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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Is Mr van Rensburg appearing in this matter?

MR VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: For the victims?

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

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

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

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

MR NDOU: That is correct Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's start with them then.

MR NDOU: I now call Samuel Matala.

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

MR MATALA: Venda.

CHAIRPERSON: I didn't hear what he said?

INTERPRETER: He said he would use Venda.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you just repeat that?

INTERPRETER: He would prefer to use Venda.

SAMUEL MATALA: (sworn states)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR MATALA: Yes, I can do so.

MR NDOU: Please do so.

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

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

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

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

MR NDOU: Yes, and then?

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR MATALA: Yes, it is true.

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: What did they do that was oppressive?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Like what?

MR MATALA: Like ritual murder.

CHAIRPERSON: And?

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, okay. Anything else?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: So what? What was wrong with that?

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

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

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: And they objected to it?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Ndou?

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

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

MR NDOU: Which organisation?

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

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

INTERPRETER: Yes.

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

MR MATALA: I said United Democratic Front.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that is UDF not UDM?

MR MATALA: I am referring to UDF not UDM.

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou?

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

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

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

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

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

MR NDOU: Yes?

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

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

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

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

ADV SIGODI: Can you spell that for me?

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

ADV SIGODI: Okay, thank you.

MR NDOU: Yes, you can proceed.

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

MR NDOU: How were these people identified?

MR MATALA: Could you please repeat your question?

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

MR MATALA: They were randomly mentioned.

MR NDOU: And who identified?

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

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

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

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

MR MATALA: Yes, it is true.

MR NDOU: Now what did the meeting resolve?

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

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

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

MR NDOU: To burn what?

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

MR NDOU: And how would that help you politically?

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

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

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

INTERPRETER: Could you repeat your question?

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Can you spell that please?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Just repeat that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR NDOU: How did that happen?

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

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

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

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

JUDGE DE JAGER: Who poured the petrol?

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

JUDGE DE JAGER: Right?

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

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

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

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

MR NDOU: Is that all?

MR MATALA: That is what I did there.

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

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

JUDGE DE JAGER: Who struck the match?

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUDGE DE JAGER: Thank you.

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

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

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

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

MR NDOU: Did you see Josias Mulaudzi there?

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

MR NDOU: What was he doing there?

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Who is a co-applicant?

MR NDOU: Josias Mulaudzi.

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

MR NDOU: And you say you did nothing else?

MR MATALA: No.

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Who put the tyre on her?

MR MATALA: I said it is Thomas Mudau.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

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

CHAIRPERSON: You are going too fast now.

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

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

MR MATALA: Thomas Mudau and Elvis Makhumbele.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR NDOU: And then, what happened?

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

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

MR MATALA: Yes, I am able to see.

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

MR MATALA: Yes.

MR NDOU: Please do so.

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

MR NDOU: Thank you.

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

MR MATALA: Yes, it is true.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr van Rensburg?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR MATALA: Yes, I agree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR MATALA: The deceased was my aunt.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR VAN RENSBURG: By name?

MR MATALA: Yes, by name.

CHAIRPERSON: Tell me, was she involved in witchcraft?

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

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

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Who mentioned her name in the meeting?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR MATALA: Yes, I lied.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And who forced you to lie?

MR MATALA: No one forced me.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

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

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

ADV SIGODI: He has answered.

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

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

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

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

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

MR MATALA: Could you please repeat your question?

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

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

MR VAN RENSBURG: Did you like ...

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

MR MATALA: Yes, yes, she was respected.

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

MR MATALA: Yes. Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

INTERPRETER: Could you repeat that?

MR MATALA: Could you please repeat that?

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

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

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

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

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

MR MATALA: No, I know nothing about that.

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

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

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

MR MATALA: Yes that is true.

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

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

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

MR MATALA: Could you repeat your question.

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

MR MATALA: She was from the Malaudzi's.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: What is the surname of George?

MR MATALA: Matala.

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

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

MR MATALA: Yes, it is true.

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

MR MATALA: Yes, I did organise.

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

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

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

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

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

MR MATALA: That is what I did.

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

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

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

MR MATALA: Yes, I know that person.

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

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

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

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

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

MR MATALA: Yes, it is correct.

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

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

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

MR MATALA: Yes, we used that name.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR MATALA: Yes, I agreed during that time.

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

MR MATALA: Yes, I agreed or believed.

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

INTERPRETER: Could you please repeat that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

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

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

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

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

INTERPRETER: Could you please repeat your question?

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

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

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

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

JUDGE DE JAGER: Okay, thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR MATALA: Yes, it is true.

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

MR MATALA: Yes, I saw him.

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

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

MR VAN RENSBURG: Who struck the match?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR VAN RENSBURG: What is the definition of youth?

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma, have you got any questions?

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

MR MATALA: Yes, I attended school.

INTERPRETER: May you please repeat your question?

MR MAPOMA: Did you ever attend school?

MR MATALA: Yes, I once attended school.

MR MAPOMA: What standard of education do you have?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR MATALA: They were still banned.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Mapoma?

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

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

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

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

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

MR MATALA: Yes, we agreed to that effect.

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

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

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

MR MATALA: That I don't know.

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

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

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

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

MR MATALA: There was one congregation.

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

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

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

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

MR MATALA: It was Frank Ravel.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And who succeeded him?

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

JUDGE DE JAGER: When was this coup?

MR MATALA: On the 5th of April.

JUDGE DE JAGER: 1990?

MR MATALA: 1990.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Thank you.

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

... with that petrol bucket?

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Carry on.

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: But after the decision was made?

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

ADV SIGODI: Who delegated you? Who delegated you?

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

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

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

MR NDOU: Yes?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

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

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

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

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

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

MR RAMALATA: Yes.

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

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

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

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

MR RAMALATA: Yes, that is correct.

MR NDOU: Then what happened?

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

INTERPRETER: He is requesting that you repeat your question?

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

MR RAMALATA: No.

MR NDOU: That is all.

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

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

Is that the truth?

MR RAMALATA: Yes, it is true.

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

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

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

MR RAMALATA: That is all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR RAMALATA: Please repeat your question.

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

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

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

INTERPRETER: Could you please repeat your question?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR RAMALATA: That is not true.

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

MR RAMALATA: That is not true.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR NDOU: It is not a correct proposition.

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

MR RAMALATA: Yes, he lied.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR RAMALATA: Could you please rephrase your question?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR RAMALATA: No, the deceased was still standing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ADV SIGODI: Yes.

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

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

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

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

MR RAMALATA: Yes.

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

INTERPRETER: Could you please repeat your question?

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

MR RAMALATA: Yes.

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

MR RAMALATA: I won't dispute that.

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

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Why?

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr van Rensburg?

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

MR RAMALATA: It is not me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR RAMALATA: No, I am disputing that.

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

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

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

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

MR RAMALATA: Yes.

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

MR RAMALATA: No.

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

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

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

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

MR VAN RENSBURG: I put it ...

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, okay. I misunderstood your question.

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

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

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

MR RAMALATA: No, that is not true.

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

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

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

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

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

not at the house, at the deceased?

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

MR RAMALATA: She was inside the house.

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

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

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

MR RAMALATA: No, that is not true.

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma, have you got any questions?

MR MAPOMA: No questions Chairperson, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou, any questions?

MR NDOU: None Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you are excused.

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

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

MR MULAUDZI: Venda.

JOSIAS MULAUDZI: (sworn states)

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

MR MULAUDZI: Yes, it is correct.

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

MR MULAUDZI: Yes, I confirm.

MR NDOU: That is all Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg?

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

MR MULAUDZI: I am 41 years old.

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

MR MULAUDZI: I was 31 years old.

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

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

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

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

MR VAN RENSBURG: What did you hear about it?

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

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

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

MR MULAUDZI: Yes, it is that day.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR MULAUDZI: You mean when it started?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

MR MULAUDZI: No.

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

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

MR MULAUDZI: Yes, I understand that.

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

MR MULAUDZI: May you please repeat that question.

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

MR MULAUDZI: Yes, it is true.

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

MR MULAUDZI: Yes, I understand that.

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

MR MULAUDZI: Yes, I understand.

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

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

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: ... paragraph 13.

ADV SIGODI: 14.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR MULAUDZI: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR VAN RENSBURG: Hm.

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

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

MR MULAUDZI: My mother is still alive.

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

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

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

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

MR MULAUDZI: It is not clear.

INTERPRETER: The question is not clear to him.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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