--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON:   Morning everybody. We are continuing with the applications relating to the Zevenfontein incident, and Mr Draht yesterday indicated that he’ll be commencing today by calling Mr Ndlovu. Is that correct, Mr Draht?

MR DRAHT:   That’s correct Mr Chairperson.

A NDLOVU:   (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON:   Thank you. Mr Draht?

EXAMINATION BY MR DRAHT:   Mr Ndlovu you are the applicant in this matter, is that correct?

MR NDLOVU:   That is correct.

MR DRAHT:   There is a bundle of papers in front of you. If you look at page 6 thereof, Mr Chairperson I refer you to page 6 of the bundle, is that your signature on that page?

MR NDLOVU:   Yes, that’s my signature.

MR DRAHT:   Mr Ndlovu can you tell me, can you read or write English?

MR NDLOVU:   Yes, I can read and write, but not English.

MR DRAHT:   What is your standard of education?

MR NDLOVU:   Standard 5.

MR DRAHT:   Has somebody read that statement to you after taking it?

MR NDLOVU:   No, they did not read it to me.

MR DRAHT:   Can you remember who took the statement from you?

MR NDLOVU:   If I still remember very well, it was Mr Msizi and Mr Claassen.

MR DRAHT:   On the day that that statement was taken from yourself, did they only take your statement, or was there other people present whose statements was also taken?

MR NDLOVU:   Yes, there were many of us, and some of the people from whom the statement was taken were my co-accused.

MR DRAHT:   Are you satisfied, sorry Mr Chairperson. Mr Ndlovu, I refer you to page ...(inaudible)

CHAIRPERSON:   Thank you Mr Draht, you may continue.

MR DRAHT:   Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Ndlovu, on page 2 of the bundle, paragraph 9(a)(iv) you have stated:

Is that correct?

MR NDLOVU:   Would you please repeat the question.

MR DRAHT:   In your statement paragraph 9(a)(iv) you mention that on the day IFP and ANC members were killed. Is that correct?

MR NDLOVU:   No, I don’t know anything about that.

MR DRAHT:   What is the correct position?

MR NDLOVU:   Only ANC members were injured, not IFP members.

MR DRAHT:   Mr Ndlovu you also mentioned in that statement that you were arrested by the police in the morning after the incident. Is that correct?

MR NDLOVU:   No, that is not the truth.

MR DRAHT:   When were you arrested?

MR NDLOVU:   I was arrested on the very same day of the incident, on Saturday, that was on the 12th in the evening.

MR DRAHT:   Why do you think that this was written wrongly in your statement?

MR NDLOVU:   According to my understanding, this says I was arrested on Sunday morning after the incident, and there is a confusion here because only my two co-accused were arrested the following day, that’s what they wrote in their statement. I think this is how this came into my statement. Had they read the statement to me I would have disputed it.

MR DRAHT:   Thanks. Mr Ndlovu do you belong to a political party?

MR NDLOVU:   That is correct.

MR DRAHT:   What is your, what party?

MR NDLOVU:   The IFP.

MR DRAHT:   What is your position in the party? What was your position in the party at the time of the incident?

MR NDLOVU:   I was a follower.

MR DRAHT:   What is the acts that you committed that you applied for amnesty for?

MR NDLOVU:   I am seeking amnesty in connection with the injury of people in Zevenfontein. As well as my being found in possession of a firearm.

MR DRAHT:   What was the charges that you have been found guilty of?

MR NDLOVU:   I was found guilty of murder and attempted murder, as well as being in possession of a firearm.

MR DRAHT:   And did you plead guilty or not guilty when you were in Court?

MR NDLOVU:   I did not plead guilty.

MR DRAHT:   Why did you plead not guilty?

MR NDLOVU:   It was difficult to plead guilty because all of my co-accused had pleaded not guilty, so that it wasn’t easy for me to plead guilty.

MR DRAHT:   Did you tell? So you didn’t tell the truth when you were in Court. Is that correct?

MR NDLOVU:   That is correct.

MR DRAHT:   Are you willing to tell the truth now?

MR NDLOVU:   Very much so.

MR DRAHT:   Can you please tell us what happened on the day of the incident in Zevenfontein.

MR NDLOVU:   It was on a Saturday, in the afternoon, I cannot be sure what time it was, it could have been around five o’clock. And I was at work on that very day, and when I came back from work I went straight to my shack.

And as I was sitting in my shack one IFP member came to me, his name is Joseph Mkhize. He did not knock, he just pushed the door and entered. And when I enquired as to what was happening he just pushed the door and came in, and before he could respond I noticed that he was wearing his jersey right inside my shack. And when I enquired as to what was happening, he informed me, he said to me, that I am sitting here whilst people are dying outside. And when I enquired as to who were fighting, he informed me that the IFP and the ANC were fighting. And I wanted to know the reason thereof, and he said, "...man there’s no time for explanation, I am here, I wanted to put my jersey on, I am fleeing, I’m going to sleep across the Jukskei River." And I then said to him, "...I am not staying behind, I am accompanying you to your girlfriend where you are going to spend your night." I then put on my jacket and locked the door. We then left.

And a distance from my shack, at a distance from my shack I saw people, women who were carrying their babies on their backs, hurrying, and I could see where these women were going, and this group of women accumulated as the singing was going on. And as I looked around there is one very big street that was the entry point into our area, and as I cast my eyes towards that point I saw a group of amabuto on that very same street. These people were carrying knopkierries as well as spears. They were chanting, and they were not standing still but they were moving downwards. That is when I got a fright, because I, it now occurred to me that what he was saying is the truth. And we swiftly took the downward direction with the intention of crossing the Jukskei River. We could not cross the river became it was overflowing.

We then went back and on our going back we could see the IFP members or group moving upwards. We joined them and they had gone upwards at the time. And after a while we arrived at Brown’s shack, if I’m not mistaken.

MR DRAHT:   Just a moment Mr Ndlovu. Do you know why you walked up the steep? Why were the group walking up the steep?

MR NDLOVU:   As far as my conclusions are concerned their intention was to go and fight.

MR DRAHT:   With whom did they want to go and fight?

MR NDLOVU:   They were to meet the group that was coming from up, moving towards the downward direction.

MR DRAHT:   And who was that group? Who was that group?

MR NDLOVU:   It was the ANC.

MR DRAHT:   And you walked with them? With the IFP people?

MR NDLOVU:   That is correct, I walked up with the IFP group.

MR DRAHT:   And were you armed at that stage?

MR NDLOVU:   I was not armed at that time.

MR DRAHT:   What happened then? You walked up and then what happened?

MR NDLOVU:   We arrived at Brown’s shack, and we heard stones being thrown onto the roof of the shack, and as these stones were being thrown we also at the same time heard a gunshot or gunshots.

MR DRAHT:   Sorry, by whom was the stones thrown?

MR NDLOVU:   These stones came from the direction of the ANC.

MR DRAHT:   And the shots, from which direction did that come?

MR NDLOVU:   The shots as well.

MR DRAHT:   Was it one shot or different shots?

MR NDLOVU:   Several shots were fired.

MR DRAHT:   From the ANC group?

MR NDLOVU:   That is correct.

MR DRAHT:   And what happened then?

MR NDLOVU:   When we heard the throwing of stones as well as the shooting, I heard one voice shouting, ordering that we lie down. Indeed we lied down and some of us against the shack. And the shooting continued, and the throwing of stones did not stop. And we later on heard this very big explosion which was different from the initial gunshots. And when I looked around I saw this ball of green fire directed towards the other group. And this explosion happened again. I tried to look around to establish where it came from, and it transpired that this explosion came from our group. And I ultimately identified the person who was shooting from our direction, from our group rather.

MR DRAHT:   Who was that?

MR NDLOVU:   It was Sithole.

MR DRAHT:   Could you see with what was he firing?

MR NDLOVU:   Even ‘though I could not have seen quite well the type of firearm he was using, yes I could make out that he was shooting.

MR DRAHT:   Was it a long or a short firearm, could you see that?

MR NDLOVU:   It looked like a rifle because he had his hands placed as I demonstrated.

MR DRAHT:   And were you still unarmed at that moment?

MR NDLOVU:   Yes, I was not armed at that time.

MR DRAHT:   Okay, what happened then?

MR NDLOVU:   After having identified Sithole, the group that was in front of us started dispersing and retreating. That is the time when we started moving, and when we started moving from where I was standing, charging forward, there is one person whom I saw lying down. That is when I realised that yes, this is a war. And after having walked past ...(intervention)

MR DRAHT:   If you say that you were charging, were your group charging towards the ANC group? Is that correct?

MR NDLOVU:   That is correct.

MR DRAHT:   Okay, and you saw a person lying on the ground?

MR NDLOVU:   That is correct.

MR DRAHT:   And then?

MR NDLOVU:   When I walked past the person who was lying down, fortunately I happened to pick up a stick from the ground. I think it must have been dropped by one of the people who were fleeing. I took this stick along. That is when I started arming myself.

MR DRAHT:   Yes?

CHAIRPERSON:   I’m sorry, was it a plain stick? Or was it a bolted stick, or a knopkierrie?

MR NDLOVU:   It was not a knopkierrie, it was just a plain stick.

CHAIRPERSON:   Sorry, Mr Draht, just before we move on, before it just slips my mind. You mentioned that you saw Sithole with what you believe was a rifle. Is that the same Mr Sithole who testified yesterday?

MR NDLOVU:   That is correct.

MR DRAHT:   Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Ndlovu you can proceed.

MR NDLOVU:   ...(no English interpretation)

ADV SIGODI:   The interpretation is not coming through.

INTERPRETER:   I’m sorry Chairperson.

MR NDLOVU:   We proceeded on and when I looked ahead I saw two people coming towards our direction, and when they came I would say there were two, or some people who were in front of me, and these people met these two people who were coming towards ourselves, and I saw one of them touching himself on the shoulder. And the other one who was in his company took off, and the one who was touching his shoulder was hit. He got injured.

ADV SIGODI:   Sorry, you say he was hit. He was hit by what?

MR NDLOVU:   He was hit by knopkierries and he fell down, and he was also stabbed with spears.

MR DRAHT:   Did you also hit him?

MR NDLOVU:   No, I could not reach him.

ADV SIGODI:   Was it somebody you knew?

MR NDLOVU:   I recognised this person, but later I learnt that it was somebody whom I knew.

CHAIRPERSON:   Who was it?

MR NDLOVU:   It was Alfred Madumane.

ADV SIGODI:   Do you know who stabbed him with a spear?

MR NDLOVU:   No, I could not see. It was actually a group of people, and this group of people were lifting their spears and sticks and knopkierries at the same time. I could not make out.

MR DRAHT:   You can continue Mr Ndlovu.

MR NDLOVU:   We then turned back, and as we were walking down the steep one among our group suggested that we should check out at Skosana’s shebeen to make sure whether there isn’t somebody there. And as we were approaching the shebeen two men came out of the shebeen. One whom I saw quite clearly was carrying something that looked like a briefcase, and this other one fled on seeing us. And the one who was carrying a briefcase had a bad luck. He too was beaten up.

MR DRAHT:   By whom?

ADV SIGODI:   Do you know who he was.

MR NDLOVU:   No, I don’t know him.

CHAIRPERSON:   When you say he was beaten up, was, what do you mean? Was he set upon by your group and assaulted with kerries and sticks? Just tell us what you mean by saying he was beaten up.

MR NDLOVU:   He was beaten up by our group, using sticks and spears.

CHAIRPERSON:   Did you partake in that beating up?

MR NDLOVU:   No, yes, yes I did partake of the beating.

CHAIRPERSON:   That person who was beaten, do you know whether he was killed or not?

MR NDLOVU:   My Lord it is very difficult for me to say he could have survived, because he was stabbed as soon as he fell onto the ground.

CHAIRPERSON:   Yes, thank you.

MR DRAHT:   Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Ndlovu, you say that you also beat him. How did you beat him?

MR NDLOVU:   I used the very same stick that I picked up when we went up the steep?

MR DRAHT:   And did you do something else to him also?

MR NDLOVU:   When he fell, I also kicked him.

MR DRAHT:   Okay, and what happened then?

MR NDLOVU:   After that, we went to the sports grounds. That’s where we stood, and it was at the time that we started asking ourselves questions as to what was happening. And that’s when I heard that they saw this group of people attacking them and they too claimed not to know what was happening. And I at the same time saw Joseph Mkhize, who came with something on his hand, in his hand, and on looking at this carefully I noticed that it was a firearm. I called him and I wanted to know from him as to, I actually pointed out to him that I was not aware he’s armed, and I requested to have a look at his firearm, and he handed it over to me. I handled it and it was quite heavy, it was the real thing.

MR DRAHT:   What kind of, what make of firearm was it? Did you see that?

MR NDLOVU:   When I asked him what kind of firearm it is he said it was a 38.

MR DRAHT:   You can continue.

MR NDLOVU:   I handled this firearm and I could make out from the weight that it was the real thing. And I then enquired from him as to whether he fired shots, and he said. "...there is no way I could not have fired," and I gave back the firearm. And at the same time we did not know what was happening or whether these people were coming back to attack us, and we decided that we could not go back to our houses, we would rather wait at the grounds in case they come back. And as we were milling around a Hippo came along.

CHAIRPERSON:   By a Hippo you mean a police vehicle, not a hippo out of the Jukskei River?

MR NDLOVU:   Yes, I am referring to the vehicle used by soldiers. And we saw this army vehicle. It came and it did not occur to us that we should flee or hide. And it was agreed that even if the police can come here we would explain to them that we were being attacked. Yes, the soldiers arrived and they ordered us to lift our hands. And we were ordered to lie down flat on our stomach, and we lied down on the muddy soil and we were searched. After searching us they took us along and they went to the very same vehicle to which I referred as Hippo, and it had it’s light on, just like this light here, and we were made to sit down. And as we were sitting down I would, we would, be made to stand up one after another and taken to the Hippo, and there were people in the Hippo. These people in the Hippo were looking at their heads, and if they shook their heads they would take you to the side, and if they nodded they will take you to another side. And to those to whom heads were shaken, such people were released.

MR DRAHT:   Sorry Mr Ndlovu, do I understand you correctly, and identification parade was held?

CHAIRPERSON:   In a Hippo?

MR NDLOVU:   Yes, they were right inside the Hippo.

CHAIRPERSON:   Let’s call it some sort of pointing out, but it’s not an identification parade.

MR DRAHT:   As it pleases Mr Chair.

MR NDLOVU:   I would not know, I’m just explaining what happened.

MR LAX:   Who was pointing out? Who was nodding their heads and shaking their heads? Who were those people?

MR NDLOVU:   We could not see them as to who they were. But one could make out from outside that there were people inside the Hippo. Because when this one soldier took you to the Hippo he would place you near the light and make you face the light, and he would at the same time look at the person who was sitting inside the Hippo, and from whatever response that came a decision was made as to which side the person would have to be taken. That is what happened. And I was among those who were sent to the side after the head was nodded. And we were rounded up until we were 21. And we were made to sit down yet again and the soldiers came to us with something that looked like bottles, and something that looked like sticks. They looked like ballpoint pens. They gave us these things, and they made us write our names. And after that we went to Morningside travelling in that very same vehicle. That is how I was arrested.

MR DRAHT:   Mr Ndlovu did the police take any tests from your hands? Did they conduct any tests on your hands?

MR NDLOVU:   I think if I still remember very well they did that once we arrived at Morningside police station.

MR DRAHT:   Mr Ndlovu can you remember how many people was in the ANC group on that day?

CHAIRPERSON:   Approximately.

MR NDLOVU:   They could have been 500.

MR DRAHT:   Was it males or females?

MR NDLOVU:   I am referring here to, there were females as well, but not the same number as the males. I indicated earlier on that the females were standing alone on the side and the males were standing in the street, the main street that was the entry point to our area.

MR DRAHT:   And how many people was approximately in the IFP group?

MR NDLOVU:   We could have been 100.

MR DRAHT:   Mr Ndlovu do you regret what happened that day?

MR NDLOVU:   My Lord, I regret quite deeply about what happened on that day. There are things that I can forget but this one is still very far from being forgotten. It really hurt us.

MR DRAHT:   Do you think it is possible that people can live peacefully together in the future even if they are from different political backgrounds?

MR NDLOVU:   Yes, my Lord. I think so. It is also my wish to see us living together even ‘though we belong to different political parties.

MR DRAHT:   Has any political leader in the IFP structure gave instructions to you to commit these acts against the ANC?

MR NDLOVU:   No, there was no instruction to that effect from any leader from Zevenfontein. As I have explained that this is something happened and there was no explanation. Nobody expected such a thing to happen.

MR DRAHT:   But still all the IFP people group together.

INTERPRETER:   Chairperson may the speaker please repeat the question.

MR DRAHT:   But still on that day the IFP people made a group together, without instructions from the leaders?

MR NDLOVU:   Yes, I am certain about that even ‘though I would not have knowledge. Like myself for example, I was a member of the IFP. There is no one leader of mine who ordered that I should go and fight. I only realised and concluded on seeing what was happening that this was war.

MR DRAHT:   Mr Ndlovu, my last question. When we started you said that you were applying for amnesty for hurting people. Are you also applying for amnesty now for the act you were found guilty of?

MR NDLOVU:   That is correct my Lord.

MR DRAHT:   Thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON:   Thank you Mr Draht. Mr Claassen do you have any questions to ask this witness?

MR CLAASSEN:   Thank you Mr Chair I’ve got no questions.

CHAIRPERSON:   Mr Cachalia do you have any questions to ask the witness?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CACHALIA:   Mr Ndlovu, you were with your co-accused at Zonderwater Prison in Cullinan. Is that correct?

MR NDLOVU:   May you please repeat your question.

MR CACHALIA:   Were you with your co-accused ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER:   May the speaker be audible.

CHAIRPERSON:   Mr Cachalia if you just project a little you won’t have to move that very much.

MR CACHALIA:   Mr Ndlovu you were there at Zonderwater Prison in Cullinan together with some of your co-accused.

CHAIRPERSON:   When? What are you referring to? When is this?

MR CACHALIA:   At the time when he made the statement. At the time when you made the application for amnesty.

MR NDLOVU:   Yes I was with them, my co-accused in this case, and some others as well, IFP members that is, who were not my co-accused necessarily, and they had joined us to fill in this application.

MR CACHALIA:   And you say that there was a Mr Msizi and a Mr Claassen. Who is Mr Msizi please?

MR NDLOVU:   He is one IFP member who works at parliament.

MR CACHALIA:   And Mr Claassen?

MR NDLOVU:   He is here.

MR CACHALIA:   That is the attorney Mr D Claassen sitting?

CHAIRPERSON:   He’s actually an advocate, Mr Cachalia.

MR CLAASSEN:   Pardon me, I am an attorney.

CHAIRPERSON:   I beg your pardon. I understood from Nelspruit that you were from the bar. I beg your pardon.

MR CLAASSEN:   No, no I’m actually an attorney.

MR CACHALIA:   Thank you. That is the person that we are referring to, is that right?

MR NDLOVU:   Yes.

MR CACHALIA:   Is the form filled in in his handwriting or Mr Msizi’s handwriting?

MR DRAHT:   Mr Chairperson the witness definitely cannot answer that question. He doesn’t know that.

MR LAX:   How do you know he doesn’t know? Let him say that.

CHAIRPERSON:   Wasn’t he present when it was written?

MR NDLOVU:   With regards to the writing I am not able to tell whether it is Msizi’s or Mr Claassen’s handwriting. I don’t remember quite clearly, but what I know or remember rather is that we were telling Msizi, and Mr Claassen will write. So that I am not sure as to whether it is his handwriting or not.

MR CACHALIA:   Alright perhaps we should just get a little more detail on this and I’m sorry that we need to go into the matter. You were called and you were told that they were going to make an application for your amnesty. Is that correct?

MR NDLOVU:   I was not called at all to be told that I have to apply for amnesty, but what I know is that I was called and when I got there they told me right there that I will be filling the amnesty application form and this is what I should do.

MR CACHALIA:   What was it that you should do please tell me?

MR NDLOVU:   They explained that I would have to apply for amnesty from the TRC Committee, and explain everything that happened at the area where we were residing. And they also told me that I should not lie because the TRC does not take any lies and I had to write the truth and the truth only.

MR CACHALIA:   And did you, was a, was an interpreter present?

MR NDLOVU:   I thought I had explained earlier on that Mr Claassen was together with Mr Msizi. Msizi was the one who was interpreting for us.

MR CACHALIA:   So Mr Msizi acted as an interpreter, and you told him the truth?

MR NDLOVU:   Yes that is true.

MR CACHALIA:   And that is the truth that you presumably have told the Committee today?

MR NDLOVU:   Yes.

MR CACHALIA:   And that was translated and written down. My apologies sir. My apologies. May I just switch it off? (Referring to cell phone). Sorry. You had, just to go back, you say that you had told Mr Msizi what you have told the Committee today and you have presumably been told by Mr Draht what is in your application form.

MR NDLOVU:   Yes.

MR CACHALIA:   Not only is it contradictory but it is completely a defence to the charges that were presented, that were brought against you in the High Court. Is that correct?

INTERPRETER:   Please may you repeat that question.

MR CACHALIA:   Not only are there substantial inaccuracies according to you, but it was, what you have said in your application form, is a defence to the charges that were brought against you in the High Court.

MR NDLOVU:   I don’t follow you. I don’t follow you, what defence?

MR LAX:   Mr Cachalia I don’t follow you either, to be absolutely frank. Maybe you must simplify the question. You’re dealing with a fairly unsophisticated person, and what you’re putting is in essence the conclusion of what would otherwise be a legal argument.

MR CACHALIA:   Mr Ndlovu, you said in this particular application form that they did something on your hands when they arrested you. Is that right?

MR NDLOVU:   Yes that is true.

MR CACHALIA:   That is what was your defence in the case against you when the charges were brought against you in the High Court.

MR DRAHT:   Mr Chairperson that was not his defence is my submission.

CHAIRPERSON:   What my understanding is, and I might be wrong Mr Cachalia, is that this test for the hands, is to establish whether the person had been handling some sort of firearm. So how is that a defence? Because that would have been evidence for the State. Because he said they’d, he said he handled a firearm, he handled this other person’s firearm when they were at the sports ground. Then he said when they were arrested he was taken to Morningside and they tested his hands, so that probably, I don’t know, probably presented evidence that he had had a firearm. Now where is the defence? What?

MR CACHALIA:   May I just make it more clear?

MR LAX:   Mr Cachalia, maybe what might be helpful is if there’s a portion of the judgement where his defence emanates from, read that to him so that it can be crystal clear what you mean and that’s what was said in Court on his behalf or by himself, and then the context of what happened to his hands becomes clearer.

MR CACHALIA:   Sorry, perhaps I am making too many assumptions about has happened in this matter. In your application form Mr Ndlovu you say that the police circulated something in our hands, put it into a bath, and then arrested us. Is that correct?

MR NDLOVU:   Yes, that is so.

MR CACHALIA:   And that particular statement was made to contradict the evidence of the State that they had tested your hands and found that you had handled a firearm.

MR NDLOVU:   I don’t know about that.

CHAIRPERSON:   Mr Ndlovu, perhaps if I could just read it to him Mr Cachalia. I’m referring to pages two and three in particular, the bottom of page two, the very last word over to page three, they, that is the police. This is what you say, or what is said in your application form. You’ve explained it wasn’t read back to you, but this is what is contained in the form:

What you’re saying is, here, what is said in your form, is that the police said they want a gun from you, searched your house, didn’t find anything, made you sit down with other people, circulated something in your hands, put it into a bottle, and then arrested you. Now what is meant by that?

MR NDLOVU:   Yes that is true as stated, but the only minor mistake that I heard is the one of the house, searching the house. No, the police did not get as far as my shack. I was only, I only added at the ground, I never went back to the house. The next thing they arrested us.

CHAIRPERSON:   Mr Cachalia I can recall in his evidence-in-chief he spoke about, and I found it a bit strange at the time he mentioned it, that they came with this bottle in which appeared to be a ballpoint pen and they were asked to write their names. So I don’t know if this, something:

if that’s the ballpoint pen rather than a gun.

MR CACHALIA:   Mr Ndlovu perhaps you can help us clear it up. What did they circulate in your hand?

MR NDLOVU:   I have no idea of that thing. It was the first time I encountered such a thing. I never had seen it before. Or it was never administered to me before.

MR CACHALIA:   Was something administered on your hand are you saying? Sorry I’m not understanding your answer please sir.

MR NDLOVU:   Yes. It was my first time seeing that done to me. Even to other I’ve never seen it or experienced it.

MR CACHALIA:   This was at the ground?

MR NDLOVU:   We had just left the ground. Not too far away from the ground. Nearby.

MR LAX:   Just before you go on Mr Cachalia, he hasn’t actually answered your question, your first question. Mr Ndlovu, we weren’t there. We want you to try and help us. The question was, was something administered to your hand? You said this was the first time it had happened to you. That was your answer. Did they put a liquid on your hand? What did they do? We weren’t there. We want you to explain to us please.

MR NDLOVU:   No then I’m with you. That thing looked like a ballpen as I explained earlier on, they took it out from the glass, and that ballpen was almost purple in colour. And they will circulate it around my fingers and on my hand. I don’t quite remember ‘though if there was something like a bandage that they first put on the hand, and then after they circulated this item. And they took it back to the bottle and closed that in, and they asked us our names and we told them our names. And as I was circulating that thing on the hand they kept dipping the thing in the bottle, that’s where they will write your name and your surname, as soon as you told them.

CHAIRPERSON:   Sounds like some sort of ultra violet type thing like they used in the last elections. Put on your hand and you put it ...(inaudible)

MR CACHALIA:   Mr Ndlovu, ...(intervention)

MR LAX:   Just hold on one second Mr Cachalia.

CHAIRPERSON:   Apparently it’s a method that’s used for laboratory testing to test for traces of whatever there might be on a person’s hand. They get a bandage and you are meant to hold the bandage, which is soaked with this liquid. Or your hands get coated with the liquid and you hold the bandage and the bandage is then sent away to the labs for testing to see what may be on the hand. But that we can’t accept as evidence, but it might be something of that nature, that testing that was taking place.

MR CACHALIA:   Thank you Chair, I think it might be very helpful because we seem to be quite in the dark as to what in fact happened. Mr Ndlovu, what you’re saying is that before you had reached Morningside police station, after you were arrested at the soccer ground you were taken away before you reached there this was done. Where was this done?

MR NDLOVU:   This was done in the area Zevenfontein.

MR CACHALIA:   Alright now, when you were in Court, when the charges were brought against you, what did you say, where did the traces of gunpowder come from?

MR NDLOVU:   I was also confused because I did not know where that was from.

MR CACHALIA:   Did you give evidence in your defence in your case in the High Court?

MR NDLOVU:   Yes.

MR CACHALIA:   And did they put to you the question about the gunpowder on your hand? The traces of you having handled a firearm, was that put to you in the case in the High Court?

MR NDLOVU:   No, I’m mistaken there. When I heard this gunpowder story on my hands, that was told or relayed to me by my attorney, when he told me that they found traces of the gunpowder on my hands. I heard of that.

MR CACHALIA:   And what was your instruction to your attorney, where did that gunpowder come from? At that time, not today.

MR NDLOVU:   It was difficult for me to say to my attorney that I did hold that firearm.

CHAIRPERSON:   Did you deny that you had held a firearm?

MR NDLOVU:   Yes, I denied.

MR CACHALIA:   And if you denied that you had a firearm you must have given an explanation about where the tests proved that you had handled a firearm came from. You must have told your attorney about that.

MR NDLOVU:   He never canvassed the matter any further after I denied it.

MR CACHALIA:   And it was canvassed in the High Court also, when you gave evidence.

MR NDLOVU:   No, no I was not questioned to that effect.

MR CACHALIA:   What you are saying Mr Ndlovu is that you stand by the information that you gave here, that there was this particular position about something in a bottle which was passed over your hand. You stand by that particular position?

MR NDLOVU:   Yes.

MR CACHALIA:   And you say now that the only mistake you made was you said,

...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON:   That the shack wasn’t searched.

MR CACHALIA:   That your shack wasn’t searched. Is that correct?

MR NDLOVU:   Yes.

MR CACHALIA:   The balance of that paragraph that was read to you previously, that is correct? That was read to you previously in your evidence-in-chief.

MR NDLOVU:   If I’m not mistaken I think that is so. I don’t know, maybe there could be other mistakes as well.

MR CACHALIA:   Perhaps, perhaps just for absolute clarity’s sake, I’m sorry it’s taking some time, on the day IFP and ANC members were killed. Correct or incorrect?

MR NDLOVU:   Please may you repeat.

MR LAX:   He’s already said that’s a mistake, that both died. We don’t have to repeat it again. He said that in his evidence-in-chief, right at the beginning.

MR CACHALIA:   That is correct that you had said that in evidence-in-chief. Then you go on to say there were gunfights during the night.

MR NDLOVU:   You mean at night? It was not during the night, it was late in the afternoon or in the afternoon. The shooting that transpired.

MR CACHALIA:   The next item you’ve already dealt with. You said that the police after they arrested you wanted a gun from you. Is that incorrect or correct?

MR LAX:   Well hang on a second. We haven’t said anything about the police arriving at his house or not. Did the police arrive at your house and ask you whether you were a Zulu?

MR NDLOVU:   No, they did not arrive.

MR LAX:   So that’s also wrong.

MR NDLOVU:   Yes, that is also wrong.

MR LAX:   And they never asked you if you wanted a gun, if you had a gun?

MR NDLOVU:   No, they did not ask me that. My story ends at the ground.

MR LAX:   Yes just answer the questions and listen carefully. Carry on Mr Cachalia.

MR CACHALIA:   What you are saying Mr Ndlovu is that there is a portion of this particular paragraph, the one that we’ve dealt with previously that is correct and the balance of it is incorrect. Is that right? Alright perhaps it’s just summarising what you said, we don’t I don’t need you to answer that. You then go on on page four and you tell us what was the reason of the conflict, in terms of according to your belief the IFP decided not to partake in the elections, that was a correct position is that right?

MR NDLOVU:   That much I don’t know.

MR CACHALIA:   Did the IFP at that stage in 1994 ...(intervention)

MR LAX:   Just read him. We don’t know if he’s heard this section before, so it might be better Mr Cachalia to avoid putting something to him without him having heard it and then him denying it later. Just read him briefly what’s said here and ask him if he still stands by it.

MR CACHALIA:   Yes Mr Lax I’ve got no problem I’m just trying to hurry the process because we’ve got such we’re constrained by time, but I’ll read that to you and it might be a better we might save time in the end. You say on page 4 in paragraph B :

Perhaps we should stop there and just we’ll carry there’s a balance of this portion I’ll read to you later. Up to now is what you’re saying there is it correct, is that what you told Mr Msizi who told Mr Claassen?

MR NDLOVU:   What you just read to me is some part of it I don’t know, it’s strange.

MR CACHALIA:   Are you a builder, sir?

MR NDLOVU:   Yes, that’s my work. That’s what I do.

MR CACHALIA:   Did you lose your property and everything there in Zevenfontein, or did you lose your property, you had nothing left it doesn’t say Zevenfontein so I don’t want to put anything in your

MR NDLOVU:   As to the property, on that day of that incident when I was arrested it is true, I had lost property and I recovered none. Especially after I was out on bail I discovered that I’d lost my property.

MR CACHALIA:   Did, did the IFP decide not to partake in the elections in 1994, as at February 1994 when this incident took place?

MR NDLOVU:   That much I don’t know.

MR CACHALIA:   So excepting for that particular portion there the other the balance of it is correct is that right? The balance in the sense of your building and your property that we’ve dealt with.

MR NDLOVU:   Yes, that much is true. I was a builder and my property was lost.

MR CACHALIA:   I also - you go on to say:

MR NDLOVU:   That is new. I don’t know that.

MR CACHALIA:   So the major portion of this particular paragraph you deny excepting for the question of property we’ve established that and excepting for the question of your, of you occupation.

CHAIRPERSON:   I don’t think he denies it, he just said he doesn’t, this is not from him. It doesn’t emanate from him.

MR LAX:   What he says is he doesn’t know that. In other words the implications being that he never said those things. Is that right Mr Ndlovu?

MR NDLOVU:   Yes, that is right.

MR CACHALIA:   Thank you Mr Ndlovu what I’m saying is that what you are suggesting to us is that you didn’t say that to Mr Msizi although it is in your statement. Some portion of it must have come from you and the others they must have added on. Is that right?

MR NDLOVU:   Yes. Some portion of it I did say but some portion of it I did not say. And it surprises me as to where all of that emanates from, especially that I said there were members of IFP were killed or died, and from the ANC side as well there were members who were arrested. That is new.

MR CACHALIA:   Now Mr Ndlovu, on the 28th of November 1996 when you made this statement you took an oath, you swore that what you are saying in this statement is the truth, that you knew and understood what was being said. Do you acknowledge that?

MR NDLOVU:   Yes.

MR CACHALIA:   Now why did you take an oath and swear that it was the truth when in facet now you are saying that you didn’t know what was written in there?

MR NDLOVU:   It is because, the problem that I see that exists here, is the fact that the statement was never read back to me. If that statement was read back to me, I know I would have rectified the mistakes where they were, as you have just said to me. It’s completely new. So it goes without saying that statement was taken without being read back to me. As a result it’s completely new as you are reading back to me today.

ADV SIGODI:   Didn’t your attorney read this back to you today before consultation?

MR NDLOVU:   He read as far as the ANC members. He only read about the IFP members who sustained injuries and died. I was also surprised to hear that much, because I know nothing of that.

ADV SIGODI:   In other words you are telling us that he never read the whole affidavit back to you whilst you were consulting?

MR NDLOVU:   Yes, I would agree with you.

MR CACHALIA:   I want to say to you that that is improbable Mr Ndlovu.

MR LAX:   Isn’t that a matter for argument?

MR CACHALIA:   It is a matter for argument sir.

MR LAX:   The question’s been put to him, he’s answered it. You can then rely on his answer and argue the probabilities later.

MR CACHALIA:   Mr Ndlovu, do you remember who it is that took your, or who was the Commissioner of Oaths on that particular day, do you remember?

MR NDLOVU:   I don’t understand now about that. Can you explain a bit?

CHAIRPERSON:   What we’re trying to get at Mr Cachalia, we’ve got there, we know that it’s stamped the Hoof van die Gevangenis, Zonderwater, Cullinan, are you disputing that that person ?

MR CACHALIA:   No ...(inaudible)

CHAIRPERSON:   So. Well for what, what do we need to know that for? If he can remember who it was or not? I mean.

MR CACHALIA:   ...(inaudible)

CHAIRPERSON:   Right, well go ahead.

INTERPRETER:   The speaker’s microphone is not on.

MR CACHALIA:   My apologies. Mr Ndlovu, I’ve put this before to you and I want to be quite certain that that was your answer. You said that the deponent, the paragraph at page 7 says that you had acknowledged that you know and understand the contents of this affidavit. Why did you acknowledge that, why didn’t you say I haven’t had it read back to me, I don’t know what is in it, I want it read back to me?

MR NDLOVU:   I think if my memory serves me right, on that day we were filling the application form, it was late, and the attorneys arrived late in the first place, and we were quite a number of us, many, were going to fill up the application form. So that now in retrospect I realise that some of the mistakes were as a result of the communication, and some part would have been said by co-accused, because they were arrested the following day, yet I was arrested on Saturday, so when I looked ...(indistinct) I realised there were many mistakes, and those statements, or rather the form, was not read back to us, we were only furnished them with information and they made us, or instructed us to sign, and if that statement was read back to me I know I would have rectified the mistakes earlier than now.

MR CACHALIA:   Mr Ndlovu. I want to put to you that that is the statement that you have made and that at that stage it was what you intended to convey, and that Mr Msizi nor Mr Claassen had any reason to put anything else but what you told them. Do you wish to make a comment about that?

MR NDLOVU:   I don’t disagree with you in that regard, it’s only the mistakes that I have a problem with or I dispute.

MR CACHALIA:   Alright let’s go just to the incident itself. You say you were sitting in the shack when Joseph Mkhize came in wanting to change his clothing and he was in a hurry and that was at about five o’clock. Is that correct?

MR NDLOVU:   Yes.

MR CACHALIA:   He said he had no time to explain to you and you then decided that you are also, he said that there are people who are dying.

MR NDLOVU:   Yes. He did not say people are dying, he said there is a fight outside. People are fighting outside.

MR CACHALIA:   Mr Ndlovu I don’t want to go back to this whole process, I have clearly written here you said while he was sitting there people were dying outside and please I am saying that is what you have said in fact.

MR NDLOVU:   If I said that, that people are dying outside I don’t think it was properly said. I said the ANC and IFP, or these groups, are fighting.

MR LAX:   You said both those things, Mr Ndlovu. You said that Mkhize said to you, "...why are you sitting here while people are dying outside?" And then you said that he then said that the ANC and the IFP were fighting. When you asked him to explain what they were fighting about he said there’s no time for explanations.

MR NDLOVU:   Well I agree.

MR CACHALIA:   We’ll just note that that is not what you intended to convey, that is wrong. I will then proceed.

MR NDLOVU:   No, I still stand by that.

MR CACHALIA:   I will in any event proceed. Mr Ndlovu when you came to, please tell me where is your shack precisely in relation to Magwaza’s house and the sports field and Brown’s house.

MR NDLOVU:   My house was way upward, it was not downward towards Magwaza’s and Brown’s houses. You would have to go past Brown’s house and go towards the upper direction.

MR CACHALIA:   Past Satywyte Street S A T Y W Y T E.

MR NDLOVU:   May the speaker repeat what he has just said.

MR CACHALIA:   When I went for an inspection there were streets name such Satywyte, Dastile and others going upwards. Is it past those places are you saying?

MR NDLOVU:   No, I don’t know if there are street names now, because in prison that could have been the latest development.

MR CACHALIA:   May I just establish is it near Mr Mlauza's shebeen.

MR NDLOVU:   Mr Mlauza is quite a distance from my house.

MR CACHALIA:   Perhaps I should just proceed. Mr Ndlovu when you came to your home from work on that day, you have not told us about anything that you might have noticed, that was unusual when you were returning home from work at about five o’clock that afternoon.

MR NDLOVU:   Yes.

MR CACHALIA:   And as you arrived at home very soon thereafter Joseph Mkhize, a member of the IFP arrived, and the incident that we’ve just discussed took place. Is that right?

MR NDLOVU:   Yes.

MR CACHALIA:   Was it just a few minutes after you had arrived?

MR NDLOVU:   When I arrived from work, I arrived at about past three. Since it was raining that day and the conditions as well, I did not notice the condition as well, as I was tired coming back from work that particular day on Saturday. I got home and relaxed on my bed.

MR CACHALIA:   I’m sorry if I have made a mistake Mr Ndlovu. I had assumed that what you have said is that you had arrived at about five o’clock that afternoon. Am I mistaken about that?

MR NDLOVU:   Yes, it is so, because when I was explaining I did not explain as to whether I was coming from work at the time Mkhize arrived.

MR LAX:   Sorry Mr Ndlovu, you did say you arrived at about five. That was your clear evidence-in-chief. Just for the record I’d place that on. Carry on Mr Cachalia.

MR CACHALIA:   Thank you Mr Lax. Do you wish to make a comment about that now sir.

MR NDLOVU:   No I don’t dispute any of that. Really because I did not take notice, or I did not, I could not furnish the Court about the details pertaining to time, but I know for a fact that I had some time to relax at home. I did not arrive and suddenly Joseph arrived. In other words I arrived and for some time I relaxed on my bed, then he arrived, Mkhize that is.

MR CACHALIA:   How long after that?

MR NDLOVU:   After what?

MR CACHALIA:   How long after you arrived at home die Mkhize arrive at your home and push the door open and walk in?

MR NDLOVU:   I think I relaxed for about 45 minutes to 60 minutes.

MR CACHALIA:   Relaxed for about 45 or 60 minutes. When you arrived at home was there any disturbances in Zevenfontein on your way to your shack?

MR NDLOVU:   No, I did not notice anything. We were just walking freely from the taxi ranks, and I walked back home without noticing anything. It would have been also difficult for me to notice because it was raining that day for starters, and even if you wanted to look around or into something you would not be in a position to do that since the weather was not gorgeous, or it was raining.

MR CACHALIA:   You did say you noticed a group of amabuto, when you arrived at home.

MR LAX:   He said that was after he left with Mkhize.

MR CACHALIA:   My apologies. You had noticed nothing and you stayed in your home for 45 to 60 minutes and thereafter Mkhize came, and you then saw some amabuto. Please the reason why I ask the question is, I didn’t know what amabuto is. Can you explain to me what is amabuto please.

MR NDLOVU:   That will be a Zulu. Wait, when you see a group of men together, quite a big group, more than 50 so to speak, that will be amabuto in Zulu.

MR CACHALIA:   Thank you. Now, just to clarify this position. Your attorney talked about going up the steps and so on. There are no steps in Zevenfontein that you go up on.

CHAIRPERSON:   I think that came from the interpretation. They are talking about the steep, the hill.

MR CACHALIA:   Thank you very much I just thought I’d clarify that. You are saying that you and Mr Mkhize then, from your shack, went towards the river.

CHAIRPERSON:   Sorry, are we going to go through his whole evidence-in-chief again? Because we’ve heard it. We don’t need him to confirm everything he said Mr Cachalia. We need to finish this application. You can ask him questions but I don’t think you need to take his notes and just get him to confirm his whole evidence-in-chief, it’s a waste of time as far as we’re concerned.

MR CACHALIA:   Quite clearly that is the position Chair, but I just want to put him in the context that he understands what we’re dealing with. In any event Mr Ndlovu, you said that you went down and you then came up, I want to put it to you why did you come up from the river again and why didn’t you go along the river in one or the other direction and avoid the whole, as you put it, incident?

MR NDLOVU:   The way things were happening, they were happening so fast and abrupt, and these things were happening quite spontaneously at the same time. I think this happened in about 30 minutes time. This is because of the situation that prevailed at that particular time. So that to go astray was not easy, was quite difficult.

MR CACHALIA:   Are you suggesting that because of the hurry you didn’t take the obvious route, this away from where the trouble was, was towards the trouble? I just want to assist Mr Ndlovu. You clearly could not cross the river because it was flowing very heavily, so the options that were available is to go up the steep hill as you call it or go along the river in either direction and you didn’t choose the alternate but you chose to go back to where the trouble was.

MR NDLOVU:   I don’t know how to put this. As I said and explained earlier on that there was no any other way to prevent this. We are facing death itself. There was no any other alternative route away. It was death and shock. When you are in that state you cannot reason well and normal

MR CACHALIA:   The death that was facing you was from the people that were bearing down on you when you were near the river. Is that what you’re saying?

MR NDLOVU:   The death was coming from the way up, and as well as to ... we were either faced by going across the river, as I already said that it was overflowing, that was death. And we decided to choose between the two devils, either that or the one that was facing us from the opposite direction, and decided to go the other way.

MR CACHALIA:   May I just put to you this question? Brown’s house is, between Brown’s house and the soccer field is where the shooting took place where people died. Is that correct?

MR NDLOVU:   Yes, that is true.

MR CACHALIA:   Now you had run from your shack towards the river. Is that right?

MR NDLOVU:   Yes.

MR CACHALIA:   And when you then saw people bearing down on you and you feared for your life. Is that right?

CHAIRPERSON:   I don’t, he didn’t say he saw people bearing, he said they went down to the river, they couldn’t cross the river. They went to the river because they saw amabuto, they saw these ladies with babies all moving, there was obviously something going on. Let’s get out of here, they went down the river, they couldn’t cross the river. And then they saw a group of IFP people going up the hill and they joined them. He didn’t say they saw them bearing down on them and they were sort of running to escape immediate death. Not at that stage.

MR CACHALIA:   As the Chairperson, states there. I can leave it on that particular position. You joined the group of people and you went to the soccer field where it happened. Was ANC group at the soccer, on the other side of the soccer field?

MR NDLOVU:   If I think well here, the stadium is on the side, just towards the side. And right on the bottom there will be Mr Brown’s shack. But we went as far as Mr Brown’s shack, we did not go beyond that point at that time when they started stoning us.

MR CACHALIA:   And firing shots at you?

MR NDLOVU:   Yes.

MR CACHALIA:   Did you see any handguns, any guns in the possession of the ANC supporters?

MR NDLOVU:   No I would be lying, I did not see any firearms or guns.

MR CACHALIA:   And you said there were several shots being fired at you and stones being thrown at towards you?

MR NDLOVU:   Yes.

ADV SIGODI:   Sorry Mr Cachalia, is it in dispute that there was this attack to the ANC and the IFP and the whole way in which it occurred, and that there was stoning and gunshots, is that in dispute?

MR CACHALIA:   It certainly is.

ADV SIGODI:   Then why don’t you just put it to the witness?

MR CACHALIA:   Thank you ma’am. Mr Ndlovu, I am saying that the witnesses will say that none of the ANC members had any guns, they were not armed, and they did not commence any war, as you put it. What do you say to that sir?

MR NDLOVU:   That is, that will be very confusing, or I will not quite understand that if they will contradict what I said, because I just told you and explained to you about the situation that prevailed and things that were happening, and what transpired at the time, and I know nothing else except what I told you.

MR CACHALIA:   Yes sir, alright, the final question and I’ll argue the probabilities later is that I’ve put this to Mr Sithole as you had heard yesterday and I’m putting it to you, that large number of people died and were injured and were all members of the ANC and none of the IFP members were injured or died. Is that correct?

MR NDLOVU:   Yes, that is correct. Not even one person from our side died, but as far as the injury or the injuries are concerned, it’s not true that some of the IFP never sustained injuries. There were people who sustained some injuries as a result of them throwing stones at us, but not one of us got shot. Some were hurt, sustained injuries on their heads, I saw them at Morningside.

MR CACHALIA:   Who were these people please? Because yesterday we were told that none of them were injured. None of the IFP people were injured. Who did you see at Morningside that was injured sir?

MR NDLOVU:   I would like to apologise on behalf of the person who, the person who, tendered evidence yesterday here. I was arrested on Saturday. As I said that some sustained injuries that will be Chezi, Visiline Zwane, as well as Nomiya. Others I don’t remember but I think there were than, if I think well I will say there were more than seven who sustained injuries resulting from the stone that were thrown.

MR CACHALIA:   And you say none of them were shot?

MR NDLOVU:   Unfortunately we were not shot.

CHAIRPERSON:   I think you mean fortunately.

INTERPRETER:   Yes.

MR CACHALIA:   Mr Ndlovu I am going to argue and if you wish to make a comment please make a comment I’m going to argue that it is improbable that any of the ANC people had guns because if they shot at you at least if people were not killed people would have bullet wounds and that injuries have not been established at this hearing or any other hearing. Do you want to make a comment about that?

MR NDLOVU:   The ANC people are our fellow brothers. The situation of that kind, I think it was the first, and would like to assume will be the last one. I would not therefore apply for amnesty with regard to that incident yet I will come here and lie. I lied good enough at the Court of law, but here I am here to tell the truth. I will not give this Commission evidence that is not true.

MR LAX:   Mr Ndlovu just, if you’ll allow me Mr Cachalia before you move too far away. Did I understand you correctly that you said Sithole made a mistake because you were arrested on the Saturday, he probably wasn’t. Is that what you were saying.

MR NDLOVU:   With regard to Sithole’s mistake, I thought I explained that, although I don’t quite remember what was the question that was posed to me.

MR LAX:   The mistake was about people being injured. You said, you saw them at Morningside, because you were arrested on that day, and he made a mistake, and the implication seems to be that he wasn’t arrested on that day. Did I understand you correctly? Therefore he never saw the injured people.

MR NDLOVU:   Alight, yes that is true. Sithole was not arrested on that day of the incident. He was arrested the following day. And even that day still, when he was arrested, he did not meet with us at Morningside, for him to see the rest of other people, especially those who sustained injuries, the one’s I’m referring to now.

MR LAX:   Just for the record he told us he was arrested that night, at the place where they were waiting. He said they went into someone’s shack and they were waiting there until the police came and they were arrest.

MR NDLOVU:   What I know, at, when we were there at Morningside, the people I was with, Sithole was not there. He was not at Morningside.

MR CACHALIA:   I’m not going to take that matter further Mr Ndlovu. I’ll argue that position about your evidence in this regard. I just want to put to you the final question Mr Ndlovu. You say no leader of the ANC or nobody of the ANC structure gave you an instruction to behave in the manner that you have behaved ...(intervention)

MR LAX:   IFP Mr Cachalia.

MR CACHALIA:   My apologies. IFP, sorry Mr Ndlovu, no leader of the IFP gave you instructions to do what you had in fact done on that particular day. Is that correct?

MR NDLOVU:   Yes, that is correct.

MR CACHALIA:   Now I am suggesting to you that there was no reason for you, that there was no political objective that you were intending to achieve in going to fight, when there was no instruction given to you.

MR NDLOVU:   As I explained that I am the follower of IFP. I know that not even one of the leaders had instructed us to fight, but as the situation presented itself we now had to survive. This was between IFP group and ANC group in that area.

MR CACHALIA:   Then I just put the question in another way. You were, you were fearful that you were going to be hurt or injured or you would die if you didn’t defend yourself from an attack on you. Is that correct?

MR NDLOVU:   Yes, that is correct.

MR CACHALIA:   And there was no, only thing that you did was in self-defence.

MR NDLOVU:   Yes, that is true.

MR CACHALIA:   Now when you killed this gentleman, when you partook in the killing of, or possible killing of this gentleman near the shebeen, the fellow with the briefcase, what was the self-defence there, sir?

MR NDLOVU:   As I said, that when you are in a state of shock you’ll find yourself doing just about anything that is unreasonable or embarrassing because of the shock, and you could even die as a result of shock, because your brain, your mind, will not be functional.

MR CACHALIA:   Then we will accept Mr Ndlovu that the, that your actions that day was clearly in a state of shock in a, in the mistaken belief that you were defending yourself. Is that correct?

MR NDLOVU:   Yes, it is true, we were in a state of shock. We were shocked because the people we were fighting with were not our enemies as such. We were struggling together in the area together with them. Now I believe that as that Zevenfontein area is full of shacks, and as a result of that, that shows that we are struggling, economically we are not, we are struggling. And we were together in the struggle. And this happened unexpectedly.

ADV SIGODI:   Mr Cachalia is it in dispute that there was an ANC IFP attack? That there was this political uprising?

MR CACHALIA:   It is in dispute. That is in dispute. Most certainly is. I don’t wish to go through Mr Ndlovu in respect of what I have put to Mr Sithole about the meeting that was arranged, the purpose of the meeting, what happened about the ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON:   He hasn’t mentioned it in his, otherwise we’ll never finish this.

MR CACHALIA:   Sorry, I’m just saying I’m not going to put the whole case of the witnesses or the victims in this particular matter, he hasn’t said so, I’m saying that Mr Ndlovu, I’m saying that there was essentially, there was malice on your part when you joined a group of people and attacked these people and there was no political objective and you’ve already commented on that, I don’t think you need to comment again, so I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON:   Thank you Mr Cachalia. Ms Lockhat do you have any questions.

MS LOCKHAT:   No questions, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON:   Mr Draht, any re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DRAHT:   Only shortly Mr Chairperson.

Mr Ndlovu, were you under the impression that a person on the ground, the one that you kicked and beaten, was an ANC member?

MR NDLOVU:   Yes, that is true.

MR DRAHT:   Only another thing then, Mr Cachalia earlier said that you agree, and he didn’t take it further, that was after Mr Lax said that in your evidence in head you said, that Mr Mkhize told you that, "...you are sitting here while people are dying." and the IFP and ANC were fighting. Was this correct?

MR NDLOVU:   So this was what you were referring to after Mr Chacalia asked you a question.

MR CACHALIA:   My apologies I was born with the name, I’m not able to change it, so it is Cachalia.

MR DRAHT:   I have the same problem.

So this was the correct version, Mr Ndlovu, your evidence in there?

MR NDLOVU:   You mean about what I said?

MR DRAHT:   Yes, that he said people, that Mr Mkhize said that "...why are you sitting here while people are dying?" And "...the IFP and the ANC are fighting."

MR NDLOVU:   Yes.

MR DRAHT:   That will be all Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON:   Thank you. Advocate Sigodi do you have any questions.

ADV SIGODI:   Just one aspect that I want to clarify. What method did you use to identify IFP people, IFP leaders?

MR NDLOVU:   ...(not translated)

ADV SIGODI:   What would you use to identify as an IFP supporter or as an IFP person?

MR NDLOVU:   That was quite easy. As we were coming for Jukskei River, going towards upward, there was an IFP office. There were people there. As we were approaching we saw people there and we could tell that that is Inkatha going the other direction. It was very easy for us to identify them.

ADV SIGODI:   How did you identify them?

MR NDLOVU:   As I have said, there was an office there. IFP office that is, which was located there, downward. As I said that, as they were going towards the upper direction they were coming

from that IFP office.

ADV SIGODI:   If you met somebody who was not coming from that office, how would you know if that person was IFP?

MR NDLOVU:   You mean?

ADV SIGODI:   If you met somebody who was not, who was coming from another direction, not from the direction of the office, how would you identify that person as being IFP supporter or member?

MR NDLOVU:   You see my eyes focus on them, not on other people coming from sideways. I focused my eyes on the IFP office. As for the people who were coming from other direction, I did not bother about them.

CHAIRPERSON:   Mr Ndlovu, if a person’s coming out of a shebeen, how do you know if he’s IFP or ANC?

MR NDLOVU:   You mean if a person would be coming from the shebeen? As I explained that things were happened so abruptly and we were in a state of shock. I wouldn’t have taken notice of such things as I have already explained that as soon as I saw IFP going towards the upper direction I did not notice about other things.

ADV SIGODI:   I will ask you for the last time. I am saying to you, if you meet a person walking, simply walking, not in your group, how would you identify that person, or tell that person is an IFP or ANC?

MR NDLOVU:   From my knowledge I knew IFP people and others who belonged to ANC. I knew them as well because we were in the same residential area. It will be an outsider that I will not know, but it will be easier if, it will be very easy as well for me to identify an outsider in the area because we all know one another, so a stranger or a visitor I could also tell.

ADV SIGODI:   The person who came out of the shebeen, did you know him?

MR NDLOVU:   That person at the shebeen I did not know.

ADV SIGODI:   Can you say if he was an outsider or if he was a resident in that area?

MR NDLOVU:   I would say that that was an outsider, because we will have outsiders coming to our area as well, to drink.

ADV SIGODI:   In other words when you assaulted him you did not know whether or not he was an ANC or an IFP supporter?

MR NDLOVU:   What led, as we did that we did not know, and the reason why we assaulted him even ‘though he was not a resident there, what way he missed it was when he fled. He ran away. Maybe if he did not we would not have assaulted him but he started running away.

CHAIRPERSON:   Which you also had tried to do earlier in the day.

MR NDLOVU:   You mean assaulting a person?

CHAIRPERSON:   No, running away. You tried to run away but you couldn’t because the river was full. Now you kill a man because he tries to run away.

MR NDLOVU:   Yes, I was also running away to escape this whole thing and run away from this whole incident.

ADV SIGODI:   Just one, the last aspect. How many times did you hit him?

MR NDLOVU:   No I would not be able to remember. I know I hit him and again, again, but I don’t know as to how many times I hit him.

ADV SIGODI:   Do you remember who stabbed him with a spear?

MR NDLOVU:   My Lord it will be difficult for me to say as to who stabbed him with a spear because when we were assaulting him the sticks and he fell immediately, I don’t think it was a spear. I don’t think it was only a spear. I could not also tell as to who stabbed.

ADV SIGODI:   Do you know any people in that group, when this assault took place?

MR NDLOVU:   You mean my group?

ADV SIGODI:   Yes, the people who were with you when this assault took place on that person from the shebeen.

MR NDLOVU:   Yes.

ADV SIGODI:   Who were those?

MR NDLOVU:   It was Bongi Zwane, myself, Umnomiya, and Ijimani. I don’t remember the others.

ADV SIGODI:   Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON:   Mr Lax?

MR LAX:   Thanks Chair, just one thing to follow up. The man who came out of the shebeen, clearly was not somebody who had been part of the attack on you. Is that not correct?

MR NDLOVU:   I wouldn’t know, because where this whole thing happened, at the ground that is, it’s not too far away from the shebeen.

MR LAX:   But you said all the others fled.

CHAIRPERSON:   And also the likelihood of an attacker carrying a briefcase?

MR NDLOVU:   We did not know in, whether that briefcase of his had weapons or what. But what sparked this whole thing, as soon as they heard that the people were approaching the shack they therefore ran away. That led to their, to this, and if only they did not run away, maybe came and explained themselves to us, and also brought to our attention the fact that they were not part of this whole thing, or of whatever problem, we couldn’t maybe have attacked the person. But the reason why we had to do what we did was because he then attempted to run away.

MR LAX:   Isn’t it so Mr Ndlovu that you weren’t really in the mood to listen to any explanations from anybody. You were in a state of shock, you were attacking, you weren’t interested in explanations from anybody. You just wanted to kill at that stage.

MR NDLOVU:   Yes that is true. We were in a state of shock as I said earlier on and when you are in that state you can not do anything right, you will end up doing wrong things as a result of being shocked. That is very true.

MR LAX:   You see, the reason why I’m saying this to you, is, it’s clear from your evidence why you went up the hill rather than try to run away to another place. You said you joined the IFP group because you were going to attack. That was in your evidence-in-chief. Isn’t that so?

MR NDLOVU:   No, about attack no, no. We wouldn’t have attacked. But there was this fight erupted, and the people we were fighting with were coming, approaching, coming, going downwards, and they were there intending to fight and attack. If we were not intending to attack we wouldn’t have taken that direction, because right towards, or right next to us there was a river. How could you attack and yet there’s a river behind you? Where will you run?

MR LAX:   Mr Ndlovu your evidence-in-chief was quite clear. You said, you were asked, why did you go up. Mr Draht in fact asked you that question. You said, "...the intention was to go and fight, to meet the group coming from the up, the ANC group. We went up with the IFP group." That was your evidence-in-chief. He still asked you which group and then you explained it was the ANC group that was coming down. So it was clear your intention was to go up there and fight with these people. You weren’t interested in running away.

MR NDLOVU:   Yes, fighting would have fought, would have run away if we could tell or if we saw that he fight was intensifying.

MR LAX:   Now what I would like to know from you is, you were unarmed at that stage. How were you going up there to fight? You didn’t have any arms on you at all? Not even a stick. You only picked that up much later. What were you going to fight with?

MR NDLOVU:   When I started, when I realised that there were many and after Mkhize told me that there was a fight, that’s when I got shocked and realised that I am going there unarmed.

MR LAX:   Sorry, if you can just sit a little bit away from the mike.

MR NDLOVU:   ...(not translated)

INTERPRETER:   I beg your pardon.

MR NDLOVU:   When I got out from the house I did not intend to fight. I intended to run away and escape and go to these others. I did not intend to fight. It was not my intention to fight.

MR LAX:   Now you’ve told us that, the explanation given by you on paragraph 10(b) on page 4, except for the bits about you being a victim of the ANC, the rest of it you don’t know.

MR NDLOVU:   Yes.

MR LAX:   What I would like to know is then, what is then the reason why this fight started? And how you justify your actions.

MR NDLOVU:   When this fight erupted, well I don’t have any evidence that I could, or anything that I could say to this forum, in relation to that. I was an ordinary person who was working and come back home late in the afternoon. Even on that day in question I was at work on that Saturday. I was at work so that which I’m trying to say here is that I only had limited time at home. Most of my time I would be away at work and come home late, and I’ll only be sleeping. I will not know the situation in the area, especially before this incident. I don’t know.

MR LAX:   It’s been suggested that the area was peaceful and that most disputes were resolved by discussion and negotiation. You hadn’t heard of any previous violence before this incident?

MR NDLOVU:   If my memory serves my right as I said earlier on that I had limited time at home or in the area. Most of my time I spent at work and away. ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON:   If you could just answer the question. The question was had you heard of any violence in the area before then?

MR LAX:   A simple yes or no would be sufficient.

MR NDLOVU:   I don’t remember.

MR LAX:   Now, you said the IFP group was around 100.

MR NDLOVU:   Yes.

MR LAX:   Mr Sithole told us it was around 20.

MR NDLOVU:   I don’t disagree with what Sithole said because this a hypothetical figure. It’s just a rough estimation so that we will not be exact as to the amount. This is just an estimation so I would not disagree with what Sithole said.

MR LAX:   But you will concede that there’s a big difference between approximately 100 and approximately 20. The difference is 80 people.

CHAIRPERSON:   Five times, the difference. One’s one fifth of the other.

MR NDLOVU:   This is why I say we see different, as also the fact that we arrested different, at different times. ...(indistinct) one when we being arrested, and that’s why, that is why I explained to the Court of law that ...(inaudible). I am saying, this is why I’m saying it could have been that we were 100 because we were 21 when we were being arrested. And out of this 21 there were some who remained. They were released subsequently after checking up.

MR LAX:   Just one last thing. Did this, did your lawyer before he led your evidence, either this morning or yesterday afternoon, not go through this whole document with you?

MR NDLOVU:   No, he just touched there and there.

MR LAX:   So he didn’t read you each section, confirm with you whether it was correct or not? He only just touched a few little items?

MR NDLOVU:   As I’ve said, yes. Only touched there and there.

MR LAX:   Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON:   Mr Draht do you have any questions arising from questions put by the Panel?

MR DRAHT:   Please Mr Chairperson. Mr Ndlovu, after the first fight, before you went back to the shebeen, somebody shouted something and then you went back to the shebeen. What did he shout?

INTERPRETER:   Shout or shoot?

MR DRAHT:   Shout.

MR NDLOVU:   No-one shouted. What happened, was that one had an opinion that we should go to Soksana’s shebeen to see if there are not people there the shebeen.

MR DRAHT:   Did he say you must go back to see if there were any people, or any ANC members or ANC people.

MR LAX:   Sorry, that’s a hell of a leading question Mr Draht.

CHAIRPERSON:   I think he’s already said to us people.

MR LAX:   I’ve let it go up until now. You’ve got away with absolute murder on your leading questions, but, no the problem with leading a witness in that way is the probative value of that evidence is reduced substantially, but be it as it may ...(intervention)

MR DRAHT:   Can I rephrase my question Mr Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON:   Yes. You said, well okay you can rephrase it. I don’t know how you’re going to.

MR DRAHT:   Did that person mention anything about other political parties when he shouted something? Is that?

CHAIRPERSON:   It’s not going to really help in the long run. It’s been dragged out I think. ...(inaudible) the question.

MR NDLOVU:   No, please repeat that question.

MR LAX:   Perhaps I could help here Mr Draht. Why, what were you going to the shebeen to look for people for? What was the purpose of going there?

MR NDLOVU:   We had gone there to the shebeen as I said, that somebody had this opinion of view that we should go and see if there were no people at the shebeen. And we went there and we did not go inside. As we were approaching the shebeen we saw people running away, coming out and running away.

MR LAX:   Was the idea to attack the people who might be there?

MR NDLOVU:   Yes, it could have been the one of attacking, because if we found them there we would have assaulted them.

MR DRAHT:   Just a moment, if you can give me a few seconds Mr Chairperson. One last question Mr Chairperson.

Mr Ndlovu can you please tell me why would you say that your actions was political motivated?

MR CACHALIA:   Sir, may I just at this stage say sir that he had never said that his actions were political.

CHAIRPERSON:   He hasn’t said that. He’s basically said he was a victim of circumstance really. He was a member of the IFP, a situation arose, he found himself in it, and that’s it. I mean he was quite clear I think, he answered that in response to both questions by Mr Cachalia and Mr Lax. It doesn’t really come out of matters arising really, but you can ask him. You’re going to get the same answer.

MR DRAHT:   Mr Ndlovu, were your actions politically motivated?

MR NDLOVU:   With regards to this incident?

MR DRAHT:   Yes.

MR NDLOVU:   Yes, this was under this political umbrella.

MR DRAHT:   Thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON:   Mr Claassen any further questions?

MR CLAASSEN:   I have no questions.

CHAIRPERSON:   Mr Cachalia?

MR CACHALIA:   Thank you none.

CHAIRPERSON:   Ms Lockhat?

MS LOCKHAT:   No questions.

CHAIRPERSON:   Thank you Mr Ndlovu, that concludes your testimony, you may step down.

We will now take the tea adjournment for approximately 20 minutes. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON:   Mr Draht?

MR DRAHT:   Thank you Chairperson. I call Mr Elias Mbatha.

CHAIRPERSON:   Mr Mbatha do you have any objection to taking the oath?

ELIAS MBATHA:   (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON:   Thank you. Mr Draht?

EXAMINATION BY MR DRAHT:   Thank you Mr Chairperson.

Mr Mbatha you are the applicant in this matter, is that correct?

MR MBATHA:   That is correct.

MR DRAHT:   You are in prison at the moment?

MR MBATHA:   That is correct.

MR DRAHT:   How long was your sentence?

MR MBATHA:   Fifteen years.

MR DRAHT:   If I can refer the Committee to page 8 of the bundle. Mr Mbatha, if you look at the middle of page 83, is that your signature?

MR MBATHA:   Yes.

MR DRAHT:   Mr Mbatha can you read or write?

MR MBATHA:   No I cannot read, I only can write my name.

MR DRAHT:   Who took this statement from you?

MR MBATHA:   Mr Msizi as well as this legal counsel, the one at the end.

MR DRAHT:   Mr Claassen?

MR MBATHA:   Yes.

MR DRAHT:   Did they read the statement back to you?

MR MBATHA:   Yes they did.

MR DRAHT:   When they took it?

INTERPRETER:   May the speaker please repeat the question.

MR DRAHT:   Did they read the statement back to you at the time when they took the statement?

MR MBATHA:   Yes, if I remember very well.

MR DRAHT:   Did you tell the truth in Court?

MR MBATHA:   No, I told lies.

MR DRAHT:   Are you going to tell the truth now?

MR MBATHA:   That is correct.

MR DRAHT:   Mr Mbatha are you a member of a political party?

MR MBATHA:   Yes.

MR DRAHT:   What party?

MR MBATHA:   The IFP.

MR DRAHT:   And at the time of the incident I suppose you were also a member of the party. Is that right?

MR MBATHA:   Yes, I was a member of the IFP.

MR DRAHT:   What was your position in the party?

MR MBATHA:   I did not have a position, I was just a follower.

MR DRAHT:   For what charges are you applying for amnesty for? For what acts?

MR MBATHA:   I’m seeking amnesty for murder and being found in possession of an illegal firearm, attempted murder, and as well as illegal ammunition.

MR DRAHT:   Before this incident what was the situation in Zevenfontein?

MR MBATHA:   The situation was not good.

MR DRAHT:   Why do you say so?

MR MBATHA:   The situation was not good in terms of the relationship between the IFP and the ANC.

MR DRAHT:   Up until this date of the incident, or prior to this date of the incident, was there any violence or fighting between the two groups?

MR MBATHA:   No, there was no fighting, but there was just a lot of talking.

MR DRAHT:   Mr Mbatha in your statement you stated that Zevenfontein was a war zone at the time. To which time do you refer, or did you refer?

MR MBATHA:   I’m referring to the day of the incident.

MR DRAHT:   Did you receive any instructions to act in the manner you did that day?

MR MBATHA:   No, there were no instructions.

CHAIRPERSON:   Just before you proceed, on a very small point, Mr Draht. Mr Mbatha, in your application form on the first page you spell your name E L I A S and your signature you spell it E L L I A S. Which is the correct spelling? Is it meant to have two L’s your name, or one L, in Elias?

MR MBATHA:   Would you please show me?

CHAIRPERSON:   See, on the front page it ELIAS then on the back page, page 83, I just want to make sure that we get your name correctly.

MR MBATHA:   The first one is the one with, the first one is the correct one with one L.

CHAIRPERSON:   Yes, thank you. Sorry, sorry to interrupt. I see on page 84 when he signs his name there’s a different, it ELLAS. Okay. We’ll take it that it’s E L I A S. Thank you. Carry on Mr Draht.

MR DRAHT:   Thank you Chairperson. Mr Mbatha, who was your induna?

MR MBATHA:   Mr Sithole.

MR DRAHT:   Did he gave you any orders on that specific day?

MR MBATHA:   No.

MR DRAHT:   Can you describe to the Committee now what happened on the 12th of February 1994.

MR MBATHA:   Yes.

MR DRAHT:   Continue.

MR MBATHA:   It was on the 12th of February 1994 and it was during the day we saw ANC people meeting, and the rain started drizzling, and when these people met the rain started pouring. I went into my shack and as I was sitting there, one IFP follower whose name is Ndlela came to me. And he said to me, "...Mbatha can you see what is happening further down there?" and I said, no. And he said, "...I can see the ANC is armed down there." And I said, "...Wait for me, let’s go down to Magwaza"s." Indeed he waited for me.

I took a firearm and put it on my waist, and we went out. ...(intervention)

MR DRAHT:   What type of firearm did you take?

MR MBATHA:   765.

MR DRAHT:   To whom did this firearm belong?

MR MBATHA:   It was mine.

MR DRAHT:   Did you possess any licence to have this firearm?

MR MBATHA:   No, I did not.

CHAIRPERSON:   ...(inaudible) have ammunition?

MR MBATHA:   No.

MR DRAHT:   Did you take an interest ...(intervention)

MR LAX:   Sorry, did he say the firearm had no ammunition?

MR MBATHA:   There firearm had ammunition, I just didn’t have the ammunition, I mean I just didn’t have the licence for the ammunition.

MR LAX:   That’s why I didn’t understand the answer. How many bullets did you have for the firearm?

MR MBATHA:   I cannot remember. Because some of these rounds of ammunition were in my pocket. I think there were six of them in the firearm.

MR LAX:   That was in the magazine? What you might call the cartridge of the firearm, some people call it a cassette.

MR MBATHA:   I had six rounds of ammunition in my pocket. I cannot recall how many I had in the cartridge.

MR LAX:   Thank you.

MR DRAHT:   Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Mbatha why did you take the firearm with you at that stage?

MR MBATHA:   I heard that the ANC were armed, and there was this talk that we had to moved their posters which were placed in our area of residence.

MR DRAHT:   Continue.

MR MBATHA:   I took my firearm and proceeded towards Magwaza’s place, where I found IFP people. And it was not long after I had arrived and the ANC started coming down, approaching us from where we were standing at Magwaza’s shop. And when we got out of this shack and we went towards the sports fields. And before we could get to the sports field they started pelting us with stones, and we had to take cover, hiding from behind the shacks. They started shooting, and after the shooting we stood up and we went to them. We too started shooting at them.

MR DRAHT:   Mr Mbatha could you see with what were they shooting at you?

MR MBATHA:   I could not make out, but I could tell from the sound that they were using firearms.

MR DRAHT:   How many times? Did they shoot once or more than, or several times?

MR MBATHA:   They fired several times.

CHAIRPERSON:   When you said that they were shooting you, how, how do you know that? Purely from the sound. How do you know that somebody wasn’t merely shooting into the air?

MR DRAHT:   Even ‘though I would not in the position to say, but I concluded that they were shooting at us because they were fighting us and they were pelting us with stones, and therefore they could not have shot in the air because they were fighting us.

CHAIRPERSON:   You didn’t hear the whistle of bullets through the air for instance?

MR MBATHA:   Yes, I did hear that.

MR DRAHT:   Continue.

MR MBATHA:   They started running away when we exchanged gunfire, and they run, they ran towards the TPA offices.

MR DRAHT: Who in your group returned fire?

MR MBATHA: I too fired shots. Mr Sithole as well.

MR DRAHT:   Could you see what Mr Sithole fired, with what type of gun?

MR MBATHA:   He had this rifle, the one called AK.

MR DRAHT:   Did you shoot at the ANC group?

MR MBATHA:   Yes I shot at them.

MR DRAHT:   Did you see if you hit somebody?

MR MBATHA:   No, I could tell. I was just shooting at this group of people.

MR DRAHT:   Continue.

CHAIRPERSON:   Sorry, just on that. But it was a big target, wasn’t it? How many people were there? What was the size, approximate size, of the group, the ANC group?

MR MBATHA:   There were many of them. They could have been 400, they were quite many.

CHAIRPERSON:   How far away were you from them when you shot towards them?

MR MBATHA:   They were a distance away even ‘though I’m not in the position to say, but they were a distance from where I was standing.

CHAIRPERSON:   Was it longer than this room that we’re sitting in now?

MR DRAHT:   I would say from the Chairperson right up to the exit point of these buildings.

CHAIRPERSON:   That I think was 35 about 40 paces. I think it was 35 from, was it 35 from here. You paced it out Mr Cachalia.

MR CACHALIA:   Yes, approximately 35 paces.

CHAIRPERSON:   Continue Mr Mbatha.

MR MBATHA:   And when they fled we went back.

MR DRAHT:   Back where?

MR MBATHA:   We went back to where we came from, from Magwaza’s shop. We went back when they ran away towards the TPA offices. And when we went back that’s where we came across one person who was dead near Skosana’s shop.

MR DRAHT:   Did you know this person?

MR MBATHA:   No, I didn’t know him.

CHAIRPERSON:   Is Skosana’s shop also a shebeen?

MR MBATHA:   Yes.

MR DRAHT:   Continue.

MR MBATHA:   We went back and we waited at the grounds, and the police came. I ran away.

MR LAX:   Just one thing before we lose it, sorry Mr Draht to interpose. You said that the dead person was near Skosana’s shop. How far was that from where you were shooting? It was on your way from where you were shooting back to Magwaza’s, but how far was it from where you were shooting?

MR MBATHA:   He was a distance away from where I was standing. He was on the other side and the ANC was fleeing towards a different direction. I only saw this person on our way back.

MR LAX:   You can’t really tell us that, from the place where you were shooting at these people from, to the place where you found him on your way back, what, is it directly on your way? Or would you have to go out of your way, to get to this person?

MR MBATHA:   I’m trying to explain here that the person was not on the side from where I was shooting. I only saw this person when we came back from pursuing the ANC people. And I only saw this person in front of Skosana’s shop.

MR LAX:   Okay, the problem is cleared up in this sense, that I hadn’t understood you earlier to be saying that you had pursued them. Maybe you can elaborate on that. Your previous evidence was that you fired the shots, that they ran away, you then went back to Magwaza’s and on the way you saw them, you saw this deceased man. You haven’t said anything about pursuing these people at all. So that’s the problem. But perhaps Mr Draht can deal with that as he questions you.

MR DRAHT:   Mr Mbatha, after the ANC people, when they started to run away, did you pursue them?

MR MBATHA:   Yes we did.

MR DRAHT:   And what happened then?

MR MBATHA:   We ran after them right across the sports field and we started calling one another to come back. That is when I saw the person who was lying down dead near Skosana’s shop.

MR DRAHT:   While pursuing the ANC group, did you see any person get hurt, or being attacked by your group?

MR MBATHA:   No, there’s no one person that I saw getting hurt, except the one that we came across lying dead.

MR DRAHT:   What happened after you went back to the sports field?

MR MBATHA:   We went to the sports field, and we stayed there. It was difficult for us to go back to the shacks, because we did not know whether these ANC people were coming back or not. And we decided to stay there, wait for them, and see whether they come back or not. And as we were standing there one police vehicle came along, and when it arrived I fled with the weapon that I was carrying.

MR DRAHT:   When were you arrested?

MR MBATHA:   I was arrested on Sunday. This happened on Saturday.

MR DRAHT:   Where were you arrested?

MR MBATHA:   I was arrested on my way to Zevenfontein, having come from the river where I had hidden to avoid arrest.

MR DRAHT:   You stated there were about 400 persons in the ANC group. How many persons were in your group?

MR MBATHA:   Even ‘though I cannot be sure, but we could have been around 100, but then I must say I’m not sure. We were not too many. The one group that was more than ours was the ANC.

MR DRAHT:   Were they armed? The ANC group.

MR MBATHA:   Yes, they were armed.

MR DRAHT:   With what were they armed?

MR MBATHA:   They had machetes and spears, as well as sticks.

MR DRAHT:   Except for hearing the shots from their group could you see anybody with firearm in the ANC group?

MR MBATHA:   No.

MR DRAHT:   Except for Mr Sithole in your group, and yourself, did you see any other persons in your group with firearms?

MR MBATHA:   The one person I saw was Mr Magwaza.

MR DRAHT:   What kind of firearm did see with him?

MR MBATHA:   He had a handgun.

MR DRAHT:   Mr Mbatha are you sorry about the acts that you have committed that day?

MR MBATHA:   Yes, I am very sorry.

MR DRAHT:   That will be all Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON:   Thank you Mr Draht. Mr Claassen do you have any questions to ask the witness, the applicant?

MR CLAASSEN:   Thank you Mr Chair, I’ve got no questions to ward this applicant.

CHAIRPERSON:   Mr Cachalia do you have any questions to ask this applicant?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CACHALIA:   Mr Mbatha, you were not responsible for the, there were no people that died when the original next to Brown’s shack where the IFP shot towards the ANC group. Is that correct? You didn’t see anybody that had died as a result of that shooting at that particular place?

MR MBATHA:   Yes, I did not see anyone. I only heard from the police that one of the people died around that place.

MR CACHALIA:   And did you know that one of the persons had died at some other place quite higher up where he was stabbed and assaulted and he died as a result of that. Do you know that? The evidence that your previous co-accused gave.

CHAIRPERSON:   Is that the one next to the shebeen, or a different place.

MR MBATHA:   I would not dispute that because yes, some of our people were carrying spears.

MR CACHALIA:   No just the person that Mr, your, the previous applicant discussed was Mr Alfred Malumale, who had died because of the assault on him. Mr Ndlovu gave that evidence. Did you hear that evidence? This morning.

MR MBATHA:   Yes, I heard it quite well.

MR CACHALIA:   That was higher up on that main road where the shooting took place.

MR MBATHA:   Would you please repeat the question. I do not get it quite well.

MR CACHALIA:   The two groups confronted one another. The ANC and the IFP near Mr Brown’s house and at the sports field. Is that right? When the shooting took place.

MR MBATHA:   That is correct.

MR CACHALIA:   Now on that road that goes towards the top of the settlement, the steep incline there, on that particular road Mr Malumale died higher up on there and not as a result of the shooting. Is that right?

CHAIRPERSON:   Do you know? I think, ask him if he knows.

Are you aware that a Mr Alfred Malumale died on that road that goes up the steep hill to the top part of the settlement? That was mentioned by Mr Ndlovu in his evidence. He said that he saw a person being attacked there but he didn’t himself participate in that attack. That’s what he said. Are you aware of that?

MR MBATHA:   I would not dispute that, but I was not directly involved in that.

MR CACHALIA:   That’s what I’m trying to say. You ...(intervention)

MR LAX:   Just one second. Are you saying that you never saw that? Is that what you’re saying?

MR MBATHA:   Yes, I did not see it happen.

MR CACHALIA:   And I just want to put to you that the street that goes down next to the sports field past Mr Brown’s house towards Magwaza’s shop is sort of the main road that comes up from the top of the hill that is. Am I correct in saying that? That in the squatter camp it is a gravel road which comes up, which comes down towards Magwaza’s house, that is one of the main roads. Is that right? There are little alleyways in the squatter camp. This is a road on which you can drive a motor car with, two motor cars can pass there.

MR MBATHA:   Yes, I agree with you, that’s the main street that’s coming from the top. But there was no tar road there. The tar road was further up.

CHAIRPERSON:   Mr Cachalia mentioned that it was a gravel road.

MR CACHALIA:   I’m just mentioning that in order to place Skosana’s shebeen. If I came from the top to down that road I would pass Mr Brown’s shack on my right-hand side, there would then be the sports field, and about 20 or 30 paces further down from the sports field was Mr Magwaza’s shop. Is that correct?

MR MBATHA:   Yes, I agree with you.

MR CACHALIA:   And Skosana’s shebeen was on the lefthand side where most of the IFP members were living at that time. They’re not living there now, it is now cleared, but Mr Skosana’s shebeen was on the lefthand side about 60 or 70 metres from the sports field. Is that correct?

MR MBATHA:    I agree with you.

MR CACHALIA:   Why was it necessary for you to go past that place? You were pursuing the people up onto the steep where they were running away, why did you have to go to Skosana’s shebeen area?

MR LAX:   Sorry Mr Cachalia. His evidence so far has been that he pursued them across the sports ground, and then somebody called them back. He didn’t get, his evidence so far is he didn’t get past the sports ground. That’s how I understood it.

CHAIRPERSON:   Except that he did say that he saw a body, near Skosana’s shebeen.

MR LAX:   Yes, but that was on the way back from the sports ground.

CHAIRPERSON:   Yes but I think what Mr Cachalia’s saying is, we’ll have to clear this up, is the ANC ran the other way from, away from Skosana’s shop, not towards it. Perhaps we could clear that up. Perhaps you could ask him in which direction they ran Mr Cachalia. If they ran towards that said shop or not.

MR CACHALIA:   Thank you sir. Mr Mbatha, you were standing on the lower end of the slope on the grounds and Mbatha’s, sorry Brown’s house is a little higher up, where the ANC group was. Is that correct?

MR MBATHA:   Let me explain it as follows. I do not know Brown’s house quite well, but we were downward, on the downward direction, and the ANC were further up.

MR CACHALIA:   When you shot at them did they run higher up towards the hill? Did they run upwards or did they come further down?

MR MBATHA:   They ran upwards.

MR CACHALIA:   And Mr Skosana’s shebeen, from the particular place where you were at the sports field, if you came down that road you’ve just agreed that it is about 50 or 60 metres on your lefthand side on that particular road so it would it’s not the direction in which the ANC ran. Is that correct?

MR MBATHA:   I would not dispute that because I have no knowledge of metres.

CHAIRPERSON:   I think the question Mr Mbatha, asked by Mr Cachalia, forget the distances. But you’ve got the hill, the main road that goes up the hill to the top of the settlement. At the bottom of that hill, or lower down, there’s Brown’s house, then you’ve got the sports field as you’re going down towards the river. You’ve got Magwaza’s shop, and then you’ve got on the other side of the road, the, Skosana’s shop or shebeen. Now, the shooting took place near Brown’s house. When the ANC group fled, did they run towards Skosana’s shebeen, or did they up the hill, or did they run in all directions? What? Can you just explain how they ran away?

MR MBATHA:   They spread towards different directions. Some of them went up and some of them took dif