CHAIRPERSON: We want to start the proceedings. For the record, it's the continuation of the amnesty application of N E Mavuso, AM7921/97. The Panel is constituted as previously indicated on the record and the appearance are also on the record. It is Wednesday the 19th of January 2000.
Mr Prinsloo, you said that you possibly have a further witness that you intend to call on behalf of the applicant.
MR PRINSLOO: Honourable Chairperson, the witness is present, he's the father of the applicant, as I've indicated that I wish to call as a witness.
CHAIRPERSON: What is his name?
MR PRINSLOO: Meshak Mavuso.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR PRINSLOO: I just want to obtain headphones for the witness.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it looks like we are on line. Mr Mavuso, good morning.
MESHAK MAVUSO: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you may be seated. Yes, Mr Prinsloo.
EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.
Mr Mavuso, you are the father of the applicant, is that correct?
MR MAVUSO: That is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Mavuso, is it correct that according to your identity document you were born on the 1st of January 1928, which would make you 72 years of age at this point?
MR MAVUSO: That is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Mavuso, are you currently employed or are you a pensioner?
MR MAVUSO: I'm a pensioner.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Mavuso, did you become aware that your son, the applicant, had been arrested in connection with the murder of Mr Mcetywa from Pongola?
MR MAVUSO: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: Now Mr Mavuso, after your son was arrested did anybody visit you at home in connection with the arrest of your son?
MR MAVUSO: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: And who was it that paid you a visit?
MR MAVUSO: Firstly, whilst we were still awaiting the trial at Pongola, Buthelezi as well as Velaphi Khumalo and Mthembu came to inform me that my son had been arrested. I enquired as to why and they said it was a political matter and there was a legal representative I was told, I shouldn't be worried. And I sat down.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Mavuso, this Khumalo that you referred to, what is his first name?
MR MAVUSO: Velaphi Khumalo.
MR PRINSLOO: Velaphi Khumalo. You referred to Khumalo, that is Velaphi Khumalo, you also mentioned Mthembu, what is the first name of this Mthembu person?
MR MAVUSO: I don't know his name, I only enquired about his surname. I thought it is enough that I've given you a surname.
MR PRINSLOO: And you also mentioned something about a Buthelezi, did I understand you correctly or did I refer you to Mthembu? The person that initially came to you and told you that your son, the applicant, had been arrested.
MR MAVUSO: Those are people from Pongola.
MR PRINSLOO: Was it only these two persons, Khumalo and Mthembu, or were there more than two who came to inform you?
MR MAVUSO: There were three of them.
MR PRINSLOO: And who was the third person?
MR MAVUSO: Buthelezi.
MR PRINSLOO: Do you know the first name of this Mr Buthelezi?
MR MAVUSO: No. He is the one who spoke here yesterday.
MR PRINSLOO: And after you had been notified and you were told not to worry and that a legal representative would be appointed, was there any further visit to your home or not? - in connection with the detention of your son or anything in connection with that.
MR MAVUSO: No, they took his clothes and they took it from my daughter-in-law and they gave this clothing to him at Pongola.
MR PRINSLOO: Now who are "they" that took the clothing from your daughter-in-law?
MR MAVUSO: It was Velaphi Khumalo, Buthelezi, as well as Mthembu.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Was it on the same occasion that you've told us about now, the first visit?
MR MAVUSO: May the question please be repeated.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Was it on the same occasion you've told us about now, when they came to advise you that he's got a legal representative and that he was arrested?
MR PRINSLOO: It would appear that the microphone went off, but his answer is yes.
INTERPRETER: The answer is yes, I'm told.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Mavuso, was there any other visit, were you taken to any place by any other person at any other stage while your son was still in detention in Pongola or anywhere else?
MR MAVUSO: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: Who came to fetch you and where did they take you and for what purpose?
ADV GCABASHE: Mr Prinsloo, we don't know if he was fetched on this occasion or if he had a visit on this occasion. You're assuming he was fetched, that's not what he has indicated yet. You're assuming he was fetched, we don't know if he was fetched or just visited at home, because you'd asked him a complexed question.
MR PRINSLOO: With respect, Mr Chairman, that's why I posed the question alternatively, whether he was fetched or not, I didn't say he was in fact fetched. So it's for him to respond to that, as to whether he was fetched or not.
ADV GCABASHE: No, but it just makes our lives a little easier if you let him tell the tale the way he'd like to tell the tale, rather than prompt him in any way. I'd like to think it would be easier for him as well, certainly in a chronological order tell you what happened on which occasion. Thank you.
MR PRINSLOO: Please continue Mr Mavuso, I'm not going to lead you.
MR MAVUSO: I was fetched from Paulpietersburg by Mr Sam Khumalo and we met at a filling station at Paulpietersburg. We went to the Vryheid Prison. We went there with an intention of seeing my son, Nkosinathi. Upon arrival we left our bags at the entrance and he left his firearm. We entered and we saw the boy. We then left, took our bags. That was after it had been verified that the person I was with was Khumalo.
And there is one police person whom he spoke to whilst inside, the person I'm told, was harassing my son and Khumalo started blaming these police until he showed some remorse. We then left for Ndundulu, passing Melmoth and that was on the other side of the hill. And we went to a Mthembu family. I was in the company of
Sam Khumalo.
What surprises me is that they denied knowledge of him. That really is a shock to me.
MR PRINSLOO: To whom did you go on the other side of Melmoth?
MR MAVUSO: It is quite a scare(sic) name I must say, but I'm going to pronounce it. The name is Msununekoko. That's where we went to. What surprises me is that upon arrival, or should I say when we came here I heard these people are denying knowledge of him. It hurts.
MR PRINSLOO: And what was the office, if any, of this person that you have just mentioned?
MR MAVUSO: He was a doctor.
MR PRINSLOO: And when you say a doctor, do you mean he was a witchdoctor or a medical doctor, or what sort of doctor?
MR MAVUSO: He was a herbalist.
MR PRINSLOO: Please tell the Committee what happened there at the herbalist.
MR MAVUSO: We managed to get hold of the herbs that we had come for, Khumalo paid for these. An amount of R500 was paid. MR PRINSLOO: Very well, continue.
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.
MR MAVUSO: Then the matter was taken to the judges and it was discussed.
MR PRINSLOO: Before you continue - Mr Mavuso, did you at any stage attend the trial of the applicant while he appeared in the Magistrates Court in Pongola?
MR MAVUSO: The case was postponed all of the time. It was only discussed at Piet Retief, at the Regional Court, but it was postponed all of the time at Pongola. We were also in the company of Khumalo, at Pongola some other time. And yes, we were in the company of Khumalo at some stage, at Pongola. And he went to this legal representative and he started accusing and blaming the legal representative for the fact that his son was not able to get a bail.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Prinsloo, could you clear it up please. Who blamed the legal representative because it's been interpreted
"He blamed the legal representative because his son couldn't get bail".
MR PRINSLOO: Did you hear the question which was put by the Honourable Judge? Who blamed him, who was the person that blamed the attorney.
MR MAVUSO: Sam Khumalo was blaming the legal representative.
MR PRINSLOO: Very well, and then what happened there eat the court in Pongola, this discussion between Khumalo and the attorney.
MR MAVUSO: And it was concluded that the legal representative should withdraw from representing the applicant and another legal representative was sought.
MR PRINSLOO: And then you testified that this case was transferred to the Circuit Court in Piet Retief, is that correct?
MR MAVUSO: That was when one person in a high position was fetched from Pretoria and taken to Piet Retief.
MR PRINSLOO: Would that be a legal representative, who would then represent your son in the Circuit Court in Piet Retief? Was this a person from Pretoria?
MR MAVUSO: That is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: And then what happened there? Or let me put it as such, while your son would appear in Court in Piet Retief, was he still under arrest or not?
MR MAVUSO: He was still arrested. No, he was out on bail. I'm very sorry, he was out on bail because this legal representative managed to secure a bail for him and he was released and only later he went to attend the court hearing.
MR PRINSLOO: And while your son was out on bail, did anything occur between your son, the applicant and any other person at your home or not? Can you tell the Honourable Committee please.
MR MAVUSO: Are you talking about one person or people?
MR PRINSLOO: Very well. Was any visit paid to your home by a person or various persons while your son was out on bail?
MR MAVUSO: They came after the matter was discussed in Court at Piet Retief. There were five of them. And the matter was postponed, or should I say it was referred to the judges. That's when they came. There were five of these men.
MR PRINSLOO: Can you recall who these five person were?
MR MAVUSO: It was Mncwango, Buthelezi, Sanda Nlangamandla, Sam Khumalo and Velaphi Khumalo.
MR PRINSLOO: Where were you when these persons arrived at your house?
MR MAVUSO: I had attended a meeting. My son remained behind at home with the children. I had attended a meeting and the meeting dispersed on my noticing that there were vehicles at my homestead. I came home and greeted them near the kraal and enquired as to why they did not enter. They said "No, we are comfortable here", and I joined them where they were sitting. Then there was a discussion.
The referral of the case to the judges was discussed and it was pointed out that the legal representative would have to be paid and finally it was concluded that this financial matter would be taken care of because the legal representative has already referred the matter to the judges. After that we parted on that note.
And something really also gave me a shock here to learn that somebody was very angry when that meeting took place. That is a blue lie, the parting was pleasant and an agreement had been entered into to the effect that some money would have to be raised to pay the legal representative.
MR PRINSLOO: Was there any discussion regarding a letter during that visit?
MR MAVUSO: Upon arrival they had already started discussing the matter but nothing was mentioned pertaining to a letter and the thrust of the discussion revolved around the money.
MR PRINSLOO: Was any letter shown by any of these five persons who arrived there?
MR MAVUSO: No, there was no letter.
MR PRINSLOO: Was your son questioned in any way whatsoever by any one of those five persons?
MR MAVUSO: There were no questions directed to the boy.
MR PRINSLOO: Very well. And these persons did they then depart from there?
MR MAVUSO: That is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: And did the trial then commence in Piet Retief at a later stage?
MR MAVUSO: No, the trial did not continue. He then went to look for a job and I later learnt that he had been arrested.
MR PRINSLOO: But before then, was your son eventually tried and convicted in the Circuit Court in Piet Retief?
MR MAVUSO: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: And was your son eventually imprisoned?
MR MAVUSO: At the time of the trial the legal representative referred the matter further because his argument was that he did not quite understand the whole thing and apparently the judges agreed with him and it was concluded that it should be referred further. After a year, that was whilst he was still at home, it transpired that this whole matter is not continuing because there was not enough money to pay for the legal representative. That is the reason why he went to look for a job and he then was arrested.
MR PRINSLOO: But your son was found guilty and sentenced and was then taken up in Barberton Correctional Services, after his appeal was rejected. Do you know of that?
MR MAVUSO: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: Did you visit your son at any stage at Barberton Correctional facility?
MR MAVUSO: I went there three times.
MR PRINSLOO: Did you go on your own, what is the position?
MR MAVUSO: I had learnt that he had been kept at Barberton Prison and then I decided to go and pay him a visit.
MR PRINSLOO: Did you go on your own?
MR MAVUSO: Yes. You see it is quite a distance and it is very costly from where I stay.
MR PRINSLOO: Please continue. Did you pay for it yourself, what is the position? - to go to Barberton.
MR MAVUSO: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: Very well. You are aware that your son has applied for amnesty before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
MR MAVUSO: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: And while this amnesty application was heard, did any person or persons visit you at your home with regard to your son and his amnesty application?
MR MAVUSO: No.
MR PRINSLOO: Did you - or did anyone come in contact with you with regard to this amnesty application of your son's?
MR MAVUSO: No, I only got to know about this amnesty application through him and I am also appealing to you for mercy because this person is still very young and he was not residing with me. He was working at Bison Boards and he was well taking care of his children until he met these people who misled him. My heart is very sore. And to the deceased or to the family of the deceased I am saying sorry.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Mavuso, maybe we do not understand each other. Did you at any stage go to a police office in Paulpietersburg while this application was on-going?
MR MAVUSO: There's one thing that I remember though I did not go there on my own, I was fetched. There's one vehicle that came to pick me up and I was informed that my son is here at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. And the people from Pongola are denying knowledge of him, I was told, but at the IFP offices I can say they came home to pay him a visit. I remember that at the police station, or with the police, a question was asked as to whether these people from Pongola came and I said "Yes, they came". And they wondered because these people denied knowledge of him.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Mavuso, you say a car came, was this to your house that the car came, came to fetch you?
MR MAVUSO: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: And who was the person or persons in the vehicle who came to fetch you?
MR MAVUSO: There is one white driver who's working at the shop, as well as Mr Thembinkosi Mbatha, an IFP member. He too is at the office. These are the people who came home to fetch me.
MR PRINSLOO: This Mr Thembinkosi Mbatha, to which office are you referring? From which office is he?
MR MAVUSO: The IFP office at Paulpietersburg.
MR PRINSLOO: And what is Mr Mbatha's official capacity at the office in Paulpietersburg?
MR MAVUSO: He is Secretary of the IFP.
MR PRINSLOO: And this white person, what was his position? How is he known to you?
MR MAVUSO: I heard that he too is an IFP member. He owns a shop.
MR PRINSLOO: Do you know his name?
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, is this relevant?
MR PRINSLOO: "Ek lei dit vir volledigheidshalwe, Agbare Voorsitter".
MR MAVUSO: No, I don't know his real name but we call him Umkhulu.
MR PRINSLOO: Did any one of these two persons tell you for what purpose you had to accompany them?
MR MAVUSO: They said they had heard that the organisation denies knowledge of him, that is the organisation from Pongola.
MR PRINSLOO: They denied knowledge with regard to what?
MR MAVUSO: His involvement with the Commission and when this Commission matter was raised they said they don't know this person.
MR PRINSLOO: When you refer to not knowing the person, do you refer to the applicant here?
MR MAVUSO: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: Did they say who these persons were who said they did not know the applicant?
MR MAVUSO: May the question please be repeated.
MR PRINSLOO: Will you please tell the Honourable Committee which persons said that they did not know the applicant.
MR MAVUSO: The very same people who had testified before this Commission, they are the ones who denied knowledge of him.
MR PRINSLOO: Where were you taken then by these two persons? This Umkhulu person as you call him and the Secretary as you referred to him, Mr Mbatha, where did they take you?
MR MAVUSO: They took me to a police and they said I should write down. I cannot write because I'm old now you see and this IFP Secretary wrote some things down. They said I should write because the distance here is quite long.
MR PRINSLOO: Did you then write?
MR MAVUSO: No, I cannot write, fast at least. You see we didn't get this kind of education, ours was different and so I write differently.
MR PRINSLOO: Did anyone else draw up a document there or not?
JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Prinsloo, I don't follow because the interpretation came through that the Secretary wrote down a statement and now you're repeating the same question sort of.
MR PRINSLOO: I didn't hear the same thing in Afrikaans. I didn't hear that, that is why I'm asking, but I'll accept that if you say so.
Then the Secretary, if you're saying the Secretary, do you refer to Mr Mbatha who wrote a statement, is that what you're saying?
MR MAVUSO: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: And for which purpose was this document or statement, for what purpose was it drawn up?
MR MAVUSO: I have no idea but they informed me that the statement was going to be forwarded to the TRC, a statement to the effect that those people who are denying knowledge of the young man are not telling the truth because they went as far as visiting him at his parents' home.
MR PRINSLOO: And this statement which was drawn up by Mr Mbatha, was this read to you?
MR MAVUSO: No, they did not. I was there as the statement was being written and they did not read it back to me.
MR PRINSLOO: Yourself, can you read?
MR MAVUSO: You see I read the old isiZulu, not the one that is used of late.
MR PRINSLOO: Do you know in which language that statement was written or do you not know?
MR MAVUSO: I would not know. You see when a person is writing I would not know whether it was English or isiZulu, because you see they did not read the statement
back to me.
MR PRINSLOO: Can you speak Afrikaans or English?
MR MAVUSO: No, not at all.
MR PRINSLOO: And during the drawing up of this statement, was there a policeman present or not?
MR MAVUSO: Yes, there was a police. Unfortunately I don't know the police's name.
MR PRINSLOO: Can you recall whether that statement, whether you signed that statement or any other document?
CELLPHONE RINGS CONTINUOUSLY
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, sorry, just wait. Won't you switch of those things please. Carry on.
MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Chairperson.
Can you recall whether you signed any statement or document there?
MR MAVUSO: No, as far as I can recall I think I did not sign anything. If I did I would not know. You see there was only one piece of paper that was used for writing the statement.
MR PRINSLOO: And after this document was drawn up, what happened to the document? You were now with Mr Mbatha and the policeman, what happened to the document?
MR MAVUSO: Mbatha took it to the IFP office. I think it had to be typed or something. That's all I know so far.
MR PRINSLOO: Did you at any stage afterwards see this document or hear of it?
MR MAVUSO: ...(no English interpretation)
MR PRINSLOO: And this Umkhulu who was along with this Mbatha, did you believe - when this document was drawn up ...(intervention)
MR MAVUSO: That was the last time I saw the statement, it was not even mentioned when I went to the office. I did not even enquire about its whereabouts because they are the ones who knew what was happening about it.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Mavuso, did you believe that when this document was drawn up that it would aid your son or not?
MR MAVUSO: You see I was picked up hastily. I had hoped that there was going to be assistance because you see I was informed that there were some people who were pressing him down by saying they don't know him.
MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Chairperson, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO
MR MALAN: Mr Bizos, any questions?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Mr Mavuso, when did you learn from your son for the first time that he had killed the deceased?
JUDGE DE JAGER: Perhaps you should repeat, I think it didn't come through.
MR MAVUSO: That was after he had been granted bail.
MR BIZOS: ...(inaudible)
INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not activated.
MR BIZOS: Did he say to you that he had killed the deceased? Did he say to you that he had killed the deceased?
MR MAVUSO: He said to me I have experienced a problem, I am now going to seek amnesty because my own people are not helping me in any way".
MR BIZOS: So the first time he told you that he had killed the deceased, was when he said to you that he's applying for amnesty because his own people were not helping him, is that what you're saying?
MR MAVUSO: Yes.
MR BIZOS: That must have been a long time after he was convicted.
MR MAVUSO: Yes.
MR BIZOS: And after he had been sent to prison by the judge.
MR MAVUSO: Yes.
MR BIZOS: And that was the very first time that your son admitted to you, after his conviction, that he intended applying for amnesty because his people did not help him, is that correct?
MR MAVUSO: Yes.
MR BIZOS: Therefore at the time that these five people came to your house, you did not know from your son that he had killed the deceased.
MR MAVUSO: Yes.
MR BIZOS: Now did you ask him whether he was guilty or not guilty as soon as you saw him, either in prison before his trial or after he came out on bail, when the new layer came in, did you ask him "Did you kill the deceased or not?"
MR MAVUSO: I did.
MR BIZOS: And what did he say to you?
MR MAVUSO: He said he didn't know.
MR BIZOS: Fine. So that at the time that these five gentlemen came to your home, you did not know - well you believed your son, that he was innocent, is that right?
MR MAVUSO: Yes.
MR BIZOS: And he certainly had not told you that any of the visitors had put him up to do the killing because he was denying to you that he did the killing.
MR MAVUSO: Yes.
MR BIZOS: Now when the five people were there, did not one or other of them want to know - well, is guilty or not guilty?
MR MAVUSO: I asked them and they said this is a political matter.
MR BIZOS: The question was, did one or other of the five ask whether your - what was your son saying, was he guilty or not guilty? Did one or other of them ask that question?
MR MAVUSO: They would not have asked me that question because they were residing at Pongola. Nobody asked that question. It would be very strange for them to ask me that question because the person died at Pongola from where they came.
MR BIZOS: No, the question was whether anyone asked either you or your son whether or not he was guilty.
MR MAVUSO: Nobody asked that question, nobody asked that question, Sir.
MR BIZOS: You see, what is strange is that at least four and possibly all five of the witnesses that gave evidence specifically said that questions to that effect were asked and your son's counsel did not challenge them on it.
MR PRINSLOO: If I recall I did challenge it, Mr Chairman.
MR BIZOS: The record will speak for itself. But be that as it may, ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry, just do that exercise again, Mr Prinsloo. Just help us and - ja, together please.
MR MAVUSO: I only arrived yesterday and upon arrival one person was testifying and if there any questions to be asked really, they had not come to ask questions because they knew.
MR BIZOS: How did you know that they knew? At the time of the visit how did you know what they knew, if you believed your son that he had nothing to do with the murder.
MR MAVUSO: First of all three men came here. I don't know whether it was after November or around December, and when I asked these three men they said "No, this matter is political".
MR BIZOS: No, just listen to my question please and try and answer, we will come to the political part of it that you're speaking about.
You said in answer to my question -
"Nobody asked that question because they knew"
Is that what you said?
MR MAVUSO: Yes.
MR BIZOS: What is it that they knew that made it unnecessary for them to ask the question that I put to you was in fact asked? What is it that they knew?
MR MAVUSO: They knew about the offence. The case had been discussed by the judge and a legal representative had been sought and this case was known all over the world and there was no reason for them to ask questions.
MR BIZOS: Yes, you see what you are doing is that you are really arguing your son's case, you are not giving evidence of your state of mind at the time of the meeting. At the time of the meeting you did not know that your son had killed the deceased, correct?
MR MAVUSO: Yes.
MR BIZOS: Yes. Why did you say that they did not ask the question because they knew? Why did you say that when you yourself didn't know that your son was guilty. that you in fact believed he was innocent?
MR MAVUSO: Let the truth be told. What reason would there be for a question to be asked when the matter was before court? The judge had already decided on the matter and the question ...(intervention)
MR BIZOS: But you see, I don't - have you finished, I don't want to interrupt you. The meeting took place, surely before the conviction, before the judge had dealt with the matter because whether a letter was written or whether a request was made, it was for funds to finance the trial that was still going to happen and that it would cost R20 000.
MR MAVUSO: That is not true, nobody raised any matter concerning R20 000, that is a mistake.
MR BIZOS: Did anybody raise the question of the persons who were there should raise money for the trial?
MR MAVUSO: Would you please repeat the question.
MR BIZOS: Had they come for the purposes of funds for the trial, before the judge had dealt with the matter?
MR MAVUSO: They were discussing expenses now that the legal representative has referred the matter further, and we were not discussing costs or expenses in Piet Retief, but expenses pertaining to the referral of the matter to Pretoria High Court.
MR BIZOS: Well I am going to put to you, Mr Mavuso, that what the witnesses have said happened at that meeting, is the truth. And that is that it was before the conviction and that they wanted to satisfy themselves as to why your son wanted help from them and that your son didn't answer and that you yourself put an end to the discussion.
MR MAVUSO: I was present, I was present, M'Lord. The reference to R20 000 is a mistake because I remember that the estimation of how much money each person would have to contribute had nothing to do with R20 000. This young man did not mention any R20 000. They only told me that they were going to address the matter, but it was not mentioned as to how much each individual should contribute. The R20 000 that I'm hearing here is a mistake, I was present.
MR BIZOS: Who paid for your son's bail?
MR MAVUSO: The IFP from both Piet Retief and Pongola came together. I cannot say much about that, I was only informed later that they had posted bail for my son.
MR BIZOS: And who paid for the trial, that is before the judge, who paid for that?
MR MAVUSO: The very same IFP people, but I cannot give you names, they youth know. I have no idea of the name of the person or persons are.
MR BIZOS: Well I presume that the attorney that received the money would know where it came from. It's no good saying the IFP, you know the IFP hasn't got legs and pockets to put money in, somebody must have turned up there and said here is the money for the bail and here is the money for the costs of the trial. Did you ever bother, did you or your son ever bother to find out who this good Samaritan was?
MR MAVUSO: No, I was not informed as an old man. You see, I'm very old, I'm useless.
MR BIZOS: Did you know Mr Mkhwanazi, the security policeman?
MR MAVUSO: I saw him at the trial on the day when he came to testify at Piet Retief.
MR BIZOS: Yes. Did you speak to him?
MR MAVUSO: No.
MR BIZOS: At the meeting that was held at your house, did anyone of the five that were there, did anyone one of them appear to be in agreement that there should not be discussion about innocence or guilt?
MR MAVUSO: I do not understand, would you please repeat?
MR BIZOS: Yes. Among the five, did anyone of the five say anything which indicated that he was not keen for the question of guilt or innocence to be discussed?
MR MAVUSO: All these people had just come to me to be of assistance and sympathise with me now that my son was arrested.
MR BIZOS: You see, according to the evidence of Mr Velaphi Khumalo, which was not challenged, Sanda Nlangamandla was the one who apparently agreed with you in your son's silence and that the matter should not be discussed. What do you say to that?
MR MAVUSO: You mean Sanda the deceased?
MR BIZOS: Yes, I was going to come to that, he was shot by someone and the matter is under investigation by the police. That's the man that I am referring to.
MR MAVUSO: ...(no English interpretation). All the people were in agreement that this matter will be taken care of.
MR BIZOS: No, that's not the question, the question was whether, when there was discussion about whether the matter of innocence or guilt should be discussed, Sanda appeared to be in agreement that it should not be discussed.
MR MAVUSO: I would not like to say that now that Sanda is deceased we should then say he agreed with me, no, all these people wanted to address the financial matter.
MR BIZOS: You see, according to an affidavit in bundle 2, page 75, according to that affidavit in paragraph 5, there is an affidavit by a Mr Mtjali, that your son who is known as Mafuta, is that correct?
MR MAVUSO: That is my nickname, I got it whilst at Piet Retief.
MR BIZOS: Oh and he inherited it. I can understand that, yes. But that he had close contact with Sgt Mkhwanazi, Mdu Msibi and Jabulani Msibi.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, with respect, this statement is in Afrikaans, I do not see any wording here of close contact, in paragraph 5, unless I have a different statement.
MR BIZOS: Well ...(inaudible) paragraph 6.
INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not activated.
MR BIZOS: We know that Mr Mtjali took the R3 000 and paid the bail, from another affidavit and if I remember correctly, your son admitted that it was Mr Mtjali - on page 172 to 173, who paid the bail. And according to another affidavit - we will refer specifically to it later on, but I just want to complete - we've lost sight of it for the time being, that it was Sanda who actually gave him the R3 000 to go and pay the bail because he, Sanda, did not want to be identified as the person who paid the bail. Do you know anything about that?
MR MAVUSO: No, I have already pointed out that I am not involved in the finances, those are matters of the youth. I'm not involved in those matters.
MR BIZOS: Now according to your version you deny all the evidence given by the five witnesses as to what happened. According to you, how did the meeting conclude if it didn't conclude the way they say it concluded? How do you say the meeting concluded?
MR MAVUSO: The meeting concluded by agreeing that the financial matter would have to be taken care of, the money would have to be raised. That is for the legal representative.
MR BIZOS: You say that they all agreed that the money would be gathered and you say that this was to take the matter further, on appeal to Pretoria or elsewhere and it was not at the time prior to the trial. Is that what you are saying?
MR MAVUSO: No, the matter had already been discussed at Piet Retief and it had now to be taken to Pretoria.
MR BIZOS: Yes. So this was to get money for the appeal, not for the trial, after your son had been convicted and sentenced.
MR MAVUSO: Yes.
MR BIZOS: Alright. Now was any money ever made available for that purpose?
MR PRINSLOO: Is that for the purpose of the trial, Mr Chairman, or for the appeal?
MR BIZOS: ...(inaudible) appeal.
MR MAVUSO: No, that is why he is here.
INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not activated. Thank you.
MR BIZOS: Well your son did not - it was not an appeal, it was an application for leave to appeal that was made only, which was never proceeded with and your son became a fugitive from justice, is that correct?
MR MAVUSO: No, he went to look for a job.
MR BIZOS: Didn't the police come to you from time to time and tell you that your son's application for leave to appeal had lapsed and that he had to surrender himself to serve his term of imprisonment? And were you not asked where he might be found?
MR MAVUSO: Yes, they did.
MR BIZOS: How many times did they come to you to try and get an address from you or a contact person through which they could get your son in order to serve his sentence that had been imposed by the judge?
MR MAVUSO: They came to me, Zu, a policeman from Dumbe, that is Paulpietersburg, and I told them that he had gone to Johannesburg and they went to the place where I directed them and that's where they got hold of him. Zu can bear me out on this one and another police from Dumbe can also testify to this effect.
MR BIZOS: Well I'm going to put to you that there are affidavits on record that they had a very hard time and a lengthy period in order to trace your son. Do you know anything about that?
MR MAVUSO: No.
MR BIZOS: When did you learn, after your son's conviction on your version, that the five visitors did not make good their promise to make funds available?
MR MAVUSO: It transpired after nothing happened.
MR BIZOS: Well for how long had nothing happened and when did you decide that these people were now not going to keep their bargain?
MR MAVUSO: I did not calculate the length of time but I kept hoping until he was fetched from work in Johannesburg.
MR BIZOS: When the policeman came to you, didn't he tell you that you son's application for leave to appeal had lapsed?
MR MAVUSO: He only mentioned this when he came looking for my son.
MR BIZOS: Did you take any steps to find out from any one of them why no money had been made available and why the application for leave to appeal had been allowed to lapse?
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, with respect, it's should first be ascertained whether he knew anything about the legal implications and that the appeal had lapsed or not. Was he of ...(inaudible)
INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not activated.
MR PRINSLOO: ...(inaudible) a layman.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think the thrust of the question is, when did the witness find out that his five people didn't stick to their undertaking.
MR PRINSLOO: With regard to the appeal, Mr Chairman?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, with regard to finance.
MR PRINSLOO: As to what happened to the appeal.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that's really what it's all about.
MR MAVUSO: I only realised this when they came looking for him and that is when he was arrested.
MR BIZOS: Well did you immediately go to one or other of them in Pongola, and say "Why did you bluff me, why did you tell me that you would collect money and you did nothing about it?"
MR MAVUSO: No, I did not ask them.
MR BIZOS: Had you gone - during the trial did you go to the office of the man that was doing your son's case?
MR MAVUSO: Do you mean the legal representative?
MR BIZOS: Yes.
MR MAVUSO: When he left court he called me on his way to his office and I went to him and he informed me that they are challenging him and he decides that the matter should be taken further, which is exactly what he did.
MR BIZOS: When you realised that they hadn't carried out their bargain, did you go to the attorney's office and find out whether he had been paid any money?
MR PRINSLOO: With respect Mr Chairman, can it be indicated to which attorney, where, and at what stage now.
MR BIZOS: ...(inaudible)
MR PRINSLOO: But the evidence was Mr Chairman, it's a man from Pretoria. That was the evidence.
INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not activated.
CHAIRPERSON: Let's see what he says.
MR MAVUSO: I don't even know the legal representative, only Inkatha people knew that legal representative, but I'm told he's here, or he's here in Pretoria.
MR BIZOS: A short while you said when the trial was over you went to his office.
JUDGE DE JAGER: He said on leaving the court, the representative called him.
MR BIZOS: ...(inaudible - no microphone)
JUDGE DE JAGER: I presume they spoke there.
MR MAVUSO: ...(no English interpretation)
MR BIZOS: ...(inaudible - no microphone)
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not active.
MR BIZOS: You say that at the meeting at your house someone or other said that this is a political matter, is that correct?
MR MAVUSO: That was on the day when three people first came. They asked as to why was he arrested.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, is it a new aspect that you're going to deal with now?
MR BIZOS: I just want to finish this off.
I'm going to put to you that you said that they said that this was a political matter, when I was specifically was asking you questions about the people that, the five people that were there.
MR PRINSLOO: With respect Mr Chairman, it was not with reference to the five people, his evidence-in-chief was "When the first people arrived, the three people and they had said it was a political matter". That was his evidence-in-chief.
MR BIZOS: ...(inaudible - no microphone) were there, but we can sort it out.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please. Yes, we'll adjourn for 15 minutes.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
MESHACK MAVUSO: (s.u.o.)
MR PRINSLOO: May I just interrupt for a moment please Mr Chairman, with your leave.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: During the adjournment I've ascertained this morning that a certain, an attorney by the name of Vic Joubert of the firm Wim Cornelius en Joubert, was responsible for the trial of the applicant at the time and Mr Joubert of that firm at that stage handled the matter and he'd instructed a Mr Smith from Pretoria, I don't know it he was from the Bar or where, but he was a counsel, and according to him the fees were paid to his firm, although he's now with a different firm of attorneys and he's speaking off the cuff, he'll have to get hold of the file in order to ascertain precisely who paid the money and who not. But as far as the appeal is concerned, according to his recollection there was then the legal aid requested for the purpose of the leave to appeal.
It appears from the record I've just been shown by my learned friend, Mr Swanepoel, that before judgment it appears at that stage that was the end of Mr Smith mandate and then from there on he appears to have appeared pro deo or from Legal Aid. I've conveyed this to Mr Bizos as well ...(indistinct). I'd just like to place that on record.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR BIZOS: We can accept that because there is an entry in the record that before judgment the funds had run out and counsel asked whether he could be appointed pro deo counsel. That's on the record.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR BIZOS: And it would appear that the application for leave to appeal was in fact dismissed and not lapsed.
CHAIRPERSON: Very well, we've noted all of that.
MR BIZOS: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR BIZOS: Mr Mavuso, I'm going to give you a piece of paper and a pen and I'd just like you to please take your time and just write your names down please. Take you time, just write your name the usual way you write it.
MR PRINSLOO: I think he asked in Zulu what he must write, Mr Chairman.
MR BIZOS: His names.
MR PRINSLOO: It wasn't translated, I didn't listen to the translation.
MR BIZOS: His names.
MR PRINSLOO: It's now written, Mr Chairman.
MR BIZOS: Thank you.
Do you sometimes write your name as Meshack?
MR MAVUSO: Yes.
MR BIZOS: Now this statement that was taken from you -you don't speak English do you?
MR MAVUSO: No.
MR BIZOS: Were the people that were talking to you about the statement, were they able to speak Zulu?
MR MAVUSO: They are amaZulu.
MR BIZOS: They are Zulu. Now you see, although you say that you didn't sign the statement that was taken, I'm going to show you a statement which appears to have been signed by Meshack Mavuso, and we are going to contend that the handwriting on exhibit - whatever it may be, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: I don't think we've got any, we've ...(intervention)
MR BIZOS: Perhaps we could add them along. Could we add the handwriting that we have as the next number and the document that I am now going to show the witness, as the number of that, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Very well.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, may I ascertain firstly to what statement we are going to refer to.
MR BIZOS: I'm going to give my learned friend a copy, Mr Chairman.
MR PRINSLOO: Secondly Mr Chairman, I'd like to know as to why wasn't a statement made available to me, why is this by means of ambush? Everyone knew yesterday that I was calling Mr Mavuso, if they were in possession of a statement, why was the statement not made available to the Committee and disclosed at an early stage?
MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, I have a complete answer to that. I was given that during the adjournment by one of the representatives of the people concerned. So perhaps - I don't know whether they were obliged to do it or not, but if there is to be an enquiry about it, I don't know that my cross-examination on it should be interrupted, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you say you've just been placed in possession of that yourself?
MR BIZOS: I have been placed, I'm cross-examining, I go it during the short adjournment.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well that seems to be the answer from Mr Bizos' side, Mr Prinsloo.
MR BIZOS: Yes, well perhaps we'll identify the person that gave it to me, if I ask him to hand copies all around, Mr Chairman.
MR PRINSLOO: May I be afforded an opportunity, Mr Chairman, to study that statement before it's being put to my client? As I say this is by surprise and ambush, that they are in possession of a statement and not making it available to the Committee.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I don't know, what purpose would that serve, Mr Prinsloo?
MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: What purpose would that serve?
MR PRINSLOO: At least I could read the contents.
CHAIRPERSON: You can't consult with your client.
MR PRINSLOO: I don't propose to consult, Mr Chairman.
MR BIZOS: Also, Mr Chairman, I submit that Mr Prinsloo is protesting too much, it was only yesterday that we all knew or we became aware that the witness was going to be called. So that I think that any - I don't like this emotive word "ambush", I think we can leave it to guerrilla warfare and not to the proceedings here. So we didn't know that this witness - even if - the persons who had it didn't know that the witness was going to be called, Mr Chairman.
MR PRINSLOO: That's incorrect, Mr Chairman, I specifically informed them yesterday that I was calling Mr Mavuso this morning and he was sitting here and I put some questions to the witnesses. That is not fair, I respectfully submit.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well let's see if this document can be identified. The witness hasn't seen it, he might say it's got nothing to do with him. Let's first get past that stage.
INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not active.
MR BIZOS: May I hand the ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Is that the hand-written ...?
MR BIZOS: The hand-written. Perhaps it should be - you should have a look at it, Mr Chairman. Or shall we make a copy of it, Mr Chairman?
CHAIRPERSON: I'm actually not quite sure where the numbering runs to at this stage, I've got up to 122.
MR BIZOS: We have added to it, my attorney tells me that we are up to 148 or thereabouts.
CHAIRPERSON: Is that right? I'm just looking at the one bundle.
MR BIZOS: Perhaps what we should do is we should ask my attorney and the Clerk of the Committee to get together and ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: And give us the proper numbering at some stage.
MR BIZOS: ... rather than expecting you to do it, Mr Chairman.
Do you see that document, Mr Mavuso?
MR MAVUSO: Yes.
MR BIZOS: Do you see your name written at the bottom of the first page and also written on the second page?
MR MAVUSO: Yes, I can see my name on the first page.
MR BIZOS: And the second page. And it looks the way in which you wrote your name on the piece of paper that I gave you. It's obviously the same. Isn't that so, Mr Mavuso?
MR MAVUSO: Yes.
MR BIZOS: Yes. Now you see I want to read this to you, which contradicts your evidence completely and corroborates what the five people have told the Committee.
"I Jolwana Meshack Mavuso, ID No 280101 7795 088, of Eerstefontein Trust, Paulpietersburg, state under oath that
1) Came five people, Mr Sam Khumalo, Mr Maveg Khumalo, Mr Sanda Nlangamandla, Mr Buthelezi and Mr Mncwango, at my homestead to discuss the issue of a letter which was written by my son, Immanuel, asking for financial assistance in his case. He was then asked by the men that who sent him to commit that crime, then he failed to disclose the identity of the person. The letter which discussed at the meeting was taken by the late Mr Sanda Nlangamandla for the next meeting. That is all I wish to say."
Is that what you said?
MR MAVUSO: No.
MR BIZOS: Well you know that if you say that you didn't say this, I'm going to suggest to you that you are saying that two persons who apparently are not connected with either of the parties, have actually produced a false document. Is that what you are saying?
MR PRINSLOO: I don't understand the question, Mr Chairman, with respect. Is Mr Bizos' question that the person who compiled this document or a person who produced it from the floor here?
MR BIZOS: I thought that I made it clear.
CHAIRPERSON: I thought the compiler.
MR PRINSLOO: So is it being suggested that two persons compiled this?
MR BIZOS: ...(inaudible) who compiled the document.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think that should be clear.
MR BIZOS: You are making that allegation? Are you saying that this document was deliberately made a false document and got you to sign it as a false document, is that what you are saying?
MR MAVUSO: I did not write here but the name at the bottom yes, I am the one who wrote there. I did not write the contents of the statement. The handwriting speaks for itself. I did not write here.
MR BIZOS: But what do you say you said to them?
MR MAVUSO: They told me that these people are denying knowledge of this one, but I am saying they came to my homestead and we had a discussion and concluded that some money would have to be raised to secure legal representation.
MR BIZOS: So you are saying that they completely misrepresented what you said to them.
MR MAVUSO: Yes.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Only for the record, Mr Bizos, I see this document was signed on the 8th of July, that was three days after the hearing started, so it was midstream through the hearing, the present hearing.
MR BIZOS: ...(inaudible)
JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes.
MR BIZOS: ...(inaudible)
INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not active.
MR BIZOS: ... an enquiry made by the legal representative of one of the parties concerned, as to whether a statement could be taken from this person ...(indistinct) the statement was forwarded.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes, I don't know why we should be so secretive about who requested the statement to be taken.
MR BIZOS: ...(inaudible) yourself please.
MR BOTHA: Mr Chairman, I did hand out the copies. I did on instructions ask for this statement to be obtained, it was forwarded to my office during the last proceedings. At that stage I had no indication from Mr Prinsloo or the Evidence Leader, that Mr Mavuso will be called as a witness. It was to my discretion to call Mr Mavuso or not. It was only yesterday that I ascertained that Mr Prinsloo will in fact be calling Mr Mavuso senior and the effect and the contents of his evidence was not divulged to me. In the circumstances ...(intervention)
JUDGE DE JAGER: Who approached - on your behalf, who approached the witness?
MR BOTHA: I can inform that on instructions from my client, Mr Thembi Mbatha, Thembinkosi Mbatha approached the witness, Mr Mavuso, and he was then taken to the police station where a statement was then taken from him.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, as he testified.
MR BOTHA: That's correct, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: I think we've got the circumstances, we're not concerned about that.
MR BOTHA: As the Commission pleases.
CHAIRPERSON: Carry on Mr Bizos.
MR BIZOS: I'm going to put to you, Mr Mavuso, that we can understand the difficult position that you are in, that your son is in prison and he's seeking amnesty and that you are heartsore as a father, but I'm going to put to you that in view of the evidence led and in view of the statement that has just been produced, that your evidence is incorrect and you gave it merely in a desperate hope of helping your son's case.
MR MAVUSO: Should I respond? Pertaining to the letter, those who testified here also did make mention of the fact that no letter was produced, there was no letter, and they did not have it in their possession and we were not discussing any letter. And this matter pertaining to the letter really is new to me. We discussed the finances for legal representation. And look, Sanda is no more and we therefore cannot make use of the name of a deceased person.
MR BIZOS: Have you finished, Mr Mavuso? Have you finished, Sir?
MR MAVUSO: Yes.
MR BIZOS: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BIZOS
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Bizos. Mr van der Heyde?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DER HEYDE: Mr Mavuso, I just want to make it clear with you again, what was the specific reason that Mr Thembinkosi Mbatha got hold of you and why did you go to the police station in Paulpietersburg?
MR MAVUSO: I was informed that the people from Pongola are denying knowledge of him, but the truth is that they did come to my homestead. There were five of them. They had come to discuss the matter for which he was arrested and they said we should try and address the financial question.
MR VAN DER HEYDE: Was this now - what financial question are you talking about, was it for him to be represented here at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission?
MR MAVUSO: I'm talking about the finances to cater for the legal representative that handled the bail application, but the people from Pongola denied knowledge of him, that is why Thembinkosi and this white person came home to fetch me.
MR VAN DER HEYDE: You see Mr Mavuso, I really do not understand this because the statement that you gave at Paulpietersburg, where Mr Thembinkosi Mbatha came to fetch you, was that not during last year, during 1999? Last year during the winter, was it not then?
MR MAVUSO: Yes.
MR VAN DER HEYDE: Was it last year?
MR MAVUSO: Yes.
MR VAN DER HEYDE: But then the whole court procedure, without being here at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, then everything was finished, your son was already in jail.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I think the witness and the questioner are at cross-purposes, I've been listening to him in Zulu, what I understand him to say is that - what he's conveying is as to what transpired then at that stage, for the reasons why those people came and that's what he was referring to then.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, they were talking about the finances to do with that stage.
MR PRINSLOO: It's not that he's talking about ... Yes, yes, there's a total confusion.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. What the witness is talking about is what apparently transpired in his discussion with these five people that came to his homestead, so he's talking about something that happened then at that stage, and at that stage there was still this question of appeal or whatever it might have been, and those five people discussed finances. So he's talking about that, not about the TRC proceedings.
MR VAN DER HEYDE: I was just unclear about that, I'm not going to ask any further questions. Thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DER HEYDE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van der Heyde. Mr Swanepoel?
MR SWANEPOEL: No questions for this witness, Mr Chairman.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR SWANEPOEL
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr van der Walt.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Mr Chairman, just one or two aspects.
Mr Mavuso, I'm appearing on behalf of the brothers, Sam and Velaphi Khumalo. You were present yesterday here when Mr Sam Khumalo gave evidence, is that correct?
MR MAVUSO: Yes.
MR VAN DER WALT: You heard when he denied taking you to Vryheid Police Station for purposes of visiting your son, is that correct?
MR PRINSLOO: The prison, not the police station Mr Chairman.
MR MAVUSO: Yes, I heard that, yes I heard that.
MR VAN DER WALT: You were not present when Mr Velaphi Khumalo testified, is that correct? - on the previous occasion.
MR MAVUSO: Yes, I was not present.
MR VAN DER WALT: I just want to put it to you that Mr Velaphi Khumalo's testimony was to the effect that he visited your homestead occasion with the other four people and not that there was a previous visit whilst your son was still in prison awaiting trial. Can you respond to that?
MR MAVUSO: I would say there is a mistake, he is the one who came first, whilst my son was still awaiting trial at Pongola. It was Buthelezi, Velaphi and Mthembu. There is one other very tall Mthembu at Pongola. And they took some clothing belonging to my son. That was the first time we heard why he was arrested and it was mentioned that he was arrested for political reasons. Whether he admits or whether he agrees or not, but God knows they are the ones who came first, long before he was sentenced even at Piet Retief.
MR VAN DER WALT: Mr Mavuso, is it correct that you only came to consult with Mr Prinsloo after the previous sitting of this Committee? You didn't consult with Mr Prinsloo before proceedings started in July 1999?
MR MAVUSO: No, I only met him for the first time yesterday, we don't know each other.
MR VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have nothing further.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DER WALT
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van der Walt. Mr Botha?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BOTHA: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Mr Mavuso, when you came to these proceedings yesterday you did in fact tell Mr Prinsloo everything you knew about this case, is that right?
MR MAVUSO: Yes.
MR BOTHA: Then you also told him about the fact that you were taken to the police station, is that correct?
MR MAVUSO: ...(no English interpretation)
MR BOTHA: Mr Prinsloo, that's correct.
MR MAVUSO: Yes.
MR BOTHA: Why did you tell him that?
MR MAVUSO: I told him so that this denial that they don't know him, that is the people at the IFP offices, they are actually telling a lie, they actually did come, these people from Pongola. They came to visit him at home.
MR BOTHA: So are you now referring to the meeting where the five people came to visit your son and you at your homestead?
MR MAVUSO: Yes.
MR BOTHA: And were you only asked by Mr Prinsloo what you knew about that meeting, that is the meeting at your homestead?
MR MAVUSO: Yes.
MR BOTHA: No other questions or no other matters, let me put it that way.
MR PRINSLOO: Isn't this privileged what I ask my client, Mr Chairman?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I was just thinking, is he your client or is he a witness?
MR PRINSLOO: Well a witness, Mr Chairman. That's debatable, but he can carry on, I'm not - there's no problem.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it was also crossing my mind that there might be a matter of privileged. I'm quite sure Mr Botha is sensitive to that, alive to that question.
MR BOTHA: Indeed, Mr Chairman, I don't want ...(indistinct) consultation, I just want to ascertain as to exactly why Mr Mavuso is here today, was called to testify.
Could you answer the question please. Has the question been translation to you again, Mr Mavuso?
MR MAVUSO: ...(no English interpretation)
MR BOTHA: Let me put the question to you again. Were you only asked by Mr Prinsloo about the meeting at your homestead when the five people came to visit you and the applicant?
MR MAVUSO: Yes.
MR BOTHA: How did it come that you told Mr Prinsloo about the fact that you were taken for a statement in 1999?
MR MAVUSO: I was supposed to tell him because I don't understand what they mean by saying they don't know the boy, whether they are using him as a lamb or sacrificial lamb or not, really I don't know.
MR BOTHA: But the statement - let me start in this way. When you went to the police station you made a statement, is that correct, in Zulu?
MR MAVUSO: Yes, but somebody else was doing the writing, Thembinkosi Mbatha was doing the writing.
MR BOTHA: And he was doing the writing while you were speaking, is that correct?
MR MAVUSO: He was the one who was writing, I only appended my signature. I only mentioned that yes, they did come to my homestead but I did not discuss anything pertaining to a letter.
MR BOTHA: Okay. But while you were giving your statement at the police station, Mr Mbatha was busy writing down, is that correct?
MR MAVUSO: No, I did not tell him anything about a letter.
MR BOTHA: I think you're misunderstanding my question. Whatever you aver that you did say that day in July 1999, whatever you said, according to you, my question is, while you were talking there at the police station a statement was busy being written by Mr Mbatha, is that correct?
MR MAVUSO: He asked me what was discussed and I told him we discussed the raising of funds for legal representation and we did not discuss anything about a letter because they did not bring any letter along and I requested that we leave this letter matter out of this.
MR BOTHA: You requested?
MR MAVUSO: We did not discuss anything pertaining to a letter, we only discussed finances.
MR BOTHA: Now just coming back to your answer just now, you requested that we leave out the aspect of the letter, that was your answer.
MR MAVUSO: Yes.
MR BOTHA: Why did you request Mr Mbatha to do that?
MR MAVUSO: No, I mean now here at this hearing I am requesting that we leave out this matter concerning the letter because we did not discuss it at home with the five gentlemen. I am appealing to you now that we leave this matter about the letter out of this.
MR BOTHA: Now just to come back to my initial question. While you gave your statement - or let me put it to you this way, after this statement was written down by Mr Mbatha, did you then sign it at the bottom of the page?
MR MAVUSO: Yes, they showed me where to append my signature.
MR BOTHA: And this statement was written down in your presence at the police station while you were telling what you knew, is that correct?
MR PRINSLOO: With respect, Mr Chairman, he's repeatedly said ...(intervention)
MR MAVUSO: Yes, I was present.
MR BOTHA: ... he doesn't know what they wrote, he's not conversant with English. It's apparent this document is in English. They wrote something down, now in all fairness how would he knew what they're writing? With respect, Mr Chairman. So if my learned friend wants to proceed with this statement then he must call his people to prove this statement. The witness denied it.
CHAIRPERSON: Ja, but that's a different question, Mr Prinsloo, Mr ...(intervention)
MR PRINSLOO: With respect, Mr Chairman, what I'm pointing out is the ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: No, just a minute, just a minute.
MR PRINSLOO: Certainly.
CHAIRPERSON: It might assist you to understand. What Mr Botha is talking about is the mechanics of what happened, Mr Mavuso was saying something and Mr Mbatha was writing something. Roughly contemporaneously, that's all he's trying to ascertain, not the content of what was written down or what was said. So he's really just talking about the mechanics at this stage. And your client has just answered, when you started speaking they translated, interpreted your witness's answer and he said "Yes". That was, the act of writing happened in his presence and I think that's where Mr Botha wants to take it from. It's not about the contents.
MR BOTHA: Thank you, Mr Chairman, it's indeed ...
So when you came to the police station you were not presented by a piece of paper which was already finished, written, etc., is that correct?
MR MAVUSO: No, that statement was taken or written in my presence.
MR BOTHA: I put it to you, Mr Mavuso, that the probabilities show towards the fact that the statement that was provided to you today was in fact the statement that was taken down on that day and it was also the exact words that you used on that specific day.
MR MAVUSO: I was present, but when the writing was taking place it was in a language that I did not understand. Yes, I did append my signature but there are certain things that I did not refer to and the things that were not mentioned on the day I met the five men. It is my appeal that that be looked into.
MR BOTHA: ...(indistinct) your testimony today is, as understandable, an attempt to help your son in his application.
MR MAVUSO: I do not understand what you mean when you say it is an attempt on my part. Will you please clarify this.
MR BOTHA: Let me put it to you this way, your denial of the contents of this letter or statement that was provided to you today, is an attempt to help your son in his application.
MR MAVUSO: No, I am saying what I know happened. Whether he gets amnesty, that will mean he will get it and this will not be the reason for him not to be granted amnesty. I have witnesses to the effect that we did not discuss any letter on that day and they did not even have such a letter in their possession. Look, this is not an attempt on my part to assist him in his amnesty application.
MR BOTHA: Furthermore, just to put the statements of Mr Buthelezi, he denied that he ever visited your home on an occasion to come an fetch clothing there for that purpose or that there was any statement made by him with regards to this being a political incident. He only admitted to it that he visited your house on the second, your second version, the fact that when the five people came to your house.
MR MAVUSO: You see this notion of denying everything is such that I for one did not even know that we will come this far. You see they are denying everything now that we are here because when they came they came to people, live people at my place, but now that we are here denying knowledge of everything because there's no-one who would stand up to testify.
MR BOTHA: And further in short, Mr Mncwango and Mr Buthelezi, their version of the meeting that took place differs from our version. In fact that at some time Mr Mncwango then excused himself from this meeting and went and stood aside.
MR MAVUSO: That is a mistake. There is no question that led to one leaving the meeting, we were discussing just one thing.
MR BOTHA: Furthermore, that you Mr Mavuso senior, at some stage decided, or told the people to leave this questioning and to leave your son alone.
MR MAVUSO: There is no single question that was directed at my son, all of them were in chorus about the fact that some finances would have to be raised.
MR BOTHA: The statement of yours was taken down, according to the paper that you signed, on the 8th of July '99, do you agree to that?
MR MAVUSO: Yes.
MR BOTHA: And when you finished writing, or when the statement was finished written down and you then signed it, you were then asked by a policeman to put the statement under oath, is that correct?
MR MAVUSO: Yes.
MR BOTHA: Now this policeman, was he present the whole time when this statement was being written down?
MR MAVUSO: You see, there were many police - I was seeing the police for the first time, you see there are many police there. I do not even know his name.
MR BOTHA: Did you see a policeman signing at the bottom of the second page?
MR MAVUSO: You see this has been typed. I was not present when this happened, I left the statement behind. I was not present when this typing thing was taking place.
MR BOTHA: Mr Mavuso, if you can look at page number 2, there, I think if Mr Prinsloo can point out to you
"Signature of deponent"
That is your signature, is that correct?
MR MAVUSO: I did not sign this one particular page, but I signed the page, the first page, not the one that is typed.
MR BOTHA: I put it to you, visually - and I don't want to call myself an expert, but visually it's the same person that signed there, it's similar. The two signatures are similar and I put it to you that you did in fact sign this second page as well.
MR MAVUSO: No. Yes, the name is the same but I did not see anything that was typed, I did not even sign such a typed document. But the name yes, it's the same. I only know the one that was hand-written but now that it is typed, no.
MR BOTHA: And then just to confirm, was there a policeman present with you, Mr Mbatha and possibly this white man, when the statement was being written down?
MR MAVUSO: Yes, there was police, a black police, the white man had left.
MR BOTHA: And then he was also the person who asked you to put the statement under oath, as you testified earlier, is that correct?
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, what is mean by saying "Put the statement under oath"? Surely my learned friend should explain to him, a layman, what the procedure was as to whether he took an oath. Just to put it under oath, that makes no sense. With respect, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I'm told that there is an appropriate term for that. I was also working on the assumption that the interpreter would be interpreting what Mr Botha is really saying. Mr Botha says that this statement was attested to in front of this Commissioner of Oaths, so the oath was administered to the witness. So I assume that is what is being conveyed to him. And my colleague who is conversant with the language, confirms that.
MR PRINSLOO: I was listening to the English. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Did anybody ask you to say it's the truth, say so help me God?
MR MAVUSO: No, I did not say "help me God".
JUDGE DE JAGER: What did you say?
MR MAVUSO: They said this document should be written here at the police, it would be taken to the office. They did not say I should raise my hand.
MR BOTHA: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Thank you, I have no further questions for this witness.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BOTHA
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, I just want to draw attention that my memory is that when I asked him, that I showed both signatures on both pages and he agreed that they were his.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that is quite correct. The record should be quite clear on that. Ms Mtanga?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MTANGA: Just one question, Chairperson, thank you.
Mr Mavuso, do you know a person by the name of Mdu Msibi?
MR MAVUSO: I saw him for the first time in prison, not at home.
MS MTANGA: Thank you, Mr Mavuso. No further questions, Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS MTANGA
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Mtanga. Has the Panel got any questions? Yes, just before you carry on, Mr Prinsloo.
You said, Mr Mavuso, that in your view your son was misled into getting involved in this incident, what do you mean by that?
MR MAVUSO: It is because he was still young when he left home and he used to be disciplined and respectful, but once he was away he found himself in this mess and I concluded that he is now corrupted.
CHAIRPERSON: From your understanding, was he ever involved in politics?
MR MAVUSO: He had become friends with many people who were calling themselves IFP.
CHAIRPERSON: So he was friends with these people, but did he show any interest in politics himself?
MR MAVUSO: No, he was working at Piet Retief and I remained back home. The people who know him are the ones with whom he stayed.
CHAIRPERSON: So you're not sure what he got up to in Piet Retief, but he left home as a young disciplined person who would not ordinarily in your view, have allowed himself to get into this kind of incident. Would that be a fair summary of your evidence?
MR MAVUSO: That is indeed so because he was employed, he was not in need of anything. He had a good steady job.
CHAIRPERSON: Has he, to your knowledge, had knowledge about firearms and the use of firearms?
MR MAVUSO: I would not know because even if he had a firearm he would not show it to me because he knows that we do not use such things in my homestead, except for people in government services.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you know that he was employed as a security guard at Bison Board in Piet Retief?
MR MAVUSO: Yes.
MR BOTHA: And did you know that he had something to do with firearms in his job, or were you not aware of anything like that?
MR MAVUSO: I think I heard that they were not using firearms, because I think I did ask him about the uniform and the firearms and he said no, they were not given firearms.
CHAIRPERSON: Just one other thing that I'm trying to understand, when you spoke with Thembinkosi Mbatha at the police station you only referred to the visit by the five persons, if I understand this correctly, why is there no reference to the other visits to your home that you actually told us about in your evidence.
MR MAVUSO: The first group did not go via the office but the five people went via the IFP office in the area.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you think it was not important to refer to the fact that there were two other visits apart from this one, that were paid to your homestead in connection with the matter of your son, of the applicant? Because I had thought that your purpose was to indicate that there people know your son, contrary of what they are trying to say, that they don't know him.
MR MAVUSO: I had no knowledge, or should I say I did not believe that all of them would deny knowing him. This only dawned on me yesterday when they testified that they don't know him. But then I then had to mention the fact that they came to visit me on several occasions.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I'm trying to understand why you didn't say that in that statement to Mbatha. Did you decide against mentioning those other two visits, did you think it wasn't important? Or did you just forget about it, what is the position?
MR MAVUSO: We discussed it but we had many names and we, or should I say we had many things to say but we decided to stick to one thing.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes, perhaps Mr Prinsloo will clear that up. I had thought that you might just have a crisp answer. Mr Prinsloo, have you got any ...(intervention)
JUDGE DE JAGER: Could I perhaps?
This statement when it was taken, did somebody ask you a question and did you respond to that or did you go and say "Listen I want to make a statement, this is what I want to say"?
MR MAVUSO: I was fetched from home by Thembinkosi Mbatha and some white guy who owned a shop in the area.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Ja. And after arriving at the police station, did somebody ask you questions or what happened exactly? Did you out of your own tender that information?
MR MAVUSO: I was told what the group that came home was saying and I told them that the group came home to discuss the raising of funds for a legal representation.
JUDGE DE JAGER: You didn't go to the police out of your own accord to make a statement, you were requested and fetched to make a statement, is that correct?
MR MAVUSO: Yes.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Did Mbatha tell you about what you should make a statement?
MR MAVUSO: He told me to make a statement about my son because the group from Pongola are denying knowledge of my son, but they went through them to say they were going to Mavuso's homestead.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Right, could you kindly help me with this, this statement was taken four years after, almost four years after the murder, could you at that stage remember exactly the names of the five people who visited you?
MR MAVUSO: The names, or should I say the matter to be discussed pertained to raising funds for legal representation and that was the matter to be discussed and nothing else.
JUDGE DE JAGER: No, but now I would come to you and say "Who visited you, what is the names of these five people?" Would you have been able to tell me their names?
MR MAVUSO: I know some of these people by surname, like Buthelezi, Mncwango, Sanda Nlangamandla, Sam Khumalo as well as Velaphi Khumalo.
JUDGE DE JAGER: So you remembered their names?
MR MAVUSO: I remember some of them yes, I think about three of them and the others I know them by their surnames.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Prinsloo.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I'd like the Committee to ascertain from Mr Botha, ...(indistinct)
INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not activated.
MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon. ... Is it admitted, Mr Chairman, that Mr Mbatha recorded the first page, the statement, if I may put it that way.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)
MR PRINSLOO: I understood Mr Botha to say that Mr Mbatha is the man who wrote out the statement, page 1, is that correct?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think that's common cause. I think your client also says the same thing.
MR BOTHA: Excuse me, Mr Chairman, if I may just come in here. At this stage it's common cause that a person took down the statement, it's not to my knowledge exactly who the person is. Mr Mavuso senior told this Commission now today it was Mr Mbatha. To my knowledge it's not, I don't know if it was Mr Mbatha, I cannot admit it at this stage.
CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry, I'm under a misapprehension. I heard you saying that Mbatha took him there, Mbatha was the one who was responsible for taking him.
MR BOTHA: Yes, but that's not the question by Mr Prinsloo.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no, no, I misunderstood that. Sorry, Mr Prinsloo, I said it was common cause, it doesn't seem to be.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, is the original statement available?
MR BOTHA: Mr Chairman, in answer to that I've got a faxed, the original faxed copy, that's in my possession, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Does that help you, Mr Prinsloo?
MR PRINSLOO: So there's no original available it seems, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I would like to study this ...(intervention)
INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not active.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it's almost 1 o'clock, so we'll take the adjournment a bit earlier to allow you to look at that. It is so that you have only seen it in the course of this cross-examination. We'll take the luncheon adjournment and we'll reconvene at 2 o'clock.
MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
MESHACK MAVUSO: (s.u.o.)
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we have come thusfar without too much problems and I don't want to see that we have misunderstandings at this late stage, but unless there's some real good reason why we can't start promptly you know, we're going to have a difficulty. So please. Mr Prinsloo, what is your position?
MR PRINSLOO: I'm going to re-examine up to a certain stage and I'll then inform the Committee as to my position, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Very well, carry on.
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you.
Mr Mavuso, you have in front of you the first page of this statement. The signature at the bottom of the page, who asked you to sign this first page, can you recall?
MR MAVUSO: It was Mbatha.
MR PRINSLOO: Now Mr Mavuso, in this statement you've already denied that there was no discussion with regard to a letter, is that correct?
MR MAVUSO: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: Now in the second paragraph of this statement it is stated
"He was then asked by the men that who sent him to commit that crime, then he failed to disclose the identity of a person."
Was that ever raised at that meeting?
MR MAVUSO: No.
MR PRINSLOO: Did you ever say this, what is stated here in paragraph 2?
MR MAVUSO: No, such a question was never asked.
MR PRINSLOO: And in paragraph 3 there's again a reference to a letter which you've already disputed any knowledge of.
"The letter which was discussed at the meeting was taken by the late Mr Sanda Nlangamandla for the next meeting"
Do you know what is meant by "a next meeting", or what they mean by this?
MR MAVUSO: The issue of a letter was not discussed and there was no letter at the meeting.
MR PRINSLOO: Was there any discussion about a later meeting at all, which they seem to refer to in this statement?
MR MAVUSO: Where was the subsequent meeting, except for the meeting at my place?
MR PRINSLOO: So you know about no subsequent meeting?
MR MAVUSO: No, there's no other meeting.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, in view of the fact that the witness is disputing this statement and furthermore this is a faxed copy and a photostat of a faxed copy, I've had a look during the adjournment at the signature on page 2, which initially the witness said was his and then at a later stage he said it wasn't his signature. Speaking for myself, Mr Chairman, I personally cannot say by looking at a photocopy that this is indeed a facsimile of that or a similar handwriting. I would like to see the original of this document and I reserve any re-examination with regard to the original of this document.
As I've already informed the Committee as well, Mr Chairman, I was not in possession of this statement when I consulted with the witness, the Committee is aware of, and I was at a complete disadvantage. And my re-examination on this is based on straight re-examination without consultation. So I'd like Mr Botha to produce the original and if need be, I'll submit it to a handwriting expert, if necessary, once I've obtained the original I'll then seek the permission from the Committee, in order to show the original to the witness and then from there proceed with that. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Botha, what is the position with the original.
MR BOTHA: As the Commission pleases. Mr Chairman, the original to my knowledge, will be in the possession of I think, Mr Thembinkosi Mbatha. I've not yet been able to reach him during the break now, I'll endeavour to do so today to see if he is available and if he still does have this original statement in his possession. Even if he does not have the original statement, Mr Chairman, he would be able to testify in regards to this statement as such.
JUDGE DE JAGER: I would not imagine he would come and say he cooked this up, he would say - what could he say about the statement if he would testify? That it's not true? So I think that would be a waste of time. I can't imagine him or the policeman coming her and telling us "No, we didn't sign here, we weren't present, this is not a correct statement", because then they themselves would have committed a fraud.
MR BOTHA: Mr Chairman, that is speculation but I agree to your viewpoint that it would be highly improbable that they will have another view besides that ...(intervention)
JUDGE DE JAGER: We're not giving amnesty for that kind of offences, if they were to admit to it.
MR BOTHA: That is correct. The situation is that the statement was provided to me, I do not have the original in my possession. Seen in the light of the denial of Mr Mavuso, I would feel it preferable if they come and testify if I do get the chance to call them as witnesses. I've got no problem with the statement as provided to me. None of the Members of the Commission or any of the parties who present when the statement was taken down, except Mr Mavuso. The probabilities can be argued, Mr Chairman, but the situation is that at the end of the day the direct evidence in regard to the circumstances, how and as to why the statement was taken, could only be provided by Mr Mbatha and then the policeman which, if I am correct, is a certain Sgt Duma, if I'm not mistaken, who signed down on the page number 2.
CHAIRPERSON: At this stage just practically, the question is the original. So perhaps you should endeavour to ascertain how available, where the original is and how available it is, so that we can give an answer to Mr Prinsloo, so as to enable him to complete his re-examination of this particular witness. And the question of further witnesses and so on should probably be thought about once that is done, once Mr Prinsloo has concluded whatever he wants to do.
So perhaps at this stage, would you be able to if we were to stand, get some indication as to first of all, the whereabouts of the original, the possibility of getting it to this venue, the availability of Mr Mbatha and the policeman, in the event that they might have to come and testify? So if we just get an idea before we adjourn the proceedings.
MR BOTHA: I will endeavour to do that, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Right. We'll stand down briefly and then you can perhaps just report back to us and then we can take it from there. Right, we'll stand down.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
MESHACK MAVUSO: (s.u.o.)
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Botha has indicated that he has endeavoured to ascertain he whereabouts of the original of the statement in question, the document in question. He has been unable to get a clear indication at this stage about that, mainly because he has been unable to make contact with either Mr Mbatha or the police officer who has played a role in regard to the document.
We would like to get a clear answer on the issue of the original of this document, in order to see to what extent Mr Prinsloo's request can be complied with and until we have reached that point there is no sense in proceeding. We also don't intend to keep everybody in limbo whilst Mr Botha is engaged in all those endeavours.
And under those circumstances we are going to let the matter stand down until tomorrow morning. Hopefully by that time we would have clarified this particular question that I've raised and we will then deal with the matter, in view of what we had learnt at that stage.
So we will now adjourn the proceedings, reconvene here tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock. We're adjourned.
MR BOTHA: Mr Chairman, sorry for the interruption, just one indication, if I get hold of Mr Mbatha in regards to expenses for him to come to Pretoria, can I get an indication from the Committee who will bear that? I am on the instructions from the TRC itself, so I cannot offer that from myself, I haven't got instructions in that regard.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Won't you sort out the nitty-gritty, the detail with Ms Mtanga. If it is indeed necessary to incur expenses, if that is reasonably necessary, then I don't foresee any difficulty in the Commission carrying those.
MR BOTHA: I'll do that.
MR BIZOS: ...(inaudible) if they have to come from Paulpietersburg.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it is true, I haven't considered that.
MR BIZOS: Nine thirty may I suggest?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, perhaps that is slightly more realistic. So we'll reconvene at nine thirty and see what the position is. We're adjourned.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
