--------------------------------------------------------------------------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.

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 -

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.

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.

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.

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.

... with that petrol bucket?

MR RAMALATA: Having agreed with others that we will meet under Mpelo's kraal. When people, when they were coming from the direction of the tap, they were singing, they were singing the so-called ...(indistinct) or slogans.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you go and buy that petrol before the meeting or after the meeting?

MR RAMALATA: What happened at the meeting we agreed that we should find petrol, and the petrol was not bought before.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Carry on.

MR NDOU: Yes, you can proceed. You can proceed.

MR RAMALATA: Petrol was found after the meeting was held, while the meeting was on.

CHAIRPERSON: But after the decision was made?

MR RAMALATA: Yes, after the decision was made. We were delegated to go and fetch the petrol in the meeting, which was being chaired by Samuel Matala. And then we were delegated, I think we were about five, five to six.

ADV SIGODI: Who delegated you? Who delegated you?

MR RAMALATA: It is the people who were being appointed by the Chairperson.

MR NDOU: That is not what he said. The question that was put to you was "who delegated you", what was your answer?

ADV SIGODI: Who told you to go and fetch the petrol?

MR NDOU: Yes?

MR RAMALATA: So we were just appointing each other randomly. The person who pointed me ...

MR NDOU: Mr Interpreter, he says he cannot hear you.

MR RAMALATA: The person who appointed me, is Elvis Makhumbele.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand it, a very loose sort of voluntary group was agreed upon in the meeting to go and fetch the petrol, is that correct?

MR RAMALATA: No, we were appointed to do so.

CHAIRPERSON: Who appointed all of you, that was the question. Don't come tell us about who appointed you and who didn't appoint you.

MR RAMALATA: The person that I can remember who appointed me, is Elvis Makhumbele.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR NDOU: When you say here pointed you, how did he appoint you?

MR RAMALATA: He raised his hand and he was pointed and then he said "I am appointing Normal Ramalata to be one of the delegates who will go and fetch petrol."

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Interpreter, are you not supposed to use the word "nominate" in stead of "appoint"?

INTERPRETER: In stead of nominating, but appoint, but seemingly he is referring to appointing, by a finger in the first place, that he was pointed by a finger, if I get him right. He was pointed by a finger.

CHAIRPERSON: You know, in a meeting where someone wants another to be a President or a Secretary, he is nominated by name to the meeting. Do you understand that?

MR RAMALATA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, if I, I don't want to sound funny, but to this Petrol Committee, were you not nominated and the meeting agreed that you would serve on this Petrol Committee?

MR RAMALATA: Yes, I was nominated and then the people agreed.

CHAIRPERSON: Agreed, yes. Okay, can we proceed.

MR NDOU: Then you proceeded with the group with whom you were nominated to go and fetch petrol, is that correct?

MR RAMALATA: Yes, that is correct.

MR NDOU: Then what happened?

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Ndou, he is dealing with that in paragraph 26. He has confirmed it. Is there anything he wants to add to this affidavit?

INTERPRETER: He is requesting that you repeat your question?

JUDGE DE JAGER: Is there anything, he has made an affidavit, it is contained in the bundle, he has confirmed it, is there anything that he wishes to add to what has already been said in the affidavit?

MR RAMALATA: No.

MR NDOU: That is all.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg, are there any questions that you would like to ask this witness?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I have a few questions. I see that in paragraph 21 of your statement, a certain George Matala actually identified the deceased to be named as a witch. Can I read the paragraph to him, Mr Chairman? I am referring to paragraph 21 as you can find it on page 26(d) of the bundle -

Is that the truth?

MR RAMALATA: Yes, it is true.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Is it because of this nomination of George Matala, that her name was put on the list as a witch?

MR RAMALATA: If you can look here on paragraph 21, it is indicating that if I am not - that George Matala is the person who pointed the deceased as a person who is practising witchcraft.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

MR RAMALATA: That is all.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Was the name of the deceased's husband also mentioned at that meeting?

MR RAMALATA: The name of the husband of the deceased, I never heard about it in the meeting.

MR VAN RENSBURG: This George Matala, was he a youngster, was she part of the youth?

MR RAMALATA: He was not part of the youth, he is older. He is quite an old person.

MR VAN RENSBURG: What was he doing at the meeting of the Youth Congress?

MR RAMALATA: In that meeting there were older people too.

MR VAN RENSBURG: From the previous witness I got the impression that it was a meeting of the Youth Congress and that the people actually, that the previous witness actually went from house to house to round-up or to gather the youth for this meeting. Are you now saying that there were other people except youth as well at this meeting?

MR RAMALATA: Yes, when that man mentioned, he realised that the majority of the people were youth and then he took it for granted that the youth was for the youth only.

MR VAN RENSBURG: This George Matala was not the only older person at the meeting, was he? There were several others as well?

MR RAMALATA: Yes, there were other people like Tshinanne Manyatshe who were the older people.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Would you say that those people actually knew that they were attending a meeting of the Youth Congress?

MR RAMALATA: I have not no idea, I am not sure if they were aware, but there were people who just heard people singing freedom songs and then voluntarily joined.

MR VAN RENSBURG: This George Matala, it says there in paragraph 1 of your statement that he in fact gave some story that the deceased was the one who bewitched him. Can you tell us about what he said at that meeting about that?

MR RAMALATA: Please repeat your question.

MR VAN RENSBURG: In your statement, paragraph 1, you state there that George Matala told the crowd that the deceased bewitched him. Tell us about that.

MR RAMALATA: It is not George Matala, there are two people. There is Thomas Ramashila and George Matala.

JUDGE DE JAGER: What did she do to him? Was he crippled, what did she do to him?

INTERPRETER: Could you please repeat your question?

JUDGE DE JAGER: What did the deceased do to George Matala, did she cripple him, did she make him ill, what did she do to him?

MR RAMALATA: There is nothing which the deceased do to George Matala. What I know is that Thomas Ramashila is a person who indicated that the deceased bewitched his elder brother.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Sorry, I didn't hear the interpretation, the answer.

MR RAMALATA: What I am saying is this, there is no area in which George Matala indicated, it is Thomas Ramashila who pointed out that the deceased bewitched his elder brother. George Matala, is one of the people who indicated that the deceased was a witch, but he didn't indicate how she practised this witchcraft.

CHAIRPERSON: In paragraph 21 it states there that George Matala told the crowd that the deceased had bewitched him. That is paragraph 21?

MR RAMALATA: Yes, it is there. Maybe I was maybe confused or mixing the issue.

CHAIRPERSON: So what is the proper position now, George Matala only confirmed that his sister was a witch, but he didn't say that he had been bewitched by her. In fact it was Ramashila that said so? Do I understand you correctly now?

MR RAMALATA: George Matala indicated that the deceased was a witch.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR RAMALATA: Using medicines and then in paragraph 22 it is indicated that Thomas Ramashila indicated that the deceased bewitched his elder brother.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he indicate how his elder brother was bewitched? What was the result of the bewitching?

MR RAMALATA: He said he was having a wound in the leg which was unable to heel.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman. At the meeting still, you say that some people delegated or appointed you in fact you said that you did not volunteer to be on this Petrol Committee, is that correct, you did not volunteer?

MR RAMALATA: Yes, I didn't volunteer, it is true.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Who was the one that actually mentioned that petrol must be fetched at all?

MR RAMALATA: I have indicated if you hear me well, that the person who appointed me is Elvis Makhumbele.

MR VAN RENSBURG: That is not what I am asking, I am asking you who first mentioned the word petrol at the meeting?

MR RAMALATA: No, I am unable to recall that, but it was agreed that we must fetch the petrol.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I will refresh your memory and put it to you that it was you who mentioned the fetching of the petrol for the first time, at the meeting? What do you say about that?

MR RAMALATA: No, no, I didn't mention that.

MR VAN RENSBURG: It was further you who suggested where the petrol could be found?

MR RAMALATA: That is not true.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And it was you who volunteered to go and fetch the petrol?

MR RAMALATA: That is not true.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Can you recall the evidence of a certain Joseph at the criminal trial who testified that?

MR RAMALATA: If you can talk of the evidence in the court, I want to put it clear here before this Committee, that the evidence we gave in court, was full of lies.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Mr Ramalata, you didn't even give evidence in court, in the criminal trial, is it not so? You couldn't lie, you didn't give evidence?

MR RAMALATA: Because I was not knowing this legal procedures, my representative who was representing me then advised me to close the case. Simply because I am not legally wise, then I decided to do so.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, so please don't waste this Court's time. The fact is you didn't give evidence, so you couldn't lie, yourself?

MR NDOU: I think there is a misunderstanding. He never said that he lied in court, he said that there was a lot of lies that was said in court. It could have been said by the witnesses, it could have been said by whoever, but he never said specifically he lied.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Perhaps it is an interpretation problem, but he definitely said he lied, that is why I put the statement to him that he couldn't lie because he didn't give evidence.

MR NDOU: It is not a correct proposition.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I will continue Mr Chairperson, thank you. Mr Ramalata, are you saying that this Joseph who gave evidence in court, lied when he testified that you were the one who proposed that petrol must be fetched, you volunteered to fetch the petrol and you volunteered where it could be found? Did he lie?

MR RAMALATA: Yes, he lied.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And in spite of all those lies, you did not elect to give evidence to refute those lies, is that the position?

MR RAMALATA: I advised my representative that what is being mentioned there, I didn't, that is what I didn't do.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Hm. So why didn't you go into the box and deny that allegations?

CHAIRPERSON: He just said that he was advised not to do so.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I will accept that, thank you Mr Chairperson. Okay, let's continue then to the actual, your participation in the murder. When you arrived at the scene, were you carrying this canister of petrol?

CHAIRPERSON: That is what he said about his participation, he was at the meeting, he was party to the decision to kill these alleged witches based on what was said at the meeting, he was nominated, accepted the nomination onto this Petrol Committee and they went to buy this petrol at a place where petrol could be bought. They obtained this petrol, put it in a container and Jerry was the one that carried it. They went to this house and according to his written submission, he was part of the crowd that surrounded the house, that prevented the deceased from escaping.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman, I missed that one point. Mr Ramalata, how far were you from the deceased when the match was struck?

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know when the match was struck in order to burn her?

MR RAMALATA: Could you please rephrase your question?

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know when the match was struck to burn her? Did you see it?

MR RAMALATA: What I know is that the matches were lit when the petrol was already poured on the body.

CHAIRPERSON: We all can deduce that. It would be stupid to do it in reverse, I am asking did you witness it, did you actually see the match being struck?

MR RAMALATA: No. I didn't manage to see that.

CHAIRPERSON: And therefore you are unable to say when it occurred? Correct?

MR RAMALATA: It happened during the night, and as such, I cannot be able to say when it happened.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but you did see the petrol being thrown?

MR RAMALATA: Yes, I saw it being poured, I saw the petrol being poured on the body of the deceased.

CHAIRPERSON: So the pouring of the petrol and the lighting of the body, probably occurred shortly one after each other? How far were you from the deceased when the petrol was poured?

MR RAMALATA: The people, the deceased was in the centre, surrounded by the crowd of people. I was on the ...

CHAIRPERSON: Let's assume you are now where you were standing, point out a place here in this room, where the deceased would have been laying?

MR RAMALATA: No, the deceased was still standing.

CHAIRPERSON: All right, where was the deceased, how far from you?

MR RAMALATA: The deceased was in the direction, as I am indicating, next to the table.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Not the direction, how far, one metre, two metres?

CHAIRPERSON: Point out a place. From where you are sitting now, how far away was the deceased standing when the petrol was poured, more or less?

MR RAMALATA: She was, I don't know, but close to one metre.

CHAIRPERSON: How far is one metre? Show me how is one metre.

MR RAMALATA: I think one metre is from here to where the table is.

CHAIRPERSON: The beginning of the table, nearest to you?

MR RAMALATA: Yes, to the beginning of the table.

CHAIRPERSON: I reckon that is about two metres, more or less?

ADV SIGODI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So you were two metres approximately away from the deceased when she was doused with petrol? Yes, Mr van Rensburg?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairperson. The next question you must think carefully about and I remind you that you are still under oath. Did you get burnt when the petrol was set alight, you yourself?

MR RAMALATA: To be honest, I didn't burn the deceased.

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, the question is did you get burnt, did you get burnt yourself, did you get injured by the petrol?

MR RAMALATA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: When was that, when the match was lit to burn the deceased?

INTERPRETER: Could you please repeat your question?

CHAIRPERSON: Did your hand burn when the deceased was set alight?

MR RAMALATA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So you were close enough to that match to get burnt?

MR RAMALATA: I won't dispute that.

CHAIRPERSON: How is it that you are unable to tell us who struck the match?

MR RAMALATA: The truth is that is was not me who lit the matches.

CHAIRPERSON: I am not suggesting that it is you. I am asking how you cannot tell us who struck the match then if you were so close to get burnt?

MR RAMALATA: I was unable to identify the person who lit the match.

CHAIRPERSON: Why?

MR RAMALATA: It was dark and it was during the night when it happened.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But you could clearly see the petrol being poured, what is the difference between the petrol being poured and the match being struck? And you could even see the match in the hand of somebody and it would light up his face? Why are you all afraid to tell us who struck the match?

MR RAMALATA: I think the person who poured the petrol, was close to me, that is why I managed to identify him. As he was pouring the petrol, the petrol then touched my hand and then I was surprised to find myself in the middle of the fire and I was also burning.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr van Rensburg?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman. It was you who struck the match, was it not?

MR RAMALATA: It is not me.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Do you agree that during the criminal trial the Judge found that it was you who struck the match?

MR RAMALATA: Yes, that is what was found in court but I in formed my legal advisor that it is not me, and then he refused that in court.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And in spite of that you got advice that you should not go and deny this serious allegation?

MR RAMALATA: I have indicated that because I am not a legal person, I agreed after my legal advisor requested me to close that case, and then I agreed.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Who put the tyre around the deceased for the first time?

MR RAMALATA: The person I managed to identify is Thomas Mudau.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Again I put it to you that it was you who put the tyre on the neck of the deceased?

MR RAMALATA: No, I am disputing that.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Do you agree that the criminal trial found that it was you who put the tyre around the deceased's neck?

CHAIRPERSON: Well, even if he agrees, he has already denied that it was him.

MR RAMALATA: I have indicated that most of the evidence given to the Court, most of it was full of lies. If you want me to explain, let me explain this way.

CHAIRPERSON: No, you said you didn't put it on. Thank you.

MR RAMALATA: Yes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman. Did you have a knife that day?

MR RAMALATA: No.

MR VAN RENSBURG: After the deceased was set alight and the tyre was put back on for the second time, when the people started to run away, can you remember that?

MR RAMALATA: No, I am unable to remember it very well.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Can you remember that there was someone who stopped or blocked the people from running away?

MR RAMALATA: There was no person who stopped or blocked anybody.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I put it ...

CHAIRPERSON: Did you not say in your written submission that you were part of the crowd that surrounded the house of the deceased to prevent her from escaping?

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes, but I think that after that the crowd dispersed, somebody tried to stop the crowd.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, okay. I misunderstood your question.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, perhaps I can just confirm that. My question was after the deceased was already killed and the people started to run away, there was one person, and that is what I put to the witness, who stopped or prevented the crowd from running away. I just cannot remember if he has answered that question or not, I don't think so.

JUDGE DE JAGER: He said no. His answer was no.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman. I just put it to you then again, that when the people started to run away you had a knife in your hand, and you blocked the people so that they could not run away.

MR RAMALATA: No, that is not true.

MR VAN RENSBURG: At what stage did you throw stones at the deceased?

MR RAMALATA: I threw the stone not to the deceased, but inside the house or to the house.

CHAIRPERSON: Paragraph 39 you specifically say you threw stones at the deceased?

MR RAMALATA: Paragraph 39? Yes, stones were thrown, but I cannot refuse that they were thrown at the deceased, but when I threw mine, I was only throwing them to the house.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But taking your affidavit, can you read there paragraph 39?

not at the house, at the deceased?

CHAIRPERSON: Where was the deceased when you threw the stones?

MR RAMALATA: She was inside the house.

CHAIRPERSON: Why is it in paragraph 39 not stated that you threw stones at the house whilst the deceased was inside it?

MR RAMALATA: I don't remember how it happened.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairperson. I put it to you that you got burnt that day because you were the one that struck the match.

MR RAMALATA: No, that is not true.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I further put it to you that you are downplaying your involvement in this whole incident to get the sympathy of this hearing?

MR RAMALATA: That I came here before this Committee is that I am prepared to tell the truth, but what I am saying that I didn't do, is true. That is the only truth that I have.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I have no further questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma, have you got any questions?

MR MAPOMA: No questions Chairperson, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou, any questions?

MR NDOU: None Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you are excused.

MR NDOU: Honourable Chairperson, I now call Josias Mulaudzi.

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

MR MULAUDZI: Venda.

JOSIAS MULAUDZI: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR NDOU: Thank you Honourable Chairman. Mr Mulaudzi, you are an applicant in this matter, in which you are applying for amnesty in respect of a certain incident that occurred at Mufunzi and you have filed an affidavit with the Committee, which appears on pages 16(a) right up to 16(g), is that correct?

MR MULAUDZI: Yes, it is correct.

MR NDOU: Do you confirm the contents of this affidavit?

MR MULAUDZI: Yes, I confirm.

MR NDOU: That is all Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Can you please tell us how old you are, Mr Mulaudzi?

MR MULAUDZI: I am 41 years old.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, how old were you on the 21st of March 1990?

MR MULAUDZI: I was 31 years old.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Were you a member of this Youth Congress?

MR MULAUDZI: Yes, after they explained to me, then I decided to join them at the same time, when this incident happened.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Are you saying that before this incident you were not a member of this Youth Congress?

MR MULAUDZI: I used to hear about it, but personally I was not its member.

MR VAN RENSBURG: What did you hear about it?

MR MULAUDZI: I heard about it on that day when I was coming back from work at Hammanskraal, on my arrival, as I was walking I went to a certain homestead of Ramashila and then I heard Joseph, it is Joseph who informed me that they were going to hold a meeting. At that meeting they are going to deal with people who practised witchcraft.

In questioning what was wrong with witchcraft, they said witches are giving powers to these people who are leading this government. It is then that I agree with what they are saying because I was also aware that many things, there are obstacles here in Venda and when we tried to settle matters in the central government, they referred us back to Venda. As such we realised that Venda was blocking us or preventing us from reaching our aims.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes. So the situation is on the date when the deceased was killed, on that very day, you returned back to Venda and you heard all these things, is that correct?

MR MULAUDZI: Yes, it is that day.

MR VAN RENSBURG: So you had no part in this political struggle that the Youth Congress had before that specific day, the meeting or the match that they had to the headman's kraal and all those things, you didn't even know about that?

MR MULAUDZI: When many things happened, by then I was already a married man working for my family. I have already indicated that I joined them and I agreed to their objectives the very same day, and joined them because I accepted what they were saying on the very same day, on my arrival from where I was coming from.

MR VAN RENSBURG: You see I've got a problem with that, because all the other witnesses that came before you, indicated to this hearing that it was a political thing, the youth were organising themselves because of certain reasons and there was evidence that the youth were actually called from their houses to attend this meeting. Do you confirm that or are you saying that all the people from the community, even older people as old as you, could attend that meeting?

MR MULAUDZI: What I can say is that if you can look into, if you can review this thing, these people there were school children and they were used to doing those things together and as older people, we were unable to attend their meetings because they were youth. In the past youth were so very active since 1976 from the central government until now, till the time when the Venda youth were also used.

MR VAN RENSBURG: If that being the position, how did you manage to attend this specific meeting then?

MR MULAUDZI: What I have indicated is that on my arrival from work, coming back home, I only accidentally met these things.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg, are you going to put it to him that he was not at that meeting?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, I am not going to put it to him, in fact it is my instructions that he was in fact present at that meeting.

CHAIRPERSON: Does it matter how he managed to get into the meeting, by accident or however else?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: The fact of the matter is he went to the meeting?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, except that obviously that contradicts the evidence of the other witnesses who testified that it was a Youth Congress meeting and that they were organising the youth for specific political objectives? I think that is a serious contradiction, Your Worship.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you better consider that, or reconsider that in the context. The idea of the Youth Congress was motivated by youth activities, on this particular day they met specifically to discuss the issue of the witches and its impact on the politics. It is possible, I am just suggesting, that that meeting was convened by the youth, but not necessarily for the youth only. I am not too sure, I am just suggesting to you as a possible explanation.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I accept that, but again I will at the end of the day argue that that is contrary to the evidence of the other witnesses. Thank you Mr Chairperson.

When was the first time that you heard of, or let me ask you this, have you ever heard of the Mufunzi Youth Congress?

MR MULAUDZI: I have already indicated that these people, the school children, when they meet, they do their own things, but I only heard about Mufunzi, that there is a Youth Congress that very same day, because they explained it to me, that very same day or at that very same time.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And who invited you to attend that meeting?

MR MULAUDZI: I have indicated that it was Joseph Ramatshila.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Were you aware of any marches by the youth or any meetings before that day?

MR MULAUDZI: What I know, I know about it happened before, there at Mufunzi, where the people went to the bone throwers because of the activities of the youth, so I still remember that people went to the chief's kraal, I still remember that many people were made to vacate that village. It is something that I still remember, that ...(indistinct) and others were made to leave the village and another person called Gaga. I think the whole country of ...(indistinct), there were the incidents where it was alleged that they were witches and then later, when those people had left the country, later I heard that there was a meeting which was held, but I didn't question about it further.

But I heard it by Sam Matala. I didn't question him further.

MR VAN RENSBURG: May I refer you to paragraph 14 of your affidavit, that is on page 16(c) Mr Chairperson. It reads as follows -

Isn't that contrary to what you have just testified?

MR MULAUDZI: No, that doesn't contradict because I have agreed that I joined this thing the very same day. Maybe I failed to put it clearly for my advisor here to write this clearly. On that day, it is the very same day that I started to join those people and then I was then following them.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Mr Mulaudzi, from that paragraph it is clear that you were present when this Youth Congress was formed, it is what it says there in that paragraph?

MR MULAUDZI: You mean when it started?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

MR MULAUDZI: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg, I don't want to stop you, I just want to get clarity here. Maybe there is perhaps an embarrassing reason for that, but I just want to check it with the witness.

Mr Mulaudzi, whether or not you are going to embarrass your representative or not, it is besides the point. It is in your interest to explain certain things to us, because we've got to make a decision on your evidence. Do you understand that?

MR MULAUDZI: Yes, I understand that.

CHAIRPERSON: We notice in all of these affidavits which have been submitted on all the applicants', including you, behalf, are very similar, factually and in format with really specific activities differing. Do you understand that?

MR MULAUDZI: May you please repeat that question.

CHAIRPERSON: The way these affidavits have been set out, in many aspects the contents is the same in respect of all three affidavits, the differences being specific activities on the part of each applicant.

MR MULAUDZI: Yes, it is true.

CHAIRPERSON: Even the paragraph numbering, do you understand that?

MR MULAUDZI: Yes, I understand that.

CHAIRPERSON: And nonetheless I signed it, probably when your representative produced it to you? This particular paragraph, 13, is common in the case of all three affidavits, do you understand that?

MR MULAUDZI: Yes, I understand.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it not possible that this particular affidavit was a similar one that was on the computer or in memory of some mechanism of your representative and only the actual activities with which you associate yourself, changed on your affidavit? Isn't that so?

MR MULAUDZI: I think here in my affidavit, another thing which I think you should know is that myself, I am not learned and sometimes when I read it, I don't think I could easily understand it.

CHAIRPERSON: Look here, I am not trying to trap you, I am trying to help you. You are now confronted with a specific paragraph that cannot be true on your own version, do you understand that? I am trying to find out from you whether that paragraph is a mistake in your affidavit.

Mr Ndou, I don't think it should be publicly seen that you people are talking to the witness who is under cross-examination.

MR NDOU: I am not talking to him, he was asking me which paragraph you were referring to, I said you were referring to paragraph 14.

CHAIRPERSON: ... paragraph 13.

ADV SIGODI: 14.

CHAIRPERSON: 14, is it. Any way, there is a common paragraph which is misplaced in the context of your evidence, that appears in your written affidavit. Do you understand that.

On what you tell us now, that paragraph does not belong there in your affidavit. I am suggesting that it is not your fault, but is it possible that your affidavit with only necessary changes was produced to you because it was in some memory mechanism of your Attorney and that is how it finds itself in your affidavit?

MR MULAUDZI: I could agree with you there, because that issue is true what happened in that way, but I would like to, this Committee to ask me or to find what I did so that I can explain, so that the Committee could see as to whether this is in line with what I have said what I have done. That is what maybe the Committee could see.

JUDGE DE JAGER: What did you do on the scene, there at the house, what did you do, what was your function there?

MR MULAUDZI: In the house there, we arrived with Jerry having a petrol bucket and they were unable to open the house. I arrived, then I opened the bucket and then Jerry Mushasha poured the petrol. In pouring the petrol, I retreated and then the deceased remained, stood there in a position similar, maybe next to that table which I am pointing. Before, if we can talk about petrol, I started by sjamboking her. I sjambocked her and in sjamboking her, I said "you will no longer bewitch people".

JUDGE DE JAGER: How did it come that you had a sjambock with you?

MR MULAUDZI: I took that sjambock from Thomas Mudau by force, who was a youth and he was holding it. He was leading people using it, and then I took it from his hand and then I assaulted the deceased by the sjambock, telling her that she will no longer practise witchcraft. Then I opened the petrol and poured it. When the petrol was poured, I went back and stood with another group, and - but at least I was a little bit in front.

What I would like to tell the honest truth is that there is a problem with fire, which the Committee is really wanting to know. I want to say that maybe the Committee might think that the people who are giving evidence, are trying to be stubborn, but when I speak on this incident, Norman whose hand was burnt, maybe he didn't me, because it was dark. It stood next to Norman. As I was standing there, I saw somebody pouring petrol and then I jumped back and then the petrol touched Norman. As we were standing, the fire didn't come from in front of us, what happened is it took a long time, the petrol sprinkled all over the lapa, but when the match was lit, I believe that the person who lit that match, he should have put the stick of the match on the box and lit it. It might have happened from behind us, because in the front, we didn't see that, it should have happened from behind. But what happened, is that something like a bomb happened. A sound like "bguh" happened and some people lay down and then we were running. Some of us were running and any person who was there, feeling like each and every person was burning, because petrol was all over. Then when the petrol was lit, something like a bomb exploded and then we ran away.

Because I was holding a sjambock, it is then that I blocked the people. We were told that the person was not dead, then I blocked the people by using the sjambock. There is another person which I struck by that sjambock, but I cannot remember the person I sjambocked. Then I asked, I forced them to go back to the house. When I entered there, I was from the gate and then I remained there at the gate.

I only managed to see Elvis Makhumbele, he is the person who I saw, because I was from behind, I saw him picking the tyre again. From there, then we dispersed because there was lights of the car and there Police there and soldiers. Then when we dispersed all the youth ran to the bushes and then I went home and slept.

Together with the soldiers, when they arrived, they found me at home. They passed me because I was old.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr van Rensburg, could you continue with your ...

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairperson. We are still on your statement and I want you to show me where in your statement did you disclose to the hearing that you were actually the person who sjambocked others when they wanted to flee from the meeting.

CHAIRPERSON: How relevant is that to the application, Mr van Rensburg? The application is in respect of a killing of a particular person? That he committed an offence in assaulting other people, is hardly relevant. I don't know if one expects it to be mentioned in this application.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Mr Chairman, I don't want to enter into an argument, but surely if we talk about that all these people were actually having a common purpose, in that sense, they were all actually falling under the legal ambit of murdering that person, but I would suggest that we do have to look at the seriousness of each specific individual's participation in this.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I don't know if I misunderstand it, or if both of us are misunderstanding it. His evidence now is that other than the deceased, he assaulted other people?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that is in fact so.

CHAIRPERSON: I question the relevance of the details of the assault on these other people.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, perhaps I can also motivate the relevance of my question. Will you bear in mind that the motive for this person to be present and for putting the name on the list and for actually helping to pouring the petrol, was that he wanted to murder this specific person, not for political motives, and that specific fact, that he sjambocked the other people, also strengthens that other contention. Thank you Mr Chairperson.

Okay, if I can continue with my question then. Not to waste time, you agree that in your statement, that is pages 16(a) to 16(g) this mentioning of this sjamboking of the other people on the scene of the crime, was not mentioned, do you agree?

MR MULAUDZI: Sjamboking people, we didn't sjambock them in the meeting. We were in the house when I sjambocked those people.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I previously used the word meeting in the wrong context, it was actually on the scene of the murder. You sjambocked some of the people, do you agree that that was never mentioned before?

MR MULAUDZI: Yes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay. Now the question is simple, why did you sjambock those people who had the same common idea as yourself, namely to murder the deceased?

MR MULAUDZI: Because the people that I sjambocked, they were not prepared to go back to the house, there were too many people inside there and those, the one I sjambocked was behind and they simply was not prepared to go back to the house or homestead.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay, let me ask you this, previously there was evidence that the deceased held a specific position in the church and I think it is common purpose at this stage that the person occupying that position before the deceased, was a Mulaudzi. I want you to tell this hearing what was the relation between that Mulaudzi and yourself?

MR MULAUDZI: If by Mulaudzi, you are referring to Bishop Mulaudzi, he is my father.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes. And the woman occupying the deceased's position before, would therefore be your mother, is that correct?

MR MULAUDZI: Yes, while my father was still alive, the position was held by my mother.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Hm.

MR MULAUDZI: So when my father passed away ...

MR VAN RENSBURG: Do you agree that at the stage when the deceased occupied that position in the church, your mother was still alive and living in that specific area?

MR MULAUDZI: My mother is still alive.

INTERPRETER: Maybe he didn't understand your question, may you please repeat your question.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I will repeat the question. At the time when the deceased was killed, the applicant's mother was still living in that area?

INTERPRETER: Sorry, there was a cut-off there with your microphone, can you just repeat.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, at the time of the deceased's killing, the deceased, or the applicant's mother was still living in that specific area?

MR MULAUDZI: It is not clear.

INTERPRETER: The question is not clear to him.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Let me ask you this, at the time when the deceased was killed, where did your mother live?

MR MULAUDZI: She was staying there at Ha-Mufunzi.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes. And do you agree that there was a kind of strife between your mother and the deceased at the time?

MR MULAUDZI: That I don't know because I haven't seen that before. Those people who were there, older people and I was not a church-goer, then I will not know those things.

MR VAN RENSBURG: The deceased and her husband lived in a big house at the time, is it correct?

MR MULAUDZI: The deceased, you are referring to the deceased? That was not the only big house, even at my home, we are having a big house.

MR VAN RENSBURG: That is not the question, the question is where they living in a big house?

MR MULAUDZI: Yes, it is true. But not saying it was the only big house.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes. Was this mention of a big house, was there any mention made of a big house during the meeting?

MR MULAUDZI: I feel my heart painful, but I am happy that we are now having the TRC, but what you are asking me, I am not worried about it. What I can say, or to tell the honest truth is that maybe the victims looking into it, they think maybe there were some envies between the people, or the State witnesses, maybe in court did advise their legal advisors to say so, that maybe it was the envy between those people regarding the church or any other thing.

We never mentioned of issues relating to the church and the person who organised all those things, the people who organised the meeting was the school children, we don't know about those things. But when you said about that, I am feeling afraid, I don't know what to answer, but I am happy that the TRC is here and it has helped me. I am relieved as long as the truth will be disclosed.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes, we would be happy if you simply answer the questions so that we can carry on with the case.

MR VAN RENSBURG: The question is simple was there mention made of the big house at the meeting?

CHAIRPERSON: He said no.

MR MULAUDZI: No.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay. Can you recall or can you remember that at the criminal hearing it was actually found by the Judge that you made mention of the big house, referring to the deceased's house on that specific meeting, can you remember that?

MR MULAUDZI: The truth I can say as the others have already indicated, there is a sermon which I would like to say.

INTERPRETER: If you can understand this, he is saying one person can try to clean himself using another person, when things are difficult.

CHAIRPERSON: Look here, we don't want to hear sermons, you have been tending to do so now for the last couple of minutes. What the Attorney is getting at is your participation in this murder was not motivated by any political consideration, but rather by jealousy as a result of your mother being in that position as far as the community was concerned, before. And that your participation in this whole affair had nothing to do with the youth's attitude towards politics, but rather a personal issue? What do you say about that?

MR MULAUDZI: I am asking that you ask the question now again.

CHAIRPERSON: Why? What didn't you understand?

MR MULAUDZI: It is because I realised that you were advising me that what we did is a crime of a personal matter, so if you ask me on that, then I will see what I can answer.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, it has nothing to do with politics, it was a personal matter, a private matter?

MR MULAUDZI: That is not true.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Yes, I've just got a few statements to still put to this witness, Mr Chairperson. At the criminal trial, a certain witness, Mr Joseph Ramatshila testified that you were the one at the meeting who suggested that the deceased should be burnt, what do you say about that?

MR MULAUDZI: That is not true, I didn't say that.

MR VAN RENSBURG: At this criminal trial and after the evidence was led, you decided not to give evidence, can you perhaps tell this hearing why you elected not to answer to these serious allegations?

MR MULAUDZI: The Committee will forgive me, it was said that the case was to be closed. You will understand that we are people who are from a typical rural areas and we know nothing legally. By then, our lawyer advised us to do that and then if a lawyer can say this, then we just follow it since we are respecting our respective legal representatives.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Did you know at the time of the killing, that there was a rumour going around that the deceased and her husband were taking the church away from the Mulaudzi's?

MR MULAUDZI: No. That is not true.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Is today the first time that you hear about something like that, that there was such a rumour at the time? The first time today?

CHAIRPERSON: Did you hear about it before today?

MR MULAUDZI: I first heard about it in court and now today it is for the second time.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes. And what do you say about that, was there any truth in that rumour, your personal opinion perhaps?

MR MULAUDZI: No, that is a green lie.

MR VAN RENSBURG: What is a lie?

MR MULAUDZI: It is not true, it is an untruth.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Do you agree that at the time of the criminal trial, there was evidence that you were the one spreading that rumour?

MR MULAUDZI: At court, we cannot dispute that because each and everyone was lying, because they were telling a lot of lies, thinking that they will be discharged.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes. The question is do you agree that that was evidence at the trial, that you spread that rumour, that was the question?

MR MULAUDZI: No, I never heard about it.

MR VAN RENSBURG: The last statement I want to make to you Mr Mulaudzi is that you were actually the one pouring the petrol on the deceased?

MR MULAUDZI: That is not true, what I know is that it was Jerry Mushasha who did that.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And finally I want to put it to you that the reason why you went and in fact forwarded the name of the deceased on this list of people that you know, that is about to be killed, is because of the fact that your mother felt threatened or hurt because of the position the deceased held in the community? That was the reason why she was killed?

MR MULAUDZI: That is not true.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I have no further questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

MR MAPOMA: I have no questions, Chairperson, thank you.

MR NDOU: No questions, Chairperson, thank you.

JUDGE DE JAGER: In paragraph 16 you state -

Who was this person who volunteered to set her alight?

MR MULAUDZI: As we were standing when those people approached with petrol, the person who agreed to pour the petrol is Jerry. The voice from the group is that who will use the matches, no one agreed, but they were simply saying "we will see what will happen there". It is not true that there is a person who volunteered to use the matches.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Now why do you state it in your own affidavit if it is not true? In paragraph 30 of your own affidavit?

MR MULAUDZI: I think ...

JUDGE DE JAGER: This wasn't on the computer? Can you explain why it was stated that somebody volunteered to set her alight, and now you are saying nobody volunteered?

MR MULAUDZI: I think the difference is that I said somebody volunteered to pour petrol, but this thing of a match box, no, in that meeting, no, it wasn't mentioned.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Read, you can read, can you?

MR MULAUDZI: No, I cannot read.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Can't you read?

MR MULAUDZI: I only passed standard 4.

JUDGE DE JAGER: So you cannot read at all?

MR MULAUDZI: If somebody could read it to me, then ...

JUDGE DE JAGER: I will read it to you -

MR MULAUDZI: No, there I ask the Committee that things could happen that this shall be a mistake, but now what I know, I know of Jerry Mushasha.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And in your statement you never mentioned that you sjambocked her? Why didn't you mention it? Sorry, you did mention it in paragraph 37, after you stated you all ran away, you didn't state it before. Sorry, I apologise for that. Thank you.

ADV SIGODI: At the time of the death of the deceased, what position was your mother holding in the church, was she holding any position in the church?

MR MULAUDZI: No, she was holding no position. I think if the Bishop took a position, then the wife of the Bishop should either be a "juffrou", my mother should automatically then be left out. She was nothing at all. Then everything of the church will go to the person who is appointed next.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You are excused.

MR NDOU: That is all, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg, have you got any witnesses?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Mr Chairperson, I see that it is one o'clock now.

CHAIRPERSON: We have just been informed that we need to carry on, the provisions haven't arrived.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Oh, okay. May I then just have 30 seconds just to get final instructions on this point please Mr Chairperson. Thank you Mr Chairman, the situation is that the best witness for the victims in this specific circumstances, would have been the Bishop, that is the deceased's husband. I have been informed and it is my instructions that he is at this stage 90 years old, that he is a blinded old man and in that circumstances, I am not going to call any witness.

CHAIRPERSON: We can appreciate that. What I would like though, Mr van Rensburg is the name or names of victims. Are you able to give that to us now?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you for the opportunity Mr Chairperson, yes, at this stage the list of victims would include Mr Samuel Makulane which is the old person, which is not present today because of illness and old age, Samuel Makulane.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps we can cut this short, how many victims are you talking about?

MR VAN RENSBURG: We are talking about three witnesses, three victims.

CHAIRPERSON: Three victims. The husband and two children?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, the husband, the deceased's daughter, which is present in court and also the deceased's sister which is also present in court.

CHAIRPERSON: The sister wouldn't qualify with the existence of a daughter and a husband.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I understand. In that circumstances, it is only two victims we are talking about.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, have you got an address for Samuel?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, it will be - would you be looking for a postal address or a residential address?

CHAIRPERSON: If necessary, we are going to have to declare these people as victims as defined, and then sent that to the Department dealing with Reparations.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I understand.

CHAIRPERSON: And they then would have to contact whoever we declare as victims, to sort out this. I am not too sure what they prefer.

MR VAN RENSBURG: In that circumstances I would suggest the postal address, I've got it available, it is P.O. Box 80, Elim Hospital, 0960.

CHAIRPERSON: Where is that?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I don't have a clue.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Elim is in the vicinity of Louis Trichardt.

CHAIRPERSON: So it is Elim Hospital, Elim?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that will be Elim yes, district Louis Trichard then.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the postal address there?

MR VAN RENSBURG: P.O. Box 80.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I mean the code, sorry?

MR VAN RENSBURG: The code is 0960. That will be the relevant address for both victims.

JUDGE DE JAGER: What is the daughter's name?

MR VAN RENSBURG: The daughter's name is - I've got so many papers, thank you for the opportunity, the daughter's full name will be Tshiwela - pardon Mr Chairman, I've got the relevant information eventually, the daughter's name is in fact Hilda, her full names I would rather spell it, Tshimangadzo, that is the first name, and then Hilda Makhuba.

CHAIRPERSON: How old is she, do you know?

MR VAN RENSBURG: The identity number is 1947.

CHAIRPERSON: 53?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Perhaps you can give us the identity number too.

MR VAN RENSBURG: The ID number is 470830 0018 08 6.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr van Rensburg. Mr Mapoma, have you got any witnesses?

MR MAPOMA: No Chairperson, no further witnesses.

CHAIRPERSON: That is it with the witnesses?

MR MAPOMA: Yes Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg, have you got anything to argue on this matter?

MR VAN RENSBURG IN ARGUMENT: Mr Chairman, I am not going to waste this hearing's time with a long argument.

My argument regarding all the accused, all the applicants will be that the reason why the deceased was killed, was in fact shown during cross-examination to be of a personal nature, and not of any political nature, that specifically Mr Mulaudzi did not meet the requirements regarding full disclosure and further than that, I am just going to leave it in the capable hands of the Chairperson and the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma, have you got any comments to make?

MR MAPOMA: None Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou, we don't need you to ...

MR NDOU: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn till two o'clock.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Which matter are we going to proceed with now?

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, we are proceeding with incident 16, the applicants are Solomon Modise Muenda and Aubrey Leshweu Mokaleng.

CHAIRPERSON: The representation is as in the last matter?

MR MAPOMA: Yes Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou, who have we got here.

MR NDOU: We have Solomon Muenda.

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

MR MUENDA: Venda.

SOLOMON MODISE MUENDA: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR NDOU: Thank you Honourable Chairman. Mr Muenda, you have made an application to the Committee for amnesty in respect of the murder of Tseisi, is that correct?

MR MUENDA: Yes, that is correct.

MR NDOU: And you have also submitted an affidavit as part of your application, which has also been submitted to the Committee. I want to find out from you if you confirm the contents of this affidavit?

MR MUENDA: Yes, I confirm.

MR NDOU: Now also could you briefly explain to the Committee as to what you personally did on the date in question and as to how it came about that Tseisi was killed?

MR MUENDA: Yes, I can explain.

MR NDOU: Please do so.

MR MUENDA: On the 2nd of October 1990, it was found that Katchela Maphaha hanged himself, on the 3rd of October it is then that we had a meeting. In that meeting we decided to take a resolution on how is it going to happen that this thing comes to an end of killing these youth.

On the very same day of the 3rd, we went to Mr Maphaha, the father of the deceased.

MR NDOU: Okay, let's take it slowly. This Katchela Maphaha, who was he?

MR MUENDA: It is a school child who hanged himself.

MR NDOU: How old was he?

MR MUENDA: I am not sure of the years, but he or she was in the secondary school.

MR NDOU: I see. What role did he play? Why was he so important?

MR MUENDA: I am saying that he or she is important because she proved to be active in political matters.

MR NDOU: How active?

MR MUENDA: He used to attend meetings which were held in various areas in the country.

MR NDOU: Okay, and then? He hanged himself, then what happened?

MR MUENDA: It is then that we went to his or her father.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Why is it his or her? Was it a girl or a boy?

MR MUENDA: It was a girl, she was a girl.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Then could we refer to her as she?

INTERPRETER: With Venda there is a problem, that pronoun can stand for he and she.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Interpreter, now you know it is female.

INTERPRETER: Thank you.

MR NDOU: Yes, you can proceed. You can proceed.

MR MUENDA: On our arrival to the father of Katchela, we questioned him as to how Katchela died. He said that he proceeded to the people who threw bombs to find out what killed her. On his arrival from the bomb throwers, he indicated that it was Masakona Tseisi who killed her.

From there, on the 6th of October, on Saturday, it is then that we agreed that we must go and question Masakona Tseisi as to how she killed her. It is on the very same day that she was killed. She didn't ultimately explain how she killed her, because the group of people drugged her and then took her outside and then we went somewhere to the valley where she was stoned. As myself who is speaking, I stabbed her several times.

From there, before she was burnt, we agreed to go and fetch petrol. The person who were sent to take petrol is Aubrey Mokaleng. When they came back with petrol, it is then that Aubrey Mokaleng poured the petrol on her and then I lit the match and then the deceased died. It is then that we dispersed.

MR NDOU: Now what we want to find out from you is how would the death of Masakona Tseisi benefit you or be advantageous to your cause?

MR MUENDA: To us, we were going to benefit as far as we were concerned, because we took it that these people who use medicines, if they are eliminated or they are no longer there in the village, it means that the activists, many activists amongst us, will no longer be disturbed by anything, so that they could achieve their aim of progressing.

CHAIRPERSON: Tell me, how did you connect, let's assume that this child's death was caused by the deceased. How was that political?

MR MUENDA: As far as I was concerned, I think it was linked with politics because the deceased, Masakona Tseisi, was viewed as a person who practised witchcraft and so those people were the people who give the top officials medicines, so that they could be able to control Venda. Venda which by then, we were no longer in need of it, and we were in need of it to be incorporated into South Africa.

CHAIRPERSON: This child was hanged, did she hang herself or what?

MR MUENDA: She hanged herself.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, what was the deceased's connection with that, or any government official, how was that connected?

MR MUENDA: The link was with the deceased Katchela Maphaha because her father heard about it from a bone thrower, that his child was killed by Masakona Tseisi.

CHAIRPERSON: All right, let's assume that that was the truth, why was there a political connotation attached to that, if at all, if there was a political connotation?

MR MUENDA: Yes, I think it linked with politics because Masakona Tseisi was viewed as a witch and as such she was disturbing people like Katchela Maphaha to be disturbed so that she cannot continue with her activism. I believe if she was still alive, she would have been something in politics, if she was still alive.

CHAIRPERSON: But how do you know that the reason for killing her or casting a spell on her, was to stop her, was for political reasons and not any other reason?

MR MUENDA: We realised that because she was a child who has proved to be very active in politics.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we know that, we know that. Why do you say that her death was caused by the deceased for political reasons?

MR MUENDA: We viewed it like that because Katchela Maphaha, in view of Katchela Maphaha regarding politics, she was very active and then we took it for granted that she killed her because she was active in politics.

CHAIRPERSON: So you didn't have any proof that that was the case? It may very well have been for some other reason, other than politics, correct?

MR MUENDA: Other reasons, no, there is no other reasons.

CHAIRPERSON: Why do you say so?

MR MUENDA: There is no other reasons because Katchela or Masakona Tseisi, there was no other thing that they owned, there was nothing which they owned.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But this happened after the coup, after the change of government? Ravel's government was already thrown over and Gen or Col Ramushwana took over, so you already had a new government in favour of the ANC? Isn't that so?

MR MUENDA: That the government was overthrown or was taken, I think it is not true.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Wasn't the government overthrown on the 5th of April 1990?

MR MUENDA: Our main aim was not for this government to be taken by the soldiers, but our aim was for the reincorporation into the RSA. By then it was not yet reincorporated into South Africa, it was still under the soldiers of Ramushwana.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes, but the soldiers of Ramushwana and Ramushwana himself was in favour of incorporation into the RSA?

MR MUENDA: So, I don't think that is true.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Well, I know that he later advocated it at the negotiations that he was in favour of incorporation?

MR MUENDA: I think that is not true, because that the Ramushwana government was in favour of reincorporation is that when I look, I realised that many things were blocked by the soldiers from it, and then we started to no longer rely on soldiers, because it is long that they were blocking our ways and we loose hope in them.

CHAIRPERSON: Look, political activity was allowed more freely after the coup d'etat is that not so? Correct?

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

CHAIRPERSON: After the coup d'etat in Venda, political activity was freer, one could be active in politics more readily than was previously the case? Not so?

MR MUENDA: I might agree.

CHAIRPERSON: I am asking you whether you agree or not, do not tell me whether you might do so.

MR MUENDA: May you please repeat your question.

CHAIRPERSON: Look, in the old days political activity was stifle, not so and that was one of the problems experienced by the youth and by the community in general, correct?

MR MUENDA: Yes, that is true.

CHAIRPERSON: And that stifling was controlled by the then government of Venda, correct?

MR MUENDA: Yes, it is true.

CHAIRPERSON: You now tell us that those people who were stifling political activity, who were the government officials, etc, were being assisted ...

MR MUENDA: Yes, that is true.

CHAIRPERSON: And they were being assisted in being kept in power by the powers of the witches, correct?

MR MUENDA: Yes, it is true.

CHAIRPERSON: That was your belief. And it becomes political because you were part of a group of people who wanted free political activity as well as reincorporation into South Africa, correct?

MR MUENDA: Yes, it is true.

CHAIRPERSON: And as I understand the implication of your evidence, that is why and how witches became political targets?

MR MUENDA: Yes, yes, it is true.

CHAIRPERSON: Are we in agreement so far? Now, would you also agree that after the coup d'etat political activities became free or freer than it was in Venda? Not so?

MR MUENDA: During the time of Ramushwana, you are referring to the time of Ramushwana?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR MUENDA: Yes, I agree, but we were not fully confident of them because their soldiers oppressed us from long ago and we used to see Ramushwana and soldiers, and I used to see Ramushwana travelling with a certain MP who was called Manduana and we were not relying wholeheartedly to him.

CHAIRPERSON: I am going to ask you nicely, just answer the question, I don't want a long answer. While Ramushwana was, may according to your evidence, have been not in favour of reincorporation, you were aware that after the coup de'etat the whole nation with all its political or most of its political aspects were in negotiations? Not so? Those negotiations took a long time, correct?

MR MUENDA: I cannot remember which negotiations you are referring to.

CHAIRPERSON: The national negotiations that settled this country, the most important negotiations ever in the history of this country. I am not talking about negotiations between workers and the bosses. I am talking about the negotiations that occurred outside Johannesburg, Kemptonpark.

MR MUENDA: Yes, I remember of multi-party talks.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Ramushwana was there, correct?

MR MUENDA: I am not sure, I've got no idea about that.

CHAIRPERSON: In those negotiations the question of reincorporation was on the agenda, not so? You knew about that?

MR MUENDA: Yes, I agree.

CHAIRPERSON: And the actual aspect of reincorporation would necessarily take time then? Correct?

MR MUENDA: Yes, I agree.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, if that is so and you had free political rights to political activities, how can you justify the belief that your political freedom to reincorporation was being stifled, when in fact it was being negotiated? That is the effect of your evidence, that is why the deceased was killed? You explain that to me.

MR MUENDA: Could you please repeat the question, I am not clear on that?

CHAIRPERSON: If the question of reincorporation was being negotiated, which you say you knew of, how could that aspect of re-negotiation form the basis for your political reason to participate in the killing of the deceased?

MR MUENDA: As far as I am concerned, I think when Ramushwana was in the multi-talks, it happened at the same time when here in Venda we were, witches were being burnt. What I know is that Ramushwana was not here, and I think he heard about it while he was maybe in those multi-talks, that Venda was ungovernable. It is then that I believe that even Ramushwana himself was not aware of what was happening there in Venda and the community here in Venda was not quite sure as to what Ramushwana was doing there at the multi-talks.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Ndou, any more questions?

MR NDOU: I don't wish to take this any further Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg, have you got any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN RENSBURG: Just a few, thank you Mr Chairperson. Who pointed the deceased as a witch?

MR MUENDA: It is Albert Maphaha.

MR VAN RENSBURG: That is the father of the activist, is that correct?

MR MUENDA: Yes, it is correct.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay, but did he point her as a witch or did he point her as the person responsible for that child's death?

MR MUENDA: He pointed her as a witch.

MR VAN RENSBURG: You see that is not what you say in your statement in paragraph 21, referring to page 6(e). No mention is made there that she was pointed as a witch, only that she was identified as the culprit. Do you see that?

MR MUENDA: I am unable to see that.

MR VAN RENSBURG: why? Can't you read?

MR MUENDA: I can read.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay. I will read it to you -

Even if you read paragraph 20 -

You see, there in 20 and 21 there is no mention made of a witch? So it could have been any person that was pointed by that bone thrower, is it not so? Shall I repeat the question for you?

MR NDOU: Yes, maybe it will be better, I don't understand the question as well.

MR VAN RENSBURG: It is actually a simple question. In paragraph 20 and 21 of your statement you refer to a bone throwing incident, where a person was appointed to be responsible for the death of the youngster, and in 21 the deceased was identified as the culprit. Nowhere is it mentioned that the deceased was in fact pointed as a witch.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, to come to your assistance Mr van Rensburg, let's start with why would a person go to a bone thrower?

MR MUENDA: Traditionally in Venda, when a person passed away, we go to the bone thrower to find out or to establish the cause of the death.

ADV SIGODI: Yes, and the person who would be identified as the person who was the cause of the death, what would that person be in the view of the community?

MR MUENDA: That person would be viewed as a witch.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman. So is that the reason why you described the deceased as a witch?

MR MUENDA: Yes, it is true.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Did you have any other instances or rumours that you knew of, to indicate that she was a witch, apart from this bone throwing incident?

MR MUENDA: There is nothing else which I know, I started to know about it then.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Why did you stab the deceased?

MR MUENDA: I stabbed the deceased because the deceased was the person who was an obstacle in us, preventing us to continue with our political activities.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Because according to you she was a witch, is that correct?

MR MUENDA: Yes, it is true.

MR VAN RENSBURG: So you believed her to be responsible for the death of this youngster?

MR MUENDA: Yes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay, do you agree that the deceased, that is Masakona Tseisi was related to that youngster's father, to Albert? Do you agree with that?

MR MUENDA: That I won't say I agree completely, I am not sure of that, I don't know of that.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay. I put it to you that the youngster's father, or let's put it the other way around, that the deceased was the aunt of the youngster's father, do you agree with that?

MR MUENDA: I might agree because you are telling me that now.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay. The reason why I am asking you that is if you accept that there was a family relationship, shouldn't the deceased also have been involved in this process of going to see the bone thrower to identify the culprit?

MR MUENDA: Would you please repeat your question?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes. The question is seeing that there was a family relationship between these persons, shouldn't the deceased also have been invited or even known, informed, about the decision to go and see a bone thrower?

MR MUENDA: I am not sure if she was a close relative or not. That is why don't know about that.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay, I will put it to you and it is my instructions on behalf of the victims that the deceased's family, not herself, her family was in fact present during the bone thrower's ceremony and that Masakona Tseisi was not identified at that ceremony as the culprit?

MR MUENDA: No, we heard that Masakona Tseisi was appointed as a witch. Now that you are saying that is not true, it means that Maphaha lied to us, because he is the one who fed us with the information. We didn't go there.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I will further put it to you that at the bone throwing ceremony, the culprit was identified as a large lady wearing a ZCC badge. Have you ever heard this rumour before? What do you say to this statement?

MR MUENDA: That I never heard, I only heard about Masakona Tseisi. This thing of a badge, I didn't hear about it.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay. Were you present when the youngster's father, I think his name was Albert, when he informed the community that the culprit was identified as Ms Tseisi?

MR MUENDA: Yes, I was in that yard, but I was not so close to him, but I was informed by other people who were with Mr Albert.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Hm. I have no further questions to put to this specific witness, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: I have no questions, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou?

MR NDOU: None Honourable Chairperson.

ADV SIGODI: Before the deceased was killed, you say that she was fetched by a large crowd of people, is that correct?

MR MUENDA: Yes, that is true.

ADV SIGODI: And then after questioning her, in paragraph 23 you decided to kill her. What questions were put to her before she was killed?

MR MUENDA: The questions were to indicate for us the persons she practised witchcraft with and then she didn't respond to that, because the crowd started to attack her.

ADV SIGODI: Was that the only question that was put to her, to indicate who were the other people that she practised witchcraft with?

MR MUENDA: Yes, I remember that one only.

ADV SIGODI: And she was never asked as to why she had killed the Katchela?

MR MUENDA: No, time didn't allow us there, because the crowd was emotional.

ADV SIGODI: So how do you justify the fact that "we decided to kill her as we viewed her as one of the people who did not want those who challenged the authority of the then ruling National Party government"?

MR MUENDA: We have used the information that we had from Albert Maphaha because he was coming from the bone thrower.

ADV SIGODI: Yes, but you never gave her a chance to state why she killed the deceased, she never gave you that reason?

MR MUENDA: The problem there was that the crowd was emotional and it was no longer prepared to listen, but if it was myself, I would have allowed her to explain that.

ADV SIGODI: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR NDOU: I now call Aubrey Mokaleng

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

MR MOKALENG: I am going to use Tswana Chairperson.

AUBREY LESHWEU MOKALENG: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Please be seated.

EXAMINATION BY MR NDOU: Thank you Chairperson and Honourable Members. Mr Mokaleng, you have brought an application before the Amnesty Committee in which you apply for amnesty and you filed an affidavit which appears on pages 16(a) to 16(g), do you confirm that this affidavit is your evidence?

MR MOKALENG: That is correct Chairperson.

MR NDOU: Now, we have heard Mr Muenda giving evidence that on the 2nd of October 1990 a certain incident occurred at Mandiwanan Location during which a lady by the name of Masakona Tseisi was killed. I want you to explain to the Committee as to what role you played on the date in question and how it came about that you played that role.

MR MOKALENG: On the 3rd of October 1990, certain people came, one of them was - on the 3rd of October 1990, two people came to me, they informed me that there was a meeting and that I should attend that meeting with them.

I agreed with them, then I accompanied them to the meeting. When we arrived at the venue there was an information about Katchela Maphaha, who hanged herself on the 2nd of October 1990. In that meeting a decision was taken that we should go to Mr Maphaha's place. I accompanied them to Mr Maphaha's yard. When we arrived at Mr Maphaha's house, the same group instructed me to go and call Mr Maphaha.

I entered the house and I called Mr Maphaha. He was crying when he left the house and I was not able to talk to him, but I was able to talk to him that "the people who are looking for you, is the crowd outside." They had a discussion with him, but I did not understand the content of that discussion because after that, I saw people dispersing, then I took my route and went back.

On the 6th, that is on the Saturday, those people came back. They instructed me that we have a meeting, we went to Maphaha's place to get a feedback about the mandate we gave him. I went with them, I entered Mr Maphaha's yard. I was again instructed to go and call Mr Maphaha. When I entered the house to call him, there were people who were sitting inside the yard. It seems there was a prayer meeting in regard to Katchela Maphaha's death. When I arrived, I saw that people were - Masakona Tseisi was taken by a certain group and they went outside the yard. I followed them because there were those who remained behind.

I followed that group, we went outside the yard. Modise produced a knife and stabbed Masakona Tseisi several times. I was given a bush knife to stab Masakona Tseisi, but I was not willing to do so. I hit her bluntly several times. She was dragged near the river bank. A certain group was delegated and I was instructed to go with the group. I left with that group to go and fetch petrol.

We went to a certain yard and then we found a 1400 Datsun. I was instructed to go and talk to the owner so that he should give us petrol. He accepted to give us petrol, because maybe he was scared. He gave us 5 litre petrol. We returned, I was instructed to pour petrol. When I poured the petrol, I did not understand who lit, because I was throwing away the petrol container. Then the fire started burning, then I was burnt on the right hand and the people dispersed. Then I returned to where I was staying.

MR NDOU: That is fine. What the Committee would like to find out from you is how did you connect Masakona Tseisi's death with a political motive, how do you think her death would have benefitted you politically?

MR MOKALENG: A person who has died, that is Katchela Maphaha, was an activist. For a long time she was selling meat after school. She used to come to my place, as I was a person who came from Johannesburg, she used to come to me for advice as to whether how can they overthrow the Venda government. I gave her some advice about cases how we used to struggle, about boycotts, about rent boycotts and then again burning government offices and municipal offices.

I told her that there is a difference in Venda, as compared to Johannesburg, because as they have explained to me, that the witches or the wizards were assisting the government with medicine so that they would be able to sustain their authority. I had that belief. I experienced many ...

CHAIRPERSON: What is the problem that you had with the government at that time?

MR MOKALENG: You mean myself?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, or the community or whatever, as far as you were concerned?

MR MOKALENG: The problem, if I can go back to 1986 because I arrived in 1984 in Venda, in 1986 the President then banned the initiation school. After that he formed a group of men, those men used to go to various houses and force them to go to initiation school. They forced one person to go and then he denied and then he was later killed.

Teachers were fetched from school during the day in front of the students. Then I observed that the government of the day was violating the human rights. That is then that I experienced a problem with the then government of Venda.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that all the problems that you had?

MR MOKALENG: I experienced other problems around 1990.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's hear.

MR MOKALENG: The problems we experienced in 1990, I forgot the date ...

CHAIRPERSON: Under whose government?

MR MOKALENG: That is Mr Ravel. There were problems. There was a call at a certain shopping centre, we heard that call, those who were, all of us who were in Venda at that time, that who was then a Minister in Ravel's government mutilated a person there. People from a certain village organised a march, it was a peaceful march which started from Thohoyandou to bring people's grievances, that the government should know the complaints of the people or the grievances.

The march proceeded to Thohoyandou, we did not reach our destination. The government used its authority and stopped us with guns. That is where Esina Palamu was killed. Then the people dispersed, they ran away. Then the decision was taken that we should take power from the government because the government was not listening to our grievances.

If I remember well, even the Katchela Maphaha's dilemma, the people took the decision upon themselves to do these things on their own, because if they were to go to the government, the government would respond with fire.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that all?

MR MOKALENG: That is all Chairperson.

MR NDOU: That is all.

CHAIRPERSON: When Ramushwana took over, was it not, was there no improvement?

MR MOKALENG: When Ramushwana took over, some saw some improvements, but others like myself, we did not observe any improvement. It is because making an example, making a small example, there were those who were Ministers during Ravel's reign for example Mr Ramaramisa, he was in Mr Ravel's government and when Mr Ramushwana took over, if I am not mistaken, he was again a member of the government, the Ramushwana's government. So there was no change, because some of them who were in the previous government, were present during Ramushwana's government.

CHAIRPERSON: You must please correct me, I don't recall you testifying about the reasons for killing the deceased as the previous witness did. Did you not have a problem with the re-incorporation into South Africa, Venda being re-incorporated?

MR MOKALENG: What I wanted mostly was that South Africa should be one, there should be no independent States, we should not be divided on racial lines.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I accept that, thank you. Did you think the government opposed that, was resisting that?

MR MOKALENG: The way they behaved, I was aware that they were not prepared that Venda should be incorporated into South Africa.

CHAIRPERSON: But were you not aware that that matter of re-incorporation of all these so-called States was an item on the agenda at the multi-party talks?

MR MOKALENG: I would agree with you, but that was part of the multi-party talks, but the majority of us at the grassroots because we were far from town, we are not the same as those who were near to town, that we were able to read newspapers.

During that time in Venda, we were not able to read newspapers, the Sowetan, we could only read the government newspaper.

CHAIRPERSON: I am not talking about all the others, I am talking about you. Did you know that that was a matter that was going to be discussed and negotiated at the multi-party negotiations?

MR MOKALENG: I knew that it was part of the agenda, but I did not know the content of the discussion.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, it is on the agenda. But furthermore, I understand from the previous witness that political activity was being stifled under the old government, correct?

MR MOKALENG: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Did that not improve under Ramushwana?

MR MOKALENG: There were no improvements during Ramushwana's reign.

CHAIRPERSON: Your co-applicant concedes that?

MR MOKALENG: That is his own aversion or understanding of the realities during that time.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, I see, I notice and please correct me, you did not raise the two aspects that I raised with you, as reasons for involving yourself in the murder? Am I correct?

MR MOKALENG: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Tell me, how do you explain, how - what was the actual reason you killed this lady or participated in the killing of this lady?

MR MOKALENG: The reason for me to play a role in the murder of Masakona Tseisi was that we understood that Katchela Maphaha, if she was allowed to live, she would be one of our political leaders. Because Masakona Tseisi was the one responsible for her death, we saw her, that is Masakona Tseisi as an obstacle for our political development.

CHAIRPERSON: You see what troubles me is that both you and your co-applicant committed this crime together with other people.

INTERPRETER: Just a moment Chairperson, for the movement to stop.

CHAIRPERSON: Both you and your co-applicant committed this offence together with other people. You seem to, well there was a meeting that both of you attended where this matter was discussed, correct?

MR MOKALENG: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: But yet the two of you went and embarked on this escapade if I can call it that, for different reasons? I cannot quite follow that? Can you explain that?

MR MOKALENG: I did not understand the question Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You tell us that there was certain reasons why you assisted in killing the deceased, it involved a belief that witches were assisting these political people to maintain power. Is that correct?

MR MOKALENG: That is correct Chairperson. The reason for me to take part is that witches at that particular time, those who were in government were assisted by witches. They were mixing muti so that they would be able to maintain their political power.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, now your co-applicant tells us that the actual forefront reasons for the attack on witches were (1) that they assisted the political authorities to stifle political activities amongst the community and secondly that they objected or resisted the demand for re-incorporation into South Africa. You don't mention those? You had other reasons for attacking these witches? Do you understand what I am saying?

MR MOKALENG: Yes, I do understand Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, is there, are you able to give us an explanation as to that difference?

MR MOKALENG: We may have some differences with my co-applicant in our reasons, because if I remember well, in some of the meetings, he was not present. Therefore we would not be able to explain the things I did. And then again Katchela Maphaha was a little bit closer to me, then I don't think my co-applicant had that access to her as I did.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Didn't you kill this woman out of revenge for the fact that Maphaha died? Wasn't that the only reason?

MR MOKALENG: My reason is not revenge, it is not revenge because I did not have any dispute with Masakona Tseisi.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But if she killed Maphaha, and you were close to Maphaha, weren't you annoyed by the fact that she was responsible for Maphaha's death?

MR MOKALENG: I was not angry, I did what was demanded by the community, I did not do that because of my personal convictions.

JUDGE DE JAGER: So you acted because it was demanded by the community and not out of your own personal convictions?

MR MOKALENG: I believed that Katchela Maphaha was active in politics and then in future, she would be one of the government officials.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes, no we accept that, but what now, now she is dead and she cannot be one of the leaders, and now you had to kill the person who killed her?

MR MOKALENG: Tseisi was killed because the community took a decision that she should be killed, because she was a witch, like those who were killed before her.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And that was the only reason, because she was a witch, not because she at that stage influenced the government, because Frank Ravel wasn't the government any more, he was overthrown?

MR MOKALENG: As I have explained that during Ravel's government, those who were in Ravel's government continued with their role in government during Ramushwana's reign.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg, are there any questions left that you can ask?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I will try to ask a few new questions Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't have to ask.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Can you just explain to us - okay, let's start off this way, the previous witness testified that this youth activist hanged herself and I think that was common cause that that is what happened to her. Isn't that so? This activist that was killed, she hanged herself?

MR MOKALENG: I did not have the true fact that she hanged herself, because I was not present during that incident.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay. Do you have any other explanation for her death, other than that she hanged herself, in your own mind?

MR MOKALENG: I have no explanation. The only explanation is that the people who knew, are those who were residents in that particular community.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes. Okay, the previous witness testified it, it was also found to be so at the criminal procedure, so let's accept now that that activist hanged herself and then the question that I want to put to you is explain tome how the witch can cause a person to hang herself.

MR MOKALENG: If I understand your question, the witch can use muti to influence her side.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay, so it is muti that is given to that person, is that what you are saying and then the person seems to lose his mind and kill himself, is that what you are saying?

MR MOKALENG: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I see. Okay, do you agree that the statement which you filed, which forms part of the bundle of documents, that statement is word for word exactly the same as the previous witness', except for your personal involvement in the killing, contained in paragraph 26?

MR MOKALENG: I would not dispute that Chairperson.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Just repeat the answer.

MR MOKALENG: I would not dispute that.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay, would you then further agree with me that we have a situation here that your legal representative actually drafted the statement and you then thereafter read it and signed it?

MR NDOU: Is that a correct proposition, shouldn't we lay a basis for that, not just to suck it from the thumb?

CHAIRPERSON: Well, did he? Did he read the, well, did you, were you the author of the document?

MR NDOU: That is why I say I don't understand his question, because he doesn't have a basis. I would have allowed if he had said whether he gave a statement which wasn't written down, which was read back to him.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou, I am asking you were you the author of this statement?

MR NDOU: I was not the author, I took the information from him.

CHAIRPERSON: You had it recorded?

MR NDOU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he read it or was it read over to him before he signed it?

MR NDOU: Yes, he read it and he even kept it ...

CHAIRPERSON: So he was satisfied with it?

MR NDOU: Yes, in fact he brought them back this morning and he kept it for more than ...

CHAIRPERSON: And he signed it as well?

MR NDOU: That is so.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Do you confirm what your legal representative has just told the Court, the hearing?

MR MOKALENG: That is correct Chairperson, I do.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Meaning that you told him what he must write down and he did write it down, eventually typed it, you read it and signed it? That is how it happened?

MR MOKALENG: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Can you explain to us how come your statement is exactly, word for word for six pages, seven pages, exactly the same as that of the other witness, except for paragraph 26?

MR MOKALENG: I would not understand why they would be the same.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Were the two of you together at the Attorney's office, or when the statement was taken down?

MR MOKALENG: We were three when the statement was made.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And the three of you agreed on everything which you told your Attorney?

MR MOKALENG: Yes, we did Chairperson.

ADV SIGODI: Can you tell me at the time that the deceased was killed, did you cause any damage to her property?

MR MOKALENG: Her property was not damaged.

ADV SIGODI: Right. Then explain to me why in paragraph 31 you say -

Where did you get that from?

MR MOKALENG: If I remember well, before we adjourned for lunch my co-applicant explained our legal Counsel that that paragraph was a mistake, because the property was not destroyed. No property was destroyed.

ADV SIGODI: No, but how does it get into your affidavit?

MR MOKALENG: I don't understand Chairperson, how it was incorporated in the statement.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairperson. I just want to put it to you finally and that is my instructions on behalf of the victims, that what we have here is a classical witchcraft killing, namely in the first instance when a person died under mysterious circumstances, some culprit is identified. Secondly, there is a meeting of the community and that person is pointed as a witch and that person thirdly, is eventually killed? The point I am trying to make is that this is exactly what happened here, absolutely no difference between a classical witchcraft killing and what happened here, do you agree with that statement?

MR MOKALENG: I would associate this incident with a political motive because if this person was identified as, because the person who was murdered by Masakona Tseisi was an activist, that is why I associate this incident with a political objective.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Hm. Do you agree that in your statement there is no mention made that it was one of your objectives to incorporate the homeland back into South Africa?

MR MOKALENG: Do you mean in my statement?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Here in your statement.

MR MOKALENG: I stated many issues in my statement. Maybe I forgot some of the issues. If you were listening to me, I went back and explained some incidents, for me to forget to mention that particular issues, because I went a little bit further back and mentioned some of the issues.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes. Thank you no further questions. Thank you Mr Chairperson.

MR MAPOMA: I have no questions, Chairperson.

MR NDOU: No questions, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, you are excused.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that all Mr Ndou?

MR NDOU: That is all Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg, do you have any witnesses?

MR VAN RENSBURG: There are no witnesses. I don't know if at this stage you want me to put on record who the victims in this instance is. There is only one in fact.

CHAIRPERSON: One?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you give me that name?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, it is in fact the daughter of the deceased. Her name is Elinah and the surname I will spell N-e-m-a-i-t-o-n-i. She is residing at, or her postal address is P.O. Box 450, Nzhelele. Unfortunately the postal code is unknown.

CHAIRPERSON: What is her age, do you know?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Perhaps I can just enquire quickly? Mr Chairperson, perhaps I will need the assistance of an Interpreter in this instance.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you ask the question through your microphone and then it will be interpreted.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Mr Interpreter, if you can just interpret the question, we are trying to identify the age of the victim.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Could you kindly tell us how old you are or when you were born?

MS NEMAITONI: I was born in 1958.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that all Mr van Rensburg?

MR VAN RENSBURG: That will be all on behalf of the victims, thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou, have you got any argument?

MR NDOU: I will leave it in the Committee's hands.

CHAIRPERSON: We don't need to hear you Mr Mapoma. That is that for that matter?

Mr Ndou, we still have the matter outstanding from yesterday. What is the position about that?

MR NDOU: He is here and it is ready.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, let's go with that then, number 1 or number 2 I think it is.

MR NDOU: Then I call Ailwei Maivha - number 2.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: Mr Maivha, what language would you want to speak?

MR MAIVHA: Venda.

AILWEI MAIVHA: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please be seated.

EXAMINATION BY MR NDOU: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Maivha, you have brought an application for amnesty and you remember that your co-applicants have already given evidence in your presence in a previous sitting in July last year, is that correct?

MR MAIVHA: Yes, it is true.

MR NDOU: You have listened to the evidence that they put forth for the Committee, is that correct?

MR MAIVHA: Yes, it is true.

MR NDOU: And you have now also submitted your affidavit, do you confirm that what is contained in that affidavit is your evidence?

MR MAIVHA: Yes, I agree.

MR NDOU: Now, if you may just explain to the Committee what role you played on the day in question when the deceased was killed, what did you personally do when the deceased was killed?

MR MAIVHA: I hope, I think on that day on which the deceased was killed, a meeting was held and I was present and all decisions which was taken, I was there. When we arrived to the issue of telling the deceased to leave the place, I was also there with the reasons to that respect because we were against the things which were done in that country.

As youth we were against what was happening in the country. The day in which we killed the deceased, we were simply telling him to leave the country. On arriving at the gate next to the deceased's home, what the deceased started to do is to throw stones at us with his children.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, now you heard the evidence of the other applicants in respect of this offence. Correct?

MR MAIVHA: Yes, that is true.

CHAIRPERSON: What did you do yourself there, did you attend the meeting?

MR MAIVHA: Yes, I attended the meeting.

CHAIRPERSON: And you went with the whole group to this person's house?

MR MAIVHA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: What did you do?

MR MAIVHA: I, when the deceased started throwing stones, I also threw stones at him. As we were fighting with him, I also took out petrol from his car, then burnt a car which was there in the yard. That is what I did on my arrival there at the home of the deceased.

CHAIRPERSON: You threw stones at him or at his house or what?

MR MAIVHA: The stones were hitting the house and not the deceased.

CHAIRPERSON: You say in your statement that you threw stones at the deceased while he was being attacked - paragraph 46(2)?

MR MAIVHA: Yes, we threw them to the deceased, but unfortunately they were missing the deceased, obviously I was directing the stones to the deceased.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, I see, all right. So you hit the house?

MR MAIVHA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: When you missed the deceased?

MR MAIVHA: Yes, it is true.

MR NDOU: That is all Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg, have you got any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, just one or two, thank you Mr Chairperson. When you went to the deceased's house on that fateful day, was it the main purpose to go and kill him or to chase him?

MR MAIVHA: The main aim was to request him to leave the village.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay, now explain to me what political aim would there be in chasing him from the community?

MR MAIVHA: During that day when we decided to chase him, it is that the deceased was against the youth which was formed there at Mavhunga. What he did to the youth is that he was totally against the Youth Congress and the other decision is that we were suspecting him of participating in witchcraft.

That is why we ended up taking a decision of saying that he must be evicted, without the aim of killing him. The decision of killing him just came about when we were, when the deceased started to fight us. As we were fighting, then we ended up killing him, but the reason was not of killing him.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Now, then on behalf of the victims, I just have to put it to you and that is my instructions that the deceased was killed not because of any political reason, because some people in the community were jealous of his ...

CHAIRPERSON: Achievements?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I think that is a good description, thank you Mr Chairman, of his achievements?

MR MAIVHA: With Edward Mavhunga, but then I knew him very well, I think there was no jealousy that we can - we can be jealous from him. It is only that he was opposing us, the youth, that is why we took that decision and simply because he was suspected of witchcraft. I don't think there is a worse person who can simply be jealous of a person for his achievement.

The main issue was that he was suspected of practising witchcraft and fighting with the youth.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I've got no further questions.

MR MAPOMA: I have no questions Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou?

MR NDOU: None, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you are excused.

MR NDOU: That is all.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma, it is half past three. I think we can slip in at least another one.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chairperson, we will be dealing now with incident 14. I realise there are three applicants involved in that incident.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

MR MAPOMA: The main reason Chairperson, why I call this matter is that there is a victim who is reportedly sickly, then it would be in her interest that at least we hear from as many applicants as possible today. Thank you Chair. The applicants in this matter are Tshinyadzo Daneil Mauba, Victor Mnuleni Mukheli and Freddy Davhula. Mr van Rensburg is appearing on behalf of the victims and Mr Ndou for the applicants. Thank you Chair.

MR NDOU: I call Patwani Freddy Davhula.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: Mr Davhula, what language would you wish to use?

MR DAVHULA: Venda.

PATWANI FREDDY DAVHULA: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR NDOU: Thank you Mr Chairman and Honourable Members. Mr Davhula, you are also an applicant who has applied for amnesty and you have filed an affidavit with the Committee. Do you confirm that what is contained in this affidavit is your evidence?

MR DAVHULA: Yes, I do.

MR NDOU: Now, could you just explain to the Committee as to how it came about that you and a group of other people came to kill the deceased.

MR DAVHULA: This thing started from long before we could kill the deceased. If I could start it from the middle, I think I would be confused. In details, I would like to explain it in full because if I take it from, I just take points here and there, it will make me unable to relate the story in real order.

MR NDOU: Just explain ...

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou, perhaps you must lead him. We haven't got time to listen to a thesis.

MR NDOU: You see, you have already filed an affidavit and the Court is aware of what is contained in the affidavit. What is important to you now is to explain to the Committee as to what role you played when the deceased was killed and how it came about that the deceased was killed, and also how you connect that with a political motive.

MR DAVHULA: Firstly in 1988 Sharon Mashike was killed. It is then that violence erupted. This Sharon Mashike was a member of our committee or a committee member of the Youth Congress of Manavhela, the Manavhela Youth Congress.

She was one of the Secretaries and when she was killed, the community was touched and we as youth were also touched by her death. We held a very big meeting, it is there - because there at the homestead of Violet Movhe I have only learnt of Movhe when I was in court, but I know her as Marisha. There were so many VM cars, or government cars coming to her home and MP's which were there in that country used to frequent her home.

So, we ended up suspecting that this lady participated in the killing of Sharon Mashike because the suspects were members of the, were the MP's.

MR NDOU: What position did she, did she hold a position in the community, this Violet? Did she hold any position of particular importance in the community?

MR DAVHULA: No, there was no position like that, that she held.

MR NDOU: Why were these government officials visiting her home, do you know?

MR DAVHULA: So I suspect that they were coming there to find some assistance of killing Sharon Mashike and I think what they were in need of, was medicine because the deceased was a Traditional Healer.

MR NDOU: I see. Now you can proceed. What then happened after you saw government vehicles with government officials coming to her home and the people suspected because she was a witch-doctor, that she was assisting them.

JUDGE DE JAGER: The trouble is, isn't there a difference between a Traditional Healer and a witch-doctor? If it is meant to be a witch-doctor, I think it should be said and he shouldn't, because in my mind I think there is a difference between the two. If I am wrong, please tell me.

MR DAVHULA: As far as I am concerned, I think there is no difference, because all those Traditional Doctors of the 1990's, those people who were in high ranks ...

CHAIRPERSON: Just hold it there. Mr van Rensburg ...

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, Mr Chairman, the reason why we actually called this case was because of the illness of the victim. She has just indicated to me, I can't understand her properly, but she needs some kind of assistance. If we can just get that ...

CHAIRPERSON: Are there any members of her family that know how to assist her?

MR VAN RENSBURG: As far as I know, she is the only one representing the family. If we can just adjourn for two minutes, I will just find out exactly how serious the problem is.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg, I understand that the lady who was representing the victims, took ill?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, the person who was here on behalf of the victims, was actually the daughter of the deceased. Unfortunately she is too ill to attend the hearing further but she has given me the necessary instructions.

CHAIRPERSON: It is to be hoped that in view of this unfortunate set of circumstances, she will be assisted on her way home. Where are we now?

MR NDOU: Thank you Honourable Chair. I have just asked the witness to state as to how it came about that he attended that meeting on the 8th of February 1990.

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

MR DAVHULA: The meeting started because a certain lady mysteriously disappeared. I don't remember her name. On that day, when she disappeared, we were surprised as to what happened. It is then that a very big meeting was held which was held in a sports field. I was the Chairman that day. My Secretary by then was Victor Mukheli.

Then by that time Sharon Mashike was already dead. It is then that we came to a conclusion that the disappearance of the people is caused by this MP's which were frequenting the home of the deceased. By the deceased, I am referring to Violet Movhe.

Because of those MP's, some of them were suspected of having killed Sharon Mashike. Those were the suspects, Joseph Mashembu and a certain Dabana. I think his name is Dabana, I am not sure about this one. It is then that we went to the place of the deceased, we were singing freedom songs. It was during the night. Another thing which gave us powers or energy to leave the sports ground and proceeded to the deceased's home is that while we were there in the sports field, government vehicles passed and those people from the government vehicles, shot to our direction.

The car was like cream-white, but it was not that white, it was not so visible, because it was during the night. And then we organised ourselves and then we proceeded to the home of the deceased.

On our arrival we started by standing next to the gate indicating that we are simply intending to take the deceased and to take her to the headman's kraal.

MR NDOU: Why were you to take her to the headman's kraal?

MR DAVHULA: It is because there in our country, we were no longer interested in her because once we sent the headman to tell her that we are against those MP's who were frequenting her place and instructed him to tell her that she must let those MP's to no longer frequent her place.

Whenever we see these MP's, it reminded us of Sharon Mashike because whenever we see them, we happen to, if often happened that tears fall from us because we were very disturbed by the way she was disturbed. Even myself, I even witnessed her corpse. I also gave evidence as to the effect that I have seen the body into the gruesome way in which the parts were taken out from her body, or decapitated.

CHAIRPERSON: When did you go and speak to this lady to stop entertaining the political people?

MR DAVHULA: We sent the deceased in 1988, we sent the headman in 1988 when Sharon Mashike was shortly killed and then they came back with the answer that the Movhe people have agreed that those people will no longer come to their place.

We were surprised to see when they were still frequenting her home again.

MR NDOU: Just try and make sure that we understand what you are saying. As I understand what you are saying, you are saying that Sharon Mashike was killed for muti purposes, is that correct?

MR DAVHULA: Yes, it is correct.

MR NDOU: And I also understand you further to say that amongst the people who were charged for her muti murder, were some of the government officials, is that correct?

MR DAVHULA: Yes, it is correct.

MR NDOU: And I understand you further to say that some of those government officials were charged with the muti murder, always frequented the deceased's kraal and the deceased was a witch-doctor, is that correct?

MR DAVHULA: Yes, it is true. They frequented the home all the time.

MR NDOU: I also understand you to be saying that it came to a point where the deceased was approached not to allow those government officials to visit her at home, is that right?

MR DAVHULA: Yes, it is true.

MR NDOU: And you say that happened in 1988? What I want to find out from you is as to whether those government officials stopped frequenting the deceased's home?

MR DAVHULA: Those government officials didn't stop frequenting the home of the deceased until such time that we killed the deceased.

JUDGE DE JAGER: I suppose they weren't found guilty because they were charged, but afterwards still visited the deceased, so perhaps Mr Ndou if you've got knowledge about it, could you tell us whether ...

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone was off.

MR NDOU: Yes, only, I think if I remember correctly, I think there were six accused and only one was convicted and the rest were acquitted.

Amongst those two, the officials who were said to be visiting the deceased, was two of the five who were acquitted. They were two of the five who were acquitted.

Now, could you explain then as to the reason why this crowd that had gathered at the sports field decided then to proceed to the deceased's kraal?

MR DAVHULA: Yes, I can explain the reason.

MR NDOU: Please do so.

MR DAVHULA: The group decided to go to the home of the deceased because it was to their opinion that the people who are mysteriously disappearing there at Manavhela, just like Walter Mueki and that one of the Reginani family and this one of Sharon Mashike, who was brutally killed for ritual murders. The group thought the deceased and those MP's who frequented her home, have got connections and I think because the deceased was a Traditional Healer, they were maybe in need of medicine to protect them, or they just wanted the Traditional Healer to help them so that when they commit ritual murders, she will mix the medicine.

MR NDOU: So you wanted her to leave the area?

MR DAVHULA: Yes, what we were really in need of, was for her to leave our village.

MR NDOU: What short-circuited your plans?

MR DAVHULA: It is because on questioning the deceased, she showed no interest in answering our questions.

MR NDOU: What questions?

MR DAVHULA: The question which I asked her is this, I asked her as to why she didn't follow the instructions we gave her through our headman regarding to no longer accept the MP's to frequent her home and we were questioning her why she didn't follow that instruction.

The second one was why in this country, it seems there is a communication between her and the MP's regarding the mysterious disappearance of these people.

MR NDOU: Yes?

MR DAVHULA: The deceased didn't respond to that. I am the person who started to strike her by a stick which I took from a certain boy whom I don't recall or I didn't know him, because it was during the night. I hit her maybe at the shoulder or at the head, I am not sure where I struck her.

MR NDOU: Yes, what else did you do if any?

MR DAVHULA: What I did is there at the home of the deceased, before we took her to the scene where we killed her, I entered the house through the window, the furthest window, the window was on my left, the window faced west.

There were people who were already inside the house. Those people who were in the house, it was Victor Mukheli who is my co-applicant and Daneil Mauba and others whom for now, I am unable to recall them, because there were so many inside the house.

What I did there is that I dragged the deceased and took her outside to the group, through the window. Then I realised that Daneil Mauba said that he found the deceased inside the wardrobe and there inside the house, the lamp was on. I don't know who lit the lamp, but it was burning, the lamp was burning.

MR NDOU: That is all Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairperson. This deceased, can you perhaps tell us how did she make a living?

MR DAVHULA: I know that she was a Traditional Healer.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Did she practise that trade fulltime or part-time?

MR DAVHULA: I only know that she was a Traditional Healer, I don't know whether she was practising it fulltime or part-time, but what I know is that the people who used to frequent her home, were the MP's.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes. Is it not so that at her house, there was also a shibeen?

MR DAVHULA: Yes, there was a shibeen, but beer was sold there, but by that time she was no longer selling beer there, or liquor.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes. Now did it ever appear to you that the MP's that visited there, visited the shibeen?

MR DAVHULA: No, I think Dabana is a person who doesn't drink beer.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And the others?

MR DAVHULA: With the others, I am not sure, but with Dabana I am quite sure he is not a drinking person.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, now regarding all the other strange persons with their official government vehicles, what I am asking you is, didn't you ever come to the conclusion that they were visiting that premises because they were buying beer from that place?

MR DAVHULA: We didn't come to that conclusion because whenever we saw them, we only remembered Sharon Mashike who was killed for ritual purposes, and those people were suspects.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, it is in fact then my instructions on behalf of the victim or the victim's family to put it to you that that is the reason why so many people and so many government officials visited that premises, it is because they bought beer from that premises?

MR DAVHULA: But our opinion was that they were frequenting the place to be assisted from this Traditional Healer because we knew the deceased as a Traditional Healer.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I am still not, I still don't understand why didn't you make the connection, if a person sells beer and you know, we know now that you knew at the time that she was selling beer at that premises, why didn't, why couldn't you think so far as to the reason or the actual reason why they were visiting was because they were buying beer there?

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the actual reason? It is something that has been suggested to him?

MR VAN RENSBURG: That is in fact my instructions that that was the reason why so many government officials visited that premises.

MR DAVHULA: I want to indicate that in 1990, during that time when we killed the deceased, that shibeen was no longer existing.

MR VAN RENSBURG: When did it close down?

MR DAVHULA: I think it was in 1988.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes. This meeting that was held on the day that the deceased was killed, I think you have already testified it took place at the soccer stadium, is that correct, or the football field?

MR DAVHULA: Yes, it is correct, we used to hold the meeting there.

MR VAN RENSBURG: This meeting was attended by a lot of the soccer players, the young guys, is that correct?

MR DAVHULA: Yes, even soccer players were there, even the people of the community was there at that meeting.

MR VAN RENSBURG: What I want to find out from you, was it an actual organised political meeting, or was it a gathering, informal gathering of soccer players and spectators?

MR DAVHULA: No, it was politically organised.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Is it not so that at that very same meeting, certain matters concerning football was also discussed?

MR DAVHULA: On that day, nothing regarding soccer was mentioned.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Hm. Again I put it to you that on behalf of the victim, it is my instructions that it was not a political meeting, it was an informal meeting following on the soccer practise and at that specific meeting, soccer matters were also discussed before you turned your attention to the question of the deceased.

MR DAVHULA: As I have made an oath here to make sure that I am telling the truth and telling the truth, having already been sentenced, being not afraid of anything, I want to indicate that on that day we discussed about political matters and the soccer or football issues were not discussed.

MR VAN RENSBURG: If it was your instructions or your aim, if it was your aim to get the deceased to leave that area, shouldn't you have discussed that question with the chief so that he can issue her with a "trekpas"?

MR DAVHULA: It was a good idea but the headman had already given us the solution that the deceased will no longer allow the government officials to frequent her home, that is why we agreed with our chief in that regard.

MR VAN RENSBURG: So there was nothing stopping the headman to follow this proper procedure, is that correct?

MR DAVHULA: I think because our hearts were full of pain, thinking of the death of Sharon Mashike, we took the decision to that effect and diverted from our previous plan in which we were thinking of letting the deceased go to the chief and getting that "trakpas" and then we decided to kill her.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But you had the option to ask for a "trekpas" and that would have solved your problem, there was no need to murder her? Isn't that so?

MR DAVHULA: Our main aim in going to the deceased's home was to take her to the chief so that she can get a "trekpas", but noticing that the deceased was resisting, so even the youth were grabbing her, maybe to a distance from here to the next building. I think it is the whole yard, it is just like the length of the homestead because the homestead in the rural areas are so big.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But she was a lady, you could have carried her even, you were a lot, you could have forced her to go to the chief to get a "trekpas" or you could have gone to the chief without her and obtained a "trekpas" and told her to go, isn't that so?

MR DAVHULA: Yes, but seeing the circumstances there, on my arrival, the deceased was sitting down, showing that from the gate to where she is, the people were just pulling her.

JUDGE DE JAGER: So wasn't this killing quite disproportionate to achieving your objective, to get rid of her from the community? You could have given her a "trekpas"?

MR DAVHULA: May you please ask him that question again.

CHAIRPERSON: Can we just adjourn for five minutes please. We need to make arrangements for tomorrow.

ON RESUMPTION:

PATWANI FREDDY DAVHULA: (s.u.o.)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Before the adjournment I asked you whether you couldn't have solved the problem by getting a "trekpas" instead of killing her.

MR DAVHULA: My Honour, that was possible.

ADV SIGODI: Tell me, this assault on the deceased which eventually killed her, started spontaneously, did I get you correctly?

MR DAVHULA: I agree that when she was grabbed outside the house, there were people who were beating her as they were taking her through the window. When arriving where she was sitting, as I asked her to stand up, let me first - I said "let us first ask her the questions". It is then that when she was responding, I first assaulted her, thinking that she would respond to our questions.

ADV SIGODI: The question I am asking is she died as a result of being assaulted by a number of people?

MR DAVHULA: That is true.

ADV SIGODI: How many people were there in your group, approximately?

MR DAVHULA: Between or approximately 500 to 600.

ADV SIGODI: How many do you think took part in assaulting her? Surely not all 500 to 600 assaulted her?

MR DAVHULA: Approximately 100.

ADV SIGODI: And what weapons were used to assault her?

MR DAVHULA: Stones and sticks were used to assault the deceased, even bigger sticks.

ADV SIGODI: Even what?

MR DAVHULA: Big sticks and stones.

ADV SIGODI: Wasn't she stabbed or anything?

MR DAVHULA: That I didn't notice that.

ADV SIGODI: Thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN RENSBURG: (continued) At the political meeting before the deceased was killed, there was no decision taken to kill her, is that correct?

MR DAVHULA: Yes, there was no decision for her to be killed, the only decision was for her to be taken to the chief so that she could get a "trekpas".

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay, now explain to this meeting then in that circumstances, when did the political motivation to kill this person, come into being?

MR DAVHULA: May you please repeat your question?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, what I wanted to know is you say that she was killed for political reasons, when was this

political motive for killing her, when did that come to the foreground?

MR DAVHULA: In the meeting, that she must be killed was never mentioned, but it was indicated that she must get the "trekpas" from the headman.

MR VAN RENSBURG: You are not answering the question. We know now that it could only come into being after the meeting, because there was no such decision taken at the meeting. When after the meeting was over, did it come into existence?

MR DAVHULA: It is when the deceased was resisting and refusing to go to the chief and the people lost control and then they killed her.

MR VAN RENSBURG: In those circumstances sir, I put it to you that it was not politically motivated at all, but it was an instantaneous decision taken by the crowd on the spur of the moment and it had nothing to do with political motivation?

MR DAVHULA: As far as I am concerned, referring to the way in which we used to see the MP's frequenting her home, we linked that with politics, because whenever we see those MP's, we just think of Sharon Mashike and other people who were mysteriously disappearing.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I have no further questions, thank you Mr Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN RENSBURG

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAPOMA: Thank you Mr Chairperson. You say in a meeting you only resolved that she be taken to the chief so that she can get a "trekpas", did you discuss what if she refuses the plan, what you were going to do?

MR DAVHULA: We once talked about that that if a person refused, then we must kill that person.

MR MAPOMA: Was that at the meeting that you arrived at that?

MR DAVHULA: Yes, that was in the meeting that if a person refused, we must deal with that person accordingly.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Nothing further.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you mean "dealing with a person accordingly"?

MR DAVHULA: I mean to kill that person.

CHAIRPERSON: So that was the decision?

MR DAVHULA: No, in that meeting we have decided that we are going to take the deceased to the chief, but we also indicated that if she refused, we will finish with her.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR NDOU: I call Daneil Tshinyadzo Mauba.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mauba, what language would you prefer to talk?

MR MAUBA: Venda.

DANEIL TSHINYADZO MAUBA: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR NDOU: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Mauba, you are an applicant who is applying for amnesty and you heard the previous co-applicant, Mr Davhula, giving evidence and you have also filed an affidavit with the Committee. Do you confirm what is contained in that affidavit, is your evidence?

MR MAUBA: Yes, I confirm.

MR NDOU: I just want you to explain to the Committee as to what you did on the day when the deceased was killed, what is it that you did?

MR MAUBA: On the day on which we killed the deceased, on my arrival at the home of the deceased, I was one of the people who knocked the door so that the deceased could get out of the house. On knocking ...

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes, you have set that out in paragraph 28. Is that correct? Could you show that to him?

MR MAUBA: Yes, it is correct.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And you have admitted your guilt to the offence in paragraph 29?

MR MAUBA: Yes, all that is in that affidavit, I am confirming that since I even signed and I have also read through this affidavit.

MR NDOU: Nothing further, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairperson. I see in the two applications that you filed, to wit page 1 and 2 and page 4 you have given different dates of birth. Would you be so kind as to give us your correct date of birth please?

MR MAUBA: I was born in 1970, in June and that was on the 13th.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Which year?

MR MAUBA: 1970.

MR VAN RENSBURG: So when you wrote here 1972 in the form dated the 7th of April 1995, you made a mistake, is that correct?

MR MAUBA: Yes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I suppose you also didn't make the connection that because the deceased was selling liquor at that house, that politicians are visiting that house to buy liquor?

MR MAUBA: No, it never came to my mind and I am sure that that is not true that they went there in order to buy some liquor.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Why do you say so?

MR MAUBA: It is because there in our village, shibeens were so many, but I have never seen them frequenting another shibeen, to prove that they were not going there for beers.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Pardon, I don't understand your answer, just repeat your answer.

CHAIRPERSON: What he is saying is that if they were drinking, if they were people who consumed liquor, from what I gained there, they would then be seen to be visiting many other shibeens, and not only one shibeen. Whether you accept that or not, is another matter.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I have no further questions, thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: I have no questions Chairperson, thank you.

MR NDOU: Nothing further.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you are excused.

MR NDOU: I now call Victor Brian Mukheli.

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

MR MUKHELI: Venda.

VICTOR BRIAN MUKHELI: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR NDOU: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Mukheli, you have made an application for amnesty and you filed an affidavit, do you confirm that the contents of this affidavit is your evidence?

MR MUKHELI: Yes, I confirm it is my evidence.

MR NDOU: I also see that in paragraph 28 you admit to participating in the killing of the deceased by actively doing something. Is that correct?

MR MUKHELI: Yes, it is true.

MR NDOU: I don't wish to take this any further Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mukheli, on page 19(c)(ii), paragraph 25 of your affidavit, you say that the crowd then questioned her as to why she still accepted visitors from the politicians who were oppressing the people and furthermore she was also questioned as to the whereabouts of people who were disappearing from the area. What was her response to that?

MR MUKHELI: She didn't give the answer, the time for her to can answer, that didn't arrive because the person who was giving evidence here before me, assaulted her at her back and then she fell down before she could answer that.

CHAIRPERSON: Did she answer why she was still accepting visits from the politicians?

MR MUKHELI: May you please repeat your question?

CHAIRPERSON: Did she answer the issue of being questioned about why she still continued to entertain visits by the politicians?

MR MUKHELI: No, she didn't respond to that.

CHAIRPERSON: Why not, do you know?

MR MUKHELI: She didn't respond because the person who asked her immediately assaulted her, and then she fell down, as such she was unable to respond to that. She was laying on the ground.

CHAIRPERSON: Were these two questions asked, one after the other?

MR MUKHELI: Yes, they were questioned one after the other, in the same sequence.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman. If I can refer you to paragraph 10 of your

affidavit, you stated there that she was, that is the deceased, was one of the well known Traditional Witch-doctors. What I want to know is did you yourself ever see the deceased practising witchcraft?

MR MUKHELI: No, I never saw her going to practice witchcraft.

MR VAN RENSBURG: So you only heard from other people that she was a witch, is that correct?

MR MUKHELI: Yes, but I heard about it from many people from the community.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Hm. One of the previous witnesses said that she opened this trade or she practised this trade openly and that was in fact how she made her money? You cannot confirm that out of your own knowledge, is that correct?

MR MUKHELI: I only knew that she was a Traditional Healer, but I never saw it in public, that she is a Traditional Healer.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I have to put it to you and that is again my instructions on behalf of the victims, Mr Chairman, I have to apologise, perhaps I didn't put this point strong enough to the other witnesses, it is in fact the position of the witnesses, the victims, that they deny that the deceased was ever a witch-doctor and that she in fact was a shibeen owner. What do you say to that?

MR MUKHELI: I am not in dispute of what the family or the victims are saying, because I was not part of that family.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Did you ever buy beer from the deceased?

MR MUKHELI: No, I was not a drinking person.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Hm. If I can refer you again to paragraph 26 of your statement, that is page 19(c)(ii), the last sentence reads as follows -

Shouldn't we deduct from that statement that it was in fact a killing that happened at the spur of the moment, that it was driven by the anxiety of the crowd present and by the emotions present at the time, and that was the reason why she was killed?

MR MUKHELI: That is not true.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I have no further questions, thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chairperson, I have no questions.

MR NDOU: Nothing Chair.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Did she have any opportunity to decide whether she wanted to accompany you to the chief, or was she assaulted before she could even consider going to the chief with you?

MR MUKHELI: The question is too long, I am unable to catch it, then I am asking that maybe you can shorten it.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Was she ever asked to go to the chief with you?

MR MUKHELI: Yes, that was our main aim, but she refused.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Did she refuse, she said no?

MR MUKHELI: Yes, she was refusing, and then we decided to drag her. She did not want to walk, and then she was crawling when we were trying to carry her to that place.

JUDGE DE JAGER: When did you ask her about whether she, why she still accepted the visits by the politicians? Was that before she crawled or after she crawled?

MR MUKHELI: That was when she was crawling and then somebody who was leading us said "no, let us stop this, let us first ask her some questions".

JUDGE DE JAGER: Was that after she refused to go to the chief or before? What is the answer?

MR MUKHELI: It is when she was refusing to go to the headman's kraal.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Thank you.

ADV SIGODI: Tell me, this Youth Congress, when was it formed?

MR MUKHELI: (no interpretation) 1986.

ADV SIGODI: The incident which led which was immediately before this one, was the disappearance of certain people, who were the people who disappeared mysteriously?

MR MUKHELI: A certain man called Walter Mueki and that lady, I don't remember her name, I know her surname, it is from Reginani, they are the people who disappeared.

ADV SIGODI: Do you know if they had been found after that?

MR MUKHELI: Walter Mueki was never found, that lady we searched all over for her, and then we ended up finding her.

ADV SIGODI: Was she dead or was she alive?

MR MUKHELI: She was about to dry, she was unable to speak, unable to walk and unable to see.

ADV SIGODI: When was she found, before you were arrested or after?

MR MUKHELI: That was before I was arrested.

ADV SIGODI: What was wrong with her?

MR MUKHELI: What I remember is that when she came back from where she was working, she lost the route to her home, but the bus stop at which she was supposed to alight, is in the gate of her home, but she was lost.

ADV SIGODI: Then she was found in the same village, or where was she found?

MR MUKHELI: She was found in the bush, she was found after searching house by house.

CHAIRPERSON: ... dragged her out of the house, correct?

MR MUKHELI: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You and the other two applicants?

MR MUKHELI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Was she ever told, "look, we want you to go to the headman for a 'trekpas'"?

MR MUKHELI: Sir, the people were so many, speaking at the same time, saying that we wanted to take her to the chief, because she didn't accept our request, we took it to her through our chief.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't follow your answer. Just repeat your answer.

MR MUKHELI: She was told but by many voices.

CHAIRPERSON: And then she resisted to do that?

MR MUKHELI: She resisted, she never agreed to go to the headman.

CHAIRPERSON: As a result of her resisting, that the other part of the understanding took effect and then she was killed?

MR MUKHELI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, you are excused.

MR NDOU: That is all the evidence. Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg, have you got any witnesses?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No witnesses on this instance.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: No witnesses Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, that is the end of the matter, the evidence?

MR NDOU: That is so.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg, have you got any submissions to make?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Regarding this specific incident, I have no submissions to make.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma, we don't need to hear you, and neither do we need to hear Mr Ndou.

MR NDOU: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg, what is the victim's name here?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Her name is Takalani Sylvia Movhe. She is related, she is the deceased's daughter, Movhe. I can given the identity number 590109 0141 08 0.

CHAIRPERSON: 59 - 41? And her address?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Her address is P.O. Box 125, Vhuwani and unfortunately the postal code is unknown at this stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. I do understand that the front road, in front of this building, is going to be occupied tomorrow in the morning through a march by the labour forces. I hope to start at nine o'clock, I am saying that whoever wants to be here at that time, must make an effort to come to the venue earlier than usual and avoid getting stuck in the traffic. We will adjourn until nine o'clock sharp tomorrow. morning.