Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Mapoma, which matter are we proceeding with today?

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chairperson. We will be proceeding with the matter relating to incident 4 of our schedule. The applicants are Josia Malaudzi, Normal Ramalata and Samuel Matala.

CHAIRPERSON: Is Mr van Rensburg appearing in this matter?

MR VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: For the victims?

MR VAN RENSBURG: That is correct. I can just put on record, the victims have not arrived yet this morning, but I have sufficiently consulted with them yesterday to proceed for this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: And you are prepared to look after their interests in the meantime?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Good. Mr Ndou, you are appearing for the applicants?

MR NDOU: That is correct Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's start with them then.

MR NDOU: I now call Samuel Matala.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Matala, what language would you prefer to use?

MR MATALA: Venda.

CHAIRPERSON: I didn't hear what he said?

INTERPRETER: He said he would use Venda.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you just repeat that?

INTERPRETER: He would prefer to use Venda.

SAMUEL MATALA: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR NDOU: Thank you Honourable Chairman and Honourable Members. Mr Matala, you are the applicant in this matter? When were you born?

MR MATALA: I was born on the 13th of September 1968.

MR NDOU: All right, you have applied for amnesty as you are presently serving a 20 year service. For whose murder were you convicted?

CHAIRPERSON: Before you carry on Ndou, I see on page 27 an application and on page 30. Is that - oh, I see this is, it looks like both applications for amnesty. Which one are we busy with?

MR NDOU: It appears like there was just a duplication, there was an application for indemnity that appeared at some stage, but that has not been processed, nothing has been granted to that effect.

CHAIRPERSON: The two applications are not similar in that the one that appears on page 30, paragraph 9(a)(i) is blank whereas in the application on page 27, it is completed.

MR NDOU: That is noted Honourable Chairman, we will proceed with the application as set out from page 27 to 29. Thank you Honourable Chairman.

Now in respect of whose murder are you applying for amnesty before the Committee?

MR MATALA: In respect of the murder of Emily Munzhedzi Makulane.

MR NDOU: Now can you explain to the Committee as to what lead to the death of Mrs Makulane?

MR MATALA: Yes, I can do so.

MR NDOU: Please do so.

MR MATALA: Let me start by saying that during those times of the early 1990's, in the whole country including where I was staying, it was the time in which there were class-boycotts in which pamphlets were sent to people which we don't know by people which we don't know. As youth we followed the instructions from the pamphlets of boycotting classes including organising ourselves in following the call of fighting the government of the day.

We organised ourselves in such a way that we formed a Youth Congress which was in our village, called Mufunzi Youth Congress. As such we started to organise ourselves in terms of fighting against the then government. After we realised that there are many things that were not run properly, which we realised that we were suppressed by the people who were running the government of the day.

MR NDOU: Was this Youth Congress a formally constituted body?

MR MATALA: Yes, because it started earlier on, I think it was then that it was about to be formed formally, but from behind it was operating from underground, before this incident occurred.

MR NDOU: Yes, and then?

MR MATALA: After organising ourselves, then we looked into all our grievances of the time. We realised that our main concern was that the government, the then government was the government which was suppressing us or oppressing us, and the leaders who were in that government, were accused in many evil things, including ritual murders. As such as the Congress ...

CHAIRPERSON: Before you carry on, what were these problems that you blamed or your body blamed the then officials of the government? How were you oppressed?

MR MATALA: We were oppressed because the government officials of the then government were interfering in the, or were involved in the ritual murders.

CHAIRPERSON: I am not talking about that, we will come to that. Why did you want a change of government? What were you experiencing as students that you people did not like?

MR MATALA: The major problem was that the leaders who were in the government, were implicated in evil things, such as ritual murders and witchcraft.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I am going to try one more time. You say that the students were organising themselves to do something about the oppression that they were experiencing, is that so?

MR MATALA: Yes, it is true.

CHAIRPERSON: What oppression as students? What was so oppressive?

MR MATALA: It was the government which was oppressing us, which was leading us during those days.

CHAIRPERSON: What did they do that was oppressive?

MR MATALA: There were no free political activities and again, we realised that we were suppressed because the leaders were implicated in many things.

CHAIRPERSON: Like what?

MR MATALA: Like ritual murder.

CHAIRPERSON: And?

MR MATALA: Like ritual murder and that they were gaining things that they want to use from the witches, which we were also against them.

CHAIRPERSON: Never mind the witches now, we will come to the witches and the witchcraft activities. Why did you need to deal with the government officials? You say they stopped free political activity, anything else?

MR MATALA: The other thing which the government was doing, was that the officials of the then government, was involved in evils, such as ritual murders.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, okay. Anything else?

MR MATALA: You mean anything that they were oppressing us with?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR MATALA: In general our concern, our main concern was that one of that they were involved in ritual murders.

CHAIRPERSON: So they were involved with ritual murders, why attack witches? Why not go straight to the political leader and deal with him?

MR MATALA: What I can say there is that to can approach those people, it was very difficult and secondly in terms of our belief during those days, we believed that those people were receiving those things from those witches.

CHAIRPERSON: So what? What was wrong with that?

MR MATALA: There is a problem that in receiving those things for example, if they approached the people who practised witchcraft, they can approach people who practise witchcraft so that they can provide them medicine, so that they can remain in power.

CHAIRPERSON: I see. Now while they were in power, aside from stopping free political activity, was there anything else that they were doing wrong? Never mind going to the witches now and getting involved in witchcraft, were there any other political issues that concerned you as students done by the political leaders?

MR MATALA: I think the question was too long. I am asking that maybe it could be repeated or shortened.

CHAIRPERSON: What else other than stopping free political activities, were you unhappy with the government for?

MR MATALA: Other things which they were doing is that we as youth, we were in need of Venda to be incorporated into South Africa.

CHAIRPERSON: And they objected to it?

MR MATALA: Yes, I might say they were objecting, because if there were not objections, if they were not objecting, it would have happened long ago.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Ndou?

MR NDOU: Thank you Mr Chairperson. This Youth Congress that was formed, was it affiliated to any political party that you know of or did you ever have any intention of affiliating to any other non-political organisation?

MR MATALA: Yes, that Youth Congress was affiliated to a certain organisation.

MR NDOU: Which organisation?

MR MATALA: If I still remember well, I think it was the United Democratic Front, UDF.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't spell Front with an "M"? Do you mean UDF?

INTERPRETER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You said UDM, United Democratic Front was UDF?

MR MATALA: I said United Democratic Front.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that is UDF not UDM?

MR MATALA: I am referring to UDF not UDM.

MR NDOU: All right. Then what then happened after all this concern by the youth, how did you intend to rectify the situation?

INTERPRETER: The Interpreters cannot hear, the speaker's microphone is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou?

MR NDOU: Thank you Mr Chairman. How did you intend to rectify the situation that you say you were faced with?

MR MATALA: As I have already indicated, we as youth organised ourselves and formed the Ha-Mufunzi Youth Congress. As such seeing that we were having so many problems which I have already explained, it is better that we start to consult our headman or chief to inform him about these grievances just like people who were practising witchcraft in the village.

As such we further realised that where we were staying, as it was a predominantly rural area, there were no other services or other which we could boycott, just like boycotting rents or boycotting other services. But I still remember that one day, as the Congress around our village, to try and talk with our chief regarding our problems, just like the practising witchcraft which we think was associated with the people ruling the government by then and that - I don't remember the date exactly, I still remember we once marched to the chief's kraal and by then we were approximately 1 000.

We were taking our complaints to the headman, to our chief. By then he was a member of Parliament in the then Venda government. As such, on our arrival there, instead of the chief to listen to our grievances, he called the Police and soldiers and they came and started to assault us. As such most of us were seriously injured because the chief's kraal was fenced with a fence of approximately 2 metres and as such, we were assaulted within that fence and we were seriously injured.

Then it was so difficult for us and most of us were injured as they were attempting to jump the fence, because the Police were assaulting us and throwing teargas.

MR NDOU: Yes?

MR MATALA: From there we dispersed and then we organised again that our first plan had failed. As I have already explained that there is no way in which you can boycott rent or any other services rendered by the government. As such we realised that our first plan had failed and then - for going and talking to our chief. Then we called a meeting on the 21st of March 1990 because now that our first plan had failed, now we can find another means to show that we are dissatisfied with what happened, including to show that we didn't receive any help for the grievances we were intending to talk with our chief.

It is then that we agreed that we should then start to kill those witches as a means by which the leaders of the day will no longer receive powers from these people or from those witches or people practising witchcraft.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, what was the name of the chief?

MR MATALA: I don't know his full names, he was called, I only know him as Nthabalala.

ADV SIGODI: Can you spell that for me?

MR MATALA: N-t-h-a-b-a-l-a-l-a.

ADV SIGODI: Okay, thank you.

MR NDOU: Yes, you can proceed.

MR MATALA: It is then that we, on that meeting we agreed that now that the chief did not consider our grievances and then we were assaulted because of these grievances, we must then find another means. It is then that on that meeting, in which I was the Chairman, we agreed that all the people who were perceived or alleged to be practising witchcraft should be killed.

MR NDOU: How were these people identified?

MR MATALA: Could you please repeat your question?

MR NDOU: You said there were people who were identified, now what I want to find out from you is how were these people identified?

MR MATALA: They were randomly mentioned.

MR NDOU: And who identified?

MR MATALA: I still remember that Thomas Ramashila also identified one who was also present there.

MR NDOU: Yes, but who were the people identified as such?

MR MATALA: People identified as such was Masakona Ramalata, Emily Makulane and Leya Nthabalala.

MR NDOU: And Munzhedzi Makulane is the deceased in this matter?

MR MATALA: Yes, it is true.

MR NDOU: Now what did the meeting resolve?

MR MATALA: In that meeting we resolved to go and look for petrol so that we could go to those homesteads.

MR NDOU: What were you going to do with the petrol?

MR MATALA: The petrol was meant to be used in burning.

MR NDOU: To burn what?

MR MATALA: To burn those people who were identified as witches.

MR NDOU: And how would that help you politically?

CHAIRPERSON: Before you carry on, just remember that question, it is a very important one Mr Ndou. That organisation that was having that meeting, it was on the verge you say of being launched into a Congress, is it not so? Did I understand you correctly?

MR MATALA: What I said is that that Congress was in existence, but because the political organisations were still banned, it was operating underground.

CHAIRPERSON: But by that time there was an intention that very soon, it would be launched officially? What would its name be?

INTERPRETER: Could you repeat your question?

CHAIRPERSON: When it was to be launched, what would its name be?

MR MATALA: It was going to be called Mufunzi Youth Congress.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you spell that please?

MR MATALA: M-u-f-u-n-z-i.

CHAIRPERSON: Just repeat that.

INTERPRETER: M-u-f-u-n-z-i Youth Congress.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that after the village, the name of the village?

MR MATALA: Yes, it is the name of the village in which I was staying.

CHAIRPERSON: You know, we have heard a few of these matters now and it seems to me that at the same time, there was a campaign to establish Youth Congresses all over the area, is that true, is that correct?

MR MATALA: Yes, as I have already identified that the political situation was to such an extent, so I cannot repeat that.

MR NDOU: Thank you Mr Chairman. You have indicated that these three people who had been identified as witches, were going to be burnt with the petrol that you had collected. Now what I wanted to find out from you is how would that help you or benefit you politically?

MR MATALA: After the witches would have been burnt, we thought we would benefit, as I have tried to indicate that the top government officials were receiving powers or powers of remaining in their posts and promotions from those witchcraft, from those people who practise witchcraft. What we would gain is that if we killed those people, it means government officials would no longer receive those powers from those people who were practising witchcraft because they were their source. I think even the government was going to collapse and then our aim would ultimately be realised.

MR NDOU: I see. Now you collected petrol, what did you do with it?

MR MATALA: The petrol was poured on the body of the deceased.

MR NDOU: How did that happen?

JUDGE DE JAGER: Could you start where you went to the house of the deceased. Where was she living and what happened at that house?

MR MATALA: When we, after reaching those decisions, resolutions, we went directly to the family of Emily Munzhedzi Makulane. On our way, we found a tyre from a certain man called Matya. From the place of Matya where we received the tyre, it is not far to the homestead of the deceased, and then we proceeded to the yard of the deceased. Then we knocked at the door, so that the deceased could come out, until realising that she is not getting out, that a certain group of youth went into the house and then the deceased was also getting outside and she came to the lapa.

The deceased was staying with her husband. I think now that the deceased ran away through the bedroom window, realising that there was a problem from outside and then he jumped the fence and ran away. It is then that the deceased remained there in the lapa. We as the group of the youth who were there, we were busy interrogating her as to with whom she did practise this witchcraft. She tried to persuade us to wait, saying that she will inform us in good faith.

Before she could finish to explain, the petrol was poured into her body. After that, what happened we were a group of about 100.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Who poured the petrol?

MR MATALA: The person who poured the petrol is Jerry Mushasha.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Right?

MR MATALA: So then what happened, seeing that we were a group of many people, as such a blaze happened and the deceased started to be burning. During that time, a tyre was already put on her body. As she started to, as she was burning, the tyre caught fire, the managed to remove the tyre from her body and then she fell down as the clothes around her was also burning.

Seeing that, this youth, seeing that she fell down, others were starting to run away, intending to leave the place.

MR NDOU: You have already told the Committee that you were the Chairman of this meeting. What did you do other than chairing the meeting?

MR MATALA: Apart from chairing the meeting, at the house of the deceased, I was present. There is nothing else which I did except that I saw other boys surrounding the - I saw other youth surrounding the house, knocking the doors and windows, asking for the deceased to come out from the house.

MR NDOU: Is that all?

MR MATALA: That is what I did there.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But you being the leader, why didn't you pour the petrol, why didn't you light the match? What was your role? You were the leader there, you were the Chairman, why didn't you do the work, why did you leave it to other people?

MR MATALA: What I can say is that there was a person who volunteered to do that, it is the person whom I have just mentioned.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Who struck the match?

MR MATALA: I don't want to lie before this Committee, to be honest, on that day we were so many that where the matches came from, I am unable to know since we were about 100 of us surrounding the deceased.

CHAIRPERSON: Look here, we had this problem before, yesterday, that is not the question as to where the matches came from. It is not so important as to where the matches came from. What we want to know is who threw the petrol on the body and who lit the match. That is what we want to know.

Before you answer that question, I want to point out to you that one has difficulty with people who are so near the scene, never mind if you are 100 or 200, some of the people were in front there, near the body, when they say, they tell us they are unable to say who struck the match and who poured the petrol. We have real difficulty with that. So think about it now, you were the Chairman of this meeting, it seems that you were in the leadership level of this Congress and therefore we are asking you now who lit the match and who poured the petrol?

MR MATALA: As I have already indicated I have got no interest or intention of lying before this Commission. I have indicated that Jerry Mushasha is the person who volunteered to pour the petrol, but the person who lit the match, even today, I still have that question because we were so many around the deceased.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Perhaps you could assist us then, who put the tyre around her neck or around her body?

MR MATALA: The person who put the tyre is Thomas Mudau.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Thank you.

MR NDOU: Apart from putting a tyre on top of the body of the deceased, did Thomas Mudau do anything else?

MR MATALA: Yes, there is something which he did except putting the tyre on the body of the deceased.

MR NDOU: Yes, explain to the Committee as to what.

MR MATALA: The other thing which he did is to assault the deceased, here at the head by a small axe.

MR NDOU: Did you see Josias Mulaudzi there?

MR MATALA: That time, yes, yes, yes, I remember now, yes, I saw him.

MR NDOU: What was he doing there?

MR MATALA: What I still remember is that he was assisting with Jerry to open the bucket containing the petrol.

MR NDOU: And Josias Mulaudzi is your co-applicant, is that right?

CHAIRPERSON: Who is a co-applicant?

MR NDOU: Josias Mulaudzi.

MR MATALA: Yes, he is my co-applicant.

MR NDOU: And you say you did nothing else?

MR MATALA: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you carry on, you say that Jerry volunteered to pour the petrol. Did you see him pour the petrol or are you just assuming now that he was the one that poured the petrol because he volunteered?

MR MATALA: What I can say is that I saw him pouring the petrol on the body of the deceased.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR MATALA: When the deceased was laying down ablaze, she tried to take off the tyre and then she managed to do so.

CHAIRPERSON: Who put the tyre on her?

MR MATALA: I said it is Thomas Mudau.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MATALA: As she was burning, she managed to pull off the tyre and the tyre went off, still burning. Until seeing that she was burning and she was laying on the ground, it is then that Thomas Mudau and Elvis Makhumbele took that tyre again, using a stick, and put it again on the body of the deceased.

CHAIRPERSON: You are going too fast now.

MR MATALA: Okay, thank you, I have heard that.

CHAIRPERSON: You say she was laying on the ground, and who took the stick and put the tyre back?

MR MATALA: Thomas Mudau and Elvis Makhumbele.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR NDOU: And then, what happened?

MR MATALA: When the tyre was put on her body again, I heard her screaming and then we decided to run away while we were hearing the sounds of the motor vehicles, suspecting that the Police might be arriving now. Then we dispersed, then we ran away. We left the deceased laying there with the tyre on top of her, we ran away.

MR NDOU: Do you see members of the deceased's family here?

MR MATALA: Yes, I am able to see.

MR NDOU: Do you have anything to say to them?

MR MATALA: Yes.

MR NDOU: Please do so.

MR MATALA: As I am seeing them before me, I am feeling very sorry regarding what happened. As such I want to take my plea before this Committee and the victims and I know that it is very painful to loose a person closest to us, as I am able to see the child of the deceased. I know it is painful to be left by your mother. What I am asking is that those happened and now we as youth, it was just a means of doing those things during those times. Unfortunately we managed to take that route and we ended up making pains to people. As such I am applying that let us have the spirit of reconciliation and then we take the new life. I understand the pains of this, I am also feeling pains and I think it would have hurt me if I personally lost my parent which was so close to my heart by then. Would you please forgive me with those few words and now that we are in the issue of reconciliation, please let us forgive each other and start a new life.

MR NDOU: Thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NDOU

CHAIRPERSON: Tell me something about this last speech that you made, talking about reconciliation. I believe that witchcraft is still being practised in the area, is that true?

MR MATALA: Yes, it is true.

CHAIRPERSON: I am not too sure but present government officials, I don't know if they resort to the assistance of witchcraft, but should they do so, what will be the position then?

MR MATALA: As I have already tried to explain, now that we are having this new government, as it was one of our main aims for the Venda government to be incorporated in this new government, I don't think we are still going to be involved in all those things.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but what if the people feel that a particular government official should be outvoted or removed or he resists the will of the people and the people think that look, you can only resist this with the help of witchcraft, what will be done then? Would it not be the same position?

MR MATALA: No, I don't think I would take the same position.

CHAIRPERSON: No, but wouldn't the political situation be the same? Here is a person that the people don't want, but yet he is retaining his position and power with the help of witchcraft?

MR MATALA: I am asking that you repeat your question please.

CHAIRPERSON: I am saying what if the same situation as it was then, arises now even with members of the new government? What would be the position then?

MR MATALA: I don't think that thing could happen because people have now received the government they were in need of. I think that thing is because the previous government was something which people didn't like by then.

CHAIRPERSON: And the position of witchcraft in the area, I mean what is the position of witches now, are they still going to be dealt with or are they going to be allowed to carry on with what they do, or what?

MR MATALA: I think nothing will be done to them, because we have already achieved our goal.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, answer this question then, there are reports that children are being killed with ritual and traditional sacrifices, is there nothing to be said of that?

MR MATALA: What I can say is that the law will take its course regarding those people.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr van Rensburg?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman. I can just put on record that the victims have in the meantime arrived and they are present at the hearing. Mr Matala, can you perhaps start off with you telling us ...

CHAIRPERSON: Before you, just give us an indication whether the application is being opposed, on what grounds?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Pardon Mr Chairman, yes, at this stage it is my instructions to in fact oppose his application on the grounds that firstly the motivation proposed to this hearing, is not actually the correct one, why this gruesome act actually took place, and then secondly at this stage I will also hold the position that the applicant has not made a full disclosure of all the relevant facts, to enable him to successfully apply for this application. Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr Matala, can we start off by you telling us what was the position of the deceased in the community at the time when she was killed?

MR MATALA: If I still remember well, I think she was a member of a School Committee, but I cannot remember in which school.

MR VAN RENSBURG: What was the work that her husband did?

MR MATALA: What I know is that he was a pastor in a nearby church.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Do you acknowledge that he called himself the Bishop of that specific church in the area?

MR MATALA: Yes, I agree.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And do you also agree that his wife also held a position in the church, being his wife?

MR MATALA: That I have no idea, I only know of the deceased's husband.

MR VAN RENSBURG: How far did you live from the deceased's house at the time? What was the distance between your house and the deceased's house in 1990?

MR MATALA: The deceased is my neighbour, we are simply separated by a fence.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes. And you were in fact related to the deceased, is that not so?

MR MATALA: Yes, the relationship was there with the deceased.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Explain this family relationship between you and the deceased.

MR MATALA: The deceased was my aunt.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I put it to you Mr Matala that you in fact knew the deceased very well, and much better than you are prepared to tell this meeting.

MR MATALA: Yes, I knew her as my aunt, also as my neighbour.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And you also knew very well that she and her husband played a very prominent role in the community, being the Bishop and his wife?

MR MATALA: As I have already indicated, the deceased was a member of a School Committee in a certain school, then I agree with that.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Do you concede that at the time, the deceased and her husband lived in the house which everyone called "The Big House"?

MR MATALA: That each and every person called it "The Big House", I cannot agree because there were so many big houses around the area?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I don't want there to be any confusion about this. If the people at the time referred to "The Big House", they referred to only one house and that was the deceased's house, isn't that so?

MR MATALA: As I have tried to explain, that was not the only big house, there were several big houses where we were staying.

MR VAN RENSBURG: At the meeting, was the deceased named as a witch by her name, by calling her name or was she referred to as the one living in "The Big House"?

MR MATALA: She was referred to as a witch in the meeting.

MR VAN RENSBURG: By name?

MR MATALA: Yes, by name.

CHAIRPERSON: Tell me, was she involved in witchcraft?

MR MATALA: By then she was appointed as a witchcraft.

CHAIRPERSON: No, do you know, she used to be a neighbour, she was your aunt, was she involved in witchcraft?

MR MATALA: That she was practising witchcraft, what I can say is that I heard about it, that she was practising witchcraft.

CHAIRPERSON: And in the meeting it was mentioned that this was so?

MR MATALA: Yes. It was mentioned, that is why it was agreed that we must proceed to her homestead and commit the act we did.

CHAIRPERSON: Who mentioned her name in the meeting?

MR MATALA: As I have indicated that it is Thomas Ramashila.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Do you know whether Thomas knew her very well?

MR MATALA: I think by then he knew her very well, because he was staying with her in the same village.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Very near to her, also a neighbour or not?

MR MATALA: I think from the homestead of the deceased to his homestead, we only pass one homestead or one kraal.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Do you know whether he had any quarrels with her?

MR MATALA: To my knowledge, no. I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: In any case you had heard that she involved herself with witchcraft activities. Was it at this meeting or prior to that?

MR MATALA: I heard about it in the meeting because her name was also indicated or pointed there.

CHAIRPERSON: Didn't you then say "look, it is my aunt, I don't know about this? She is my neighbour, I never saw anything like this?"

MR MATALA: Yes, it was not possible to do so, because none of the people who were present, was disputing that.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you believe that she involved herself when you heard that she involved herself in witchcraft activities?

MR MATALA: Yes, I believed, that is why I participated in the incident which occurred.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Matala, when you gave evidence at the criminal case, when you were found guilty of the murder of this deceased, is it not so that you in fact confirmed that there was never a rumour or even a suspicion that the deceased was involved in witchcraft? Mr Chairman, I am referring to page 79, on the top, of the Bundle. Perhaps I should give the quotation to the witness. You see, in the judgement, the learned Judge found the following

"Accused 1 (that is you) and for that matter all the accused who gave evidence, however, confirmed that there was never any grounds for even a suspicion that she did in fact practise witchcraft. And what is more, accused 1, for that matter, all the accused that gave evidence, disvowed any belief in witchcraft as such."

Let's leave that second sentence for the moment and I want your reaction to this. In your own evidence during the criminal trial, you conceded that there was no suspicion that this deceased was practising witchcraft. Isn't that so?

MR MATALA: Yes, the evidence in the criminal court is like that, but in court we were just speaking in defence of ourselves, and then we were forced to refuse other things in trying to make sure that we might be given a lesser sentence. But the issue, we heard about it from the meeting.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Are you saying you lied in court?

MR MATALA: Yes, I lied.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And who forced you to lie?

MR MATALA: No one forced me.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

MR VAN RENSBURG: Pardon, I didn't hear that?

CHAIRPERSON: I say he didn't say that he was forced to lie. Maybe you can ask him if he was forced.

ADV SIGODI: He has answered.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I will ask that question. Did anyone force you to lie in court?

MR MATALA: No one forced me to lie in court.

MR VAN RENSBURG: So why did you lie in court?

MR MATALA: I was thinking that maybe I will receive less charges or a short sentence.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Hm. Let's continue with the status of the deceased in the community at the time. Would you agree and that was also found by the learned Judge at the time, at the criminal trial, that the deceased was in fact holding a prestigious position and had some standing in the community, would you agree with that statement?

MR MATALA: Could you please repeat your question?

MR VAN RENSBURG: At the criminal trial the Judge found that this deceased had a prestigious position of some standing in the community, meaning that she was an important person in the community, do you agree with that finding?

MR MATALA: What I knew is that she was a member of the School Committee in a certain school. That is what I knew.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Did you like ...

JUDGE DE JAGER: Was she a respected person in the community, being the wife of the Bishop, serving on the School Committee, was she respected all round in the community?

MR MATALA: Yes, yes, she was respected.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman. Did you like this aunt of yours?

MR MATALA: Yes. Yes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: So you agree with the Judge's finding that she was in fact a well liked and respected person?

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know if he liked her, whether that necessarily leads to a conclusion that she was well liked in the society? Maybe he had family reasons to like her?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I don't think it is that important. I would rather just put a statement, the finding of the Judge to him, then. Thank you Mr Chairman.

Let's rephrase that question then. At the criminal court, in his judgement, the learned Judge then found that this deceased was a well liked and respected person in the community, do you agree with that statement?

MR MATALA: I have already indicated that she was respected, I am not disputing that.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Have you heard the rumour at the time that was prior to the death of the deceased, that the people said that the deceased and her husband, being people of the church, is actually taking people away from the Mulaudzi's?

INTERPRETER: Could you repeat that?

MR MATALA: Could you please repeat that?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay, I will put it as a fact that at the time there was a rumour in the community that the deceased and her husband, being people of the church, that they as a couple, are taking the people away from the Mulaudzi's, have you ever heard of that rumour before?

MR MATALA: No, I didn't hear that rumours.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Was that not mentioned on the meeting before you actually proceeded to kill the deceased? Was that rumour not mentioned at the meeting?

MR MATALA: No, in the meeting, no, I didn't hear that.

MR VAN RENSBURG: There was evidence at the criminal trial led that accused 2, which is now the applicant Mulaudzi, often spread that rumour and told the people that the deceased take the people away from the Mulaudzi's? You have never heard accused 2, or Mulaudzi then, say that thing?

MR MATALA: No, I know nothing about that.

MR VAN RENSBURG: At the time, the previous let's call her the Bishop's wife, the previous Bishop's wife, was still living in the area, is that correct?

MR MATALA: The wife of the, the wife of the first Bishop?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, the one preceding the deceased and her husband, she was still living there in the area?

MR MATALA: Yes that is true.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And is it not true that it was common knowledge at the time that there was envy between these two women, the deceased and the one previously holding that position?

MR MATALA: I think by that time, I was still young and the people who are referred to, are older. I was still young by then. Then I don't know about the issues of the older people, I don't know whether they've got envies or whether they agree, I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: Look here, his previous wife was Malaudzi, correct?

MR MATALA: Could you repeat your question.

CHAIRPERSON: The previous wife who lived in the area, was she a Malaudzi?

MR MATALA: She was from the Malaudzi's.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And your co-applicant, was he one?

MR MATALA: He is also from the Malaudzi's.

CHAIRPERSON: Wasn't this deceased killed because of a marital problem, private marital problem rather than the issue of witchcraft?

MR NDOU: Excuse me Honourable Chairman, perhaps just to assist. I think it is the way in which the questions have been posed that the story is not very clear. What appears to be, what he wants to put forward is that there was a Bishop who had a wife and that Bishop died, and the present, the husband to the deceased, took over the church and the wife to the previous Bishop, was still alive in the area. Now, that is why the story is not coming out very clear.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, let me rephrase then, sorry about the misunderstanding. Was this lady not killed because of the problem related to the church, rather than witchcraft, a question of jealousy, etc? In other words she was killed for another reason other than witchcraft? What is your comment?

MR MATALA: In response to that, I think to my knowledge and to the person who was in the meeting, she was killed because she was practising witchcraft. The issue of church, I have indicated that I don't know.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman. Just tell the hearing again, who forwarded the deceased's name at the meeting that you held?

MR MATALA: If I still remember well I have indicated it was Thomas Ramashila and George Matala.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Now I put it to you that it was in fact Mulaudzi who put the deceased's name on the list at the meeting.

MR MATALA: What I know is what I have just explained.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And I put it further to you that that was in fact the finding of the Judge in the criminal trial. Mr Chairman, I am referring to page 61 of the bundle, in the middle where the Judge said - he said that at the meeting accused 2, that is Mulaudzi, was one of those who suggested that the deceased should be burnt. Is it possible that you made a mistake and it was indeed Mulaudzi who forwarded the deceased's name onto the list at the meeting?

MR MATALA: What I know is what I have just explained, that is the gist of my matter.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I want you to be very clear about this, are you positive about the fact that it was these other two gentlemen or is it possible that it could have been Mulaudzi? What I want to know is if it is possible that you made a mistake, or are you absolutely certain about this?

MR MATALA: What I can say regarding that is that in the meeting I was present, the people who implicated her is the very two people I have just mentioned.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the surname of George?

MR MATALA: Matala.

CHAIRPERSON: Spell it please. How do you spell it?

MR MATALA: M-a-t-a-l-a.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman. Okay, let's continue with the meeting that you held before the deceased was killed, I think it is common cause that you in fact were the Chairman at that meeting, is that correct?

MR MATALA: Yes, it is true.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Before the meeting, did you organise for the people to attend the said meeting?

MR MATALA: Yes, I did organise.

MR VAN RENSBURG: How did you organise for the people to attend the meeting?

MR MATALA: We were following them house by house, collecting them.

MR VAN RENSBURG: So in fact you were forcing them to attend the meeting, is that not true?

MR MATALA: That is not true, we were inviting them to a meeting.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Are you saying that by going house to house, you just informed them and then they would come voluntarily? Is that what you did?

MR MATALA: That is what I did.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I put it to you that you in fact ordered the people to attend the meeting?

MR MATALA: No, I am disputing that. We requested the people to come and attend the meeting, no one was ordered to do so.

MR VAN RENSBURG: There was a certain Tshinanne Manyatshe, Mr Chairman, if I can just rather spell that name T-s-h-i-n-a-n-n-e and the surname M-a-n-y-a-t-s-h-a. Do you know that person?

MR MATALA: Yes, I know that person.

MR VAN RENSBURG: That person gave evidence during the criminal trial and testified that you in fact ordered him to attend the said meeting? What do you say about that?

MR MATALA: As I have already tried to explain, no one was ordered to do so. I think this Tshinanne was speaking maybe to incriminate myself so that I must be seen to be guilty, but no one was ordered to attend the meeting, as I have already indicated.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes. Just for the record, I am referring to page 51 on the bottom, of the bundle, Mr Chairman. I don't want to be long on this, I just want to put it to you that because you ordered the people, I deduct from that, deduce from that fact that you in fact put pressure on them and therefore they did not attend the meeting voluntarily as you have led this hearing to believe so far?

MR MATALA: What I can say is that I didn't order anybody, people were simply invited to a meeting and ultimately they attended.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Now this was a meeting of the Mufunzi Youth Congress, correct?

MR MATALA: Yes, it is correct.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And everyone in the community knew about the existence of the Mufunzi Youth Congress?

MR MATALA: What I have already tried to explain is that it was working underground so that the majority of youth, they were aware of that and the youth were aware that they were called but which organisation, that is why they responded positively.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, but even underground, did you use that name at the time? Did you use that name of the Youth Congress, Mufunzi Youth Congress?

MR MATALA: Yes, we used that name.

MR VAN RENSBURG: How is it possible for this Youth Congress to have been affiliated with United Democratic Front if it was not officially in existence?

MR MATALA: The communication was there as I have already indicated. In the beginning, when this Congress was formed the political organisations were still banned by the then government, as such there was good communication between the people we have affiliated to and the Congresses close by.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Did you yourself communicate with the United Democratic Front?

MR MATALA: During that time, no, we were not having that communication.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr van Rensburg, it seems as though some organisations did exist because they were in a position to gather round about 100 people, so there must have been some sort of meeting or gathering of a group of people belonging to some loose organisation at least.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes Mr Chairman, thank you. I think at this stage I have been trying to show that in fact it was not a voluntary organisation, but there was in fact strong evidence that the people were in fact forced to attend that specific meeting. I don't know if you want me to respond to that further, thank you very much.

The next question I want to ask you is a simple one, if you were now a member of the Mufunzi Youth Congress, which was affiliated to the United Democratic Front, why didn't you disclose that fact on your application form?

MR MATALA: I have indicated that in the application form, I was a supporter of the ANC.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that is not the answer to the question. I am not asking you what you did write down, I can see that. What I want you to tell me is why didn't you write down that you acted on behalf of the Mufunzi Youth Congress or the United Democratic Front?

MR MATALA: It is because in that form the question which I was asked is as to which organisation I belong. I indicated that I was under the African National Congress.

MR VAN RENSBURG: So you were not a member of the Mufunzi Youth Congress?

MR MATALA: What I can say is that this other small organisations like Mufunzi Youth Congress and the UDF, to my knowledge by then is that all those organisations were under the ANC as it was the mother body or the mother organisation as it is even today.

So being a member of Mufunzi Youth Congress, it means that I am still under the ANC together with the UDF.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I will leave that for argument. Okay, do you know if this Mufunzi Youth Congress ever came into official existence at any stage, even after the deceased was killed?

MR MATALA: It was about to be launched officially, but there was a problem because we were living in hiding, running away, afraid of Police and soldiers, so it happened that it never existed and be launched officially.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes. Okay, you testified in your evidence-in-chief that, a whole long story that if you do kill all the witches, then the politicians will not have power and therefore the system would collapse. Can I ask you, did you believe this story at the time?

MR MATALA: Yes, I agreed during that time.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Did you further believe that witches do have certain powers which they can give to politicians?

MR MATALA: Yes, I agreed or believed.

MR VAN RENSBURG: You see, I've got a problem with that, because that is not what you testified when you testified during your criminal trial. You in fact, as I have quoted before, that is page 79 of the bundle, Mr Chairman, that you actually disvowed the belief in witchcraft altogether during your previous testimony?

INTERPRETER: Could you please repeat that?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I will make it simpler for you. During the criminal trial when you gave evidence, you in fact denied the fact that you believed in witchcraft personally.

MR MATALA: I think I might have said so in court, but I have already indicated before that in court, we lied, thinking that maybe we will get a lower sentence or a discharge. I think that is what resulted into that.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, but you see, I put it to you that it was in fact your whole defence at the time, that you did want to try to persuade the court that the murder was witchcraft related, and obviously that would have actually earned you a lesser sentence, isn't that so?

MR MATALA: I think you are giving me a long statement, to such extent that I am asking that you explain clearly so that I will be able to answer you.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I will try to do that, although I don't think it is all that difficult. You see at the criminal trial, eventually the Judge found that you gave evidence to the effect that you do not personally believe in witchcraft and you have now already said yes, you agree with that, that is what you in effect testified.

Now when I asked you why did you say so, you said that the reason why you lied in the criminal trial was because you wanted to get a lighter sentence, but I put it to you that the opposite is actually the situation. If you did say "I did believe in witchcraft" at the time, that would in fact, that lie would in fact qualify to give you a lighter sentence.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg, you've got to appreciate the context, he was trying to get an acquittal and to admit that he believed in witchcraft, in my mind, would enhance the chances of a conviction. It would then give rise to a motive as it were.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Mr Chairman, with all due respect, I do have to differ from that, because it was in fact, during the criminal trial, it was in fact accused 1's version that he was in fact forced, that they were forced to kill this witch and the motive for the killing was in fact witchcraft, that was the official motive that was forwarded, which was rejected by the Judge at the time.

It is in that context, perhaps I am not putting it very clearly to the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand that, it is just that your proposition is that in fact, if he had to admit to believe in witchcraft, that in itself would have induced a lighter sentence. Now, when he testified, he wasn't thinking of a sentence, he was testifying on the merits.

To concede that he believed in witchcraft would, as I understand his mind in evidence, would bring him nearer to a motive to kill, where in fact he was saying "look, while I participated, I did not do so willingly".

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman, I am not going to push this issue, except that I have to put to the Court that the context of my question was also reacting to his motivation for lying. He said ...

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, thank you, I will leave this line of questioning or this issue for argument later. Thank you Mr Chairman.

Yes, if we can then proceed to your statement that you made previously that you realised at the time that there were no other services to boycott and as an alternative plan then, you decided to kill the witches. Now I just want to simply put to you, or let me ask you this, is it not so that at the same time, and that was also your evidence, that there were some pamphlets distributed in the area calling on everyone to boycott the schools?

MR MATALA: Yes, the pamphlets were distributed to that effect.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And there were in the area at the time, Civil Service offices and Police stations, is that correct?

INTERPRETER: Could you please repeat your question?

MR VAN RENSBURG: At the time, that was 1990 and before the deceased was killed, there were Civil Service offices in your area and also a Police station, isn't that so?

MR MATALA: Yes, there was no services for the community there.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Sorry Mr van Rensburg, did the deceased as a member of the School Committee, support the school boycott or did she oppose the school boycott or don't you know?

MR MATALA: I think, I don't know what was her position as to whether she was in favour of that or not.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Okay, thank you.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I just want to put it to you that your argument that there was nothing else you could do because there was no services to boycott, and therefore you had no alternative but to kill the witches, actually do not hold any water, because you could have for instance boycotted the school?

MR MATALA: What I can explain now is that in the past, the political situation was rife and as such, what I can indicate is that the situation was increasingly being so dangerous that we ended up reaching this decision thinking that if we did this, following other incidents which happened before, then we could achieve our goals.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I will leave that point there. Let's turn to the actual killing of the deceased at the time. I think one of the Committee members asked you the question during your examination-in-chief, but I also find it curious and I want you to explain to us again. You were the Chairman of the meeting, you ordered people to attend the meeting and then when you actually arrived on the scene of the crime, you took a very backseat and didn't actively participate. Can you explain that situation to us, or your motivation for that situation?

MR MATALA: I didn't order anybody to go and kill, it was a resolution reached in the meeting by all the people attending the meeting. As such, that is why I think as a person who gave instructions after the resolution taken in the meeting, leading to the fact that I didn't actively participate.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that still does not answer the question. At the meeting you were on the forefront, on the scene of the crime, you were at the background. Why?

MR MATALA: I think we were all going there. In the meeting, it is obvious that I can be in the front, because I was talking with the people who were sitting down, but when we reached the deceased's place, we didn't sit down. Maybe that is the reason why I was not in the forefront.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I would suggest to you that the reason why you actually took a minor role on the scene of the crime, is because you lived next-door to the deceased, you respected her and you were in fact ashamed of what the people were doing at the time?

INTERPRETER: He is asking for the question to be repeated please.

CHAIRPERSON: ... that while you were there you saw them do what they were doing or what they did to the lady, the deceased, you didn't want to actually physically participate in it, because you were ashamed of what was happening?

MR MATALA: What was happening by that time, as I have already indicated that we were a group of people, it was just, we were so surrounding the body in numbers, and that is why I was from behind by then.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman. You testified that it was Thomas Mudau who actually put the tyre on the deceased for the first time, isn't that so?

MR MATALA: I said it is Thomas Mudau and Elvis Makhumbele.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I am talking about the first time, not when the tyre fell off and it was put on the second time, I am talking about the first time. You testified that it was Thomas Mudau. Isn't that so?

MR MATALA: Yes, it is true.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Did you see this Thomas putting the tyre on the deceased?

MR MATALA: Yes, I saw him.

MR VAN RENSBURG: At that time, where was Mr Ramalata? Normal Ramalata?

MR MATALA: By that time, I don't know where Norman Ramalata was, because the youth were so many and it was during the night.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Who struck the match?

MR MATALA: I have already indicated that even today I don't know the person who did that.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr van Rensburg, I don't think we should repeat all the questions if he has already given an answer, unless you could put it to him that you've got evidence that so and so struck the match?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I do in fact want to make that statement, I just want to confirm his evidence and make sure that he is certain about it, or perhaps he wasn't certain, but I won't dwell on this.

I just want to put it to you, is it not possible that Ramalata was the one who put the tyre on the deceased for the first time and struck the match? Could it have been Ramalata?

MR MATALA: That is why I am saying, I have seen the person I have referred to. Where Ramalata was by then, I am saying I didn't see him.

MR VAN RENSBURG: The reason why I am putting that to you and I am referring to page 65 on the bottom of the bundle, Mr Chairman, at the criminal hearing the Judge in fact found that it was Mulaudzi and Ramalata who put the tyre on the deceased and that it was number 5, Ramalata, who struck the match. What do you say to that?

CHAIRPERSON: Is it possible that that was so, that Ramalata struck the match? You say you don't know who struck the match, so it is possible it was in fact Ramalata?

MR MATALA: I have tried to explain to the Court that I didn't see the person who struck the match and I was not aware where Ramalata was.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I accept that, so you cannot deny that it is Ramalata who struck the match?

MR MATALA: I can refuse, because I didn't see him.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman. You remember after the tyre was put back for the second time, and the deceased was now already lying on the ground, when the people started to run away, can you remember that there was someone who actually stopped the persons from running away? Can you remember that?

MR MATALA: No, I can't remember it, since it happened long ago.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I've got no further questions to this witness. Perhaps I can just finish off by putting to him exactly what the version of the victims are.

Okay, to close off then Mr Matala, I just want to put it to you that the reason why you in fact killed the deceased was because of this envy between the family of the Mulaudzi's and in particular then the previous wife of the previous Bishop and the deceased. That was the main reason why her name was put on the roll and that is the reason why she was in fact killed. What do you say to that?

MR MATALA: I thought in the past you said it was suspected or to such an extent that I was still young by then and I didn't hear that envy of the older people, and I am still reiterating that I know nothing about that rumours.

MR VAN RENSBURG: So do you concede then that that could have been the reason why her name was put on the roll?

CHAIRPERSON: No, he is not conceding it, he is saying he doesn't know that. He never heard that rumour. He has already testified why he participated.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I will withdraw that question then, thank you Mr Chairman.

And I then finally want to put to you that the reason why the deceased was killed, was not to further your political motives, but for some other reason having something to do with the fact that she was a member of the church and there was a rumour at the time that these people were pulling the people away from the Mulaudzi's.

MR MATALA: What I know is that what we did, we were having the aim or the objective, political aims and objectives. These other things, I don't know.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, and finally then I want to put it to you that the victims dispute the existence of this so-called Youth Congress and they say that there was never such a thing.

MR MATALA: Those people, if you can look into them, they are older people. That was the issue of the younger, that was the issue of the youth. Because they are older, it is possible that they could not know the activities of the youth.

MR VAN RENSBURG: What is the definition of youth?

MR MATALA: For now, what I can say is that I am not able to define that, but by then, when we referred to the youth, we were talking to a person who is still a young boy.

CHAIRPERSON: Officially Mr van Rensburg, the maximum age one could be a member of the youth, any Youth Congress under the ANC was 24, I think.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I appreciate that.

Did you know that Mulaudzi was at the time of the killing of the deceased, 31 years old?

MR MATALA: That he was having so many years or which years, I don't know.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I've got no further questions, thank you Your Worship.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN RENSBURG

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma, have you got any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAPOMA: Just a few Chairperson, thank you. Mr Matala, did you ever go to school?

MR MATALA: Yes, I attended school.

INTERPRETER: May you please repeat your question?

MR MAPOMA: Did you ever attend school?

MR MATALA: Yes, I once attended school.

MR MAPOMA: What standard of education do you have?

MR MATALA: I passed my first year at Teacher's College.

MR MAPOMA: Now, I just want to refer you back to the period of the UDF. If I remember very well, in the Republic of South Africa, the UDF was not banned but was restricted. What was the position in the Venda homeland government then regarding the UDF?

MR MATALA: What I know is that in the former Venda government is that all political organisations were banned, and there were no free political activities.

MR MAPOMA: So is that the reason why the Youth Congress of your area could not publicly come out to be the affiliates of the UDF?

JUDGE DE JAGER: But this occurred in March 1990 and even the ANC was unbanned as far as I know, on the 2nd of February 1990? That was before the murder?

MR MATALA: What I, I don't think I must disagree with that, but I don't remember the date on which these organisations were unbanned.

CHAIRPERSON: In Venda, what was the position of opposition, apartheid opposition organisations? Were they unbanned at the same time the South African government unbanned it?

MR MATALA: All the political organisations were banned by the then Venda government.

CHAIRPERSON: And the day this lady was killed, what was the position?

MR MATALA: I have indicated that I am unable to remember the date on which the political organisations were unbanned.

CHAIRPERSON: I am not asking you that, now come, you can understand that if you were a first year Teacher's Training College student. On the day this event occurred, what was the position of the organisations that opposed apartheid and the Venda government Act? Before you answer that, I wish to point out to you that if they were not banned at the time, then one of your reasons for killing this lady, falls away, the stopping and the ...(indistinct) of political activity. That is why I want to know, I am not asking dates, I am asking when this event took place, what was the status of opposing political organisations in the area of what was then known as Venda?

MR MATALA: Those organisations were supporting what we were doing, because they were against the government.

CHAIRPERSON: Were they or were they not banned on the day this lady was killed? That is what I am asking, it is not a difficult question?

MR MATALA: They were still banned.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chairperson. Where was the meeting held where the murder of these persons was discussed?

MR MATALA: The meeting was held next to a tap where people used to fetch water of that village, during the night.

MR MAPOMA: I understand that three persons were identified as the alleged witches and only one person was killed. What happened to the others?

MR MATALA: What I can try to indicate is that as we were standing there, Police vans and soldiers arrived and then we ran away and then we dispersed forever.

MR MAPOMA: Was it an agreed programme that you would start with the deceased and then continue with others?

MR MATALA: Yes, we agreed to that effect.

MR MAPOMA: Were you a church-goer at all?

MR MATALA: No, no, I wasn't a church-goer, I am afraid of lying.

MR MAPOMA: What about Thomas Mudau, to your knowledge?

MR MATALA: That I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: I think religious beliefs are so private, I don't know if one can answer for another, to what extent you believe in God and that type of ...

MR MAPOMA: Yes, I appreciate that Chairperson, I didn't want to dwell much on that. I think that is it, Chairperson, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MAPOMA

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou, have you got any ...

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR NDOU: Perhaps just one point to clear, Mr Chairman. Now, you have heard when my learned friend was putting questions to you, he indicated that the Mulaudzi's were complaining that people were being taken away from them. As far as you were aware, were there two congregations in your area or not?

MR MATALA: There was one congregation.

MR NDOU: So it could not have been possible for one to say that people were being taken from one person to the other, is it? Is that what you are saying?

MR MATALA: Yes, that is what I am saying.

MR NDOU: Thank you Mr Chairperson, that is all.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NDOU

JUDGE DE JAGER: Who was the President or the Premier of Venda at the time of the killing?

MR MATALA: It was Frank Ravel.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And who succeeded him?

MR MATALA: I think there was a coup by Gabriel Ramushwana.

JUDGE DE JAGER: When was this coup?

MR MATALA: On the 5th of April.

JUDGE DE JAGER: 1990?

MR MATALA: 1990.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you are excused. We will take the tea adjournment.

WITNESS EXCUSED

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS