Amnesty Hearings

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

CHAIRPERSON: Good morning. We want to start the proceedings. Just for the record, it is Wednesday 7th July 1999 and we continuing with the amnesty application of Mr Mavuso. Mr Botha, you were done if I remember correctly?

MR BOTHA: Indeed Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Have you got any questions?

MR PADI: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, just give us a second. You just want to put yourself on record?

MR MEIRING: Yes, I just want to place on record I appear on behalf of Mr Amos Mtungwa who has been implicated by the applicant, on instructions of J.H. van der Merwe Incorporated. The surname is Meiring, Christo Meiring.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Meiring. Back to you.

MR PADI: Thank you Mr Chairperson. I really do not have questions for Mr Mavuso as he clearly stated in his evidence that he has relationship with Mr Ali Msibi and as far as the version of Mr Msibi is concerned, he denies knowledge of the event and never been involved in the event, that is far as it is. Thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I'm just going to ask the applicant if he wants to comment on what you've said.

MR MAVUSO: No, no comments.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mavuso have you listened to what the attorney was saying in regard to Mr Msibi?

MR MAVUSO: The way I understood is the fact that Msibi says he did not take part in this event and he is no way implicated.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry, I'm just going to ask you to repeat it, I was on the wrong channel here. Can you just repeat the response please?

MR MAVUSO: The way I heard the attorney was in line with the fact that Mr Msibi has no knowledge of this event and has never taken part in this regard. That's what I heard and this is why I have no comments thereof.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Yes thank you Mr Mavuso.

Mr Padi, have you got any questions?

MR PADI: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Mdu Msibi was not implicated in the evidence in chief of the applicant and according to the version that Mr Bizos put forward he was not implicated as well so I'm not sure if there's anything to comment on at this stage.

CHAIRPERSON: So you don't have any questions?

MR PADI: No, no questions, no comment.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Padi. Yes we have temporarily excused Mrs van der Walt, she has to attend to a matter which is of some importance but we have excused her for that purpose. Mr Meiring, I don't know if you have any questions or any contribution you want to make at this point?

MR MEIRING: Not at this stage Mr Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes well we did understood from what you indicated to us that your client has been unable to be physically present here today and the indications are that he would be here tomorrow?

MR MEIRING: I may just add that at this stage I reserve my rights as to questioning the applicant regarding his implication of my client. I haven't had the opportunity of consulting my client as yet. I was only briefed yesterday afternoon late and as you know, Mr Chairperson, he hasn't pitched this morning, he'll only be available tomorrow.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MEIRING: So at this stage, with your permission, may I reserve my rights?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes in fact it was the arrangement in regard to Mr van der Heyde at a point when he was going to act for Mr Mtungwa but we trust that he would then be present tomorrow at least because I believe that he is under subpoena?

MR MEIRING: That is correct, Mr Chairman, I understand from Ms Mtanga that she has made arrangements that the witness protection people would see to it that he would be here tomorrow.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well then we will deal with it on that basis and Mr Meiring, thank you. Yes in fact I think the proceedings have gone a bit faster than what was anticipated. Mrs van der Walt was going to make a telephone call or two and as she was going to join us in the course of the proceedings and I was really going to go to her at this point to cross-examine if she wanted to.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I may just indicate at this stage that the applicant informed me that he would like to speak to me. I informed him that I couldn't do it at this stage until his cross-examination is complete.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: But I will ask he Committee's indulgence before I re-examine him as to what he wants to tell me if the Committee will afford me that opportunity. Thank you Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we can deal with that.

Ms Mtanga, have you got any questions at this point?

MS MTANGA: I do have a few questions to ask Chairperson, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MTANGA: Mr Mavuso, in your evidence you've testified that you stayed in Piet Retief and you are not staying in Pongola.

MR MAVUSO: I never stayed in Pongola.

MS MTANGA: Is it your evidence that the people that you have implicated here, that is Sam Khumalo, Velaphi Khumalo, Amos Mtungwa, used to pick you up from Piet Retief and bring you to Pongola?

MR MAVUSO: Yes that is so.

MS MTANGA: For how long had you known these people prior to the death of Mr Mcetywa?

MR MAVUSO: I knew them from the rally and the meetings of the organisation although we did not converse that much with them. We only started talking and having conversation on that day when we met.

MS MTANGA: I understand Mtungwa testified that at a time of Mr Mcetywa’s death he was not an IFP member and therefore you could not have seen him in any of the meetings you refer to or rallies, what do you say to this?

MR MAVUSO: I say and I will say it again that he was an IFP member as we were always together during such occasions. He was indeed an IFP member.

MS MTANGA: Do you know ...(intervention)

MR PRINSLOO: Excuse me Mr Chairman, Ms Mtanga repeated a name of a person but was it Mtungwa did she say? I didn't quite hear the name of the person.

MS MTANGA: It is Rasta Mncwango.

MR PRINSLOO: Rasta Mncwango. Thank you.

MS MTANGA: Do you know of what positions did these people hold in the IFP, that is Sam Khumalo, Velaphi Khumalo, Rasta Mncwango, Buthelezi and Kunene?

ADV DE JAGER: Perhaps you should take them one by one Ms Mtanga?

MS MTANGA: Alright Mr Mavuso, let's start with Sam Khumalo. What position did he hold in the IFP?

MR MAVUSO: At the time he was just an ordinary member although I might have much information regarding his position at the time but what I know is that he was simply an ordinary member and would meet during rallies and meetings of the organisation and he will never be active from the ...(indistinct).

MS MTANGA: What position was held by Velaphi Khumalo?

MR MAVUSO: Him as well, I knew him as an ordinary member of IFP.

MS MTANGA: And Rasta Mncwango?

MR MAVUSO: Him as well.

MS MTANGA: Jabulani Kunene?

MR MAVUSO: As well as him.

MS MTANGA: Malebele Buthelezi?

MR PRINSLOO: I think Ms Mtanga is going a bit fast for the interpreters?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Have you got all the names?

MS MTANGA: I'm sorry Chairperson, I'm listening his response that's why I'm doing it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes I suspected that, that's why you're ahead of all of us. You were busy with Jabulani?

MS MTANGA: Jabulani Kunene.

CHAIRPERSON: Jabulani, I'm sorry. Yes?

MR MAVUSO: Him as well.

MS MTANGA: Malebele Buthelezi?

MR MAVUSO: Him as well.

MS MTANGA: Philemon Mtungwa?

MR MAVUSO: Philemon Mtungwa, for instance in Piet Retief, he was the person who was sent in senior places to be our mouth piece even in Ulundi we will ask Amos to go and represent us and whatever we will like for him to do.

ADV GCABASHE: Sorry, the interpreter mentioned Amos and we are talking about Philemon. Maybe you just want to go over it again?

MS MTANGA: My question was what position was held by Philemon Mtungwa?

MR MAVUSO: Philemon Mtungwa was the one we would have him represent us and he was more like our messenger to air our concerns to the senior places.

MS MTANGA: Your evidence is that you have met all these people at the IFP meetings and rallies, am I correct to say so?

INTERPRETER: May you please repeat your question?

MS MTANGA: Your evidence is that you had met all the people with who I've just mentioned at the rallies, that is the IFP meetings and rallies. Am I correct to state so?

MR MAVUSO: The way I heard you, I understood you, was to be saying the people you've made mention was how did I get to know them, this is why I told you how I knew those people. I knew them through meetings and rallies. As for Philemon Mtungwa we were together in Piet Retief.

MS MTANGA: Mr Mavuso, where did these meetings take place?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, with respect, I think Ms Mtanga is going much too fast. I haven't even got the Afrikaans translation and she already starts the next question.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes well then the Afrikaans is lagging behind the English because we did get the response but yes, perhaps just give the interpreters a little bit of an opportunity?

MS MTANGA: My question was, where did these meetings take place? The IFP meetings you are referring to where you had met the people who we were referring to?

MR MAVUSO: There were quite many of these meetings that were held even in Billigate we will go, Indumbe as well we will go

even Piet Retief as well. I will not therefore be able or be in a position to tell as to which one it was.

MS MTANGA: Mr Mavuso, I would like to refer you to your amnesty application. It's page 12 of the translation, paragraph 9(a)iv. This is what you say in that paragraph

"I shot a person in town to death and after that my instructors left me on the scene having made sure that I had really killed him. They then disappeared and did not get me away from the scene as it was promised."

CHAIRPERSON: Is that taken from the original Zulu text because the translation that we have been furnished with really is to the following effect

"I shot a person in town to death and after my instructor" and then that was corrected to "instructors" in plural, "left me on the scene" and that's where our one ends. Do you say there's a further aspect to this one?

MS MTANGA: Yes Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So would you just add it, just give it a bit slower, I just want to take it down. Just add the rest?

MS MTANGA: Where my instructors left me having made ......(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Just a minute? Having made?

MS MTANGA: "having made sure that I had really killed him."

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the?

MS MTANGA: It goes on Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh it goes further? Yes?

MS MTANGA: "They then disappeared"

CHAIRPERSON: Right?

MS MTANGA: "and did not get me away from the scene as it was promised."

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the complete translation?

MS MTANGA: That's the complete translation, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes now Mr Mavuso, do you agree with what Ms Mtanga had put as to what you said under this paragraph 9(a)iv? I think you have the original Zulu text in front of you as well?

MS MTANGA: It will be page 3 of your Zulu version, Mr Mavuso.

MR MAVUSO: Yes it is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright. Yes Ms Mtanga?

MS MTANGA: Mr Mavuso, my understanding of this paragraph, you are saying here your instructors were present at a time you were shooting the deceased, is that so?

MR MAVUSO: Yes.

MS MTANGA: Therefore they had seen that Mr Mcetywa was killed by yourself?

MR MAVUSO: Yes.

MS MTANGA: Who were these instructors who were present?

MR MAVUSO: On that particular day it was Sam Khumalo as well as Velaphi Khumalo. The one person who was the main person in this in helping me to identify a particular person, it was Velaphi Khumalo.

MS MTANGA: How far from the scene of the shooting were they standing or were they observing this?

MR MAVUSO: At the time when they were giving me directions as to where to focus on and giving me the description of the particular person, then I left and that was the last time I saw them.

MS MTANGA: Where did you leave them?

MR MAVUSO: I left them where we were standing, where they were giving me the full description of the person that he was there in town.

MS MTANGA: Where were they giving you that description?

MR MAVUSO: There in town.

MS MTANGA: Whereabouts in town.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, with respect, Ms Mtanga is going too fast again.

MR MAVUSO: In Pongola.

MR BIZOS: May I suggest that, it is fairly elementary Mr Prinsloo isn't lacking in knowledge. He has got a right to listen to it in Afrikaans but for practical reasons and for the purposes of our getting on, can't we appeal to him to listen to the English?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes it appears as if the Afrikaans translation follows upon the English one, I'm not sure, that seems to be the procedure and that's why Mr Prinsloo is right at the end of the line. I don't know whether it would help you, Mr Prinsloo, if you were to listen to the English which seems to be getting along a bit better, but it's up to you.

MR PRINSLOO: With respect, Mr Chairperson, the interpreter in Afrikaans does not get the opportunity to finish what she is saying and out of fairness to the interpreters we should just move things along a little bit more slowly. I am taking notes in Afrikaans, I can listen to any language that I wish. Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Well alright, it's not a big issue, please. Ms Mtanga, just bear in mind this time lapse between Zulu, English, Afrikaans. I know you're right in front of the line, that's Zulu, so just give us an opportunity? Thank you.

MS MTANGA: Thank you Chairperson.

Mr Mavuso, I was asking you where in Pongola did you leave your instructors after they had described Mr Mcetywa to you?

MR MAVUSO: In town.

MS MTANGA: My question is, I want to know where about in town, I know you were in town. Mr Mcetywa was killed in town so I'm asking you where about in town did you leave them?

MR MAVUSO: I did not take note of that as to where we were positioned, it was my first time getting there, I was not well acquainted with the area or with the place and we were just quite close to this particular store and that's where I left them.

MS MTANGA: Did you know Amos Mtungwa prior to the planning of the killing of Mr Mcetywa?

MR MAVUSO: Yes I did know him.

MS MTANGA: How did you know him?

MR MAVUSO: Mtungwa was a member of the legislature of KwaZulu Natal and as well as a chief in the area in Itshelejuba.

MS MTANGA: So you knew him as a public figure not on a personal basis?

MR MAVUSO: Please may you repeat that part?

MS MTANGA: Did you know Mr Amos Mtungwa as a public figure, not on a personal basis?

MR MAVUSO: I knew him as a member of the legislature of KwaZulu Natal and he was also a chief and as well as a senior in the IFP.

MS MTANGA: How did you know Philemon Mtungwa?

MR MAVUSO: I also knew him as a member of IFP, that we were together in the region of Piet Retief and we were working together and we also worked for one firm in Piet Retief in Bison, that is the name of the company. Then it was known as Bison Board.

MS MTANGA: Is it your evidence that all these people, it's people you have known and that they would not necessarily known you prior to the death of Mr Mcetywa?

MR MAVUSO: Yes I knew him as well as them, they knew me.

MS MTANGA: Thank you Chairperson, no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS MTANGA

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Mtanga.

Mrs van der Walt, have you got any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Mavuso, Mr Mkhwanazi denies all involvement in this incident for which you are applying for amnesty and it is also confirmed in your testimony, is that correct?

MR MAVUSO: Yes that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And Mr Mkhwanazi confirms the evidence that he had given in your trial, in your evidence, he confirms the content thereof, that he testified there. You have knowledge of what he had testified, is that correct?

MR MAVUSO: Yes that is true.

MS VAN DER WALT: And then further, on behalf of the family there was a suggestion made that Mr Mkhwanazi, that after the incident, this was the shooting of Mr Mcetywa, that he would have picked you up in Pongola. Do you remember that suggestion that was made?

MR MAVUSO: May you please repeat this question?

MS VAN DER WALT: The suggestion made by Mr Bizos that Mr Mkhwanazi, that after you had shot the person, that he would have picked you up in Pongola, do you remember when Mr Bizos made that suggestion to you?

MR MAVUSO: Yes I do remember Mr Bizos saying that.

MS VAN DER WALT: Sorry, I did not get the answer?

MR MAVUSO: Yes I do remember Mr Bizos make mention of the fact.

MS VAN DER WALT: I just want to put it to you - Mr Chairperson, this is also a statement taken from the same dossier that Mr Bizos presented to you but this statement was not added to his bundle. It is a statement of Gert Andries Erasmus, he was a constable in the crime intelligence service in Piet Retief and it is part of a docket, Pongola RA121/93, it is the same when Mr Vermeulen and Mr van Staden where these statements were also contained in the bundles. I want to put it to you and I want to ask permission to hand it in. Unfortunately I have not made any copies, I will make copies as soon as we adjourn if you will allow me.

According to Mr Erasmus, Mr Mavuso, on 22 November approximately 8 o'clock in the morning, he arrived at his office and there Warrant Officer Botha gave information to him that there were rumours that there would be an attack on the life of Mike, a member of the ANC and that they had to go and talk to him and Mr Mkhwanazi started working again on that day. I want to know from you before I continue with this docket, do you have any knowledge of the fact that Mr Mkhwanazi before the 22nd November 1993 that he was off sick for three months and that he didn't work for three months and that after he had been in the hospital that he stayed at his home in Matubatuba, do you have any knowledge of that?

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone?

MR MAVUSO: I don't know that because I was not in any way connected to Mkhwanazi.

MS VAN DER WALT: I just put it to you and I'm continuing, according to this Mr Erasmus he and Mr Mkhwanazi left and that was on the way to Pongola and close to a trust area just on the outside of Piet Retief, Mr van Staden rushed passed them with a blue light on the way to Pongola and indicated to them that they should follow him and then Erasmus and Mr Mkhwanazi went to Pongola where Mike had already been shot dead and according to Mr Mkhwanazi he questioned you, is that correct?

MR MAVUSO: Yes that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And according to Mr Mkhwanazi, he was never alone with you in the office?

MR MAVUSO: Yes that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And according to Mr Mkhwanazi and he puts it in this way that he said that it wasn't a crime where sugar had been stolen you were a suspect who had committed murder and under no circumstances in any of the branches of the police they would leave someone alone who is suspected of murder and leave a person alone in an office. Were you ever left alone with any policeman in an office or was more than one involved?

MR MAVUSO: May the speaker please repeat the question?

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Mkhwanazi says that you were never alone with one policeman in an office, there was always more than one because that is the way in which police work, is that correct?

MR MAVUSO: Yes that is true.

MS VAN DER WALT: And Mr Mkhwanazi will also say that the three months before that time he was never in Piet Retief or in Pongola. Do you have any knowledge thereof?

MR MAVUSO: I have no knowledge of that.

MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions. If you will allow me I will make copies of this statement. Thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mrs van der Walt.

Has the panel got any questions? None? Oh.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you Judge.

Mr Mavuso, there are just a couple of things that are not too clear to me. Let me go back to your meeting with Amos Mtungwa, before the Wimpy meeting. I understand your evidence to be that Philemon took you to meet Amos, that's correct?

MR MAVUSO: Yes that is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: Now let's go a step back. What prompted the meeting between you and Philemon before he took you to Amos?

MR MAVUSO: On that day when he fetched me he simply said I should accompany him to his brother. He did not say anything as to what we were going there for, he only said I should accompany him to his brother, that's all.

ADV GCABASHE: Now let's stay on the same subject, you have said that you worked with Philemon at Bison.

MR MAVUSO: Bison Board.

ADV GCABASHE: Yes, is this where he said to you "accompany me to go to my brother" on such and such a day, just explain how he came to talk to you about going to see Amos?

MR MAVUSO: Yes, he simply said I should accompany him to his brother and indeed I accompanied him.

ADV GCABASHE: Where were you at the time, were you at work, were you at home? Just help me with that?

MR MAVUSO: We were leaving work, we were coming from Bison company.

ADV GCABASHE: So straight from work you went to Amos' house?

MR MAVUSO: We first stopped by at our respective homes, that is the hostel where I was residing at the time and from there he arrived and picked me up and off we went to his brother's house.

ADV GCABASHE: Now you knew after he had met Amos and after the Wimpy meeting that they were interested in getting you to kill the deceased Mcetywa, yes?

MR MAVUSO: Yes that is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: Again, let's go a step back. Why would Philemon - you were asked this and I didn't quite get your answer, why would Philemon approach you and take you to his brother's house for this particular purpose, can you throw any light at all on this? I know you said you were a committed IFP member and you knew Philemon, I've heard that but that doesn't explain why you in particular were selected. I don't know if you can help me?

MR MAVUSO: Philemon Mtungwa asked me to accompany him to his brother's house and we arrived there and had a talk and they told me that there was an ANC member in Pongola and that person was harassing the IFP members in the area and he must be eliminated or killed or be murdered. As for why he said that I don't know but then I was given that duty to bring this to fruition.

ADV GCABASHE: On the same subject, Philemon lived in Piet Retief, where you lived, in the same area roughly?

MR MAVUSO: Yes.

ADV GCABASHE: Did he know that you were trained in the use of firearms?

MR MAVUSO: I think he heard that for the first time as we were talking or discussing together with his brother Amos and two others when he gathered that knowledge.

ADV GCABASHE: In Piet Retief, wherever you met at meetings or rallies with Philemon specifically were you one of the leading figures in the IFP in that particular branch?

MR MAVUSO: No I was an ordinary member.

ADV GCABASHE: You see I still don't know why he would then single you out in particular, why did you stand out in particular as opposed to all the other ordinary IFP members in your area where you lived. Can you help me at all on that?

MR MAVUSO: He only requested me to accompany him to his brother's house and when we got there they assigned me this task. As to why this was done I have no knowledge.

ADV GCABASHE: Now going to the meeting at Wimpy, the evidence as I understand it, that you have given, is that the discussion at Wimpy was about the deceased and his activity, alternatively and this is where I'm not clear, it was to give you an instruction to dispose of the deceased. Now I'm not clear which of the two it was. Can you help me with that, if you understand the question?

MR MAVUSO: Yes I do understand your question.

ADV GCABASHE: Just which of the two was it, were you part of a general discussion about options and what you wanted to do about this man or were you there simply to be told, this is what we would like you to do for us, are you able to do it?

MR MAVUSO: Yes I was being instructed there.

ADV GCABASHE: Now again, explain that meeting to me, when the meeting started there was obviously a discussion by all the other people who were there concerning Mr Mcetywa, you just kept quiet and listened to this discussion or this is the picture that I have in my head. Is this correct?

MR MAVUSO: Yes that is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: And who led those discussions?

MR MAVUSO: We were quite many but I arrived with Amos Mtungwa and Philemon Mtungwa and we found other members, that I already made mention of, there. All of them had something to say, they were talking.

ADV GCABASHE: Did they ask for your opinion at all as to whether this was the right course to take or not?

MR MAVUSO: There was no opinion that was canvassed from my side as to whether this must be done or not. All that I was told is that I will be given firearms and Manezwe said that I will have.

ADV GCABASHE: Now as part of this discussion, Aron Zinzele and Krushev Ndandwene were mentioned as well, you've said?

MR MAVUSO: May you please repeat your question?

ADV GCABASHE: As part of the discussion at Wimpy, the deceased, Mcetywa, was mentioned as a target, who Aron Zinzele was mentioned as a target, Krushev Ndandwene was mentioned as a target, have I got this right?

MR MAVUSO: Yes that is so.

ADV GCABASHE: What was it about Aron and Krushev that upset the people who you were with? We've heard about Mcetywa, the other two?

MR MAVUSO: They were together from what I gathered from the conversation, they were always in one company.

ADV GCABASHE: You see, it's one thing to be in the company of somebody, it's something else to be an ANC activist. My understanding of your evidence is that the deceased Mcetywa was an ANC activist and leader. Are you saying because these two associated themselves with him irrespective of their political affiliation, they were therefore also targets or just explain to me what was said to you that impressed you as an IFP person that is in fact with people who were legitimate targets?

MR MAVUSO: I gathered that they were all ANC members from the conversation.

ADV GCABASHE: Did you know anything else about these people, their business interests for instance?

MR MAVUSO: No.

ADV GCABASHE: Was any discussion around anything else apart from ANC membership placed before the people who were talking there?

MR MAVUSO: No.

ADV GCABASHE: Let's move on to a different area, again I'm not very clear about this. You were at Wimpy, the following day you were collected and an attempt was made to find the deceased. You didn't find him. Then in your affidavit there's a gap because then you moved to the 22nd November which was the day of the killing of Mr Mcetywa. What was that period of time, one day, two days, a week? I can't work it out, are you with me?

MR MAVUSO: I don't quite follow you.

ADV GCABASHE: If you look at bundle 2, document bundle 2, you have an affidavit there which forms the basis of the application. You know that's the one that dealt with you sleeping at the Pongola Hotel and you said no, in fact you did not sleep at Pongola Hotel, paragraph 4? Paragraph 5 then says that at some stage you got information that the deceased would be going to Vryheid on the 22nd November 1993, paragraph 5, on page 2. Now there's a gap there, between the time of the abortive attempt to kill the deceased and the 22nd. Just put that in a time frame for me?

MR MAVUSO: It's a bit confusing to me as to what exactly you want me to explain, I'm lost?

ADV GCABASHE: I'll go over it, maybe from the bottom bit. You have said that Sam and Velaphi came to collect you on the day of the incident, they collected you from Piet Retief, yes?

MR MAVUSO: Yes that is so.

ADV GCABASHE: Can you tell me, how many days or weeks had elapsed between the Wimpy meeting and the day they collected you from your house, that's really what I want know.

MR MAVUSO: I'm with you, I'm with you now. What happened is this. On that day when we met at Wimpy, the following day they came to fetch me, that is ...(inaudible) and Sam Khumalo. That was the day when we left and met other members with whom we were at Wimpy the previous day but then not all of them were present. We went into the road leading to Nongoma in a Toyota Hi-Ace and the Skyline was there as well, the two door Skyline.

The following day I was fetched by Sam Khumalo and Velaphi Khumalo, that now was the day when I murdered the deceased and got arrested subsequently.

ADV GCABASHE: That helps me yes, thank you. Now on that aspect, the issue about Vryheid, that the deceased would be going to Vryheid, you are saying you discussed in the Toyota Hi-Ace and the people that you were with knew that he would be going to Vryheid at some stage?

MR MAVUSO: Yes that is so.

ADV GCABASHE: And were they then going to ascertain exactly when he would go to Vryheid and fetch you on that morning? Was this the agreement?

MR MAVUSO: What would happen was that if we are not successful in locating him on that day then we'll have to settle for other means not that the fact that he was going to go to Vryheid started on that day in the Hi-Ace, no, it started from the day when we had a meeting at Wimpy.

ADV GCABASHE: So they knew that he regularly went to Vryheid on particular days?

MR MAVUSO: Yes that is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: A final aspect is the area that Ms Mtanga was asking you about. Amos Mtungwa, you were asked if you knew him personally or just as a public figure and you actually haven't - I haven't understood you to answer the question. It's one thing to know a person ...(indistinct) but it's something else to know him personally because you had met him and talked with him. Which of the two is it?

MR MAVUSO: The first day we got to know each other was that day. I knew him prior to that but he did not know me but the day when he got to fully know me was that particular day when we arrived with Philemon, the brother that is.

ADV GCABASHE: Okay, so the first time you spoke with him was the day you met him with Philemon?

MR MAVUSO: Yes that is true.

ADV GCABASHE: So in fact you don't know him personally, you've just had that meeting with him, or those meetings over those two, three days and that is it, no more no less, in respect of knowing him before the incident?

MR MAVUSO: Well, according to the organisation we had some sort of relationship because in case we needed something we will ask his brother, Philemon, to go and be our mouthpiece but he did not know as to where I came from and my particulars and my details but as for him to get to know me better, that happened on that particular day I'm referring to.

ADV GCABASHE: Then one final aspect, Piet Retief, IFP, you had your own branch there as opposed to Pongola, IFP, I don't know, help me?

MR MAVUSO: Yes that was so. There were many branches because even in Piet Retief we had another branch. There was one branch that we found existing and we then opened another one. Every section will have a branch to increase the number of the members in the area.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you. Thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mavuso, at these discussions that you've had in regard to killing the deceased, was there any talk of other persons who were also approached to do the same thing?

MR MAVUSO: When I was in their company, the IFP members at that time, that did not surface.

CHAIRPERSON: Did it surface at any other stage?

MR MAVUSO: I never got to hear about that.

CHAIRPERSON: In those same discussions, was their any talk of money being paid for the killing?

MR MAVUSO: No.

CHAIRPERSON: And then can you just explain your own participation in these discussions around the killing of the deceased? Did you ask any questions from these people that you were meeting with about this intended killing or did you simply just accept an instruction that you should go ahead and kill the deceased?

MR MAVUSO: I was sitting quietly and awaiting for the instruction.

CHAIRPERSON: So you never questioned them, you never asked them to explain to you why you had to kill the deceased?

MR MAVUSO: No I did not because I had already been told that he belonged to which organisation or he was a member of this particular organisation.

CHAIRPERSON: So was that the, to your mind, the only justification that there was for killing the deceased, his membership of the ANC and I think you said that he was causing some problems?

MR MAVUSO: Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Did they explain to you what the problems were that he was causing?

MR MAVUSO: Yes they did explain.

CHAIRPERSON: What did they say?

MR MAVUSO: They said that he was harassing the IFP members and forcing them to join IFP.

CHAIRPERSON: Was there any talk about taxis?

MR MAVUSO: No, nothing whatsoever.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you ever been in a position to confirm that what was told to you in these discussions was correct was true or did you just accept what the people at the meeting were telling you?

MR MAVUSO: Because for the fact that they were IFP members and held senior positions I took them at their word.

CHAIRPERSON: In fact if I understood your evidence correctly, you didn't know the deceased at all?

MR MAVUSO: Yes that is so.

CHAIRPERSON: And you, eventually you went and shot the person that was identified or pointed out to you?

MR MAVUSO: Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

ADV DE JAGER: How long have you and Philemon been working together?

MR MAVUSO: I don't have a clear recollection of that but when I started working for Bison Board was 1986, December.

ADV DE JAGER: And Philemon, when did he start? Was he working there already or did he join later?

MR MAVUSO: I don't remember because when we were there we had already been there for quite some time when we discovered each other that we were both IFP members.

ADV DE JAGER: And have you known each other quite a long time before this meeting with Amos?

MR MAVUSO: We knew each other quite a long time before this meeting.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you talk to him about your brother and your family?

MR MAVUSO: No.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you ever tell him that you could handle a firearm or that you can shoot, that you know how to use a firearm?

MR MAVUSO: Yes I did say that to him.

ADV DE JAGER: Can you remember what the conversation was, what did you tell him?

MR MAVUSO: We were having a general discussion revolving around firearms that there should be IFP members that should be taken into a firearm handling course and to be trained as to how to use firearms and I mentioned to him that I for one know how to handle a firearm.

ADV DE JAGER: Alright, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes we'll adjourn for 15 minutes.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

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

MS VAN DER WALT: Chairperson, I apologise, I've only seen this after I've given the documents to the lady, the name of the document that you have has been cut off, his name is Gert Andries Erasmus and I apologise for that. I've discussed the matter with Ms Mtanga and it would appear that this document will be the first exhibit, Exhibit A.

MR BIZOS: Just, instead of having exhibit numbers, could we just put it at the end of bundle B which we have done with other affidavits so that we know where all the affidavits are to be found?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes we can do that as well.

MR BIZOS: It will be easier for the sake of ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes now is it bundle 2?

MR BIZOS: ...(inaudible)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes that has been paginated but perhaps we should get the sequence of the documents. The first of the additional documents, the ones that Mr Bizos handed in, in B the first affidavit that I have is the one of Andrikus van Niekerk, so that would be the first one, it's pagination would follow on 111?

MR BIZOS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So it will be from 112 and what follows and then the second document that we have inserted into bundle 2 would be the affidavit of Mr Dlamini so the pagination would just carry on and then the third document that we would then insert in bundle 2 would be the affidavit that Mrs van der Walt has handed up, that of Gerrit Andries Erasmus and we do the pagination accordingly.

MR BIZOS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Yes Mr Mavuso, I remind you that you are still under oath, do you understand?

MR MAVUSO: Yes, I understand.

CHAIRPERSON: Can I just deal with one further question that we need some clarity on? Now is it correct that you received your training in regard to firearms from your brother?

MR MAVUSO: Yes it's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now what sort of training was that, can you give us a clearer idea about that? How long did it take, what was it all about and in what context was it?

MR MAVUSO: Whenever I was off duty from my work and whenever I went to Durban he would train me. I think it took a long time because I didn't go frequent to Durban but whenever I was on leave or off duty I would go to Durban and he will train me. I think it took about a year and the weapons which I was trained to use was AK-47 and 9 mm, different types of 9 mm. He will use me, how to hit on a target and how to load the gun or to off load it or to strip it off or after you've fired what one is supposed to do.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you ask him to give you this training or was it at his instance that he volunteered to train you or did you ask him to train you?

MR MAVUSO: He volunteered to train me. He told me that there will be a time where I will find myself in a situation where there is violence and if there was a gun, it was necessary for me to know how to use it if that time happened to come.

CHAIRPERSON: And you say this was over a period about a year. Did you have a fair knowledge about these firearms and how to use them after this period of training?

MR MAVUSO: Yes that is so.

CHAIRPERSON: And were you able after this period of training were you then able to train other people again, was it possible for you, did you have the ability to train other people?

MR MAVUSO: I didn't train other people.

CHAIRPERSON: Was this, this question of possibly training other people was this just a discussion that you were having in Piet Retief?

MR MAVUSO: We never talked about training other people.

CHAIRPERSON: You and Philemon Mtungwa, did you not discuss the possibility of training other IFP members in the use of firearms?

MR MAVUSO: Philemon mentioned it would be a good idea if people were sent to Ulundi to be trained and that's when I told him that I knew to handle weapons or guns.

CHAIRPERSON: Now there was talk of two firearms and you said that when Sam and Velaphi came to fetch you they in fact were in possession of two firearms, a 9 mm and a .38 special? Why was that, why did there have to be two firearms?

MR MAVUSO: I was supposed to choose the gun I was going to use.

CHAIRPERSON: Why was that necessary?

MR MAVUSO: I was supposed to choose the gun I was going to use in killing the deceased, from the two guns I was supposed to choose one.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes but why was it necessary for you to choose a gun?

MR MAVUSO: I wasn't going to use both guns, I was going to use one gun, that's why I was supposed to choose one.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes but why didn't they just bring one gun for you, that's what we are trying to understand? Why was there a revolver and a pistol?

MR MAVUSO: A .38 doesn't kick the ammunition or the bullets down and the other one you will find the ammunitions down and I was supposed to choose myself which one I preferred from the two.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, the one when you fire, the revolver, it does not eject the cartridge, the shell, whereas the pistol does that so if you fire the pistol then it ejects the cartridge which is then left behind on the scene when you fire the pistol, is that right?

MR MAVUSO: Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes now why did they bring both of those to you? I don't understand.

MR MAVUSO: Sam Ndamezwe mentioned that he had two guns and I was supposed to choose one from the two. They brought two for me to choose one and I chose the one that I used.

CHAIRPERSON: So you had to see which one you find more appropriate of the two, was that the idea?

MR MAVUSO: Yes that is so.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you then choose the pistol?

MR MAVUSO: Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you choose the pistol?

MR MAVUSO: Because I realised that it was easy for me to hide the pistol in my pants and again it has something where you can lock. It's safe to carry it so that I don't shoot myself accidentally.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Please give me a minute Mr Bizos, I'll come to you now.

Mr Mavuso, just one other point that is not clear. The person that got injured in the shooting where the deceased was killed, can you just give us more details? What happened there, was it an accident or what happened?

MR MAVUSO: I didn't see at the time as to what happened and how he got injured, I was surprised when I was in court and I discovered that someone else got injured. I think it happened when I was firing the firearm that the cartridge hit him accidentally. This is what I thought.

CHAIRPERSON: So it was an accident, you didn't intend to injure anybody else except for the deceased?

MR MAVUSO: Yes that is so.

CHAIRPERSON: How many rounds did you fire on that scene?

MR MAVUSO: I don't remember very well but I think it was four to five.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps you can just enlighten us a bit Mr Mavuso. With that pistol that you had, the firing mechanism, is there an option to put it on automatic fire and on single fire or what is the position with that pistol?

MR MAVUSO: You are the one who is controlling it, it is up to your finger.

CHAIRPERSON: So you've got to press a trigger every time that you want to fire a shot, so for example if you had fired four rounds you would have had to press the trigger four times, would that be how it worked?

MR MAVUSO: Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you. Mr Bizos, you wanted to raise something?

MR BIZOS: I don't want to ask him the questions but arising out of your question, Judge, I want to draw attention to page 21 and page 22 of bundle 2 - I beg your pardon, no it's his application, his application, I'm not quite ...(indistinct) and refer you to the last sentence in paragraph 4 on page 21 and the first sentence in paragraph 6. I will leave it to you, Judge, to decide what, if anything, you want to ask about that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Mavuso, can you just clarify again this question around the firearms? Did these people that approached you to do this deed, did they actually give you two firearms or did you choose one from the ones that they had available?

MR MAVUSO: Yes they brought two and I chose one.

CHAIRPERSON: What happened to the other one, to the revolver?

MR MAVUSO: They took it back with them and all the times which they came to see me they brought both guns, the discussion was revolving around the two guns.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I've just missed part of that translation, did you say that they brought all the guns?

MR MAVUSO: They brought two.

CHAIRPERSON: Now if I remember correctly what you had told my colleague, Advocate Gcabashe, there was the Wimpy meeting the following day, there was the meeting where you got into the Hi-Ace vehicle and there was the day after that when you killed the deceased. That's the right sequence, do I understand you correctly there?

MR MAVUSO: Yes that is the correct sequence.

CHAIRPERSON: Now in that sequence, when did they bring the firearms for the first time?

MR MAVUSO: First it was the day, it was the day when we met at Wimpy.

ADV GCABASHE: No, the day after the Wimpy meeting.

MR MAVUSO: The day after the Wimpy meeting.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that the first day that they brought the firearms?

MR MAVUSO: Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And did you then on that day choose the pistol, the 9 mm pistol?

MR MAVUSO: Yes I took a 9 mm pistol.

CHAIRPERSON: So you took that and what happened to the revolver on that particular day?

MR MAVUSO: I left the revolver with them.

CHAIRPERSON: So you had the pistol, the 9 mm pistol in your possession on this first day, the day after the Wimpy meeting, is that right?

MR MAVUSO: In the evening after I looked for the target and I couldn't find them, I left the gun with them.

CHAIRPERSON: So you left the pistol with them?

MR MAVUSO: Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And I assume they went their way and you went your way?

MR MAVUSO: Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And then the day after that, that's the day on which the deceased was killed, they came back to fetch you, is that right?

MR MAVUSO: Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now in terms of firearms, what did they have in their possession on that day?

MR MAVUSO: The same firearms they had the previous day.

CHAIRPERSON: So they again had the pistol and revolver?

MR MAVUSO: Yes that is so.

CHAIRPERSON: And then what happened? Did they present both to you again?

MR MAVUSO: Yes that is correct and I also chose one.

CHAIRPERSON: So you chose again and which one did you choose?

MR MAVUSO: The same, the 9 mm pistol.

CHAIRPERSON: And the revolver? What happened to the revolver on this occasion?

MR MAVUSO: I also left the revolver with them.

CHAIRPERSON: You didn't see the revolver again on that particular day of the killing?

MR MAVUSO: After I murdered the deceased I was arrested on the same day and I never saw the firearm again.

CHAIRPERSON: You didn't see it in the possession of the persons who were pointing out the deceased to you?

MR MAVUSO: No, I didn't see it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

MR BIZOS: Page 22, paragraph 8, the last two sentences, I want to draw your attention to that please.

ADV DE JAGER: Also bundle?

MR BIZOS: The application again, the last two sentences of paragraph 8.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I don't understand the procedure being followed because the fact that Mr Bizos is now interrupting and gets another opportunity with questions being put indirectly. On which basis is it done, he has had his opportunity, he has had the documents in his possession and with respect, he is getting another opportunity to ask questions indirectly. I am opposing this.

CHAIRPERSON: I hear what you're saying Mr Prinsloo, I'm looking at the part that Mr Bizos has put up for my attention and I am trying to see if there is anything which is not clear from the testimony of the applicant.

MR BIZOS: I have no objection to ask for leave to ask the questions for myself but I thought that coming from the court they may be more friendly than the way that I might put it and this is why I'm using this procedure, I think to his client's advantage rather than disadvantage.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Yes but in any case it's the prerogative of the panel to consider all of this.

Yes Mr Mavuso, I'm going to give you an opportunity to clarify a portion of your statement which forms part of the application bundle which has been drawn to my attention.

On paginated page 22 of that bundle in paragraph 8 I want to just draw your attention to a portion of that paragraph which I'll read out. You say that:

"I ran towards the bush and took off my jacket and the hat and left it in the bush together with a firearm. I came out of the bush together with a firearm. I came out of the bush immediately and went to town to look for transport to Piet Retief."

Yes now my attention is again drawn to the original hand-written version of this. I've read to you the typed version of that statement of yours which seems to be, the typed versions seems to be not altogether correct? In the original hand-written version there is - it seems to be clearer that you left the firearm with the other things in the bush and then that you came out of the bush and went to town to look for transport so it appears as if the typed version incorrectly reflects that you came out of the bush with a firearm which is not the position in the original text, so it appears as if this is clear in your hand-written, the original version of your statement and that the typed version seems to be slightly misleading in regard to this question of the firearm.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, if I may mention at this stage, the applicant is in possession of a Zulu written document to which this one is apparently translated and he at all times when he gave his evidence he refers to the Zulu and he refers and reconciled it to, so I think that's correct, Mr Chairman, as you put it that that is incorrectly translated.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: He has shown me now that he has got the Zulu in front on him. Thank you Mr Chairman

CHAIRPERSON: Yes it seems as if the typed version has gone slightly further and has not reflected the original text quite faithfully.

MR PRINSLOO: I'm indebted to you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so the option of all of this Mr Mavuso is that the clarity that I was going to ask from you is not necessary, we do follow what you are saying in your statement.

Do you follow?

MR MAVUSO: Yes I do understand.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes I think Advocate Gcabashe just wants to ask you one final aspect.

ADV GCABASHE: Mr Mavuso, now that we are talking about these items that were hidden in the bush, I was never really clear about the balaclava. When you shot the deceased, you had covered your face, your entire face with this balaclava, just explain that to me, the use of the balaclava?

MR MAVUSO: My whole face was covered with the balaclava.

ADV GCABASHE: So the people around the deceased were not able to see your face?

MR MAVUSO: Yes that is so.

ADV GCABASHE: And you ran off with the balaclava on your head?

MR MAVUSO: Yes that is so.

ADV GCABASHE: At what point did you pull it off?

MR MAVUSO: When I was in the bush I removed it together with the jacket and the firearm and I hid it in the bush, I hid everything in the bush.

ADV GCABASHE: And can you assist maybe in clarifying how the people there were able to identify you because you were identified when you came out of the bush and came back towards town when you were trying to board a taxi. Can you help at all?

MR MAVUSO: It was during the day, I was still wearing the same clothes except that I has removed the jacket but it was the same pair of pants and the takkies I was wearing they were still on, I was still wearing them.

ADV GCABASHE: But there was nothing particularly unusual about your pants or your takkies? They were common, everybody wears them as well, many people where takkies, there's nothing that stood out?

MR MAVUSO: After I shot the deceased I ran and the people saw me running towards the bush.

ADV GCABASHE: So they could see you go behind the bush and emerge from the bush, the people who were in the vicinity?

MR MAVUSO: Yes they could see me running into the bush and out.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you, that helps me, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, have you got any re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr Mavuso, in the use of firearms can you shoot a moving target or not?

MR MAVUSO: Yes I know.

MR PRINSLOO: How competent are you in the use of a firearm for a moving target? For example how did you practice this?

MR MAVUSO: For instance if you can throw an apple in the air I can shoot that apple in the air, I can aim on that target and shoot it.

MR PRINSLOO: According to your evidence you made use of a 9 mm pistol to shoot the deceased and according to a question put by the Honourable Chairperson, Judge Potgieter, you were asked with regard to the use of the 9 mm, you also indicated the difference between a .38 revolver and a 9 mm and you stated that you would pull the trigger every time you fired the shot, is that correct, with regard to the pistol?

MR MAVUSO: Yes that is so.

MR PRINSLOO: Are you familiar with it that when a pistol has been cocked you could pull the trigger every time and a shot would be fired, do you know this, you don't have to reset the pistol every time?

MR MAVUSO: Yes that is so.

MR PRINSLOO: And with regard to the use of a revolver you have to pull it back every time before you fire a shot again, are you familiar with that?

MR MAVUSO: I think with a revolver once you've put the cartridge in and they're full, you can keep on shooting or firing.

MR PRINSLOO: Are you familiar with it or not that when one fires a revolver, not a pistol, and it has not been pulled back and you want to fire the second shot you will have to pull the trigger harder in order to fire the shot, do you know that or not?

MR BIZOS: May I ask that counsel's knowledge of firearms should not be imparted to the witness to answer, Mr Chairman, I don't know whether he is correct or incorrect but it isn't proper re-examination to suggest to a witness who said that he made the choice what the differences were.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Prinsloo, perhaps you should let him tell us what these niceties are all about as he understands it?

MR PRINSLOO: I don't think much turns on this and I'm going to leave it at that Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Mavuso, the balaclava you were wearing on this particular day, which you later left in the bush. Did it belong to you or not? Had you worn it before or not or what is the position?

MR MAVUSO: Yes it was mine or I used to wear it or I've worn it before.

MR PRINSLOO: Now these persons who according to you gave you the instruction to kill the deceased, you have already given evidence that you regarded them as your seniors, is that correct?

MR MAVUSO: Yes that is correct.

MR BIZOS: Chairman, again, the witness spoke generally about people that were ordinary members like him. He singled out one person. The question was put not in accordance with the evidence that has been given.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Bizos, there was a reference. It might very well have been when I asked him questions about the seniority of these people so I'll allow you, Mr Prinsloo, to clarify that.

MR PRINSLOO: Am I allowed to continue Mr Chairman? Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr Mavuso, when you acted according to the instruction that you had, did you believe or not believe that you were acting on behalf of the IFP or not?

MR MAVUSO: Yes I believed so.

MR PRINSLOO: The motor vehicle to which you have referred as the Skyline, can you recall what the colour of that vehicle was or can you not recall?

MR MAVUSO: I do remember.

MR PRINSLOO: Could you tell the Honourable Committee what the colour of the vehicle was?

MR MAVUSO: A white.

MR PRINSLOO: The meetings to which you have referred that you attended, the IFP meetings in Piet Retief, did you believe what the persons who were acting as leaders and who made speeches during these meetings, did you believe what they were saying?

MR MAVUSO: I'm not sure about the meetings, I heard you speaking about meetings in Piet Retief, are you referring to meetings in Piet Retief or Pongola? Which meetings?

MR PRINSLOO: These would be the public meetings, Mr Mavuso.

MR MAVUSO: In those meetings nothing was mentioned of the deceased or about the deceased.

MR PRINSLOO: During these meetings to which I have referred as public meetings during which members of the IFP addressed members of the public and you may have been present during these meetings, did you believe the statements that were made during such meetings?

ADV DE JAGER: Perhaps you could refer there to meetings or rallies because he mentioned the word rallies in regard to those meetings.

MR PRINSLOO: I'm indebted to you, Mr Chairman.

Now Mr Mavuso, as you heard what Commissioner Advocate de Jager put to me with regard to meetings and rallies that were held that you attended, did you believe in what was told to the public at large, announce them which included yourself, IFP members?

MR MAVUSO: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Prinsloo.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I think I omitted one aspect, may I just be allowed to follow that up?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes of course.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Mavuso, you were asked a question by the Honourable Chairperson, Mr Potgieter, with regard to a lady in Pongola who was injured and according to the version found herself in the Protea Furniture store when a bullet hit her, a bullet that had been shot through the display window. Do you recall that aspect of the evidence, summarising what was said in the court?

MR MAVUSO: Yes I do remember. I only found this in court.

MR PRINSLOO: When you fired your shots at the deceased at the scene, did you foresee or not that if you fired a shot a bullet may divert and hit the person while it was fired in a built up area or in the vicinity of other buildings, did you foresee that possibility?

MR MAVUSO: No I didn't think that this may happen at the time.

MR PRINSLOO: When the evidence about this aspect was offered in court and your evidence was heard and you could think about it in retrospect, did you foresee it as a possibility or not?

MR MAVUSO: When it was put in court I didn't think that it would have been me.

MR PRINSLOO: And after it was proven in court that it was indeed fired from your firearm, did you accept that you should have foreseen that possibility that you may injure or kill somebody else?

MR MAVUSO: The evidence in court was so and I could realise now that it is possible that it was me, it could have happened while I was shooting the deceased.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Prinsloo.

MR BIZOS: Arising out of this examination, Mr Chairman, may I draw attention to the judgement of his Lordship Mr Justice Myburgh that the accused was found guilty on page 44 of the documents. I'm not sure whether it's been put in the bundle or not because I think I'm looking at, it should have been 44, yes, that the - page 44, that the finding was guilty of murder and guilty of attempted murder on the basis of dolus eventualis.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Bizos.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Bizos, we've noted that.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairperson, may I interrupt for a moment? Yesterday evening Mr Mkhwanazi’s brother contacted me and informed me that his father had passed away. I then informed him that seeing as Mr Mkhwanazi in terms of Section 29 had been subpoenaed, I would like to obtain the affirmation that this would be the case to submit it to you. They would then have faxed the documents through to me, however they live in an inhabitable area. I don't know if anything has arrived for me at my office but I made contact with the Magistrate from Matubatuba today and he has just sent a fax to me in which he confirms that the death has been reported to him and it is also confirmed by the one Mr Mduna Gumede, the funeral according to the letter and that which was reported to me yesterday evening is set for the 8th which is tomorrow. I don't know whether there are any persons that Mr Mkhwanazi wishes to call as witnesses, that is not my prospect but I don't feel that he will be in any condition to appear this afternoon. He was not aware of this, I had to convey the tidings to him and I don't think that he will be in any position this afternoon to concentrate for the purposes of examination. I would like to request the Committee to excuse him, I don't wish to express any opinion about the duration of this matter but I doubt very much that we will complete it. If that may be the case we will have to postpone it to a suitable day so that Mr Mkhwanazi can give evidence. I will remain present in order to protect his interests.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and there are channels of communication to the environment where he will be during the next few days?

MS VAN DER WALT: Yes, I have the telephone number of his brother.

CHAIRPERSON: And you yourself will not be calling him as a witness?

MS VAN DER WALT: No definitely not, my argument remains the same as it was with the beginning of these proceedings, that would be that there has been an examination by the investigating unit of TRC. It is on record, he has been questioned in depth by a panel consisting of three persons, one commissioner and two persons to assist him and he has also been questioned by a panel of investigators regarding this matter. It is in writing and for that reason I will not be calling him.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Yes I don't know if there is anybody who wants to give an indication around that?

MR BIZOS: Yes really, I want to say that I propose calling a witness tomorrow. My attorney is making efforts to have him here tomorrow. It may well be that Mr Mkhwanazi’s counsel wants to weigh up whether Mr Mkhwanazi is going to be called by her or not, once that evidence has been led but I am certainly not opposing any application that he should be released from attendance today in the circumstances and tomorrow, but then I wouldn't like to say - I thought I would say this but I don't think any final decision can be made either by the Committee or possibly his counsel as to whether he is going to be called or not until at least that one witness is called.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes but at the very least at this stage Ms van der Walt has indicated that she does not intend calling him.

MR BIZOS: Well what I'm saying is, Mr Chairman, she should not be released from the subpoena and if we could have an undertaking from counsel that should he be required on any future date that he will respond to that subpoena so that we don't have to go to the trouble and expense of having another subpoena.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, yes. No certainly.

MS VAN DER WALT: I would just like to put it on record that the subpoena was never of application to my clients, I simply obtained it so that I could call him.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes I'm questioning your co-operation, I know that we don't have any problems with that.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mtanga, did you have any view on the position of Mr Mkhwanazi, for example did you have any intention of calling him, for example?

MS MTANGA: At this stage Chairperson, it is not my intention to call Mr Mkhwanazi and I'm not opposing the application being made by his legal representative. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and it's difficult to conceive any of the other parties having an intention to call Mr Mkhwanazi as a witness but we can be proved wrong. Yes, well you know, given the circumstances that prevail in regard to Mr Mkhwanazi, we are going to excuse him from attendance. At the very least today and tomorrow for the purposes that Mrs van der Walt has indicated subject to him being remaining contactable which Mrs van der Walt has already indicated is the position, so we will in any case we have the indication from Mrs van der Walt that she will actually be present at the proceedings so there can't really be any prejudice arising from this arrangement. So in the circumstances, Mr Mkhwanazi will be excused under these conditions and if needs be that we will be in touch with you via yourself, Mrs van der Walt.

MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you very much.

MR PADI: Excuse me Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Padi?

MR PADI: Yes, in relation to the presence of Mr Mdu Msibi, I have spoken to the representative for the applicant and to Mr Bizos and to Mrs Mtanga. None of the parties wish to call him as a witness so I'm not sure if his presence will still be required from this day on?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Mdu John Msibi?

MR PADI: That is correct, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mtanga, what is the position with Mr Msibi?

MS MTANGA: Chairperson, I don't intend to call Mr Msibi as a witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, is there any need to compel his presence?

MS MTANGA: I would say at this stage I don't intend to call him but having heard that Mr Bizos intends to call another person I'm not sure if that would effect the evidence that we have before us or not and therefore would it change my position or not.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you're not sure what the effect of the evidence of this witness is going to be?

MS MTANGA: Yes Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Padi is Mr Msibi in custody?

MR PADI: Yes he is in custody Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I think under those circumstances we will reconsider the position of the subpoena once Ms Mtanga is in a better position to assess the situation. We are persuaded by the fact that it doesn't appear as if Mr Msibi would be prejudiced if he is to attend these proceedings. He might be benefited.

MR PADI: Thank you Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, but you can renew that once there's better clarify.

MR PADI: Okay Mr Chair, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Padi.

Mr Prinsloo, I'm going to excuse Mr Mavuso for the moment pending the situation around Mr Meiring and Mr Amos Mtungwa, so I'm going to excuse him subject to possibly having to recall him for the purposes of possibly dealing with the case of Mr Amos Mtungwa. Will that be in order?

MR PRINSLOO: That will be in order, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, as I indicated this morning that Mr Mavuso indicated to me he'd like to speak about a certain matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR PRINSLOO: In view of the fact that he was subject to cross-examination, I did not speak to him when I indicated that to him but I will do that after cross-examination, which is now complete. May the court grant me then a brief indulgence in order for me to just consult Mr Mavuso in regard to what he likes to tell me. Would the Committee grant me that indulgence at this stage?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: I want to indicate to the Committee with regard to further evidence and so forth in the furtherance of this particular hearing.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes perhaps it's my fault, I should have been more clear on this. I had thought that the earlier adjournment that we took after the questioning and before your re-examination might have been the opportunity but I didn't make it clear at that point. Hopefully it won't take too long?

MR PRINSLOO: It won't take long Mr Chairman, I'll be brief with him.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And I will come and speak to the Committee after that if necessary.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we will then, I assume there's no objection, we will stand down very briefly then to allow you to do that Mr Prinsloo and indicate to us when we can reconvene here?

MR PRINSLOO: I'm indebted to the Committee Mr Chairman, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes we will stand down.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

MR PRINSLOO: If it pleases you, Chairperson, I'm in debted for the adjournment and the opportunity you gave me. At this stage there is some documentation that I'm waiting for and a certain witness. I want to present it to you and also suggest to you that the other witnesses be called and the moment that I receive the documentation I will then present it in order to prevent any delay. If you will accept it in that way?

CHAIRPERSON: So you're saying there's a possibility of documentation?

MR PRINSLOO: And a witness, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You're not quite sure whether there will be a witness?

MR PRINSLOO: At this stage Chairperson, I want to see whether there will be a necessity for this witness and that will save some time.

CHAIRPERSON: Good.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So at this stage subject to what you have said that is in the case for this applicant?

MR PRINSLOO: At this stage I have already discussed it. There is no objection and my case remains open up to that point, until that point has been finalised.

CHAIRPERSON: So you definitely have documentation and a possible witness?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, is there any objection to the cause that Mr Prinsloo is proposing?

MR BIZOS: Not from my side.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Yes then ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: Not from my side but ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes from - on behalf of the family?

MR BIZOS: ...(inaudible) but I'm not speaking from the others.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, they say silence is consent. Yes, then the applicants case will then stand down under the circumstances as has been sketched by Mr Prinsloo.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Ms Mtanga have you got any clarity on the position with regard to further witnesses?

MS MTANGA: Yes Chairperson, the next step is to hear the evidence of the implicated people and the first witness that I will call is Velaphi Khumalo.

CHAIRPERSON: Right. Yes Mr van der Walt, that is your client?

MR VAN DER WALT: That is indeed so Mr Chairman, he has indicated that he is willing to testify. I've no objection to Ms Mtanga leading his evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

MS MTANGA: Chairperson, may I request that Mr Velaphi Khumalo be sworn in?

CHAIRPERSON: We shall do that but I just want to get him on line.

VELPAHI PHILEMON KHUMALO: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MS MTANGA: Thank you Chairperson.

Mr Khumalo, will you please state out to this Committee what is your current occupation?

MR KHUMALO: I have taxis, I am a taxi owner.

MS MTANGA: What was your occupation in November 1993?

MR KHUMALO: Where?

MS MTANGA: I'm asking what was your occupation in November 1993, what work were you doing in 1993?

MR KHUMALO: I was in the taxi industry.

MS MTANGA: In 1993 where were you operating your taxi business?

MR KHUMALO: In Pongola.

MS MTANGA: Are you still carrying on this business in Pongola to this day?

MR KHUMALO: Yes.

MS MTANGA: Are you affiliated to any political organisation Mr Khumalo?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, IFP that is.

MS MTANGA: Are you a member of the IFP?

MR KHUMALO: Yes.

MS MTANGA: Were you a member of the IFP in November 1993?

MR KHUMALO: I joined IFP I think around 1984 although I was a follower at the time.

MS MTANGA: Were you an active member in 1993?

MR KHUMALO: No, I was not necessarily an active member but I was a follower of IFP.

MS MTANGA: I'm sorry Chairperson, I would like to clear something. Did you say you joined the IFP in 1984 or in 1994?

MR KHUMALO: In 1984.

MS MTANGA: So the question that followed that was were you an active member of the IFP in 1994, were you involved in the activities of the IFP in 1993, November?

MR KHUMALO: No, I joined in 1984, I never activated my membership thereafter except in 1994.

MS MTANGA: Do you know the applicant Mr Mavuso

MR KHUMALO: Yes, I do know him.

MS MTANGA: Can you tell this Committee how do you know Mr Mavuso?

MR KHUMALO: The first time I knew him it was after he had murdered the deceased, the one he is here about.

MS MTANGA: How did you hear about him after the murder of the deceased?

MR KHUMALO: Some members of IFP came to report coming from the court of law to tell me that there was one other member who was there and they told us about the next date for the court case so we go and attend. That was the first time I saw him at the court.

MS MTANGA: Did you know the deceased Mr Mcetywa?

MR KHUMALO: Yes I knew him.

MS MTANGA: You have heard the evidence of the applicant, Mr Mavuso, regarding the role you played in the killing of Mr Mcetywa, that you were involved in the meeting at Wimpy and you further held a meeting with him on the way to Nongoma, on the road going to Nongoma and further that you took him?

MR KHUMALO: Yes I heard all of that but it's all lies.

MS MTANGA: So are you denying that you played any role in the death of Mr Mcetywa?

MR KHUMALO: Yes I refute all of that.

MS MTANGA: What do you say about the evidence of the applicant that there was a political conflict between the ANC and the IFP in Pongola in 1993?

MR KHUMALO: I bear no knowledge of that.

MS MTANGA: So are you saying that in your opinion as an IFP member there was no political reason why Mr Mcetywa could have been killed?

MR KHUMALO: I remember nothing of that sort.

MS MTANGA: That ends the evidence of this witness, Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS MTANGA

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Mtanga.

Mr Prinsloo, have you got any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

Mr Khumalo, do you know Sam Khumalo.

MR KHUMALO: Yes I do know him.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, in what relation?

MR KHUMALO: He is my brother.

MR PRINSLOO: And where did your brother live during 1993?

MR KHUMALO: He resided at Majwani in Pongola.

MR PRINSLOO: Are you the owner of a two door white Skyline, did you use such a vehicle specifically during November 1993?

MR KHUMALO: Yes I used to have a white Skyline 2 door.

MR PRINSLOO: From when did you know the applicant Mr Mavuso?

MR KHUMALO: As I've already stated that I first met him at the court after he had murdered the deceased.

MR PRINSLOO: And before that time you had not known or seen the applicant Mr Mavuso at all?

MR KHUMALO: No, I'd never seen him before that.

MR PRINSLOO: Can you recall the date upon which you saw the applicant at the court?

MR KHUMALO: I have no clear recollection of the date.

MR PRINSLOO: Can you tell the Honourable Committee whether it was in the Magistrate's Court or in the High Court where you would have seen the applicant?

MR KHUMALO: The way the house was so packed and full I could not tell, I only saw him partly and I never got to listen to the whole evidence as it was tendered.

MR PRINSLOO: When you saw him in the court had his trial already begun or not?

MR KHUMALO: You mean on that particular day?

MR PRINSLOO: The day upon which you say you were at the court where you would have seen the applicant.

MR KHUMALO: It was before that. I saw him marching into the court and even after that going out.

MR PRINSLOO: Could you please clarify that for the Committee. Did you spend the whole day at the court, did you see him enter the court and then exit the court and under which circumstances, please tell the Committee?

MR KHUMALO: It was not the whole day because the case was postponed.

MR VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairperson, I apologise for interrupting, possibly just from the point of fairness towards the witness because apparently Mr Prinsloo wants to know whether it was during the lower or higher court trials, perhaps he would be in a better position to provide an answer if he could be asked how long after the demise of the deceased he saw the applicant at the court because he failed to make the distinction between the nature of the court.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Khumalo, upon that particular day that you were at the court, had the trial of the applicant taken place on that day where the Honourable Judge presided in the court, in other words in the higher court, was that his trial?

MR KHUMALO: I don't know the difference in the higher court and the lower court but what I know is that it was in Pongola.

CHAIRPERSON: He seems to say that the case was postponed that day, Mr Prinsloo.

MR PRINSLOO: So then it was in the District or Magistrate's Court in Pongola because according to the evidence the trial took place at Piet Retief at the Circuit Court. Had the applicant been taken into custody at that stage, that would be in Pongola where you were at the court? Would you say that he was then in custody?

MR KHUMALO: He was in custody in Pongola.

ADV DE JAGER: So you attended a court in Pongola, not in Piet Retief?

MR KHUMALO: Yes very true, in Pongola not in Piet Retief.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Khumalo, how long after the alleged murder of the deceased which took place on the 22nd November 1993 did you attend these court proceedings in Pongola where you saw the accused?

MR KHUMALO: It was not quite a long time, I went there for the first time and never went back the second time. They came to tell me the first time and the second time only I got to attend but I never went to attend subsequent to that.

MR PRINSLOO: When you say not long after the time in relation to the 22nd November was it a day, a week, a month or what? Could you be of some assistance to the Committee in this regard?

MR KHUMALO: I don't quite remember as to how long exactly, I don't know even how often it had been conducted, the case, before my first attendance.

MR PRINSLOO: Why did you attend the court proceedings, for what reason?

MR KHUMALO: As I've already explained, this man came to me, we were already from Piet Retief, they told me that they were there and one of the members is there and they were refusing bail and they asked me to come with the following time or the following date on which the case was to be conducted.

ADV GCABASHE: Can I just get clarity there? The interpreter said these men came, they were already from Piet Retief and I know you referred to Pongola earlier. Just repeat that answer?

MR KHUMALO: They were telling all of us at the taxi rank, they were not coming to me alone, they came to all of us as members of IFP at the taxi rank. There was a kombi that was coming from Piet Retief and one coming from Dumbe.

MR PRINSLOO: Could you tell the Honourable Committee why the IFP had an interest in the applicant who was appearing in court?

MR KHUMALO: It is because they'd already made mention of the fact that that was an IFP member who had been arrested.

MR PRINSLOO: But the fact that the person was an IFP member for which reason would the IFP have an interest in this for any crime which a member committed, why should the IFP have an interest in this matter apart from the fact that it was an IFP member?

MR KHUMALO: You mean the ones who were coming from Piet Retief coming to ask that what reason, can you please run that line of questioning by me one more time?

MR PRINSLOO: The question was, Mr Khumalo, for what reason would IFP members travel from Piet Retief to Pongola in order to attend the appearance of an IFP member apart from the fact that he was a member, would there have been any other reason why they would have attended the trial and then also have requested other persons from Pongola who were also IFP members to support them during those proceedings or to represent them during those proceedings?

ADV DE JAGER: Counsel, I think there's a confusion now. There were people, as I understand it, coming from Pongola and Dumbe to see the witness at Piet Retief.

MR KHUMALO: I didn't say that.

ADV DE JAGER: They were coming - oh, the kombis were from Pongola and Dumbe and you were at Pongola yourself?

MR KHUMALO: I was in Pongola, the Kombi was coming from Piet Retief, one other coming from Dumbe.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Khumalo, are you capable of answering the question that I have just put to you?

MR KHUMALO: Can you please remind me, that question?

MR PRINSLOO: I will put it more simply. Could you tell the Honourable Committee why people would come from all over, that would be Piet Retief, Dumbe and Pongola and converge at the court where the applicant was appearing specifically to support the applicant there, could you explain that to the Honourable Committee?

MR KHUMALO: It is because basically he was a member of IFP, he was one of them in other words.

MR PRINSLOO: Is that the only reason?

MR KHUMALO: I think that is basically it.

MR PRINSLOO: Were you aware at that stage that there were allegations or was it known to you that the applicant had murdered the deceased in this matter, Mr Mcetywa?

MR KHUMALO: Yes I'd already heard because I resided in Pongola.

MR PRINSLOO: And were you at that stage aware that the deceased, Mr Mcetywa had been the leader of the ANC in that area?

MR KHUMALO: No, I did not know that much.

MR PRINSLOO: And did you know that he was a member of the ANC?

MR KHUMALO: I didn't know.

MR PRINSLOO: Was the deceased a well known person in Pongola?

MR KHUMALO: Yes although I'm not in a position to estimate as to how well known he was in the area but to a certain extent he was a well known figure.

MR PRINSLOO: In what regard was he a well known personality?

MR KHUMALO: As I'd already said he was known not necessarily that he was an outstanding figure that was known or such or famous person as such.

MR PRINSLOO: You say that he wasn't famous but was he a prominent person?

MR KHUMALO: I don't know him to be a prominent figure as such.

MR PRINSLOO: For how long had you been living in Pongola in that area and in running your business from there as a taxi owner before that specific day?

MR KHUMALO: I started living in Pongola from 1983.

MR PRINSLOO: And do you know more or less for how long the deceased had resided there or for how long he had been known to you in the area?

MR KHUMALO: I can't give an accurate time there because when I got to Pongola he was already there.

MR PRINSLOO: So he had been there from at least the time when you arrived there until his death in Pongola?

MR KHUMALO: Yes he was living in Pongola all along.

MR PRINSLOO: And you are telling the Honourable Committee that you did not know that he was an ANC member?

MR KHUMALO: Yes it is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: In the area in Pongola, it was a well known fact which persons supported the ANC and which persons supported the IFP?

MR KHUMALO: I don't know the ANC supporters as for me.

MR PRINSLOO: Now on the particular day when you saw the applicant at the court in Pongola, did you speak to him or did you merely see him?

MR KHUMALO: I merely saw him, I never had a word with him.

MR PRINSLOO: And at any stage after that did you speak to him?

MR KHUMALO: Yes after that I spoke to him after we'd received the letter and I went to his place in Dumbe.

MR KHUMALO: Now when you say that "we received a letter", who are you referring to when you speak of "we"?

MR KHUMALO: The letter, when it got to us, it was myself, Sam Khumalo, Rasta Mncwango, Malebele Buthelezi, Sanda Nlangamandla, although I don't remember the others who were in our company when we were leaving to go to Dumbe regarding the letter.

Mr Mtungwa at the time was the chairman of the IFP up on the receipt of this letter.

ADV GCABASHE: Just let's get this right. Mncwango is Rasta, Mr Mncwango who was the chairman was Rasta?

MR KHUMALO: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Now this letter, was it delivered by hand or by what means did you receive the letter?

MR KHUMALO: As to how it was delivered I don't know but it was in Sanda's possession, as to whether it was received, it was hand delivered or through the mail I have no information regarding that.

MR PRINSLOO: So is it your evidence that you were not present when the letter was received by another?

MR KHUMALO: I don't know how it was received I only saw it in Sanda's possession.

MR PRINSLOO: Where is that letter now?

MR KHUMALO: Sanda had it all the time, I don't know what happened to it subsequently.

MR PRINSLOO: What is the surname of this Sanda person?

MR KHUMALO: Nlangamandla is the surname.

MR PRINSLOO: Is that the person who is now deceased?

MR KHUMALO: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And this very same Sanda, is that the person who was at one stage also an accused in court with regard to the same case pertaining to the deceased at a later stage? Is that the same Sanda Nlangamandla?

MR KHUMALO: I have no knowledge in as far as that is concerned.

MR PRINSLOO: Now Mr Khumalo, for what reason were you involved in the consideration of this letter that was received, for what reason did you have anything to do with it?

MR KHUMALO: When Sanda explained to us that this person is requesting for some money and as a member of IFP and also curious to know because the last I'd heard was that Mr Mavuso bore no knowledge of this so I wanted to really know and get more details.

MR PRINSLOO: But what interest would you as an ordinary member of the IFP have had in the further investigation of this aspect in order to determine what exactly was going on?

MR KHUMALO: As I've already explained that I did that merely because he had killed a person who was a resident of Pongola as well and thereafter repudiated the fact that he had any knowledge of this incident. Now I wanted to follow into details and gather more information about what was transpiring.

ADV GCABASHE: Mr Khumalo, you are talking too fast, you are talking about money, the interpreter hasn't got time to pick up what you are saying about money. You just have to slow down.

MR KHUMALO: Yes.

ADV GCABASHE: She can't cope with the rate at which you are speaking, just too fast.

MR KHUMALO: Okay.

INTERPRETER: Thank you very much.

ADV GCABASHE: Can you just repeat that answer because - and just slowly, a little bit and stop so that she can tell us what you are saying? Thank you.

MR KHUMALO: The reason that motivated me to live together with these others to know more about this letter, it is because I wanted to find out as to if indeed he committed ...(intervention)

ADV GCABASHE: Mr Khumalo, just stop so that she can tell us and then three words and then stop, please.

CHAIRPERSON: He's now stopped completely.

MR KHUMALO: That was the reason behind my going together with these others to Dumbe to find out more about this letter.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Khumalo, you did not serve in any executive position in the IFP according to your evidence you were an ordinary member. What interest would you have had in accompanying that group of persons to find out more about this case. What was the interest that you held in this case?

MR KHUMALO: I thought I'd already explained about that, I wanted to get this from the horse's mouth to get it exactly as it came from him.

MR PRINSLOO: But Mr Khumalo, why did you want to get it from the horse's mouth, as you've said it, as it's been interpreted for me, for what reason? You had no interest in the murder or anything related to it, why did you want to find out more? For what reason?

MR KHUMALO: There was nothing much at stake as such but I wanted to hear because the person who had been killed was a resident of Pongola, in fact he resided in Pongola as well as myself, so we were coming from the same area. That's why I had a vested interest in the matter.

MR PRINSLOO: Was that the only reason?

MR VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairperson, I beg your pardon for interrupting once more, with the greatest respect towards Mr Prinsloo, the question has already been answered numerous times and secondly, it is not the evidence of the witness that this visit took place upon his own initiative and upon that basis I want to question the fairness of the repetition of the question.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, is there anything else remaining?

MR PRINSLOO: I will take the following step, Mr Chairperson, which will connect with this.

Can you tell us why you were requested to accompany them or did you accompany them out of your own initiative?

MR KHUMALO: No I was not requested, I just did that out of my own interests and out of my own violation I decided to accompany them.

MR PRINSLOO: Upon whose request was it decided to go to the accused or his people?

MR KHUMALO: I think it was Rasta Nlangamandal’s opinion because he was the one coming from the office and I think he'd already telephoned the office that was based in Dumbe.

MR PRINSLOO: And can you tell the Honourable Committee was Rasta was coincidentally involved in this matter, Rasta Mncwango?

MR KHUMALO: I think Mncwango should be held accountable for that because he was a chairman of IFP at the time and he also made a telephone call to Dumbe in relation to this matter.

MR PRINSLOO: And Sanda Nlangamandla, Sandenezwe as you have called him, did you know him at that stage?

MR KHUMALO: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: From where and under which circumstances did you get to know him?

MR KHUMALO: We worked together and we were also the members of IFP.

MR PRINSLOO: And did Sanda Nlangamandla also want to know more about what was going on with the applicant?

MR KHUMALO: I will never utter any word on his behalf.

MR PRINSLOO: But can you think of any reason why Sanda Nlangamandla would want to accompany your group if he had no interest in the matter in light of the fact of the interest that you have already presented to the Committee?

MR KHUMALO: He had the letter with him. As to what his interests were in this whole matter I don't know.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you read this letter?

MR KHUMALO: No I did not read it, Sanda had it.

MR PRINSLOO: Did Nlangamandla never show this letter to anybody, what is your evidence regarding this, what did you see as a result of your presence?

MR KHUMALO: The letter was read in the office, he did not particularly read the letter out to me as an individual and he telephoned the branch in Dumbe with regards to this letter.

MR PRINSLOO: And you from your personal knowledge also do not know who wrote the letter?

MR KHUMALO: I did not know but Sanda did make mention of the fact that the person who wrote the letter was Mavuso.

MR PRINSLOO: You sat here and heard that the applicant Mavuso denies that he ever wrote such a letter?

MR KHUMALO: I heard him say that.

MR PRINSLOO: Was the IFP in favour of collecting the money for the applicant who was in prison for the purposes of bail? Do you know whether or not money was collected for the applicants whether it was Piet Retief, Pongola or any other place?

MR KHUMALO: I don't think so, I don't have any knowledge regarding that fact as to the collection of money to bail out prisoners.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you know whether any money was collected for his defence or whether any money was contributed?

MR KHUMALO: That much I don't know.

MR PRINSLOO: Amos Khumalo, what was his position within the IFP? I beg your pardon, I did not mean Amos, I meant Sam Khumalo, I beg your pardon, Mr Chairperson.

MR KHUMALO: Sam was only an ordinary member.

MR PRINSLOO: Was he present at this occasion when the aspect was discussed, the aspect regarding the collection of money?

MR KHUMALO: I don't know if he was ever there.

MR PRINSLOO: How much money was requested?

MR KHUMALO: Requested for?

MR PRINSLOO: You say that money was requested, how much money was requested?

MR KHUMALO: The money I referred to was the one that was reflected from the letter, it was the amount of money that was written on the letter, there was not any other money I had referred to except for that one.

MR PRINSLOO: What was that amount, that is what I am referring to.

MR KHUMALO: They had said the amount requested was R20 000.

MR PRINSLOO: And for what purpose was that money requested, was anything mentioned?

MR KHUMALO: Although I don't know very much but the ones who had read the letter they had said the money was for the attorneys.

MR PRINSLOO: Where was the applicant at that stage?

MR KHUMALO: He was at home.

MR PRINSLOO: When was this?

MR KHUMALO: When we received the letter.

MR PRINSLOO: What was the date, can you tell the Honourable Committee because you say that the letter is not here, you don't know what has happened to the letter, so what was the date?

MR KHUMALO: I don't remember the date, I never took notice of the date.

MR PRINSLOO: Can you recall the month?

MR KHUMALO: I don't remember the month either.

MR PRINSLOO: Can you recall the year?

MR KHUMALO: If I'm not mistaken, I think it was in '94 or '95.

MR PRINSLOO: When you say '94/'95, could you give a closer estimation as to how long after the events or the incident this was?

MR KHUMALO: It was quite a long time after because this incident took place in 1993.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you yourself speak to the applicant?

MR KHUMALO: Yes we did speak at his home.

MR PRINSLOO: You used the plural "we", did you speak to the applicant?

MR KHUMALO: Yes I greeted him and after that they asked questions, the ones that I was with.

MR PRINSLOO: And who was present apart from the group that you accompanied during these questions which were put to the applicant?

MR KHUMALO: His father was there as well as his brother.

MR PRINSLOO: And was this the only occasion upon which you spoke to the applicant or did you have another opportunity to speak to him afterwards?

MR KHUMALO: No, that was it.

MR PRINSLOO: And your brother, did he have any contact with him afterwards, or do you not know or of which you know, rather?

MR KHUMALO: No, I don't know.

MR PRINSLOO: You have consistently listened to the evidence of the applicant, is that correct? The evidence which was given before the Honourable Committee?

MR KHUMALO: Yes I did here.

MR PRINSLOO: Can you tell the Honourable Committee why the applicant would be implicating you in the manner in which he has done during his evidence before the Committee, can you think of any reason?

MR KHUMALO: I don't know why and I'm still asking myself that question.

MR PRINSLOO: And can you tell the Committee how upon that day when you and that group went to see the applicant how you travelled there, which mode of transport you used?

MR KHUMALO: I don't remember whose Kombi it was but it was a Kombi and one of us owned that Kombi. I think it was a Kombi.

MR PRINSLOO: Can you tell the Honourable Committee how the applicant has implicated you in the use of transport specifically a white Skyline which was allegedly yours and you have confirmed as having been yours?

MR VAN DER WALT: Chairperson, with respect, I don't think that that is entirely correct, it goes as far as saying a white Skyline not a white Skyline which was the vehicle of the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, perhaps you should put it more accurately, Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: As it pleases you Mr Chairperson. The applicant has testified that you owned a white two door Skyline and you have already confirmed that you owned such a vehicle, is that correct?

MR KHUMALO: Yes that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And now, for no reason that you can submit to this Committee, that the applicant would implicate you as a person who coincidentally owned a white Skyline, a person that he would not have known according to you, someone who had just seen him at the court and had visited his home as a member of a group of people, is that your evidence?

MR KHUMALO: Yes this is my evidence but I would say I don't know whether he knew that I was owning a Skyline and since I was a taxi owner I was working with the community and it's easy for people, many people to know you and you as a person not knowing them.

MR PRINSLOO: The applicant is a resident of Piet Retief, at least he resides in Dumbe and works in Piet Retief and you are from Pongola. According to his version he was a relative stranger in Pongola so why then would he know of your movements with a Skyline if he was a Piet Retief resident and you were a resident of Pongola?

MR KHUMALO: As I've already mentioned I don't know where he got this information and it is true, I did own a white Skyline and I don't know how he knew this, whether someone told him or not, I don't know.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you know Philemon Mtungwa?

MR KHUMALO: No I don't know him.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you know Amos Mtungwa?

MR KHUMALO: Yes I do know him, I only know him as Honourable, I do not know his name.

MR PRINSLOO: When you refer to the Honourable, what do you mean by that?

MR KHUMALO: I don't know if Honourable is another name or it's his position as someone who is a chief at Itshelejuba, whether it's his name.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Amos Mtungwa, do you know where he resided in 1993 during November?

MR KHUMALO: No, I do not know, all I knew is that he was residing at Itshelejuba.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you know a person in Pongola by the name of Kunja Ndaweni?

MR KHUMALO: Would you please repeat that name?

MR PRINSLOO: Kunja Ndaweni.

MR KHUMALO: Yes I know Kunja Ndandwene.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you know that he was an ANC member?

MR KHUMALO: No I don't know.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you know to which political party he belonged or which political party he supported during November 1993?

MR KHUMALO: No I don't know.

MR PRINSLOO: And was he a well known personality in the community?

MR KHUMALO: No I don't remember him as a well known person, I only remember him as Krushev, a resident of Pongola, that's all.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you know an Ernst, I'm not familiar with the surname at this stage?

MR KHUMALO: You mean I knew him?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR KHUMALO: Yes I know him.

MR PRINSLOO: And do you know the surname?

MR KHUMALO: No, I don't remember his surname.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you know whether these two persons, that would be Krushev and Ernst were friends of the deceased?

MR KHUMALO: No I don't know.

MR PRINSLOO: Was the deceased in any way involved in taxis in Pongola?

MR KHUMALO: Yes he did own a taxi but when he was killed he had no longer had a taxi.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you know how long before the time of his murder he owned his last taxi?

MR KHUMALO: It will be difficult for me to estimate how many years or months but it was a long time.

MR PRINSLOO: So it would be fair to say according to your evidence that at the stage when he was murdered he was no longer involved in taxis?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, I think you maybe misunderstanding the witnesses evidence. If we heard him correctly he said that the deceased was a taxi owner but that after his death he was no longer a taxi owner, that is the interpretation which we heard.

MR PRINSLOO: With respect, Mr Chairperson, the witness answered that he could not remember for how long, whether it was months or years how long before the death of the deceased he was no longer a taxi owner. Perhaps I went a little too fast because I'd listened to the Zulu and I might have interjected. Perhaps they could repeat it?

CHAIRPERSON: That is the answer that you have just dealt with. The last question that you put was to do with the period of time. However, the answer before that and the interpretation of it that I heard was that he was a taxi owner but that after his death he was no longer a taxi owner.

MR PRINSLOO: I understood it differently Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Just a moment please? Mr Khumalo just for the purposes of clarity, was it your evidence that the deceased was a taxi owner but that at the time of his death he was no longer a taxi owner, is that correct?

MR KHUMALO: Yes that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Did I understand you correctly when it was put to you how long before the date of his death, that would be the deceased in this matter, how long before his death he was a taxi owner and your answer was that you could not say precisely but that it may have been a number of months or years, is that correct? Can you just confirm or clarify that?

MR KHUMALO: I didn't say months but I said years. I don't remember how many years before his death.

CHAIRPERSON: How many years before his death? What are you trying to tell us about what?

MR KHUMALO: As I've already said I don't remember how many years. I think maybe approximately a year and a month.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes now what is that period that you're trying to explain, what is it about?

MR KHUMALO: I said a year or a month or more than that, I don't remember very well after he had left the taxi industry.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh after he had left the taxi industry?

MR PRINSLOO: I think that is clear, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you.

MR PRINSLOO: So Mr Khumalo, it would then be fair to say according to your evidence that the deceased at the time of his death was no longer involved in the taxi industry in Pongola?

MR KHUMALO: Yes he had already left the taxi industry.

MR PRINSLOO: The community in Pongola, can you assist the Honourable Committee in indicating whether it was predominantly IFP in November 1993 or whether it was predominantly ANC or whether there was a balance. Can you indicate anything to the Committee?

MR KHUMALO: I wouldn't be able to know whether it was IFP dominantly or ANC because at the time the people or the community of Pongola were not politically active as such.

MR PRINSLOO: No in 1993 in November that preceded the elections which took place in April 1994, is that correct?

MR KHUMALO: Yes that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Was there no struggle or conflict between the two parties for the recruitment of votes or supporters in an election which was already known to take place on the 27th April 1994?

MR KHUMALO: I don't remember any political conflict between the two organisations.

MR PRINSLOO: Sanda Nlangamandla, was he an active political figure within the IFP during November 1993?

MR KHUMALO: I wouldn't be able to speak on his behalf, I don't know.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you know when Sanda Nlangamandla passed away?

MR KHUMALO: I think it was in 1995 or 1996, I am not certain about this.

MR PRINSLOO: Was he murdered?

MR KHUMALO: Yes he was shot at.

MR PRINSLOO: And do you know where this took place?

MR VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairperson, with respect.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MR PRINSLOO: I'm only trying to establish whether the person was murdered and where it took place, I'm not trying to waste any time.

Do you know where Mr Nlangamandla was murdered, at which place was he shot?

MR KHUMALO: Yes I do know.

MR PRINSLOO: Can you indicate that to us?

MR KHUMALO: He was driving his car and he was shot at while driving.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes but could you tell us was it in Pongola or Piet Retief or Newcastle or Durban. Where was he on the road when he was shot?

MR KHUMALO: He was shot on the road between Pongola and Itshelejuba.

MR PRINSLOO: If I understand you correctly you said that it was on his way home, is that correct?

MR KHUMALO: Yes he was going to his home, that's what he told us.

MR PRINSLOO: Just a moment's indulgence please Mr Chairperson?

Mr Khumalo, I'm not going to waste any more time by focusing on every detail. You've heard the evidence of the applicant Mr Mavuso and in which way you've been implicated. I then put it to you that his version is the truth and that you do not wish to take the Committee into your confidence, the reason for that being obvious, it is because you may be prosecuted subsequently. What is your response?

MR KHUMALO: I am not scared that I may be prosecuted, I'm talking about what I know and I cannot say as to something I don't know.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Prinsloo.

Mrs van der Walt, just for the sake of convenience I'm going to go this way round. Have you got any questions?

MS VAN DER WALT: No questions.

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, I think that we are the second most interested person, I'd like to start now if I may?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes I was going to.

MR BIZOS: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: I had a hunch that Mrs van der Walt would not have much.

MR BIZOS: Thank you. Mr Chairman, may I appeal to Ms Mtanga to change places with the witness because I really have to stretch forward in order to see him. I hope you don't mind to just change places? Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we'll disregard the name in front of the witness.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS: Mr Khumalo, I want to make it clear to you what our concern is here. We are acting for the widow and her children and we are concerned so find out the truth and the whole truth and we do not necessarily accept either that the applicant has told the truth or that you have told the truth and this is why I am going to ask you questions about things that appear to us to be strange in the hope that the Committee may eventually decide where the truth may lie.

To start off with, the five of you that you said went to the applicant's house had at best a low profile connection with the IFP, would you agree with that?

MR KHUMALO: Only one person had a position and that was Mr Mncwango.

MR BIZOS: Yes. So the other four, you, your brother, Mr Buthelezi and Mr Nlangamandla, I'll call him Sanda for the sake of convenience and I'll try and improve my pronunciation for the future occasions. Right, except for Sanda you were either not members at all or very low profile members, is that correct?

MR KHUMALO: Yes that is correct.

MR BIZOS: But then you see, the thing that appears to us to be very strange is that all of five of you were taxi owners, is that correct?

MR KHUMALO: Yes that is correct.

MR BIZOS: But now why this significant coincidence that the five leading taxi owners have a letter brought to them by the applicant's friend and the letter is not taken to office bearers of the IFP? Any explanation for it?

MR VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairman, Mr Chairman, I don't unnecessarily want to interrupt but there was no evidence it was a friend of the applicant who brought the letter as far as I have it. It was directed to the IFP's office.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and it was in possession of Sanda, I'm not going to attempt the ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: Yes thank you Mr Chairman, I'm glad I'm not the only one who's having difficulties.

Well, it makes the question even more pertinent, does it not? How come that the letter did not go to any senior IFP, IFP official, but it came to the five most important taxi owners of Pongola? How come?

MR KHUMALO: Even though I cannot reply on behalf of Sanda, but what I know is that Ngomo who was the one who received the letter in the IFP offices.

MR BIZOS: Now you are an experienced taxi owner which we know to be a successful business for those who operate it. You were a stale IFP member, if one at all. Do you agree?

MR KHUMALO: Yes I do agree.

MR BIZOS: Now you and four - and three other similarly situated persons in relation to the IFP and one who had some sort of position in the IFP. You respond to the letter appealing for help and not any of the IFP officials? Can you explain that apparent inconsistency in the whole affair?

MR KHUMALO: As I've already explained that Ngomo told us that he had already contacted the Dumbe office or the Dumbe IFP branch.

MR BIZOS: No, but why should four taxi drivers other than the one that was approached then take the trouble to travel 60 kilometres away approximately. Oh, I'll correct it, I'm sorry, 102 kilometres away to respond to a request for assistance that should really have been taken to the chairman of the IFP? We know who it was at that time. Why didn't you say "why must we, so lowly placed in the IFP, take the trouble to travel 102 kilometres away and back?" And what for? To pay for the defence of someone that we knew nothing about? Can you explain that because if you can't I'm going to suggest an explanation to you.

MR KHUMALO: As I've already explained, we were together with the IFP Chairman, someone who was from the IFP offices.

MR BIZOS: Was he the chairman?

MR KHUMALO: I think Mncwango was the chairman at that time.

MR BIZOS: What year was that?

MR KHUMALO: I think it was in 1994/1995.

MR BIZOS: Yes, well if that was so it was after the period of the chairman that we have identified but just let's amplify the question in this way, why didn't you ask the new chairman of the IFP "what are you involving us in this for?", to your fellow taxi driver and say "look, you're a taxi driver, you know that we are very lowly placed in the IFP, what do you want us with you for? It's IFP business, go on your own." Why did the four of you do the 204 kilometres journey if you had no interest in the matter?

MR KHUMALO: As I already mentioned that he didn't ask us to accompany him. He told me about the letter and then I decided on my own that I wanted to accompany him, the reason being that the person who was killed was a Pongola resident therefore I had an interest. I don't know about the others, why they wanted to accompany him as well.

MR BIZOS: Was Rasta Mncwango - how many taxis did he own?

MR KHUMALO: At the time or now?

MR BIZOS: Then?

MR KHUMALO: I don't remember whether two or three.

MR BIZOS: Was a member of a taxi association or an office bearer of a taxi association?

MR KHUMALO: Yes.

MR BIZOS: What was he?

MR KHUMALO: I don't remember whether he was on a disciplinary committee of taxis or executive committee but he was a committee member.

MR BIZOS: Yes, well was he one of the five in his capacity as one of the taxi owners or in his capacity as an office bearer of the IFP?

MR KHUMALO: I think he was with us because he was a member of IFP because we were not talking anything about taxis.

MR BIZOS: If he was there in his capacity as an office bearer of the IFP, why should he choose four taxi owner lieutenants who had no executive position in the IFP and not be accompanied by some office bearer in his IFP capacity?

MR KHUMALO: I cannot answer that one on behalf of Mncwango. Like I've said before he didn't come to me and say I must come with him, he came to me and told me about the letter and then I decided on my own to accompany him.

MR BIZOS: You said that you thought that he was there in his capacity as an office bearer of the IFP. On your own evidence you don't really know whether he was there as an IFP or as a taxi owner?

MR KHUMALO: I didn't say I don't know, I did explain that he was the one who received the letter in the IFP offices, that's where he received the letter and he told me that he had already contacted the Dumbe IFP branch.

MR BIZOS: Can we assume that he was accompanied by four taxi owners, that the taxi owners must have had some concern about this?

MR KHUMALO: At the time I didn't know that I was implicated on this matter. If I knew I wouldn't have gone that far, I only found out this time now that I'm implicated in this matter.

MR BIZOS: But now, do you agree that of the persons mentioned on page 3, eight of them, on page 3 of bundle 2, five of the eight were taxi owners? You've heard the applicant's evidence and the list of names that he gave?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, they are taxi owners.

MR BIZOS: Let us assume that the applicant is being untruthful. Can you suggest any reason why he should have chosen five taxi owners to falsely implicate?

MR KHUMALO: As I've already mentioned that I personally, I don't know why he's implicating me. I don't know, I don't have an idea why he will choose me.

MR BIZOS: Well, you see, let us assume that he wanted to be deliberately untruthful and try and implicate innocent people on the charge of murder, why should he have chosen five out of the eight persons that he has implicated who are taxi owners at Pongola? Why?

MR KHUMALO: I think I've just answered this question, I don't know why and I elaborated that I personally, I don't know why he is implicating me as a person.

MR BIZOS: Well let me tell you. Probably because you were at the meeting at Wimpy but that the reason for conspiring to kill the deceased was different to the one given by the applicant and that he's being untruthful about the reason why he did it and you are being untruthful as to whether you were implicated or not? Do you want to make any comment on that proposition?

MR KHUMALO: No, it is not true, it's false.

MR BIZOS: Well, let's try and get some of the underlying facts from you so that the Committee can decide whether it is true or false. Was there a taxi boycott in Pongola?

MR KHUMALO: Yes there was.

MR BIZOS: How long before the death of the deceased?

MR KHUMALO: I wouldn't be able to estimate correctly but it was after the taxi boycott was long - the deceased was killed long after the boycott.

MR BIZOS: You're quite wrong and it's a matter of record, think again.

MS VAN DER WALT: My apologies, I did not hear the interpretation, it was a bit too fast. He said that he estimated but the rest I did not hear so I don't know what the time period was.

MR KHUMALO: He was killed long after the boycott, it was quiet at the time when he was killed.

MR BIZOS: Yes, I agree that it was quiet at the time he was killed. For how long was it quiet before he was killed?

MR KHUMALO: For months, it wasn't a year but it was for months.

MR BIZOS: Well, if I am putting to you that it was not longer than about two months what would you say?

MR KHUMALO: Yes I just said it was after months, I didn't know how many months, but it was after months.

MR BIZOS: Yes, a couple of months after the boycott ended. Now the applicant tells us that there were to be three victims not only one? The deceased, Krushev Ndandwene and Arendse Cele. Let us assume for a moment that he is telling the truth about that. Who was responsible for organising the boycott of the taxis?

MR KHUMALO: I don't know who it was.

MR BIZOS: Come, come, you were losing thousands upon thousands every day that the taxis were not used. Who was - didn't you try and find out who was responsible for this tremendous financial loss?

CHAIRPERSON: Order please, can I ask you not to interrupt the proceedings? The witness must hear the questions and we want to take notes please?

MR BIZOS: I'm sorry Mr Chairman, perhaps I'll try and avoid that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, perhaps it's not all your fault.

MR KHUMALO: I really do not know who was responsible in organising, all I know is that the community of Pongola boycotted the taxis.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Now you know people with business interests, like the police, always want to find out who is behind this boycott, you know? And they sometimes even co-operate in order to find what they call the agitators. Am I wrong in that proposition?

MR KHUMALO: I wouldn't say anything or comment on behalf of police but on taxis then I will say I never sat down and discussed as to who organised the boycott.

MR BIZOS: Was Krushev not in the forefront of the organisation of the boycott?

MR KHUMALO: As I've already mentioned I really didn't know who organised the boycott, all I knew at the time was that the community was boycotting.

MR BIZOS: Is it true that you were losing thousands of rands per day because the people were using the buses and not the taxis?

MR KHUMALO: That we were losing money?

MR BIZOS: Yes, lots of money?

MR KHUMALO: Some people were taking taxis, yes, the majority was taking buses.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Were you losing a lot of money and were you concerned about those losses?

MR KHUMALO: Yes it won't be the same when people, when the majority is taking buses it won't be the same as when the majority is taking taxis.

MR BIZOS: Yes and did some taxi owners and some of their friends try to prevent people from catching buses?

MR KHUMALO: I don't remember any such incident.

MR BIZOS: Well how could you have forgotten it? Can you deny that it happened?

MR KHUMALO: I don't remember seeing any taxi owners stopping or preventing people from taking buses.

MR BIZOS: I'm going to put to you that you are being untruthful because it will be shown that the three persons that were on the hit list according to the applicant in this case. Two of them were well known ANC people, the third was an active supporter of the ANC and they were perceived by the taxi owners and their friends as being responsible for the boycott of the taxis. Do you recall whether anyone called upon the deceased to mediate in the dispute between the community and the taxi owners?

MR KHUMALO: Yes I do remember that there was a meeting called at Umajani but I don't know whether the deceased was called to mediate on that meeting, I didn't attend that meeting myself but I do know that there was such a meeting.

MR BIZOS: Who called the meeting, the taxi owners or the community?

MR KHUMALO: I'm not certain but I think it was the community or the Mayor.

MR BIZOS: And were the persons who were supporting the boycott action identified at this public meeting?

MR KHUMALO: I've already explained that I wasn't in that meeting. If it happened so that information will only be possessed by someone who was in the meeting, I wasn't there.

MR BIZOS: Didn't you try as a suffering taxi owner to find out what happened at this meeting at which your vital interests were being discussed and who was the person who was residing or directing the affairs or organising the boycott? You didn't try to find out?

MR KHUMALO: I was told that the meeting didn't go well because they didn't agree on one thing, the taxi owners and the community.

MR BIZOS: Yes, so that there were some taxi owners there, didn't you try and find out who the organisers of the boycott were?

MR KHUMALO: No I didn't try and find out.

MR BIZOS: Why not? Weren't you interested in finding out how your financial losses could come to an end as soon as possible?

MR KHUMALO: There was no reason why I should want to know the organiser of the boycott.

MR BIZOS: Now the reason for the boycott was that the owners had agreed to put up the fares to a level that was found unacceptable to the community?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, that's how it started.

MR BIZOS: And it would appear that these taxi owners had at least close affiliations with the IFP?

MR KHUMALO: I wouldn't know that, I think in the taxi industry in Pongola I think it's above 60, the owners are at least above 60, then I wouldn't know their political affiliations.

MR BIZOS: But we know the political affiliations of those whom the applicants says were present at a meeting at Wimpy Bar or elsewhere. Now did the deceased and the ANC, was it supportive of the boycott or was it against it?

MR KHUMALO: All I know is that when this was discussed in that meeting nothing politically was mentioned, it was simple, about taxi fares and the community so there were no politics or mentioning of politics.

MR BIZOS: No. Did you not know that the ANC supported the boycott, said so publicly and the boycott was called off by the community on the day that the taxi owners reverted to the old fares?

MR KHUMALO: I don't agree that the boycott was organised or the ANC was for the boycott because the community didn't say anything about their political affiliation, they only said that they were not prepared to pay the fares. So it was simply the community, not ANC.

MR BIZOS: We'll come back to that but do you agree with the second part of the question that you agreed to bring back the fares to the original price or fare?

MR KHUMALO: Yes we agreed.

MR BIZOS: Now was Mr Sam Nlangamandla the chair of the Pongola Taxi Association?

MR KHUMALO: Yes that is correct.

MR BIZOS: And what was the Mjwana Taxi Association a different association or another name for the same association?

MR KHUMALO: Yes there was an Mjwana Taxi Association and a Pongola Taxi Association, so there are two taxi associations.

MR BIZOS: And these 50 or 60 taxi owners that you've mentioned belong to one or other association?

MR KHUMALO: I referred to all taxi owners, I wasn't referring to them according to their taxi associations but to all of them.

MR BIZOS: Yes, were most if not all of them members of one or other of the two associations?

INTERPRETER: Would you please run it by me?

MR BIZOS: Okay. Were most taxi owners members of either the one or the other taxi association?

MR KHUMALO: I wouldn't be able to tell whether the other association had a majority of taxi owners who were affiliated with a certain organisation or not.

MR BIZOS: Were you an executive member of this association? Of which association were you a member, first of all?

MR KHUMALO: At the time I was in Mjwana Taxi Association.

MR BIZOS: And your brother Sam?

MR KHUMALO: I don't remember whether he was in Pongola Taxi Association or the Mjwana Association, I don't remember.

MR BIZOS: And Malebele Buthelezi?

MR KHUMALO: Malebele.

MR BIZOS: Malebele is it? Well I'm not responsible for writing this way, I'm sorry, I apologise to Mr Buthelezi.

Which association was he a member of?

MR KHUMALO: I think he was in Mjwana Taxi Association.

MR BIZOS: And Mr Rasta Mncwango?

MR KHUMALO: I think he was also in Mjwana.

MR BIZOS: And Sanda?

MR KHUMALO: In Pongola.

MR BIZOS: So amongst the five of you that went to this meeting they were members from both associations?

MR KHUMALO: Which meeting?

MR BIZOS: No, no, no, we're not at a meeting yet, I'm not talking about a meeting. Merely as a matter of fact that the five of you whose names I have now read out were members, some were members of the one association and the others were members of another association?

MR KHUMALO: Yes that is correct.

MR BIZOS: Now which one of you was an executive member of one or other association?

MR KHUMALO: I think Sanda was an executive member in the Pongola Taxi Association and Sam Khumalo, I think he was also an executive member.

MR BIZOS: Yes?

MR KHUMALO: And I don't remember which association he belonged, whether it was Pongola or Mjwana.

MR BIZOS: And what about Rasta and what about Malebele Buthelezi? Did they hold any executive positions in one or another of the taxi associations?

MR KHUMALO: I've already mentioned that I don't remember whether Rasta was on the executive or on the disciplinary committee.

MR BIZOS: Yes and what about Mr - now again, well let's deal with - alright we have enough. If the applicant is not telling the truth as to who conspired with him to kill the deceased, is it just by chance that he chose members of both taxi associations and to book some members of the executive of those taxi associations. Is that also just by chance?

MR KHUMALO: Yes I think it is by chance.

MR BIZOS: It is by chance that three out of the five who had no dealings with the applicant before were members of the executive of the two taxi associations in Pongola?

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Bizos, what was his own position?

MR BIZOS: I haven't clarified that, perhaps I should.

I should, I'm sorry. Thank you Mr Chairman.

Were you a member of the executive, one or other of the two associations?

MR KHUMALO: I was a member of that association but not an executive member, I wasn't an executive member.

MR BIZOS: Your brother was?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, my brother not me.

MR BIZOS: Okay. Let me return. How do you suggest that the applicant, I'm not for the moment suggesting that he has identified all the people that were responsible but how does he manage to get members of both taxi associations and three out of the five are executive members of the one or other association. How could that have come about if he is being untruthful about that?

MR KHUMALO: As I've already mentioned I don't know about the others, I don't know why he is implicating the others but about me, I don't know, really. I don't have any idea why he would mention my name.

MR BIZOS: Anyway, how much did this - how much money did you lose during this period when people were not catching taxis but using buses and I'm reminded many of them went by foot rather than going to a taxi if there is no bus available. How much money did you lose?

MR KHUMALO: It is not easy for me to estimate as to how much.

MR BIZOS: Thousands? Many thousands? Tell us? Surely you must have realised how much you were losing a day and for how many months the boycott lasted so that you could make approximately how much money you lost and how bitter you might have been in relation to people who you might have thought organised this boycott?

MR KHUMALO: It is not easy for me to estimate this because the people who didn't take taxis were the people who were from Pongola and this other route like going to Piet Retief and the other areas, people were continuing taking the taxis.

MR BIZOS: You know, one of the things that businessmen are good at is working out how much money they're making and how much money they may be losing. Don't you agree with that general proposition? They're good at it, aren't they?

MR KHUMALO: Others they are like that but I'm not like that. Not unless I'm planning to buy something major like to purchase a car then I will do that but I don't usually do that.

MR BIZOS: You see the reason why you have this reluctance is because you do not want to tell the Committee how hurt you and the other taxi owners were by this boycott. Have you got any other suggestion to make?

MR KHUMALO: I didn't count as to how much I lost and I cannot tell you something I do not know.

MR BIZOS: Now do you know Mr Ali Msibi?

MR KHUMALO: Yes I know him but I don't know him personally. I just know him, I don't know him very well.

MR BIZOS: Is he in business in Pongola?

MR KHUMALO: No I don't know.

MR BIZOS: Do you know where he lives?

MR KHUMALO: I know that he is staying in Piet Retief.

MR BIZOS: Do you know him as a member of the IFP?

MR KHUMALO: No I don't know.

MR BIZOS: Is he reputed to be a rich man?

MR KHUMALO: I don't know whether he does have a lot of money, all I know is that he is owning a bottle store. All I know is that he is owning a bottle store but I don't know whether he's got money.

MR BIZOS: The man that was asking for R20 000 or more was from Piet Retief?

MR KHUMALO: You mean the applicant? Yes.

MR BIZOS: Yes. There must have been rich IFP people in Piet Retief?

MR KHUMALO: That they had money I don't know, all I know is that there was an IFP office but whether the people had money or not I don't know.

MR BIZOS: There must have been taxi owners there, we know that the leading bottle store owner was there, there were other businesses, probably owned by IFP people in Piet Retief?

Did anyone at the meeting at the accused's house ask "why do you choose us for taxi owners who have just come out of an expensive boycott for money? If you're asking us because we are IFP members, why don't you ask the people nearer home, why do you come to us? We have suffered such losses." Did anybody pose that question to this man that wanted so much money?

MR KHUMALO: I think I did mention that Mncwango did contact the Piet Retief offices.

MR BIZOS: No, the question was, did any one of you say to the applicant "why do you choose us to ask money from, we have just had troubles here, we haven't got much money, why don't you raise the money you require in your home town, why do you come to us?" Have you got any answer - first of all, did anybody ask that question?

MR KHUMALO: I think someone did ask that question even though it wasn't exactly the way you've put it but someone did ask that how come he didn't write the letter to Piet Retief office.

MR BIZOS: That's new but let's take it on it's face value. MR KHUMALO: The question was why he's requesting such an assistance from Pongola office and his answer was that he is asking as a member of IFP, he's asking the Pongola branch to do that.

MR BIZOS: Yes but he was a member of the IFP in Piet Retief? Did he ask him why?

MR KHUMALO: I did say that that question was raised that how come he's asking from the Pongola branch and not the Piet Retief branch.

MR BIZOS: You asked and what was his answer?

MR KHUMALO: He simply said he is asking as a member of the IFP, he's asking the Pongola branch not the Piet Retief.

MR BIZOS: So that he evaded your question, didn't answer your question?

MR KHUMALO: We didn't follow that he didn't answer the question.

MR BIZOS: Yes, did you ask him whether he was guilty or innocent of the murder of the deceased?

MR KHUMALO: I think he was asked and I think the question which was asked was who actually sent him to kill the deceased.

MR BIZOS: Oh, so he admitted that he killed the deceased to you. He admitted to you that he killed the deceased?

MR KHUMALO: Even though he didn't say in words that "yes I did kill him" but we could tell from what he was saying that he did kill the deceased.

MR BIZOS: What did he say that led you to the conclusion that he had in fact killed the deceased?

MR KHUMALO: The way he was speaking.

MR BIZOS: What way was he speaking that convinced you that he had killed the deceased and he was making this admission to you?

MR KHUMALO: He didn't say that he accept and he is telling us that he did kill the deceased but the way he was speaking we could tell that he was admitting that he did kill.

MR BIZOS: Right, why was he speaking in the way which he was admitting to having committed murder to people that knew nothing about it?

MR KHUMALO: I don't know.

MR BIZOS: But you see, if someone has committed a murder and he has a meeting with strangers that didn't know anything about it and he is asking for money on collegial grounds, friendly grounds, helping, asking for help to strangers to whom he has no duty to admit that he is guilty, he protests his innocence and says "brother, brothers, help me, I am innocent and then justice will be done if you don't give me the money to get a good lawyer to defend me". He wouldn't admit to strangers that he was guilty, would he?

MR KHUMALO: The truth is that it did happen but then he never mentioned who sent him to kill the deceased.

MR BIZOS: You're not answering the question.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, will you indicate when it's convenient Mr Bizos?

MR BIZOS: We might as well take it now. The witness can think about the question overnight.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BIZOS

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we will adjourn the proceedings and reconvene tomorrow morning at 9.30. We're adjourned.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS