Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: For the record it is Tuesday, 18th of January 2000. It is the continuation of the amnesty application of N E Mavuso, AM7921/97. We are starting the proceedings later than we had scheduled. We were informed in chambers that there were problems experienced by some of the legal representatives to get to the venue. We were told that this had to do with traffic conditions, which we assume were beyond the control of those who were delayed, under those circumstances, for that reason we're are starting later than we had planned.

Ms Mtanga, is the witness still here? - Mtungwa.

MS MTANGA: Yes, he is here, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, can he come forward. Mr Mtungwa, you are reminded that you are still under oath, do you understand?

PHILEMON MTUNGWA: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Swanepoel, have you got any questions?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, the applicant tells me that he isn't feeling very well, could I consult with him outside for a few moments because it would appear that he doesn't feel too good. Could we just have a moment's adjournment just to determine what the problem is? Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, we will stand down just to allow Mr Prinsloo an opportunity to see what the position is with the applicant.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

PHILEMON MTUNGWA: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, is your client in a position to proceed?

MR PRINSLOO: Honourable Chairperson, he is in a position to continue, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: We're happy to hear that. Mr Swanepoel?

MR SWANEPOEL: Mr Chairperson, I have no questions for this witness.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR SWANEPOEL

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Has the Panel got any questions?

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you, Chair.

Mr Mtungwa, just a brief question. You say you're a preacher.

MR MTUNGWA: Yes.

ADV GCABASHE: When did you start preaching?

MR MTUNGWA: From the time when I was still young I was preaching the word of God.

ADV GCABASHE: So at the time that you worked at Bison Board, you were still preaching?

MR MTUNGWA: Yes.

ADV GCABASHE: And in 1993, November '93 when this particular incident occurred, you were still a preacher?

MR MTUNGWA: Yes.

ADV GCABASHE: And which areas did you preach in, in relation to Pongola and Piet Retief, both or just the one?

MR MTUNGWA: All over the place, Piet Retief, Ermelo and many other places.

ADV GCABASHE: And you say you are well-known in both areas as a preacher?

MR MTUNGWA: Yes. I would go to Ermelo as well to preach to our church members.

ADV GCABASHE: Let's come to the day that the youths asked you to accompany them to the attorney's office, yes.

MR MTUNGWA: Would you please repeat the question.

ADV GCABASHE: I'm saying let's come to the day the youths, those young people asked you to go to the attorney's office, the day that you gave evidence on behalf of the applicant in the bail application. I'm just giving you a context, okay?

MR MTUNGWA: Okay.

ADV GCABASHE: Now what I don't quite understand is whether the youths asked you to accompany them to the attorney's office because they knew you were a preacher, or because they knew that you worked with the applicant at Bison Board, or both. Can you just clarify that for me?

MR MTUNGWA: Yes, I think that is possible, that could have been the case, yes.

ADV GCABASHE: I've given you three options, either because they knew you were a preacher, option 2, or because they knew that you worked with the applicant at Bison Board and therefore you knew him, be it just superficially, or both, they knew both factors, they used both to come to the decision to ask you to accompany them. Just clarify that. Which of the three is it?

MR MTUNGWA: I did not ask them, they just explained that they wanted somebody who was not involved in politics. That's the explanation that I got from them. They did not explain to me whether they were asking me because they knew me as a preacher, or whether they asked me because they knew I was working with the applicant. Really they did not explain to me. The only thing that they said to me was that they wanted a person who was neutral.

ADV GCABASHE: You see, this is where my lack of understanding comes again. Are you saying to me that if I were arrested for a particular reason, being a resident of Pongola or Piet Retief, and you did not know me - because you didn't know who they were talking about, I'm assuming, correct me if I'm wrong, if you did not know me and somebody approached you and says "Ms Gcabashe, she needs somebody to come and give evidence in a bail application", you as a Christian would go along and give evidence on my behalf not knowing me at all. Do you understand my dilemma?

MR MTUNGWA: They did not say I should try and secure some bail for him, they only wanted me to testify on his behalf seeing that I was neutral. I explained to them that all I know is the distance from the hostel to Bison Board. I know he boards the bus at the gate of the hostel and there was a police station there and there was this house that was occupied by the police and at the gate you would have the security guards, and I explained to them that I could not vouch to his safety. That's all I said, because they only wanted somebody who could comment on his safety. That's all I said.

ADV GCABASHE: Yes, thank you. I understand that part of the evidence, what you said and why you said just that little bit, what I don't understand yet is how you came to even attest to this, to give this evidence about somebody who you say you don't really know. You see maybe I should again explain my confusion further. I don't know what the first thing is that those youths said to you when they saw you, did they say "Ah, do you know Mavuso?" or did they just say "Here is a stranger who needs your help"? I don't know how you got dragged into this at all, I don't understand that.

MR MTUNGWA: I was just about to enter a shop and they requested me to come and speak to the legal representative, who explained.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you, let's stop there. So when they approached you, what is it that they said to you, did they just say "Sir, would you please ...(no further translation from Zulu to English)".

MR MTUNGWA: They said "Sir, we have a problem here, we want somebody to come and assist us, somebody who is politically neutral. Would you please go and converse with the legal representative". That was all.

ADV GCABASHE: That was all. And on the basis of that you then went to the attorney's office.

MR MTUNGWA: Yes, it was a short distance. See, we were in the street, I was actually opposite the offices of the legal representative.

ADV GCABASHE: Thanks, that's helped me. So far so good, I can understand what you're saying a little better now. So when you got the attorney's office, is it only then that you found out that Mr Mavuso was the person who you were going to assist?

MR MTUNGWA: The legal representative explained to me that "We want a person who is politically neutral, we just need a person who knows about the transport from the hostel to Bison Board". They wanted to know from that person how safe the distance was. He indicated that he knows - he understands the people were working together, but he was concerned about the safety within the distance mentioned. From the hostel gate ...(intervention)

ADV GCABASHE: Mr Mtungwa, the rest I understand, I'm just with the attorney, how you got involved. I understand the rest of what you're saying. I'm at the attorney's office right now, because from the shop we've moved to the attorney's office. At the attorney's office, why would an attorney ask you about transportation of people at Bison Board ...(Zulu) Piet Retief, if he didn't know who you were and what your relationship with this applicant was? Just help me there.

MR MTUNGWA: I have explained that I did not know the legal representative. The people who knew the legal representative are the ones who requested me and they then took me to the legal representative. I was just on my way shopping, I was not involved in this whole thing. That is all I am saying.

ADV GCABASHE: Mr Mtungwa, I need to understand the circumstances as the others have to, now I'm just trying to make sure I understand what happened here. The attorney must have said to you "We're talking about Bison Board and whether this particular person will be at risk working in that environment at Bison Board", but he wouldn't ask me that question because I wouldn't know anything about Bison Board and what happened there, he ask you that question, he doesn't know you, why would he ask you that question? He didn't know that you worked at Bison Board, why would he ask you that question?

MR MTUNGWA: It is because the youth that approached me knew the legal representative. It is the youth who knew that this is Mtungwa, they knew Mtungwa.

ADV GCABASHE: Okay. And they knew that Mtungwa works at Bison Board and lives in Piet Retief, is that what they knew, the youths?

MR MTUNGWA: Many people knew that I was working at Bison Board, especially the youth. They used to see me going to work and when I was not at work I would preach. Because I'm a resident in the township many people used to see me around, they know me. I would preach, given time. That is all I am trying to say.

ADV GCABASHE: Now you see that helps me, that's not what you had - I mean, yesterday's evidence for me, I didn't hear you say that. I couldn't understand why you were linked to Bison Board by the youths or by the attorney. So you are now saying that your evidence is, the youths knew you as a preacher, they knew that you had a home both in Pongola, because that's your family home, and that you lived in Piet Retief and they knew that you worked at Bison Board, this was common knowledge. Is this what your evidence is?

MR MTUNGWA: Yes, I think many people knew.

ADV GCABASHE: At what stage did you find out that Mr Mavuso was the person you were going to be giving evidence on behalf of?

MR MTUNGWA: I heard at the time, as I was there.

ADV GCABASHE: Talking to the attorney?

MR MTUNGWA: I did not know that the person was Nkosinathi Mavuso, but they did say to me that there was a person who was an employee of Bison Board in this situation and they wanted me to explain about safety within the distance and I told them about the distance from the gate of the hostel to the gate of Bison Board.

ADV GCABASHE: Again just for absolute clarity, you talk of "they" in the plural, was it the youths who referred to this Mavuso, who could have been Nkosinathi or some other Mavuso, or was it the attorney who talked of this Mavuso who worked at Bison Board, who later turned out to be Nkosinathi Mavuso? Which of the two groupings, the attorney or the youth?

MR MTUNGWA: See, I was in a hurry and there was confusion. They said I should assist them and they took me to the legal representative. You see I was in a hurry on my errands. I went to the legal representative and then explained. I told him "Listen, I don't know anything, all I know is the distance from the hostel gate to the Bison Board gate".

ADV GCABASHE: I'm going to stay with this until I'm quite clear. Who said to you "There's a person from Bison Board who requires your help"? That specific sentence who linked the person with Bison Board, who said that?

MR MTUNGWA: It was the youth who came to me saying I should assist them and they took me to the legal representative and they said "Here's this legal representative, he requires a person who is neutral, so we are appealing to you as a person whom we know is neutral".

ADV GCABASHE: ...(Zulu), I'm quite clear now, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Were any of the youth working at Bison Board? Do you know any of them, whether they've also been working at Bison Board?

MR MTUNGWA: I would not know. Even though there were some people from Bison Board, I could tell them apart, though there is those from Piet Retief and those from Pongola.

JUDGE DE JAGER: You didn't recognise any of the youths, that you could tell us by name that so and so, he's also from Pongola and he is acquainted with all the circumstances there, where we're working, where we're staying.

MR MTUNGWA: I would not know their names because it was a group of youths, some of them were wearing IFP shirts and therefore I was not in the position to make out.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But were some of them coming from Pongola, living at Pongola?

MR MTUNGWA: Yes, I think so because I did not know some of the people in the group.

ADV GCABASHE: One other question I forgot to ask you, you talked about the wearing of IFP T-shirts at Piet Retief and when people got to work they would then wear their uniform or whatever, they would not be wearing their IFP or ANC T-shirts, remember that evidence yesterday?

MR MTUNGWA: Yes.

ADV GCABASHE: You also said that you lived in the location, not at the hostel.

MR MTUNGWA: Yes.

ADV GCABASHE: At the hostel, was it a hostel shared by IFP and ANC residents, or was the hostel strictly an IFP hostel, what were the circumstances, would you know?

MR MTUNGWA: It was a hostel for everybody who was an employee.

ADV GCABASHE: So the hostel was the Bison Board hostel, is this what you are saying?

MR MTUNGWA: Bison Board employees who were not residents in the area, were resident at the hostel.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yesterday afternoon you said something when answering a question of Mr Prinsloo I think, and it was interpreted - I've got the Afrikaans note

"I do not share Mr Mavuso's perspective, I differ from him."

Could you perhaps elaborate on that, what did you intend telling us. If my note is wrong please tell me.

MR MTUNGWA: Would you please repeat.

JUDGE DE JAGER: I've got a note here and I've written down the Afrikaans interpretation that you testified

"I do not share Mr Mavuso's point of view, I'm differing from him".

Did you convey such an understanding or could it be that my note is wrong?

MR MTUNGWA: Yes, I did say that.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And what did you intend conveying, what did you not agree with him?

MR MTUNGWA: It is already known that Mavuso is involved in an organisation and I am not.

JUDGE DE JAGER: ...(inaudible) his political views?

MR MTUNGWA: Isn't it what you want to know? See, I said we have differing views. Is that what you're saying?

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes. You've got different views about what, about religion, about politics, about the work? Where did you differ?

MR MTUNGWA: We were not doing the same kind of job, first of all, and we were not resident in the same place or at the same place and we also differed socially. I don't know what kind of life he led at the hostel. You see, I reside in the township and I believe in Christ, I did mention this yesterday.

CHAIRPERSON: Can I just go back to the bail application. When exactly did you find out that it was Mr Mavuso that was applying for bail and on whose behalf you had to go and give that explanation that you spoke about?

MR MTUNGWA: At the same time as they were requesting me in town.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that at the offices of the attorney?

MR MTUNGWA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you then know that it was Nkosinathi Mavuso, the security guard at Bison Board on whose behalf you had to go and give the evidence?

MR MTUNGWA: The legal representative said there's somebody who is an employee of Bison Board. I had no knowledge that the person he was referring to was Nkosinathi.

CHAIRPERSON: Now when did you find that out, that it was Nkosinathi Mavuso who was involved?

MR MTUNGWA: The legal representative explained there, he simply said he wanted somebody who could be of assistance. I did not ask him many questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no, no, I understand all of that, it's not necessary for you to repeat it. What I want to find out is, when did you find out that it was Nkosinathi Mavuso on whose behalf you had to give the evidence? At what stage?

MR MTUNGWA: There and there at the legal representative's office.

CHAIRPERSON: Did they mention his name?

MR MTUNGWA: He indicated that it was Mr Mavuso, an employee of Bison Board.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And then you realised who he was, it was the security guard that you knew, would that be correct?

MR MTUNGWA: I did not think that because I had no knowledge of what was happening at the time, but he did mention that there is this Mavuso person who was involved. You see, there were so many people working at Bison Board, so that when he requested me I simply concerned myself with explaining the position of safety in that distance and I did not further explain anything else pertaining to safety because I had no knowledge of what was happening.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but now, I'm trying to get clarity on this aspect. Was it only when you got to court that you saw that it was that particular Nkosinathi Mavuso that was involved?

MR MTUNGWA: The legal representative took me to court in Pongola, the court was packed, then I recognised the person as the Bison Board security man. They requested that I explain about safety and I spoke about the distance from one gate to the other.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, that's fine, you don't need to explain all that. Now why did you agree to testify on this person's behalf?

MR MTUNGWA: I am a Christian, a respecting Christian who found it easy to explain the safety within the distance from the gate at the hostel to the gate at Bison Board and back. That's all explanation I gave to these people.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying that you would have assisted any other employee of Bison Board, as part of your Christian duty as you saw it at that time?

MR MTUNGWA: Had I been requested to do so, to assist, I would in the spirit of Christianity.

CHAIRPERSON: Any other employee of Bison Board?

MR MTUNGWA: Just anyone who would have requested help from me, even outside Bison Board I would have enlisted help. As a Christian, as they expected me to explain about the safety of this mister, I would have done that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Mr Mtanga, have you got any further questions?

MS MTANGA: No further questions, Chairperson.

NO RE-EXAMINATION QUESTIONS BY MS MTANGA

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, there's just one fact that my help on the probabilities. I don't want the question, perhaps you could ask it. The size of the work-force of Bison Board may be of assistance in understanding some of the evidence, whether it's hundreds or thousands. Perhaps you would like to put it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, if you want to put it, feel free.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS: Thank you. How many people were working at Bison Board at the time of this happening?

MR MTUNGWA: There were quite many people who were working there at the time. I will not be in a position to estimate right, especially that we were working on shifts. There were quite a number of them, I wouldn't have known everybody. In fact, there was a time when Bison Board was brought to closure and I did not get to know then everybody who was working there.

MR BIZOS: Would it be hundreds or over a thousand? How many people worked there?

MR MTUNGWA: I will estimate around one thousand of employees of Bison Board.

MR BIZOS: How many were in your shift?

MR MTUNGWA: Well as drivers, or us drivers particularly in my shift, we will be four at a time and the workers will be around forty. Now that is a hypothetical figure I'm giving here. In one given shift we will have that much. Now we had about four different shifts and I'm referring to one particular shift, now we will only have four drivers at a given shift.

MR BIZOS: Were there different departments, different sections of the firm?

MR MTUNGWA: Yes, there were different and various departments, various sections as well.

MR BIZOS: And you were - as a well-known preacher, you say you were known because of your position. Were the employees so many that you may not have known every one of them even though they may have known that you were an employee of Bison Board?

MR MTUNGWA: Yes, I would deem that that would be the situation because I would preach to them in numbers.

MR BIZOS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BIZOS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Bizos. Yes, Mr Mtungwa, thank you very much, you're excused.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MS VAN DER WALT: Chairperson, before the next witness is called, my client was excused yesterday, I would like to know from you if I may be excused as well.

CHAIRPERSON: I think your client was already excused yesterday.

MS VAN DER WALT: He was excused yesterday.

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly.

MS VAN DER WALT ADDRESSES: And then there is another aspect, I personally do not think that there's much to make of it but Mr Prinsloo thinks that he was accused - you will recall that Mr Bizos alleged that Mr Prinsloo appeared for Mr Mkhwanazi in a trial and it was handed up. I do not have an exhibit number but the particulars which Mr Prinsloo signed with regard to the matter of Mr Mkhwanazi and Msibi and Sanda Nlangamandla, the closer particulars were handed up, it was signed on the 27th of January 1997. I told the Committee that all the time I appeared for Mr Mkhwanazi. I then studied the documents which I received from the Attorney-General, and then I came across the original letter which I sent to the Attorney-General. This was on the 13th of January 1997, where I informed the Attorney-General that I appeared on behalf of Mr Mkhwanazi and I requested the dossier. I do have the original here, I would like to hand it up because at the end of the day it could be argued, I don't know what will be argued. I do not believe there is much to it, but if you will allow me to hand it up. I do it on the request of Mr Prinsloo. As the English would say "I feel like a storm in a tea cup".

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you very much. At home I also have the appointment from the State Attorney from Durban, if there are any further enquiries I shall give it to you. It was before Justice Beyers. I have only heard this morning that he is deceased and the State Prosecutor was Mr van Heerden. It was in the Circuit Court. You will see the date is the 17th to the 21st of February, and the Circuit Court sat in Piet Retief and I appeared there. Thank you. And if I may be excused.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well Ms van der Walt, we shall see if this could be of any further use. I don't know whether we should add these documents to the other ones that we have, so we will simply take this letter of yours, dated 13 January 1997, we shall add that as the numbers that will follow. Thank you for your assistance, you are excused.

MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Ms Mtanga, what remains?

MS MTANGA: Chairperson, I would like to call my next witness, Mr Malebele Buthelezi.

CHAIRPERSON: Buthelezi?

MS MTANGA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Buthelezi, do you hear the translation?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you give your full names for the record please.

NOMALEBELE BUTHELEZI: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, please sit down. Yes, Ms Mtanga.

EXAMINATION BY MS MTANGA: Mr Buthelezi, can you tell this Committee what is your current occupation.

MR BUTHELEZI: Well I have taxis or I work with taxis.

INTERPRETER: The witness is not quite clear.

MR BUTHELEZI: Very well.

MS MTANGA: And where is your taxi business based?

MR BUTHELEZI: In the Pongola area, that is where I own taxis.

MS MTANGA: And what was your occupation in 1993, November 1993?

MR BUTHELEZI: Well I was still an owner of a taxi in Pongola.

MS MTANGA: Did you hold any office within the taxi structures?

MR BUTHELEZI: Well I was part of the executive body.

MS MTANGA: Is that of the Pongola Taxi Association?

MR BUTHELEZI: That is Motchane(?) Taxi Association.

MS MTANGA: Mr Buthelezi, politically, were you affiliated?

MR BUTHELEZI: I was an IFP.

MS MTANGA: And did you hold any offices within the IFP in 1993?

MR BUTHELEZI: I was a member then at that time.

MS MTANGA: Were you just an ordinary member?

MR BUTHELEZI: I was an ordinary member and follower.

MS MTANGA: Would you say you were actively involved in the IFP? As an ordinary member, were you actively involved?

MR BUTHELEZI: Well then I was a mere follower and I will do as others were doing at the time, not necessarily that I will be active.

MS MTANGA: Do you know Nkosinathi Mavuso, the applicant in this matter?

MR BUTHELEZI: I don't know him, I saw him.

MS MTANGA: When did you see him?

MR BUTHELEZI: I saw him some time ago, although I may not be in a better position to state exactly when, when we went to his house.

MS MTANGA: Mr Buthelezi, you were present at the last hearing and you heard the evidence of Mr Mavuso, that you were present at the meeting that took place at Wimpy in November 1993, where you conspired along with others and gave Mr Mavuso an order to kill Mr Mike Mcetywa. What do you say to this?

MR BUTHELEZI: I refute that.

MS MTANGA: Did you know Mr Mike Mcetywa?

MR BUTHELEZI: I knew him for quite a short time because often times or not I will be at work or rather be based at work.

MS MTANGA: Did you know Mike Mcetywa's political affiliation?

MR BUTHELEZI: As I said that I knew him for quite a short time since I was stationed in Bethal, and when I got there there wasn't any activities regarding politics in the area, so I would not have been aware of his activities politically.

MS MTANGA: Will I be correct to conclude that you wouldn't have considered Mike Mcetywa a political enemy, or your political opponent?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, you are correct.

MS MTANGA: Coming to your visit to Mr Mavuso's house at Paulpietersburg, can you just tell the Committee what were the circumstances or what led you to go to that meeting at Paulpietersburg.

MR BUTHELEZI: My going to Dumbe was led by the visit of Mr Mncwango. Got home, at my home that is, in the morning, well around 9/10 in the morning, Mncwango arrived and asked me - I was busy doing my home chores, building a kraal, and Mncwango requested me to help him to go with to Dumbe because we were going to a chairperson there, a Chairperson of IFP in Dumbe. There is a letter that he had in his possession that he was taking to Dumbe and he was requesting me to go with him and I decided to drop what I was doing at home, and also take into consideration the fact that I had respect for him, I had to accompany him to that particular place.

MS MTANGA: You have testified that you were merely an ordinary member of the IFP, what do you think were the reasons for Mr Mncwango to particularly ask you to go with him to Paulpietersburg?

MR BUTHELEZI: There was already a reason because then I had to be appointed as Chairperson, as a Chairperson of the area Mduneni. Now then I was in a position to accompany him because officially now I had a position I held. We left, we went to Jelejuba. Should I proceed?

MS MTANGA: When were you appointed as Chairman of the Mduneni area?

MR BUTHELEZI: Shortly after 1993, just shortly after 1993, towards 1994. Although I don't quite remember exactly ...(indistinct) times.

MS MTANGA: I have no further questions, Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS MTANGA

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Mtanga. We will take the short adjournment at this stage and reconvene in 15 minutes time.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Buthelezi, you are reminded that you are still under oath. Do you understand? NOMALEBELE BUTHELEZI: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Prinsloo.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Buthelezi, when precisely were you appointed as the Chairperson of the IFP?

MR BUTHELEZI: Even though I cannot be certain, but it could have been around 1994.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you have any appointment documents from the IFP which can determine or confirm the date?

MR BUTHELEZI: Important documents are kept in the office, I do not have that document in my possession. The one thing that can help out is the card.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Buthelezi, the elderly gentleman sitting in the first row, second from the left - just look behind you please, the gentleman standing now, do you know him?

MR BUTHELEZI: I know him, I saw him.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you know his name?

MR BUTHELEZI: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Then do you know at all who he is?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, I know his home.

MR PRINSLOO: But do you know his family?

MR BUTHELEZI: I don't know his family, I only know one person, that's the person through whom I went there.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you know that he's the father of the applicant?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: On how many occasions did you visit him? That is now Mr Mavuso, the father of the applicant.

MR BUTHELEZI: That was once.

MR PRINSLOO: Now I put it to you that you that Mr Mthembu as well as Mr VP Khumalo went to visit the applicant's father. What do you say to that?

MR BUTHELEZI: No, no I did not visit him more than once.

MR PRINSLOO: Fine. Mr Mavuso will testify to the fact that you did go to their place and from there you obtained, you and the other two people obtained clothing for the applicant. Do you deny that or do you admit it?

MR BUTHELEZI: No, I don't know anything about that.

MR PRINSLOO: Now are you familiar with the branch of the Piet Retief IFP.

MR BUTHELEZI: No, no, I have no knowledge, I have no proper knowledge of that branch.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you at all liaise with the Piet Retief branch?

MR BUTHELEZI: No, except for one rally that I attended at Piet Retief.

MR PRINSLOO: When did you attend that rally you're referring to?

MR BUTHELEZI: It's been some years now, I cannot recall exactly when.

MR PRINSLOO: Now Mr Alie Msibi, the one who was excused yesterday, do you know him?

MR BUTHELEZI: I saw him for the first time here.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you know that he was a prominent member of the IFP in Piet Retief and also the Mayor of the township at Piet Retief, at some stage?

MR BUTHELEZI: I only heard that for the first time at this hearing, I don't know IFP members in Piet Retief.

MR PRINSLOO: Right. Now Mr Buthelezi, as I understood your evidence, you said that Mr Rasta Mncwango had in his possession a letter, is that correct?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, even though I did not see the letter. He did refer to a letter, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: When did you see the letter for the first time?

MR BUTHELEZI: I did not even set my eyes on the letter, I only spoke about a letter that was in Sanda Nlangamandla's possession.

MR PRINSLOO: Was a letter at all shown to either the applicant's father or the applicant?

MR BUTHELEZI: We were sitting in a place that was grassy, you see I did not see the letter but yes, mention was made of a letter.

MR PRINSLOO: Please Mr Buthelezi, let's not waste the Committee's time. Are you saying you were sitting in the tall grass area where you couldn't even see when they showed a letter, is that what you're telling the Committee?

MR BUTHELEZI: The letter was not lifted like this, I did not see it being lifted, but yes, mention was made of a letter. Sanda was in front of us and I was on the side, I did not set my eyes on the letter, but yes, mention was made of a letter.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Buthelezi, there's a big difference between a letter being referred to and a letter being produced, was a letter produced or not?

MR BUTHELEZI: I will repeat and I maintain that I did not see the letter with my own eyes. Yes, mention was made of a letter. See, I am not educated and I had no need to have a look at the letter because there's nothing I would do with it.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Buthelezi, will you explain to the Committee where precisely this meeting took place when there was a discussion with regard to a letter, was it in a room, in a road, next to a road or where? Tell the Committee please.

MR BUTHELEZI: There's a kraal at Mavuso's household and there's grass on the side and there's a street or some footpath on the side and there are some potholes. You see on some of these potholes, that's where we would sit. We were sitting next to Mavuso's household, not at his homestead.

MR PRINSLOO: Now Mr Buthelezi, who accompanied you to this particular place, who were the people that went there?

MR BUTHELEZI: It was Mr Mavuso and one other person whom I did not know. That person is the person who had come to fetch Nkosinathi Mavuso because we did not find him at home and we also, or should I say we then went with Mr Mavuso to sit at that place.

MR PRINSLOO: That's not my question, maybe I didn't make myself clear, Mr Buthelezi. You and others went to Mr Mavuso's place, we've already heard evidence that it was Rasta Mncwango and there were the Khumalos, that's Sam and VP Khumalo, yourself, and who else?

MR BUTHELEZI: Thank you very much, I did not understand what you were referring to. When we left Pongola, it was Mncwango who came to fetch me, we then went to Jelejuba to Sanda Nlangamandla's homestead. We found him in the company of Sam as well Velaphi Khumalo, and then there were five of us.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you travel in one vehicle?

MR BUTHELEZI: Myself and Mncwango were using one vehicle and they were using another vehicle.

MR PRINSLOO: What vehicle were you and Mr Mncwango using?

MR BUTHELEZI: We were using Mncwango's van.

MR PRINSLOO: What type of van, colour and make?

MR BUTHELEZI: He used to have various cars, he drove different cars. Really I cannot recall, it could have been an Isuzu or something, but yes, it was a van.

MR PRINSLOO: And the other three gentlemen, what vehicle were they using?

MR BUTHELEZI: I don't know whether they used a kombi because kombis were being fixed in that place. I just cannot recall, but they drove in a separate vehicle.

MR PRINSLOO: When you arrived at the place of Mr Mavuso, who was present at that particular residence?

MR BUTHELEZI: There was one young man, I don't know whether he is one of the Mavuso household. He is the one who was sent by Mr Mavuso. There were two people when we arrived there, there was Mavuso and this young man.

MR PRINSLOO: Now I put it to you that Mavuso, the applicant, was at home initially when you arrived and the father arrived from nearby, subsequent to that, when he saw a vehicle at his residence. What do you say to that? Are you mistaken about your memory or what is the position?

MR BUTHELEZI: I dispute that, not that I have forgotten, no, you see I ...(indistinct).

MR PRINSLOO: You can't even remember what vehicle you travelled in and you can't even remember what vehicle the others travelled in. Can you explain that?

MR BUTHELEZI: You see the type of vehicles we were using were not my concern, but I am saying that we could have been travelling in an Isuzu. You see, he was using different cars. But when we arrived, Mavuso was there at home with some young men who were sent to go and fetch Nkosinathi, who then came after some time and he came after some time from one of his other families.

MR PRINSLOO: Who sent for Nkosinathi?

MR BUTHELEZI: I am saying there was one other person whom I didn't know whether he belonged to the Mavuso household or not.

MR PRINSLOO: But who requested that he be called?

MR BUTHELEZI: May the question please be repeated.

MR PRINSLOO: Who requested a person, if it occurred, to call Mr Mavuso, the applicant?

MR BUTHELEZI: It was Mr Mavuso who requested that person.

MR PRINSLOO: Upon your arrival, as I take your evidence, that the applicant was not present, did anyone speak to Mr Mavuso senior, father of the applicant, upon arrival?

MR BUTHELEZI: I did not speak at the time, not at that time.

MR PRINSLOO: Did anybody speak to Mr Mavuso senior, prior to the arrival of Mr Mavuso, the applicant?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, Mncwango spoke with Mr Mavuso, saying to him that we had come to see Mr Nkosinathi Mavuso. We'd actually come to the IFP office, we have been directed here because we couldn't find the people we were looking for at the office, that was Mbatha.

MR PRINSLOO: So this discussion that you refer to now, did this take place at the residence of Mr Mavuso senior, father of the applicant?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: So that wasn't in the bush or in the grass, what you referred to earlier?

MR MAVUSO: It is the discussion that happened at a place with tall grass, that is after Nkosinathi had arrived.

MR PRINSLOO: But the initial approach to Mr Mavuso senior, did that take place at his residence or did that take place in the tall grass?

MR BUTHELEZI: We went to Mavuso's household.

MR PRINSLOO: Now at his household was a letter at all produced and shown to Mr Mavuso senior?

MR BUTHELEZI: I have just said that I did not see the letter, only mention was made of the letter itself.

MR PRINSLOO: But you were present all the time and if a letter was produced, you would have seen it.

MR BUTHELEZI: I for one did not see it.

MR PRINSLOO: I will repeat my question. You were present all the time, if a letter was produced you would have seen it.

MR BUTHELEZI: Well it is possible that the letter was taken out but I heard about the letter, I did not see the letter.

MR PRINSLOO: I'm not asking you about the possibilities, Mr Buthelezi, I'm asking you whether you in fact saw it or not and you are emphatic, as I understand your reply you did not see a letter.

MR BUTHELEZI: No, I did not see it.

MR PRINSLOO: So Mr Mavuso senior was merely told that there was a letter written, is that what you're saying?

MR BUTHELEZI: I did not see the letter.

MR PRINSLOO: Will you please tell the Committee what the discussion was about, when you spoke to Mr Mavuso senior as well as Mavuso junior, the applicant.

MR BUTHELEZI: Well when we got to the discussion and upon Nkosinathi's arrival - should I proceed from there?

MR PRINSLOO: Well you must tell the Committee, we weren't there, what transpired, anything of significance with regard to your visit. Start from where you like to, from the word go.

MR SWANEPOEL: Mr Chairman, the witness specifically - sorry to interrupt, the witness specifically does not know to which stage Mr Prinsloo is referring. If Mr Prinsloo could perhaps give a certain point, because otherwise we could repeat the whole day's proceedings there.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that's true, we don't want to know what coffee they drank. Won't you please assist us, just be more specific Mr Prinsloo, elicit whatever relevant information there is that you want.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Buthelezi, from the time you arrived, tell this Committee anything that's relevant to the discussion as to why you went there, start from that point.

MR BUTHELEZI: Mr Prinsloo, please let's reason on the same wavelength, we got there and Nkosinathi was called. Maybe you should give me directives as to where to start. We got there, Nkosinathi was called in and we got out with Mr Mavuso and we went to sit outside of the house. Do you understand, are you with me?

As we were sitting outside, Nkosinathi arrived and it was then I saw him for the first time and I had to take another look at this young man, and Mncwango started the discussion about the letter that I did not see.

I'm illiterate and that didn't concern me to see the letter and read the letter. And he started asking questions and told Mavuso that he had come to Mbatha and did not find Mbatha and was looking for Mavuso's house and was directed to a certain house, Katchwyo's house. And we got there and from there we were led here and "Is this what you have written indeed in the letter, Mavuso junior?" That was the question posed to him about the amount of money amounting to R20 000 that he wanted. Is it what he wrote on the letter? And I heard Mavuso responding, he did not even ask for the letter or enquire about the letter, I heard him responding saying "Yes, I am the one ..."

...(intervention)

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Buthelezi, just stop there, you're rambling on and on. I'm going to go back again. I'll ask you, from the moment you arrived at that spot, the residence of Mr Mavuso senior, did anyone in your party speak to Mr Mavuso senior with regard to this issue, for the reason why you went there and the absence of the applicant? Respond to that please.

MR BUTHELEZI: I'd already passed there.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Buthelezi, please answer that question. Did you or anyone speak to Mr Mavuso senior as to why you came there and the absence of the applicant?

MR BUTHELEZI: I said Mncwango had already spoken to Mr Mavuso that led to the calling of Mavuso junior. Obviously Mr Mavuso was addressed, senior that it.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you or anyone explain the reason for your visit before Mr Mavuso junior arrived there?

MR BUTHELEZI: No, I did not explain anything as for me.

MR PRINSLOO: Did anyone in your party explain anything to him as to the reasons why you came there?

MR BUTHELEZI: Well I did not hear anything either.

MR PRINSLOO: And then you waited for Mr Mavuso junior to arrive, is that your evidence? There was no discussion as to the reason for your visit, then Mr Mavuso junior arrived. Did you start speaking when he arrived or did you go to a particular place to discuss this or what is the position?

MR BUTHELEZI: I'd already said that Mncwango was the person who had so much interest in seeing Mavuso, obviously he addressed Mr Mavuso previously. He had already addressed Mr Mavuso before the arrival of Mavuso junior.

MR PRINSLOO: Let's slow down please, Mr Buthelezi. Did a discussion take place at the house with Mr Mavuso junior and then you moved to another place, what is the position?

JUDGE DE JAGER: With reference now to junior, is that correct? A discussion at the house with junior, or are you referring to a discussion with senior at the house?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, with respect, what I'm referring to is as from the moment the applicant arrived, to where they met the applicant initially. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Buthelezi, where did you meet Mr Mavuso, the applicant next to me, initially on that day?

MR BUTHELEZI: We met outside the house.

MR PRINSLOO: Now when you met outside the house, did you discuss anything with him, you or anyone in your party in your presence, outside the house?

MR BUTHELEZI: I'd already said Mncwango had already introduced what we were there for to Nkosinathi Mavuso.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Could we just get his clear. If we're now referring to outside the house, we've had a reference earlier to a place next to the kraal in the long grass, did you meet there or did you meet him at the house and walked to the place where a further discussion took place next to the kraal, or did he meet outside the house while you were already waiting at the place outside the, next to the kraal? - in the long grass.

MR BUTHELEZI: We'd already walked away from the house and we were outside. That's where he found us sitting.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Where did he find you sitting?

MR BUTHELEZI: In that place I described to have long grass.

MR PRINSLOO: Whose idea was this, or whose suggestion was this to go and sit in the tall grass?

MR BUTHELEZI: Well I would not say because we were in another man's house, it is his house. I will not be able to explain that gesture. We went outside and we decided to go sit there.

MR PRINSLOO: This place in the tall grass, is it a distance away from the residence and the kraal itself, the enclosure?

MR BUTHELEZI: No, it's just next to the kraal, not too far away from the kraal. It's not far.

MR PRINSLOO: When you say a kraal, you're referring to a cattle kraal, you call it "espya"(?), is that correct?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Now why did you have to go sit in the tall grass, why could you not be open and discuss it at the house? Why this idea in going to the tall grass?

MR BUTHELEZI: It was not necessarily the fact that we were choosing to go specifically to the tall grass, we wanted a comfortable place maybe outside and we located that as one.

MR PRINSLOO: Now were you sitting in a circle next to one another or were you standing or what, when this discussion took place?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, we sat down but we didn't form a circle, we simply sat like the attorneys are sitting here and the others were sitting on the opposite. But I would not be able to tell as to how many were on the one side and the other.

MR PRINSLOO: And Mr Mavuso senior, father of the applicant, where was he at that stage?

MR BUTHELEZI: He was present as well.

MR PRINSLOO: Where was he, was he standing in front of you or what?

MR BUTHELEZI: Well he was there amongst us, he was standing as such.

MR PRINSLOO: And the applicant, where was he?

MR BUTHELEZI: He was there, seated as well.

MR PRINSLOO: Who spoke first in the group of you?

MR BUTHELEZI: I will go back to what I said earlier and I will reiterate the fact that Mncwango was the one who initiated the discussion.

MR PRINSLOO: When did he initiate the discussion?

MR BUTHELEZI: He posed a question to Mavuso as to saying was he the one who has written the letter and is he the very person who is asking for the R20 000 amount of money written on the letter.

MR PRINSLOO: And was there any response from Mr Mavuso, the applicant?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, he responded.

MR PRINSLOO: What did he say?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, he agreed to that.

MR PRINSLOO: He agreed and what else did he say, if anything?

MR BUTHELEZI: He said and admitted that he was the one and also emphasising that he was asking for help.

MR PRINSLOO: Help of what nature, for what reason?

MR BUTHELEZI: That's when Mncwango came in with another question, saying why.

MR PRINSLOO: So when Mr Mncwango asked him why, what was the response to that, if any?

MR BUTHELEZI: Well I did not hear the answer.

MR PRINSLOO: What did Mr Mncwango do then, or anyone of you when he didn't respond?

MR BUTHELEZI: Well Mncwango went on and on, saying "Why would you want help from us in Pongola?" And Nkosinathi was quiet and looked down. He looked continuously down and did not respond.

MR PRINSLOO: Did the applicant tell you people as to why he required this R20 000?

MR BUTHELEZI: That was the question posed by Mncwango. Mncwango did pose that question to him and he did not respond, instead Mncwango stood up and had a smoking pipe and decided to excuse or withdraw from us, from the meeting. And I could tell and I could read the situation that Mncwango was giving up and was leaving and I decided to intervene.

MR PRINSLOO: Just a moment. Mr Buthelezi, at that stage you knew that Mr Mcetywa was murdered in Pongola, is that correct? Before you went to the residence of Mr Mavuso.

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, I knew that.

MR PRINSLOO: And you knew there was a member of the IFP - you knew at that stage there was a member of the IFP arrested whom the police said was responsible for the murder of Mr Mcetywa, is that correct?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, I heard that.

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon, you heard that?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, I heard that.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes. And when you went to Mr Mavuso's residence you knew it was about Mr Mcetywa's murder, is that correct?

MR BUTHELEZI: Well I'd heard that as well.

MR PRINSLOO: When this man asked for legal assistance, money, you knew it was for his defence, is that correct?

MR BUTHELEZI: Well I did not hear as the discussion advanced because Mncwango kept asking this question but we did not get a response from Mavuso junior.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Buthelezi, you knew you were going to a member of the IFP otherwise you would not have gone there, if it was an ordinary criminal, not so?

MR BUTHELEZI: You mean a criminal writing us a letter?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Buthelezi, you as the - what you testified to as the Chairman to be appointed and a group of you, five of you would not have taken the trouble and gone to the residence of the applicant if he was not a member of the IFP, is that correct?

MR BUTHELEZI: Well we would have gone possibly and asked the questions we had.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Buthelezi, at that stage when you went there, you knew Mr Mavuso was a member of the IFP.

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes. So you knew if you're going to speak to him you're going to speak in confidence to a member of the IFP, is that correct?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And all that you wanted to ascertain from him is to why he required the money, is that what you're testifying to?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: But you knew already he had been arrested for the murder of Mcetywa, you knew he was charged for that murder and you knew his trial was pending, do you agree to that?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, I'd already heard that was in progress.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes. And all this man was asking from the IFP was, according to your version, is legal assistance, money for an attorney or advocate, is that correct?

MR BUTHELEZI: Well we did not know that for sure, that's why we had to go there to clarify that. I had to intervene and ask a question to that effect and the father responded instead of him.

MR PRINSLOO: And what did the father say?

MR BUTHELEZI: When I asked - this is how I posed my question, I said "Well I heard that and I've just seen Mncwango leaving us, can you please tell us young man (exactly as I put it) you mean this was done by you and if you indeed have done it, how did you do it and who had sent you to do that? What were you promised to achieve after you have done that?" I then got a response from the father instead and the father said "Well I think you should leave, leave that, I think you should leave that. I thought you were going to enlist some help, so maybe in the event that you can't enlist some help, maybe you can leave this matter alone". Mncwango had already excused himself a long time.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Buthelezi, let us not waste too much time about this. You were satisfied that Mr Mavuso required legal assistance, financial assistance in order to pay for legal assistance, is that correct? But your problem was as to the place where he applied for assistance, is that what you're saying?

MR BUTHELEZI: That exactly was the reason why we had to go.

MR PRINSLOO: So if he was a member of the IFP in your constituency then you would have considered his application, is that what you're saying?

MR BUTHELEZI: Please repeat that question.

MR PRINSLOO: If the applicant was at that stage a member of your constituency and he had applied for legal assistance, financial assistance in order to pay for his defence, then your branch would have considered that application.

MR BUTHELEZI: Well I don't know, I've never seen anything like that happen in the past.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Buthelezi, then I fail to understand why you went to all the trouble to gather five of you to travel a long distance to Dumbe in order to ask this man a simple question as to why didn't he apply for legal assistance in his own branch. Surely you could have forwarded that letter to his branch without travelling there. Respond to that please.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but bear in mind, Mr Prinsloo, that's what they did. That was their first port of call, so you must factor that into your question.

MR PRINSLOO: With respect, Mr Chairman, the letter could have been forwarded to the branch ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no, no, I know that, I know that, I don't want to debate that, but if you put that question to him, factor in the fact that they actually called at the branch, they found nobody and then they were directed to the house of the applicant.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I'll pursue it on this basis.

Mr Buthelezi, according to your version, when you did not find anyone at the branch of Dumbe, then surely it wasn't your business to go and speak to a member of another constituency, you would have waited your chance until you got hold of a member of the ...(indistinct) branch. There was no hurry for it, or was there?

MR BUTHELEZI: Mr Prinsloo, if you pay attention I said we were going to his branch in Dumbe. Mr Prinsloo, please listen to me and I will then in turn listen to you, don't put me under the table and I find myself under the table and I can't rescue myself. In other words, don't corner me please. We got there on Saturday and it was closed, we asked as to how we could get the officials of that branch and we wanted Mbatha, and we found some few people standing not too far away from the place and they informed us that the place was closed and they don't know how we could get hold of him, but then they told us to go to Katchwayo's house. Unfortunately Mr Katchwayo was not at home but the kids were at home and we asked as to how we could locate Mr Mavuso's house and how we could locate Nkosinathi Mavuso, if they knew him in the area and then we took it from there.

MR PRINSLOO: So Mr Buthelezi, if I understand your evidence now, your main purpose was when you and the group of four others left your constituency, you were going to Dumbe branch to speak to the Chairman of that branch, is that correct, that was your main purpose. Correct?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Fine. So at that stage you had not intended to go and speak to the applicant himself because he was not in your constituency, is that correct?

MR BUTHELEZI: We did not intend to talk to him, but then the secretary had suggested that he will bring him close or we'll go with the secretary together with the chairperson of Dumbe, to the house of the applicant.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Buthelezi, that's precisely the problem because you said you could not entertain that application, it was not a member of your constituency, you went to his constituency, you found the Chairman or whoever was responsible absent, then your business was closed, then you would have gone back to Pongola. You knew the applicant was on bail, there was no definite rush to get this money problem sorted out, they could sort it out. What do you say to that?

MR BUTHELEZI: Well I did not think about that at the time and it didn't cross my mind, the fact that we had already been there and we have to go back having achieved nothing. That would have been a trip wasted in other words. That did not cross my mind to go back.

MR PRINSLOO: You see the problem is, Mr Buthelezi, according to the version of Mr Mncwango he said he'd already met the applicant prior to that and the applicant had already told him that he'd murdered Mr Mcetywa. So then he must have known exactly why he required money and he knew ...(inaudible - no microphone)

MR BOTHA: Mr Chairman, sorry I'd just like if the Commission could perhaps correct me if I'm wrong. My understanding is that at the first meeting there was not a specific mention that it was the applicant that did in fact commit the deed, it was only at a later stage that that was divulged to Mr Mncwango. That is my understanding, and if I'm wrong I'd ask the Commission to correct me.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I might have to be corrected myself, I thought it was the very opposite. I thought that he testified that the applicant was quite clear at that first meeting that he was never responsible for this and later on when they asked him at the homestead, he was hedging, he never gave a straight answer.

MR BOTHA: He never gave a straight answer.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I respectfully submit, I asked Mr Mncwango specifically at the so-called first visit at the branch of Pongola and he said the applicant had told him that he was the person who was charged with the murder of Mr Mcetywa.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But he didn't admit being guilty.

MR PRINSLOO: I respectfully submit, Mr Chairman, that was not my question to this person, my question is that he knew at that stage that the applicant was the person who was charged with the murder of Mr Mcetywa. So there was nobody unclear about it.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought you'd put it on the basis that the applicant had confessed to the murder.

MR PRINSLOO: If I put it unclearly, I'll rephrase it Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Please if you could.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Buthelezi, to remove any doubts about this, Mr Mncwango when he testified said that the applicant told him that he was the person who was charged with the murder of Mr Mcetywa. You heard that evidence yesterday.

MR BUTHELEZI: What I'd heard in the evidence led yesterday, I heard him saying he got to him and said he was coming from Nongoma, not that - well I think I was left behind somehow. I only heard him saying he got to him when he found him in the office, he said to him he was coming from Nongoma or KwaNongoma and he was arrested. I thought that's what I heard, maybe I got left behind somehow yesterday.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Buthelezi, how did the five of you know that the applicant lived in the Dumbe constituency, tell the Committee.

INTERPRETER: You mean how it came - I don't know.

MR PRINSLOO: ... I beg your pardon Ms Interpreter.

How did you know that the applicant lived in the Dumbe area before the five of you departed to look for him?

MR BUTHELEZI: Well I explained that, because Mncwango had said - in fact he requested me to come with to the offices of Dumbe. As to how he obtained that knowledge, I think he gathered that from the letter he alluded to.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Buthelezi, did you attend the initial appearance of the applicant in court in Pongola?

MR BUTHELEZI: Well I have never been there, I've never set my foot there.

MR PRINSLOO: Were you in Pongola on that day, when the applicant appeared in court initially?

MR BUTHELEZI: I was not present in anything that involves him.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Buthelezi, I'm not asking about anything that involves him, I'm asking you if you attended the court appearance like many other IFP supporters did on that day? According to the evidence before this Committee, there was a lot of IFP supporters at court.

MR BIZOS: With respect, it's a double question and the first has already been answered - that he didn't go there. The second question can be formulated as far as this witness is concerned, in another manner so that we can get on with the case.

MR PRINSLOO: I respectfully submit, Mr Chairman, my question was fair. He said he was not involved. I didn't ask him a question about involvement, I asked him whether he was present like many other IFP supporters who attended that particular court session on that particular day, and I'd like him to respond to that.

MR BIZOS: The point I'm making, Mr Chairman, is that there is a categorical statement by the witness that he never set his foot there.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well let's just confirm that again. A minute Mr Prinsloo.

Mr Buthelezi, were you present at the court when the applicant's case was heard, at any stage?

MR BUTHELEZI: No, I've never been to that court.

CHAIRPERSON: Good, now carry on from there, Mr Prinsloo.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Buthelezi, did you know that the applicant appeared in court in connection with that murder on that particular day?

MR BUTHELEZI: I knew nothing about that.

MR PRINSLOO: You don't even know that there was a strong police contingent at court, you don't know that in a small town like Pongola?

MR BUTHELEZI: No, I was never part of that.

MR PRINSLOO: As a result of the death, the murder of Mr Mcetywa, was there a lot of animosity amongst the people in Pongola, after his murder?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, there was this tension in Pongola.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you bother to find out why there was tension in Pongola?

MR BUTHELEZI: It is because our citizen at Motchane

had died, that is why there was this tension.

MR PRINSLOO: And did you know that the allegation was that a member of the IFP had murdered Mr Mcetywa?

MR BUTHELEZI: I only heard about that quite late, that was in bits and pieces and there was now a mixture of rumours around.

MR PRINSLOO: And did you hear that a person had been arrested on the same day of the murder?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, I heard about that.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you hear on that day that the person they arrested was a member of the IFP?

MR BUTHELEZI: I heard about that quite late.

MR PRINSLOO: When you say "quite late", late on the same day or what? Can you be more specific.

MR BUTHELEZI: Not on that day, not on that day.

MR PRINSLOO: On what day would it have been?

MR BUTHELEZI: After some days, it could have been two or three days, that is when I heard that the person is a member of the IFP.

MR PRINSLOO: And court appearances followed thereafter of the applicant, before he was initially committed for trial to the Supreme Court, or the Circuit Court in Piet Retief. Did you attend any of the other court appearances, before he was committed for trial in Piet Retief?

MR BUTHELEZI: No, I've never attended any court case.

MR PRINSLOO: You say you never or did you say "angaas", you can't remember? I couldn't quite hear what you said in Zulu, can you repeat that again please.

MR BUTHELEZI: No, I am saying I never attended that court hearing.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you attend any court appearance of the applicant in Piet Retief?

MR BUTHELEZI: No, never.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you know of any members of the IFP that attended the court appearance and the trial of the applicant in Piet Retief, from Pongola?

MR BUTHELEZI: Not from my area, Mduneni.

MR PRINSLOO: So you as Chairman of Pongola at a later stage, and it would appear from your evidence that the applicant ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: There is no evidence that he was Chairman of Pongola, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think it's a place called Mduneni. I assume he was to be the chair of an area called Mduneni, wherever that is, Mr Prinsloo.

MR PRINSLOO: That was indeed my question, Mr Chairman, I said "at a later stage". At that stage when the applicant was on bail - I'll rephrase and I'll make it clear for Mr Bizos.

Mr Buthelezi, at the time when you were appointed as Chairman of the IFP, the applicant's trial was then in progress, is that correct?

MR BUTHELEZI: I would not be certain of that, I don't know.

MR PRINSLOO: Was there no discussion in the IFP with regard to this particular murder of Mr Mcetywa, pertaining to the applicant who was a member of the IFP?

MR BUTHELEZI: I am saying there was this rumouring and tension resulting from the death of this person, the culprit of which was not known.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Buthelezi, there was no longer a rumour, the applicant was in fact charged and you knew that, and he appeared in court as a fact, do you agree to that?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, there is this one word that is being used "suspect". See, we could not make certain as to whether the suspect is the culprit or what. Really, I don't know really how to go about use of that word.

MR PRINSLOO: Well Mr Buthelezi, the State had already charged him, they made the allegations, so he was no longer a suspect, he was the accused. Do you agree to that?

MR BUTHELEZI: No, I don't know.

MR PRINSLOO: Don't know what, Mr Buthelezi?

MR BUTHELEZI: I don't know whether he had been charged already. That is on my assumption of the chairmanship position.

MR PRINSLOO: Whether as Chairman or what, you knew ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Prinsloo, the difference between a suspect and an accused, isn't that rather semantics? A suspect is charged and he becomes an accused, an accused is suspected of doing it, that's the reason why he's charged. Would that bring us any further?

MR PRINSLOO: ...(inaudible - no microphone)

Mr Buthelezi, you knew the accused's trial commenced in Piet Retief, in the High Court.

MR BUTHELEZI: I did not know where the hearing started.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Buthelezi, at this particular residence of the applicant, Mr Mncwango spoke to the applicant and you say he left, did you speak to the applicant at all?

MR BUTHELEZI: I asked him certain things.

MR PRINSLOO: What did you ask him?

CHAIRPERSON: Do you want to go over that again, Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I'd just like to know precisely what he asked him, that's not clear to me.

CHAIRPERSON: You want to hear again?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, with respect ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: He had covered aspect.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, with respect, as to what he asked him because he didn't even know this man was a suspect according to him and I'd like to ascertain from him what he asked him with regard to that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes no, but I'm telling you he already testified about that, do you want to hear it again? Why?

MR PRINSLOO: Well I'm not going to ask the question if the Committee rules against it, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we've got the testimony, the question that he put to the applicant and the response of the applicant's father. That's after Mr - yes, if you haven't got the note there, we've got the verbatim question and the answers available.

MR PRINSLOO: The question to the applicant, Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, after ...(intervention)

MR PRINSLOO: But he said he spoke to the father of the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well after Mr Rasta got fed-up and he walked away, the applicant intervened and tried to ascertain from the - the witness intervened and tried to ascertain from the applicant certain information and the father responded and that was it. We've got that evidence.

MR PRINSLOO: So his response is - I can accept then, Mr Chairman, he didn't speak to the applicant, his father responded?

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, the father responded, Mr Mavuso senior responded.

MR PRINSLOO: Did any of the other members present, apart from Mr Mncwango, speak to the applicant in your presence?

MR BIZOS: There is an ambiguity in the exchange, I'm sorry. The question was directed to the applicant, the response was by the father, so that Mr Prinsloo cannot assume that by asking the question "Did anyone ...", that the answer meant that he, Mr Buthelezi, did not speak to the applicant. He spoke to the applicant, the response was by the father. That is the evidence, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think that is clear, Mr Prinsloo.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, with respect, it still remains the same, there was no response from the applicant, he did not speak to the applicant ...(indistinct) there was no response. He merely asked him, there was no response, the father answered on his behalf. That's the ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I don't think there's any misunderstanding. He, the witness, spoke to the applicant, the applicant didn't respond, the father responded instead.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Buthelezi, did any of the other members of that group speak to the applicant after Mr Mncwango and you had finished talking to him?

MR BUTHELEZI: I would not say, I had accompanied Mncwango and after being fed-up I asked the questions to try and help out. I was trying to be of assistance. And after Mncwango had departed saying we should just leave everything, there was no need for me to pursue that, I then left.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Buthelezi, now I put it to you that Mr Mavuso was initially at that kraal, that residence, the father arrived later, any response to that?

MR BUTHELEZI: I dispute that.

MR PRINSLOO: Furthermore, the applicant as well as his father disputes that he ever had a discussion with you or any of that group pertaining to a letter, what do you say to that?

MR BUTHELEZI: I am telling you what happened.

MR PRINSLOO: You've heard the evidence of the applicant where he testified that you were part of a meeting at the Wimpy, can you suggest any reason why the applicant implicates you in this matter?

MR BUTHELEZI: I only fill up fuel at Wimpy, I don't even know the entrance to that Wimpy. He's implicating me simply because I went to Mavuso's household, that's it.

MR PRINSLOO: There's no other reason?

MR BUTHELEZI: No, I cannot give you any other reason.

MR PRINSLOO: I put it to you what the applicant testified to, I'm going to repeat all that, but as far as your involvement is concerned, is the truth.

MR BUTHELEZI: May the comment please be repeated.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Were you present when the applicant testified?

MR BUTHELEZI: Last year?

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes.

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, I was present.

JUDGE DE JAGER: You've heard what he said about your involvement.

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Do you agree with him or not?

MR BUTHELEZI: I dispute everything.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Prinsloo. Mr Bizos, questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

I just have a few question for you, Mr Buthelezi. I want to deal with November 1993. You were an inactive member of the IFP at that time.

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, I was a member.

MR BIZOS: But did you take part in policy decisions of the IFP in its committees in the area?

MR BUTHELEZI: No, not at that time, I did not have any voice at that time.

MR BIZOS: Would you consider the murder of one of the citizens of Pongola, a person who was apparently popular and a prominent man and the Chairman of the ANC, were you the sort of member that - would you have authorised that act on behalf of the IFP?

MR BUTHELEZI: Even though I knew he was a member of the ANC, I would not agree to that.

ADV GCABASHE: Sorry, can we just it again. Even though you knew, or even if you had known, which is it please? Did you know he was a member of the ANC?

MR BUTHELEZI: I am saying even though I knew that he was a member of the ANC and had to be killed, I would not agree to that.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not activated.

MR BIZOS: At that time, were there violent acts by IFP members against ANC members and vice versa, in the Pongola district?

MR BUTHELEZI: I would like to clarify this, that when I arrived from work - you see I spent most of the time at Bethal, I never came across anything being said about the ANC or vice versa. There was an IFP mayor, but that was not mentioned in any one of the meetings that I attended.

MR BIZOS: So that whatever animosity there was between the ANC and the IFP in southern Natal in 1993, this had not reached Pongola?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

MR BIZOS: How close were you to the IFP leadership in Pongola at that time, in November 1993?

MR BUTHELEZI: I was not that close, I was an ordinary person, just an ordinary member.

MR BIZOS: To illustrate how an ordinary member you were, I'd just like to ask you, who was the Chairman of the IFP in Pongola in November 1993?

MR BUTHELEZI: As far as I know, I think it was the Mayor, Israel. I'm not quite sure whether I'm making a mistake or not, but see I am saying I spent most of the time at work and as far as Motchane is concerned I don't know whether it was Dlamini or not really.

MR BIZOS: Well when you say the Mayor was in fact Israel Dlamini, but you also say that he was Chairman of the IFP, but as far as you were concerned his IFP chairmanship was not within your knowledge, you knew him as a leader, as leader of the community, as Mayor.

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

MR BIZOS: You also said that his IFP leadership was not mentioned. I don't know whether I'm overstating it or not, I may be, but what did you mean when you said that that fact was not mentioned, what did you mean by that?

MR BUTHELEZI: That was known to the organisation, but he used to summon the whole community on his mayoral capacity. He was Chairperson of the IFP and a Mayor at the same time.

MR BIZOS: But was he on good terms with members of the IFP, members of the ANC and didn't make any distinction?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, I would say that undoubtedly that's how I saw things.

MR BIZOS: And your being asked to become Chairman of the Mduneni IFP, was that as a result of the election campaign and the intensification of political activity in the area for the 1994 elections?

MR BUTHELEZI: I agree with you, yes.

MR BIZOS: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BIZOS

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Bizos.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Could I just enquire, you were the Chairperson at Mduneni? Is that correct, my pronunciation, I'm not sure.

MR BUTHELEZI: Mduneni.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mduneni. How far is that from Pongola?

MR BUTHELEZI: They are just neighbours under different chieftainships.

JUDGE DE JAGER: So they're sort of next-door to each other, a few kilometres?

MR BUTHELEZI: 10 kilometres.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Mr van der Heyde?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DER HEYDE: Mr Chairperson, I only have one question I want to ask Mr Buthelezi.

Before the elections in 1994, Mr Buthelezi, were you actively involved in the official structures of the IFP, did you know what was going on in the official structures of the IFP?

MR BUTHELEZI: No, I did not know much, I was an ordinary member following the trend. I was in Bethal most of the time.

MR VAN DER HEYDE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DER HEYDE

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

MR SWANEPOEL: I have no questions for this witness, Mr Chairperson.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR SWANEPOEL

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr van der Walt?

MR VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Mr Chairman, no questions.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DER WALT

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Botha?

MR BOTHA: No questions, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Padi?

MR PADI: I have no questions, Mr Chairperson.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR PADI

ADV GCABASHE: I just want to clear one small matter up. You did not work at Bison Board at any stage?

MR BUTHELEZI: I know Bison Board by passing, in transit to Bethal, but I've never been an employee there.

ADV GCABASHE: Is there a Buthelezi who you know that worked at Bison Board?

MR BUTHELEZI: I don't know which Buthelezi, who worked for Bison Board, as to which one that would be.

ADV GCABASHE: It's not somebody you know?

MR BUTHELEZI: I don't know him.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you. Thanks, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mtanga?

MS MTANGA: No further questions, Chairperson.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MS MTANGA

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Yes Mr Buthelezi, thank you, you're excused.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Ms Mtanga.

MS MTANGA: Chairperson, I would like to call my last witness, Sam Khumalo.

CHAIRPERSON: Will Mr Khumalo come forward. Is it working?

MS MTANGA: Yes, Chairperson, but I just want to check with the interpreters if they won't have a problem. He wants to listen to the English interpretation and then he will answer in Zulu.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes are we sorted out, Mr Mtanga?

MS MTANGA: We are Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So will the witness listen to the original and then he will respond in the vernacular.

CHAIRPERSON: Good. Will you please stand to take the oath. Are your full names Sam Khumalo?

MR KHUMALO: No, I am not.

CHAIRPERSON: Well give us your full names then.

MBONENI SAMUEL KHUMALO: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mtanga?

EXAMINATION BY MS MTANGA: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Khumalo, are you popularly known as Sam Khumalo?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, that is true.

MS MTANGA: Can you please tell this Committee what is your current occupation.

INTERPRETER: The speaker is not quite audible. May the speaker be audible.

MS MTANGA: Do you hold any office within the ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: The interpreter has got difficulty to hear the witness.

MS MTANGA: Can you repeat your answer Mr Khumalo.

MR KHUMALO: I work in the area of Pongola as a taxi owner.

MS MTANGA: Did you hold any office within the Pongola taxi structures?

MR KHUMALO: Yes.

MS MTANGA: And what office is that?

MR KHUMALO: I am the PRO presently.

MS MTANGA: You are the PRO of which taxi association, Mr Khumalo?

MR KHUMALO: Pongola Taxi Association.

MS MTANGA: And what was your occupation in November 1993?

MR KHUMALO: I was an ordinary member, but not in Pongola.

MS MTANGA: Did you own taxis at that time?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, I had taxis.

MS MTANGA: To which taxi association did you belong at that time?

MR KHUMALO: I was in Motchane.

MS MTANGA: Did you serve in the structures of the association, that is the Motchane Association?

MR KHUMALO: Yes.

MS MTANGA: What was your position there?

MR KHUMALO: I was nothing there.

MS MTANGA: What do you mean when you say you served in the structures of the Motchane Taxi Association? Did you hold any office, that was my question.

MR KHUMALO: What I mean is I was only a member of the association but not necessarily occupying any particular position.

MS MTANGA: Did you belong to any political organisation or were you a supporter of any political organisation in 1993?

MR KHUMALO: Yes.

MS MTANGA: Which organisation was that?

MR KHUMALO: IFP.

MS MTANGA: Are you still a member of the IFP? Were you a member or were you a supporter?

MR KHUMALO: I was a follower.

MS MTANGA: Are you still a supporter of the IFP?

MR KHUMALO: No, I'm a card-carrying member now.

MS MTANGA: Do you know the applicant, Mr Nkosinathi Mavuso?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, I know him, I saw him.

MS MTANGA: Where do you know him from?

MR KHUMALO: ...(no English interpretation)

MS MTANGA: Was that the first time you saw Mr Mavuso?

INTERPRETER: I knew him the day we went to his house or to his home.

MS MTANGA: Mr Khumalo, you were present at the time Mr Mavuso gave his evidence at the last hearing and you heard his evidence that the first time he met with you was at the Wimpy restaurant in November 1993, what do you say to this?

MR KHUMALO: I was present when he was saying that, but he was lying. That is not true, that is a blue lie.

MS MTANGA: Mr Mavuso further testified that you were amongst a group of people who gave him an order to kill Mr Mike Mcetywa, what do you say to this?

MR KHUMALO: That is a blue lie. That man is lying, he can lie, he's a professional liar.

MS MTANGA: He further stated that you and your brother Velaphi Khumalo, are the persons who went to fetch him from Piet Retief, the day after the Wimpy meeting and you took him to Pongola, where he was going to execute Mr Mike Mcetywa. What do you say to this?

MR KHUMALO: He said we went to fetch him, fetch him for what, knowing him from where?

MS MTANGA: No, I want you to answer my question, Mr Khumalo. What do you say to Mr Mavuso's evidence that you and your brother Velaphi Khumalo, fetched him from Piet Retief the day after the Wimpy meeting, from where he was taken to Pongola where he was going to kill Mr Mike Mcetywa.

CHAIRPERSON: In other words, do you agree or do you disagree with that allegation?

MR KHUMALO: Well I disagree with that, I strictly disagree with that.

MS MTANGA: You say the first time you met Mr Mavuso was in a meeting at Mr Mavuso's house, am I correct?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, that is true.

MS MTANGA: Can you explain to this Committee how it came about that you attended that meeting?

MR KHUMALO: It was on a Saturday, I left together with my brother. We were involved in some society paying each other some certain amount of money at certain times. So when they got there I did not have money in my possession, then we decided we should go and fetch that particular money from him. We found him there at home and he commented that he was going because he had his uniform, shembe uniform, the church uniform that is, and he commented to us that he was on his way going to church, but he was still waiting for Mncwango because Mncwango had said he will be coming to fetch, he wanted him to accompany him to go to that particular place. And one driver arrived at that very moment and said, he said to the driver he should leave and he asked us instead to go with.

And Mncwango together with Buthelezi arrived and talked about the trip that was to be taken, and we all left in that way.

MS MTANGA: Did you know why you were going to Paulpietersburg?

MR KHUMALO: Although Sanda did not explain quite clearly, but when I got there, in Paulpietersburg that is, I gathered the pieces together and got or gathered some information as to why we were there. But it was not quite clear even then to me because I was not informed prior. But on the way, as we were discussing, it surfaced that the reason why we were there it was because of some letter.

MS MTANGA: Did you know Mr Mike Mcetywa?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, I know him.

MS MTANGA: How well did you know him?

MR KHUMALO: I reside in B and he resided in A, that is Nwane area, in Motchane area.

MS MTANGA: Was there any kind of relationship between the two of you, as people who lived in Pongola?

MR KHUMALO: There wasn't any relationship between us except to say we knew each other and that we came from the same area, not necessarily suggesting that we had some friendship going on or something to that effect.

MS MTANGA: Were you aware that Mr Mike Mcetywa was a member of the ANC or the Chairperson of the ANC in Pongola?

MR KHUMALO: Well I would not say anything on his behalf because at the time anything that had to do with politics was not necessarily hot issues in town. Only a few individuals will know themselves as to which parties they belonged to as members.

MS MTANGA: It's been suggested that one of the possible reasons why Mr Mike Mcetywa was killed was due to the taxi boycott, and you were also a taxi owner, do you know of such a possibility or facts pointing to that?

MR KHUMALO: Well I will not say with certainty that that was the cause, but what I know is that as a person who owned a taxi or taxis in Motchane, I have no recollection of any time where we sat in a discussion with Mike Mcetywa discussing this or anything related to taxi boycotts. There wasn't anything that was affecting politics as such but it affected the community at large in the area.

MS MTANGA: As a taxi owner during the time of the boycotts, did you view Mr Mike Mcetywa as a person who led the boycott against you? - against the taxi industry that is.

MR KHUMALO: Well no, no, I will not have taken him that way or looked at him in that light. As I said, there was a meeting where that was discussed and a person who would have been suspected to be leading, if I were to state anything suggesting that, I would say Mr Mkhize would have been the person behind that, who was a councillor in the area at the time. That could have been an ideal person to suspect to have been leading that or being behind that. I would say it would have been Mr Mkhize instead.

JUDGE DE JAGER: I couldn't follow your answer. Did you say there was a meeting where the boycott was discussed? Was that by the community or by the taxi owners?

MR KHUMALO: The taxi boycott was discussed in one community meeting in Dwaleni.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Do you know whether he attended, whether the deceased attended that meeting?

MR KHUMALO: I will not deny that or dispute that in any way. I will not say anything on his behalf really, but I did not see him.

ADV GCABASHE: Do you know whether he played any role in trying to appease the community and to solve the boycott problem?

MR KHUMALO: No.

ADV GCABASHE: And just for my purposes, what do you say you would have associated Mr Mkhize with? I didn't get that.

MR KHUMALO: I said - you see the lady next to me asked a question about Mike Mcetywa, if I could have looked at him in the light of being leading or being a leader of the taxi boycott and in responding, or an attempt to respond to the question, I said in my view I would have rather associated Mr Mkhize with this taxi boycott instead of Mr Mike Mcetywa.

You see as whites would say who started first or who initiated or who was the one to be heading, I would have suggested it would have been ideally Mr Mkhize, opposed to Mr Mike.

MS MTANGA: I have no further questions, Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS MTANGA

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Mtanga. Yes, Mr Prinsloo.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Chair.

Mr Khumalo, did you attend the trial of the applicant when he initially appeared in the court in Pongola?

MR KHUMALO: Would you please repeat.

MR PRINSLOO: Very well. Did you attend the trial of the applicant in Pongola in the Magistrate's Court, when he made his initial appearance in connection with the murder of Mcetywa?

MR KHUMALO: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Were you aware that the applicant appeared in the court in Pongola in connection with the murder of Mr Mcetywa?

MR KHUMALO: I heard about that, but I only was assured or I was only certain of these ones we had arrived at them.

MR PRINSLOO: Were you aware that there was great support from the IFP's side for the applicant during his first appearance in court in Pongola?

MR KHUMALO: No, I don't know about that. I would have seen and heard about it had it happened.

MR PRINSLOO: You heard that there was evidence before this Honourable Committee, that there was IFP support at the court during his first appearance, did you hear that evidence? And that there was also a tremendous police presence for the purposes of protection at the court?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, we heard that the court hearing was being attended by many people, but I never attended that hearing. I cannot even recall the organisation being purported to have supported his court appearance.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you hear that the applicant who appeared in connection with the murder of Mr Mcetywa, was a member of the IFP, or that at the very least he was a supporter of the IFP?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, I did hear that.

MR PRINSLOO: Are you familiar with Piet Retief? Or let me put it like this. In 1993, were you familiar with the town Piet Retief?

MR KHUMALO: No. Look, I was not even driving a kombi at the time so I was not familiar with the town.

MR PRINSLOO: Didn't you ever visit Piet Retief?

MR KHUMALO: No, I cannot recall paying a visit to Piet Retief, except for one day if I'm not mistaken. There was Chief Buthelezi, he had come to the area in 1994, that was the time I attended the rally that had been summoned by Chief Mangusotho Buthelezi. I cannot recall the date though.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Khumalo, did you know Mr Alie Msibi, the person who was here until yesterday, who was also known as the Mayor of the township of Piet Retief, at an earlier stage?

MR KHUMALO: I only heard about him. I saw him for the first time here last year. I kept hearing that there's a person by the name of Alie Msibi, but I had not met him until here last year.

MR PRINSLOO: And were you familiar with the IFP structure within Piet Retief, during 1993?

MR KHUMALO: No, no.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, would this be the appropriate moment, there is a personal matter that I need to deal with and I have to make a telephone call pertaining to certain aspects that I would like to collect. Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we'll adjourn and reconvene at 2 o'clock.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

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

MBONENI SAMUEL KHUMALO: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: (cont)

Mr Khumalo, do you know Mr Mavuso, the father of the applicant? You saw him this morning when he stood up.

MR KHUMALO: Yes, I know him.

MR PRINSLOO: For how long have you known him?

MR KHUMALO: I knew him on the day when we went to his place.

MR PRINSLOO: Was that the first time that you saw him?

MR KHUMALO: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Now Mr Khumalo, according to the father of the applicant, Mr Mavuso, you as well as your brother Velaphi, took him to a witchdoctor, a female person on the other side of Melmoth. What do you say about that?

MR KHUMALO: No, I don't know anything about that.

MR PRINSLOO: The place's name is Nondondulo, do you know this place?

MR KHUMALO: No, I do not know Nondondulo. The one place that I know bearing a similar name is one place on the other side of Ulundi, it is called Ndondulo. I don't know Nondondulo. One other place with almost a similar name is Nondweni, but I've never accompanied them to such a place.

MR PRINSLOO: Perhaps I could assist you further with the name of the person, I do not wish to mis-pronounce it, the name of the lady is Suno Nengoko. I don't know if I have pronounced it correctly. Do you know anybody by that name?

MR KHUMALO: ...(no English interpretation)

MR PRINSLOO: A witchdoctor lady whose name is Suno Nengoko. She is known by that name.

MR KHUMALO: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Mavuso senior says that you and Velaphi Khumalo took him there to this witchdoctor while the applicant was in jail and that it was about the applicant, and on the way there you visited the prison where he was held at that stage.

MR KHUMALO: I have already pointed out that I never accompanied them to such places. I don't even know anything about the traditional healer.

MR PRINSLOO: He says furthermore that at the Vryheid Prison, the prison authority took your weapon from you, it had to be handed in because a visit was paid to the applicant in the prison at Vryheid.

MR KHUMALO: You mean they took our weapons at Vryheid where was I going to? Because look I had already indicated to you that I never accompanied them, so that if they took our weapons, where was that and what did they do with our weapons and who took our weapons?

MR PRINSLOO: Let me put it to you more clearly. There at the prison at Vryheid, in order to able to visit someone in prison you would have to hand in your weapon and for that purpose your weapon was handed in upon your visit to the applicant, while Mr Mavuso senior was present.

MR KHUMALO: No, no, I don't know anything about that.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you at any stage visit the Vryheid Prison, where your weapon would have been handed in for the purposes of a visit?

MR KHUMALO: I went to Vryheid to a government institution, I think it could have been in 1996, I went to hospital, that's where I left my firearm at the office where it was entered in the register. I had taken somebody there for a baby delivery.

MR PRINSLOO: But you never paid a visit to the Vryheid Prison where your firearm was handed in?

MR KHUMALO: No, I do not recall. I don't know where the prison is in Vryheid.

MR PRINSLOO: So if you say that you do not recall, do you say that it did not take place?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, I am implying that.

MR PRINSLOO: Which one of the two, that it didn't take place or that it could have taken place possibly?

MR KHUMALO: I am saying to you I am saying exactly that, that which you're referring to never happened to me. I don't know whether you understand what I am saying. I am saying to you it never happened.

MR PRINSLOO: Very well. Mr Khumalo, did you at any stage visit the court in Pongola, with regard to the matter for the applicant where the mandate of the attorney was concluded? - that which you were involved with?

ADV GCABASHE: Sorry, can you just repeat the question, I didn't understand it, Mr Prinsloo. Thank you.

MR PRINSLOO: I will rephrase.

Mr Khumalo, according to Mr Mavuso senior, the father of the applicant, you were at the court in Pongola and he was also there and on that day, as he understood it, you ended the mandate of your attorney. Do you know anything about that?

JUDGE DE JAGER: The mandate of Mr Khumalo's attorney or the mandate of the applicant's attorney?

MR PRINSLOO: The attorney of the applicant, Chairperson.

Do you know anything about that? That is how he understood it, Mr Mavuso senior.

MR KHUMALO: I didn't know him and I had nothing to do with that person, I therefore could not have ended the mandate of the attorney. I'm not quite sure whether I understand you quite well. I had nothing to do with him and therefore I was not in the position to end the mandate. How can I end the mandate because I have nothing to do with you. Or maybe you ...(intervention)

MR PRINSLOO: According to Mr Mavuso senior you were not entirely satisfies with the conduct of the attorney at that stage, that is how he understood it.

MR KHUMALO: Would you please repeat that, I don't understand what you are talking about here.

MR PRINSLOO: According to Mr Mavuso senior, you were not satisfied with the conduct of the attorney in the matter of Mr Mavuso, the applicant, and he understood that you as a result of that, would have ended the mandate of the attorney.

MR KHUMALO: No, I don't know that.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Khumalo, with regard to this letter, you say that the persons arrived at your house, or was it somebody else's house? That would be Mncwango and another person.

MR KHUMALO: Which people? Are you talking about people who came to my house with a letter? Which people are those?

MR PRINSLOO: Perhaps you could inform the Committee with regard to this letter regarding which you and the four others would have paid a visit to the residence of the applicant or his father, where did they meet you and who was it that met with you?

MR KHUMALO: I understand now. I have pointed out earlier on, not knowing whether you understood me, but I said there is this money that we give to one another in turns and we received this each Friday and we happened not to see one another on Friday, that particular Friday, and Sanda said he was going to give the money to his drivers the following day in town. And when the drivers came they said Sanda did not give them the money and we decided, myself and my brother, to go up to him to try and get the money because we had to hand the money over to the person it was due to that week.

And we found a person wearing the shembe church uniform as well as a grass mat. The person was saying he was on his way or her way to church and the person was supposed to drive a kombi ferrying church members. And he gave this vehicle to some other driver.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Sorry, who was this person with the kombi who handed over the vehicle to another driver, what was his name?

MR KHUMALO: Sanda is the name.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Sanda.

MR KHUMALO: ...(no English interpretation)

INTERPRETER: Chairperson, I just wanted the witness to repeat some of the things that I did not quite get well. It's well explained and it is exactly as I have interpreted it.

MR PRINSLOO: What day of the week was this, Mr Khumalo?

MR KHUMALO: ...(no English interpretation)

MR PRINSLOO: I'm referring to the day when you would have gone with the others, Mncwango and your brother, Mr Buthelezi, you know all those names.

MR KHUMALO: It was on Saturday.

MR PRINSLOO: And did all of you travel together or how did you travel to the home of the father of the applicant?

MR KHUMALO: No, we used two vehicles.

MR PRINSLOO: With whom did you travel?

MR KHUMALO: I was in the company of my brother in whose vehicle we were travelling. It was P Khumalo as well as Sanda. That is in the vehicle in which we were travelling.

MR PRINSLOO: So it was you, your brother and Sanda Nlangamandla?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And when you departed from there, did you know where you were going and what the reason was behind the visit that you were going to pay?

MR KHUMALO: As I have explained, Sanda pointed out two things, first of which was that he wanted to go to church to Sineni, but then his kombi had already left. He requested that we wait for him until the funeral procession arrives. He wanted to go to Dumbe so that if possible it would be better that we accompany him, and after the funeral, at the office at Dumbe, then we'd take him to church as Sineni. We agreed because there was no problem.

MR PRINSLOO: So the entire purpose was for you to take Sanda to the church for the service for the funeral?

MR KHUMALO: What are you talking about now, I'm not talking about a funeral, I'm talking about a church service. Please get me well, I never said that I had an intention of taking Sanda, but upon arrival the problem that we encountered was that he requested us, indicating where he should go. I don't know what funeral you're talking about now.

MR PRINSLOO: Then would Sanda have gone to a church service on that day, on that Saturday?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, we first of all went to Mavuso's place and then we came and dropped him off at church.

MR PRINSLOO: So was the initial purpose to visit Mavuso's home or was it to go to church?

MR KHUMALO: My intention - please understand me well here mister, I ma saying my intention was to go to Sanda's, not Dumbe, not the church. My intention was to go to Sanda's place. Please get me well on this one.

MR PRINSLOO: Very well. And when you arrived at Sanda's, what did he tell you?

MR KHUMALO: Like what?

MR PRINSLOO: You arrived at his place, what did he tell you?

MR KHUMALO: Look, we had gone there to collect the money that we gave to one another weekly. We had come for the money.

JUDGE DE JAGER: No, we've had that, but after you arrived there did Sanda request you to accompany him somewhere or what happened after that? Where did you go from Sanda's place?

MR KHUMALO: After that, or upon arrival he indicated to us that his intention was to go to church, Shembe's church. He was wearing this white robe, the one that they use as uniform and carrying a grass mat and he was waiting for Mncwango to take him to the IFP office at Dumbe, and he said he has also missed the kombi that was going to church and he requested that we give him a lift to church.

MR PRINSLOO: So he had a dual purpose, first was to go to church, the other was to go to Dumbe?

MR KHUMALO: I don't know. At least that's what he said to us.

MR PRINSLOO: Which one came first, church or Dumbe?

MR KHUMALO: He told us about going to church.

MR PRINSLOO: Very well. So he had to be at church by a certain time. Did he say anything about waiting for anybody, that he had to go to Dumber, did he say anything about that?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, I did mention that fact. He pointed out two things and that was amongst that.

MR PRINSLOO: Very well. And while you were there with him, what took place? How did it happen that you went to Dumbe, please tell the Committee.

MR KHUMALO: I told you, he requested us to go with because we had gone there not with the intention of going to Dumbe, instead we had gone there to visit for that purpose but once we got there he requested us to go with.

MR PRINSLOO: When did he request you to accompany him to Dumbe and where was it that he asked you to do so?

MR KHUMALO: We were in his house. I said that, did I now? We were in his house.

MR PRINSLOO: Was you, your brother and Sanda Nlangamandla, only the three of you at his house?

MR KHUMALO: There were other people as well who were there, especially the car mechanics who were there, a group of mechanics or a couple of individuals who were car mechanics, although I wasn't used to them quite well. It was not necessarily the three or the four of us there.

MR PRINSLOO: And Mncwango and Buthelezi were not yet there at that stage, or were they?

MR KHUMALO: No, they were not there.

MR PRINSLOO: Did they arrive there at any stage or did you meet them somewhere, what happened? Can you tell the Committee.

MR KHUMALO: Yes, they did arrive there in the house.

MR PRINSLOO: And what happened when they arrived there?

MR KHUMALO: Then Sanda explained to them what he had already told us and subsequently we got into the car and took off. Already Sanda had told us about the funeral procession that will be on and wanted us to go with him to Paulpietersburg in some office.

ADV GCABASHE: I'm sorry, Mr Khumalo, can you just repeat your answer please. The question essentially was, when Mncwango and Buthelezi got there, what then happened? There's mention of a funeral again and I know it's going to cause confusion. Just repeat your answer please.

MR KHUMALO: Oh yes, Mncwango in a sense of Mr Mncwango, not Mcwabo. It's a surname.

ADV GCABASHE: Very well, thanks. Just repeat your answer, just for all of us to hear it clearly please.

MR KHUMALO: Mr Mncwango together with Buthelezi arrived and spoke with Sanda and they went on discussing and Rasta ...(indistinct) that we will be going to Dumbe. As I already earlier on indicated that Sanda had told us his programme for the day and we subsequently got into the car and took off.

MR PRINSLOO: Did it appear to you as if Sanda and Mncwango had an appointment or did not have an appointment?

MR KHUMALO: No, I had not heard that.

MR PRINSLOO: You were not aware that there was an appointment between Mncwango and Sanda?

MR KHUMALO: No, I had not heard anything to that effect. I have already said that.

MR PRINSLOO: Now when did you first hear about this letter, this letter story?

MR KHUMALO: I heard slightly when I was inquiring in the car from Sanda as to what was happening with this IFP in Dumbe because we don't operate or we don't work on Saturdays and Sanda said "There seems to be a letter that has arrived from IFP and received by Mncwango and Mncwango is aware of that and has made an appointment with some Mr Mbatha in the office and now that's the reason, or that's why we are going there". And there is some guy, Mavuso guy, who had been arrested and has written a letter to the office of IFP and now we are making follow-ups to that.

MR PRINSLOO: Were you under the impression that Mr Mncwango was in possession of this letter?

MR KHUMALO: Well even that, it didn't cross my mind or I didn't think about it, but these were things that had to do with the office and it was not my concern as such because those were things that had to do with the office or that were related to the office.

MR PRINSLOO: At Mr Mavuso's house, who did you see there?

MR KHUMALO: You mean at Mr Mavuso's senior's house?

MR PRINSLOO: It's probably his father's house, yes.

MR KHUMALO: He was the one we found and another youth, young man. Well one would say a fairly grown up man.

MR PRINSLOO: Was a discussion held with Mr Mavuso senior and the applicant, his son?

MR KHUMALO: We got there and introduced ourselves firstly, as to who were we and where we came from and the person who was doing that was Mr Mncwango, explaining to Mr Mavuso senior and further explained why we were there, the purpose of the visit. And the old man sent the boy, the little boy that I referred to earlier on, to call Nkosinathi because Nkosinathi was not at home then.

MR PRINSLOO: One moment please. Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Khumalo - will you please rise, Mr Mavuso. Do you see that man, do you know him?

MR KHUMALO: Well I don't know him quite well but then there's a resemblance between him and the applicant.

MR PRINSLOO: This is Mr Mavuso senior's son, the applicant's brother. This man that you saw there, was it him or was it a younger man or an older man, what do you say? The one that was sent.

MR KHUMALO: No, this is not the one, this is not the one. This one is fairly old.

MR PRINSLOO: Is this one older? You say this one is older?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, this one is older. That one was not necessarily old, but he was well-build but young. One could tell he was still young, he had just gone out of adolescence stage.

MR PRINSLOO: You have already heard what I have said, that the applicant and Mr Mavuso senior says that the applicant was at home initially and upon the arrival of the vehicles, Mr Mavuso senior arrived there, it was not a matter that he was called or that anybody was called. What do you say about that?

MR KHUMALO: Well the response we got from Mavuso senior did not suggest anything like that, he could have been maybe in another home or something but the very house that we got to, he was not there because what he said, the Mavuso senior that is, did not suggest anything like that.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Khumalo, did you personally speak to the applicant or his father?

MR KHUMALO: Whereabout?

MR PRINSLOO: At the home of the applicant and his father, during that visit there.

MR KHUMALO: Well I don't recall saying anything except when I greeted them upon arrival, but other than that or outside that there is nothing as such.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you at any stage see that anyone showed a letter to Mr Mavuso senior or any other document?

MR KHUMALO: Well no, I didn't see anything, but we were ...(indistinct) the discussion was centred around this letter.

MR PRINSLOO: So the discussion was about a letter but you did not see a document?

MR KHUMALO: Not unless my memory fails me at this stage, but I have no recollection bearing that much. No, not at all.

MR PRINSLOO: The applicant as well as Mr Mavuso senior says there was no discussion about any letter and no letter was ever shown to them or that anything else was shown to them. It was about his legal aid, the legal assistance of the applicant.

MR KHUMALO: Look, I wonder if you'll understand this one quite clear, that - you see, us as Zulus, if there would be any discussion about, or if the discussion doesn't concern you, one would not pay much attention over that. So that even if there was such a letter and it was not produced or was produced, it would not have been of much concern. That is a practise of us amaZulu as a culture, so that I was least bothered about every detail pertaining to the discussion around the letter. That was not of primary importance. That has a lot to do with our culture as amaZulu. When you are called upon to a discussion and it doesn't bother you that much or you are not that much concerned about, you don't bother about the details and nitty-gritty's of the discussion.

MR PRINSLOO: Can you recall what was asked of the applicant or of his father, by any of you present there?

MR KHUMALO: Well yes, slightly I could recall that Mncwango asked the question if he is the one who wrote the letter asking for R20 000, or requesting R20 000 from the Pongola office, or rather branch.

MR PRINSLOO: And what else?

MR KHUMALO: You see, the discussion was mainly based on that. As I already indicated to you that I did not pay much attention except to say that Mncwango, I observed Mncwango standing up and being fed-up so to speak and excusing himself, leaving us there.

JUDGE DE JAGER: What would you suggest, what made him fed-up, why did he leave?

MR KHUMALO: I think as a person who came from the official structures of the IFP as a Secretary, I think he solicited some information that would be divulged by the applicant at the time and qualifying why he would write such a letter. So that now that the applicant was failing him in a way, that annoyed him maybe. That is my opinion and that is the way I saw it.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MR PRINSLOO: There was also a discussion about what was thought about the matter of the applicant, how the case would be approached with a good defence. Can you recall that?

MR KHUMALO: Well no. Well that emanated or transpired from his side, that he wanted help to that effect and Mncwango asked the question as to who them he deemed fit to enlist such help to him. But as for the defence and attorneys, that transpired only from his side, not from our side.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Khumalo, you have heard the evidence of the applicant to which extent he implicates you, you were here all the time, is that correct?

MR KHUMALO: Being there all the time or exactly what do you mean or what does he mean, where?

MR PRINSLOO: That you were here while the applicant gave evidence and where he implicated you in this matter. Did you hear that? I would just like to hear whether you heard that, I would not like to repeat all of it now.

MR KHUMALO: Yes, I did hear that.

MR PRINSLOO: Can you forward any explanation as to why the applicant implicates you?

MR KHUMALO: This is why I said earlier on that this one has been bewitched by my name or with my name, in other words he's just a professional liar. And when you look at this and take a deep look at this, this is so sad, it's also painful to be implicated in such manner as a person who resided in Pongola all this time, the way things happened or transpired or went on.

I would therefore say, in other words he is putting me in loggerheads with the people I reside with or my neighbours and the community of Pongola at large, particularly the family of Mcetywa. I really don't know what he's up to. Whatever mission he wants to accomplish, I really wonder why he would employ such a mechanism, in using me.

JUDGE DE JAGER: There was no bad blood between you and the applicant, at no stage? You've not been enemies and that could not be the reason for him telling these lies about you?

MR KHUMALO: No, I've never at any stage been his enemy. I don't know, you must bear in mind that how would you be or can be an enemy of a person you don't know, how can that happen? Is that possible by the way? You've never had any altercation with the person and here you are being an enemy, how can that happen?

JUDGE DE JAGER: And you've only seen him that one day, or did you see him later again, before this started? I'm not talking about this hearing here. You only saw him once in your life, am I correct or not?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, I saw him at home that particular day.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And not thereafter again?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, thereafter I never saw him again.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Up to this hearing here in Pretoria?

MR KHUMALO: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Khumalo, he implicates five persons, the other one is Mr Nlangamandla that is deceased and the other four are still living, why does he bring the five of you together, and Mr Mtungwa of course, the two Mtungwas.

MR KHUMALO: Only him alone knows why he could do this and the reason thereof could be furnished by him.

MR PRINSLOO: You see, in the judgment of His Lordship Judge Myburgh, it was found on the probabilities that this was a political matter. While the applicant as a young man, a stranger in Pongola and there is no evidence that it was because of a robbery or because of revenge, he goes to murder the ANC leader in Pongola. Can you think - this puzzle that has been created by him, can you explain how this fits in and how you become involved in it?

MR KHUMALO: Well I don't understand you, Interpreter, you speak so fast. I don't know why you are so much in a hurry, Ms Interpreter, because people who should be in a hurry it's us because we come from far away and you come from here and you are based here. You are running so fast I can't understand. Ms Interpreter please don't move fast, then I will understand the question. Take you time lady, please don't rush.

CHAIRPERSON: Please take that advice.

INTERPRETER: Yes, thanks.

MR PRINSLOO: I shall go slower, Mr Chairman.

Mr Khumalo, his Lordship Justice Myburgh, found on the probabilities that this was a political matter, this murder. Did you hear that?

MR KHUMALO: I would not know whether it is a political thing or not, only law would decide on that but I am not in the position.

MR PRINSLOO: Furthermore Mr Khumalo, there is no other indication that this man had for example wanted to go, that this was out of revenge or that he wanted to rob him. Now I ask of you, how do you fit into this puzzle, which I put to you was a political matter and that the applicant accuses you along with the six others. Can you put forward any explanation?

MR KHUMALO: You mean his suggestion that he killed Mcetywa for political reasons? I don't understand what you want me to say.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, for political reasons and he implicates you as one of the persons who gave him the order, or one of the conspirators.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Perhaps you could assist us in this way. When you heard about this murder, a person staying near to you, what did you think yourself, why was this man murdered?

MR KHUMALO: I am saying again that I found it very much surprising, it was quite a shock to say the least, because everybody had this concern about the death of this person here, everybody wanted to know the reason why.

May I just add that I do not remember political issues being in the limelight, something that could result in the death of a person, not at the time, no. It was a surprise to many people. What conclusion people came to was that this could have been a criminal matter. It never occurred to me at least, that this was a political matter.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Could it have been related to the taxi boycott?

MR KHUMALO: I do not think so. I might be mistaken in my understanding of this whole thing but the taxi issues were not politically motivated, it was a communal thing.

JUDGE DE JAGER: No, it was a question of money, the trouble with the taxis.

MR KHUMALO: Yes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: They raised the price and people weren't prepared to pay it. But did he play any role in it at all?

MR KHUMALO: You mean myself?

JUDGE DE JAGER: No, the deceased.

MR KHUMALO: No, I do not recall him being involved in such discussions. No, he was not involved.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Khumalo, in the neighbouring town at Piet Retief previously Mr Msibi was attacked by members of the ANC, he has received amnesty, and the manager of his liquor store was killed and he was robbed and thereafter there were several incidents between ANC and IFP supporters in Piet Retief. Do you know of this?

MR KHUMALO: No, I do not even know the Msibi that you're referring to.

MR PRINSLOO: Very well. But were you aware that there were many differences between ANC and IFP in Piet Retief and that there were attacks? Unfortunately I do not have the documents before me, but I think the incident of Mr Msibi was in 1991, and thereafter several incidents took place, during 1992/1993.

MR KHUMALO: Whereabout, in Piet Retief?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, Piet Retief.

MR KHUMALO: Look, I reside at Pongola, not Piet Retief. I reside at Motchane.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Khumalo, do you realise that if you had walked in here today and given evidence here today and said that you were a co-conspirator and you did not apply for amnesty, that you possibly in future could be prosecuted, did you realise that?

MR KHUMALO: What reason would I have to submit an application for amnesty, what for?

MR PRINSLOO: No, what I am putting to you is that if you did not apply for amnesty ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: Is it fair to put a hypothetical question to a lay person, Mr Chairman. I know that perhaps his own counsel should have raised the point. But is it really a matter which the Committee wants debated by Mr Prinsloo?

JUDGE DE JAGER: Well that may be a reason for him denying that he was involved.

MR BIZOS: ...(inaudible - no microphone)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not activated.

MR BIZOS: ...(inaudible) based on a hypothetical, on a hypothesis which is denied. So it doesn't help us in the inquiry in any way. It's a probability that he can argue, that this is the reason. He can put to him that "The reason why you deny it is because you have not applied for amnesty", but not "What would you have done?"

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think that is possibly what Mr Prinsloo has in mind.

MR PRINSLOO: I'll overcome the problem by putting a direct question, Chairperson.

Mr Khumalo, I put it to you that the reason why you come here to deny everything is because you know if you are involved here then you would expose yourself to prosecution.

MR KHUMALO: No, if there's something I knew - look, the question of applying for amnesty is not a secret, it was publicised in the newspapers and in all other media and if I knew I had done something I would be driven by my conscience to submit an application for amnesty, but because I know nothing I therefore have no reason to submit such an application.

I would perhaps have arranged with some legal representatives or the organisation and divulged all the truth, or should I say the secrets, if there were any. So that you and your client should not make a mistake by thinking that this amnesty matter is your prime preserve. This is a national thing. If there was a need, yes I would do that. But then you think I'm at your mercy, I am not at your mercy and you did not legislate this law.

MR PRINSLOO: There is always the possibility that the amnesty application could be denied ...(intervention)

MR VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairman, I think this aspect has been answered by the witness, he has in any event denied any involvement and it is as Mr Bizos has said, hypothetical questions.

CHAIRPERSON: And it is probably grounds for argument, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: I would just like to make a correction, Mr Khumalo. I put it to you that the sangoma was a woman, but it is a man. But you have already denied it. I have no further questions, thank you, Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Prinsloo. Mr Bizos?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS: In a search for a motive who might have killed the deceased, two possibilities were put to you. Firstly, that it must have been politically motivated and it must have been you and your colleagues that visited the applicant at his home and the other, the taxi boycott.

You see, I merely want to put to you that this is not the only possibility upon which his Lordship, Mr Justice Myburgh found that it was a political crime, because he had evidence before him from page 257 to 286, in bundle 1, given by one Mdu John Msibi, that he who pleaded guilty to a hired assassination before his Lordship, Mr Justice Myburgh, was approached by Sgt Mkhwanazi and others to kill the deceased for a blood price.

Sgt Mkhwanazi was connected to the Security Police. You wouldn't know what facts his Lordship, Mr Justice Myburgh took in coming to the conclusion that it was a politically motivated murder, would you? I know that I'm using you as a sound board, but - you don't know about that?

MR KHUMALO: I never heard of that decision or conclusion.

MR BIZOS: Now the other thing is that the same Mr Msibi, who is now sitting at the back of the court, told his Lordship, Mr Justice Myburgh, that he couldn't do it and that the applicant was recommended for doing the job and he was told when he tried to renew the mandate to do the killing, that it wasn't necessary because it had been done by the applicant. So might that have been a reason for it, in answer to Mr Prinsloo's question how Mr Justice Myburgh came to conclude that it was a political killing? You don't know about that either I presume.

MR KHUMALO: No.

MR BIZOS: And do you know that the Attorney-General of the then Transvaal, actually charged Sgt Mkhwanazi and others, but not you and your other colleagues that are now accused by the applicant, with a charge of murder of the deceased in this case, but the case was not proceed with because the State was not capable of supplying particulars, either on time or for other reasons.

Now other witnesses who have given evidence, that have given evidence and have been accused, have said that the reason why the applicant implicates you and others is because he wanted his application for amnesty to succeed and it could not succeed unless he implicated people connected with the IFP. Do you want to make any comment in relation to that?

That the reason why other witnesses have said that the reason why you and others are implicated is because the applicant knew that unless he introduced people connected with the IFP in some way or another, he wouldn't get amnesty. Do you consider that as a possibility why you have been implicated?

MR KHUMALO: Yes.

MR BIZOS: And of course the fact that four people, four or five people had visited his house, might have been considered by the applicant as a useful hook to hang on his case in maintaining that he did it for a political objective on behalf of a political organisation.

Now I just want to ask you a few questions. In relation to the taxi boycott and the taxi business, there were more than one organisation in Pongola, is that correct?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, there were two associations, there Motchane and Pongola Taxi Associations or should I say there was Motchane and Pongola. Yes, I should say there were two such associations.

MR BIZOS: Yes, and we heard that there was no love lost between these two organisations, is that correct?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, there was a good relationship between the two associations, even though there was this war of words but it never went as far as a physical fight.

MR BIZOS: I see. You don't know how the other taxi association may have felt about the deceased.

MR KHUMALO: I would not speak on behalf of other members or individuals, but that came as a shock.

MR BIZOS: It may be not in your mind but in the minds of people associated with the Security Police and others, hated the ANC so much did they not, that they would blame the ANC for everything, whether it was responsible or not for a particular event. Would you agree?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, I would agree.

MR BIZOS: Yes. And the ANC had a history of organising boycotts.

MR KHUMALO: Let me rectify something here, Mr Bizos. As far as I am concerned pertaining to the taxi boycott at Motchane, that was not something political but it was something that touched on the nerve of the community, mixed as they were, ANC followers as well as IFP followers, all of whom were resident at Motchane. It was not necessarily ANC people who boycotted taxis.

MR BIZOS: I would agree with you fully, but what I am putting to you is - or I will put to you more clearly, is that security policemen and other virulent opponents of the ANC, believed that the people didn't have a will of their own, it was really the agitators in the ANC that were responsible for boycotts and other, marches and toyi-toying and other things that happened in the community. We all lived through that and you know it to be true.

MR KHUMALO: Which response are you looking for now?

MR BIZOS: Well I want you to confirm or deny what I am putting to you, that anything untoward that happened in the community, the Security Police and their friends and collaborators put the blame on the ANC.

MR KHUMALO: Yes, I would agree.

MR BIZOS: So whether the deceased had taken part in the boycott or had spoken about it, or what you believed or others may have believed, it may not have been the belief of these ardent enemies of the ANC and its leader, in Pongola or anywhere else. Not so?

MR KHUMALO: Do you want me to admit that the people that were involved in such similar acts were trafficking with the ANC?

MR BIZOS: No, no, you misunderstood the question. That the enemies of the ANC would have thought the Chairman of the ANC responsible for the boycott and anything else untoward that happened in the community.

MR KHUMALO: In other instances or in other places, yes, but not at Motchane where we reside. The political climate at Motchane among people at the time, was not as was the case in other places.

MR BIZOS: But Sgt Mkhwanazi didn't confine his activities to Pongola, did he?

MR KHUMALO: You mean divulging his activities at Pongola?

MR BIZOS: No, no, he was operating in the area between, well partly Mpumalanga and partly KwaZulu Natal.

MR KHUMALO: I would not dispute that because I don't know his workings, but I as a person resident at Motchane, Pongola, I never saw a situation that was divisive among the people, special reference to the taxi boycott. This was not led by the ANC folks. For example, I pointed out earlier on that if I were to be asked as to who was responsible for this, I would not be in the position to point out any one particular individual. So that there was no attitude towards dividing the two groups, this was a taxi matter that affected the entire Motchane community. And too, Mr Bizos, just to be of assistance, that as far as I am concerned did not last long. It did not take many days in that one particular week. And also, one problem that was experienced was in the morning. People who experienced problems were those who were on their way to work in the morning and those who were coming back from work in the evening. Some people were using buses, some were going to work on foot. That happened only for a short while and the problem was addressed.

MR BIZOS: I want to cut short my questioning in relation to the happenings at the applicant's home. Mr van der Walt, who is your legal representative here, put at page 202, to the applicant Mr Mavuso

"My clients (that means you and your brother) will testify that in pursuance of that letter, they and other members of the Inkatha Freedom Party spoke to you about this letter, on which occasion you could not indicate that you acted on behalf of or in pursuance of the objectives of the Inkatha Freedom Party."

Have I read it too fast for the interpreter? I'll repeat it if necessary.

INTERPRETER: That is acceptable, that is acceptable, Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: Then the other passage

"And lastly, Mr Mavuso, (on the same page) they will testify that on that particular occasion you were requested to say who gave instructions for the deceased to be killed and you said it was not one of them and nobody of the IFP."

Now did Mr van der Walt put that on your instructions and your brother's instructions?

MR KHUMALO: How should I respond to that, should I say he wrote everything according to my brother's instruction? You're saying these two people were conversing between the two of them.

MR BIZOS: Yes, I don't think you understand fully, perhaps I should just explain. You see it was - your counsel said to Mr Mavuso "The brothers Khumalo are saying that you did not act on behalf of the - that you did not say that you acted on behalf of the Inkatha Freedom Party at the meeting and you were also asked who gave instructions for the deceased to be killed and you said that it was none of them and nobody of the IFP". This is what your lawyer put to Mr Mavuso. Did you and your brother tell your lawyer that that is what happened at the meeting?

MR KHUMALO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos yes, I think we should perhaps let the interpreter - Mr Khumalo, are you conversant with English, do you read English?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, I read a little bit of English.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think Ms Mtanga can - have you got the record there, Ms Mtanga? Just put it in front of him, it's page 202.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Bizos, up to now it wasn't disputed by anybody that in fact he told his attorney this or that and that his attorney ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: ...(inaudible)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone.

MR BIZOS: ... this to the brother. I asked one of the other witnesses whether this was a correct summary of what happened and he agreed, but I omitted to put it to the first witness of the two brothers and I thought for the sake of completeness I would put it to the other brother once he is here, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that's perfectly in order. We just want to get it right so that Mr Khumalo is not confused. We'll just let him read. Just show him there, Ms Mtanga.

MS MTANGA: Chairperson, I think the witness would like the interpreters to interpret the text for him.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, let's do that.

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

MR BIZOS: Do you understand now what your lawyer said you and your brother were going to say?

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MR KHUMALO: Yes, I hear that.

MR BIZOS: And do you agree with what your lawyer said on your behalf?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, I do agree.

MR BIZOS: Thank you. I want to deal with one other point. In November 1993, before the election fever of 1994, were you at all active in the affairs of the IFP?

MR KHUMALO: No.

MR BIZOS: Did you not only not serve, but did you have any contact with any of the people exercising executive powers on behalf of the IFP, at Pongola or elsewhere?

MR KHUMALO: The Motchane executive, you mean any contact? You see this is a bit confusing to me because the Chairperson then was Mr Dlamini and we know each other very well, and if my memory serves me well I think it was Mr Dlamini. Now I don't know which connection or contact you're talking about or referring to.

MR BIZOS: You knew Mr Dlamini, did you know the Vice-Chairman, did you know the Treasurer, did you know the Secretary, did you know the Assistant-Secretary, did you know the Committee members?

MR KHUMALO: No, I did not know the structure of the Committee, I only knew Mr Dlamini as a person who was also looked at as the Mayor of Pongola in Motchane. Now he was a prominent figure in the area, not that I had any idea or any knowledge pertaining to the structures of his committees.

MR BIZOS: Would you have taken it upon yourself to take a decision on behalf of the IFP, to kill a resident of Pongola without consultation or the authority of the Pongola Committee of the IFP?

MR KHUMALO: I could not have done that. For what reasons?

MR BIZOS: Did you ever take any part in the formulation of the policy of the IFP, or the execution of any important act on its behalf in Pongola in 1993?

MR KHUMALO: No, not at any stage did I participate in such, committees or structures, except to say each time they would call for meetings, I would attend.

MR BIZOS: These were rallies and public meetings.

MR KHUMALO: Yes.

MR BIZOS: You were spoken to, you didn't make any decisions.

MR KHUMALO: Yes, I will not take any decisions.

MR BIZOS: No further questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BIZOS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Bizos. Yes, Mr van der Heyde.

MR VAN DER HEYDE: Mr Bizos seems to have done my work for me, I have no questions.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DER HEYDE

CHAIRPERSON: Alright.

MR BIZOS: ...(inaudible - no microphone)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, they might all owe you something, Mr Bizos.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Swanepoel.

MR SWANEPOEL: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, no questions for this witness.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR SWANEPOEL

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van der Walt.

MR VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Without giving Mr Bizos any undue credit, I don't have any questions.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DER WALT

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Botha.

MR BOTHA: No questions, Mr Chairman.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR BOTHA

CHAIRPERSON: Has it got nothing to do with Mr Bizos? Yes, Mr Padi?

MR PADI: I have no questions, Mr Chairman.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR PADI

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Ms Mtanga.

MS MTANGA: Chairperson, I have a few aspects that I would like to clarify with the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MS MTANGA: Thank you.

Mr Khumalo, you have testified that the reason that you went to Mr Nlangamandla's house on that particular day was that you and your brother Velaphi, went to collect some money. Am I correct, did you say that?

MR KHUMALO: Yes.

MR BIZOS: In whose car were you driving?

MR KHUMALO: In Velaphi's car.

MS MTANGA: At the time you were going to Mr Nlangamandla's house, were you under the understanding that you would collect the money and go there to Pongola?

MR KHUMALO: It was not even much money or a large amount, it was only R1 000 that we'd gone to fetch there.

MS MTANGA: Was it your understanding that both of you were going to collect the money and go back to Pongola?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, we were going to go back to Pongola.

MS MTANGA: Did Velaphi mention to you that there was a meeting to take place at Dumbe on that day?

MR KHUMALO: No.

MS MTANGA: Would you say in your understanding of what happened on that day, you wouldn't say that Velaphi knew about the coming meeting at Dumbe?

MR KHUMALO: Well I don't know whether he knew, but he did not say anything to that effect to me.

MS MTANGA: The reason that I'm asking you that is that when your brother Velaphi Khumalo testified ...(indistinct) he was asked under cross-examination in two instances, the first one by Adv Prinsloo, at page 290 of the record, page 290, the third-last paragraph, from the third line of that paragraph - Adv Prinsloo put this question to Mr Khumalo, that is your brother

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

Mr Khumalo responded as follows -

"No, I was not requested, I just did that out of my own interest and out of my own volition. I decided to accompany them."

Further on, page 308, third-last paragraph, responding to a similar question put to him by Adv Bizos, his response was as follows - that would be the second-last paragraph -

"As I already mentioned that he didn't ask me (when he said 'he", he was referring to Rasta Mncwango), 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."

What I want to point out to you, Mr Khumalo, is that it is clear from Velaphi Khumalo's evidence that when he decided to go to the meeting at Paulpietersburg, he had known about the meeting and he wanted to go, contrary to what you have said here today that he went to that meeting because Sanda Nlangamandla had asked you to give him a lift because he didn't have a vehicle to take him to Dumbe. What do you say to this?

MR KHUMALO: Well I would not say or utter any word on behalf of my brother or dispute what he had said, but the fact is if really I had no interested in this or I was not interested in going with them, I would have gotten left behind but I did not have any problem in going with them.

MS MTANGA: Would you perhaps agree that there is a conflict in your evidence, that is your evidence and that of Velaphi, as to what gave rise to you attending the meeting at Paulpietersburg? As you can see from his evidence, he differs from what you have said here today, he made no mention of a meeting at Sanda's house.

MR KHUMALO: Well I was saying the reason why we even had to go to Sanda, it was at my request that we should go to Sanda's house. But then if he already knew, I would not dispute that and I will not disagree with him there because he would have known that.

MS MTANGA: What I am actually putting to you, Mr Khumalo is that, would you agree with me that there is a conflict in your evidence and that of Velaphi Khumalo as to what gave rise to you attending the meeting at Paulpietersburg? Do you agree with me or don't you agree?

MR KHUMALO: You see I did not have any right to the car because he had one, but he decided because had the car and the car it was his, but it was up to me whether I'm joining him or not. And I did not have any problem in joining them, going to that meeting. But I will not say anything you know, because he would be an ideal person to say whatever.

MS MTANGA: Mr Khumalo, you don't seem to be answering my question.

MR VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairman, I'm sorry to intervene, but it appears to me from the passage read to the witness on page 308, that was after Mr Mncwango was already on the scene, he was already part of the discussions. I think the witness referred to the initial wanting to go to Sanda Nlangamandla. Maybe that can just be clarified.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well that is true. There seems to have been a discussion before Mr Mncwango and, is it Khumalo, whoever the second one is, arrived. So perhaps you want to clarify that, Ms Mtanga.

MR BIZOS: ...(inaudible - no microphone) ... an interruption. May I just add that after Mr Khumalo said at 290

"No, I was not requested, I just went out of my own interests and out of own volition I decided to accompany him."

But that is watered down because the next question is -

"Upon whose request was it decided to go to the accused or his people?"

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

So I don' know if reading the passage in context there is such a clear contradiction.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Although on the fact of it, I'm not blaming my learned friend for the Commission, on the face of it up to that point, the contradiction is apparent but I think that the next question and the answer given somewhat qualifies the categorical answer.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it seems to identify some request by - although, yes perhaps the name and the surname are mixed up, the first name doesn't belong to the surname there on page 291, but it seems as if there was some or other request from the top, apparent from the top of page 291. Ms Mtanga, we have noted all of these other issues that are raised, but you can proceed with the line that you have been on.

MS MTANGA: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Khumalo, do you want me to repeat my question to you?

MR KHUMALO: Please repeat your question.

MS MTANGA: I would like you to state whether you agree or you don't agree with what I'm saying. Based on the evidence that I read which was given by your brother and the evidence that you've given here today regarding how it came about that you attended the meeting at Paulpietersburg on that Saturday, your evidence is that you went to Paulpietersburg with your brother solely with the intention of collecting money and going back to Pongola, there was no mention of a meeting at Paulpietersburg, whereas the evidence of Velaphi Khumalo is that when he received the letter he had an interest as an IFP member and also as a member of the community of Pongola, to go and attend that meeting. In his evidence there is no mention that he went there because he was requested by Sanda, he makes it clear he went on his own volition. So do you agree with me that there is a conflict as to how it came about that you attended that meeting?

MR KHUMALO: Well yes, I do agree with you, but then I would disagree based on this. For us to go to Sanda to fetch the money, it was per my request, although maybe in his mind he had it that we'll go and come back quickly. But then as I said earlier on, as a person, as soon as I heard Sanda saying that I had no problem. I don't know how to put this.

MS MTANGA: No, I will accept that you do agree with me that there is a conflict to a certain extent.

No further questions, Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS MTANGA

JUDGE DE JAGER: When you met the applicant and his father at Dumbe, at their house there, did you ask him or did anybody ask him who instructed him to murder this man?

MR KHUMALO: Yes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And what did he say?

MR KHUMALO: He did not say or disclose who that person was.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But what was his answer?

MR KHUMALO: He kept quiet, simply kept quiet. If I remember well, he simply kept quiet. You see the question was being asked in various ways but at the end the father interjected and responded.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Was it put straight to him "Did anyone of us instruct you?"

MR KHUMALO: Yes, the question was directed to him as to who had instructed him and how was he an IFP member. You see there was this discussion, at the same time there were questions attached to this discussion and also breaks to allow him to respond.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Did he indicate that the IFP had anything to do with the murder, not he IFP's present there but some other person connected with the IFP?

MR KHUMALO: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Khumalo, thank you, you're excused.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mtanga, does that conclude the witnesses that you intended to call?

MS MTANGA: Yes, Chairperson, that concludes my evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, what remains for you?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I intend calling a witness. The witness is present but I see it's now five to four.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I'm not going to continue, I just want an idea as to how the rest of the proceedings look.

MR PRINSLOO: I'd also like to indicate, Mr Chairman, I indicated at the previous hearing that I would be submitting some documents. I was unsuccessful in getting those documents, I was told that all the documents had been destroyed by the police. It's no longer in existence. So I'm not relying on any documents as such, with regard to police records.

CHAIRPERSON: So there's one more witness that you intend to call.

MR PRINSLOO: I'll be calling one more witness, Mr Chairman. There is a likelihood that I might file an affidavit, it all depends what transpires tonight, Mr Chairman, with regard to another person whom I can't get here at this stage. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Would there be any other evidence forthcoming from any of the other parties. Mr Bizos, you don't intend to lead any evidence?

MR BIZOS: ...(inaudible - no microphone)

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

MR PADI: Mr Chair, I spoke to Mr Prinsloo and he indicated that he wouldn't be requiring the presence of Mr Mdu Msibi. So I request that he be excused.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Do you confirm that?

MR PRINSLOO: That's correct, Mr Chairman, I told Ms Mtanga, the Evidence Leader, as well as my learned friend that that is the position. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Then we would under those circumstances, excuse Mr Mdu Msibi also from further attendance.

Well then the indications are that we will conclude the evidence in this matter tomorrow. Have you had any strong views on addressing us?

MR BIZOS: ...(inaudible)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MR BIZOS: ... accommodate any one of our colleagues in relation to the submission of written Heads, we would be happy to respond. First of all what I would really like - well let's hear from Mr Prinsloo because I have alternative submissions to make, having regard to what he says, just for the applicant and his dominus litis.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, ideally we normally prefer just to hear the argument but because there was a break here I'm just raising it at this early stage.

MR PRINSLOO: Would the Committee prefer that I address the Committee tomorrow, Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: That would be ideal, Mr Prinsloo, unless we're going to do an injustice to you or your client.

MR PRINSLOO: I will be able to do that, Mr Chairman. I'll do the best I can.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that would be ideal.

MR BIZOS: ...(inaudible - no microphone)

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

MR BIZOS: ..(inaudible) whether I - how long Mr Prinsloo is likely to take because I have another appointment tomorrow afternoon and I don't know whether I can make it. I'd rather cancel it. And certainly we're not going to go on Thursday and try and postpone it to Thursday, unless we are going to finish by 3 o'clock or half past three tomorrow.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know if he's able to give that sort of indication at this stage. I don't know whether you shouldn't try to discuss it once we've adjourned now.

MR PRINSLOO: We'll do so, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright. Perhaps you can hear, Mr Bizos, use a bit of undue influence if it's necessary.

MR BIZOS: No, I never do - I would try and influence him but not unduly, Mr Chair.

MR VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairman sorry, may I just enquire, are my clients excused from further attendance of this?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, indeed. Who else, you've got the Khumalo brothers.

MR VAN DER WALT: The two Khumalo brothers.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it just the two of them?

MR VAN DER WALT: Indeed, Sir. I think Mr Mncwango has a similar request through his legal representative here.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no definitely. At this stage your clients have in any event been excused at the conclusion of their testimony, Mr Sam Khumalo as well. But just to make it quite clear, they are in fact excused from further attendance here, they've fulfilled the commitment.

MR VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And it goes for all of your clients.

We will then adjourn the proceedings. Mr Bizos, it just might have a bit of an influence on your situation. It just occurred to me now that we are going to have to start at nine thirty tomorrow, thirty minutes later than usual, so please factor it into whatever.

We will adjourn at this stage and we'll reconvene tomorrow morning at nine thirty.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS