CHAIRPERSON: Good morning. We are continuing with the amnesty application of Mr E N Mavuso, AM7921/97. It is Thursday the 20th of January 2000.

We have had a slight delay occasioned by the issue that I have raised at the end of the day yesterday. There appears to have been some progress in regard thereto.

Mr Prinsloo are we continuing with the re-examination of Mr Mavuso or what is the position at this stage?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman at this stage may I ask a moment's indulgence with regard to the re-examination of Mr Mavuso. This morning I visited a firm of attorneys where the instructing attorney, Mr Joubert, made available to me a file and from the file he gave me certain documents. I am in possession of the original documents which I will make available to the Committee. But with the Committee's consent I would like to return this to the attorney concerned for the purpose of his file. I have made photocopies of these so that Mr Chairman, with respect, you can then reconcile these or any other members of the panel or other counsel or attorneys. Could I hand this up to you Mr Chairman, the photocopies as well as the original. I would like to get the next exhibit number.


MR PRINSLOO: It comprises a number of pages, could we give one number and then in the alphabetical and then just numbers.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes in fact ja, I think we are going to get a bit stuck because what we have done we had used the paginated numbering in the record but I have lost track of that unfortunately. We were going to be assisted to some extent, but I think we must just mark these things as exhibit ...(intervention)

MR PRINSLOO: Could I do it with the assistance of Miss Lulama at a later stage? And I give the documents up to you at this stage Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes you could do that. There are some documents outstanding from yesterday that must also be numbered. So perhaps it will be of assistance if we then get the numbering up to these ones that you have here now.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you bear that in mind Ms Mtanga?

MS MTANGA: Yes I will do such a thing.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you very much.

We now have a set of documents. I will just double check with you Mr Prinsloo.

MR PRINSLOO: Certainly Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: We have ...(intervention)

MR PRINSLOO: May I explain the document it may be easier Mr Chairman?


MR PRINSLOO: From what I understood from Mr Joubert, who was on his way to court so it was a brief discussion, is that the first page of the photocopy Mr Chairman, that is when the process started in his office, that first page, and according to him these were the names he recorded, Sam Khumalo on top and Petrus Nlangamandla. And then there was a contact telephone number and address, and then the amount indicated at that stage, that will be the cost of the defence of the applicant, was R10,000 as indicated on that page, and the instructed counsel at that stage by the name of Koos Smit. I was unable to locate this Koos Smit. He is no longer at the Bar in Pretoria, Mr Chairman.

And then there were certain receipts issued. Unfortunately on the photocopy they don't appear in sequence but the first receipt that appears at the bottom of the page, of the second page that is before the Committee, the 17th November 1994, there was an amount paid in by P Nlangamandla, R6 500 being for the account of Mavuso.

And then on the top of the page, 25th of November 1994, that was paid into the account of Mavuso, R2 200.

And then an amount of R3 000 was paid in, if you turn over the page, Mr Chairman, the following page, you will see that a deposit slip, I don't know what is very clear on the photostat, you can see it there on the originals, and that is an amount that was paid in by - the signature appears, or rather the signing, Nlangamandla, and it was paid in Pongola into the account of the firm of attorneys.

The following page, Mr Chairman, you will notice is a bail receipt, it is signed by one Sibiya, and it indicates on the 1st of December 1994 bail was paid. That would be the day that the applicant was released. And then the reference then the receipts it would appear that the first two amounts, that is the one at the bottom of the page, the previous page, that's the one dated 17 November 1994 and 25th of November 1994 was paid in whilst the accused was thus still in custody.

The last page Mr Chairman, is purely part of - that allowed the firm of attorneys to cash the bail receipt. At that stage Mr Joubert was with a firm of attorneys known at that stage as Joubert and Cornelius. He is no longer there. He is at this stage with a firm of attorneys in Paul Kruger Street and that is where he is presently situated.

MR BOTHA: Mr Chairman, sorry to intervene. I recall Mr Sam Khumalo's evidence previously this week that he was not at all involved in the running of the trial. If Mr Prinsloo wants this document, especially the first page, to convey an idea that Mr Khumalo was involved, I suggest that Mr Vic Joubert be called as a witness. We can't accept this on the face of it and in view of the instructions I had before and still have.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well what we have is a document where there is a name "Sam Khumalo" on.

MR VAN DER WALT: Indeed so.

CHAIRPERSON: And there are a number of names on this document. So that is really the status of what we have got before us at this stage.

MR VAN DER WALT: As the Committee pleases.

MR BIZOS: ...before, "after Sam Khumalo or Petrus", is that an "or"?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes it could be, it could be Mr Bizos, I am looking at the original, although it is not quite clear. Ja it is not clear.

MR BIZOS: It think that the probabilities are that it's the Afrikaans "en", "E-N".

CHAIRPERSON: Could also be, yes. In any event we have got - yes we've got the documentation. We have the originals, which is available and which will be handed back to Mr Prinsloo in order to return to the attorney.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman. As I indicated, Mr Chairman, it was a very brief discussion. I had difficulty in locating who the attorney was. This attorney had left the previous firm. I wasn't even aware it was the original firm, I merely ascertained that yesterday, the information. So I saw him this morning very briefly before he went to court.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. We've noted that thank you, Mr Prinsloo.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, at this stage, as I have indicated to you in chambers, that I propose to call a Mr Krush Ndwandwe ...(intervention)


MR PRINSLOO: ...may the present witness, Mr Mavuso stand down briefly Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well, there can't be any objection to that.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mavuso stand down please.

MR PRINSLOO: I have already indicated to the other members that I propose to call Mr Ndwandwe Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh yes, then that would be the witness that we will hear. Can he come forward.


EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Mr Ndwandwe you have attended this application of the applicant since the start of it, is that correct?


MR PRINSLOO: Mr Ndwandwe you were born and grew up in Pongola, is that correct?

MR NDWANDWE: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And you are well known in the community of Pongola and the township?


MR PRINSLOO: Mr Ndwandwe it was indicated at the beginning of this session that you and a person known as Ehrens would have been victims in this particular application. In other words that there was also a plan ...(intervention)

MR NDWANDWE: My apology, it looks like there is a misunderstanding between the Interpreter and Mr Prinsloo. According to Mr Prinsloo he says it transpired here that I and one other person call Ehrens we also were supposed to be victims in this whole matter. But then what the Interpreter is saying is different to that which is being said by Mr Prinsloo. I don't know whether I should answer as posed by Mr Prinsloo or the Interpreter.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, ideally it should have been the same thing. But please respond to what Mr Prinsloo was saying.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Ndwandwe. Would you please respond as the Honourable Chairman indicated.

MR NDWANDWE: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Ndwandwe did you know Mr Mcetywa the deceased in this matter?


MR PRINSLOO: Was he well known to you?


MR PRINSLOO: And Mr Mcetywa was he known to you as the chairman of the ANC in Pongola? That is after, obviously, when the ANC was unbanned and it could surface in public.

MR NDWANDWE: I knew him even before he was chairperson of the ANC at Pongola.

MR PRINSLOO: And you personally, were you a member of the ANC at that stage, 1993?


MR PRINSLOO: Was it generally known that yourself and Mr Mcetywa were members of the ANC?


MR PRINSLOO: And this Ehrens, I have for a moment just forgotten his surname, can you assist me with his surname, and was he a member of the ANC?


MR PRINSLOO: And as far as he was concerned was it also generally known that he was a member of the ANC?

MR NDWANDWE: I am not quite certain, but I think it was known.

MR PRINSLOO: Now Mr Ndwandwe you have heard the evidence and you have seen certain people who have given evidence in this particular application. You have seen the applicant and then you have seen certain members of the Inkatha Freedom Party, it was Mr Amos Mtungwa, was he known to you, prior to him giving evidence here?


MR PRINSLOO: Yes Amos Mtungwa Mr Ndwandwe.

MR NDWANDWE: I knew him but not as a member of the IFP.

MR PRINSLOO: And Mr Rasta Mncwango?

MR NDWANDWE: I knew him as well.

ADV GCABASHE: I am sorry Mr Prinsloo, before you go further down the list, are we talking strictly November 1993 here? I just want to put a context, certainly to the Amos Mtungwa response. Can you just clarify that for us.

MR PRINSLOO: I will do that Madam.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Ndwandwe these people I've already mentioned, excluding Mr Mavuso now, that is Mr Amos Mtungwa and then Mr Rasta Mncwango, were they known to you prior to 1993, for some time?

MR NDWANDWE: I knew them before 1993, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Were they known to you for some time or not?

MR NDWANDWE: It had been a long time.

MR PRINSLOO: And the two Khumalo brothers, did you know them?

MR NDWANDWE: I knew them too.

MR PRINSLOO: For some time?


MR PRINSLOO: And Mr Buthelezi?

MR PRINSLOO: I knew him too as well.

MR PRINSLOO: As far as Mr Philemon Mtungwa is concerned, was he a known person to you in Pongola or not, prior to November 1993?


MR PRINSLOO: And you personally were in Pongola a lot and in the township, Motchane, were you there a lot, prior to 1993? Some time prior to that?


MR PRINSLOO: Did you ever see Mr Philemon Mtungwa moving about and performing a duty as a lay-preacher?


MR PRINSLOO: Now Mr Mtungwa can you assist the Committee. There was reference made to a taxi boycott that started in September of 1993 as a result of taxi fees that were raised. Can you put that picture before the Committee and develop your evidence towards the killing of Mr Mcetywa as you saw it.

MR NDWANDWE: There was a rise in taxi fares in 1993, that was from R1,00 to R1,50 for the distance between Motchane and Pongola, and people were not happy about this, and they decided to use alternative transport, like buses. When they started using these buses taxi owners off-loaded them from the buses beating them up and saying that they should go back to the taxis. So that after that people decided to walk on foot instead of using any one of these transport facilities.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman could the Interpreter maybe just indicate if Mr Ndwandwe is going too fast or is the pace acceptable.

INTERPRETER: I am still comfortable, thank you Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you. Please continue Mr Ndwandwe I interrupted you. Thank you.

MR NDWANDWE: They then decided to walk on foot instead of using taxis and buses. And as they were walking taxi owners beat them up forcing them to go back to the taxis. That is when commuters met and discussed the matter. And it was suggested that a group of people should be delegated to go and meet the taxi owners at Motchane.

One of the things that happened was that when the taxi owners saw a group of youth standing in the street they would beat them up and that led to the youth paying revenge.

That is when it transpired that it would be better that something be done to bring these to an end.

Meetings were held, being convened by the then mayor, Mr Israel Dlamini, in an effort to try and solve the problem between taxi owners and the community. I think it could have been the third meeting or so and he did not avail himself at the meeting. The message that we received was that he was fearing for his life. That is when we decided that there should be a mass meeting where people would be requested not to go to work so that people can go and negotiate this with taxi owners in an effort to address the problem.

Indeed we met on a Wednesday, and when we met people were appointed. There were about six, if not five of these people, and these people were in a committee that was delegated to go and meet the taxi owners. In that process people said there is a bus that had been impounded by traffic cops. The bus was kept at the taxi grounds. That led to the community concluding that the traffic cops are colluding with the taxi owners.

It was arranged that there should be a march to go and release the bus. But then the permit that we had gave us permission only to hold a meeting at Motchane not Pongola. We then came to an agreement that we were going to march to the entrance of Motchane and not go beyond.

As we were marching we came across taxi owners at their taxi rank armed with all assortments of weapons. That was on our way to the entrance. Insults were hurled at us, insulting us in all sorts of manners, but we proceeded to our destination. When we arrived at the entrance there were police blocking the way. We stood there and negotiated with the police indicating to them that the people wanted the bus released. Ultimately an agreement was reached and the bus was released.

The then station commander, Mr Oswald Meyer, told us that he was arranging a meeting between the taxi owners and the community. And he said he required five members from the community and equally from the taxi owners for a meeting that was to be held at 3.30 at the police station.

When the five of us arrived at the police station we discovered that everybody who owned a taxi was present at the meeting, people from the Pongola Taxi Association as well as Motchane Taxi Association. Nothing was discussed or happened at the meeting except that the taxi owners were insulting us, threatening us, saying we should be beaten up. So that the meeting did not materialise and we went back to the township.

We then spoke with Motchane Taxi Association and we decided that because we reside at Motchane we ourselves here should address it here. We came to an agreement with some of these people, some agreed that we should cut down the increase by 20 cents and others said by 30 cents. We proceeded until on a Sunday where there were councillors as well as Mr Israel Dlamini, the then mayor.

We met with these people before we went to a meeting for a report-back pertaining to the meeting held prior at the police station. They informed us that Amos Mtungwa will be present at the meeting as well. When we enquired about the presence of Mtungwa, on what capacity that is, and they informed us that he was going to be present as a representative of the chiefs. We agreed that he can attend, but then we were not happy about the fact that he was an outsider. He was not resident at Motchane.

And when we left the meeting and Amos Mtungwa himself had arrived we went to the place where we were going to meet the community. And Amos Mtungwa was given a platform to address the community, but the community did not welcome him. They booed him each time he tried to speak. He then requested that I ask the people to keep quiet so that he could speak. I took the microphone from him and requested the people to quieten down enabling him to speak. But when he spoke it transpired that he wanted the people to use the taxis against their will.

The people then booed him. He did not continue talking and I too was no longer able to calm the people down. But then what strikes me is that he says I was not present at the meeting when he is the one who requested me to calm the people down.

And after that the councillors and Amos left one after another and after some time one taxi owner, but the name of Dumisani Masungu arrived saying he had been sent by the taxi owners to say that the taxi fare is going back to R1.00. The community was informed and was excited about the news. Everybody was informed that as of the following day, which was a Monday, people could go back to the taxis. Indeed that is what happened. The problem was solved.

But what I would like to raise here is that the taxi boycott did not take the whole week as some witnesses have testified here. The taxi boycott started during September and ended towards the end of October. It is evident or clear to all of us that it didn't take a week. I am not sure whether I can stop there.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Ndwandwe you have heard the evidence of Rasta Mncwango and he said he assaulted some youths at his taxi, do you know anything about that?

MR NDWANDWE: I heard him saying so, however it's not the truth.

MR PRINSLOO: What is the truth?

MR BOTHA: Mr Chairman, sorry to interrupt, what's the relevance of other acts in this regard, if I may just be directed by Mr Prinsloo? Surely this is not being investigated at this stage or if I understand the position.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you are just presenting the full picture Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman first of all I am presenting a full picture but the same witness, the client of Mr Botha, he gave evidence to that effect and I want to present evidence by this witness to indicate to the Committee what he saw.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Carry on.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman. Please proceed Mr Ndwandwe, what is the position in regard to Mr Rasta Mncwango.

MR NDWANDWE: May you please repeat your question.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Ndwandwe you have heard the evidence of Rasta, where he said that his taxi was stoned by youths and he beat them up, assaulted them, is that true or don't you know about it?

MR NDWANDWE: What I know is that the taxi people were assaulting any young boys whom they can find standing on the street and I don't remember any taxi which had been stoned at Motchane at the time of the boycott.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you know a man by the name of Mr Mlambo?

MR NDWANDWE: Mr Prinsloo can, if he can explain further about this Mr Mlambo.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you know of any incident where Mr Mlambo was assaulted?

ADV GCABASHE: Mr Prinsloo Mlambo or Mncwango?

MR PRINSLOO: Mlambo, I beg your pardon Madam, Mlambo.

MR NDWANDWE: Mr Mlambo is one of those people who was just walking along the street then were beaten by the taxi people and he was beaten specifically by this man, Rasta.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Mlambo was a youth or was he a family man?

MR NDWANDWE: He was an adult.

MR PRINSLOO: Is there anything else you know about this gentleman and the incident about Mr Rasta and this man, Mr Mlambo?

MR NDWANDWE: What I know is that this Mr Mlambo did, at a certain stage come to me, he was coming from hospital and he has a plaster on his hand. He asked for help as to how is he supposed to do since he has been assaulted while walking on foot and was assaulted by this man Rasta and he was advised that the best thing will be to lay a charge at the police station and after laying the charge at the police station, when I went back to him he told me that some taxi people came to him to apologise and they gave him some money and also some medical expenses as he was not working at the time and he was asked to go and withdraw the charges and that's what he did.

MR PRINSLOO: The meeting that was attended by Mr Amos Mtungwa, at that stage you were the Chairman of that Committee that was elected on behalf of the community, is that correct Mr Ndwandwe?


MR PRINSLOO: Now subsequent to this taxi boycott, if we can move on to November 1993, did you have occasion, or rather let me put it to you this way, were you aware that the former President, Mr Nelson Mandela, was due to address a meeting on the 20th of November at Ingwavuma at Natal?

MR NDWANDWE: Yes, I knew about that.

MR PRINSLOO: And did you intend attending that meeting?


MR PRINSLOO: Now, did you make preparations to go, to attend it before that day? Did you go to Pongola to town for any specific purpose?


MR PRINSLOO: Will you please tell the Committee what was that purpose and what day that was?

MR NDWANDWE: It was on Friday 19th of November. I went to the bank to withdraw money in order to pay the fare for the bus to go to Ingwavuma. When arriving at the Standard Bank, I parked my car and went to the ATM machine. There was a white person at the machine who was busy and at the back of this white person there was Amos Mtungwa. Amos Mtungwa came to me. He asked as to how is my war in the township. I asked him what is he referring to when he says "my war". He says he's referring to the taxi and busses war. I told him that the conflict between the taxis and busses has been resolved and they are now in operation peacefully. As we were talking, the white man who was using the machine left, Amos went to the ATM machine. His words disturbed me as he was asking, referring to "my war", since he left at the meeting the way he did and it came to my mind that I wouldn't like to continue speaking to him because I didn't understand what he meant when he said "my war" because the boycott of taxis, maybe he thought it was initiated by myself, but after he finished his business at the ATM machine, I went to the ATM machine myself, withdrew some money and went back to the car. When I arrived at the car I realised that my car was parked next to his car. I got into my car. He also spoke to me. I opened the window of the car and spoke back to him. What he said made me to suspect that Amos was trying to identify myself to the people who were with him in the car, people who are unknown to me. I left the scene and went to the Post Office and after leaving the Post Office, I went back to see whether their car is still there and on arriving I found that the car is still there and in the car, outside the car there was someone by the name of Sanda on the passenger side speaking to the people who were in the car. I parked the car and went home.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Ndwandwe, were you able to see the people inside this particular vehicle?

MR NDWANDWE: Yes, I was able.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you know them?

MR NDWANDWE: I didn't know them. I only knew Amos

MR PRINSLOO: Can you tell the Committee what type of car this was and the colour of the car if you can recall?

MR NDWANDWE: It was a red Ford. It was a white Ford.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, there was a mistake in the translation.

MR NDWANDWE: Yes, it was a white Ford.

MR PRINSLOO: A white Ford. What type of Ford? Are you able to ...?

MR NDWANDWE: I'm not sure whether it was a Ford Escort or Cortina, but I think it was a Cortina.

MR PRINSLOO: You say it was white in colour?


MR PRINSLOO: Now Mr Ndwandwe, are you today able to identify any of the persons you saw in this car of Mr Mtungwa at that stage you saw them there?


MR PRINSLOO: Who did you see? Who is it?

MR NDWANDWE: One of them is the one who is asking for amnesty, Nkosinathi Mavuso and Emmanuel Mtungwa, the witness who testified before the Committee.

MR PRINSLOO: You say Emmanuel Mtungwa. There were two Mtungwas who testified here, the one was an Amos Mtungwa and the one was a Philemon Mtungwa. Who are you referring to?

MR NDWANDWE: As I said, the people in the car who were know to me, it was Amos Mtungwa and the other one who was in the car was Emmanuel Mtungwa.

MR PRINSLOO: Is he one that testified here, or not?

MR NDWANDWE: That is the witness who gave evidence during this week.

MR PRINSLOO: Was it the one who said he was a lay preacher and working at Bison Board? Are you referring to that one?


MR PRINSLOO: Now, Mr Ndwandwe, now after this incident, what happened? What did you think about it and what happened? Will you please continue? But may I ask you first of all before you proceed, at that stage what hairstyle did you have on that particular day when you went to draw money? That is now the Friday, the 19th of November when you went to draw money at the ATM when you saw, you testified to and you saw Mr Amos Mtungwa and what you've told the Committee further to that.

MR NDWANDWE: On that day I had an afro hairstyle, wearing some dark glasses.

MR PRINSLOO: Will you please proceed from there? Did you do anything?

MR NDWANDWE: I left the place and went home. On arriving I told a sister who was staying with me that I am no longer going to Ingwavuma and she asked why was I not going there anymore. I told her that there is something that Amos Mtungwa has done which I did not understand and I think, or suspect that Amos was trying to identify me to the people in his company, people who were unknown to me. Since they were going to leave and go to Piet Retief the next day,, she requested that I should accompany them to Piet Retief. I said no, I will prefer to stay behind. On the 20th the bus to Ingwavuma left. They also went to Piet Retief and I was left behind. While at home, I thought as to what was I going to do the whole day. I decided to go and do an "eskal". I went to do an "eskal", which is a hairstyle. In other words it's a hairstyle called "eskal". When I arrived at the salon, that person started by cutting my hair and he cut my hair to a very low level, which was not to my liking. However, he finished with the "eskal" and I left the salon to go home. At about 8 the people who went to Piet Retief came back and it was hot on that day and the lady requested the children to go and play outside since it was a very hot day and we went to sleep outside.

MR PRINSLOO: You say on the stoep, is it correct? Outside on the stoep Mr Ndwandwe?

MR NDWANDWE: Yes. After that she instructed the children to switch off the front light and they did so. After about 5 minutes a Nissan kombi came and stood, was stopped at the gate. We thought maybe someone will alight from the kombi to enter our premises. Nobody alighted from the kombi. After that the kombi left and the sister asked me to keep an eye on the kombi because she was suspecting it. I tried to look at it, but however it drove and disappeared and didn't have number plates at the back. I went back and told her and we slept at the same place.

After about 15 minutes, two men came and entered the yard. They asked whether they can find Krush. I told them Krush went to his friend at Sibiya's place and I ask: "Who is looking for him?" and they mentioned a name which I don't remember at the moment but however I can remember the surname. They said the surname is Radebe and the lady asked them why are they looking for Krush. They said they have a problem and that needs Krush. She asked them where are they coming from. They said they're coming from Manyandeni and she asked them what mode of transport they are using, they're saying they're using taxis and she asked, just now it's late and then what are they going to do? They said no, they don't have a problem they can come back tomorrow during the day and she asked if there's any message to give to him. They said no, they will come back. I decided that I should direct them where they could find the man they were looking for and I directed them to the place. They left the place and went away.

As they were leaving, the lady looked as to whether they were taking the direction given to them by myself. She realised that they were taking a different direction.

I then left and went to wake my brother and we went out the night trying to look for this white kombi and we could not find it. We then had to take the children to another place and we went to sleep in a car in town next to the Post Office because we thought they might come back.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Ndwandwe, when you left and went to your brother and to leave the children, did you meet anyone in town or not or did you see anyone in town?


MR PRINSLOO: Who was that? We met Sanda driving his van. He was entering Motchane and we were driving towards the town, Pongola.

MR PRINSLOO: At what stage was that, Mr Ndwandwe, these occurrences that day?

MR NDWANDWE: The time was about 2 a.m. in the morning.

MR PRINSLOO: Okay thank you. Now Mr Ndwandwe, if we can just go back, Mr Rasta and the other taxi men that testified here, did you ever see them at these meetings that were held, where Mr Amos Mtungwa addressed and the others? Did you see them there or not? You've heard what they said about the meetings they attended.

MR NDWANDWE: I didn't see them.

MR PRINSLOO: Now Mr Sanda Nlangamandla, what was his other name? Can I put it this way, do you know a person known as Petrus Nlangamandla?

MR NDWANDWE: Petrus is another name of Sanda Nlangamandla.

MR PRINSLOO: Right. And subsequent to the day when you went to draw money, did you ever see Mr Mavuso again? You saw him, you say, when you were drawing money, you saw him sitting in a car, Mr Mtungwa's car, did you ever see him again before Mr Mcetywa was murdered or not?

MR NDWANDWE: I don't understand your questions. You mean did I see Mavuso after I went to the bank?


MR NDWANDWE: Is that your question?

MR PRINSLOO: Any other day prior to the murder of Mr Mcetywa, if you did see him, did you see him at all?

JUDGE DE JAGER: Who, Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Mavuso, the applicant.

JUDGE DE JAGER: The applicant.

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon, thank you Mr Chairman.

MR NDWANDWE: Yes, I did see Mavuso I would say about three times.

MR PRINSLOO: Where did you see him?

MR NDWANDWE: I saw him on the 20th of November as one of the people who came to look for me and I also saw him before the shooting incident where the deceased was killed and I saw him the third time after the death of the deceased.

ADV GCABASHE: I'm sorry Mr Ndwandwe, can you repeat that answer? I'm not sure the interpreter said exactly what you are saying. Can you just repeat the third time you saw him, the applicant?

MR NDWANDWE: The third time I saw him coming from the place or from the side where the gunshot was heard and he was holding a firearm in his hand trying to hide it. He was coming from the scene of the shooting where Mr Mcetywa was killed.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you. Thanks, Mr Interpreter.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, Mr Ndwandwe, the late Mr Mike Mcetywa, during this taxi boycott and subsequent to that, did he have any taxis of his own, or driving any taxis, or was he associated with taxis?

MR NDWANDWE: Do you mean after the taxi boycott?

MR PRINSLOO: Even during the taxi boycott and after the taxi boycott until his death, was he at all involved with taxis Mr Ndwandwe? I'll make it clear for you. I'll make it clear to you, Mr Ndwandwe. Mr Mike Mcetywa, did he own a taxi during the taxi boycott?

MR NDWANDWE: No, he didn't have a taxi.

MR PRINSLOO: And was he in any way involved with the taxi boycott? In other words instigating people to boycott taxis or anything of the kind?



MR NDWANDWE: He was present at meetings and at the time when the Committee was elected to go and speak with the taxi people, he refused to be included in that Committee.

MR PRINSLOO: And Mr Mcetywa, was he one of the persons that attended a meeting at the Police Station which you say was convened by the Station Commander, Mr Meyer, or not?


MR PRINSLOO: As far as you're concerned Mr Ndwandwe, was there any stage prior to the death of Mr Mcetywa, was there any rumours to kill him or not that you heard of, or yourself for instance?

MR NDWANDWE: Yes, there were rumours, but that was usual during the time since Pongola is a very small town and people talk about things. However, it happened that I came to know that there were white people who wanted to kill Mr Mcetywa because they said he brought the ANC into Pongola, but I didn't take it so serious and he also heard it himself, but he didn't take it serious because they were just rumours.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Prinsloo. Mr Bizos, have you got any questions?


CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS: Let me just start with where you finished Mr Ndwandwe. You said that there were rumours that the "Boere" might want to kill him for bringing the ANC. Who did you understand, did you understand the white people generally or any particular section of the white people? Who are the "Boere" that you are referring to?

MR NDWANDWE: Firstly I would like to explain that. These rumours I'm referring to had been going on for some time or it was heard long before the boycott and secondly, if I come back to Mr Bizos' question, I thought that those were the right-wing white people because people who were talking about this incident we're referring to were farmers.

MR BIZOS: Who didn't like the presence of the ANC in Pongola. What was the attitude of the Security Police to the ANC in Pongola?

MR NDWANDWE: I will say the attitude was the same, as we all know, we know that the police were against the ANC and I think they also had the same attitude, they didn't like.

MR BIZOS: Did you come onto the scene of the place where the deceased was killed shortly after his death?


MR BIZOS: How soon afterwards?

MR NDWANDWE: The deceased was shot outside a shop called Protea Furnishers and I was at a next-door store, named Price and Pride. When I heard a gunshot I came out of the door and that's when I saw Mavuso with a firearm coming from the scene. As he passed me, I went to the scene where the deceased was lying next to the door. In other words, I would say it's less than three minutes, it took less than three minutes for me to be at the scene.

MR BIZOS: Did you bend down in order to see what the condition of the deceased was?

MR NDWANDWE: Yes, I even made attempts to revive him.

MR BIZOS: Whilst you were making those attempts to revive him, or shortly thereafter, did you see any security policemen in the immediate vicinity of where the murder took place?

MR NDWANDWE: The only police I saw was Mr Mkhwanazi.

MR BIZOS: Who is Mr Mkhwanazi?

MR NDWANDWE: This Mkhwanazi was here at this hearing.

MR BIZOS: Had he been doing - what branch was he?

MR NDWANDWE: He was with the Security Branch in Piet Retief.

MR BIZOS: Was he busy in the Piet Retief area of which Pongola was a part?

MR NDWANDWE: I'm not sure because there were some changes because Pongola then fell under KwaZulu Natal and Piet Retief was demarcated to fall under Mpumalanga, therefore I can't be certain, but he was working at Piet Retief because they've already been divided at the time.

MR BIZOS: Did he do anything there whilst he was on the scene after the death? Did Mr Mkhwanazi do or Sgt Mkhwanazi do anything?

MR NDWANDWE: Anything like what?

MR BIZOS: Well, take part in the arrest of the applicant, Mr Mavuso, or - was Mr Mavuso there? Had Mr Mavuso been apprehended by that stage?

MR NDWANDWE: No and he was not yet arrested at the time.

MR BIZOS: Mr Prinsloo started asking you whether, in relation to one of these taxi owners, whether you knew him as an IFP member and you said no and then he stopped there. I want to carry on. You saw this, at least four or five of the people who gave evidence, did you know them as IFP members, active IFP members in Pongola?

MR NDWANDWE: You mean those who were giving evidence?


MR NDWANDWE: And all of them, or some of them?

MR BIZOS: Well, let's deal one by one. You deal with them one by one. Did you know any one of them as an active IFP member in Pongola?

MR NDWANDWE: I will speak about one of them because I didn't know the others. I will talk about Sam Khumalo. Sam Khumalo was a Councillor at the time and those were Councillors who were under the KwaZulu Government and there was a perception also that these Councillors were aligned to the IFP. However, I won't be certain whether he was an IFP or not because there wasn't much activity which will enable me to see whether he's active or not in the IFP political party. However, all I can say that he was active in the taxi business.

MR BIZOS: If there had been high profile IFP members, you being a member of the ANC, would you have come across them as high profile IFP members?

MR NDWANDWE: Yes, that's correct.

MR BIZOS: And you were not aware of them as high profile IFP members?

MR NDWANDWE: I would say the others were not IFP members, it's only Sam and even Sam he was not a high profile member of the IFP as he testified in his evidence that ...(indistinct) IFP.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is off.

MR BIZOS: Did you know what position Mr Rasta Mncwango was in politically?

MR NDWANDWE: To my knowledge he didn't have any position in politics.

MR BIZOS: Did you not know him as a member of the PAC?

MR NDWANDWE: I knew that he's aligned with the ideologies of the PAC but I was not aware whether he was a card-carrying member or not, or he was just someone who supporting their ideologies.

MR BIZOS: And he was not politically active on behalf of the PAC or any other organisation.


MR BIZOS: Now you've made an affidavit and I want to read paragraph 6 to you. I'll read the whole paragraph although I am only going to deal with - we'll give you a copy - have you got a copy? Well, take the typed one a we'll use the - you take the hand-written one. Paragraph 6. You made ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Bizos, I know we had it and I handed my Exhibits, in order to have them indexed.

MR BIZOS: Yes, it's very brief. I don't think - I think we can manage. I'll read it out Mr Chairman and I think we can manage but we'll -

"On 20th November 1993 a white kombi arrived at my place but nobody came out of it and it drove away. A few minutes after that two people came to my house looking for me. Because they did not know me, I cheated them and told them that Krush was not at home and they left. To my understanding the whole thing was about the conflict between taxi situations and the community and it had nothing to do with politics."

Did you write that in your statement?


MR BIZOS: The hand-written statement that you have before you is in your own handwriting?

MR NDWANDWE: It was written by Mr Kalusa.

MR BIZOS: But it doesn't matter, you signed it. Now I want - and we know that Mr Edward Kalusa is a TRC official, who took this statement from you.


MR BIZOS: Now, why did you believe that this whole incident, wanting to kill you and the killing of the deceased had nothing to do with politics but it was a taxi business? Why did you believe that?

MR NDWANDWE: It's because at Motchane and Pongola there wasn't anything that will have resulted in a situation where ANC will wish to kill IFP people, or IFP people wishing to kill the ANC people, so the people were not in conflict and that is the reason why I didn't see it as a political kind of conflict because it also happened after the taxi boycott.

MR BIZOS: Yes. You told us that the boycott lasted more than a month.


MR BIZOS: Did the ANC organise the boycott?


MR BIZOS: In your experiences as an ANC office bearer, whenever there was a boycott or whenever there was marching or whatever, there were mass meetings of the community, the Security Police and the local police, all those in authority, whom did they blame for this?

MR NDWANDWE: They blamed the ANC.

MR BIZOS: You took part in these negotiations in order to settle the matter. Did you do that on behalf of the ANC or as a member of the community?

MR NDWANDWE: I did that as a member of the community.

MR BIZOS: And before the murder of the deceased, had there been any inter ANC/IFP animosity?

MR NDWANDWE: I would like to take you back on the question or the question that you asked as to whether I was doing, attending those meetings, whether in a capacity as a member of the ANC or the community. I would like to say that I was doing it as a member of the community as Rasta Mncwango did explain that in the meeting there were members from different political organisations and they were acting as members of the community and secondly, to your last question, I would like to request that you repeat it for me please.

MR BIZOS: Was there any animosity or any violence or threats of violence between IFP people and ANC people in Pongola before the death of the deceased?


MR BIZOS: Before you saw the suspicious circumstances and deprived yourself of an afro style for the purposes of disguising yourself, did you feel any way threatened as a member or office bearer of the ANC in Pongola?

MR NDWANDWE: I'll say that when I went to do the "eskal" hairstyle, I didn't want to, I wasn't changing my hairstyle because I was suspecting anything. I went to do a hairstyle because I didn't have anything to do on that day since I was left alone.

MR BIZOS: I'm sorry that I assumed that the change of hairstyle was for disguising purposes, but before the death of the deceased, did you as an ANC member and office bearer feel in any way threatened? Did you have to take any special precautions about your safety or did you lead your ordinary life without any precautions or any fear?

MR NDWANDWE: It didn't happen until the 19th and 20th of November.

MR BIZOS: Before that you had no fear of anyone, any reason to fear anything?


MR BIZOS: When Mr Mkhwanazi was at the scene, did he say anything about who might have killed the deceased?

MR NDWANDWE: He said he knew the people who killed the deceased, however he didn't mention those people.


MR NDWANDWE: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Bizos. Mr van der Heyde.

MR VAN DER HEYDE: I have no questions, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Swanepoel.

MR SWANEPOEL: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I just have one aspect I want to canvass with the witness.


CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR SWANEPOEL: Now, Mr Ndwandwe, the meeting with Mr Amos Mtungwa in front of the bank in Pongola, I want to take you back to that. When did you first realise what the name of the applicant was, before today's proceedings?

MR NDWANDWE: My first time to know his name, it was after he was arrested and he was at the police station.

MR SWANEPOEL: Did you see him at any time from the time that he was arrested until the application for amnesty started?


MR SWANEPOEL: Where and when did you see him?

MR NDWANDWE: At the identification parade at the police station.

MR SWANEPOEL: And at that stage, were you able to identify him by sight?


MR SWANEPOEL: Alright. Now please look at paragraph 5 of the affidavit that is in front of you. I gather that at that stage you were describing the meeting that you described today in front of the bank in Pongola with Mr Mtungwa, Mr Amos Mtungwa and the last sentence of that paragraph reads:

"In Amos Mtungwa's car there were two people inside who were unknown to me."

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it just says:

"There were two people inside who were unknown."

MR SWANEPOEL: My apologies, Mr Chairperson, my copy has "to me" written in and I was unaware of the fact that yours didn't.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Thank you.

MR SWANEPOEL: Alright. Now, is it correct that this affidavit was deposed to in May 1999? Can you remember that that was round about the date that that was deposed to?

MR NDWANDWE: Even if I can't remember that very clearly, I can see the date written here is 25 May 1999.

MR SWANEPOEL: And by that time you were already aware of the identity of the applicant, is that correct?

MR NDWANDWE: Oh, what do you mean when you say I was aware of his identity?

MR SWANEPOEL: Well, you knew what his name was and you knew how he looked. You identified him at an identity parade earlier, is that correct?

MR BIZOS: Is identifying a person at an identification parade evidence that you know the name, Mr Chairman?

MR SWANEPOEL: Mr Chairman, my apologies. I understood the evidence to be that by May 1999 because of earlier events, the witness already knew the name and how the applicant looked.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Perhaps refer to the date and don't say at that time, because that's confusing.

MR SWANEPOEL: As you please Mr Chairperson. I'll rephrase the question. By May 1999 were you already aware of the name of the applicant and how he looked?


MR SWANEPOEL: Now why don't you mention in your affidavit that the applicant was one of the people in the car of Mr Amos Mtungwa on the day...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, with respect, my copy of the affidavit says: "Who were unknown to me" - in the past, at the time that I saw them in the car they were unknown to me.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it does.

MR BIZOS: He's mentioning an historical fact. At the time he did not know the person and didn't know his name. My learned friend reads it as if it meant, or would have said: "Whom I subsequently learned to be so-and-so". That's not what it says. He correctly refers to a time frame at that stage.

MR SWANEPOEL: Mr Chairperson, the importance of this issue is that today is the first time that the evidence is given that the applicant was actually in the car at that stage and that evidence was not put to Mr Mtungwa when he gave evidence, as an implicated person, that the applicant was actually in the car on that day. Up to now the identity of the people in the car has been unknown and I'm simply trying to establish from the witness why he didn't, at an earlier stage, after the identity became known, indicate that he knew later who was in the car.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but the point is on the strength of the sentence in the affidavit that you are referring to, there is certainly no indication on this that justifies the conclusion that, when he deposed to this affidavit, he was still unaware of the identity of the applicant. It appears as if he was relating what happened at that stage.

MR SWANEPOEL: No, I'm not implying anything along those lines, Mr Chairperson. I'll ask my question again in very clear terms.


MR SWANEPOEL: Why didn't you, in this affidavit, mention that when you deposed to this affidavit you were aware of the identities of the passengers in Mr Amos Mtungwa's car? Why only today?

MR NDWANDWE: Firstly, what I was putting in the affidavit was on the 19th November 1993. I saw Amos Mtungwa and two other people whom I didn't know, in other words, I couldn't say I saw Amos Mtungwa with Mavuso because at the time when I saw them, I didn't know that he was Mavuso and that's the reason why I stated that I saw Amos and two other people, unknown to me. I believe that that answers your question.

MS MTANGA: Can I just point out something? My learned friend just pointed out to Mr Ndwandwe that the evidence a about his meeting Mr Amos Mtungwa was never put to Mr Mtungwa and I actually did. On the transcript page 428, from 427 to 428, I dealt with that aspect of evidence and he denied knowledge of that meeting.

MR SWANEPOEL: Mr Chairperson I never said that the evidence of the meeting was never put to Mr Mtungwa, I just said that the identities of the passengers in his car was never put to him.

MS MTANGA: In any event, he had denied that meeting.

MR SWANEPOEL: Let me ask you the question from a different angle. You testified that you knew the brother of Mr Mtungwa who we know is Philemon Mtungwa and whom you refer to as Emmanuel Mtungwa, is that correct?

MR NDWANDWE: I don't understand when you say that I testified that I knew him.

MR SWANEPOEL: Yes ...(indistinct - microphone not on)

INTERPRETER: Your microphone.

MR SWANEPOEL: You were asked the question in your evidence in chief whether you ever saw around 1993, whether you ever saw Mr Philemon Mtungwa preaching in the area of Piet Retief as a lay preacher and you answered no, is that correct?

MR NDWANDWE: I believe that there is a difference between seeing and knowing. What I said myself is I did not see him preaching at the Pongola area.

MR SWANEPOEL: Did you know who he was?

MR NDWANDWE: I think I said that and it's also clear in the affidavit that Amos was with two other people, unknown to me.

MR SWANEPOEL: Did you, during the latter part of 1993, know who Mr Philemon Mtungwa was?

MR NDWANDWE: I only came to know that he is Philemon Mtungwa when he was here.

MR SWANEPOEL: When the white kombi came to your home and the two people visited your house, do I understand your evidence to be that that was one of the times that you saw the applicant before the amnesty application began?

MR NDWANDWE: Maybe I need to explain. The people who were in the kombi, I couldn't see them. The people I saw are the people who arrived at my place on foot and I just assumed that they might be those people who were in the kombi who had stopped at the gate.

MR SWANEPOEL: Alright, now do I understand your evidence to be that one of those people that arrived on foot was the applicant?


MR SWANEPOEL: And when you spoke to Mr Amos Mtungwa approximately how long did that meeting in front of the bank take? Was it a lengthy conversation, a short conversation? Could you give us an indication?

MR NDWANDWE: I'm not sure to which conversation you're referring to, because we had two conversations.

MR SWANEPOEL: Can you indicate both of those conversations? How long did they take, approximately?

MR NDWANDWE: It didn't take a long time because the first one, after the white man had finished his business at the ATM, Mr Mtungwa had to go to the ATM and that was the end of the conversation between myself and him and the second one, it was the time I was in my car and he was also in his car.

MR SWANEPOEL: Now the second conversation, could you see the applicant clearly and could he see you clearly?

MR NDWANDWE: Very clearly.

MR SWANEPOEL: Now how is it that shortly after that, notwithstanding your hairstyle change, that he couldn't recognise you at your house?

MR NDWANDWE: As I explained that when I changed my hairstyle, it was not to hide or change my identity. The reason was that as I didn't go to Ingwavuma and I didn't also accompany the other people to Piet Retief, there wasn't anything for me to do for the whole day and that is when I decided to go and do a hairstyle, not because I was trying to change my identity.

MR SWANEPOEL: But the applicant could obviously from your evidence, see your face, the build of your body, why couldn't he recognise you on those characteristics the day after?

MR NDWANDWE: I think he can answer that question himself.

MR SWANEPOEL: Did you recognise the applicant immediately?

MR NDWANDWE: I don't understand when you say immediately.

MR SWANEPOEL: When he came to your house on foot on the day that the white kombi also went to your house, did you recognise the applicant immediately as the occupant that you had seen previously in Mr Amos Mtungwa's car?

MR NDWANDWE: I don't understand the word immediately. When you say whether I recognised him immediately, I don't understand what you are trying to say.

MR SWANEPOEL: Did you know that one of the people that came to your house on that day, the day that the white kombi also came to your house, that one of them was one of the occupants of Mr Amos Mtungwa's car that you previously saw?


MR SWANEPOEL: I have no further questions, Mr Chairperson.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Swanepoel. Mr van der Walt.

MR VAN DER WALT: Thank you Mr Chairman, just one aspect. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DER WALT: Mr Ndwandwe, can you please, I just want clarity on one aspect. You already testified that as far as you are concerned, the murder of the deceased had nothing to do with politics, is that correct?


MR VAN DER WALT: You further, if I understood your testimony correctly, said that the taxi boycott was already resolved at the time of his death, is that correct?


MR VAN DER WALT: And if I understood your testimony further correctly, you said that the deceased, in any event, refused to be a member of the Committee trying to resolve the taxi boycott, is that correct?


MR VAN DER WALT: Now can you just then, with that in mind, explain why you said in paragraph 6 of your statement in front of you:

"To my understanding the whole thing was about the conflict between the taxi associations and the community."

MR NDWANDWE: Yes, that's how it is.

MR VAN DER WALT: But why do you say so, if the deceased had nothing to do with the resolving of the taxi boycott, if the taxi boycott was over in any event at the time of his death, why did you say, why are you still saying:

"To my understanding, the whole thing was about the conflict between the taxi associations"?

MR NDWANDWE: If we were to go back to my meeting with Amos Mtungwa on the 19th, Amos Mtungwa asked as to how was my war in the township. The way, the attitude at the meeting which was there and also what happened to him while he was trying to address the meeting and the arrival of those people who came to my place on the 20th of November, give me that impression that all these things are happening because of the taxi boycott. There included is the death of Mr Mcetywa because that wasn't - there has not been any conflict between the IFP and the ANC.

MR SWANEPOEL: If - first tell me was Mr Mcetywa, the deceased, present at that meeting which Mr Amos Mtungwa addressed?


MR SWANEPOEL: Now forgetting for one moment the incidents on the 19th and 20th of November, is there any other reason why you would say his death is specifically being related to the taxi conflict?

MR NDWANDWE: When you say we should forget about the 19th...

MR SWANEPOEL: And the 20th of November.

MR NDWANDWE: And the 20th, I don't understand what you are trying to say, because the 19th and the 20th is part of what brought us here today.

MR SWANEPOEL: I just cannot see how you can link the deceased to the events on the 19th and 20th of November.

MR NDWANDWE: I think you were present while evidence was being led that during those days anything to do with boycotts, stay-aways and toyi-toying, people who used to blamed for such incidents were the ANC people. I don't know whether you understand that kind of a picture.

MR SWANEPOEL: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have nothing further.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr van der Walt. Mr Botha.

MR BOTHA: Just one aspect.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BOTHA: Mr Ndwandwe your testimony was that Mr Mlambo told you that he was assaulted by Rasta, is that correct?


MR BOTHA: Is that the first time you came to hear about this incident?

MR NDWANDWE: Which one?

MR BOTHA: Of the assault on Mr Mlambo?


MR BOTHA: When Mr Mlambo told you, was that the first time that you came to know about this incident?


MR BOTHA: Okay. And then you would agree that it is possible that taxis could have been stoned without your knowledge, is that correct, on that specific time period which is relevant now?


MR BOTHA: Do you know of everything, Mr Ndwandwe?

MR NDWANDWE: Would you repeat the question please?

MR BOTHA: Do you know of everything there. Let me put the question to you this way. It is possible that something might have happened there without your knowledge, is that correct?

MR NDWANDWE: I don't know what you are trying to explain, however, if you can just rephrase your question, maybe I'll understand.

MR BOTHA: It is possible that an incident might have occurred without you knowing it, is that correct?

MR NDWANDWE: Might have occurred without me knowing it?

MR BOTHA: Very clearly, yes.

MR NDWANDWE: It could be impossible.

MR BOTHA: So you want to testify to this Commission that you know of everything that happens in Pongola?

MR NDWANDWE: Specifically stoning of the taxis.

MR BOTHA: I won't take this aspect further, Mr Chairman, I'll leave it for address. And just one final aspect. The only rumours that you were aware of, of injury or death towards Mr Mcetywa and perhaps yourself as well, were these of the white people that you mentioned about, is that correct?

MR NDWANDWE: Will you please repeat your question?

MR BOTHA: The only rumours that you were aware of, of injury or death towards Mr Mcetywa or perhaps yourself, was that which you testified about which came from the white people, is that correct?

MR NDWANDWE: When you say perhaps myself, are you saying, I mean like referring that I've also heard the rumours?

MR BOTHA: Specific - only with Mr Mcetywa then.

MR NDWANDWE: I'll say yes.

MR BOTHA: And you testified that these rumours were going on long before the time of the taxi boycott, is that correct?

MR NDWANDWE: Yes. What I was trying to say was that.

MR BOTHA: Thank you Mr Chairman, no further questions.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Botha. Ms Mtanga.

MR MTANGA: Thank you Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MTANGA: Mr Ndwandwe, the meeting you referred to in which you say the boycott was ended, that was the final meeting where Mr Mavuso came and announced that the fares had been dropped to R1-00. Can you recall when that meeting took place?

MR NDWANDWE: It was towards the end of October.

MS MTANGA: You can't sort-of give an estimation of the date.

MR NDWANDWE: Even if I don't remember well, it was somewhere 27, 28 of October.

MS MTANGA: Okay, then between that time, that is from that Sunday towards the end of October, as you say and up to the 19th, what was the atmosphere between the community and the taxis?

MR NDWANDWE: It was very tense.

MS MTANGA: So are you saying despite the fact that the community had gone back and were boarding the taxis, there was still a tension between the communities and the taxi owners?


MS MTANGA: Thank you, no further questions, Chairperson.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Mtanga.

MR NDWANDWE: Maybe if I explain why I say that, it is because the taxi people were not intending to, of their own free will, to reduce the fare to R1-00. However, it was due to the pressure from the community, therefore there will be a difference where one is doing things at his or her own free will and also when someone is doing things under pressure.

CHAIRPERSON: It appears as if there was absolutely no compromise on this issue at all, not so? It appears that the taxi owners wanted a 50% increase in taxi fare and they got absolutely nothing. It fell right back to where it was.


CHAIRPERSON: So they got nothing out of that settlement.


CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Prinsloo.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Mr Ndwandwe, just one aspect. When the police arrived at the scene where Mr Mcetywa had been shot, had the applicant already disappeared at that stage?

MR NDWANDWE: Firstly I will say that when the police from Pongola arrived, he was already gone, the applicant was not there.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Prinsloo. Yes. Have you got anything?

ADV GCABASHE: Mr Ndwandwe, just to clarify one aspect. Rallies, IFP rallies in Pongola in 1993, up to November 1993, were there any at all?



MR NDWANDWE: IFP. You mean even before 1993?

ADV GCABASHE: I'm more interested in 1993, as close to November, you know, as you can get. Just generally 1993. Were there notable or noticeable IFP rallies in Pongola?


ADV GCABASHE: And the same goes for the ANC of course?


ADV GCABASHE: Mr Amos Mtungwa who gave evidence here, you say that as far as you know, he was not an IFP member in 1993, not one who was known to you as a member of the community in Pongola at Motchane?

MR NDWANDWE: I'm not saying hew as not a member of the IFP. What I knew at the time was that he was in an acting position of Chief Nlangamandla and that made him to be a member of the KwaZulu Legislature. Whether he was an IFP member or not, I don't know and I'm not saying that he wasn't, because I don't know.

ADV GCABASHE: Then a different aspect, the two men who came to your house the night they did not recognise you, one was the applicant, did you recognise the other? Could you today tell us who the second one was?


ADV GCABASHE: Thank you, Mr Ndwandwe. Thank you Chair.

JUDGE DE JAGER: The thing that sort of triggered your mind about the taxis and the people coming to you was actually Mr Mtungwa's reference to "your war" going on in Pongola, is that correct?

MR NDWANDWE: Yes, it's correct and other things beside what you mention.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes. Could you continue? Tell us the other things besides that.

MR NDWANDWE: As I've already testified, that the situation at the meeting of the 27th or 28th where Amos was to address the meeting and also the fact that I also met him and he asked me about my war in the township and also the fact that I saw him in the company of people unknown to me, one of whom is the applicant. And also, as I testified that two people came to my place, one of whom was the applicant and when they were asked where they were coming from, they said they were coming from Manyandeni. Manyandeni, it's a place where Amos was an acting chief and all these things, when they came to my mind, I thought this thing is revolving around the taxi issue.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes. No, I can understand that, as far as you were concerned, but the deceased wasn't involved in the war, the taxi war. You acted as a chairperson, you negotiated so you were sort-of involved on the side of the community, negotiating with the taxi owners, but the deceased didn't play any role in those negotiations.

MR NDWANDWE: I will have to go back. It is known that, or it transpired before the Committee that things like boycotts, stay-aways, they were not perceived as community initiated actions, they were taken as ANC activities.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And he was seen as the public representative of the ANC?


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


CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Prinsloo.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, as far as the other matter is concerned, with regard to that statement, I see it's almost 1 o'clock. Could I just liaise with Mr Botha and Ms Mtanga with regard to this and then I can come back to the Committee and just tell and I'll see whether I can wrap it up as soon as possible? Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll take the luncheon adjournment and we'll reconvene at 2 o'clock.



MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairperson, we call Mr Joubert, he is the attorney to whom I had referred this morning, who is responsible for the client.


MR PRINSLOO: May I continue Chairperson?

EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Mr Joubert you are an attorney.

MR JOUBERT: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Practising here in Pretoria, is that correct?

MR JOUBERT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: During 1983, more specifically November 1993, did you practice at the firm Cornelius and Joubert, is that correct, or the other way around, Joubert and Cornelius?

MR JOUBERT: Yes, at that stage I was practising at Joubert and Cornelius, but I think it was about 94 and not 93.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct, 94. Mr Joubert, a document is being shown to you, the first page which has been handed up to the Honourable Chairperson and that document, is that in your handwriting or not?

MR JOUBERT: It is my handwriting yes, Chairperson. I have great trouble in reading my own handwriting, but I think I may be able to decipher what I have written here.

MR PRINSLOO: This document, what was the purpose of this document, Mr Joubert?

MR JOUBERT: Chairperson, I received instruction to represent one Emmanuel Mavuso who was in detention at that stage, because we as attorneys could not appear in the High Court at that stage, I then asked Adv Smit, you will see that there is an amount of R10 000 as fee, that would have been paid for this and you would see it says R600 and that was per day and R6 000 today and R4 000 before the 24th and you will see at the top it says Emmanuel M. Mavuso (in jail) and then it says Petrus or Sam Nlangamandla and a telephone number and the address of Petrus. I do not know what that 3150, oh, that is the same code as at the top of the page.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Joubert, are you able to recall who gave you this instruction?

MR JOUBERT: Chairperson, I can really not recall but the person whom I liaised with was Petrus Nlangamandla and I draw the inference because several times before I had been his attorney in other matters in Piet Retief, Standerton, amongst others and because I see that the 17th of the 11th month money was received from P Nlangamandla in the account of Mavuso, so I assume that he was definitely there with me.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Nlangamandla, was he well-known to you?

MR JOUBERT: Yes, he was very well-known to me.

MR PRINSLOO: And then at the top of page 1 it says Sam Khumalo or.

MR JOUBERT: It says Sam Khumalo or Petrus Nlangamandla and at the bottom you will see that there is a Sam Nlangamandla.

MR PRINSLOO: Why does the name of Sam Khumalo appear there?

MR JOUBERT: Chairperson, I can really not say. I can draw an inference for you and the inference is that if you see the telephone number there and my contact was with Petrus Nlangamandla and with Sam Khumalo or Sam Nlangamandla. If I wanted to receive instruction, I had to call that number and I had to speak to one of the three persons.

MR PRINSLOO: Now Mr Petrus Nlangamandla, the one who is well-known to you, when he visited your office did he come alone or can you not recall?

MR JOUBERT: Sometimes he was alone. He visited me many times and in this case I cannot recall whether he was alone or whether he had company.

MR PRINSLOO: And the monies which were received and according to your file, when was the trial placed?

MR JOUBERT: The trial was place for the 28th, 29th and 20th of November, 1994 at Piet Retief in the High Court.

MR PRINSLOO: Was the hearing completed in your instruction to Mr Smit by the fees which were paid by someone else, or was it legal aid? What is the position?

MR JOUBERT: This specific trial, you will see the receipts before you, I would assume it is page 2 in the document that was handed up, it was paid in, I think I received the money from Nlangamandla on the account of Mavuso. Who gave him the money and where he got the money from I do not know.

MR PRINSLOO: And if you have regard for the previous receipt, there it says - just one moment, the top one it says Emmanuel Mavuso and at that stage on the 24th of November, was he still in detention?

MR JOUBERT: I look at the bail receipt. He was released on the 1st of December. I was apparently not there. It was received on his account that is why his name is there. I don't know who paid the money in, but it was received in the account of Emmanuel Mavuso. You will see the first receipt says "New file" and then the file was opened and R6 500 was paid into the account on the 25th of the 11th. The next payment was made into this account. I do not know who paid the money in or how it was paid in, but it is here in the account of Emmanuel Mavuso, but it was not received from Mavuso, he was not there personally.

MR PRINSLOO: If you study page 1, are you able to say when page 1 was opened, whether money was paid in on that day or not?

MR JOUBERT: I am not able to tell you. I think it was paid in that day because the reason, it says there: "R6 000 today" on my note. That is the receipt which was issued, then I would assume that that is the R6 500 that was paid in that day, so I assume it was on the 17th of the 11th.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you deal with any request for appeal?

MR JOUBERT: Yes, I did, following on a merit report which I received from Adv Smit. No money was further available and then we went to Legal Aid and he thought that there was merit in the appeal and the Legal Aid gave us instruction and they took the matter further.

MR PRINSLOO: This Mr Smit.

MR JOUBERT: I have heard that he is no longer with the Bar.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you know where he is?

MR JOUBERT: I understood from my partner because I wanted to contact Koos and he told me that Adv Smit is in Australia, he has apparently emigrated and I do not know whether this is true or not.

MR PRINSLOO: You personally never had any contact with the applicant?

MR JOUBERT: Not at all. I think today is the first day that I actually see him.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Chairperson.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Prinsloo. Mr Bizos, have you got any questions?

MR BIZOS: ...(not translated - transcriber's translation -) A few questions, Mr Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS: Mr Joubert a long time ago I also worked in an attorney's office and on the probabilities it would appear to me that three persons visited your office and you put those three names at the top of the page.

MR JOUBERT: Chairperson, I agree it is probable, but I cannot swear to it. I can tell you it had to be in the morning just before 9 and by 9 o'clock my time is not my own, because that is why the notes are incomplete.

MR BIZOS: And most probably the person who was the leader of the group, the first name was written down, or was the first name written down.

MR JOUBERT: Chairperson, the man whom I consulted with was Petrus Nlangamandla. I do not know Sam. Even if he was here, I would not be able to identify him.

MR BIZOS: How did it come about that his name was the first name that was written down?

MR JOUBERT: Chairperson, I may have sat down asked them what their names were or they gave their names and his name was given first.

MR BIZOS: And the contact number is that of Petrus and not of Sam Khumalo?

MR JOUBERT: I don't know whose number it is.

MR BIZOS: But according to the line that was drawn there ...

MR JOUBERT: But if Petrus is not there then I could ask for any of the other persons or I could leave a message. These are all the inferences I drew.

MR BIZOS: And you cannot recall anything further?

MR JOUBERT: No, I am sorry that I cannot assist you any further.

MR BIZOS: Thank you, Chairperson, no further questions.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Bizos. Mr van der Heyde.

MR VAN DER HEYDE: No questions, thank you.


CHAIRPERSON: Mr Swanepoel.

MR SWANEPOEL: No questions, Chairperson.



MR BOTHA: Unfortunately no questions, Chairperson.



MS MTANGA: No questions, Chairperson.



MR PRINSLOO: No re-examination thank you Honourable Chairperson.


CHAIRPERSON: Mr Joubert, I shall return the original documents which were taken from the file, I shall return them to you. Mr Prinsloo directed such a request to me. I would like you to have a look under the name of Emmanuel Mavuso, what is written there?

MR JOUBERT: It says "In jail".

CHAIRPERSON: In jail. He was still in detention at that stage. Thank you very much Mr Joubert, you are excused.

MR JOUBERT: Thank you, Chairperson.


CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Prinsloo.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I was informed that the document has been seen that was referred to as the statement, it is in the possession of Mr Botha.

CHAIRPERSON: The original document?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes and I understand that Mr Mbatha is also here. I don't know what Mr Botha has to do about it. I would just like to re-examine my own client.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Botha, is the original document available?

MR BOTHA: Chairperson, it is indeed available. It was just handed to me. I do make it available to the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Botha. Yes. Mr Prinsloo, we return the original to you. Very well.


CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Prinsloo, have you got any further re-examination?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, the document now in my possession, apart from two additional pages, there is an additional page now to the statement, which is a page 1 with the badge of the Police Force on the front page and it says: "Preambled Statement" and on this document appears the name Mavuso and other names, other details.


MR PRINSLOO: I was informed by Mr Botha, I asked him as to whether this statement, the document, the page before the Committee, as to whether this page was written by Mr Mbatha and maybe Mr Botha can assist us at this stage to save time with regard to this as to whether this was indeed written by Mr Mbatha, the statement itself.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, can you be of assistance Mr Botha?

MR BOTHA: Indeed Mr Chairman. It was taken up with Mr Mbatha and he confirmed that he did write down the contents of the statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Yes, Mr Prinsloo.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman. The first page, could we just get that as well because the first page wasn't given to us yesterday and we only had two pages, as to whether that was also the writing of Mr Mbatha or not, I don't know. It would appear to me to be the same writing.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well I'm not sure, can you assist?

MR BOTHA: Mr Chairman, I did not speak to Mr Mbatha with regards to the statement. I did not receive the page Mr Prinsloo is referring to initially in July 1991. I've got no instructions as to who wrote the initial page. I will contend that it is just an informal information page on any police document and is not - it should not be contentious, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, is that in order?

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Mr Mbatha, I will now show you what purports to be the original document. I'll first show you the statement of which you saw a copy yesterday and you testified that the signature on this page was your signature. Will you look at it as to whether you still agree with that or not?

MR BOTHA: Excuse me, may I just ask Mr Prinsloo to say which page he is ...

MR PRINSLOO: I'm referring to the page, that will be page 1 yesterday Mr Chairman, because now we have different pages.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes that's the ...(intervention)

MR PRINSLOO: ...(indistinct - speaking simultaneously) copies made of the other one?

CHAIRPERSON: That's the actual statement by the applicant.

MR PRINSLOO: The statement itself, Mr Chairman. Thank you.

MR MAVUSO: Yes, I signed here.

MR PRINSLOO: I now show you a page 1, that is now the additional page, if I may call it page 1, which is a preamble to a statement, that's what's recorded here. If you look at the bottom of the page Mr Mbatha, did you sign that? Is it your writing, or who's writing, or don't you know?

MR MAVUSO: The handwriting is mine, but I did not write here.

MR PRINSLOO: Maybe I could just clarify that Mr Chairman.

ADV GCABASHE: And Mr Prinsloo, it is Mr Mavuso, not Mr Mbatha. You keep calling Mr Mavuso Mr Mbatha.

MR PRINSLOO: I'm indebted to you Madam Chair. Mr Mavuso, sorry if I called you Mr Mbatha. We can just assist you. Yesterday you were shown these two pages and I can go back. The one in your possession is a copy of the document which I've now shown you. This signature here on this page, is that your signature or not?

MR MAVUSO: Yes, the handwriting is mine, but I cannot say when I signed because when we went there the paper was hand-written.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, which signature did he now identify?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I'm showing you now the last page.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, very well. Is that the one that you showed him now?

MR PRINSLOO: The original document here.

CHAIRPERSON: Which he says he signed but he doesn't know when that was, whenever that was produced, the typed thing was produced.

MR PRINSLOO: He says the document was hand-written. May I just follow that up Mr Chairman?


MR PRINSLOO: Mr Mavuso, if you say the document was hand-written, what do you mean by that?

MR MAVUSO: I'm not referring to the one that is typed, I'm saying the one that I had was hand-written not typed.

MR PRINSLOO: I'm now showing the witness the original statement. Are you referring to this document?

MR MAVUSO: Yes, I am the one who signed here.

MR PRINSLOO: No further re-examination thank you Mr Chairman.


CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Yes, alright.

ADV GCABASHE: Mr Mavuso, just one question. Is it correct, just from having heard your evidence, that as far as you know your son Nkosinathi did not confide in anybody in the family about what he had done, who had instructed him, why he had done this particular deed, not at all, is that correct?

MR MAVUSO: No, he didn't inform anybody.

ADV GCABASHE: Not his brother, not his wife, I'll assume he has a wife because you've talked about children, nobody at all and not yourself.

MR MAVUSO: Yes, he has a girlfriend, not married yet.

ADV GCABASHE: And not one of them, as far as you know, knew anything at all about this before the amnesty application was launched.

MR MAVUSO: No, not anybody.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Mr Mavuso, you are now excused. Thank you.


MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, may he be excused completely to go back to his home today?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes indeed, there can't be any objection to that, I assume.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman, I'm indebted to you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Prinsloo.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman as far as the statement is concerned itself, I would like to point out to the Committee at this stage that the import of the statement before the Committee in view of the fact that Mr Botha has indicated and Mr Mbatha admits this statement was taken by him, the part of the affidavit, that will be the second page which was handed in yesterday Mr Chairman, indicates that the policeman Mr Duma purports to say:

"I certify that the above statement was taken by me and that the deponent has acknowledged that he knows and understands the contents of this statement. This statement was sworn before me and deponent's signature was placed in my presence."

And then it's got the date and Mr Duma's, apparently his signature. I submit that the import of this Mr Chairman, indicates that Mr Duma took the statement and ...(indistinct) import of the first page of the statement which I may refer to as the preamble, it conveys to the Committee as if Mr Duma had taken the statement, which, with respect is not the case according to the admission made by Mr Botha on behalf of Mr Mbatha. Yes, I'd like to point it out to the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that what appears on the face of the roneoed form?

MR PRINSLOO: I respectfully submit, that's what appears from what I've read to the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but is that part of that roneoed form that you were talking about which says:

"I took the statement..."

It says a lot of things. There are English and Afrikaans alternatives.

MR PRINSLOO: But Mr Chairman,

CHAIRPERSON: There's a whole string of clauses and it appears to be a roneoed form that's used to be attached to statements that have been taken and are being attested. It seems to be English and Afrikaans alternatives, so you say that there somewhere it says that the Commissioner of Oaths took the statement.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, with respect, what I'm indicating...

CHAIRPERSON: Oh I see now.

MR PRINSLOO: Below what purports to be the signature of the deponent, the Committee will notice that the Afrikaans part of that is deleted and then there's in English, that's what I've just read to the Committee.


MR PRINSLOO: And what it conveys to the Committee is that the statement was indeed taken by Mr Duma.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well that is what the roneo form seems to provide.

MR PRINSLOO: And that's with reference to the indication that's conveyed on the first page which is not in your possession, currently it's in my possession, the original, which was handed now today, Mr Chairman, it purports to be a preamble of a police statement, I mean that would not be a statement that would be written out by a civilian.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes but is this really, is this in dispute?

MR PRINSLOO: Well, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it in contention? Doesn't your client also say ...?

MR PRINSLOO: The import ...

CHAIRPERSON: Mbatha was there and the policeman was there, they were all there.

MR PRINSLOO: The fact that they were there, Mr Chairman, I respectfully submit does not indicate what role they played. What is suggested, what is conveyed to this Committee is that the policeman took this statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Wouldn't your point have had much more force if this wasn't a roneoed form? It seems to be a standard thing that they attach to statements.

MR PRINSLOO: I respectfully submit, Mr Chairman, if it was the police who took the statement, yes, but when a civilian writes a statement and there is no indication that he wrote the statement, and what is conveyed to this Committee is the fact that the police took the statement, I submit it makes a vast difference, where Mr Mbatha who is clearly ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't it tantamount to a situation often where you prepare a statement and you send your client to the police to have it attested?

MR PRINSLOO: I respectfully submit the fact ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: They just, they stamp the thing, they administer the oath and that's all they do.

MR PRINSLOO: That's possible Mr Chairman, that does happen, but in this particular instance, the history of this is very different. Here we've got Mr Botha's version that the IFP was requested to obtain a statement from the applicant and what was conveyed to me, Mr Chairman, is something different.

MR BOTHA: Excuse me, Mr Chairman, I think Mr Prinsloo has misconstrued my version. It was not the IFP that was requested for a statement. A statement was requested from Mr Mavuso and this is how it then came to light that it was made.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. You note that correct.

MR PRINSLOO: So is the admission then clear, Mr Chairman, without wasting time and that is that it is admitted that the evidence of the applicant that was tendered yesterday is that he was requested by Mr Mbatha, or fetched, rather, taken to the police station where a document was then drafted. That still stands, is that the position?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I assume so.

MR PRINSLOO: Because I've heard various versions here, outside the Committee. I'd like to make sure that there is no surprise element or anything like that here so that we can settle this matter once and for all Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I really don't see what the cause for the concern is. I thought that much of this is really common cause. Your client now then says that he signed the statement, so really, a lot of what could have been contentious seems to have fallen away.

MR PRINSLOO: Besides - the contents are still in dispute, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well that seems to be, but we're concerned about the formalities here.

MR PRINSLOO: And as far administering the oath, that's also not admitted by the witness, Mr Chairman. That still stands as well. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well we note what you say Mr Prinsloo.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you. So it is then up to the other side if they want to prove the statement. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well does that conclude the evidence that you wanted to tender?

MR PRINSLOO: I think so, the applicant's evidence - there is one aspect I would like to just raise, Mr Chairman. I've endeavoured to obtain from the prison in Vryheid, the record as to the visit which the witness Mr Mavuso senior testified to and they say there might still be in existence a register in which the firearms are recorded and they haven't been located as yet. If I could be permitted to file an affidavit together with that document, if it's found, save for that Mr Chairman, I close my case. Will that be in order?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well if there is an official record available, that can't really be in contention, but we'll obviously have to see to it that the interested parties get access to that.

MR PRINSLOO: I'm making the submission in light of the fact that we could save time in getting this matter finalised, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no I appreciate that. We need that to, we have spent quite a lot of time on this matter.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm not saying that the time is wasted, but we have dealt with what appears to be the substance of the matter.

MR PRINSLOO: I'm indebted to you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so that concludes the case on behalf of the applicant, subject to your getting final indication about this record.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Is there any other evidence forthcoming from any of the parties?

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, I am concerned by the silence of the person who produced the document. I understand that Mr Mbatha is here. Mr Mavuso senior denied that he said the things that are written in the document. If Mr Mbatha is going to say that that is what he said and that is established, then obviously it has very important consequences for the credibility of Mr Mavuso senior. I don't know that it isn't really to be left to the discretion of the legal representative of the person that produced the document, whether the Committee which is really enjoined to try and find out the truth, once Mr Mbatha is here, he should not be called and asked: "Did Mr Mavuso say the things that appear in the statement?" Did you in any way misrepresent what he said? And once that evidence is on record, it may or may not be contested, then we can argue the case on a proper basis, but leaving it in the air in this way, saying that - I'm not talking about the minute formalities that Mr Prinsloo is speaking about, I'm talking about the substance of the matter, the witness says: "These are not my words". Now once he says that, prima facie he has signed the document, in order to hold the document against his credibility the person that says that he took it and took it honestly, should be called.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes I know what you're saying Mr Bizos. I didn't hear from you Mr Botha. Do you have any intentions in regard to Mr Mbatha or anybody else?

MR SWANEPOEL: Mr Chairperson, might I just intervene at this stage? It appears and I have spoken extensively to both Mr van der Heyde and Mr Botha, that Mr Mbatha is unrepresented at these proceedings. I might just place that on record and that neither myself nor Mr van der Heyde have any mandate to represent him at all.


MR BIZOS: With the greatest respect, I don't understand this. He's a witness. Witnesses are not entitled to representation unless they claim it for good reason, for what reason would Mr Mbatha claim to want legal representation as to whether he honestly took a statement or not.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we're not that - Mr Bizos. We wanted an indication because we will have to consider what we ought to do. If you indicate that you don't intend to call any further evidence, then of course we will have to consider whether Mr Mbatha is a material witness and his testimony needs to be taken and we will have to consider what we ought to do, but I just wanted to get an idea as to where you stand.

MR BOTHA: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman the situation is, I was handed this document just after lunch as I explained to you earlier. I have not consulted with Mr Mbatha in regards to direct consultation. I, for that matter, did not want to just call a witness without having consulted with him before. It is so that Mr Mbatha isn't, wasn't and has never been my client in these proceedings. I've got no instructions in this regard.

CHAIRPERSON: He might be an important witness from the point of view of your client.

MR BOTHA: That is indeed so, Mr Chairman. I wonder if it's possible that perhaps the matter just stand down for a minutes?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think so. We'll stand down.



CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Botha, what is the position?

MR BOTHA: Mr Chairman, I have spoken now to Mr Mbatha. I've explained to him what the situation is and in regards to what the Commission wants him to testify. I have also explained to him what his rights are in terms of the Act. At this stage he gave an indication to me that he first wants to consult with his legal representative before he gives testimony. I am not his representative Mr Chairman, so I can't take it further than that. I then leave it in the hands of the Commission.


MS MTANGA: Chairperson if I may then just come in there?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please.

MS MTANGA: Having heard what Mr Botha said and he came to report that to me, I had taken the opportunity to consult with Mr Mbatha and I advised him that the Act does allow us to have people as witnesses and that whatever he says before the Committee is putative and that evidence cannot be used against him at a later stage. He still remained adamant that he wants a lawyer and he won't give any evidence. Even in our consultation, he won't say anything to me unless he's given a lawyer of his own.


MR BIZOS: Comment, Mr Chairman. I believe that the witnesses, the perspective witness's understand if to the Act is wrong. He is not an implicated person. He will not be asked to give evidence about any of this but be that as it may, Mr Chairman, although I think that it is a misguided attitude and we will have submissions to make as to what inferences may have to be drawn because of his attitude in relation to the credibility of Mr Mavuso, we do not want to take the matter any further Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Bizos. Ms Mtanga, what is the practical effect of Mr Mbatha's attitude? Assuming he has to testify before us and assuming that he has to engage the services of his lawyer, what is the practical effect of that on the proceedings? How long will it take him to do that?

MS MTANGA: Chairperson, the first problem I have with that is that the rule from our office, they wouldn't allow him to have a lawyer in the first place as a witness. It's something - I consulted with our legal officer Adv Paddy Prior and he indicated to me that they will not under any circumstances allow a witness to have a lawyer and we bear the cost for that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. What did he say, has he got his own lawyer?

MS MTANGA: He does not have any. In the event we are required to appoint one for him, it will have to be done through our office in Cape Town, but we will have to instruct a lawyer for him.

CHAIRPERSON: So he hasn't got a lawyer and what has his objection been to you protecting his interest?

MS MTANGA: He feels he needs a lawyer, not someone who works for the Truth Commission. He needs somebody who can represent him and protect his rights because I did explain to him that I am an attorney working for the Truth Commission and all I'll be doing will be leading his evidence for the benefit of the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Where is Mr Mbatha? Can you please come forward Mr Mbatha? Can you perhaps just take a seat over there? Yes, yes. Do you need an interpreter?

MR MBATHA: I think I can hear what's going on.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you confirm? You've heard what both Mr Botha over there and Ms Mtanga next to you have told you?

MR MBATHA: Yes, I agree.

CHAIRPERSON: You understand what this is all about? You made a statement ...

MR MBATHA: Yes, but because there was no consultation with me, I was just called, I got the voice mail from the lady that I must come and bring the original statement. I was not aware what it was all about, so when I come here she just told me, so I think this is, it will need maybe to get the legal representative.

CHAIRPERSON: So if anybody were to ask you to testify, you would have wanted a lawyer?

MR MBATHA: Yes, I'll not be able at this time.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Do you have a lawyer of your own?

MR MBATHA: No Sir, Mr Chairman, Sir, I think I need, I mean, the Commission to provide me, I mean to pay me a lawyer because at this time I'm not working, I'm just staying at home.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And you're from KwaZulu Natal are you?

MR MBATHA: Yes, I'm from Paul Pietersburg, KwaZulu Natal.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Are you the secretary of the IFP in Paul Pietersburg?

MR MBATHA: No, no.

CHAIRPERSON: You're not an office bearer of the IFP?

MR MBATHA: Yes, I'm an office bearer but not the secretary of Paul Pietersburg District but I'm serving in the Regional structure, I'm the Publicity Secretary of the Regional Structure.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Now the IFP has a lawyer present here, Mr van der Heyde sitting over there.

MR MBATHA: Yes Mr Chairman Sir. I think the Commission can give me the chance I mean to consult with my legal representative, but as I raised the point before that I don't have the money now to pay any legal representative.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Yes of course. We're looking at various possibilities. We have to finalise this application, it's been coming on for a long time, since last year. The applicant is in custody, in prison, so he's not outside. That's an important consideration, so we can't allow the matter to carry on indefinitely, so we are looking at various possibilities. We're not even sure what Mr van der Heyde's position would be but would you not be more confident if you were to be placed in a position where you can consult with the IFP lawyer?

MR MBATHA: Yes, I do understand what you're saying now Mr Chairman, Sir, but I think that I've also the right I mean to consult before I give any evidence in any Commission or sitting.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no, no, there's no problem with that. We are trying just to find a practical way of dealing with the matter. Would it be worthwhile to explore the possibility of the IFP's lawyer looking after your interests? I can ask Ms Mtanga over there to speak to the IFP lawyer and to see what the possibilities are.

MR MBATHA: Yes, but Mr Chairman, Sir, to me it would seem like unfair because here I was just coming alone, I was not aware even that the IFP legal representative is here, I was not aware of all that, so it will definitely be unfair to me.


MR MBATHA: Yes, if I can, I mean, get a person from whom I did not consult in time.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no, no, no, we're not talking about that, we are just talking about the principle, whether we should not ask the Commission's lawyer to investigate the possibility of the IFP's lawyer looking after your interest and if time is needed to consult with you, then of course that's not a problem.

MR MBATHA: I think, I don't stop, I mean, the Commission to do that Mr Chairman. The Commission can do that, but I'm not confirming that it may suit my ...

CHAIRPERSON: No I understand that, we must first see what it's all about.

MR MBATHA: I allow, I can give the Commission to do what, I mean, they plan to do.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we're certainly going to try and we hope that perhaps there could be some resolution of the matter along those lines. Ms Mtanga I'm going to ask you please just look into this possibility. We're going to stand down briefly and please indicate to us whether there's any possible progress in regard to that possibility.

MS MTANGA: I will do so.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Ms Mtanga when you are looking into this just bear in mind that or course Mr Mbatha might be under the misimpression that he is under pressure to testify immediately. That is not the position. This matter is scheduled until tomorrow, bear that in mind. I'll stand down briefly.



CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Swanepoel. We have been informed that you have been briefed to assist Mr Mbatha.

MR SWANEPOEL: As you please Mr Chairperson, that's indeed the case.


MR SWANEPOEL: I am ready to lead his evidence now on the issue of the affidavit, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I see. Yes, that is the issue that is before us, the affidavit.


CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Swanepoel.

MR SWANEPOEL: As you please, Mr Chairperson.

EXAMINATION BY MR SWANEPOEL: Mr Mbatha, what is your current position, if any, within the IFP?

MR MBATHA: I am secretary of communication in KwaZulu Natal.

MR SWANEPOEL: And during 1997 specifically during July 1999, sorry Mr Chairperson, 1999, what was your position within the IFP then?

MR MBATHA: Would you please repeat the year?

MR SWANEPOEL: 1999, specifically July.

MR MBATHA: I was still in the same position.

MR SWANEPOEL: Alright. Now do you know whether the applicant is a card-carrying member of the IFP?

MR MBATHA: Yes, I know that.

MR SWANEPOEL: Alright. Now please look at the document I'm currently showing to you. This is an affidavit that became contentious during the course of these proceedings.

MR MBATHA: Yes, I can see it.

MR SWANEPOEL: Do you recall this affidavit?


MR SWANEPOEL: Now can you tell the Committee what you recall about this affidavit?

MR MBATHA: Yes, I recall that Mr Meshack Mavuso who is a member, a very prominent member of my organisation as well as an Induna within my chieftaincy, is one person who frequented the IFP office with a different problems, some of which involve his son and he would ask for the use of the telephone to communicate with other people. One day he came to me and told me that his son is appearing before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. He wanted me to assist him in writing a letter or a statement in which he would state that some people came to discuss a matter with his son.

MR SWANEPOEL: And after he told you this, what did you tell him?

MR MBATHA: I told him that I would make an arrangement to come and collect him and take him to the police where he could make a statement because there wasn't any other person who had the authority to take the statement.

MR SWANEPOEL: Do you know what the administration of the oath to establish an affidavit entails?

MR MBATHA: I don't know.

MR SWANEPOEL: Alright, what happened then?

MR MBATHA: They made arrangements to go and collect him and take him to the police station. Since he was an elderly person, I took the car belonging to one Councillor who was also a member of the IFP. We took him to the Inkatha Office and then we told him to go to the police station. After some few minutes, he came back to say that at the police station they requested him to write everything down and bring the statement to be signed and I went with him back to the police station to write. Actually I was listening to him and then translating what he was saying in Zulu and writing it down and thereafter completing the statement, he signed it before this policeman who signed it.

MR SWANEPOEL: When you say that "They made arrangements to go and fetch him", who was they?

MR MBATHA: I mean myself, I made arrangements to go and collect him. I had to try and get a car because I didn't have a car at the time and I asked someone to go and collect him, he was a white person, to go and collect him and thereafter they dropped the car and he went to the police station.

MR SWANEPOEL: Did you go along to go and fetch him to take him to the police office?

MR MBATHA: Yes, we were two people who went to fetch him at his home and we couldn't find him there. We were told he was at a neighbour. That's where we found him.

MR SWANEPOEL: And who was the person that accompanied you?

MR MBATHA: It was Buthelezi who was a driver of Mrs ...(indistinct) the Councillor.

MR SWANEPOEL: Now at the police station, what exactly happened there? Could you tell the Committee again?

MR MBATHA: I went to the police station after Mr Mavuso had come to request me to accompany him because he came back to say that they said he should write a statement down and should get anyone who can help him with that and I told him that I would be able to help him. I went with him. I wrote what he said down and I told him since I'm not authorised to attest or to sign the statement, then you'll have to take it to the policeman and then he went to this policeman to have the statement signed.

MR SWANEPOEL: Did you talk to him in Zulu?


MR SWANEPOEL: And is it your handwriting that appears on page 2 of the affidavit?

MR MBATHA: Yes, that's correct. That's my handwriting. On paragraph 1, 2, 3, 4. However from paragraph 5, the one line is not mine.

MR SWANEPOEL: Now on a scale of 1 to 10, how would you describe your ability to write English?

MR MBATHA: I would say that I'm trying, I'm not perfect in writing English, however I would say people might be able to understand what I was trying to explain.

MR SWANEPOEL: Have you read through this page that is in front of you, page 2 of the affidavit?

MR MBATHA: I haven't read page 2, I just completed the statement which I was writing down and I left.

MR SWANEPOEL: Mr Chairperson, might I just clarify with the witness, it appears that the original has three pages and the copies that we have been furnished with, only have two pages. Now in the original this is page 2, the page that is currently in front of you, could you tell the Commission whether this is the page that you have read or not?

MR MBATHA: If I remember well, I think it is a cover which was covering the statement.

MR SWANEPOEL: This, the page that is in front of you, is page 2 of the original? Now was this the page that you have read?

MR MBATHA: Yes, I will say the one that I wrote or the statement I took is this one, plus the cover which was on top of it.

MR SWANEPOEL: And what is contained in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, is that what Mr Mavuso told you?

MR MBATHA: No, what he told me is number 2. What is in paragraph 1, that's what I wrote myself.

MR SWANEPOEL: Yes. This page that is in your handwriting, can you confirm that what is written down here was told to you by this Mr Mavuso?

MR MBATHA: Yes, I was told by Mr Mavuso.

MR SWANEPOEL: Were you present when he affixed his signature on this page?

MR MBATHA: I was gone at the time.

MR SWANEPOEL: And if you look at the following page which is page 3 of the original, do you see that there's a mark which appears to be Mr Mavuso's signature again?

MR MBATHA: Yes, I can see that.

MR SWANEPOEL: Were you present when he affixed this, what appears to be his signature?

MR MBATHA: No, I had already left at the time.

MR SWANEPOEL: And were you present when an oath was administered to him, if any?

MR MBATHA: No, I wasn't there.

MR SWANEPOEL: What happened with this affidavit after you left the police station?

MR MBATHA: Yes, Mr Mavuso came for the second time after he finished his business at the police station. He said I should try and send the statement to a place where it could help his son.

MR SWANEPOEL: Where did he ask you to send the affidavit to?

MR MBATHA: He said to any other person who would be able to take it to the Truth Commission.

MR SWANEPOEL: And what did you do then?

MR MBATHA: I called a lawyer who was known to me and used to me and asked him if he could send a statement to the Truth Commission on behalf of Mavuso and he asked where is that Commission, where will the Commission be sitting. I told him that it will be in Gauteng and he said he wouldn't be able to handle matters in Gauteng. He will try to get a correspondent in Gauteng who will be used to sending statement to - and he gave me the number of this Mr Botha, whom I talked to him on the phone and I faxed it to this Mr Botha, but I'm not sure whether he received the fax but there was a confirmation that it went through.

MR SWANEPOEL: And what was the name of the attorney that you spoke to in KwaZulu Natal?

MR MBATHA: It was Lourens de Klerk.

MR SWANEPOEL: Now the fax that you sent through to Mr Botha, did you include the covering page which is page 1 of the original in your fax?

MR MBATHA: I can't be certain because there is a lady by the name of Nomsa Shabangu, I normally write things and give it to her to fax. I'm not sure whether she faxed the cover or not. I won't be specific on that one.

MR SWANEPOEL: Do you know anything about the origin of the covering page and the last page of the affidavit?

MR MBATHA: I know the first one, the covering page, however, I don't know the last page. I know the first and the second page.

MR SWANEPOEL: Was the covering page completed in your presence at the police station?

MR MBATHA: Yes, it was myself and I gave it to the secretary to fax it.

MR SWANEPOEL: I have no further questions at this stage Mr Chair.


CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, have you got any questions?

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman, may I just have the document, the original please Mr Chairman. If a copy could be given to the witness. Thank you Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Mr Mbatha, the first page, the covering page as you call it, can you see it from here, with the police emblem on it, referred to as the preamble to the statement? Are you in possession of a copy in front of you with the first page? Was this in your handwriting, the first page?

MR MBATHA: Before I answer your question, I didn't recognise that as the first page, I took it as a covering sheet.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is off.

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon. Thank you. The page that is now in front of you, which I show you from where I'm seated, which is referred to as a preamble to the statement and also in Afrikaans "Annexure to Statement" have you got it in front of you?

MR MBATHA: Yes, I can see.

MR PRINSLOO: Is that your handwriting on that page?

MR MBATHA: No, it's not mine.

MR PRINSLOO: Was this document completed in your presence?

MR MBATHA: I wasn't present.

MR PRINSLOO: Where did you see this page for the first time?

MR MBATHA: I saw it when Mr Mavuso was coming back for the second time from the police station. It was already completed and he was asking me to send it over.

MR PRINSLOO: To send what over to where?

MR MBATHA: To send it to any place which could take it to the Truth Commission.

MR PRINSLOO: The last page?

MR MBATHA: It was completed in my absence and I don't know anything about it.

MR PRINSLOO: Is it your evidence that whatever appears on what I refer to as the first page, the one of the preamble as you refer to as the covering page, that is not at all your handwriting that appears on that?

MR MBATHA: Yes, the one you're referring to, it's not my handwriting and also where there is typewriting, I didn't write it.

MR PRINSLOO: And on the page which is the statement itself, that is now the second page, is that your handwriting?

MR MBATHA: Yes, it is my handwriting.

MR PRINSLOO: All of it?

MR MBATHA: No, I will say the first, the second, the third and the fourth and the last line, it's not my handwriting.

MR PRINSLOO: Are you saying, what is not your writing, "That is all I wish to say", that is not your writing?

MR MBATHA: Yes, that's that only.

MR PRINSLOO: Who's writing is that?

MR MBATHA: I won't be able to say because he came with the statement with the writing on it.

MR PRINSLOO: When you received this statement, were all three pages together, the covering page, the page which is the statement and the last past which purports to be a ...(intervention)

MR MBATHA: Yes, it was three pages.

MR PRINSLOO: Who brought it to you?

MR MBATHA: It was Mr Mavuso senior.

MR PRINSLOO: You see, Mr Mbatha, when this statement was presented to the Committee, it was only the second and the last page. In other words, the statement and the one where it purports or indicates it's a statement under oath. The first page was not presented by Mr Botha to the Committee when the cross-examination of Mr Mavuso was undertaken. That's the elderly gentleman sitting at the back.

MR MBATHA: I don't understand your question.

MR PRINSLOO: The question is Mr Mbatha, the covering page, have you got it?

MR MBATHA: Yes, I can see it.

MR PRINSLOO: That page was not presented to the Committee yesterday when Mr Mavuso was cross-examined. What appears from the transmission report is that there were five pages. Now if I include the transmission report, then five pages were transmitted to a telephone number - 012-3202905. Was it upon your instructions that this document was faxed to this number in Pretoria?

MR MBATHA: I can't see where it's reflected that five pages were sent.

MR PRINSLOO: Well you can look at the original which is in my possession.

MR BOTHA: Mr Chairperson, the transmission report is not in possession of the witness.

MR PRINSLOO: May I show the witness, Mr Chairman?

MR MBATHA: I think it is not correct, the papers which were sent were about four pages ...(intervention)

MR BOTHA: Chairperson, might I just before the witness answer is translated, mention that the transmission report states that four pages were sent, not five as was put to the witness.

MR PRINSLOO: May I proceed, Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, do you accept that, Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, on the left side of the - I haven't got the document in front of me, there's five pages, indicated as 5 pages, written 5 pages. Unless I'm mistaken.

CHAIRPERSON: Can I just see that. No, it says four pages, Mr Prinsloo.

MR PRINSLOO: On the left, Mr Chairman - I haven't got the document in front of me now, I saw "Pages" and there's a 5, I think it's in brackets.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, it's "page(s)", there's an "s". It's singular or plural and then on the right-hand side a number is given as 4.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

ADV GCABASHE: Mr Prinsloo, on a lighter note, you obviously never fax documents. The transmission report comes out at your end, it's not sent from the other side. You should try it sometime.

MR PRINSLOO: I'm indebted for your assistance, Madam.

So in other words, Sir - thank you, Advocate Gcabashe. Mr Mbatha, then it indicates that four pages, page 1, page 2, three pages, because you must ignore the transmission page, were sent to this telephone number I've said here. So my question remains the same, with the correction of ...(intervention)

MR BOTHA: Mr Chairperson, with respect, the question is misleading. There's a difference between the transmission report and the transmission page. There is a covering page identifying the document, which appears to be one of the standard covers that originates from offices and that is the transmission cover sheet, that's the title of it. The transmission report is the fifth page to which my learned friend is referring and the question is, with respect, misleading.


MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, if it's misleading I'll correct it.

If one counts the pages excluding this transmission report, which is not part of the documents then ...(indistinct) wasn't sent ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: That's what we are told.

MR PRINSLOO: I accept that, Mr Chairman. ... then there's four pages, Mr Chairman ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: We're both learning, Mr Prinsloo.

MR PRINSLOO: Then there's four pages, Mr Chairman. In other words my question is, did all these four pages including the covering page, was then sent to this particular telephone number that appears on this document, is that correct, do you accept that?

MR MBATHA: Yes, I do admit that the four were sent to Pretoria.

MR PRINSLOO: Now Mr Mbatha, according to Mr Botha, after Mr Velaphi Khumalo had testified they requested the IFP to obtain a statement from Mr Mavuso. That is what was put to the Committee here when this document was presented as to why was this document produced here.

MR BOTHA: Mr Chairman, not the IFP was requested, I think that's again a statement that is a bit wrong from Mr Prinsloo. A person was requested, I've never said it was the IFP that was requested.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, ...(indistinct) know that.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I remember the name Thembinkosi Mbatha being mentioned as the one who will take the statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but Mr Botha says it is not the IFP.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Mbatha, there was a request from Mr Botha that a statement should be taken from Mr Mavuso and by coincidence it happens to be on the same day, after Velaphi Khumalo had testified, the 8th of July 1999. And according to Mr Botha, it was done in pursuance of the fact that the applicant had denied that at certain meeting at which he was present, a letter was discussed. Any comment from your side about that? Because you say Mr Mavuso of his own accord came to you to send that document. - to the Committee.

MR MBATHA: Before I answer the question I would like him to repeat the question and specifically to say which Mavuso is he referring to.

MR PRINSLOO: I'll put it to you this way. Mr Mavuso senior, the man who lives in your area according to your evidence, his evidence is he was fetched by you and the white man by the name Mkhulu, and he says he never requested anyone to fetch him. What do you say to that?

MR MBATHA: I will deny that if he says that. If it's Mavuso saying that, I will deny that.

MR PRINSLOO: Now Mr Mbatha, by coincidence on the 8th of July 1999 whilst this Committee was in progress here and Mr Khumalo had already testified, this statement was obtained, which blends with the version of the Inkatha people, that is Mr Khumalo, Mr Mncwango, Sam Khumalo and Velaphi Khumalo, Buthelezi. Can you explain this coincidence, that this is put in a statement on that day at that time?

MR MBATHA: I won't be able at the present moment to answer that question because I don't even know the Buthelezi you are referring to and the other person too you are referring to, those are the people who were mentioned to me by Mavuso senior.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you know Mr Rasta Mncwango?

MR MBATHA: Yes, I know Mncwango from 1995, towards the end of 1995.

MR PRINSLOO: And did he speak to you, Mr Mncwango, Rasta Mncwango?

CHAIRPERSON: At what stage?

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon, Mr Chairman?

Did he speak to you yesterday?

MR MBATHA: Can you be specific with your question.

MR PRINSLOO: Did Mr Rasta Mncwango speak to you yesterday?

MR MBATHA: No, I didn't speak to him yesterday.

MR PRINSLOO: Is it correct that they were looking for you yesterday?

MR MBATHA: You can help me if you told me that he was looking for me, but I'm not aware.

MR PRINSLOO: Is it correct that at some stage Mr Mncwango said Mr Mbatha was now available? - to members here present. If I'm not mistaken it was the Evidence Leader. Was there any such communication, that Mr Mncwango tried to contact you?

MR MBATHA: I won't be able to talk on his behalf, on Numsani Mncwango. I won't even be able to deny that he will be able to locate me if he wants me because I'm always at home.

MR PRINSLOO: Now Mr Mbatha, can you tell the Committee, this statement which you wrote, did you formulate it? Because I want to put it to you this statement is written in a way which blends and fits with the version of the people that testified here on behalf of the IFP.

MR BIZOS: They testified on their own account, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, are you talking about the taxi owners?

MR PRINSLOO: Correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: ...(inaudible) they were at the relevant time IFP ...(inaudible)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well I don't know whether you want to put that it blends in with the testimony of some of the people that appeared and testified.

MR PRINSLOO: That's correct, Mr Chairman. Can you explain that?

MR MBATHA: May you please repeat the question because it has gone a long way, I have forgotten.

MR PRINSLOO: Can you explain why the contents of the statement ties up with the version of some of the people who testified here in defence as to what the applicant said. Can you explain that?

MR MBATHA: I think Mavuso senior, the person who asked me to write this thing down, will be able to answer well on that question.

MR PRINSLOO: I'm asking you the question, Mr Mbatha, it's your opportunity to explain that.

MR MBATHA: I won't be able to explain because I was not writing things for myself, I was writing things which he asked me to write down.

MR PRINSLOO: Are these his own words?

MR MBATHA: ...(no English interpretation)

MR PRINSLOO: I didn't hear the translation.

INTERPRETER: He said that with his understanding of English he believes that what is written it's what he was told by Mavuso senior.

MR PRINSLOO: Right, let us see whether we can understand this. At paragraph 3 of the statement in front of you -

"The letter which ... discussed at the meeting was taken by the late Mr Sanda Nlangamandla for the next meeting".

What does that mean?

MR MBATHA: I'm not sure about the correctness of the content, but however what's written here it's what Mavuso senior told me.

MR PRINSLOO: What is conveyed here, what is being conveyed here -

"... Mr Sanda Nlangamandla for the next meeting"

... what does that mean, what next meeting?

MR MBATHA: My understand and the way I was translating from Zulu to English, Mavuso senior was saying that Mr Sanda Nlangamandla took it away and he will bring it back to the second meeting. That's what I was translating from him.

MR PRINSLOO: The second meeting where?

MR BOTHA: Mr Chairperson, with respect, the question has been asked twice and answered twice, I don't know if the witness can give any further information along the line of questioning that is being put.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, are you asking for his understanding of that English?

MR PRINSLOO: Correct, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: You're aware of his response that he can't vouch for the content so he's giving you an interpretation of what stands there.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know if that helps you very much.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Mbatha, is this all that Mr Mavuso said, that's written here, or did he tell you something else?

MR MBATHA: That's what he told me. I don't know whatever he might have told other people somewhere else.

MR PRINSLOO: But Mr Botha requested that a statement be obtained from Mr Mavuso, that is now the man in your area, the elderly gentleman at the back, what happened about that request for a statement to be taken?

MR MBATHA: Chairperson, I would like to request with your permission that the lawyer explains exactly whom Mr Botha asked to go and take the statement.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Botha, according to him there was a request on his behalf that a statement be obtained from Mr Mavuso senior. You've heard that?

MR MBATHA: I would like Mr Prinsloo to help me in explaining exactly whom did Mr Botha ask to go and take a statement from Mavuso senior.

MR PRINSLOO: Well a statement arrived in possession of Mr Botha ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: Sorry to interrupt, can't Mr Botha just say what he said so that we can make progress? Whom did he ask to take a statement, because yesterday he said that he asked that a statement should be taken. Whom did he ask?

CHAIRPERSON: Do you want the witness to comment on that? Unless you want to allege, you want to put it to the witness that he was the one that was asked. If it was somebody else that was asked, then what's the relevance, why do you want to deal with that?

MR PRINSLOO: I respectfully submit, Mr Chairman, at the time when this statement was taken, it was taken at a crucial stage and the contents also blends with that particular enquiry. If Mr Botha can tell who he requested to take a statement, then we'll know how to proceed from here.

MR BIZOS: I think with respect, that Mr Botha owes it to the Commission and to us, to tell us whom he ...(inaudible - no microphone). Mr Botha owes it to the Commission and us to tell us whom he asked to take a statement from Mr Mavuso senior, and he should tell us now so that we do not beat about the bush.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you want to respond to that, Mr Botha?

MR BOTHA: Mr Chairman, as it pleases the Commission. Seen in the light that a person, an independent person was present at the meeting that was disputed I then asked my client, Mr Mncwango to, if there was a possibility if this person is available, to make a statement as to what happened and he said yes, he will look into it and I then received the statement afterwards. I did not have contact with Mr Mavuso or Mr Mbatha in any way in regards to obtaining the statement. That is the procedure that was followed and that is how I came into possession of this statement.

CHAIRPERSON: You left it in the hands of your client?

MR BOTHA: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well that's the answer Mr Bizos.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But wasn't a name mentioned yesterday, Thembi-something?

MR BOTHA: That's correct, Mr Chairman, the request was made and after the dispute of the statement I then took it up with Mr Rasta Mncwango as to who he requested and who got the statement. He told me that the statement was obtained with the co-operation of Mr Thembinkosi Mbatha, which is then the person before the Commission.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Yes, Mr Prinsloo.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Mbatha, you've heard what Mr Botha said, did Mr Mncwango ask you to take a statement from Mr Mavuso senior?

MR MBATHA: I don't know anything about that but all I know is that Mavuso senior asked me to take down a statement.

MR PRINSLOO: Did Mr Mncwango speak to you in connection with this amnesty application?

MR MBATHA: No, he didn't.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you not see Mr Mncwango at all?

MR MBATHA: We do meet at meetings where we'll discuss development of the community in the KwaZulu Regional Council, as councillors.

MR PRINSLOO: Can you explain why and how it came about that the statement was faxed to Mr Botha, which you took by coincidence? How come you knew to send it to Mr Botha?

MR MBATHA: May you please repeat your question.

MR PRINSLOO: How come you knew to send this statement to Mr Botha? This one.

MR MBATHA: May you please repeat your question.

MR PRINSLOO: How did it come about that you knew that you had to send this statement to Mr Botha?

MR MBATHA: I knew because I explained that Lawrence de Klerk did help me by saying that I can contact or send it to Mr Botha. I didn't even talk to this Mr Botha and I don't know his telephone numbers except the fax numbers.

MR PRINSLOO: Now Mr de Klerk, where is his office?

MR MBATHA: At Mkumbane.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that near Paulpietersburg?

MR MBATHA: It's very far.

MR PRINSLOO: Very far from where?

MR MBATHA: It's far from Paulpietersburg.

MR PRINSLOO: So where is it, in what direction, towards Vryheid or where?

MR MBATHA: That's Mkumbane in Durban.

MR PRINSLOO: Why did you take it to Mr de Klerk?

MR MBATHA: He's a lawyer who is known to me and I knew that if I will need some legal opinions or other things, he can help me because he's a person I used to work for some time.

MR PRINSLOO: And you told Mr de Klerk to send it to the Truth Commission?

MR MBATHA: I asked him as to how we could send this statement and he said he couldn't help me because it's far, however he can give me Mr Botha's fax number.

ADV GCABASHE: Sorry, can you repeat that. Where were you going to get Mr Botha's fax number?

MR MBATHA: From Mr de Klerk.

MR PRINSLOO: How would Mr de Klerk have known that Mr Botha was in any way connected with the Truth Commission, because he's not he's a member of the bar in Pretoria.

MR BOTHA: Correction, Mr Chairman, the side-bar.

MR PRINSLOO: Side-bar. I beg your pardon, I made a mistake, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Soon there will be no difference.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

The side-bar, he's an attorney. How did Mr de Klerk know that he had to send to an attorney in Pretoria, there are many attorneys here, a statement which you took from Mr Mavuso.

MR BOTHA: Mr Chairman, if I may proceed the proceedings, I can put on record now that I act - I was requested by Mr de Klerk to represent these people and then through him I approached the TRC, who then appointed me in this matter. I've known Mr de Klerk for numerous years and it is custom that when necessary as in any other attorney's practice, correspondents be appointed etc.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Mbatha, in order to understand - Mr Chairman, I don't want to misunderstand what Mr Botha conveyed here, is now said that Mr Mbatha is also a client? Is that why he knew he would go to Mr de Klerk?

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, I don't know, he says that he is a regular correspondent of Mr de Klerk, he's a local correspondent of Mr de Klerk who practices out in KwaZulu Natal, and his request to act on behalf of the people that Mr Botha represents at these proceedings, came from Mr de Klerk.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Sorry, can I just have clarity. De Klerk is sitting in Durban, that's about 300 kilometres or more from Paulpietersburg.

MR BOTHA: I think so, I'm not sure about the exact distance but it's quite far from Paulpietersburg, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Mbatha, you've seen and you've heard many-a-time that Truth Commission hearings were held here in Pretoria and you knew Mr Mavuso's application was in the process of being heard, is that correct?

MR MBATHA: Yes, I heard it on the radio and I was told by his father.

MR PRINSLOO: And why did you not that to the Truth Commission, that statement? Directly. Because the Truth Commission address you can get from any Magistrate's Court, police stations all over. And your answer?

MR MBATHA: It wasn't easy for me to get some correspondence facilities with the TRC, however it was easy to contact de Klerk because he was a person I was working with. If I had problems and he has knowledge, legal knowledge.

MR PRINSLOO: So you took ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Sorry to interrupt, ...(no sound) according to your evidence, requested you to send it to the TRC. That's what you've told us earlier today, this afternoon.

MR MBATHA: Chairperson, I didn't say that. Mr Mavuso senior said I can send it to anyone who will be able to send it to the TRC, because Mr Mavuso senior will ...(indistinct) come to offices very often to try and find how we can help his son.

MR PRINSLOO: So you told the attorney, Mr de Klerk, that this statement must be sent to the TRC, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, is that correct?

MR MBATHA: I didn't say that he should send it, I asked him the way in which I will be able to send the statement to the Truth Commission and that's when he said I should - he referred me to Mr Botha as person who could help.

MR PRINSLOO: Help in what way? What did Mr de Klerk say, in what way could he help?

MR MBATHA: He said he might be able to send it to the Truth Commission where it's needed.

MR PRINSLOO: So you expected Mr Botha to send it to the Truth Commission, where it's needed. That's what you told him?

MR MBATHA: I'm free to say that I did believe, or I was looking for Mr Botha to send it. I was looking for anyone who could take it to the TRC. However Mr de Klerk gave me the number of Mr Botha, whom I didn't know and I'm seeing for the first time today.

MR PRINSLOO: Now you see Mr Mbatha, there are many coincidences in this matter. First of all, it would appear - well it doesn't appear, it's a fact that Mr Khumalo had testified here for the Committee, Mr Mncwango makes a request for a statement to be obtained from Mr Mavuso, via the instructions of his attorney, Mr Botha, a statement is then obtained by you and that statement goes to a Mr de Klerk who at some stage seemed to have handled the same people. You've heard that? And furthermore the contents of this statement is what these people's defence - this is what Mr Khumalo raised as the defence, which ...(indistinct) disputed with the applicant. Can you explain these coincidences? And by coincidence you happened to - the old man by coincidence came to you for a statement, explain all this to the Committee. Because I'm going to argue that your version is untrue, it's highly improbable(sic) this whole statement is concocted by you with the assistance of the others.

MR MBATHA: Chairperson, I would like to express my view that what Mr Prinsloo is saying is not true, I don't know Mr Khumalo and I didn't take the statement and I'm also not legally authorised to take that statement, a sworn statement. However, I did write what he told me and then he took it to the police station where it was properly signed. And I don't have the authority to have it typed.

MR PRINSLOO: You see Mr Mbatha, furthermore the statement with the covering page here, the statement and the last page, if one receives this document one would believe it was the policeman who drafted this document and not you. If we had not been told, one would have assumed and accepted that this statement was drafted by the police, any comment about that?

MR MBATHA: I will say now what you're saying really makes sense, it's correct, I don't have the authority to have someone to swear to a statement. And a police will have to read the statement to the person and let him sign before he signed the statement. And you are right when you say it looks like it was taken by a police because a policeman is the one who has the authority to have it signed as it is because we know that the police couldn't sign it, have it signed by Mr Mavuso without having read it back to him.

MR PRINSLOO: The difference is, Mr Mbatha, you've admitted that you wrote out this statement, it wasn't the policeman, and that was exactly what I put to you.

MR MBATHA: I will say I don't admit in total because when you say I wrote it, you mean that I wrote something which didn't come from Mr Mavuso, however what I was writing I was helping in translating and writing down what he was saying. And I hope that the policeman who had it signed it before him did read it back to Mr Mavuso to verify that what is written is what he was saying. I believe that if he would deny that he content is not what he told me, the police would not have had it signed.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Where did you write this statement, in your office or at the police office?

MR MBATHA: ...(Zulu) - I will repeat that the statement, I was collected by Mr Mavuso and I wrote it at the police place.

MR PRINSLOO: So are you saying that you wrote it in the police station?

MR MBATHA: Yes, to repeat, at the police station.

MR PRINSLOO: Why could the policeman not take the statement?

MR MBATHA: I think the person who had the relevant knowledge would be Mr Mavuso senior and the police because Mavuso came to me and ...(indistinct) already taken a decision at the time. I thought maybe there's an agreement that I could write it down.

MR PRINSLOO: That's the next problem. You are connected with the IFP and a person that's connected with the IFP goes and takes a statement which is in favour of the IFP members that testified here, the taxi people. The policeman should have taken this statement, why should you have taken it? What was wrong with the policeman to write down the statement?

MR MBATHA: I will say that when I wrote the statement it wasn't because I was ...(indistinct) any member of the IFP, and the only member of the IFP whom I ...(indistinct) when reading the statement, was an elderly person who is Mr Mavuso.

MR PRINSLOO: Was the policeman present or absent when you wrote the statement?

MR MBATHA: There was no policeman when I was writing at the police station, he was sitting in another room, I was with Mavuso. However, he didn't sign it, he took it to the police where he signed it. That's where he signed the statement.

MR PRINSLOO: He told you and you merely wrote it down, you didn't read it over to him after you wrote it?

MR MBATHA: I did read it to him and I knew that the police will ask him to sign it on oath, will read it back to him, so I wanted to make sure that he understands what was there.

MR PRINSLOO: You see, according to Mr Mavuso senior, the man whose - he said he signed this page of the statement and it was never read to him, you merely wrote the statement and it was never read over to him. What do you say to that?

MR MBATHA: I will briefly say that he's telling a lie.

MR PRINSLOO: And he further says he believed when he made this statement that he was assisting his son, that's the impression you created.

MR MBATHA: I wouldn't be able to know exactly what was in his mind when he asked me at the time.

MR PRINSLOO: And Mr Mavuso denies this is what he said to you, that's contained in the statement. He denies it.

MR MBATHA: I would say he's making a mistake.

MR PRINSLOO: No further questions, thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Prinsloo. Mr Bizos?


Mr Mbatha, Mr Mavuso senior is an uneducated man, correct?

MR MBATHA: I won't be able to describe him, but when he asked me to write down his statement that's what I thought. But I wouldn't be able to say he's not educated because he was able to sign his statement.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike.

MR BIZOS: He is a hardly literate person from the countryside of very limited education obviously, judging by his appearance and his performance and his background here.

MR MBATHA: Yes, I agree.

MR BIZOS: Now he told you that he wanted a statement in order to assist his son, that has been your evidence, is that correct?

MR MBATHA: That's correct.

MR BIZOS: And he told you to send the statement one way or the other, so that it can get to the Commission in order to help his son.

MR MBATHA: Yes, that's correct.

MR BIZOS: That's correct. Now also, did you know whether Mr Mavuso, the applicant, had a lawyer?

MR MBATHA: I did not know.

MR BIZOS: You did not know. Do you know whether Mr Mavuso had been at the trial in order to listen to the evidence? - Mr Mavuso senior.

MR MBATHA: I don't know about it.

MR BIZOS: I want to assume that he was not here and he did not hear the evidence and he therefore of his own knowledge, would not have known what the issues in the case were. I want you to assume that. That he did not know what the issues in the case were, but like a good father he wanted to help his son. Please assume that. Now also assume, because you don't know about the details of this case, take it from me that nobody could have written a statement more destructive of his son's case than this statement. Please accept that from me. And if you accept that, please accept also that this statement was not handed into the Commission, was not handed to the lawyer for Mr Mavuso, but was kept right up to the end, in the files of one of the representatives of the people who are the implicated persons.

Now the only conclusion that we are going to ask the Commission to come to is that somebody bluffed Mr Mavuso senior. Do you agree that if this statement is destructive of his son's case, Mr Mavuso senior did not realise what he was doing, somebody must have misled him. Do you accept that?

MR MBATHA: I do not deny nor admit that, I don't know. What I can say is that he came to me and asked me to write the statement, that's what he did and I don't know what was the reason behind it.

MR BIZOS: It's fair of you to accept the premises upon which my question was put and it was generous of you to admit that Mr Mavuso must have been bluffed by someone. Let's try and find out who it might have been. Who asked you - excuse me? ...(intervention)

MR MBATHA: Chairperson, I will like to deny what Mr Bizos is saying, I said I didn't say I agree with what he is saying, I said I can agree I can deny, but I don't know what was the reason behind him making that statement.

MR BIZOS: Now who would have had an interest to obtain a statement which can be used against his son? - from the people that you know. You know Mr Rasta Mncwango and we are told that he was the person who was to arrange the taking of the statement. Did you speak to Mr Mncwango at all before you produced this statement?

MR MBATHA: No, I didn't. What I wrote it was from Mr Mavuso senior, not from Mr Mncwango.

MR BIZOS: What I want to put to you is that Mr Mavuso, having regard to his lack of education and having regard to his lack of knowledge of the issues in the case, could not possibly have told you what was written here unless if you did write it yourself as ...(indistinct) told you, unless somebody had coached him in what to say to you.

MR MBATHA: Yes, and I believe when helping Mr Mavuso, Mr Mavuso will not - the police who was helping him will not have requested him to sign it on oath without having read it to him and him having understood the contents and he will explained everything or even read it back to Mr Mavuso if he can't read, to know. Because the person who is in control of the taking of the statement is the police who has to take the statement on oath.

MR BIZOS: Yes, you see that whoever contrived this statement was careful to let the policeman do the formal things but the guts of it is your work. Do you agree that what the policeman did was to actually fill in a form and not very accurately either. The guts of it is what you wrote down and you conveniently absent yourself at the time that it is signed and you conveniently absent yourself when it is said that the oath was taken. Can you explain all these features, Mr Mbatha?

MR MBATHA: Chairperson, I think the speaker is making a mistake, I don't think the police will not take, or delegate their duties which they have learnt and of which they have taken an oath to do and if someone was to do as suggested, that person would be breaking the law.

MR BIZOS: ...(inaudible) the law is broken so often, Mr Mbatha.

MR MBATHA: ...(no English interpretation)

MR BIZOS: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Bizos ...(interpretation)

MR MBATHA: And I would like to say that whatever is said and whatever is said now, he could not blame it on me because I'm not part of the government and I'm not able to change the law in any way.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr van der Heyde, have you got any questions?

MR VAN DER HEYDE: No questions, Mr Chairperson.



MR BOTHA: No questions, Mr Chairman.



MS MTANGA: I have no questions, Chairperson.


CHAIRPERSON: Mr Swanepoel?

MR SWANEPOEL: No re-examination, Mr Chairman.


CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Mbatha, thank you, you are excused.


CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I assume that that concludes the evidence to be presented in this application. Mr Bizos, you had raised a possibility in regard to the addresses in this matter.

MR BIZOS: ...(inaudible)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not activated. The speaker's mike is not activated.

MR BIZOS: ... will be of greater assistance to the Committee is time is given to do written Heads of Argument, and we have agreed on dates on which they have to be submitted. Mr Prinsloo has agreed to submit them by the 7th of February, my other colleagues have agreed to submit them by the 14th of February and we have agreed to submit them by the 28th of February.

MR DER HEYDE (?): Excuse me, Mr Chairperson, I think there might be a confusion now. We agreed to give it in on the 21st of February and Mr Bizos the 28th of February, not the 14th of February.

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, ...(inaudible)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not active.

MR BIZOS: ... the 14th the 17th. Will that suit everybody?

CHAIRPERSON: Will that leave you ...?

MR BIZOS: That will leave us enough time to deal with everybody's argument.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Prinsloo, if you would like to reply, when would you be able to reply?

MR PRINSLOO: Well I could reply to that within two days, Mr Chairman, as soon as possible. If I get mine done before that particular day I'll submit them to Mr Bizos and the other members concerned and then maybe we can expedite it that way. But the time I've agreed to, thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it should be possible, bearing in mind that we have up to the certain twist that the matter took towards the tail end of it, we would have received the oral argument at the end of the proceedings, so that shouldn't be too difficult to, at the very least, to stick to the timetable that we've got here. Very well.

ADV GCABASHE: My turn to interrupt and ask Mr Prinsloo, if you could submit yours in English, it makes a big difference, I read them much quicker. I know you can do it and also the other counsel. You do want this matter finalised as soon as possible, don't you? Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. The argument will then be submitted as follows, in writing:

- on behalf of the applicant: on or before the 7th of February this year;

- on behalf of the interested parties, other than the family of the deceased: on or before the 17th of February this year and;

- on behalf of the family of the deceased: on or before the 28th of February this year.

The matter is concluded, it just remains for us to thank all of the legal representatives for the assistance that they have given us in this matter. Yes, perhaps it is wise just to confirm that you will take it upon yourselves to exchange these Heads of Argument, so that you can direct it to whoever must receive it. Mr Prinsloo you will direct it to your colleagues and the others would do likewise. But thank you very much for your assistance, it's appreciated up to now and the rest of it that will be forthcoming.

And we would also like to thank all of the other people who have assisted us and who have made it possible for us to have this hearing in this venue for this week, we always appreciate it. We're aware of the effort that goes into arranging and organising a session like this and we are always appreciative of those efforts. And then to my colleagues on the Panel with me, I express my gratitude. We're adjourned.