this statement of Solly Mtshali, perhaps I should ask Mr Bizos just to repeat the first question in this regard.

MR BIZOS: You told us that you did not know Mr Mtshali. I want to give you some information about him and perhaps you will remember him. He says that he worked at Mr Ali Msibi's bottle store for approximately two years. He also says that he finished working at the end of October 1994. He says, and here I think I must give you his exact words in the language in which he spoke

"I know Sergeant Mkhwanazi of the South African Police. I also know Emmanuel Mavuso, known as Mafuta and Mdu John Msibi."

Now do you those details bring home to you who this person is? He's 26 years old. Does that remind you of a person? Because he says he knows and he knows your nickname.

MR MAVUSO: I don't recall such a person.

MR BIZOS: You don't recall such a person. Listen to what he says further ...(intervention)

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, with respect, what is the significance to put a version to a person when the witness says he doesn't know? How can he answer to that?

MR BIZOS: Let him listen to the contents because he may agree or disagree with the contents. My counsel have looked two or three paragraphs down, in which relevant information is contained and he may be able to admit or deny what Mr Mtshali said about the witness, Mr Chairman, even though he may not know him.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please put the relevant portions, Mr Bizos.

MR BIZOS: May I appeal to my learned friend, Mr Chairman, not to interrupt my cross-examination. I know that he has a right to protect his client, but he is interrupting the cross-examination without any sound foundation. I would appeal to him to allow me to continue my cross-examination.

He goes on, particularly in paragraph 5:

"I have seen that meetings were held, either at Ali's home or at the bottle store. There were various meetings, of which I cannot recall the dates, which were attended by Sergeant Mkhwanazi, Mafuta, Mdu Msibi, Ali Msibi and Jabulani Msibi. I don't know what was discussed during those meetings, because I was never allowed there."

What do you say about this statement of Mr Mtshali? Whether you know him or not, did you attend such meetings ever?

MR MAVUSO: No.

MR BIZOS: Have you ever been in Mr Ali Mtshali's bottle store? - Ali Msibi's bottle store.

MR MAVUSO: I think I've already responded to that question, that I've never been. And this is the second time I'm make mention of the fact that I have never been.

MR BIZOS: And do you say that you've never been in Mr Ali Msibi's home?

MR MAVUSO: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Very well.

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, I'm listening on channel 2, but I can't hear your response, the interpreter's response. Could you kindly say something please?

INTERPRETER: I have never been.

ADV DE JAGER: Okay, thank you.

COUNSEL: Excuse me, Mr Chairperson, to intervene here, but it seems to me that there's a white BMW that's blocking the cars that want to move out and they've sent around a paper here that the person that drives a BMW, a white one, must please remove it.

CHAIRPERSON: If it's a BMW, it wouldn't be the Panel. Is there no response? Ja, then the owner is obviously not here, probably somewhere else on the premises.

MR BIZOS: Now do you know Thulani Xholisi Nkosi?

MR MAVUSO: No, I don't know him.

MR BIZOS: He is a 29 year old, also who worked at the Thulani Bottle Store. It's a different bottle store. Have I given you the reference, Mr Chairman? Sorry. It's page 721 in bundle 2.

MR MAVUSO: No, I don't know him either.

MR BIZOS: Well let us read out to you what he says about you. Firstly, have you ever been into that bottle store?

ADV DE JAGER: What's the name of the bottle store, or where is it situated, Mr Bizos?

MR BIZOS: Thulani Bottle Store at Piet Retief, Mr Chairman. It's in paragraph 1 of the statement, Mr Chairman.

Have you ever been in that bottle store?

MR MAVUSO: I've never been. Secondly, I never drank liquor, or I don't drink liquor since birth.

MR BIZOS: Yes, the contents of the statement do not suggest that you were there to buy liquor.

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, Mr Bizos, there is something wrong, I can't hear the interpretation. If somebody could kindly attend to my ...

MR MAVUSO: I would like ...

MR BIZOS

"On the 2nd of November 1992, at about 12H30, I was at the bottle store. I was making an arrangement of delivering at Mr Msibi's bottle store ..."

Oh, I beg your pardon.

"So about the said time, I was on my way to the bottle store. At Mr Msibi's bottle store, I noticed that Mr Msibi was talking to Mafuta and Siphiwe Ngcobo, having some discussion.

3. Although I had not reason to fear that I suspected that they might colluding to attack us. The reason being that they have previously threatened to attack us and Mr Msibi was generally supposed to be on duty.

4. When I finished taking some empty cases into the bottle store, then I had presumably a hunch to look at them, that when I noticed that is Mafuta coming to the direction of our bottle store. Siphiwe was still standing at the corner of Msibi's bottle store, looking at our direction, seemingly looking at Mafuta. Mafuta come into the passage. He stood up and looked to Siphiwe. Siphiwe started to move towards the four rooms houses, in-between these houses.

5. Because ..."

Well let's stop there. Were you ever in Piet Retief near these bottle stores in November 1992?

MR MAVUSO: No.

ADV DE JAGER: That's about a year before the murder.

MR BIZOS: A year before. Do you know Siphiwe Ngcobo?

MR MAVUSO: Yes, I do know Siphiwe Ngcobo.

MR BIZOS: Were you with him at or about these times, near these bottle stores?

MR MAVUSO: No.

MR BIZOS: In paragraph 5

"Because it was during the day ..."

I'm sorry, can I just go back before I read paragraph 5. How do you know Siphiwe Ngcobo?

MR MAVUSO: I know him as a brother - I know him through his brother. I knew Siphiwe through the brother who worked in Piet Retief, working for Musa.

MR BIZOS: Did you have any dealings with him and did you have any reason to keep observation with him, or try and make any arrangement about anything, between these two bottle stores?

MR MAVUSO: No.

MR BIZOS: And what transactions, or what business did you ever have, if any, with Siphiwe?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, may I enquire what is the relevance of this particular question of an incident that occurred more than a year prior to the alleged issue we are canvassing today? What is the relevance?

MR BIZOS: We will show, Mr Chairman, ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not activated.

MR BIZOS: With will show, with respect, that as the affidavit shows, serious things happened as a result of this apparent ...(indistinct). And it is relevant to the probabilities as to what this person was doing away from his home and what happened when he was in Pongola or Piet Retief. And this is why we are putting these questions in order to show, Mr Chairman, that it wasn't the IFP that was responsible for the murder of our client's husband and father, but that there was a small group of people who, for reasons that we are going to disclose in due course, related to taxi violence and other personal grudges, acts of which but one, was the murder of our client's husband took place. And if this witness, Mr Chairman, was seen behaving in suspicious circumstances and thereafter that - if you will see in paragraph 6, that shortly thereafter, Mr Nkosi's father had been shot at.

And we are going to submit, Mr Chairman, on the evidence that we are going to prove and on the information available, that this person was an assassin, Mr Chairman, during that period.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we accept for the moment then that you will pull that line through.

MR BIZOS: Yes, of course.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we'll allow you then to proceed on that basis.

MR BIZOS: Yes, Mr Chairman. I'm sorry, I don't remember how far I had read.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you had dealt with paragraph 5, or you're dealing with it.

MR BIZOS: Had I finished 5?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BIZOS: May I proceed with paragraph 5.

"Because it was during the day, I continued with my duties, taking customers' orders. I drove away. Mafuta was going down the passage. I continued driving. When I came back I saw many people standing at home. I have noticed that something had happened. On my arrival I found the police and I was told that my father was being shot at. Immediately I saw my father's car coming, noticing that it was my kid brother driving. I pushed the car - I rushed to the car and from him following the direction to which the people around the scene said have taken. Since I suspected that it was another, either Mafuta or Siphiwe who have done that. I thought that I would found them before they have gone to forgiven that I have just seen them. We couldn't find them because they had disappeared in the bushes."

Now what I want to ask you is this. Were you anywhere near those bottle stores when this incident occurred?

MR MAVUSO: I was not even present there.

MR BIZOS: Precisely what was your relationship with Siphiwe?

MR MAVUSO: I've already explained that I knew Siphiwe through his brother who used to work at UWUSA's(?) offices, under IFP.

ADV GCABASHE: Mr Mavuso, just help us. The question is, what was your relationship with him? You've explained how you came to know him, go beyond that to explain your relationship with him, if there was one at all.

MR MAVUSO: There wasn't any relationship, except for the fact that we knew each other and we belonged to one organisation, not necessarily that we were quite close.

MR BIZOS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Who was he working for? Who was Siphiwe working for?

MR MAVUSO: Siphiwe was not employed, he used to live with his brother who worked for UWUSA's office. And he was unemployed at the time.

MR BIZOS: By whom were you employed at the time?

MR MAVUSO: You see, the question is not apparent, it's not quite clear. I don't quite understand.

MR BIZOS: Who were you working for in 1992/1993?

MR MAVUSO: I worked for Bison Board.

MR BIZOS: Were you working as a supposed security man?

MR MAVUSO: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Was there a practice at that firm, that if you were absent you could get someone to book you in?

MR MAVUSO: Since I was born I've never heard of this myth, that it ever occurs in the firms or companies.

MR BIZOS: No in your application for amnesty you say that you murdered the deceased and you referred to "my instructor". It appears on page 12, Mr Chairman. "My instructor", in the singular. Who was your instructor?

MR MAVUSO: In actual fact you refer to the person who gave me instructions to kill the deceased?

MR BIZOS: Listen to the question. You were asked to give the names of the other people that were involved, in paragraph 9(a), among other things. You were asked to give the place and you give Pongola, and then you give nature and particulars and you say

"I shot a person in town to death and after that my instructor left me on the scene."

Who was the instructor that left you on the scene?

MR MAVUSO: You see at the time when this was being planned or arranged, we were quite many in number, especially the ones who were giving me instructions. But on this particular day in question I had two people in my company, only one left me there, instructing me was that person.

MR BIZOS: Perhaps you could give us those two names and then I'll return to my question. Who were the two that accompanied you?

MR MAVUSO: It was Velaphi Khumalo as well as Sam Khumalo.

MR BIZOS: And they accompanied you to do what?

MR MAVUSO: To kill the deceased.

MR BIZOS: And what were they going to do, on your version?

MR MAVUSO: Please repeat, I don't quite follow you.

MR BIZOS: What part were they going to take in your killing of the deceased?

MR MAVUSO: They were going to help me escape, drive me away from the scene.

MR BIZOS: But now you say that your instructor, one person, who was that one person?

MR MAVUSO: You mean the very one who identified the person that I must kill? Are you trying to ...(end of side A of tape) ...

MR BIZOS: ... left you on the scene. Who was the one person that left you on the scene?

MR MAVUSO: It was Velaphi Khumalo.

ADV DE JAGER: Perhaps we could clear it up. Was it after the killing that he's been left on the scene, or was he left on the scene in order to ... the killing?

MR BIZOS: Thank you, yes. It's ...(indistinct) question. I will put it.

Was Velaphi Khumalo the person that accompanied you to the place where you were to do the killing, or was he the person that it was arranged who would pick you up, away from the place of the killing in order to escape?

MR MAVUSO: At the time when we were still going there he was with Sam Khumalo. After he had left me to go and check on the deceased, he then directed me, Velaphi that is, as to how I would be able to identify him and what colours or clothing he had on.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Bizos, can I just deal with something. My attention is drawn to the fact that the original application form of course is ...(indistinct) in Zulu, and there is a term in sub-paragraph 4, 9.A.(4), which refers to the plural, when it comes to instructors. So it appears as if this interpretation could have been incorrect, not accurate, the one that we have.

MR BIZOS: I'm sorry, I thought that once counsel for the applicant did not correct it, that it was correct, but I will accept that, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it is something to the effect

"Those who instructed me."

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, in particular - if I may intervene, when I led his evidence I particularly referred to his application in Zulu, which is the first pages, and I indicated to the Committee there was an additional purported translation which he did not confirm to be correct or not. We didn't check that. So who translated it presumed it was the amnesty, the TRC. We don't know who, Mr Chairman. It's not in his writing.

MR BIZOS: ...(no microphone) really alter the question, the line of questioning.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Were the instructors that you referred to, were they the persons that left you on the scene, or before the murder was committed, or were they supposed to pick you up after the murder was committed?

MR MAVUSO: In actual fact, the deceased was not supposed to have been shot in town, but the fact that it was a bit hard to locate him, we felt it, we deemed it fit that he could be killed right there, otherwise he was supposed to have left for Vryheid.

MR BIZOS: Now what you have said

"I shot a person in town to death and after that my instructors left me on the scene."

Now, that is what was apparently written in Zulu, a correct translation of which I am now reading to you. I want to know whether there was any plan for any person to pick you up after you committed the murder.

MR MAVUSO: Yes, there was a plan that I should be transported, but the one that happened subsequently was the one that we just planned abruptly. We suddenly planned. We had contingency plan, that's the one that we implemented, not the original plan that we had.

MR BIZOS: What was the contingency plan that was made?

MR MAVUSO: The fact that we could not locate the person and he was already in town, so because of that we should simply kill him right away there. He did not leave for Vryheid.

MR BIZOS: No, what was the contingency plan, if any, as to who would get you away from the scene of the crime?

MR MAVUSO: Velaphi Khumalo would have been the one.

MR BIZOS: Not more than one person?

MR MAVUSO: He was together with Sam.

MR BIZOS: Khumalo?

MR MAVUSO: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Now when you were apprehended some distance away from the place where you shot the deceased, for how long were you there before Mkhwanazi arrived?

MR MAVUSO: Mkhwanazi arrived when I was at the police station, having been there for a while. - for quite some time.

MR BIZOS: In Pongola or elsewhere?

MR MAVUSO: I mean the police station in Pongola.

MR BIZOS: Did you not see him at the place where you were being held, the place where you had been arrested?

MR MAVUSO: No, I never saw him.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Now I want to take up on your claim to have done this on behalf of the IFP. When do you say you joined the IFP?

MR MAVUSO: In 1977.

MR BIZOS: How old were you then?

MR MAVUSO: I was still young and attending at lower primary school.

MR BIZOS: Alright. Who was the chairman of the IFP in Piet Retief?

MR MAVUSO: When I arrived there in Piet Retief, the Chairman of IFP was Mpongose. After some time we had a branch at a hostel and Richard Buthelezi was now the chairman.

MR BIZOS: Who was the chairman of the IFP in Pongola?

MR MAVUSO: May you please repeat that question.

MR BIZOS: Who was the head of the IFP in Pongola? At the time that you committed this murder, who was the head of the IFP?

MR MAVUSO: At the time IFP in Pongola had no chairman.

MR BIZOS: Had no chairman?

MR MAVUSO: The chairman that was there was Amos Mtungwa(?).

MR BIZOS: Who was the vice-chairman of the IFP in Pongola?

MR MAVUSO: Amos Mtungwa.

MR BIZOS: Who was the secretary?

MR MAVUSO: I don't know who was the secretary.

MR BIZOS: How many committee members of the IFP were there in Pongola?

MR MAVUSO: We were quite many in the organisation and you will not be able to know every detail as to who is who and what is what. It's not quite easy to gather that kind of information.

MR BIZOS: I didn't ask you who is who and what is what, I asked you how many members were there on the committee, if you know, or if you were ever anywhere near it.

MR MAVUSO: You mean the ones who took part in the plan of killing the deceased? Are you referring to those ones?

MR BIZOS: I am talking about the members of the IFP committee in Pongola.

MR MAVUSO: They were there on that day. We were eight in all.

ADV DE JAGER: I think there may be a confusion. Are you - Mr Bizos is asking about the committee members, presumably of the branch in Pongola. You have referred to the eight members that were present at a meeting you've given evidence about. Were they the same members as the committee members of the branch, or were they ordinary members of the IFP?

MR MAVUSO: You're referring to the eight that I've made mention of just now?

MR BIZOS: May I try and explain. I am not talking about the eight of you, who you say met at the Wimpy Bar and you say agreed to murder the deceased, I am talking about the formal structure of the IFP. How many members were there on the committee of the IFP? Not the ones that necessarily met at the Wimpy Bar to plan what you say was planned there, the ordinary meeting of members and structure of the IFP. Do you know who were the elected members of the IFP at Pongola during 1992/1993? If you don't know say so, so that we can proceed.

MR MAVUSO: The one I knew was Amos Mtungwa.

MR BIZOS: Is that all?

MR MAVUSO: He was a member of the SAP - sorry, he was a member of the legislature in KwaZulu Natal.

MR BIZOS: He was the only person that you knew that was formally a member of the IFP, is that correct?

MR MAVUSO: He was not the only one. I meant to refer to the senior, that is Amos Mtungwa, and the person who connected me to him was the brother of Amos. And the others members who were there, were members I quite often saw at the meetings, or rallies that we attended.

MR BIZOS: But were they the people - the people that you mention, were they people on the platform, or were they merely attending the meeting of the IFP there?

MR MAVUSO: There is a distinction in what I should say here, because there would be people who would address the meeting and there would be people who would form part of the audience coming from the community.

MR BIZOS: The people that you met with at the Wimpy Bar, were they people who usually spoke from the platform, or were they the listeners below?

MR MAVUSO: Some of them were people who will form part of the audience and some of them would be on the platform addressing the meeting.

MR BIZOS: Who would be on the platform? Name to us which of the persons with whom you met at the Wimpy Bar, you ever saw on a platform, more-or-less when and more-or-less what did he or she say. - he say. Please give us some details, if you can. So that we can identify the people that were on the platform and the people that were merely in the audience.

MR MAVUSO: Like Amos Mtungwa.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Was he one of the speakers?

MR MAVUSO: Yes, he was also a chief at Itshelejuba, but as to what he would say in his address, I can't quite remember.

MR BIZOS: We can understand that. Please give us the name of any other person that you saw on the platform, that was present at the Wimpy meeting.

MR MAVUSO: Philemon Mtungwa is one other.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Anyone else?

MR MAVUSO: You see at the time, at that particular time those were the people I could identify easily, each I time I attended the meetings of IFP.

MR BIZOS: You can't remember anyone else that may have been on the platform of an IFP meeting at any time, except for the two names that you have given us? Two or three names that you have given us.

MR MAVUSO: Sandenezwe Nlangamandla, he was also another one who will address from the platform.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Were they guest speakers or were they committee members, or don't you know?

MR MAVUSO: Amos Mtungwa and Philemon Mtungwa, it will so happen that they will be guest speakers and Sanda will be a person who would occasionally go and address as well, but it was not quite usual or often that he addressed in the meetings.

MR BIZOS: So can we then conclude that you are unable to tell us of any one person that was actually a member of the IFP committee in Pongola at the time?

MR MAVUSO: Yes, I would not be able to.

MR BIZOS: Yes, thank you. But now you see, I'm going to suggest to you that you even got the chairman wrong.

INTERPRETER: May you please repeat the last part of your question.

MR BIZOS: ... that you even got the name of the chairman wrong. Do you know Israel Bongumusi Dlamini?

MR MAVUSO: No, I don't know him.

MR BIZOS: Well listen to what he says

"I am an adult male assistant personnel officer at Ilovo Sugar in Pongola and residing at A279 Mkotsane Township, Pongola."

It's the last affidavit that we gave in this morning, Mr Chairman.

That's what he says he is and where he lives. He goes on:

"I was the chairperson of the IFP Executive Mkotsane, from 1979 until 1993 and I was the chairperson at the time of the murder of Michael Mcetywa in 1993."

Are you able to admit or deny that fact?

MR MAVUSO: I will not refute or concur with that, because I have no knowledge.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Mkotsane, is that the same as Pongola?

MR BIZOS: Yes, Mkotsane during the apartheid days, was the black part of Angola.

MR PRINSLOO: Pongola.

MR BIZOS: Did I say Angola? Forgive me. Pongola. For the rest the question stands. Thank you. I think he agreed with that, Mr Chairman, so that's clarified.

CHAIRPERSON: Well yes, he said he can't admit or deny it.

MR BIZOS: No, the last question by Adv de Jager.

MR BIZOS: Oh, I think my colleague just wanted clarity whether you're speaking about the same place.

MR BIZOS: Mkotsane is in Pongola, yes.

And you can't admit or deny that he was the chairperson for a long time, '79 to '93, 14 years and you the active and loyal member of the IFP don't know him.

MR MAVUSO: Yes, it is exactly the way you say it.

MR BIZOS: Well then there's something wrong, isn't there? Isn't there something wrong, that if you are so ignorant of the IFP and its policy that you did not know the chairman of your organisation or 14 years standing, either you were not a member of the IFP, you were not interested in its political work because you were really a hired assassin by people having different interests.

MR MAVUSO: I would like to refute all of what you said now.

MR BIZOS: Yes. But then you must explain.

MR MAVUSO: I was a member of IFP. Even to date I am still an IFP member and that will not change that and no-one will persuade me otherwise. Not to say I'm insane, that I left Piet Retief where I used to work and go Pongola to kill or to murder without meeting with the IFP members. What you've just uttered now, that I was told to go and murder and was simply and assassin, that's not true and that was not the case.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Let's have a look what he says in paragraph 3

"The IFP in Mkotsane fell under the authority of Ulundi. There was no organisation or line of accountability between Piet Retief and Mkotsane IFP branches."

Are you able to refute that?

MR MAVUSO: Can you please go through that question again.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

"There was no organisation or line of accountability between Piet Retief and Mkotsane IFP branches."

What I think that means is that the branch at Pongola was not subject to the jurisdiction of the IFP in Piet Retief, but to Ulundi and the two of them were independent branches, Piet Retief and the Pongola branch.

MR MAVUSO: I think that's a big mistake, Mr Bizos. I think IFP is one. Whether it is abroad, overseas or it's local, they always interact and they are not independent of each other.

MR BIZOS: Well you mean to say - are you saying that an IFP member in Johannesburg could go and kill someone on behalf of the IFP in Durban, without having any regard to the IFP people in Durban? Is that what you are saying?

MR MAVUSO: No, it will not happen like that.

MR BIZOS: Of course not. And you are not for one moment suggesting that Piet Retief IFP members could go and kill people on behalf of the IFP, without having regard to what the IFP in Pongola as an organisation thought or felt? Is that what you are saying?

MR MAVUSO: What happened when I left to go and kill in Pongola, I met with Amos Mtungwa, who was the member of the legislature in KwaZulu Natal at the time, together with other members in Mkotsane.

MR BIZOS: What Mr Dlamini says

"The Mkotsane IFP committee was not party to any discussions or plans to kill Michael Mcetywa and did not know anything about the assassination plot."

Are you able to refute that?

MR MAVUSO: What he has said I will not refute nor admit to that, but it is what he said and I have nothing much to add.

MR BIZOS: Very well let's go to paragraph 5.

"I do not believe that the IFP planned the murder of Michael Mcetywa. At the time of his death, there were no real problems between the IFP and the ANC in the area."

What do you say to that, is it correct or incorrect?

MR MAVUSO: I would not voluntarily leave Piet Retief, or on my own volition, to kill Mcetywa simply because he was not in the organisation. I went there largely because I was given the instruction that he was the one problematic, or a thorn in the flesh.

MR BIZOS: Please tell us any one ANC member that was killed in the area before you killed Mr Mcetywa.

MR MAVUSO: You mean I should tell others who were supposed to have been killed as well?

MR BIZOS: No, no. Please tell us of any one member of the ANC, or for that matter the IFP, who had been killed in Pongola because he belonged to the wrong party, or because there were political differences. Give us one name, before.

MR MAVUSO: I will not have any clear indication or inside information because I was not a resident there.

MR BIZOS: But surely you would not go and kill somebody just because you were told, even if your story is true by whom, without being satisfied that it was at least necessary in order to further what you call the struggle, which we will examine in a little while, what has this person done, why must I kill him? What wrong has he done to the IFP, has he killed anybody, has he assaulted anybody, has he threatened anybody? Do you want to answer that question?

MR MAVUSO: At the time the violence was rife and it was not necessary for any person to tell you or inform you otherwise. If you come across a situation and you are being told a certain person is being a problem, or problematic in the area and he has to be eliminated, that was a cause for concern and we will employ a mechanism in that regard. And also, the other organisations would have been influence the same way we would have in case we encounter a situation where we are being told that somebody is being a problem and something has be to be done to him.

MR BIZOS: Was violence rife in Pongola?

MR MAVUSO: I have never heard about any violence, although I would hear that - there will be violence from time to time, although I was not a resident there.

MR BIZOS: What violence was there in Pongola, and over what issue?

MR MAVUSO: As I said, I would not know because I was not residing there, but according to the instructions furnished to me, the deceased was supposed to have been killed and he was not alone, there were other victims also.

MR BIZOS: Yes. You tell us that you had a contract for the deceased and two others. Perhaps I shouldn't use the word "contract", because it's loaded, you had instructions to kill the deceased and two others. Were they members of the ANC, the two others?

MR MAVUSO: According to the instruction given to me, they were ANC members.

MR BIZOS: Were you told, or did you ever hear that the only trouble that there was in Pongola at or about that time, was that the taxi owners had increased the taxi fares to a level thought to be too high by the community, had you ever heard anything like that?

MR MAVUSO: It's my first time I hear and gather that from you today.

MR BIZOS: Oh. Had you not heard that the taxis were being boycotted and that people were using buses and not taxis and they vowed not to use them until such time as the fares were reduced to their original levels? Never heard about that?

MR MAVUSO: It's the first time I as I said, and I repeat that. I gather that from you.

MR BIZOS: Did you never hear that the man that you murdered was so well respected in the community that he actually was asked to mediate in the dispute? Did you ever hear that?

MR MAVUSO: It's my first time I hear that from you. I've never heard of such.

MR BIZOS: It may be a convenient stage.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll take the luncheon adjournment and reconvene at 2 o'clock.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Mavuso, you're reminded that you are still under oath. Do you understand?

NKOSINATHI EMMANUEL MAVUSO: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Bizos?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS: (cont)

Now do you remember that you told us that ...(no microphone).

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

MR BIZOS: You told us that you know of no other murder for political reasons, that had been committed in Pongola or Piet Retief. Now ...(intervention)

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, is Piet Retief being referred to as well, or just Pongola.

MR BIZOS: I said both, but the witness can answer, Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, there was no question directed at him with regard to murders perpetrated in Piet Retief, apart from the one of Siphiwe and the other. And the whole question was the related at all times to Pongola, is there now a shift to Piet Retief? In order for the witness to understand this.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, in fact I think Mr Bizos is saying he can respond in respect of both.

MR BIZOS: Did you know of any murder of a political nature that was committed in Piet Retief?

MR MAVUSO: Yes, I do know.

MR BIZOS: Whose?

MR MAVUSO: I wouldn't know their names.

MR BIZOS: When was it and what were the circumstances and who did it?

MR MAVUSO: I heard that there were murders committed, but who was involved, I didn't know, because I wasn't staying there and it doesn't involve, or it doesn't affect what I'm here for. And another thing, I am forced to answer the questions about Piet Retief incidents, but the fact is I think I shouldn't be answering those questions. But then I understand that Mr Bizos had already insulted me, calling me a murderer and I feel bad because I am here because I am trying to reconcile and to ask for forgiveness because of what I've done. I've killed someone.

And now Mr Bizos is trying to make it as if the incidents that occurred in Piet Retief also were there because of me. Those were not my actions. I'm here because I'm asking for amnesty. And even the Court didn't find me guilty of any crimes committed in other areas. If I've done so, I would have asked for amnesty for those incidents as well.

Even yesterday, Mr Bizos also said words which were insulting and in fact the Committee were laughing at me. He said I was sleeping in Court and I wasn't.

MR BIZOS: I don't remember saying that you were sleeping in Court, but just answer the questions please. You say that you think that there were murders in Piet Retief and you told us that there were no murders in Pongola, that you knew of. Is that correct?

MR MAVUSO: Yes, that's correct.

MR BIZOS: And you said that Amos Mtungwa approached you in order to murder the deceased, in this case.

MR MAVUSO: I don't know, maybe I need to explain something to Mr Bizos, because it looks like he's trying to put words in my mouth.

MR BIZOS: Well did ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Well explain it then. What do you want to explain?

MR MAVUSO: In my statement, if I'm correct, it's written that I went with Philemon Mtungwa. He asked me to accompany him to his brother, Amos Mtungwa, who was a member of the legislature in Natal at the time. Shortly, I will say I arrived at his home. I was with his brother. He took me to Mkotsane to meet these other guys whom I've mentioned their names. I'm trying to answer the question, that he didn't come and approach me. I think there's a difference there because I went with him brother to his home, he didn't approach me to go and kill the deceased.

MR BIZOS: Well the purpose of the approach eventually became known to you, that it was to murder the deceased. That is why you were approached.

MR MAVUSO: When I left with Philemon Mtungwa, I didn't know a thing, but later when I arrived at Amos Mtungwa's place, that's when I got the knowledge.

MR BIZOS: And you were the chosen one to murder the deceased?

MR MAVUSO: Not that I was the chosen one, I was told. When you say I was chosen, it's like you are selected from the group. It wasn't like that, I was supposed to be the one, not that I was chosen to be the one.

MR BIZOS: Right. Why were you supposed to be the one? What did the Mtungwas know or could have known about you that led them to believe that you would agree at a meeting that was to take place, to kill?

MR MAVUSO: I would like to put this very clear, that together IFP members they've selected me. It wasn't just the Mtungwa family.

MR BIZOS: No, but why - whoever made the decision and used the Mtungwas as the messengers if you like, why were you indicated as the person who was likely to commit a murder if asked to do so? What was known about you, what did they know about you? What previous discussions had there been, what had you previously done that they had the confidence to come to you and bring you to this meeting and say, go and murder? How did they know that you would not go to the nearest police station and say "Hey there are people around planning murder"?

MR MAVUSO: First of all, the reason was I was not known to the Pongola residents. Secondly, at Pongola the person who was selected to be murdered was an ANC member and this group, my group, were IFP, therefore I wasn't going to sell them out. I didn't do that up until now that I'm telling the Commission.

MR BIZOS: You're not going to suggest that merely being an IFP member qualified you, in the absence of any other information relating to killings, would be enough for you to be approached by comparative strangers to commit a murder?

MR MAVUSO: I would like you to repeat this question for me, I've missed some points.

MR BIZOS: Yes. The mere fact that you were an IFP member would not have persuaded other IFP members that you would be prepared to kill an ANC member, merely because you were an IFP member. They would have wanted more information, whether you were the sort of person who was prepared to kill, that you were prepared to kill with certainty, that you were trained in killing.

MR MAVUSO: This is what happened.

MR BIZOS: You see, the other question that I'd like to ask you is this, that you have given a considerable number of names that were involved. Was this a meeting in order to decide whether the deceased should be killed, or was it a meeting merely to give you an instruction to kill him? Do you understand the question?

MR MAVUSO: I understand it very well.

MR BIZOS: Now what sort of meeting is it? Was it the first kind or the second kind?

MR MAVUSO: I think in my statement it's written that we met together and I was told as to what to do.

MR BIZOS: Right. That means that this was not a committee meeting in which one was to debate whether or not the deceased was to be killed, it was a meeting where you were told what to do.

MR MAVUSO: That how we should do or what we should do.

MR BIZOS: Yes. You see I can understand that the number of people that you mentioned may have been necessary in order to debate as to whether or not a murder should take place, a political murder should take place. But can you explain why it was necessary to have about 10 people, on your version - well there are different versions about the number, but so large an ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Eight.

MR BIZOS: Eight in the final result, or in the first? Because there are three that were missing from the first. But anyway between, well seven to eight people -let's put it at its basic, seven to eight people to meet to give you an instruction when only one or two would have been necessary once there was not going to be a policy debate. Do you understand what I mean?

MR MAVUSO: Yes, I do understand, but it is not so.

MR BIZOS: Can you explain why eight people should endanger themselves by telling you what to do, when one or two would have been more than sufficient?

MR MAVUSO: We needed intelligent knowledge in order to carry out this act, because it has been a long time since they've been hunting the deceased and they failed and that's why I think there were eight people to discuss about how to attack him.

MR BIZOS: Oh. Can you please tell us what the various alternatives were, and who said what and why had they not agreed among themselves before they met you to merely give you the instruction?

MR MAVUSO: I think I've also explained in my statement that I don't remember some of the incidents, because this happened a long time ago. And also, the way the situation was, I didn't know at the time that later in life I will have to relate everything as to what happened and who said what in those meetings.

MR BIZOS: Now do you agree that the three persons, Jabulani Khunene, Rasta ...(indistinct) and Nomalebele Buthelezi, were not mentioned by you in the statement appearing on pages 1 to 3 in the bundle, but they do appear in the statement that you made, attached to your application on page 21 - I'm sorry, not attached to your application, the statement made on page 21, in the translation. There are three more names there, the names that I have mentioned to you. Do you agree with that?

MR MAVUSO: Which statement are you referring to when you say there's one statement where the names do not appear?

MR BIZOS: The first statement on page 1 to 3, made by you, does not contain the three names I read out to you, but the do appear in the statement which was made available to the Commission and which is on page 21 of the application.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, could I just show the witness there? The one is the written statement, the one is a typed statement. There's some confusion. And the one was the application form.

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

MR BIZOS: ...(indistinct) you mentioned the names. At the end of your statement you wanted to add other names. How did it come about that the three names were left out?

MR MAVUSO: In page 8 on my application for amnesty, the TRC forms, it's written there below that "and other people" ...(intervention)

MR PRINSLOO: The witness refers to paragraph 11(b), the last word on page 8, paginated, Mr Chairman, and the last word appears there ...(Zulu) "others".

INTERPRETER: Meaning "and others".

MR BIZOS: Why were those three names not mentioned originally? The three names that I have mentioned to you.

MR MAVUSO: I've written "nabanje"(?), meaning "and others", because it was not enough space on the form for me to put other names. There was not space for me to put the names there, that's why I've written "and others". I don't know if the Commission would allow me to put an extra page and put names, that's why I've written there "nabanje", meaning "others", because I didn't know at the time if I was supposed to attach an extra page and put the names.

MR BIZOS: No, I am talking about the statement which is not on the form, but which is on pages 7 to 11, in the hand-written form in bundle 2.

MR MAVUSO: I think if I remember very well, I wasn't in good relations with the people who came to take the statement and I chased them away, and that's why - I didn't trust them.

MR BIZOS: Whom did you not trust?

MR MAVUSO: The people I made the statement with.

MR BIZOS: But why would you trust them with some names and not trust them in relation to all the names?

MR MAVUSO: They didn't want to put everything I said to them in writing, that's why there are many mistakes in those statements.

MR BIZOS: Please identify these people that did not want to write what you wanted to tell them. Who were they, where did it take place?

MR MAVUSO: I think it was comrade and I just didn't trust comrade and we were not in good terms. We couldn't understand each other very well.

MR BIZOS: Who was this comrade that you didn't trust and didn't understand well? Where was it? Who was he? If you don't know the name, describe it. Tell us where it took place and why you did not trust him.

MR MAVUSO: We were in prison in Barberton. He said he was the head of the investigators, or the detectives. The reason I didn't trust him, it was that on the 30th of November 1994, when I was given bail, he came to refuse my bail because he didn't want me to be given bail, he wanted to arrest me for other crimes which I didn't commit. That's where things didn't go well between him and myself.

MR BIZOS: You have no other quarrel with the statement that appears on pages 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11?

MR PRINSLOO: That is still bundle 2, Mr Chairman?

MR BIZOS: Yes. This comrade wrote whatever is there, correctly?

MR MAVUSO: If I were to comment on whether the statement is accurate or not, I would need the Committee to read the statement to me, so that I get a chance to say yes or no.

MR BIZOS: That was done in its typed form already yesterday, we don't have to take another few hours to do that. And you didn't make any serious complaints about the statement then, having been wrongly taken by this comrade.

MR MAVUSO: As I've already mentioned, some of the things which are written there I do agree with and some I don't.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Now you see, I'm going to suggest to you that this is yet another example in which you are being untruthful, in order to get out of difficulties.

MR MAVUSO: I wouldn't disagree with you, Mr Bizos, but I'm certain of is that what I'm saying here it's the truth. I am the one who was involved, I took part in everything of this incident, and in Court I didn't tell the truth and now I came here before this Committee to tell the truth and the whole truth. But you have a right to say what you are saying.

MR BIZOS: Yes. I'm not saying what you said in Court, I'm saying what you made in a, when you made a statement after that, which is in conflict with another statement that you made and I am putting to you that you are falsely accusing the person responsible for taking this first statement, in order to get out of the difficulties that you have.

Now do you agree that you contradicted yourself as to whether you slept in the Pongola Hotel or not? Why did you contradict yourself as to whether you stayed in the Pongola Hotel or not?

MR MAVUSO: I do not agree that I've contradicted myself. My statements are all the same.

MR BIZOS: Very well, we won't canvass it again. When did you - when were you convicted, what was the date?

MR MAVUSO: I don't remember.

MR BIZOS: Were you let out on bail after your conviction, or not?

MR MAVUSO: I was arrested in 1993 and I received bail in 1994.

MR BIZOS: And after you were convicted, were you again admitted to bail or did you surrender yourself to start serving your prison sentence immediately?

MR MAVUSO: I was released on bail.

MR BIZOS: And you noted an appeal, or you asked for leave to appeal?

MR MAVUSO: Yes, that's correct.

MR BIZOS: You had a lawyer of your choice at your trial right up to the end, or almost the end, before you were sentenced. Not a pro-deo counsel, is that correct?

MR MAVUSO: That's correct.

MR BIZOS: Who paid for your lawyer, the one of your choice?

MR MAVUSO: IFP members.

MR BIZOS: Which IFP members?

MR MAVUSO: IFP members of Dumbe(?), Pongola and Piet Retief.

MR BIZOS: Did the mayor of Pongola, as the chairman of the IFP, organise bail for you or did he collect money for you?

MR MAVUSO: I would like you to repeat this question for me.

MR BIZOS: I must correct that, because the mayor need not necessarily be the chairperson. Did the mayor or any of the organised members of IFP, collect any money for you in Pongola, or don't you know?

MR MAVUSO: I am confused, I don't quite get the question clearly. You're talking about a mayor, this is where my confusion is. Which mayor are you talking about?

MR BIZOS: I'm sorry.

MR MAVUSO: From which area?

MR BIZOS: Did Mr Dlamini, whose affidavit I referred you to earlier, collect any money for you? Not the mayor, I'm sorry, the chairman of the IFP. Did he collect any money for you?

MR MAVUSO: I wouldn't be sure if he himself was involved in collecting the money. Like I've already mentioned before that I do not know him, but what I know is that members of the IFP from Pongola, Paulpietersburg and Piet Retief collected the money to pay my bail.

MR BIZOS: Please name some of the people that contributed to your bail and your defence, that you know of?

MR MAVUSO: The whole community, the IFP community. It is difficult for me to say who, because I didn't know some of them. As long as the person is the member of the IFP, they've collected the money from the community.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Mavuso, who told you where they got the money from? You were in jail at that stage, so who told you where they collected the money, or who donated the money?

MR MAVUSO: There is a difference there. There was money for the bail, which was paid for the bail, and there was money which was paid to my attorney and all this money came from IFP members and they were collecting it from IFP members. I have no idea as to how they collected the money and who was involved in collecting the money from IFP members.

MR BIZOS: Please tell us - if I may take Adv de Jager's question just a little bit further, who was the organiser, who came and said, Mavuso, we raised R3 000 for your bail and the people that really went around collecting it are a, b and c, you better go and say thank you? You should be able to tell us who was the chief organiser, who were the chief collectors and similarly for the money for your attorney. You were out on bail when the attorney would want money for himself and counsel briefed on your behalf. Did you find out who was collecting the money, who the people were that really went from door to door to collect it, so that you can go and say thank you very much? Can you not give us one name? What is the problem?

MR MAVUSO: I don't have a problem in giving you names of the people, but I would like you to understand me very well. I would like to clarify things, as a person who is asking for amnesty. As for the money which was paid to my attorney, I wasn't involved as to who was collecting the money, but the only person who came, or the people who came to see me for my bail or to pay my bail, was Mr Mtshali, Mr Sibiya and Mr Bheki Zwayo. These were the people who came and paid my bail. They were being sent by the Piet Retief hostel branch. After I was released on bail they showed me receipts which they collected from IFP members and I didn't pay much attention on that because I was concentrating on how I'm going to win the case.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Well you see that Mr Mtshali says that the person to approach him was Mr Sanda Nlangamandla - in A64 on page 56, bundle 2. And Sibiya says that he was asked to do that because he had - he got the money from Mtshali - on statement A52, page 61, and that he was there in order to see Mdu Msibi and neither of them knew where the money came from, according to their statements.

MR MAVUSO: Firstly, members of the IFP who came to pay my bail showed me receipts of the people who paid the donation to bail me. At the time it wasn't necessary or important to me to know who donated the money, they just showed me, as members of the IFP.

Secondly, if the money came from Sanda, I would say it was appropriate because he was the member of the IFP, who was present when I was selected to go and kill the deceased.

Thirdly, if they are not telling the truth, that they've collected the money from the hostel dwellers who were IFP members, I think they've done so deliberately because they were going to be arrested as well, because they wanted to know how much do they know me. Like you've already mentioned, Mr Bizos, that I am the murderer who was murdering people in Piet Retief.

MR BIZOS: I don't know where you got the idea that I said that you murdered people in Piet Retief. I asked you whether you knew of any murders that had been committed in Piet Retief or Pongola, in order to show that political murders were not being done in that area. You have every right to have a grievance against me, but please have the grievances against me personally for correct reasons.

When you were let out on bail - when you continued being on bail, on the basis that you filed a notice of appeal, did you carry on with your appeal?

MR MAVUSO: Yes, I did.

MR BIZOS: Was the appeal heard?

MR MAVUSO: I would say yes.

MR BIZOS: Was it dismissed?

MR MAVUSO: Yes, it was dismissed. I think it was because I'm still in prison.

MR BIZOS: Yes. For how long after the dismissal of your appeal did you refuse to surrender yourself?

MR MAVUSO: I've mentioned that I think it was heard, but I am not sure whether the appeal was heard because I never attended, my attorney was the one who was attending. I think Mr Bizos wants me to agree on things which are not relevant to what I am here for, but it's okay, I will answer all the questions in order to satisfy you.

MR BIZOS: I'm asking the questions on behalf of the Committee, and not for my personal satisfaction, Sir. So just answer the questions if you can, without repeating this comment. You're not here ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Bizos, that could create a wrong impression. You're not asking the questions on behalf of the Commission ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: ...(no microphone)

ADV DE JAGER: Ja, but not on behalf of us. We ...(indistinct) you, yes.

MR BIZOS: ....(no microphone) for the purposes of the Committee and not for my personal ... Yes, I'm sorry, it may create the impression that I am your agent.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, we might land up paying your bill, Mr Bizos.

MR BIZOS: Well the trouble is that I'm at the Legal Resources Centre and I'm one of the people that doesn't get paid, Mr Chairman. We are the cheapest people here.

ADV DE JAGER: ...(indistinct) full time ...(indistinct)

MR BIZOS: Well you don't want me to disclose it, do. you? It's probably a day's work at the Bar. But be that as it may.

You see, I want an answer to my question, Mr Mavuso. Your appeal was either not proceeded with or was dismissed. At some time or another the address, probably that of your attorney that you had given, was notified that you must surrender yourself in order to serve your prison term. How long after - well let me be direct. Did you go into hiding?

MR MAVUSO: No, I didn't.

MR BIZOS: When did you enter prison in order to serve your sentence?

MR MAVUSO: In 1997.

MR BIZOS: Did you surrender yourself, or did it take a full-time police officer more than two months in order to find you in Soweto?

MR MAVUSO: I think you should have asked me how it came about, if you wanted to know more information on this and I think I can explain.

MR BIZOS: Please do.

MR MAVUSO: Mr Bizos, later after I was convicted I was working and when I was arrested I was suspended at work and I was told that I must stay out of work until my case is over. If I win the case I was going to go back to my job and if I didn't, then I would go to prison. And after I was sentenced and after I lost my appeal, I went back home and I left the address and I went and looked for a job. I didn't run away because I left the address of the place where I was going. I didn't run away. This is still similar to what you have said before, that I was a murderer in Piet Retief.

MR BIZOS: Do you deny that the police officers responsible for executing your warrant of arrest, had a lot of difficulty in finding you and it took a considerable time to find you?

MR MAVUSO: I'm hearing this for the first time. As far as I know it's that the police who arrested me came to my home and at home they gave him the address to which I was and he came and found me to that address and told me that the case was dismissed and I was supposed to go to - the appeal case was dismissed and I was supposed to go to prison.

MR BIZOS: Who told you that?

MR MAVUSO: The police who came looking for me.

MR BIZOS: In Soweto?

MR MAVUSO: Yes, that's correct.

MR BIZOS: And was the officer's name, Frans Manzini?

MR MAVUSO: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Again, so that you - I'm not particularly concerned about your attitude, it is he who gave us the information that I have put to you.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Bizos, is it really relevant to the application?

MR BIZOS: No, not really. Not really, but I don't want him to have personal grievances against me on incorrect grounds.

ADV DE JAGER: I may develop one if you ask irrelevant questions. Let's try and ...

MR BIZOS: Yes, I will come, soon come to an end.

Now Mr Mavuso, this murder took place in 1993, in November, do you know what the policy of the IFP was in relation to violence at the end of 1993?

MR MAVUSO: Which policy are you referring to? They were put in place when?

MR BIZOS: In relation to violence, in relation to killing people on behalf of the IFP. What was the policy of your organisation?

MR MAVUSO: I think I've explained before to this Committee, that there isn't a single organisation that allows people to kill, or there is no policy which is stipulated in any organisation, that people or members should murder, but the members do that on their own.

MR BIZOS: Oh, I see. So in November 1993, you knew that the IFP was against murder of other people, correct?

MR MAVUSO: I don't think there's a single political organisation that allows people to kill. Even the ANC, PAC, any political organisation doesn't allow murdering of other people.

MR BIZOS: I don't want to debate that with you, I want a clear answer please. Did you know that in November 1993, the IFP had no policy of killing people?

MR MAVUSO: Mr Bizos, if I give an explanation it is because it's not so simple to say yes or no, that's why I have to explain, so that you understand that what exactly I'm talking about.

MR BIZOS: Yes, but you see you're bringing in the PAC, your bring in the ANC and we have to have enquiries about the history of those organisations which some time may have been in favour of violence. Leave the PAC and the ANC out of this please. I'm asking you directly, do you agree that the policy of the IFP was not to kill people, in November 1993? Please answer that question with a yes or no.

MR MAVUSO: I don't know of any policy of such a nature, that in 1993 there was such a policy which was in the IFP, that we shouldn't kill people. I do agree that there was a policy, IFP knew that members shouldn't kill other people, but it wasn't put forth in 1993, it was always there.

MR BIZOS: Yes, thank you, that's an answer to the question. Now, in your application for amnesty you are asked to give what you hoped to achieve by this murder, on page 14. Perhaps we should start at the bottom of page 13.

MR PRINSLOO: The witness is looking at the Zulu part of it, pages 1 to 9, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Yes. I'll read the translation

"We were trying to stop the growth of the ANC in that area."

Is that correct? Or "our area", is that correct?

MR MAVUSO: I would like you to repeat that for me.

MR BIZOS

"We were trying to stop the growth of the ANC in our area."

Is that correct?

MR MAVUSO: That's correct.

ADV DE JAGER: That's in answer to the question

"State political objective sought to be achieved."

Do you understand that?

MR MAVUSO: Yes, I do.

MR BIZOS: You wrote that down that that was the political objective. And then you were asked, under (b), on page 14

"Your justification, such as omission, offences, acts, omissions, etc."

Your justification for committing this killing, that's what the question really means. And your answer was:

"He was the one in charge of the ANC in our area, so we had to murder him to silence ANC and to maintain our dignity."

Is that correct? That's why you killed him.

MR MAVUSO: Yes, that's correct.

MR BIZOS: Now you have passed standard eight, have you?

MR MAVUSO: Yes, that's correct.

MR BIZOS: You read newspapers?

MR MAVUSO: No, I don't read.

MR BIZOS: You listen to the radio?

MR MAVUSO: When it's available I do, but I don't have a radio myself.

ADV DE JAGER: And at the time, then, 1993? In 1993, did you have a radio, at the time of this killing?

MR MAVUSO: Yes, I did have.

MR BIZOS: And you were, on your own evidence, a politically aware person.

MR MAVUSO: I don't know if you're asking me a question or you're expecting me to respond, or you're still continuing. I don't know whether I'm supposed to respond now.

MR BIZOS: No, no, it was a question, please answer it. Were you a politically aware person?

MR MAVUSO: Yes, I am aware politically, but I wouldn't know everything, because there are too many laws, it's difficult for one to know everything.

MR BIZOS: Yes. But at the time you committed this murder, you knew that the election date had been fixed.

MR MAVUSO: I don't remember very well if I knew at the time or not.

MR BIZOS: Well you must have - well if I give you the date, you must have been aware of it, that the election was fixed in June, was announced in for the 27th of April 1994, during June 1993. Do you remember that?

MR MAVUSO: If so, I think I knew at that time.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Was it the right of the IFP to try and persuade as many people as it possible could, to vote in the forthcoming election?

MR MAVUSO: I think it is exactly as you are saying, Mr Bizos. I think the reason behind killing the deceased was that we didn't want the ANC to grow there.

MR BIZOS: Did you know accord the ANC the same right as the IFP, to try and grow there in order to get votes, just as the IFP was trying to get more votes?

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Bizos, I think the only trouble is, at that stage the IFP was still boycotting the election, they only decided to join in late April and their name had to fixed at the bottom of the ballot paper, if I remember correctly.

MR BIZOS: That withdrawal, subject to my memory, Adv de Jager, only took place in February 1994. At the end of 1993, the IFP was participating. In fact, they participated in the drawing of the Interim Constitution, which was agreed to on the 4th or 5th of December 1993, if my memory serves me correctly. There was ambivalence earlier on, when they walked out of Codessa.

ADV DE JAGER: Ja, and just before the election also, because their name had ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: Yes, there was a formal withdrawal towards the end of February, or beginning - and it lasted until some time in March and a lot of persuasion had to be done and the name had to be a strip at the bottom of the ballot paper. But in '93 the IFP was participating and it in fact voted for the Interim Constitution at Codessa.

ADV DE JAGER: No, I'll accept that, I only remembered that they ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: The strip, but that was in 1994, that was in '94, Mr Chairman.

So you see here were parties positioning themselves for an election. You knew that the IFP had a policy of non-violence, what persuaded you at a meeting - assuming you are telling the truth as to who was there, that a meeting at the Wimpy Bar in Pongola, gave you or anyone that may have been there or anyone else that gave you any instruction, to go out and kill in cold blood, a leader of an organisation, who was, although he may have disagreed with you and your friends politically, by all accounts a peaceful and dignified leader of the people in Pongola, certainly the members of his organisation. What sort of justification is that?

MR MAVUSO: We didn't want ANC to grow in that area and eventually IFP was the predominant party in that area.

MR BIZOS: Because you killed its leader, is that what you are saying?

MR MAVUSO: Yes, that's what I'm saying.

MR BIZOS: Yes. And you think that after a settlement had been entered into in Codessa, when an interim constitution was almost negotiated, when your own leaders had a full delegation in those negotiations, you had the right to go and kill somebody.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, is it alleged at this stage that there was no violence in that particular area, in either Piet Retief or Pongola, during that period?

MR BIZOS: We are talking about Pongola, Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Or Pongola. Is it alleged, Mr Chairman? Is that the case of the family?

MR BIZOS: Yes, Mr Chairman, and you will have seen the affidavit of the mayor that we have handed in.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, if I remember correctly, I think there was some reference to some taxi, some ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: No, no political, no IFP/ANC violence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no politically motivated violence ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: No politically motivated violence.

CHAIRPERSON: Although there might have been some strife relating to ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: In relation to the taxis, yes.

Now I just want to get something before repeating the question because I think we've probably lost it. At that time you saw your leader, your national leader, your provincial leaders, on the television, on radio, in newspapers, in meetings of the IFP that were held, that they were taking part in these negotiations.

MR MAVUSO: As I've already explained, Mr Bizos, that there isn't any political organisation which has a policy that people should kill, but you will always find members who are doing this underground. Even here the same thing happened. Even though the political leaders were talking and negotiating together, but the people who were on the ground, they were fighting.

MR BIZOS: The question was, did you see your leaders publicly participating in the negotiations in preparation for an election in April 1994?

MR MAVUSO: Yes, I will say I would hear over the radio, even though there were contradicting statements.

MR BIZOS: Yes. In answer to your counsel you said that you noted an appeal and wanted to stay out in order to continue the struggle. Do you remember that?

MR MAVUSO: Yes, I do remember very well.

MR BIZOS: What did you hope to do to continue the struggle, after your conviction?

MR MAVUSO: Like I've struggled before I was going to take part in the struggle.

MR BIZOS: Well the only active part that you had taken in the struggle up to then, was to kill someone. What were you going to do after your conviction in 1995? What active part in the struggle were you going to take? Would you kill again?

MR MAVUSO: If it was necessary, I was going to kill. That as well was going to take the struggle forward.

MR BIZOS: Killing other people after you were convicted in 1995?

MR MAVUSO: If it was necessary, I was going to do that.

MR BIZOS: But at the time of your conviction, the leader of your party was a minister in the government of national unity. Would you have killed whilst the leader of the IFP was Minister of Home Affairs - I think it's called now, Home Affairs? You would have killed, and who would have decided if it was necessary or not, wanting you to be out of prison - what were you sentenced to, to 25 years?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, with respect, what is the relevance of what he would have done in 1995? ...(indistinct) a particular inquiry, which is relevant to the 22nd of November 1993, the murder of Mr Mcetywa?

MR BIZOS: No, Mr Chairman, he was asked

"You were found guilty, you knew that you were guilty, why did you appeal"?

- I appealed in order to remain free to continue with the struggle."

That is what I am cross-examining him on and his answer is well illustrated. I can understand the reason for the objection and the discomfort that it has given his counsel, that he is a person who says that he was prepared to kill after the democratic election, after the leader of the party that he says he acted on behalf of, had joined the government of national unity and his leader was a member of the government. It's a highly relevant question, Mr Chairman, in relation to the motivation.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and it seems to flow from the evidence-in-chief.

MR BIZOS: The evidence-in-chief, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Go ahead.

Is that the person who is to be believed that he acted out of pure motives of furthering a struggle, Mr Mavuso?

MR MAVUSO: Would you please repeat that question.

MR BIZOS: The struggle that you wanted to continue, to kill if necessary, at a time when there had been a democratic election and the leader of the party that you purport to have acted for was in the government of national unity, is that the person who claims that he acted from motives of wanting to advance a worthy struggle?

MR MAVUSO: Mr Bizos, I think I've mentioned that I was going to come back and do as the people who were outside were doing. If they were continuing with the struggle, I was going to join the struggle and if it was necessary to kill, I was going to kill, but if they were not, I wasn't going to. I know that after President Mandela took over, IFP and ANC were now in good relationships. I think I was also going to take part in that process as well, like they are doing.

MR BIZOS: That's not what your evidence-in-chief was. Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BIZOS

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Bizos. Mr van der Heyde, have you got any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DER HEYDE: I'm going to be about two minutes, Mr Chairman.

Mr Mavuso, a while ago you gave evidence that you knew that the IFP's official policy during 1993, was not to support political violence, it was their policy that members of opposing parties should not be killed. Did you regard it as such?

MR MAVUSO: I would like to explain further, because it seems like it didn't come out clearly when I first explained. I said, as from the beginning the IFP policy was not to kill people, but we will do that as members underground, it was not allowed by the organisation. And I think it wasn't just IFP members who will do that, other political organisation members will do the same, they will do it underground, but there was never a policy that people should be killed.

MR VAN DER HEYDE: I refer to page 15 of the amnesty application of Mr Phama. It is the English translation of the Zulu. Point 11(a)

"The organisation approved of it."

I just want to know, maybe the Honourable Member Gcabashe might help me, what the wording of it is in Zulu, or the interpreters might help me. Does that also mean approved? I'm not even going to attempt to read it.

INTERPRETER: I'm sorry, I don't have a copy.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you want the interpreter just to confirm that the English version is accurate?

MR VAN DER HEYDE: Yes, approved.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, then I suppose we'll have to just show the interpreter the original text, the answer to paragraph 11(a). Yes, we've got here, perhaps somebody could just give it to the interpreter.

MR VAN DER HEYDE: That's on page 7, at the bottom.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you perhaps just translate that section for us.

INTERPRETER: From?

MR VAN DER HEYDE: 11(a).

INTERPRETER: His answer?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Will you translate that original text into English for us?

INTERPRETER: It is done so because of the agreement between the members of the organisation on instructions from other people.

MR VAN DER HEYDE: Mr Mavuso, I just want to make sure, do you say that the IFP, as a political party, approved of your acts or killing Mr Mcetywa, or not?

MR MAVUSO: I think I'm going to answer this question for the fourth time if I'm not mistaken, but nevertheless I will repeat. The policy of the IFP is that we should not kill, this is the policy of the organisation.

MR VAN DER HEYDE: How could you then have thought that you would be promoting the policy or objectives of your organisation, should you kill the person, because you knew what the official objectives of the IFP were?

MR MAVUSO: I will repeat again that the policy of the IFP is that we shouldn't kill and I don't think there is a single political organisation that allows its members to commit murder, but members do that, they do it on their own and that's why we get political violence in areas. And my area wasn't just the only area which was involved in political violence, other areas well. We will hear about them over the radio.

MR VAN DER HEYDE: Did you think, Mr Mavuso, that if you would murder one members of the ANC, even if he was a leader, that the supporters of that man would all of a sudden begin to vote IFP?

MR MAVUSO: I think it did happen in Pongola, it happened that way.

MR VAN DER HEYDE: I have no further questions to you, Mr Mavuso.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DER HEYDE

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van der Heyde. Mr van der Walt?

MR VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I will be brief. I will merely put the version of my ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: I just want to - I'm sorry to interrupt. Counsel acting for the IFP, who was also acting for Mr Amos Mtungwa, was subpoenaed to be here. We want - but I understand that he's going to be here tomorrow because had some car trouble or other he says. We want implicated persons, their counsel to put to this witness whether they were implicated or not. It's very important for us, Mr Chairman, to know what their version is going to be because depending on their version, we will have to plan the rest of our opposition.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BIZOS: So what I'm now informed is that he has no specific instructions about it and he's going to get it tomorrow. I don't know if he wants to put on record that he will deal with this matter tomorrow. No, but I don't think his mandate must be ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...reinstated if his client is present. Mr van der Heyde, what is the position?

MR VAN DER HEYDE: Mr Chairperson, I have a difficulty at the moment in telling you precisely, because I haven't been able to speak to Mr Mtungwa himself. I have been on the phone during the lunch break as well and he's told me that Mr Mtungwa is on his way and that he will meet me tomorrow morning very early. I have been informed now that he might use an advocate. I don't not know what my instructions from him will be, if he wants me to put anything to the applicants. I unfortunately will only be in the position tomorrow morning to say whether or not I have again been installed as the legal representative or not and what his instructions will be.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no, that is fair enough. The applicant will not be disappearing, he will still be at the proceedings, so if needs be then you can - if your mandate is reinstated, you can obviously put, if it's necessary you can put the position.

MR VAN DER HEYDE: I appreciate if, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. So we'll note that. Mr van der Walt?

MS MTANGA: If I can be of any assistance. I had spoken to Mr Amos Mtungwa yesterday telephonically and he indicated that the evidence given by the applicant here is false and when he appears he will come and refute what he has said and dispute what he has said.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so more than likely, if you would be acting for him, you'll have something to put, by the looks of it.

MR VAN DER HEYDE: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: I may say that I raise it for no other tactical reason, because depending on what they put and what their evidence is, it will have a very material effect on whether we are going to call witnesses or particular witnesses, or whether we are going to go to any further expense. So we are very anxious that the issue should at least be defined as early as possible.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no, it seems as if that wouldn't pose a real difficulty. Mr van der Walt?

MR VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairman, I would then suggest that my cross-examination stand over until tomorrow morning. I intend to be brief and merely put the version of my clients to the witness. I don't know if Mr Bizos wants Mr van der Heyde to finalise his examination, if any.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, perhaps we should carry on. I'm going to ask you and the rest of your colleagues and Ms van der Walt as well, to continue. So if it is version that you're putting, more than likely that's what your colleagues would also. So you can do that and if anything arises from anything further that happens here, then of course you would be at liberty to raise any further questions that you need to.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I can't really see any purpose in indulging on extended cross-examination from the perspective of my clients, so it will only be their versions.

Mr Mavuso, for your benefit, I'm acting on behalf of the Khumalo brothers and when I refer to my clients I will be referring to them. Both of them will testify that at the time of the death of the deceased they were members of the Inkatha Freedom Party, although they would not describe themselves as being politically active at that stage. Can you comment on that?

MR MAVUSO: Yes, I can comment. I think that IFP initially didn't agree with the procedures of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and that is why most members of the IFP don't like to co-operate with the TRC. That's why my brothers - I will call them my brothers, they are my comrades, that is why today they are denying everything, because they are scared they may be arrested. But I think if they were told that they still have a chance to apply and it's not closed for them to apply for amnesty, they will do so, they will tell the truth and apply for amnesty, but because it is closed it is too late, they cannot, they will deny everything.

MR VAN DER WALT: Mr Mavuso, they will also further testify that at the time of the incident, they were not aware of any politically motivated violence in the area. Were you aware of such violence?

MR MAVUSO: Yes, there was political violence in other areas, except for Pongola.

MR VAN DER WALT: I'm talking specifically about Pongola. They said there was no politically motivated violence there, at that stage.

MR MAVUSO: Yes, the violence started after the killing of the deceased.

MR VAN DER WALT: As far as the deceased is concerned, they will testify that they knew him, but they were not aware of his political affiliation. Can you comment on that?

MR MAVUSO: They knew him very well. I wasn't going to leave Piet Retief and just go to Pongola to kill someone I've never met before. It was my first time meeting this person when I killed him and it was my last time. They were the ones who knew him very well and I cannot blame them for denying everything, but they knew him.

MR VAN DER WALT: As far as their relationship with the deceased is concerned, they will testify if called to testify, that they were, the relationship between them was friendly and they had no reason whatsoever to have wanted him dead.

MR MAVUSO: That is why they went and fetched me from Piet Retief to kill him, because the people at Pongola didn't know me. That's why I also told the widow that I am asking for forgiveness, because she looks at me as the terrible person. I do agree because I am the one who killed her husband, but I did so because of them and that is why today I am here before this Committee, to tell the truth.

MR VAN DER WALT: Well they will testify that you are not telling the truth, that they were not at all involved in the killing of the deceased and they did not fetch him, as you described. They were not at all involved.

MR MAVUSO: I think they are supposed to deny this, but I will repeat again that they came and fetched me. Sam came the first time to fetch me, after the meeting which was held at the Wimpy, he was with Sanda, Sandenezwe Nlangamandla. They were driving a Skyline, a two-door Skyline at Velaphi Khumalo's place. The next day or the following day, Sam came, Sam Khumalo, he was together with Velaphi Khumalo. ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Could you kindly go a little bit slower so that we can write down what you are saying. They were driving a two-door ...?

MR MAVUSO: A two-door Skyline.

ADV DE JAGER: You can continue now.

MR MAVUSO: The first day they came, they were driving a two-door Skyline. It was Sandenezwe Nlangamandla and Sam Khumalo. The following day Sam Khumalo and Velaphi Khumalo came to fetch me early in the morning. They were still driving that two-door Skyline they were driving the previous day.

When they fetched me on the day of the meeting at Wimpy, we boarded a Hi-Ace and we were driving towards Pongola. That was the day when I went looking for the deceased. I was with Krushev Ndandwene and Ernst, I think I've forgotten his last name. We went and looked for the deceased, but we failed to find him.

ADV GCABASHE: Sorry, Mr van der Walt. Just one minute. The last bit of evidence, the evidence relating to the Toyota and to your being with Krushev Ndandwene, just repeat that please, I didn't get it right. Just slowly.

MR MAVUSO: Let me first say it like this, so that it is clear. When we held a meeting at Wimpy, after the meeting we went in different directions. I was with Amos Mtungwa and Philemon Mtungwa. We boarded a container which belonged to Amos Mtungwa. Krushev approached, he came to us, he called Amos. He called Amos Mtungwa. I am supposed to call him the Honourable, because this is what we used to call him, but I'm just mentioning his name in full, Amos Mtungwa, the member of the Legislature of KwaZulu Natal.

He called Krushev so that I take a good look at Krushev, but I would tell from his face that he was suspecting something because he kept on starting at me, not at Amos instead, but he was speaking to Amos. And Amos dropped us on the way towards Piet Retief. Amos dropped us there and myself and his brother, we proceeded to Piet Retief.

The following day, Sam Khumalo and Sandenezwe Nlangamandla came. This time they were driving the two-door Skyline. This is the day when we stopped in a road going to Nongoma. And a Hi-Ace came and picked us up and the following day Velaphi Khumalo fetched me. This is the day when I was arrested.

MR VAN DER WALT: Just to be absolutely sure, was the decision to kill the deceased taken in the Wimpy restaurant?

MR MAVUSO: At first when we met, I was with Philemon Mtungwa. We went to his brother's house, Amos Mtungwa's house, who was staying Itshelejuba hostel. We went there and Philemon introduced me to Amos Mtungwa. At the time I knew Amos, because he was a prominent member in the IFP organisation. And then he told me that there was a certain person in Pongola, who was harassing IFP members and he was supposed to be killed. And there was Ernst and Krushev Ndandwene present. They were also supposed to be murdered, but the deceased was the one who was number one on the list. When we left, we met others. I don't know if I should mention their names. We met them at the Wimpy.

MR VAN DER WALT: So do I understand you now correctly, that there were other people to be murdered as well?

MR MAVUSO: Yes, there were.

MR VAN DER WALT: Why didn't you tell that to the Committee before, why only now?

ADV DE JAGER: ...(no microphone)

MR VAN DER WALT: I'll leave it at that.

I just wanted to know regarding the Wimpy restaurant, did the discussions take place there? I don't know what the discussions were, but discussions to kill the deceased. - in the public restaurant, being the Wimpy restaurant.

MR MAVUSO: Yes.

MR VAN DER WALT: The place being frequented by the public and other people, I put it to you it's highly improbable that it would have taken place there.

MR MAVUSO: When we arrived at the Wimpy restaurant we chose a table which was at the corner and there were not too many people there and even if there were people, they couldn't hear what was going on or what was discussed in that corner.

MR VAN DER WALT: As far as the relationship between yourself and my clients is concerned, they will testify they didn't know you before this incident, they only became aware of your existence after you were arrested and appeared in Court for the first time in connection with this murder. They never met you before.

MR MAVUSO: I would like just to ask you if they told you that they know me in Court, how do they know me in Court? If someone had died and I'm in Court and they're not connected in any way, why would they know me in Court, or why would they take any interest in the case?

MR VAN DER WALT: They will say they attended Court because they heard that an Inkatha Freedom Party member is involved, allegedly.

MR MAVUSO: I wouldn't blame them for denying this, but the fact of the matter is that I am telling the truth and I will say if only they have a chance to put forward their application for amnesty, they were going to do so and they were going to agree with what I'm saying. But now it's too late for them, they cannot say yes, they know what I'm saying here or what I'm testifying about here because it's too late for them, they haven't applied for amnesty.

MR VAN DER WALT: And one last aspect, Mr Chairman, my clients will also if necessary testify that you approached the IFP offices in Pongola after the incident and after you were released on bail, with the view of obtaining funds for your legal assistance. Would you admit or deny that?

MR MAVUSO: When? Because I was in prison.

MR VAN DER WALT: After you were released on bail and before the trial.

MR MAVUSO: The attorney was paid for and I don't know anything about going to their offices. Like I've said before, earlier on I said members of the IFP from Pongola, Dumbe, Piet Retief, collected money and they paid the attorneys. I never even followed the procedure as to how they collected the money and who collected the money and who paid, or who donated. I never did anything. They did this on their own, as members of the IFP, but I didn't personally go to IFP offices. I deny this.

MR VAN DER WALT: So I take it you also deny that you wrote a letter to the IFP office in Pongola, requesting R20 000 for legal assistance?

MR MAVUSO: I deny that as well and I'll be very happy if you can produce such letter.

MR VAN DER WALT: My clients will testify that in pursuance of that letter, they and other members of the Inkatha Freedom Party spoke to you about this letter, on which occasion you could not indicate that you acted on behalf, or in pursuance of the objectives of the Inkatha Freedom Party.

MR MAVUSO: They are trying to get off, to escape and they are trying not to show that they were never involved with this incident and this is a blue lie.

MR VAN DER WALT: In particular ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: About the letter, you have asked about the letter, I couldn't get the answer. What about the letter? Did you write a letter?

MR MAVUSO: No, I didn't write any letter.

ADV DE JAGER: ...(no microphone)

MR VAN DER WALT: And lastly Mr Mavuso, they will testify that on that particular occasion you were requested to say who gave instructions for the deceased to be killed, and you said it was not one of them and nobody of the IFP.

MR MAVUSO: Sir, I didn't know the deceased and I am not mad and I was never admitted in any psychiatric hospital. I think I am very well mentally and I cannot just leave Piet Retief and go to Pongola and kill someone I've never met before. Because I keep on telling you I met the deceased the day I killed him.

MR VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have nothing further.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DER WALT

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van der Walt. Mr Botha?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BOTHA: As it pleases, Mr Chairman.

Mr Mavuso, can you recall at how many meetings were you present at while discussing this murder of the deceased?

MR MAVUSO: I think it was one meeting because the second one, it was the final one.

MR BOTHA: The first meeting, was this now the meeting you are referring to at the Wimpy restaurant?

MR MAVUSO: Yes.

MR BOTHA: And when you left the restaurant, was your plan - have you discussed fully what you should do and whom you should kill etc?

MR MAVUSO: Yes, that's correct.

MR BOTHA: You were then taken back to Piet Retief, is that correct?

MR MAVUSO: Yes, I was taken halfway. I wasn't taken back to Piet Retief, but I was taken halfway to Piet Retief and then from there we boarded taxis to Piet Retief.

MR BOTHA: And if I understand your answers on the questions of my learned colleague before me, the next day you were taken or you were fetched again in Piet Retief and there was another meeting?

MR MAVUSO: It wasn't a meeting the next day, we were supposed to take the steps of killing the deceased.

MR BOTHA: The steps you agreed to the previous day?

MR MAVUSO: Yes, that's correct.

MR BOTHA: But you could not find him on that day, is that right?

MR MAVUSO: No, I didn't get hold of him and he wasn't the only one I searched for that day, I looked for all three targets and when I arrived at the deceased's house I found that the TV was on and there was no-one and I went looking for Ernst and we were told that Ernst wasn't in and they told me that he was at his girlfriend's place.

We went straight to the girlfriend's place. We found a Mazda bakkie parked outside and the policeman who was wearing uniform was with him. I couldn't shoot him because he was chatting to this policeman. We went looking for Krushev Ndandwene.

I went straight to him. When Amos Mtungwa called me, when we were in town, Amos called Krushev so that I could take a good look at Krushev and I could tell that Krushev was suspecting something. And the only thing I took a good look at was his hair, but on the next day when I looked for him he didn't have his hair, he was bald, he had shaved his hair and therefore I wasn't sure if it was him and I didn't kill him, I went back to Piet Retief.

MR BOTHA: Could you give us an indication as to why it was necessary to travel all the way around, along the road and to discuss this matter further if you've already discussed everything the previous day?

MR MAVUSO: On the following day the meeting was not planned for, it just happened because we met other IFP members, but we didn't plan to have a meeting. This was the day which was chosen for me to kill the deceased, that's why I went looking for him.

MR BOTHA: Correct me if I'm wrong, didn't you just testify on the question of my learned colleague before me, that you drove next to, on this road and at a point you met the other people in the Hi-Ace?

MR MAVUSO: Yes, I said so. And we decided to alight the other car and boarded the Hi-Ace because it was bigger.

MR BOTHA: They were waiting there for you?

MR MAVUSO: I wouldn't be sure, I think they were just waiting there. Or they were waiting for me because they knew I was coming, but I'm not sure.

MR BOTHA: If they were waiting there, I put it to you that it was a planned meeting there next to the road.

ADV DE JAGER: Perhaps the use of the word "meeting" in that sense, that it was a planned meeting, it may be that they've planned to meet there but "meeting" having the connotation of a formal discussion and that sort of thing, I don't know what exactly ...

MR BOTHA: Mr Chairman, I'll rephrase the question.

Did you intend to meet them at the spot where you met them next to the road before you went into Pongola that day?

MR MAVUSO: I think I'm going to answer this question for the third time now. I think maybe it may happen that they had planned this meeting with these people in that particular area, but I don't know and I didn't know. The only reason I was there is that I was supposed to go and kill the deceased.

MR BOTHA: In your testimony-in-chief, I wrote down - and correct me if I'm wrong, you stopped next to the road to discuss the tracing and the murder of the deceased.

MR MAVUSO: Yes, that's correct.

MR BOTHA: Maybe I should clarify something there. Yes, it is so like you're saying, but then it was decided there that if we were not to find him that day, we discussed about as to how we were going to find him the next time or in future.

MR BOTHA: Mr ...(indistinct) will if necessary come and give testimony that at the time of this incident and the murder of the deceased, he at no stage colluded or corroborated with you or any other person or gave any such instructions for the murder of the deceased.

MR MAVUSO: Who are you referring to, your client?

MR BOTHA: Yes.

MR MAVUSO: And who is your client?

MR BOTHA: I mentioned Mr Mncwango, Rasta Mncwango.

MR MAVUSO: Who is Rasta Mncwango and what is his position there at Pongola

MR BOTHA: Don't you know Mr Rasta Mncwango?

MR MAVUSO: I do know him.

MR BOTHA: Then answer the - or is that your answer to my statement?

MR MAVUSO: I was going to answer your question, but I wanted to find out from you, but if you want me to answer first I can do that, I don't have a problem with that.

MR BOTHA: Then answer please.

MR MAVUSO: I think he is supposed to deny that because he didn't apply for amnesty and I don't think he agrees with reconciliation, but if only he has a chance to apply for amnesty his version was going to be similar to my version.

MR BOTHA: You see Mr Mavuso, it's strange that your answer on this question is almost verbally the same as when my learned colleague also told you that his clients will deny any involvement in this matter.

MR MAVUSO: Am I supposed to give you a different answer?

MR BOTHA: I'll also put it to you that none of my clients, be it Mr Mncwango, Mr Buthelezi or Mr Kunene, will have to apply for amnesty because they did nothing wrong.

MR MAVUSO: This is not the truth. The reason they are denying this is because IFP initially didn't support the Truth Commission, therefore most of the members of the IFP never applied for amnesty and some of them applied late, which is a few members of the IFP who applied late and those who didn't apply, now they are in a position to deny everything because they haven't and the Commission is closed for people to apply for amnesty.

MR BOTHA: Am I correct that you don't know who Mr Rasta Mncwango is?

MR MAVUSO: You wouldn't be telling the truth, I know Mr Mncwango.

MR BOTHA: Then why did you just ask the Committee who Mr Rasta Mncwango is?

MR MAVUSO: If only you let me continue with my question, it was going to be clear to you as to what exactly I was asking, but then you didn't let me, you wanted me to answer your question first because I told you I can answer your question, so you said I must answer your question. Therefore I withdrew my question before I could finish it. Now if you want to give me another chance to continue asking my question then I will ask my question about Rasta.

MR BOTHA: Why did you ask this Committee who Mr Rasta Mncwango was? Could you answer that question now please.

MR MAVUSO: I will repeat again, this is the question I asked you. The reason I was asking who Rasta Mncwango was, I think he is now a chairman of the IFP at Pongola. Is it not so, Sir?

MR BOTHA: I put it to you that you do not know who Mr Mncwango is, you did not at the time of the incident who Mr Mncwango was at that stage and you did not meet him at that stage at any stage.

MR MAVUSO: I know him very well and I knew him very well at the time. And he was also present when the planning of murdering the deceased was done. Mr Mncwango was approached by the deceased's wife - the deceased's wife approached Mr Mncwango to pay school fees for her children and Mncwango said he didn't have money. I don't know the deceased's wife. If I don't know Mncwango, how do I know this? I know this because Mncwango told me and this is the proof that I know Mncwango. And I want the deceased's wife to know. People know me as a murderer I do agree because I killed, but today Mncwango and the deceased wife are neighbours and they walk around like people who are innocent and this is evident enough to give the Committee to know that I know Mncwango very well for him to tell me this.

MR BOTHA: It's my instructions to put it to you that at the time of the incident and before that and even for a period of at least three months after the incident, Mr Mncwango was not even a member of the IFP. And being that, it would be highly improbable for a person who is not even a member of the IFP, to collude with you and other members for an incident like this.

MR MAVUSO: Is now a member of IFP?

MR BOTHA: Just answer to my statement please, Mr Mavuso.

ADV DE JAGER: I think he put it to you that Mncwango became a member of the IFP about three months after the killing, but he wasn't a member of the IFP at the time of the killing. Could you comment on that?

MR MAVUSO: I will deny that. Well he can say so and he can produce a membership card which was obtained three months after the deceased was killed, but the fact is that he was present when the planning was done.

MR BOTHA: ...(no microphone) He will come and state if necessary, that the first time he knew or met you was after you were released on bail, when you approached the IFP offices for legal assistance.

MR MAVUSO: He's not telling the truth if he is saying so, because if I didn't have legal representatives I wouldn't be out, I wouldn't have been out at that time.

MR BOTHA: And he then followed it up because it was not to his knowledge what and who and if there was any involvement of the party and it was only then that he came to meet you at the premises of your parental home.

MR MAVUSO: Yes, he used to come to my parents home.

MR BOTHA: I'm specifically referring to after you were released on bail and after you applied for legal assistance, he then approached your parental home and you and - there was a meeting between you and some of the other IFP members and some family members of yourself.

MR MAVUSO: He is not telling the truth if he's saying he joined the IFP three months later after the deceased was killed because Mncwango as a senior to me - how can an old person like Mncwango join the IFP after an IFP member killed someone?

MR BOTHA: Now can you please answer my statement to it, or in regard to the meeting at your parental home please.

MR MAVUSO: Yes, he did come to my home and he was together with IFP members.

MR BOTHA: Is it also then correct that you could not at that stage mention or did not want to at that stage mention the names of the people who instructed you to do this act on their request?

MR MAVUSO: I was not even asked as to mention the person who instructed me to do so, how would they have done that because he knew why I killed the deceased?

MR BOTHA: In support of Messrs Khumalo, the two brothers, they will come and testify if necessary, that Mr Mncwango as well as Mr Buthelezi was present at that meeting. And such a question was put to you and you could not give answers in this regard.

MR MAVUSO: I was not asked such a question and they were not going to ask me such a question because they were the ones who instructed me to go and kill the deceased. What was discussed there was that how am I going to escape or to come out from the mess which I was in.

MR BOTHA: Mr Kunene - sorry, Mr Buthelezi will also testify if necessary, that at this particular meeting it was the first time he ever met you and he had no knowledge of this planning or the execution of this murder and he was at no stage whatsoever, present at any meeting. Likewise, Mr Mncwango and Mr Kunene, when this murder was planned or discussed or executed.

MR MAVUSO: Well he may deny that because I am now telling the truth, but he was present when the execution was planned. And another thing, I took the crime all by myself, I didn't reveal their names in Court, but today I am telling the truth. That is why he even tells you that he came to my home. This I think is evidence enough to show you that he knew about this incident. He wouldn't have been boarded(?) and travel all the way from Pongola to Piet Retief to come to my house and discuss about the incident if he wasn't involved. He was.

MR BOTHA: Mr Kunene will also testify that - and will also deny any involvement in this matter, discussion thereof of execution thereof and will testify that he only came to meet you in lieu of his occupation, being a Court interpreter at the Court where you were detained or arraigned after the incident.

MR MAVUSO: Him as well, he may deny that and I know that he is an interpreter in the Magistrates Court in Pongola, and I think he wouldn't like his employers to know that he was involved in a murder plan, or planning of the murder. He was the one who told me that if I was going to execute this in Vryheid, I must be quick because the police from Vryheid are quicker and sometimes they use helicopters.

MR BOTHA: As stated already, Mr Khunene will deny any participation in any discussions in this regard.

MR MAVUSO: Yes, he may do that, but I still insist that everything I've said so far is the truth, it's something that I know and all this time, all these years, police were trying to investigate, they never came closer to those people because I've never revealed their names to anyone. I cannot leave Piet Retief and go to Pongola and just point at people and say blue lies about them, I cannot do that. I cannot even kill someone I've never met before for no apparent reason. That won't happen.

MR BOTHA: Well just one aspect. The first meeting, what time was it in the morning?

MR MAVUSO: I wouldn't remember very well.

MR BOTHA: Was it in the morning?

MR MAVUSO: As I've already mentioned, I wouldn't remember.

MR BOTHA: And the second meeting?

MR MAVUSO: Even there I wouldn't remember.

MR BOTHA: I put it to you, you cannot remember this because there were no such meetings, Mr Mavuso.

MR MAVUSO: I don't know if you always check on your time when you're talking to someone. If you ask me what time you started asking me questions, I wouldn't tell you what time you started questioning me, but you've been questioning me.

MR BOTHA: Just one last aspect. I think you've made mention of, made certain alterations to your statement contained in your application, pages 21 to 22. Why was it not - or can you just tell me, why is there no reflection in your statement in regards to the second meeting? I'm not sure if you've mentioned it, or corrected it when you started giving testimony under chief, but you can just tell that to me again please.

MR MAVUSO: First of all I would like to remind you that a Committee Member just told you that you should be careful when you're talking about a meeting. And some of the things I didn't put down because I knew I was coming forward to give testimony, a verbal testimony.

MR BOTHA: Is that your only reason?

MR MAVUSO: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOTHA: It's also strange that the initial chronological order of your statement, on pages 1 to 13 of bundle number 2, that there was also no mention made of this meeting, it was only added as an afterthought at the end of the statement.

MR MAVUSO: Would you please repeat your question.

MR BOTHA: I put it to you, it's also ironic that in your statement made, reflected on page 1 to 13 of bundle number 2, that in the chronological order of the statement there is no mention made of the second meeting, it was just added at the end of the statement almost as an afterthought.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I don't understand it as something given afterwards, it is part of the statement.

CHAIRPERSON: On what page is it, Mr Prinsloo? This reference to the meeting?

MR PRINSLOO: I just want to look at the written part.

CHAIRPERSON: Or the typed version is paginated page 3, paragraph 10. Well it's a ...(intervention)

MR BOTHA: It's a just an analogy, Your Honour, I'll rephrase.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you might both be right. You and Mr Prinsloo.

MR BOTHA: I then also put it to you that none of Mr Buthelezi, Kunene or Mncwango, as already stated, knows anything about this and that they deny the allegations you've made, that you are incriminating them falsely.

MR MAVUSO: They are supposed to deny because they are scared that the world will know about what they've done. And I don't think that they will travel all the way from Pongola to Piet Retief for someone they don't know and they don't even know anything about the incident.

MR BOTHA: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BOTHA

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Botha. We will adjourn and reconvene tomorrow morning at nine thirty.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS