_____________________________________________________CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma, I understand we're starting with incident number 7?

MR MAPOMA: Yes Chairperson, certainly.

CHAIRPERSON: And I understand this matter is part heard?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: We've already dealt with the applicant Kudzingana?

MR MAPOMA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And the appearances are as before?

MR MAPOMA: Yes Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou?

MR NDOU: Thank you Honourable Chairperson, Honourable Members, I call Walter Mudzwiri.

JUDGE DE JAGER: AM 6678/97.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on, the interpreters cannot hear.

CHAIRPERSON: Which language would you prefer to use?

MR MUDZWIRI: Venda.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Have you any objection to taking of the oath?

WALTER MUDZWIRI: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR NDOU: Thank you. Mr Mudzwiri, when were you born?

MR MUDZWIRI: I was born on the 28th March 1969.

MR NDOU: I see. Now you've made an application for amnesty and your application appears in the bundle of papers on pages 43 right up to page 55(g). Now you've also made an affidavit. Do you confirm that this affidavit is your evidence?

MR MUDZWIRI: Yes I do confirm.

MR NDOU: And now could you explain to the Committee as to your role. You've heard what Mr Kudzingana said when he gave evidence. Now could you explain to the Committee as to what you yourself did when the deceased was killed?

MR MUDZWIRI: Yes I can.

MR NDOU: Please do so?

MR MUDZWIRI: On our arrival to the home of the deceased we found the deceased approaching, getting outside of his home with others and when the deceased saw us he returned back to his house and in coming back, he came back holding two bush knives. Then, in realising that he is now already armed, coming to us in the street, prepared to fight us with those bush knives, we realised that we should attack him and make sure that he should not stab anyone with those knives. It's then that the group started to throw stones at him. Then we pelted him with those stones until he lose control, he threw the bush knives down and after throwing those bush knives down, he ran to the kraal and the people were still pelting him with stones and I was also throwing stones because I was in the front. And then he decided to run to the direction of the nearby kraal and we chased him and we were still throwing stones at him. It happened that because the stones were so many the deceased lost control, I think that he was panicking, he fell down.

As he was lying down, we continued to pelt him with stones until we realised that he is now so weak. As he was lying down there, a certain person called Albert Dumbani came with a petrol container and he poured the petrol and then he lit him. As he was burning other decided to run away and a certain group still remained, throwing stones, although he was burning. I'm one of the persons who was still throwing stones at him while he was burning.

From there I saw my co-accused who is called Ramabulana and he was holding a pick axe or a stick which is used for a pick axe and then he assaulted the deceased at the head. From there I heard the sounds of the cars. What came to my mind is that it was the police. As such I decided to run away and went to my home. That's all.

JUDGE DE JAGER: What did you want to achieve by killing the deceased?

MR MUDZWIRI: The deceased was a witch doctor and he was a member of the headman's kraal council. When we look back from 1998 we realised that the Ministers or government officials were involved in ritual killings and such, whatever was that since that man was a member of the council and that he practised witch craft, it means that he is supporting the then government and we realised that it's better if we could finish with him so that the government should also be aware that people like him we don't need them and it means that the people they are relying on will no longer be there.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mushasha?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MUSHASHA: As it pleases the Chairperson.

Mr Mudzwiri, suppose the deceased came out from his kraal unarmed, would you have attacked him?

CHAIRPERSON: Let me ask him first before that question is answered? Are you opposing the application?

MR MUSHASHA: Those are my instructions.

CHAIRPERSON: On what basis?

MR MUSHASHA: On the basis that the killing by the applicant had nothing to do with the politics of the day.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on. Answer the question?

MR MUDZWIRI: That person that day, we were going to force him to leave the village like others who after hearing that people like them are no longer needed, they decided to leave the village. But the deceased refused to leave and since that he refused to leave, we realised that there were police who used to protect him. Seeing that that person, or the deceased, was supported by the government of the day, our aim of going to his home was to force him to leave but we were aware that he might resist and fight us because police used to protect him. But if he didn't come out with those bush knives and maybe he listened to us, we would have let him go. But now that he showed that he rely on the government, that is why we decided to attack him.

MR MUSHASHA: So are you saying that the whole reason why you killed the deceased was because he came out armed and resisted ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, that's not what he's saying. He's saying they wanted him to leave the area and the reason they wanted him to leave the area is because there was a relationship between him or they thought between him and government officials. When he resisted they killed him, that's what he is saying.

MR MUSHASHA: I appreciate that.

From the position of the victims that killing had nothing to do with the politics of the day. The deceased was not supporting the government of the day, the deceased was not a wizard and ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Well, let's take it one by one, Mr Mushasha?

MR MUSHASHA: Okay, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Firstly, it's being put to you that the killing of the deceased was not connected to politics at all. What do you say about that?

MR MUDZWIRI: I'm saying that during those days we realised that it was linked with politics because in looking back we realised that government officials were involved in practising witchcraft and the deceased was a member of the council and he was also practising witchcraft and we also realised that he was in favour of the government which was there and which we were not in need of it.

CHAIRPERSON: Now Mr Mushasha, we've got the answers to all those questions.

MR MUSHASHA: Okay, thank you.

Now I put it to you that what you are now saying when you say the whole intention was to drive away the deceased from the area could not be true in the circumstances, in the light of what you have said in paragraph number 10, wherein you said:

These reasons differs from what you have now offered. What do you say?

MR MUDZWIRI: Yes it's true. The truth is the people whom we requested to leave our village, if they were resisting then we were forced to burn them and kill them and do away with them.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that part of the decision that should they resist they would be killed there and then?

MR MUDZWIRI: Yes, that was part of the decision.

MR MUSHASHA: The victims would come forward to say that they're not prepared to extend their arm of friendship with you because you have damaged their property, you have deprived them of the company of the most loved relatives at the time.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you want him to reply to that?

MR MUSHASHA: To comment.

CHAIRPERSON: What can he say? If that is their decision, that is their decision?

I don't know, do you want to reply to that or can you reply to that?

MR MUDZWIRI: Yes I can reply, yes I want to reply. What they're saying, I do understand that it's true that what I've done, deprived them, it's very painful to them. I took the life of the person closest to their hearts and to whom they were relying through and the person that they loved so much. I humble myself and I'm feeling sorry for what I've done but it was caused by the situation of that time in the former Venda Government. For now, I'm humbly requesting that even if it would be difficult for them to forget, I'm asking them to forgive me because that was caused by the situation of that time. Let us stay together and to work together and correct the wrongs which apartheid was causing to us. I thank you.

MR MUSHASHA: I'm sorry, Mr Chairperson, the victim is trying to give me further instructions on the spot.

CHAIRPERSON: Take the headphones off, it might be easier to hear you.

MR MUSHASHA: Mr Mudzwiri, on my right seated is a lady. Do you see her?

MR MUDZWIRI: Yes I do.

MR MUSHASHA: Do you know her?

MR MUDZWIRI: Yes I know her.

MR MUSHASHA: What is her name?

MR MUDZWIRI: It's ...(indistinct) Mavhandu.

MR MUSHASHA: What was she to the deceased?

MR MUDZWIRI: She is the wife of the deceased.

MR MUSHASHA: On the day of the incident did you see her?

MR MUDZWIRI: Yes I saw her.

MR MUSHASHA: She would come forward to say that you are not making a full disclosure of your role of participation in the killing of the deceased.

CHAIRPERSON: Well tell him what she says he did then? Maybe he'll disagree, maybe he'll agree.

MR MUSHASHA: Please the Chairperson?

She will say that it is not true that it was not Dumbani who doused the deceased with petrol and set him alight. She saw you doing it.

MR MUDZWIRI: That is not true. Where I saw here it's when I arrived there. She immediately ran away, she didn't stand there on the scene but what is true is what I'm telling you now.

MR MUSHASHA: I've no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chairperson.

Was the deceased's homestead or part of his homestead burnt at all?

CHAIRPERSON: Or damaged?

MR MAPOMA: Or damaged?

MR MUDZWIRI: That is something which I didn't see because people were so many. Others were either in their homes, in their house and then I was in the other place where we were busy stoning the deceased meaning that the other people should remain at the home of the deceased and then other group with which I was with was on the neighbour, not at the home of the deceased. It could have happened.

MR MAPOMA: Now to your knowledge, I mean you must know, was his house burnt at all by your group?

MR MUDZWIRI: So when I heard about it from court I heard that the home was burnt, that is from the evidence given by the witness in court, who were the State witnesses.

JUDGE DE JAGER: How far is this neighbours house where you killed the deceased from the deceased's house?

MR MUDZWIRI: Approximately 100 metres.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And you say you couldn't see whether the house is burning?

MR MUDZWIRI: Yes it's true. During that time there were ...(indistinct) which was so big that I was unable to see that other side.

CHAIRPERSON: Surely you would have seen smoke rising?

MR MUDZWIRI: Could you please repeat your question?

CHAIRPERSON: Surely - well, when did this occur, during the night or during the day?

MR MUDZWIRI: It was in the morning at about 10 o'clock.

CHAIRPERSON: So surely if it was burning you would be able to see the smoke rising?

MR MUDZWIRI: I don't know if the people who remained there burnt it or maybe it was burnt after I ran away.

CHAIRPERSON: That was not the question. The question is could you not see it if it was burning. You say you couldn't because of the mealies. I'm asking you wouldn't you be able to see the smoke then if it was burning?

MR MUDZWIRI: No, I didn't see the smoke.

MR MAPOMA: Are you applying for amnesty for arson that took place at the deceased's house?

MR MUDZWIRI: Yes because by virtue of my presence at the scene, it means all the things which happened it means I was in favour of supporting all that was happening there.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But you told us you don't know whether there was arson? So how can you apply for amnesty for arson?

MR MUDZWIRI: It's because I was charged with murder and arson and now what I'm saying is the truth and what I know. Regarding arson, I never participated in that.

CHAIRPERSON: If those people had to set the deceased's home alight when you were there would you have agreed with it?

MR MUDZWIRI: Yes I would have agreed with that.

CHAIRPERSON: And when you went to his house the decision in your mind at that time was that he was going to be asked to leave the area. In the event of him resisting he would be killed, on way or the other, correct?

MR MUDZWIRI: Yes that is true.

CHAIRPERSON: And given the experience of such events, did you realise that his property could have been burnt in doing so? When you went there did you know it is possible that his property may also be burnt in the action taken there at this house?

MR MUDZWIRI: Yes I suspected that anything could happen.

CHAIRPERSON: Including burning his house?

MR MUDZWIRI: Yes I did suspect that that could happen.

CHAIRPERSON: And you associated yourself with that possibility?

MR MUDZWIRI: Yes.

MR MAPOMA: Thanks Chairperson.

Would you turn to page 43 of the paginated bundle which contains page 1 of your application form? I see on paragraph number 9(a)i where you were asked to state the acts for which acts or omissions or offences for which you seek amnesty, you say, alleged that:

Would you clarify what you meant here?

MR MUDZWIRI: Sorry, I'm asking you to indicate to me again that paragraph? May you please repeat your question?

MR MAPOMA: In this paragraph, when mentioning the acts for which you apply for amnesty you say, I want to quote now what is written here:

Now I want you to clarify what you mean by this?

MR MUDZWIRI: I was saying or referring to the things I was found guilty in court.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chairperson, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you, you are excused.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MR NDOU: I'll call Justice Ramabulana.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ramabulana, which language would you want to use?

MR RAMABULANA: Venda.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any objections to taking the oath?

JUSTICE RAMABULANA: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR NDOU: Thank you Mr Chairperson, Honourable Members.

Mr Ramabulana, you've made an application for amnesty and there you filed an affidavit appearing on pages 42(a) up to 42(g). Do you correct that this evidence is your evidence?

CHAIRPERSON: Before you carry on Mr Ndou? I have problems with the drafting of this affidavit. This man, according to his application would be older than many of the other applicants and yet his affidavit is drafted on paragraph 12 on page 42(c) to say:

Now what is going on here? Is it as I suggested yesterday that inadvertently these things came off your computer?

MR NDOU: Well Chairperson, in view of the fact that the interviews with the applicant was done at the same time as a group I will admit that to some extent inadvertently some paragraphs yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I can understand that, I just want to get clarity and I would want you rather then to point it out to us before the witness or the applicant confirms the contents because issues like that puts him into a corner when in fact if it could be cleared up and if it was an inadvertent bit of information that went on to the affidavit, we can understand that.

MR NDOU: Okay, I apologise for that Chairperson. We picked

up some of those problems and what we're going to do in future like in some of the affidavits where there's a problem, the applicant will indicate those problem areas even before we proceed with it.

CHAIRPERSON: What future are you talking about?

MR NDOU: In fact the other applicants who will still come, we have got two or three applicant where the problem with the affidavits, we'll indicate that as they go.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, I thought some months ahead of us.

MR NDOU: Thank you Chairperson.

Now you've explained your role on the date in question in this affidavit. Now can you again just explain to the Committee as to what you yourself did when this deceased was killed?

MR RAMABULANA: Yes.

MR NDOU: Please do so.

MR RAMABULANA: On the 6th March 1990 I woke up and went to my workplace. The kind of work I was doing was so small that I managed to knock off early. On my way home I met a group of people. In meeting that group, the group was shouting, calling me to join them. On joining them I questioned them as to why they are calling me to join them and then they said no, we want you, we are going to your home.

As we were walking for about 100 metres and then we turned to the home of the deceased, then I realised the deceased was listed as pointed as a person who was practising witchcraft there at their meeting. So it means we were going to the place of Frans Mavhandu.

On our arrival he was approaching the gate and he was with other two men. In seeing the group turning to his home, he turned back into his yard and got into the house and in coming out of the house he was holding two bush knives. As he was approaching the crowd, the crowd picked up stones and they decided to stone him or to throw stones at him. Seeing that he was unable to duck the stones he turned back and then he threw down the bush knives and he passed his home and went to another yard and then the group followed him and part of the group took the right direction and then I took the left direction and the others were chasing him from behind.

On arriving when they caught up with the deceased, I realised that he was burning by then. On arriving there, people were still pelting him with stones. Somebody gave me a pick axe and then I hit the deceased with that pick axe until it got broken and then I took that pick axe and threw it away. Then I was tired. Then I ran away as if I was going to urinate, then I ran away.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you hit the deceased?

MR RAMABULANA: I hit the deceased because it was said that he must be killed.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you want to kill him?

MR RAMABULANA: I was participating or involved in that because it was said that people were alleged to be witchcraft should leave the country and then if they're not leaving the country or the village, should be killed.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you want to kill him?

MR RAMABULANA: Yes I was by then prepared to kill him because a decision was taken that each and every person who practised witchcraft who was not leaving the village should be killed.

CHAIRPERSON: Was this your grandfather's younger brother?

MR RAMABULANA: Yes that is true.

CHAIRPERSON: You knew him?

MR RAMABULANA: Yes I knew him.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you stay with him or knew him or what?

MR RAMABULANA: He was staying next door to my father.

CHAIRPERSON: You say that he practised witchcraft, is that true?

MR RAMABULANA: I agree.

CHAIRPERSON: You saw him do that?

MR RAMABULANA: I once see that from his mother.

CHAIRPERSON: You once?

MR RAMABULANA: I first saw that from his mother.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you mean you first saw it from his mother, how did you do that?

MR RAMABULANA: His mother was chased away from that village but the chief in 1965 having practised witchcraft.

CHAIRPERSON: Now why do you say he practised witchcraft?

MR RAMABULANA: It's because the spokesperson of Mavhandu's family is the people that allegedly said he is responsible for the killing of James Mavhandu.

CHAIRPERSON: And you believed that?

MR RAMABULANA: Yes I believed that because it was mentioned by a member of the family.

CHAIRPERSON: Now at what stage did you change your mind and willingly participate in his killing?

MR RAMABULANA: It's at the stage when the list was drafted at the meeting heard at the chief's kraal where it was said that people who were practising witchcraft should be killed if they refuse to leave the village.

CHAIRPERSON: Now in paragraph 25 of your affidavit, page 42(c), you say you were scared and therefore you joined in. I assume you mean you joined into the group because you were scared?

MR RAMABULANA: Yes, I was scared before I knew where the group was going and I was also scared because they said they are going to my home.

CHAIRPERSON: I see. Is it correct then that while you were in the group you found out exactly what they were going to do?

MR RAMABULANA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that then when you agreed that you were also going to be party to whatever was going to happen to your grandfather's brother?

MR RAMABULANA: Yes. Before that I realised that he was listed in the list of the people who practised witchcraft. Then I suspected that they were going to him. It's then that I agreed.

CHAIRPERSON: Now why was it wrong for him to practise witchcraft? Why was that politically linked?

MR RAMABULANA: The deceased was a member of the council in the chief's kraal and we were no longer in need of the government which was ruling, we were looking for the re-incorporation into South Africa. Seeing that he was a member and also practising witchcraft, we realised it was better if we could kill him.

CHAIRPERSON: What did he do for the government?

MR RAMABULANA: He was a member of the council and the council was under the government.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR NDOU: Nothing further, Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MUSHASHA: Are you a member of any political organisation?

MR RAMABULANA: Yes, I was a member of the Jiosi Youth Congress by then, now I am a member of the ANC.

MR MUSHASHA: And when the list of witches was compiled were you present?

MR RAMABULANA: Yes I was present in the meeting at the chief's kraal.

MR MUSHASHA: Did you agree with the names that were listed that those people were wizards or witches?

MR RAMABULANA: Yes I agreed with them.

MR MUSHASHA: Did you also agree that they should be driven away from the area?

MR RAMABULANA: Yes I did.

MR MUSHASHA: Did the government which was in power - what method did it apply to oppress people?

MR RAMABULANA: Could you please repeat your question?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mushasha, is this a history test? Is this a history test?

MR MUSHASHA: It's what?

CHAIRPERSON: Is this a history test? We all know how the previous government oppressed people.

MR MUSHASHA: We know, such as ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Well what is the purpose of the question?

MR MUSHASHA: The purpose of the question is to, I just want to confirm with him if it's indeed true that he linked the actions with the governing powers.

CHAIRPERSON: Well why don't we ask him then how does he do that? What does he think thereon?

MR MUSHASHA: It was a stepping stone to - it was establishing whether witchcraft had anything to do with the then authorities.

CHAIRPERSON: Well proceed. I didn't follow it like that but anyway, carry on.

MR MUSHASHA: Maybe I'll just come directly to it. Do you think witchcraft, witchcraft which you though prevailed at the time, had anything to do with the oppression by the governing authorities? If so, why?

MR RAMABULANA: Yes.

MR MUSHASHA: How?

MR RAMABULANA: Because people who were in government used medicine in all ways possible and these people were practising witchcraft in the 1979 and back it was said that in the past if they were alleged to have committed, they have practised witchcraft they used to go to the council and be tried as to whether they practised witchcraft but in the middle, after this new government, after 1979, the government decided to protect the people who practised witchcraft.

MR MUSHASHA: What you did to the accused, was it only to chop him with a pick?

MR RAMABULANA: The only thing which I managed to do is hitting him by that pick axe.

MR MUSHASHA: Not burn his property?

MR RAMABULANA: I've heard about that, that there was arson there, but I was assaulted on the same day and I saw a truck standing there and there was property outside there and they were loading that property on that truck and they were leaving the place.

MR MUSHASHA: Do a know a woman who is seated next to me on my right?

MR RAMABULANA: Yes, she's my grandmother.

MR MUSHASHA: She would say that she was present when this incident occurred. She actually saw you burning the deceased's property. That is the hut and his clothes.

MR RAMABULANA: I'm not sure there because immediately when I left, after assaulting the deceased, I saw her at the room of Mr Magwaru, together with the wife of this Mr Magwaru.

MR MUSHASHA: So are you not applying amnesty ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Sorry, she said she saw you burning the house and the clothes. Did you do it or didn't you do it?

MR RAMABULANA: I don't know that.

MR MUSHASHA: Are you not applying amnesty also in respect of the burning of the deceased's clothes and the house?

MR RAMABULANA: I'm applying amnesty to that effect because in court I was alleged to have committed that.

MR MUSHASHA: Now why do you do it when you claim not to have done it?

MR RAMABULANA: Seeing that the wife of the deceased is seeing it like that while I don't know about it, it means we will keep on making arguments. Whereas what I'm relating here is not accepted.

CHAIRPERSON: When you went there to that house you knew that the house could be damaged, isn't it? It was possible for the house to be damaged in whatever action occurred?

MR RAMABULANA: It's only when if the deceased didn't want to leave the village that you could be killed and then the property could also be dealt the same way.

CHAIRPERSON: So on your way there you didn't know whether he was going to refuse or not? It was possible that his house would be damaged, isn't it? If he resisted?

MR RAMABULANA: Yes it's true.

CHAIRPERSON: What did you mean in your application form on page 9(a)i by saying:

It's page 34, Mr Chairperson.

MR RAMABULANA: This is where my legal advisor told me that because I'm accused number one I must also participate or I must also be involved in this and my legal advisor advised me to accept this and I accepted this while it was not in my mind.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Surely I can't think that your legal advisor would advise you to come and say under oath that you've burnt the clothes if you didn't burn it?

MR RAMABULANA: I'm not referring to the legal advisor I'm with here, I'm referring to the legal advisor who was sitting in court while I was sentenced.

CHAIRPERSON: Why does this allegation or possible admission appear in your application?

MR RAMABULANA: It's because what a person has done cannot forget.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you put it in your - look, have a look at paragraph 9(a)i on page 34. Have a look at it? It states there"

You make application for murder and arson and all that and you don't mention those things, you mention the burning of this clothes and yet you say that never occurred. Why?

MR RAMABULANA: So I apologised for that, I wasn't aware of that.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm asking why it's there? Are you telling us the truth or not?

MR RAMABULANA: It means the clothes which were burnt were not clothes which were separated. It was a bundle but I was not sure if the content of that bundle was his.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But you burnt the bundle?

CHAIRPERSON: You burnt the bundle?

MR RAMABULANA: Yes that is the bundle I burnt, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Why are we struggling to get an admission that has been put to you on more than one occasion?

MR RAMABULANA: I thought the question was referring to the fact that I get into the house and burnt the clothes inside the house.

CHAIRPERSON: What did you mean then? Where did this bundle come from because here in your application it says "burnt clothing from his house"?

MR RAMABULANA: The bundle was from the bath.

CHAIRPERSON: From the?

MR RAMABULANA: Bath.

CHAIRPERSON: Bathroom outside?

MR RAMABULANA: No, the bath. The one we used - you can even take it out and wash yourself or your clothes from outside. Yes, that was outside.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, okay. Now tell me, that meeting where the list of names of the witches were composed or compiled, when did that meeting take place?

MR RAMABULANA: That date was on Sunday but I don't remember the date.

CHAIRPERSON: It's not on the same day this incident occurred?

MR RAMABULANA: No, that was not on the same day.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Mushasha?

MR MUSHASHA: I have no further questions, Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAPOMA: Who completed this amnesty application of yours which appears on page 34 of this bundle?

MR RAMABULANA: It's my legal advisor or attorney.

MR MAPOMA: When was that?

MR RAMABULANA: I do not understand your question?

MR MAPOMA: My question is, do you see page 34 of this paginated bundle?

MR RAMABULANA: Yes.

MR MAPOMA: On that page there appears the first page of the application form that you complete when you apply for amnesty. Now what I want to find out from you, who completed this amnesty application form, is it yourself or somebody on your behalf?

MR RAMABULANA: It's myself.

MR MAPOMA: How did you do that?

MR RAMABULANA: I don't understand, do you want me to say whether I wrote it or what?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, that's what I want to find out from you. This is typed, this is typewritten. What I want to find out who typewrote this?

MR RAMABULANA: It's my legal advisor.

MR MAPOMA: When was that?

MR RAMABULANA: I can't quite remember the date but that was when I was in jail.

MR MAPOMA: I've no further questions, Chairperson.

MR NDOU: Nothing further.

ADV SIGODI: I want to clarify something with you about this list of people. You say that you were present when this list was drafted, did I hear you correctly?

MR RAMABULANA: Yes I was present.

ADV SIGODI: And when this list was drafted was your grandfather's and the brother's name also mentioned?

MR RAMABULANA: Yes it was also mentioned.

ADV SIGODI: And when was this meeting held when this list was drafted?

MR RAMABULANA: That was 1989.

ADV SIGODI: Now was it - no, but this incident took place March 1990?

MR RAMABULANA: Yes it's true.

ADV SIGODI: Now I mean in relation to this particular incident when the people decided, when the Youth Congress decided that they were going to get rid of the people who were undesirable in the village, was there a meeting where the list was drafted shortly before then or on that very same day?

MR RAMABULANA: The meeting was held before the deceased was killed.

ADV SIGODI: When? Same day or a day before?

MR RAMABULANA: Days before.

ADV SIGODI: So why do you say that you were scared when - actually, I'll refer you to paragraph 24 and 25:

And then you go on to say:

The impression one gets is that you didn't know where they were going to? Why is that?

MR RAMABULANA: Yes it's true. It's because the day before the deceased was killed I didn't attend the meeting because we were unable to go there during the night because during the night we found him being protected by the police. By then I was not aware that we were going during the day.

ADV SIGODI: I didn't get the answer? During the night what happened?

MR RAMABULANA: They were afraid that during the night the deceased was protected by the police and then in the meeting in which they decided to go during the day I was not aware that they were now going there during the day, that is why I was not knowing where they were going because they first agreed that they would do that during the night.

ADV SIGODI: I see.

JUDGE DE JAGER: I'm not quite satisfied with the answer you've given us. You remember when you were asked by the advocate:

"Do you know the lady sitting next to me?"

You said

"Yes."

and then he put it to you:

and you replied:

Why didn't you admit that you burnt the clothes, at least? Why didn't you tell us the truth?

MR RAMABULANA: It's because I thought she said I get inside the house and burnt the clothes which were inside the house, that it where I refused, I didn't get inside the house.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Well why didn't you say I burnt it outside the house. Why didn't you tell us you've burnt the clothes? The previous one said he didn't even see smoke? Now we learnt that you in fact burnt the clothes? Why didn't you tell us that?

MR RAMABULANA: But I heard about it but I didn't understand the question properly.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But you needn't be asked about it, it was your duty to tell us the truth, from the beginning. Why didn't you tell us the truth? It had to be dragged out of you after it's been pointed to you that it appears in your application? What else haven't you told us as far as this is concerned? Did the house burn?

MR RAMABULANA: It might have burnt but I'm not sure because I didn't burn it. Maybe my co-applicant burnt it.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Have you been in the vicinity, it's next to you, the next day. Did you see the house has been burnt?

MR RAMABULANA: Because I was arrested on the very same day. As I was going with the police we stopped there at - what I saw is a truck standing there with clothes which were outside and they were loading the clothes on that truck. That is what I saw.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Was the house still intact then or was it burnt already?

MR RAMABULANA: There were people who were destroying it.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Burning it?

MR RAMABULANA: No, they were removing the corrugated iron and they were loading them in the truck.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. You are excused.

MR NDOU: I now call Mr Matshisevhe.

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

MR MATSHISEVHE: Venda.

MALUTA SIMON MATSHISEVHE: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR NDOU: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

Mr Matshisevhe, you are applying for amnesty. When were you born?

MR MATSHISEVHE: I was born on the 24th September 1968.

MR NDOU: Yes, you filed an affidavit with the Committee. Have you read the affidavit?

MR MATSHISEVHE: Yes I know it.

MR NDOU: And do you confirm that that is your evidence?

MR MATSHISEVHE: Yes I confirm.

MR NDOU: Now could you explain to the Committee, we've already heard from the previous applicants that the deceased was attacked on a particular day. Now what role did you play on that particular day?

MR MATSHISEVHE: I will start my evidence from the meeting when these things started from the dam. When we left the dam the decision was already taken that we are going to the home of the deceased to tell him to leave the village. On our arrival we met the deceased with two men, two other men. It's then that the deceased went back to the yard and then he came back holding two bush knives and seemed to be intending to fight us.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou, is this applicant another one of the deceased's grandnephews?

MR MATSHISEVHE: I can't remember, but they're fairly closely related altogether.

CHAIRPERSON: Because 24 it says that ...(intervention)

MR NDOU: Paragraph?

CHAIRPERSON: 24, page 33(d), that the deceased was his grandfather's younger brother?

MR NDOU: I think page 24 relates to the previous applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm talking about 33(d)

MR NDOU: 33(d)? What paragraph was that?

CHAIRPERSON: 24.

MR NDOU: I think there's a problem with the number.

JUDGE DE JAGER: (d), not (b).

MR NDOU: It seems like we've got a similar problem. Yes, unfortunately I got him to look at the affidavit and he pointed back and said well there's not problem with it, Chairperson.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Carry on.

MR NDOU: Let me just try to establish from him. Are you i any way connected to the deceased?

MR MATSHISEVHE: Yes.

MR NDOU: What is the deceased to you?

MR MATSHISEVHE: It's my uncle.

MR NDOU: Okay, in fact it appears that that paragraph 24 belongs to the previous applicant's affidavit so may we apply that that be expunged from the affidavit? Thank you.

Okay, now I've asked you as to what role you played on the day in question in the killing of the deceased?

MR MATSHISEVHE: On arriving at the deceased's home, seeing that he was about to fight us, then we threw stones at the deceased and then the deceased went back and then I saw him standing behind the house. It's then that we started to assault him and then he jumped the fence and then he went to the home of his younger brother and then we were storming him and I was so close, I was also pelting him with stones and then we went to another yard. On our arrival to the third yard and then I assaulted the deceased with a stone at the back and then he fell down. It's then that this Buti poured petrol on the deceased and then he was lighted by this Buti.

MR NDOU: I see. On page 19 of your application, paragraph 9(a), you indicate that, this is what you say:

What did you mean by that?

MR MATSHISEVHE: Of the stones I was throwing of course there was one stone which hit him.

MR NDOU: No, but in your paragraph 9(a) you say you did nothing but it is said that "I threw stones", did you throw stones or not?

MR MATSHISEVHE: I threw stones.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you say you didn't?

MR MATSHISEVHE: I think that is a mistake.

CHAIRPERSON: How can it be a mistake? What kind of a mistake is it? You clearly say you did not do anything but it is said you threw stones?

MR MATSHISEVHE: Yes, the truth is that I did throw stones.

CHAIRPERSON: I know, we're not talking about the truth now, we're talking about what's contained in your application? Have you got any explanation? Isn't it true ...(intervention)

MR MATSHISEVHE: In my affidavit I wrote that I threw stones.

CHAIRPERSON: You're avoiding the question. Answer the question. I'm not stupid, I can read what you said in your affidavit. I'm asking what you meant as your advocate has asked what you meant in your application, you said you did nothing but it's said that you threw stones?

MR MATSHISEVHE: No, I'm unable to understand this but what I wrote is this that I did throw stones.

CHAIRPERSON: You are unable to understand what I'm asking you, is that what you're saying?

MR MATSHISEVHE: Yes I may be unable to understand that, I won't deny that.

CHAIRPERSON: Look at your application, paragraph 9(a). Can you read it? It says:

Now that is there, it can't be misunderstood. Now I'm asking why did you say that in your application? Which part of that question don't you understand?

JUDGE DE JAGER: Perhaps to make it easier, why did you lie in your application?

MR MATSHISEVHE: What I wrote in my affidavit, so now I'm unable to understand that but I think that I wrote that I threw stones, that was part of what I included in my application.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma, have you got his original application with you?

MR MAPOMA: No I do not have, Chairperson, but yes I can just say I don't have it. We'll have to find out from Cape Town office.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you fill in the application yourself?

MR MATSHISEVHE: Yes we did write this thing and hand it to our legal advisor.

CHAIRPERSON: What language did you use when you filled it in?

MR MATSHISEVHE: I used Venda.

CHAIRPERSON: And can you remember what you said, what you wrote there when you filled it in, that paragraph, when you were asked for what acts are you applying?

MR MATSHISEVHE: I think I wrote relating the whole story what happened there.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on Mr Ndou.

MR NDOU: Apart from throwing stones did you do anything else at the scene?

MR MATSHISEVHE: Yes, after - in fact no, after throwing stones there's nothing which I did after that.

MR NDOU: That is all.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MUSHASHA: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

Do you know the woman sitting next to me on my right?

MR MATSHISEVHE: Yes I know her.

MR MUSHASHA: She says she saw you throwing stones during this incident. She also saw you participating in the burning of the house. What do you say?

MR MATSHISEVHE: I disagree with that.

MR MUSHASHA: Who is Buti?

CHAIRPERSON: Before you carry on, what does she mean by participating in the burning of the house? Any specific act that he committed?

MR MUSHASHA: Can I establish precisely what she means?

CHAIRPERSON: Because it may be by common purpose.

MR MUSHASHA: She will say that when she says you participated in the burning of the house you were the one who was collecting the clothes altogether and Chikudo set them alight.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Sorry, before answering could we have that clear? He collected the clothes. Was the clothes used to set alight the house or what, was the clothes a separate item being burnt separately and the house lit by somebody separately? Could we have clarify about that?

MR MUSHASHA: As it pleases the Chairperson. I'll again try and get clarity on that. May I Mr Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

MR MUSHASHA: Indeed so Mr Chairperson, but ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Proceed, we're not going to argue.

MR MUSHASHA: Mr Chairperson, it's not easy, not easy to get clarity on this point but what I gather from the ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Okay put what you ...(inaudible) to the witness.

MR MUSHASHA: That's right.

She saw you putting together the clothes after which Chikudo set him alight and because you entered the house of the deceased after she saw it ablaze, she presumed that you participated in the burning of the house?

CHAIRPERSON: Well there you have the answer, he says he didn't?

MR MUSHASHA: I wanted just to complete that question.

Now this Buti, is Buti one and the same person as Tambani?

MR MATSHISEVHE: Yes it is.

MR MUSHASHA: Why did you decide to kill the deceased?

MR MATSHISEVHE: It is because the deceased was associated with the witchcraft activities.

MR MUSHASHA: And if the deceased was a wizard, how would that be connected with the political climate of the day?

MR MATSHISEVHE: Well there is connection because the deceased was a member of the council, the tribal council in the local area and as such, as far as we were concerned we deemed it fit to link the two things, political issues and the tribal council issues.

MR MUSHASHA: My instructions are that you did not kill the deceased for purposes of any political gain but now you did so out of sheer jealousy and maybe to settle old scores with him?

CHAIRPERSON: Is that true?

MR MATSHISEVHE: No, surely that is not true.

CHAIRPERSON: Any more questions?

MR MAPOMA: No further questions Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: I've no questions Chairperson.

MR NDOU: Nothing further Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you're excused.

MR NDOU: I now call the last applicant in this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mammburu, what language would you like to talk?

MR MAMMBURU: Venda.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you any objections to the taking of the oath?

ASAPH MAMMBURU: No. (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR NDOU: Thank you.

Mr Mammburu, you've made an application for amnesty. When were you born?

MR MAMMBURU: I was born on 14 September 1972.

MR NDOU: Now you filed an affidavit. Have you read the affidavit?

MR MAMMBURU: Yes I have.

MR NDOU: Do you confirm that that affidavit is your evidence or is there anything in the affidavit which you don't agree with?

MR MAMMBURU: I do with everything there.

MR NDOU: Now we've heard from your previous co-applicants that the deceased was killed on the 4 March. Now what I want you to explain to the Committee is the role that you played on the day in question, as to how it came about that you killed the deceased?

MR MAMMBURU: On the 6th March 1990, there was a meeting at the dam.

CHAIRPERSON: Is this applicant making application in respect of the murder of Mr Mavhandu?

MR NDOU: That is so.

CHAIRPERSON: His affidavit starts at 6(a), is that not so? This applicant's affidavit commences on page 6(a) of the bundle.

MR NDOU: That is so, that is so.

CHAIRPERSON: Where in this affidavit does he explain the issue or the event leading to the death of Mr Mavhandu?

MR NDOU: It's on paragraph 23, the names Kopi Ndwedo to read Mavhandu.

CHAIRPERSON: You know Mr Ndou, I've not entitled, I don't think anyone is entitled to change an affidavit. How do we do this? He has now applied for what occurred at Kopi Ndwedo's kraal?

MR NDOU: If one looks from page 24, the event that he relates or related to what happened - the event that he relates to are the events that occurred at Mavhandu's kraal. Apparently it's just the mistake of the name, Kopi Ndwedo.

CHAIRPERSON: No.

ADV SIGODI: Are there not two incidents here? One, Kopi Ndwedo's kraal where they left and then he goes onto paragraph 28, one gets the impression that he is referring to another incident and says:

because the incident referred to in Kopi Ndwedo's kraal occurred on the 4th March. It's definitely not Kopi Ndwedo's - I mean the incident we are referring to now. Then he goes on to mention the incident on the 6th March but he doesn't mention the deceased by name?

MR NDOU: Yes, I now see what the problem is. What happened was there was a prior incident whereat the group proceeded to one of the suspect's kraals. The didn't find the suspect and burnt the kraal and then the incident at Mavhandu's happened on a different day.

CHAIRPERSON: The point I'm making, that in his affidavit he doesn't say he killed Mr Mavhandu?

MR NDOU: Yes I agree Chairperson.

Now in respect of who are you applying for amnesty and in respect of which incidents?

MR MAMMBURU: In respect of the March incident, the evening when we burnt Mavhando's house or kraal.

CHAIRPERSON: You're saying you're applying for the incident where Ndwedo's kraal was burnt?

MR MAMMBURU: What we damaged at Mavhando's place. In as far as Ndwedo's case was concerned, we were not reported.

CHAIRPERSON: Now for which incident are you applying for amnesty then? Why are you here today?

MR MAMMBURU: It's about Mavhandu's case, that's why I was arrested.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on Mr Ndou.

MR NDOU: Now what did you do at Mavhandu's kraal?

MR MAMMBURU: On arriving there, we met Mr Mavhandu on his way out with another man. When he saw us coming he ran back to his house and came back with a big panga and he went via the other back door and he approached we tried to really defend ourselves because he was running towards us and then he also ran because we wanted to defend ourselves and we were trying to stone him until he fell down. After falling we poured petrol on him and Dambani lit and as he was burning Justice Ramabulana came with a big stick and hit him on his head.

JUDGE DE JAGER: ...(inaudible) axe.

MR MAMMBURU: I suspect it's a pick.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Not a big stick, okay. Thank you.

MR MAMMBURU: Well what did you do? What did you yourself do?

MR MAMMBURU: I was throwing stones to the deceased.

MR NDOU: Throwing stones? Did you do anything else?

MR MAMMBURU: When he had fallen, I just stood there watching, then I left. I left for home. Nothing else that I did.

MR NDOU: In your application on paragraph 9(a) you indicate that you threw stones at the deceased and chased him, is that so?

MR MAMMBURU: Yes it is true.

MR NDOU: Did the house of - was the house of the deceased set alight?

MR MAMMBURU: I was arrested on the same day. The van took us to the deceased's kraal and we saw a big truck, there were other people on top of the roof who were just removing the zinc and stuff like that.

MR NDOU: Was the deceased doused and set alight?

MR MAMMBURU: He had already been burnt down. We went to the deceased's place at around two, the van took us there.

MR NDOU: Are you saying that you did not see who doused the deceased with petrol and set him alight?

MR MAMMBURU: I saw Albert doing that.

MR NDOU: My previous question now is, was the house of the deceased set alight?

MR MAMMBURU: No, the house was not set alight.

MR NDOU: Why did you kill the deceased?

MR MAMMBURU: The community was associating the deceased with witchcraft.

MR NDOU: I'm talking about you, why did you decide to kill the deceased?

MR MAMMBURU: We heard that he was a witch.

MR NDOU: And if he was a wizard, what did that have, according to you, to do with the political situation of the day?

MR MAMMBURU: He was used to the government officials who were in cabinet posts or ministries.

MR NDOU: And then what about that, what was wrong in that?

MR MAMMBURU: He used to give the higher officials medicines associated with witchcraft.

MR NDOU: Didn't you want the deceased to be driven away from the area instead of killing him?

MR MAMMBURU: Yes he was told that he should go to the other area. Well other people moved but he could not relocate. When we went to kill him we told him the same but then he came out with the pangas instead.

MR NDOU: Now how do you now feel about what you have done on the deceased?

MR MAMMBURU: I know I'm wrong on having done that, I was not supposed to have done that.

MR NDOU: I've no further questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Why do you feel it was wrong at the time?

MR MAMMBURU: It is wrong to kill somebody, it's a problematic situation.

CHAIRPERSON: You felt it right that time?

MR MAMMBURU: At the time during the '90s it was conducive because the whole country was in that spirit.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: I have no questions, thank you.

MR MUSHASHA: None Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. You are excused.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that all Mr Ndou?

MR NDOU: That is so, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got any witnesses?

MR MUSHASHA: Yes, yes Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: How many?

MR MUSHASHA: I've got one, one witness. May I call Marindela Chichi Flora Mavhandu, the deceased's wife?

CHAIRPERSON: Mrs Mavhandu, what language would you wish to use?

MRS MAVHANDU: Venda.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you objections to the taking of the oath?

MARINDELA CHICHI FLORA MAVHANDU: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR MUSHASHA: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

Mrs Mavhandu, is it true that you are the deceased's wife?

MRS MAVHANDU: Yes.

MR MUSHASHA: Do you know the applicants in this matter who are, to start with ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: She's seen all the applicants.

MRS MAVHANDU: Yes, I've seen all the applicants

MR MUSHASHA: You have also heard what they've testified about before this Committee?

MRS MAVHANDU: I believe they didn't say it all.

MR MUSHASHA: Were you present when the deceased was killed?

MRS MAVHANDU: When they arrived I was seated with my deceased husband and other members of the family who were three, on their arrival. Just when they arrived Chiko, that was the first person to start working on that.

MR MUSHASHA: Just slow down please? Let's start with the first applicant in this matter and that is Kudzingana. You heard what he said? He says what he did was only to throw stones at the deceased. Is that the only deed according to you? Is that all he did unto the deceased according to you?

CHAIRPERSON: Did she not say yes?

MR MUSHASHA: I did not get the answer, Mr Chairperson.

INTERPRETER: I'm sorry, we are trying to relate to one another that she shall wait for you to finish.

JUDGE DE JAGER: The first person who gave evidence was Mr Kudzingana. He gave evidence at the previous hearing.

MRS MAVHANDU: Yes we believe that he didn't say it all.

JUDGE DE JAGER: What didn't he say?

MRS MAVHANDU: He didn't mention that he chopped him with the big panga and the fact that the deceased was using this medicine, it seemed to be very much untrue.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know Mr Ramabulana? He is also an applicant?

MRS MAVHANDU: Yes I know Mr Ramabulana.

CHAIRPERSON: He admits to hitting the deceased with this pick.

MRS MAVHANDU: Yes it is true that he hit him with a pick.

CHAIRPERSON: No, isn't it him rather than Mr Kudzingana that did that?

MRS MAVHANDU: Mr Kudzingana did not mention anything about the big panga that was used on the deceased.

MR MUSHASHA: Right, let's come now to Mudzwiri. Mudzwiri told this Committee that what he did was only to throw stones at the deceased. Is that all he did according to you?

MRS MAVHANDU: He also used petrol, he poured petrol on the deceased.

MR MUSHASHA: Did you see him do it?

MRS MAVHANDU: Yes I was present during the time I saw that.

MR MUSHASHA: Ramabulana testified before us that he used a pick to chop the deceased. Was that all he did at your husband's ...(indistinct).

MRS MAVHANDU: He also went to the house and burnt it.

MR MUSHASHA: Did you see him do it?

MRS MAVHANDU: Yes, I was just behind the house, I saw that happen.

MR MUSHASHA: Matshisevhe told this Committee that what he did was only to throw stones at the deceased. Was that all he did according to you?

MRS MAVHANDU: No, that is not all because he even went to the house and took the school books and used those in bedding the house and the deceased.

JUDGE DE JAGER: He took the school books and the bedding? He took the school books and what else?

MRS MAVHANDU: The bed and everything that was in the room, there was nothing left in the room.

MR MUSHASHA: And Mammburu, the last applicant?

JUDGE DE JAGER: Let's finish this please? What did he do with those things?

MRS MAVHANDU: Mammburu, hit ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: No, sorry, sorry. Could we get back to Mr Matshisevhe. You said he took the school books and the other things in the house. Now what did he do with the school books and the other things?

MRS MAVHANDU: They all got burnt. He burnt them down.

MR MUSHASHA: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

Mr Mammburu, did he disclose all that which he did according to you?

MRS MAVHANDU: Now because he says that he left the room, he went back to my room. Yes they were about to burn my room or my house.

MR MUSHASHA: Did you see him do that?

MRS MAVHANDU: Yes I was present, I saw everything.

MR MUSHASHA: Is there any other thing which all these applicants did not disclose to the Committee?

MRS MAVHANDU: You mean what they omitted?

MR MUSHASHA: Yes.

MRS MAVHANDU: They are saying they didn't burn the house, the kraal or the room. That's something that is a serious omission.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mushasha, during cross-examination of one of the applicants, it seems that the victim assumed that that particular applicant was the cause of the fire of the house. Which applicant was that?

MR MUSHASHA: It was Ramabulana.

MRS MAVHANDU: Are you referring to Mr Ramabulana?

CHAIRPERSON: I'm asking. I think it was Ramabulana, yes.

I want to ask the lady, do you recall that when Mr Ramabulana was giving evidence, I asked you why do you say that he caused the fire and you said you saw him go in and therefore you assumed he went into the house and therefore you ...(intervention)

MRS MAVHANDU: He killed him thinking that he was the - the deceased was a wizard.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, listen to me. You're talking too fast. I'm not trying to trap you out, nothing of the sort, I'm trying to get the truth. I've just been corrected, it's Matshisevhe. When he was testifying it was put to him that he caused the fire of the house. Upon further questioning it seemed that your advocate's instructions from you was based on an assumption because you saw him enter the house and therefore you concluded that he started the fire. Do you recall that?

MRS MAVHANDU: Chiko though is the one who started the fire, he is the one who used the match box.

MR MUSHASHA: That's not what your counsel put to you. Do you follow what I'm saying? Now you're coming to tell us all these people started the fire?

MRS MAVHANDU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Now did you see that all of them started this fire?

MRS MAVHANDU: Yes because Matshisevhe went to the other side and they were burning. I was just next to the window and this young lady came and she had enquiries as to why I was crying.

CHAIRPERSON: I see. Can I get some clarity from you. Are you saying they all caused the fire because they attacked the house? I can understand that that is a acceptable conclusion?

MRS MAVHANDU: Yes, they were destroying in the house.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on Mr Mushasha.

MR MUSHASHA: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

Is it true that your husband was a wizard?

MRS MAVHANDU: He could not have been a wizard, I even have seven children with him and nobody ever said he was a wizard.

CHAIRPERSON: Was he ever asked to your knowledge to leave the vicinity?

MRS MAVHANDU: Nobody asked him to leave or relocate.

MR MUSHASHA: Was he member of the local council, local tribal council?

MRS MAVHANDU: No, he was just workaholic person, painting, welding and that's exactly what he used to do. He did not have go to any other place except doing his job.

MR MUSHASHA: Was he the supporter of the family?

CHAIRPERSON: Did you tell your advocate that he was never a member of this council?

MRS MAVHANDU: No, he was not a member.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you tell your advocate that? You heard everybody say that he was a member of this council, in some way connected to the government.

MRS MAVHANDU: No, that is not true at all.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you tell your advocate that?

MRS MAVHANDU: Yes I did.

CHAIRPERSON: I see. Yes, carry on?

MR MUSHASHA: Was he a supporter of the then government?

MRS MAVHANDU: No, he didn't used to support the government of the time.

MR MUSHASHA: Why do you think the applicants killed him?

MRS MAVHANDU: There were much jealous because he used to do welding, ...(indistinct) and so many other things that contributed to the community. It was pure jealousy.

MR MUSHASHA: What happened to the house belonging to the deceased which was set alight?

MRS MAVHANDU: They burnt the house including all the goods, the contents in the house.

MR MUSHASHA: What I want to get from you is whether the house was burnt down or not?

MRS MAVHANDU: No, it was just partly burnt and after I had gone to the place I relocated to, there was a car or a truck which was sent to remove some of the remnants of the house.

MR MUSHASHA: Are you still living that house at the ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Was it the same day that this truck came?

MRS MAVHANDU: No, it didn't come the same day. Well it lasted for so long and that was before we removed anything including that the windows that the deceased was working on. After the burial and that was then that the remaining contents were taken away.

MR MUSHASHA: Are you still living in that same house?

MRS MAVHANDU: No, I'm homeless. I'm just staying with my child in Biaba, I'm just ...(indistinct) up to now.

MR MUSHASHA: How far is this Biaba from your home?

MRS MAVHANDU: Yes I used to be at Sintamule Inturi, it's quite a distance.

MR MUSHASHA: What is your attitude towards the application by all the applicants, are you prepared to forgive them?

MRS MAVHANDU: Never shall I forgive these people. Nor the relatives and the children will do that because up to now it contributed to my being homeless. There's nothing that I can do to forgive them.

MR MUSHASHA: Do you have any other thing to inform the Committee about?

MRS MAVHANDU: No, I'm just repeating that I don't have any preparedness for forgiveness at all.

MR MUSHASHA: No further questions Mr Chairperson, thank you.

MRS MAVHANDU: I'm repeating again that I do not want to forgive anybody because I'm homeless.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you have any children from the deceased?

MRS MAVHANDU: Seven children I had with the deceased.

CHAIRPERSON: How old are - well, Mr Mushasha, have you got a list of those children?

MR MUSHASHA: May it please the court, yes I have the list.

CHAIRPERSON: And their names and ages and addresses?

MR MUSHASHA: Yes, I'll submit the list hereafter.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Mapoma, have you got any questions?

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, I thought perhaps after.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou, have you got any?

NO QUESTIONS BY MR NDOU:

MR MAPOMA: I have no questions, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You're excused.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got that list Mr Mushasha?

MR MUSHASHA: Not with me now, my attorney has the list.

CHAIRPERSON: Where is he?

MR MUSHASHA: He should be outside. I'll find out.

CHAIRPERSON: I need that list today. Now.

MR MUSHASHA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Shall we take the tea break?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mushasha, is that all?

MR MUSHASHA: That is so, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And Mr Mapoma, have you got any witnesses to call?

MR MAPOMA: I've no witnesses to call.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the end of the evidence?

MR MAPOMA: That's the end of the matter yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mushasha, are there any submissions you want to make?

MR MUSHASHA IN ARGUMENT: Just in brief, Mr Chairperson, it is my submission that all the applicants from the point of view of my instructions has not made a full disclosure.

Secondly, it is my submission that all the applicants did not establish any link between their actions and the political situation of the day and in view of all that deficiencies in their applications, I wish to persuade this Committee not to grant them the amnesty applied for. That is all.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mushasha, tell me, who is your attorney?

MR MUSHASHA: Initially the brief in the last hearing came from Matotsi, that's Fanele Matotsi, my attorney and as for now I think we were both briefed by - I'm not so sure about Mr Matotsi, but I was briefed by the legal aid but he is also in the list as representative of the victims.

CHAIRPERSON: The last time he was not present as well, isn't it?

MR MUSHASHA: Last time he came and sat for a short time and left and I remained during the business.

CHAIRPERSON: And he hasn't returned since?

MR MUSHASHA: I saw him the day before yesterday, he was speaking to Mr Mapoma.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, but as far as you're concerned he never came to assist you since that first appearing?

MR MUSHASHA: As far as I'm concerned with regard to this appearance on legal aid he's not to assist me.

CHAIRPERSON: But he wasn't here?

MR MUSHASHA: I saw him in this room.

CHAIRPERSON: Today?

MR MUSHASHA: No, no, not today.

CHAIRPERSON: Yesterday?

MR MUSHASHA: No, the day before yesterday.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma, what is the position?

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, from the point of view of the TRC, administered legal aid to the person who was instructed to be appointed to act for the victims is Advocate Mushasha, we do not have any attorney on the record of the TRC. But I understand he was here on Monday and pointed out to me that the victims are his clients and the person who was acting was Advocate Mushasha but as I know the TRC instructs one legal representative per incident.

CHAIRPERSON: What was he doing here Monday, he never appeared here, did he?

MR MAPOMA: No, he did not appear Chairperson, it was before the hearings could start on that Monday when he ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: He just came to inform you that these victims were his clients?

MR MAPOMA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes well except for the short period in which he appeared, I'm not too sure for whom, during an earlier appearance I wish to point out that he never attended the hearing since.

MR MAPOMA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: He was on record, he was not before us and consequently, if and to the extent that he should claims fees for attendance, he's not entitled to do so for those periods for which he was not here.

MR MAPOMA: I agree Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma, will you keep an eye on that please?

MR MAPOMA: Yes certainly I will do that, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: That's the end of the hearing in respect of that application.

MR MUSHASHA: Maybe I can take this opportunity to mention that I have the list which I've just compiled now. The other list which was initially compiled is with the attorney. Now I've just compiled another list quickly and then also in respect of the other matter which we dealt with on Monday, the list was not properly done but I'm finalising it, submit it as soon as possible.

CHAIRPERSON: You know Mr Mushasha, I don't know why there is a delay in these things. It takes you two days to submit the list and it's not completed yet? I can't understand it? I'm not going to tolerate that in future. Once there's an undertaking to do it, in fact it should be done before you start the hearing because that, the question of victims, is an integral part of the Act, that is one of the main reasons that you're appointed, to see to the interests of the victims. But be that as it may, when can I have that list?

MR MUSHASHA: I undertake to submit the list before 1 o'clock, before lunch hour.

CHAIRPERSON: The other one that you mention, completed already?

MR MUSHASHA: It's ready, it's ready but it's not typed, it's simply handwritten.

CHAIRPERSON: So will you hand in both lists by 1 o'clock?

MR MUSHASHA: May it please the Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Today?

MR MUSHASHA: Today. Thank you.

_____________________________________________________CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma, what matter have we got next?

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, it is incident number 8. The applicant is Azwinndini Cedric Mulovhedzi. Mr van Rensburg is acting for the victims in that matter and Mr Ndou for the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg, there's a matter of a list of names and addresses of victims in a previous matter. Is that ready?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Perhaps you can just enlighten me specifically which one we're talking about?

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know why you're under the impression that I'm supposed to collect the list from you? Maybe it's not you?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I wasn't requested for a list. As far as I can remember we have given the information and postal addresses verbally.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mulovhedzi, what language would you want to use?

MR MULOVHEDZI: Venda.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you any objections to the taking of the oath?

AZWINNDINI CEDRIC MULOVHEDZI: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR NDOU: Thank you Mr Chairperson, Honourable Members. Mr Mulovhedzi, you've made an application for amnesty. When were you born?

MR MULOVHEDZI: On the 10th October 1963.

MR NDOU: Now you're presently serving a prison sentence of 23 years in respect of the death of Selina Ralulimi, the attempted murder of Khwatheleni Nemadandila and the arson at Selina Ralulimi's kraal as well as assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm on Frans Mafulane and also one of arson on his kraal. Is that correct?

MR MULOVHEDZI: Yes that is correct.

MR NDOU: Now can you explain to the Committee as to how it came about that you committed these offences?

CHAIRPERSON: Tell us what he's applying for?

MR MULOVHEDZI: I'm asking for amnesty in respect to assault, arson and attempted murder. I assaulted Mafulane.

CHAIRPERSON: Spell.

MR MULOVHEDZI: M-A-F-U-L-A-N-E.

CHAIRPERSON: That's assault and then?

MR MULOVHEDZI: And arson, I burnt his houses.

CHAIRPERSON: Whose houses?

MR MULOVHEDZI: The houses belonging to Mafulane.

CHAIRPERSON: How many of them?

MR MULOVHEDZI: I think three of them if I still remember well.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, what else?

MR MULOVHEDZI: And attempted murder.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR MULOVHEDZI: And arson again.

CHAIRPERSON: Attempted murder of you?

MR MULOVHEDZI: Khwatheleni Nemandandila.

CHAIRPERSON: Spell please?

MR MULOVHEDZI: K for Khwatheleni and then the surname is

N-E-M-A-D-A-N-D-I-L-A.

CHAIRPERSON: Nemadandile?

MR MULOVHEDZI: Nemandandila - L-A.

CHAIRPERSON: L-A, okay. Attempted murder of that person and what else?

MR MULOVHEDZI: And murder.

CHAIRPERSON: You said another arson, in respect of what?

MR MULOVHEDZI: It's here in the home of Khwatheleni Nemadandila.

CHAIRPERSON: Only one building?

MR MULOVHEDZI: Two rondawels.

CHAIRPERSON: Anything else? You said murder?

MR MULOVHEDZI: Yes, including murder.

CHAIRPERSON: Of whom?

MR MULOVHEDZI: Selina Ralulimi.

CHAIRPERSON: Spell that?

MR MULOVHEDZI: S for Selina and then the surname is

R-A-L-U-L-I-M-I.

CHAIRPERSON: So it's assault, arson of 3 rondawels, Mafulane's house, attempted murder, arson of a home, two rondawels of Nemadandila, then the murder of Selina Ralulimi?

Okay, proceed.

MR NDOU: How did it come about that you committed these offences?

MR MULOVHEDZI: In 1990 ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: How many - what about arson, are you not making application for arson in respect of Selina's house?

MR MULOVHEDZI: Yes, it's in the same household.

MR MUSHASHA: Excuse me Chairperson, I note that he makes no mention of murder of Ms Dianeche Vumbe, I don't know what the position is regarding that one?

MR NDOU: He was never at the scene of that murder. In fact his co-applicant, Mamelodi who withdrew the application was the one who was involved in the other murder.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you satisfied that he has covered everything?

MR NDOU: Yes, I'm quite satisfied.

Now how did it come about that you committed all these offences?

MR MULOVHEDZI: This came about after a meeting that we held discussing the witches in the community who had to be removed. During that meeting the community people were invited and they gathered at the kraal. On enquiry we realised that Mr Mafulane admitted that he was a wizard. On admission he also did not want to relocate because he was not the only one who was involved in witchcraft. Therefore he mentioned some of the co-witchcraft practising people, the meeting adjourned and people dispersed. After deciding that the other people who were mentioned by Mafulane should be invited.

CHAIRPERSON: Tell me, did you know Sharon Masinga?

MR MULOVHEDZI: I've heard about her.

CHAIRPERSON: And James Mavena?

MR MULOVHEDZI: I also heard about him.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MR MULOVHEDZI: After that it was decided that another meeting shall ensue. On the following week the meeting was held. It was on the 4th February and the community people were invited as before. As we had gathered there, police vans arrived. There were so many police people who dispersed us because they didn't want us to have a meeting. We then dispersed after which before arriving at our respective houses and homes we decided to have another meeting in the evening. Of all the people who were involved, elderly people, we agreed that it was going to be a joint meeting between elderly people and young people. It was not particularly in a group, it was on individual basis. We could not tell every other person.

After that we had a meeting in the evening. The chairperson that day was Mr Sediki, we resolved that or decided that the alleged witchcraft participating people should be relocated or removed and they had to be killed. We decided on that. We went past another house, I can't recall vividly, we were discussing about the witchcraft participating people.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but what was decided about them?

MR MULOVHEDZI: We said that seeing that police people did not want us to hold meetings in order to solve the problems around the community, we had to eliminate the people who were participating in witchcraft because the government of the day seemed to be in support of those people.

CHAIRPERSON: Which people was to be eliminated?

MR MULOVHEDZI: Mr Masithi.

CHAIRPERSON: Why? Why were those people meant to be eliminated?

MR MULOVHEDZI: Because they were the ones who were pointed by Mr Mafulane who confirmed that he could not move along because there were other people who were practising such. That is why Mr Mafulane said that Mr Masithi, Mr Ralulimi and Mr Mbatabata were also involved and there were several other people whom I cannot remember.

CHAIRPERSON: Let me just understand you nicely, are you saying that this decision at this meeting was to eliminate those practising witchcraft who refused to move from the area?

MR MULOVHEDZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And that was a decision at the meeting?

MR MULOVHEDZI: Yes, that was the decision at the meeting.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR NDOU: Yes, you can proceed?

MR MULOVHEDZI: We then dispersed. We asked for petrol in a certain household, I can't remember which household. They gave us petrol and we also picked some sticks and went to the other side. As we were standing there we were deciding on the targetted houses because there were several houses, so we had to sub-divide ourselves. I was leading the other group which went to the house concerned.

On arriving there at Mafulane's household I went in and the other people went to the other household, differently.

CHAIRPERSON: How big was the group that you went with?

MR MULOVHEDZI: Approximately 600 to 700 people.

CHAIRPERSON: Your small group that went to look. Who were elected and nominated to go to ...(intervention)

MR MULOVHEDZI: My group had almost 200 people.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR MULOVHEDZI: At arriving at Mafulane's household I knocked. After knocking they did not want to come out. I took out the matchbox and lit. As the other people were knocking the owner was forced to come out. When he came out the people were already waiting for him and they were beginning to just attack him or assault him. I was already next to the person, I was also beating or assaulting, using sticks and he escaped. After escaping, he went behind the house or behind the field. He disappeared and we could not see where he went to.

CHAIRPERSON: How did you beat him?

MR MULOVHEDZI: I was using the stick, beating him on the back but I don't know what really happened as to the escape of the men as we do not know how it happened that he managed to escape because I was also there, I was also beating. And then he went for good and disappeared.

JUDGE DE JAGER: You've never seen him since?

MR MULOVHEDZI: Could you repeat the question please?

JUDGE DE JAGER: Have you ever seen him since, is he still alive or what happened to him?

MR MULOVHEDZI: No, we didn't kill this person, I eventually met the person in court after I had been arrested.

JUDGE DE JAGER: So he was back in court again, is that right? Mr Mafulane?

MR MULOVHEDZI: Yes I saw him court because we didn't find him.

JUDGE DE JAGER: So he wasn't killed and he escaped amongst the 200 of you, you couldn't hold him?

MR MULOVHEDZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Tell me, when you went there to him you intended to kill him?

MR MULOVHEDZI: Yes we intended to kill him.

CHAIRPERSON: So really what you've applying for in respect of Mafulane's matter is attempted murder?

MR MULOVHEDZI: Yes but precisely I was charged for assault.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm not talking about what you were charged for.

MR MULOVHEDZI: Okay. Yes, exactly, it's as you've mentioned.

CHAIRPERSON: When did that occur, what date, do you remember?

MR MULOVHEDZI: On the 4th February.

CHAIRPERSON: 19..?

MR MULOVHEDZI: 1990.

CHAIRPERSON: Good. Okay?

MR NDOU: Yes, you can proceed?

MR MULOVHEDZI: On completion, after his disappearance, as we had decided with the other groups on completion we had to reconvene on the ground. The group that I was leading went straight to the ground. However, there were not so many people who reappeared and we decided to make sure that everybody doesn't have to sleep at home because it was likely that the police may arrive because a lot of police vans were moving up and down.

After that we were arrested eventually. It was after several months that I was arrested, I can't remember how many months.

MR NDOU: Yes that's find, then what happened?

MR MULOVHEDZI: As I was working in town when one time I was at home, after arriving home, I was talking to my other friends, I delayed arriving at home and on arrival around 10, I can't know exactly what time, I saw somebody was naked at the gate. I watched as I was driving. When I reversed, my car was on bright, and that person disappeared. After I'd seen who the person was. That person was at the house where the person was staying because it was next to my place.

MR NDOU: And when was that?

MR MULOVHEDZI: That was 1993.

MR NDOU: And at that stage had you already finalised your first murder when you were arrested for the incident at Mafulane's kraal?

MR MULOVHEDZI: No, I was still awaiting trial.

MR NDOU: I see and then when you saw this figure?

MR MULOVHEDZI: I reversed my car. On reversing I saw the person up to the stage where the person went to the house. I was just not so far when I decided to, seeing that I realised that it was a personal attack and I was a leader of Mpego's community, seeing the idea was to bewitch me because I was a leader. When I was discussing with my friends as to what could be done, I told them that we had to eliminate the person. That is when we decided to ask for petrol and when we went back to the meeting place, the other people were out of their household, they did not want to get in. They did not want to get through the household but I told them to watch.

CHAIRPERSON: Tell me, why did you kill Selina?

MR MULOVHEDZI: It's because she was a witchcraft practising person, according to me.

CHAIRPERSON: Why was she a threat to you, what did she want to do, why did you kill her?

MR MULOVHEDZI: According to culture, African culture, we believe that if you meet somebody naked during the night, that person is deemed to be a witch. If you meet that person personally, nothing will prosper in your life, you are endangered because it may happen that at one time you may not explain what really happened as to ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: So you killed her for cultural reasons?

MR MULOVHEDZI: No.

CHAIRPERSON: You were scared because you met someone naked in your yard?

MR MULOVHEDZI: Yes because I know that a person in that situation is a witch or is a wizard.

CHAIRPERSON: And you feared that she will cast a spell on you?

MR MULOVHEDZI: Yes, truly speaking.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you also apply for the attempted murder of Mr Khwatheleni Nemadandila?

MR MULOVHEDZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that a man or a woman?

MR MULOVHEDZI: A woman. It's a woman.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you kill her? Sorry, why did you want to kill her?

MR MULOVHEDZI: It's because they were two arriving from the house after we had burnt the house then I could not identify who Selina was because they were following each other and then there was a narrow passage and I could not see clearly.

CHAIRPERSON: And so you killed the second one who turned out to be Khwatheleni Nemadandila?

MR MULOVHEDZI: Selina.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes you killed Selina and as I understand your evidence the other one was running away with Selina. You killed Selina and you attempted the other one because why?

MR MULOVHEDZI: Yes, truly it didn't happen that way.

JUDGE DE JAGER: You've mistaken the other one. You've first attacked her because you thought it was Selina, is that right?

MR MULOVHEDZI: Yes it is true.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Then you realised it wasn't Selina and you turned around and you got Selina and you killed her?

MR MULOVHEDZI: Yes it is true.

ADV SIGODI: And tell me, what was the relationship between this other person and Selina? What was the relationship between ...(intervention)

MR MULOVHEDZI: The other one was a child to Selina.

ADV SIGODI: Thank you.

MR NDOU: Yes, you can proceed?

MR MULOVHEDZI: I went in and the other people ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I'm confused now, what was this child's name?

MR MULOVHEDZI: Khwatheleni Nemadandila.

CHAIRPERSON: And you burnt two of her houses also, her rondawels?

MR MULOVHEDZI: Yes, it's the same household.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and in respect of murder of Selina you also make application for arson in the same household, so there are three rondawels that you burnt? No, two rondawels.

CHAIRPERSON: One each? One of Selina and one of?

MR MULOVHEDZI: The other one was used as a kitchen.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but it belonged to - who did it belong to?

MR MULOVHEDZI: It belonged to Selina, she's the owner of the household.

CHAIRPERSON: So in that incident where you attempted to kill Khwatheleni and where you did kill Selina, you also make application for arson in respect of two rondawels?

MR MULOVHEDZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Good, then I understand now. When did you burn those two houses or those two rondawels, at the same time?

MR MULOVHEDZI: Yes at the same time of killing Selina.

CHAIRPERSON: Tell me, when you stabbed her, that is Selina, did she have clothes on?

MR MULOVHEDZI: Just the underwear.

CHAIRPERSON: I see. As if she was sleeping and got up?

MR MULOVHEDZI: It means just that, just like that.

CHAIRPERSON: And you attempted to kill Khwatheleni by accident? By mistake?

MR MULOVHEDZI: Yes, just like that.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou, are there any other questions you've got?

MR NDOU: I do not wish to take this any further, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg, maybe you can confine your cross-examination, if you've got any, to Mafulane?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Regarding that specific incident, I have actually no questions, there's actually - may I just get some directions from you? On the previous bundle there was also an incident included, the murder of Mrs Masithi and now I see that it has not been included this ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: One of two things is the representative quite satisfied that he has covered all his applications? It may also be that Mrs Masithi's incident refer to the other applicant that was withdrawn. I'm not too sure what the correct position is but if this is what the man has applied for, then so be it.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Then I've got only one question then.

Mr Mulovhedzi, are you - have you ever been convicted of the murder of Mrs Masithi?

MR MULOVHEDZI: No, not me.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: I have no questions, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou?

MR NDOU: I have nothing further, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, you're excused.

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

MR VAN RENSBURG: No witnesses to call.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: No witnesses to call Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the evidence, Mr Ndou?

MR NDOU: That is the evidence, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got any submissions on this matter?

MR NDOU: No, Honourable Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we don't need the submissions of anybody else. Well that's the end of that matter.

_____________________________________________________CHAIRPERSON: The next matter?

MR NDOU: Would the Chairperson just bear with me? I just want to make sure that the two people are right here.

JUDGE DE JAGER: ...(inaudible) sitting next to you, is he concerned about the first incident of Mafulane or is he involved in the - as an interested person in the other matter of Selina?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Actually in none of the two, he was the son of the deceased in the matter Masithi that I've referred to. I've just had to explain to him why his case was not called and I explained to him that that relates to another applicant which application has been withdrawn. The other victim ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: He seems to be satisfied with that, yes.

Who do we proceed with now? Eleven? Mr Ndou, I just want to confirm, the applications of Mr Maseru and Mr Ntimane have been withdrawn?

MR NDOU: That is so.

CHAIRPERSON: Now we are left with the applications of Mr Magoro and Baloyi?

MR NDOU: Yes. It's Magoro and Baloyi.

CHAIRPERSON: Is this matter part heard?

MR NDOU: It is not part heard.

CHAIRPERSON: By the way it's the one ...(inaudible)

MR NDOU: Yes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Did you receive a report about Mr Baloyi?

MR NDOU: Like I indicated earlier on Honourable Chairperson and Members of the Committee, I had spoken to the doctor, Dr Tshabalala who was the district psychiatrist for the area but since he has left his job here, but this week when I spoke to Mr Baloyi, he indicated that he feels fine and he will be able to handle it. The only problem that we had is that he is still in prison and when we finish here he goes back to prison and then we cannot write his affidavit but when I spoke to him it seems like he'll be able to cope with the situation.

JUDGE DE JAGER: He is present here today?

MR NDOU: Yes he is present.

CHAIRPERSON: Who are you calling now?

MR NDOU: I'm calling Mr Magoro.

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

MR MAGORO: Venda.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you any objections to the taking of the oath?

MUTSHUTSHU SAMUEL MAGORO: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR NDOU: Thank you Chairperson.

Mr Magoro ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: There's an indictment on page 39 in respect of which offences is he applying for amnesty. Count one is the murder of Maduwa?

MR NDOU: That is correct.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Is he applying for amnesty?

MR NDOU: That is so.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Count two, is arson of a property, Maduwa's property. Count three, is arson to the property of Maimela. Count four, arson to the property of Thovhala. Count five, assault on Shua Mulimu and count six, assault and arson - no, and trying to burn with a tyre of Thovhala. Is he applying for all six?

MR NDOU: What he indicated to me was that he was applying for the murder of Maduwa and the arson committed at the kraals of Petrus Maimela, Thovhala and Maduwa as well, as set out in paragraph 5.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma, is this a lot to show, it should have been but have all these people been informed?

MR MAPOMA: You mean the applicants Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: The victims.

MR MAPOMA: I will have to verify that, Chairperson, regarding other persons other than Maduwa. The person I'm sure is relating to Maduwa.

CHAIRPERSON: You see, Mr Ndou, I'm not too sure whether he can apply for all of those things because on page 4 of his amnesty application, he makes application in terms of 9(a)i for murder and arson on the 21st March 1990, at Maduwa, and if you go to 9(c), there's the names of the victims, Nyamavholisa Maduwa, 37 Maduwa or 87 Maduwa, whatever and that's all he makes application for and therefore it is understandable that only those people would have been informed as victims. I don't know if you can now add applications to that?

MR NDOU: Thank you Chairperson. What happened was, when we adjourned in December, Mrs Patel asked me to draw up a full list of the victims, which I did and sent it through to her so that she could be able to get in touch with them.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I accept that but even if you mentioned those victims, the point of the matter is that the application doesn't include those others. Is that not so? Would you agree?

MR NDOU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So his application would be restricted to the murder of Mr Maduwa and arson in respect of his property. Those were different incidents, there wasn't charges arising out of the same incident?

MR NDOU: But they were dealt with at the same time.

CHAIRPERSON: I know that but if you go to place A and you commit a crime there and thereafter you go to place B, that's another incident?

MR NDOU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: If all these occurred at place A there may be a case to argue that they all fall under the same incident but if they happened at different places then in my view they would constitute different applications.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr van Rensburg, are you appearing for victims?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I can confirm that there are two other victims that have been brought to the Committee but I must also confirm that it is my instructions to exactly take that point that the Chairperson has raised, that the application can actually not be heard for those persons as well, the other two arsons that we're talking about as well as a GBH and another assault, yes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: The case he is referring to, the prosecution under Case number 36/97 for murder and arson, the date of the sentence, if applicable, the 3rd June. Life sentence changed to 20 years after appeal. Wasn't all the incidents taken together for the sake of sentence or are they running together?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Mr Chairperson, I've got no further information regarding that, I doubt it if all the sentences could actually be taken together in those specific circumstances. Perhaps we can find out from the applicant?

JUDGE DE JAGER: 8 years imprisonment. What was his sentence, Mr Ndou? Life sentence?

MR NDOU: It was initially life sentence which was later changed to 20 years.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Ntimane was sentenced to eight years.

INTERPRETER: Could you repeat that please?

CHAIRPERSON: Did you do that appeal?

MR NDOU: I didn't do the appeal, I did the trial.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

INTERPRETER: The mike is not on.

MR NDOU: I only learnt from him that later on there was an appeal when he got 20 years when I looked at the forms.

CHAIRPERSON: What I'm trying to establish is if it was ruled that all the sentences run concurrently to the 20 years or what?

MR NDOU: He says that all he could remember was that the sentence initially were running concurrently and then he says he then he wrote a jail appeal and then the sentence was reduced to 20 years and I assume the sentence was running concurrently as well.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou, if these sentences are running concurrently, what would he have got for the arson and attempted murder and whatever?

MR NDOU: I think at that stage the sentences were running between two and three years for arson charges.

CHAIRPERSON: He would have served that already?

MR NDOU: He would have served that. So he's been there from 1993.

CHAIRPERSON: 1992.

MR NDOU: 1992, yes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: On page 9, in respect of count one, that's the murder, imprisonment for life. On count two, that's arson, three is arson and four is arson. It gives the sentence to 18 months on each of these counts and on count five, that is common assault to 14 days imprisonment. The sentence to run concurrently.

CHAIRPERSON: Can we just adjourn for five minutes? We'll adjourn for five minutes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou, do you think it's still advisable to proceed with the balance of the application?

MR NDOU: When I look at it in view of the fact of the periods to which he had been sentenced, I would think that it's so.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you wanting to withdraw it or do you want to talk to him first?

MR NDOU: Chairperson, are you referring to the other? Yes, I could quickly just speak to him.

That is fine, that's settled. We'll only proceed in respect of the murder and the arson attack at Maduwa's kraal.

CHAIRPERSON: Is he under oath already?

MR NDOU: He is.

CHAIRPERSON: Proceed then.

MR NDOU: Now I've already indicated that you are proceeding in respect of the murder of Nyanavhikusa Maduwa and the arson attack. Will you explain to the Committee as to how this came about?

MR MAGORO: Yes I can.

MR NDOU: Please do so?

MR MAGORO: On the 21st March I was coming from Miela together with my brother, my elder brother in fact. On arriving to our village it was at about 7 o'clock. On arrival to our village, while we were in the middle of the village, while we were left with maybe six homes to reach our own home, we met a group of people. On arriving to that group, they interceded us, myself and my elder brother and they informed us they've got something they want to talk with us and they informed us that "today we are going to burn all the witches or the people who practise witchcraft" and they said they've already talked about it in the meeting and in the headman's kraal and they intended to perform that act the very same day.

We questioned them as to whether they informed the headman. They said when they were intending to inform the headman, then in turn the headman called the police and then the police informed them by the ...(indistinct) and they informed me that they are prepared to burn those people who practise witchcraft the very same day and they said they were well armed with everything, petrol and everything. Then I decided to join them and asked them what were they fighting for and then they said it's because the government is not leading them properly and then we have informed our traditional leader and that he seemed to be against it and there is nothing we can do and I agreed to join them. And my brother or my elder brother said no, he doesn't understand that properly. Then I tried to convince him and then I advised him that this, we are telling him something that will help us in the future because of this government. And my brother said no, he doesn't understand that and then I explained to him that I do accept these things.

So we left, we went to Petrus Maimela's place. There we were about 50. Petrus Maimela's home ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Well, let's get to Maduwa's.

MR NDOU: At the ...(indistinct) too.

MR MAGORO: On our way to Maduwa's place - but we first got other kraals before we could arrive there at Maduwa's place.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we are aware of that now. All we're interested in is Maduwa's incident.

MR MAGORO: Oh, thank you. I understand that.

Then on arriving to Nyanavhikusa's place, Nyanavhikusa - no, in fact someone amongst us said no, this Nyanavhikusa is a person who practised witchcraft and I said how did he know that she practised witchcraft and they said no, we already have a list and she's also on the list.

CHAIRPERSON: So did you accept that? You believed it?

MR MAGORO: I believed that she practised witchcraft because I'm a citizen of that village. On entering that house we were about 150. We saw this lady sitting on the veranda.

MR NDOU: Okay, apparently there's a problem with the interpretation. ...(indistinct) is a daughter-in-law.

INTERPRETER: Thank you.

MR MAGORO: We saw the daughter-in-law there and we asked that daughter-in-law to get inside the house and that daughter-in-law gets inside the hut and Nyanavhikusa was sitting in her kitchen with her child and she was a woman and then the child of Nyanavhikusa ran away and as she was running Mr Temani sprinkled her paraffin in the kitchen - where the petrol in the kitchen where the lady was sitting and when

that lady ran away, I realised that she was already burning and then she ran away and then she ran into the mealie fields and then she jumped the fence and then I realised she was far away and then I turned back and went back to the lapa and then I jumped the fence trying to follow that old lady and the group was already running behind her. When I went to the street I realised that the lady was lying down and the people were assaulting her and interrogating her and by then she was unable to talk when I arrived at the scene.

On arriving there the group said no, this lady is not prepared to tell us the truth and on arriving there I took a stick and then I said I wanted to participate and then I took a stick and hit her, I think three times.

From there, as we were still planning to go to other places, the police vans arrived and then we ran away and then I went to my home. That's all.

MR NDOU: That is all.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Was the old lady set on fire? Did she burn?

MR MAGORO: Yes, the flame, she ran away from the hut. I think as she was jumping the fence I think the flame went off and then it caught the grasses but seemingly the fire caught her again but I think petrol was poured again on her but I was far away, I'm not sure if petrol was poured to her again.

CHAIRPERSON: But you know she was burnt?

MR MAGORO: Yes I know that.

CHAIRPERSON: And when you hit her what was her condition?

MR MAGORO: Could you please repeat the question?

CHAIRPERSON: When you were hitting her, what was her condition?

MR MAGORO: By the time I hit her she was so weak and I think I hit her when she was already dead because she was no longer speaking and on the very same time there were so many people assaulting her.

CHAIRPERSON: Was she still burning when you hit her?

MR MAGORO: Yes she was burning and the fire caught the grasses and then the fire was on and she was sleeping in the middle of the fire.

CHAIRPERSON: You're confusing me now. In your affidavit you say she rolled and rolled and the flames died out. She was then physically attacked, with an assault with the weapons?

MR MAGORO: No, I'm not disputing that. I said when she get out of the hut, she went to the field and she passed close to me and I realised that I was unable to catch her because she was burning. So as she was running to the direction of the yard, I realised that she was far from me, then I turned back so that I can find her on the other direction. I took the gate direction and then she was far from me so I heard that the fire was off when she jumped the fence but because the grasses were on and her clothes were still having petrol, then I think the fire attacked her again. It's then that I arrived there and on my arrival she was lying down and unable to speak and I just participated in assaulting and I suspect she was already dead.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Ndou?

MR NDOU: That is so.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll take the lunch adjournment.

MUTSHUTSHU SAMUEL MAGORO: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) what sounded honestly, that he'd produce those lists by one o'clock, by now by my time he's got two minutes left.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Mr Chairperson, I notice that the legal representative for t