ON RESUMPTION
MR NDOU: I now call upon number 2726, Abel Mulady. His application appears from page 1, sir.
CHAIRPERSON: Page?
MR NDOU: 1 to 20.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mulady, what language would you like to use?
MR MULADY: I will use Venda.
ABEL MULADY: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: Please proceed.
EXAMINATION BY MR NDOU: Thank you Honourable Chairman. Mr Mulady, you brought an application for amnesty in respect of charges of murder, arson and public violence, in respect of whose murder was it?
MR MULADY: It is in connection with the deceased and what happened in the kraal of the deceased.
MR NDOU: And the arson charge, in respect of which incident? Was it the incident on the 28th or around the 6th of April?
MR MULADY: It is in connection with the 6th of April. Maybe I can also add that it is linked with the 28th of February.
MR NDOU: But for which incident were you convicted?
MR MULADY: I was convicted - in the part of the 28th of February, it was public violence and on the second part, on the 6th of April, I was convicted with murder and arson on the body of the deceased.
MR NDOU: Now, we have heard evidence that a Youth Congress was formed at Mahvunga, were you also part of this Youth Congress?
MR MULADY: In short, I can say that I don't know whether people were taking me as a member, but I was just a person who most of the time, I was there where the Mahvunga Youth Congress was. But that I was a member, I don't know.
MR NDOU: So you were not an office bearer?
MR MULADY: It could have happened, maybe in a particular meeting and then I tried to air my views and tried to give, to make things to be in order, but when people see you that can say that this person is a member, whereas one was not aware that one is a member.
CHAIRPERSON: Were you not an Executive of the Youth Congress?
MR MULADY: Let me say it this way, I was not a member of the Executive Committee of the Mahvunga Youth, but I used to attend all the meetings of the Youth Congress, most of them, I attended them.
MR NDOU: Now could you explain to the Committee ...
CHAIRPERSON: Is there another Abel Mulady? Mr Ndou, wasn't one of the previous witness' evidence that Abel Mulady was a ...
MR NDOU: It was indeed so, that is what he said.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, he was one of the co-applicants?
MR NDOU: That is so.
CHAIRPERSON: He was the only co-applicant?
MR NDOU: That is so.
CHAIRPERSON: That was a member of the Executive?
MR NDOU: That is what he indicated.
CHAIRPERSON: You say that is not true?
MR MULADY: I can repeat and say that personally on my own, I don't remember that I was a member of a Youth Congress of Mahvunga Youth Congress.
CHAIRPERSON: You must remember that, whether it was or was not the case.
ADV SIGODI: Sorry, can we get some clarity here, maybe I took my notes, or I did not understand properly, but with the previous witness in my notes, he said the leader was Ntsundene Mulady, or did I get the name wrong? He did not mention, I actually looked and I see this one is Abel so I thought it was another Mulady.
MR NDOU: Yes, he said Ntsundene.
ADV SIGODI: Yes, Ntsundene Mulady, so can we get some clarity as to whether this Mulady is the same one as the applicant here.
MR NDOU: Do you know somebody by the name of Ntsundene Mulady?
MR MULADY: Yes, I know him.
MR NDOU: Is he also a resident of Mahvunga?
MR MULADY: Yes, he is residing at Mahvunga.
CHAIRPERSON: Is he also a co-applicant?
MR NDOU: Is he also a co-applicant?
MR MULADY: No, that I don't know.
MS PATEL: Honourable Chairperson, sorry, if I may come in here.
MR MULADY: He is not here, that is why I am saying I don't know whether he applied for amnesty.
MS PATEL: The previous witness was asked through you, you went through the list as to who he remembered as being part of the Exec and Abel Mulady was one of the people that he confirmed was one of those people. He also mentioned Johannes Muratu and Andrew Mivan, it was at the stage when we mentioned that he wasn't an applicant.
MR MULADY: Muratu is referred to and (indistinct), it is Muratu who is here now.
MS PATEL: That was Mr Nemakhavani.
ADV SIGODI: Yes.
MS PATEL: That testified to that effect.
ADV SIGODI: Yes, but I have notes here and when he was, the previous witness was being cross-examined by Mr Van Rensburg, if we could clarify that.
MR NDOU: Okay.
ADV SIGODI: He mentioned the Treasurer to be Tangeni Pungu under cross-examination.
CHAIRPERSON: No, I am talking about ...
ADV SIGODI: The Executive, the Chairman of the Youth League?
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nemakhavani, he said, he was asked is there any of the applicants who were members of the Executive and he said yes, himself and Abel Mulady.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Mr Chairman, I think he also said after we sorted out that he mentioned some names of the persons who are not applicants, he also added Sioma which was a marshal?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR VAN RENSBURG: You have the situation right, Abel was not the only other one of the applicants who was pointed out, it was also Sioma.
CHAIRPERSON: No, he retracted Sioma, he said he was a marshal, not an Executive member.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay, I understand, I apologise.
CHAIRPERSON: You asked the question who of the co-applicants were Executive members?
MR VAN RENSBURG: That is true.
CHAIRPERSON: Then he said himself and Mulady.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Abel, yes, yes. And that is the situation.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but that is the position. Any way, you carry on.
MR NDOU: Okay, now you say you never held any office in this Mahvunga Youth Congress?
MR MULADY: Yes, that I don't know. I don't know even in the books of Mahvunga Youth Congress, so if (indistinct), I will be found as one of them.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou, will you find out from that other applicant of yours, who he was talking about now?
MR NDOU: Yes, he did mention the name of Abel, but he wanted to articulate that he was one of the marshals, not an actual office bearer.
CHAIRPERSON: But he did mention Abel Mulady?
MR NDOU: That is so Chairperson. I want you to explain to the Committee as to what you did on the 28th of February 1990.
CHAIRPERSON: That public violence was in respect of the deceased's house?
MR NDOU: That is so. Can you remember as to what you did on the 28th of February at the deceased's house?
MR MULADY: Yes. I still remember.
MR NDOU: What did you do?
MR MULADY: On the 28th, I was one of the people who held Peter who was the member of the family, Peter Mahvunga and then I assaulted him, and then I was one of the people who talked to Boshoff and Eric "where is your father?"
MR NDOU: Is that all that you did?
MR MULADY: That is all I did.
CHAIRPERSON: Were you part of a group of people?
MR NDOU: You were part of a group of people who had gone to the deceased's kraal, is that correct?
CHAIRPERSON: Behaving in a violent manner?
MR MULADY: Yes.
MR NDOU: I see, and then you also proceeded to the deceased's house on the 6th of April, is that right?
INTERPRETER: Could you please repeat the dates.
MR NDOU: Did you also proceed to the deceased's house on the 6th of April with a group of other people?
MR MULADY: Yes, I did.
MR NDOU: What part did you play at the deceased's house on that day?
MR MULADY: I was one of the people who threw stones to the deceased, I was part of the people who took the petrol which was inside the house in one of the rooms and take it and pour it on the tyre and that tyre, I lit it and then I took it and put it over the body of the deceased, while he was laying on the ground.
CHAIRPERSON: You say you went into a room in the house, you took a tyre, did you find a tyre in the room?
MR MULADY: I found the petrol, a find a 25 litre or a 20 litre, I am not clear then, but it was a petrol container inside the house.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes? What did you do with that petrol?
MR MULADY: I took it and get outside with it, there outside in the yard of the deceased, there were tyres and tubes of small cars and tyres for the tractors. I took a tyre of a small car and poured that petrol on it, which I took it from the house, and then I lit it, I lit that tyre and then I took it and threw it on the body of the deceased.
MR NDOU: So what you are telling the Committee is that you actually participated in the killing of the deceased, is that right?
ADV DE JAGER: I think there is no doubt about that.
MR MULADY: Yes, I am saying that.
MR NDOU: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON: What did you do about the house and how it burnt, you scattered the petrol there in the house?
MR MULADY: I understand that by pouring petrol or throwing the tyre on the body of the deceased, that light, that fire which was burning the deceased, could have caught or spread to other rooms, but I didn't see that.
CHAIRPERSON: Where was the deceased when you did that, when you threw the ...
MR MULADY: He was inside the house.
MR NDOU: Can you explain to the Committee as to why the deceased was targeted? ... (tape ends) ...
MR MULADY: I can, to avoid wasting time for this Committee, many witnesses here who have applied for this amnesty, have already explained a mouthful, what I can explain, will be very few which I can explain. I agree with what the previous speaker who were applying for amnesty, have mentioned many things which I agreed with.
CHAIRPERSON: Was it Masithulela, do you agree with what he says on the reasons?
MR NDOU: Did you get the question?
MR MULADY: Could you please repeat the question?
CHAIRPERSON: You say you agree with the previous speaker on that score, are you talking about Masithulela, John?
MR MULADY: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR NDOU: Now, how do you feel now with the victim sitting in front of you, about this whole occurrence?
MR MULADY: As the people which I grew up with them, and the people whom I know and as people whom I understand that they are living just like myself, I feel panicking for killing their father or more especially for them to find themselves without a breadwinner at this time. As such, I feel pain, very painful and I feel to say it, humiliating myself, that I am apologising from them, I am asking them to forgive me, with the mother who is there, now with nobody still assisting her as a husband, I think it is important to have a husband as a woman. To the children, I am also humiliating myself to find yourself still young, I think some of you are supposed to still be going to school, but I don't know that maybe you are now unable to further your studies because you no longer have your father or a member of your family who is your father, as such I can say that I am apologising for that, for what happened during those days. I am asking for forgiveness from you.
MR NDOU: I don't wish to take this any further, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NDOU
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman. I just want certain comments from you regarding the statement that is included in the Bundle, being a statement filed by yourself, I suppose a warning statement. It is page 9, Mr Chairman. ADV DE JAGER: That is a transcription of the statement appearing on pages 12, 13, 14 and 15, etc.
MR VAN RENSBURG: That is correct Mr Chairman. Do you have the statement in front of you, Mr Mulady?
MR MULADY: Yes, that is the statement that I took.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Perhaps we can go down about 10 lines from the bottom, where you said
"... on the following morning headed to Mahvunga's kraal where we smashed window panes of a house."
Do you see that line?
MR MULADY: Yes, I can see that.
MR VAN RENSBURG: That specific attack on Mr Mahvunga's house, kraal, does that refer to Edward Mahvunga's kraal where we smashed window panes of a house, is that Edward Mahvunga's kraal?
MR MULADY: Yes, Edward Mahvunga, it is Edward Mahvunga that is being referred to.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Does that attack refer to the attack that was launched on the 28th of February?
MR MULADY: Yes, I can link that to the date mentioned before.
MR VAN RENSBURG: And if we go down a little bit, six lines
down, I continue to read from your statement, it says there -
"our parents suggested that they be given an opportunity ...(indistinct) money in order to compensate Mr Mahvunga."
Does that mean that after the attack on the 28th of February, the parents of the youths made certain moves to compensate for the window panes that you had broken?
MR MULADY: Well, I think that is what I am saying that after the incident that took place on the 6th of February, after the late had died, we - well the parents sat down and collected the money to contribute towards the restoration of the house or reparation, repairing the house.
MR VAN RENSBURG: And was the money handed to Mr Edward Mahvunga?
MR MULADY: Well, the money that was collected, was sent to the Chief kraal, I am saying the late had already died.
MR VAN RENSBURG: I beg your pardon, I didn't hear that. Just repeat that answer.
MR MULADY: What I am saying that when I made this confession, I was really generalising on the whole case, I was not particularly looking at the dates. I was referring to the 28th, the 6th to the time when the deceased died.
MR VAN RENSBURG: The question is did, was Mr Edward Mahvunga compensated for the window panes that were broken on the 28th of February?
MR MULADY: Yes, there was money that was given out so that, as it was known that there were only children who were left and the deceased had died, there had to be a collection for repair in order to help in the restoration of whatever was destroyed. That is what I am saying.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Do I understand you correctly, you say there was some sort of compensation, but only after the deceased was killed, not before the 28th, or not after the attack of the 28th?
MR MULADY: Let me repeat what I have said and I will also appeal to the people who are asking me that this statement that I took, I said I was generalising all the incidents which took place from the 28th of February to the 6th of April. Therefore as I was writing the statement, I did not write it on my own, there was an Interpreter or Translator, it could have been an omission or a problem or a mistake because I was saying it in Venda and he was interpreting into English.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Mr Mulady, I am not trying to catch you out, I am not asking you what is in the statement, I am asking you what the real situation was. Was there compensation to Mr, to the deceased after, or to his family at least after he died?
CHAIRPERSON: What does the family say?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Actually I have no specific instructions on this, perhaps I can ask, thank you.
ADV DE JAGER: After the first attack on his house, on Edward's house?
MR MULADY: No.
ADV DE JAGER: Did the parents offer any compensation after the first attack?
MR MULADY: No, they didn't offer any compensation of that sort.
ADV DE JAGER: Because in your statement you wrote, or it is written down here that money was offered but he refused the offer. He couldn't have refused it after he had died, unless he was a real witch?
MR MULADY: That is why I am saying I was just making a confession between myself and the person who was interpreting, to the third person. It could have been that the person who was interpreting, was not well versed, and maybe, well as I know, he speaks one of the African official languages, it was being taken into another language. There might have been one confusion in the interpreting, as I was giving the confession and he was writing.
ADV DE JAGER: So you annexed this letter, or this statement, to your indemnity application and you took an oath and said it is the truth thing, in your indemnity application, you took an oath and said everything I said here, is the truth and you included "see Annexure A" on page 7?
MR NDOU: Perhaps if I may just come in here ...
MS PATEL: Sorry, if I may just, sorry, Adv De Jager, if I may just intervene, the statement which Mr Van Rensburg is referring to, is the statement that we got from the docket, it wasn't annexed to the application or to the indemnity application.
ADV DE JAGER: Oh.
MR NDOU: Annexure A is page 8.
ADV DE JAGER: Oh, only page 8?
MS PATEL: Yes.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you, may I continue. This statement that we are talking about contained on pages 9 ...
CHAIRPERSON: What does the family say about this money?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I can put that to the witness, I would have preferred to have his answer to that before I put it to him, but...
CHAIRPERSON: Well, maybe you just then.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, thank you. Let's forget about the statement for a moment, are you saying that after the deceased was killed, there was a collection of money and there was some kind of compensation tendered to the family?
MR MULADY: There was that kind of compensation, regarding the compensation and ...
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, then I have to put it to you that Rosinnah who is the victim in this hearing, will state that there was absolutely no compensation and that she has received no money or any compensation from the community.
CHAIRPERSON: Was it tendered?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Or that it was tendered?
MR MULADY: I will say in explanation, am I allowed to say that?
CHAIRPERSON: Answer the question, if you need to say what you need to say to answer the question, go ahead.
MR MULADY: After the whole incident and the death of the deceased, it was discovered that Ms Rosinnah was no longer a member of the household where the deceased used to live. I am basing this on those people who were left in the house, who were the children of the deceased. As I am saying now, Rosinnah could not be aware that he is no longer there, as I speak now.
CHAIRPERSON: You say there was money collected with the intention of compensating the family for the death of the deceased?
MR MULADY: Yes, that is what I am saying, regarding the ...
CHAIRPERSON: What happened to that money?
MR MULADY: Well, all I know is that it was collected and it was taken to the Chief's kraal.
CHAIRPERSON: It was taken to the Chief's kraal? Handed, it was given there, handed in to the Chief?
MR MULADY: Well, when the issue was raised on the collection of the money in order to compensate based on the destruction and the death of the deceased, I believe that whatever was contributed or collected regarding that incident, it used to be handed to the Chief's kraal and I also believe that the same money should eventually be handed to the Chief's kraal so that the Headman would take it to the children of the deceased or the family of the deceased. I am not too sure whether that was true.
CHAIRPERSON: You don't know whether the Chief took it? I don't want a long story, just whether you know or not?
MR MULADY: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Was it taken or not?
MR MULADY: The money was collected.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and handed over to the Chief. Did the Chief take it further on to the family or don't you know?
MR MULADY: I could not have a logical follow up on that, I don't know.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman. The next point, after the Chief took up this problem with the deceased, can you remember that at the time, the deceased responded to these allegations by way of a letter that he had written, can you remember that?
MR MULADY: Well, repeat the question, it should be a live question, it should not be indirect, it should be a live question, directed to me in a direct manner.
CHAIRPERSON: It is not for you to dictate here, do you understand, you answer the question. If you don't understand a question, ask for it to be repeated or to be clarified.
MR VAN RENSBURG: I will repeat the question. The question is can you remember that after the Chief spoke to the deceased about these allegations against him, the deceased responded by writing a letter, do you remember that?
CHAIRPERSON: To whom?
MR VAN RENSBURG: To the Chief or to the community, I am not sure Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Van Rensburg, I mean the community is 10 000 people.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, let me be a bit more clearer.
CHAIRPERSON: To whom would that letter be addressed?
MR VAN RENSBURG: The letter was according to the statement, this is not very clear, I am still on the statement on page 10, the Chief informed the residents that one will read the letter in question of the people at a special meeting called for that purpose, the problem is the transcription is not very clear, that is why I am a bit vague about it.
CHAIRPERSON: You know Mr Van Rensburg, I don't know if it is absolutely fair to cross-examine an applicant on this statement, after all, it bears his signature but it seems to be that it was a statement taken down by a Policeman, am I correct?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, it looks like it formed part of the ...
CHAIRPERSON: Now, we don't know if he agrees with the contents of that statement.
MR VAN RENSBURG: With all due respect Mr Chairman, then the witness can just say that it was a false statement, or that he did not agree with the statement or that it was not the truth.
CHAIRPERSON: I wonder if, did he see the statement Mr Ndou?
MR NDOU: Yes, I showed him the statement.
CHAIRPERSON: Does he know what the contents is?
MR NDOU: But he indicates that most of the things were done by the Police and most of the things were not correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Now, why wasn't that raised here now? That responsibility of raising that issue falls squarely on your shoulders, not your applicant.
MR NDOU: Perhaps if I may explain this way, it is not part of our application. This document was put in by the Evidence Leader.
CHAIRPERSON: I know, but it is put in to indicate to you that it may be used and you've got to deal with it.
MR NDOU: Yes, I wouldn't have had any problem with it, I thought you would answer, (indistinct)
CHAIRPERSON: Issues like this, you can't leave the applicant in the lurch you know Mr Ndou.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: I want you to listen to me very carefully now. You are being questioned on a statement that you allegedly made to a Policeman, I don't know if you made it freely or voluntarily or what the position was. Any way, the contents of that statement has been read and the Attorney here, Mr Van Rensburg, is using parts of that statement to cross-examine you on. You are at liberty to indicate to us whether you agree that the contents of that statement is true or not, before you answer whatever he asks you, do you understand or do you need further explanations?
MR MULADY: I need further explanation.
CHAIRPERSON: You see when a person wants to use a statement taken down by the Police, allegedly or purportedly being that statement of an accused, then certain warnings must be given to that accused or any person. Sometimes it happens that the wrong thing is written down, maybe deliberately or by accident. The person who is alleged to have made that statement, is entitled to contest the accuracy of that statement and where there is instances of involuntary or where the statement was not made voluntarily, he is entitled to raise a defence that he can't be asked any questions on that. Do you understand that? You are being asked about the contents of a particular statement that bears your signature. We don't know as a Committee what your attitude is towards that statement.
MR MULADY: Well, my request is that the statement shall be regarded as null and void in this application.
CHAIRPERSON: Why?
MR MULADY: Because I now realise that there is a lot of conflicting evidence, when I am listening to the way it had been read.
CHAIRPERSON: All right, now let me tell you, or let me ask you then to be fair, you have read the contents of the statement?
MR MULADY: Yes, I did.
CHAIRPERSON: When you made the statement, did you make a statement to the Police? Did you make this statement to the Police?
MR MULADY: This statement when I was arrested, I was beaten heavily and I was made to say that I had to be a State witness, therefore I had to say in order to protect myself.
CHAIRPERSON: Would you have made a statement had you not been beaten?
INTERPRETER: Sorry, just repeat please.
CHAIRPERSON: Would you have made the statement or signed the statement, had you not been beaten?
MR MULADY: Well, if I had not been beaten before writing the statement, I would have signed although I had already been beaten, I was forced to do that as well.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, would you have otherwise have made the statement if you weren't beaten?
MR MULADY: No. I would not have made that statement in that way.
CHAIRPERSON: There you have it.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman. Okay, let's forget about the statement, can I just ask you have you ever heard of a letter that Mr Edward Mahvunga wrote after the Chief spoke to him about these allegations against him?
CHAIRPERSON: The letter was addressed to the community?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I would say that it was addressed to the community and handed to the Chief, yes, thank you Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Have you heard of such a letter?
MR MULADY: Yes, I heard about the letter.
CHAIRPERSON: Why are we struggling about it for the last ten minutes, the Attorney has been asking you about it for how long, because he has heard about this letter.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Is it not so that the idea was that that letter should have been read by the Chief to the community so that every one can know what the contents of that letter is, that was the plan?
CHAIRPERSON: Do you know about that?
MR MULADY: Repeat the question.
CHAIRPERSON: You know about this letter that was handed to the Chief, was the Chief not supposed to have read this letter out to the community?
MR MULADY: Well, I know the letter which was given to the Chief, the Headman by the people, I don't know about a letter which was given to the Headman by the late.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes. Do you by any chance have heard what the contents of that letter is?
CHAIRPERSON: He says he doesn't know about such a letter.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Oh.
CHAIRPERSON: He knows about a letter that was given by the community to the Chief.
MR VAN RENSBURG: I understand. I just want to get this clear if you can just give me an opportunity, thank you Mr Chairman. So you say you have never heard of a letter which the deceased was supposed to have written and was addressed to the community and handed to the Chief, you have never heard of such a letter?
MR MULADY: No, I never heard about that.
MR VAN RENSBURG: I see. Okay, you were sentenced to five years imprisonment for the public violence count and 15 years imprisonment for the arson and the murder, is that correct?
MR MULADY: Yes, it is true.
MR VAN RENSBURG: And that is the most severe sentence that all the applicants that are here today, has received for their role in this murder and arson? It is the worst sentence, that you have received?
MR MULADY: Well, I did not get what I worked for in an orderly manner.
MR VAN RENSBURG: The question is was any of the other applicants, did they receive a sentence of 15 years for the arson and the murder and five years for the public violence, did anyone receive such a heavy sentence, except you?
MR MULADY: Amongst us, there is no other person who received such a heavy sentence.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay, now what I would like to know is do you know why you have received the most severe sentence of all of them?
CHAIRPERSON: The Judge reasoned that you were the leader? What do you say about that?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman.
MR MULADY: Well, I understand that the Judge took that decision after hearing the different statements from many people and the way they were expressing themselves and perhaps he was influenced to take that decision that I shall be the leader in that situation, whereas ...
ADV DE JAGER: Could you just tell us, were you in fact a leader during the operations of the burning of the house and the killing of the deceased?
MR MULADY: Well, I don't regard it like that personally. People may, like I have explained before ...
CHAIRPERSON: You were the one that went to find the petrol, you were the one that found the tyre, you were the one that lit the tyre, you were the one who put the tyre while it was lit, on the body of the deceased? Do you not consider that a leading role?
MR MULADY: Well, today as I am being told, I can say that I was the leader.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR MULADY: Today.
CHAIRPERSON: No, but you always knew that you did that, not so? You knew you played a leading role in that man's death and in the whole attack?
MR MULADY: No.
CHAIRPERSON: You didn't know that, someone told you today that you were the one that put the tyre on the man's body? Is that what you are saying?
MR MULADY: Well, what I am saying is that I am trying to express that the judgement that was given in those days and the time, was taken despite the fact that I was not in agreement with that. However, what I am saying today in this Commission, I am trying to say that I agree with them in them saying that I am or I was the leader in the group that was involved on the specific day. I will agree with that.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Mr Mulady, I put it to you that you are trying to downplay this leading role and thereby wilfully trying to mislead the leading role or your involvement, pardon, let me just rephrase that, I put it to you that you wilfully are trying to mislead this Committee by downplaying your leader role that you played on that day.
MR MULADY: What I am saying is that in court when they sentenced me, I didn't realise that I was the leader, however today, I am in agreement with the fact that I was the one who was the leader of a group regarding the role that I played in taking the tyre and putting petrol on it, lighting and putting it on top of the deceased's body. I do agree now that I on that day, played the major role, I agree with that.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you. The leader of the Youth Congress, what was his name again?
MR MULADY: One of the applicants said it was Finnias Mulady.
MR VAN RENSBURG: I am asking you what was his name.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you know what was his name?
MR MULADY: Well, the name of the leader of the Mahvunga Youth Congress, I now know that it was Finnias Mulady although when it was selected, I wasn't in. However now, when it is now clear, I can now connect it and say the leader was Finnias (indistinct) Mulady.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, was he there on the day?
MR MULADY: Please say that ...
MR VAN RENSBURG: Was he there on the day of the 6th of April?
MR MULADY: It was so full, I can't tell exactly whether he was in or not, I can't tell exactly whether he was in or not, because it was full.
ADV DE JAGER: I want to know whether this leader in fact as a leader, called you together and said "let's go there, let's go and get this man out of the house", was this a decision of the meeting and did the leader of your organisation say "listen, let's go, let's do this and do another thing" or did you act on your own in doing all these things?
MR MULADY: On the 6th, maybe it was not given to the Committee, I said that I was one of those people who tried to call other members, people who are applying now, that they should come to the meeting.
CHAIRPERSON: So there was a meeting?
MR MULADY: That is what I am saying.
CHAIRPERSON: To discuss the deceased's position?
MR MULADY: That is what I am saying.
CHAIRPERSON: What was the decision of that meeting?
MR MULADY: The decision that was taken was to go to the late's house.
CHAIRPERSON: And?
MR MULADY: So that on arriving there, I was one of those people who on that day, the 6th ...
CHAIRPERSON: What was decided at the meeting, to go to his house for what purpose? To go and have a party, what were you supposed to go and do there?
MR MULADY: It was to try to tell the late that he should leave.
CHAIRPERSON: And in the likely event of him refusing, did you decide what would happen then because everybody knew that he was likely to refuse? He was refusing all the time?
MR MULADY: Well, I understand that it was the last day of him, in the understanding that we were going to chant, sing and shout all the slogans that we would try all available means that he should be evicted.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mulady, I don't think anybody is under any misapprehension as to what we are talking about. We are talking about an important meeting, the decision of what ought to favour you as an applicant, now what was decided at that meeting? In the event of him not listening to your request to leave, what would happen? Was there a decision in that meeting about what would happen to him if he refused to leave or to respect the "trek pass"?
MR MULADY: No, I can't remember, but I think it was said that we would try by all means on that last day to evict him, that was the decision that was taken.
CHAIRPERSON: So there was no decision there to kill him in the event of him refusing?
MR MULADY: That is what I am saying.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so why was he killed?
MR MULADY: Well, in many cases it was explained by the other applicants. I understand that they only said so many things as to what really led to the death of the deceased.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mulady, why in your view, was he killed, why did you put the tyre on his body?
MR MULADY: Well, as we were right in the house after we had tried our best to talk to him, to convince him to leave, the decease tried to dispute that and he said he wouldn't leave.
CHAIRPERSON: That was the decision of the meeting, you will try to persuade him to respect the "trek pass" in effect, he refused, so why was he then attacked?
MR MULADY: He was attacked because he didn't want to leave.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but that wasn't the decision of the meeting according to you?
MR MULADY: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: So why was he attacked? Why was his house burnt, why was he burnt if the meeting didn't decide that?
MR MULADY: Well, in the meeting it was said on that specific day we will make it possible to evict the man, but with regard to the crown and the way it was, people had different ideas which were not in line with what was decided.
CHAIRPERSON: Why did you then put the tyre, you were party to that meeting decision, why did you then take this tyre, light it and put it on the body or put it on him, we don't know if he was alive?
MR MULADY: I have explained that there were stone throwing and he went on to the house and people kept on throwing stones and then I took the tyre which was already lit by then, I threw it on top of the body of the deceased.
CHAIRPERSON: That was not supposed to happen in terms of the decision of the meeting? That is why I asked you what did the meeting decide if he didn't want to go, which was supposed to be expected in terms of what you say? You should have expected this man to say, "no, I am not going." He was doing so for a long time? That is why I ask you what did the meeting then decide, you say nothing. The only decision you went to that house with from the meeting, was to try and persuade him to respect the "trek pass" and go, not so?
MR MULADY: Yes, it is true.
CHAIRPERSON: Then I am going to repeat myself, why was he then killed?
MR MULADY: The late was killed because he was involved in so many allegations, in so many things. He was killed because he disrespected the instruction of the Headman and the Police and also disrespecting the people who were talking to him. That led to the death of the deceased. By practising witchcraft as it was explained and that also influenced the death of the deceased and also obstructing whatever the Youth were trying to advance in as far ...
CHAIRPERSON: Did you then at one stage decide, I am going to ignore the decision of the meeting?
MR MULADY: Well, on my own I went there with an idea that the late was going to be taken away, but what came to me lately, after he was being thrown at, I also participated in the throwing of the stones and also becoming one, I mean a person who followed him when he was already in the house, then I took the tyre which was already lit and it had already caught petrol, and I threw it over the body of the deceased. I am saying this because it also seems to have been influenced by the rift that I had because I was already furious after the deceased had already been beaten, because when he was being beaten, it came to my mind that I had a lot in my mind which I had, especially from the children of the deceased and the wife. In that way, the stones and the assegai and the shield and also the sling, whatever the deceased was using on the day when there was this fight, influenced me in killing him because if he was able to surprise us all or overpower us, then he would be able to give us a problem individually. Therefore that is why it led to the death of the deceased, after I had seen the assegai and the shield and the sling, whatever equipment he used on that specific day.
CHAIRPERSON: Is that your answer to my simple question? Carry on Mr Van Rensburg?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman. Was Mr Finnias Mulady present at that important meeting on the 6th of April?
MR MULADY: I have already demonstrated that I cannot say whether he was in or not.
CHAIRPERSON: You have not already, the question was was he in the meeting, the question is not whether he was at the house?
MR MULADY: Yes, on the 6th, he was at the meeting at school. When we went to kill the late, I cannot say he was in or not.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, you can just answer what we ask you and then we will go a lot faster. You say that he was at the meeting before you went to kill him, he was there? Thank you Mr Chairman.
MR MULADY: Yes.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Did he address the meeting?
MR MULADY: Well, I can only think and quote on what he said.
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone was not on, he is still waiting for the response.
CHAIRPERSON: ... in terms of the answer, the leader did address the meeting.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Was it his insistence, I am talking about Finnias Mulady, was it his view that immediately after the meeting, the people must go to that kraal and evict the deceased?
MR MULADY: Well, my request is that, in fact when you talk of Mulady, are you normally, I am not too sure whether you are referring to Abel Mulady or Finnias Mulady, I would like to get clarity.
ADV DE JAGER: He is referring to your leader of the Youth Congress, we are speaking about the leader of the Youth Congress, the man who called the meeting, who sent you to summon the people to the meeting, we are talking about him. Don't pretend to be confused, really you are not persuading us that you are in fact confused.
MR MULADY: Finnias Mulady was in the meeting, however I didn't hear his voice. There is another Mulady, Abel and I am the one who spoke during the meeting.
ADV DE JAGER: Finnias didn't speak in the meeting?
MR MULADY: No.
ADV DE JAGER: The leader of the Youth Congress didn't speak at the meeting, is that correct?
MR MULADY: Yes, he didn't address the meeting.
MR VAN RENSBURG: But Abel Mulady, he did address the meeting?
MR MULADY: Yes, he spoke, he addressed.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Are you now saying that there was another person with the name of Abel Mulady except yourself?
CHAIRPERSON: Or are you the person that spoke?
MR MULADY: Sorry, I am saying I am Abel Mulady who spoke or addressed the meeting, however the leader of the Youth Congress, Finnias Mulady, did not address the meeting.
MR VAN RENSBURG: If you refer to Abel Mulady that addressed the meeting, was that yourself or another person?
MR MULADY: That is why I am saying, I am saying Abel Mulady, me and I am the one who addressed the meeting on that day.
MR VAN RENSBURG: So you acted also as the leader at the meeting.
CHAIRPERSON: Were you chairing that meeting?
MR MULADY: I was not a leader.
CHAIRPERSON: Were you chairing the meeting, it doesn't matter if you are not a leader, were you chairing the meeting?
MR MULADY: Yes, I was chairing the meeting on that day.
CHAIRPERSON: Why are you evading the questions, simple questions?
MR MULADY: Well, I am trying to confuse Mulady with Abel Mulady because these are two different people.
CHAIRPERSON: You say you chaired that meeting?
MR MULADY: Yes, I am saying that.
MR VAN RENSBURG: I put it to you sir, that this Finnias Mulady was not the Chairman and that there was in fact not a Chairman to this Youth Congress and that it was just a loose organisation and that you were one of the leaders thereof.
MR MULADY: I have already explained initially that Finnias Mulady, when he was given this leadership role for Mahvunga Youth Congress, I didn't know about it, I only learnt about that later after the death of the deceased.
MR VAN RENSBURG: The last question is can you perhaps explain, no, I will leave that, thank you, I have no further questions, thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN RENSBURG
MS PATEL: You have read my mind, Honourable Chairperson, I don't.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou, do you have any questions?
MR NDOU: I don't wish to take this any further.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR NDOU
CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you, can we take a five minute adjournment.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
