DATE: 10 MAY 2000



DAY: 3

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

MR MAPOMA: Yes Chairperson, certainly.

CHAIRPERSON: And I understand this matter is part heard?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, Chairperson.

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


CHAIRPERSON: And the appearances are as before?

MR MAPOMA: Yes Chairperson.


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


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

CHAIRPERSON: Which language would you prefer to use?


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

WALTER MUDZWIRI: (sworn states)

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

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

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

MR MUDZWIRI: Yes I do confirm.

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


MR NDOU: Please do so?

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

MR MUSHASHA: Those are my instructions.

CHAIRPERSON: On what basis?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on. Answer the question?

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

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

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

MR MUSHASHA: I appreciate that.

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

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

MR MUSHASHA: Okay, thank you.

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

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

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

MR MUSHASHA: Okay, thank you.

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

"We as the youth stand our attention to the burning of suspected witches and wizards as a further form of destabilising the government of a ...(indistinct) successor, ...(indistinct)."

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

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

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Do you want him to reply to that?

MR MUSHASHA: To comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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


MR MUSHASHA: Do you know her?

MR MUDZWIRI: Yes I know her.

MR MUSHASHA: What is her name?

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

MR MUSHASHA: What was she to the deceased?

MR MUDZWIRI: She is the wife of the deceased.

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

MR MUDZWIRI: Yes I saw her.

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

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

MR MUSHASHA: Please the Chairperson?

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

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

MR MUSHASHA: I've no further questions.




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

CHAIRPERSON: Or damaged?

MR MAPOMA: Or damaged?

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

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

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

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

MR MUDZWIRI: Approximately 100 metres.

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Surely you would have seen smoke rising?

MR MUDZWIRI: Could you please repeat your question?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR MUDZWIRI: Yes I would have agreed with that.

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

MR MUDZWIRI: Yes that is true.

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

MR MUDZWIRI: Yes I suspected that anything could happen.

CHAIRPERSON: Including burning his house?

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

CHAIRPERSON: And you associated yourself with that possibility?


MR MAPOMA: Thanks Chairperson.

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

"Alleged that I had petrol poured onto the deceased and the house."

Would you clarify what you meant here?

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

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

"Alleged that I had petrol poured onto the deceased and the house."

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

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

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chairperson, no further questions.


CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you, you are excused.





MR NDOU: I'll call Justice Ramabulana.

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


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

JUSTICE RAMABULANA: (sworn states)

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

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

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

"We as the youth"

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

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

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: What future are you talking about?

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

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

MR NDOU: Thank you Chairperson.

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


MR NDOU: Please do so.

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

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you hit the deceased?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Did you want to kill him?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Did you want to kill him?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Was this your grandfather's younger brother?

MR RAMABULANA: Yes that is true.

CHAIRPERSON: You knew him?

MR RAMABULANA: Yes I knew him.

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

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

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


CHAIRPERSON: You saw him do that?

MR RAMABULANA: I once see that from his mother.


MR RAMABULANA: I first saw that from his mother.

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Now why do you say he practised witchcraft?

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

CHAIRPERSON: And you believed that?

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: What did he do for the government?

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


MR NDOU: Nothing further, Chairperson.


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

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

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

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

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

MR RAMABULANA: Yes I agreed with them.

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


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

MR RAMABULANA: Could you please repeat your question?

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

MR MUSHASHA: It's what?

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Well what is the purpose of the question?

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

MR MUSHASHA: Not burn his property?

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

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

MR RAMABULANA: Yes, she's my grandmother.

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

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

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

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

MR RAMABULANA: I don't know that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR RAMABULANA: Yes it's true.

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

"While the crowd was attacking the deceased I burnt clothings from his house."

It's page 34, Mr Chairperson.

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

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

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

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

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

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

"While the crowd was attacking the deceased I burnt clothing from his house."

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

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

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

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

JUDGE DE JAGER: But you burnt the bundle?

CHAIRPERSON: You burnt the bundle?

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

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

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

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

MR RAMABULANA: The bundle was from the bath.



CHAIRPERSON: Bathroom outside?

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

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

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Mushasha?

MR MUSHASHA: I have no further questions, Chairperson.


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

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

MR MAPOMA: When was that?

MR RAMABULANA: I do not understand your question?

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


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

MR RAMABULANA: It's myself.

MR MAPOMA: How did you do that?

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

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

MR RAMABULANA: It's my legal advisor.

MR MAPOMA: When was that?

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

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


MR NDOU: Nothing further.

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

MR RAMABULANA: Yes I was present.

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

MR RAMABULANA: Yes it was also mentioned.

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

MR RAMABULANA: That was 1989.

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

MR RAMABULANA: Yes it's true.

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

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

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

MR RAMABULANA: Days before.

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

"The people in the group shouted for me to join it. I wanted to know as to where I was going to go and the group said to me that they were going to my home."

And then you go on to say:

"As I was scared I joined in. I then realised that they were proceeding to the deceased's kraal and I then came to realise where the property initially say that they were going to my home because the deceased was my grandfather's younger brother."

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

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

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

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


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

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

You said


and then he put it to you:

"Your grandmother saw you burning the clothes and the house."

and you replied:

"No, I didn't."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR RAMABULANA: There were people who were destroying it.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Burning it?

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

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. You are excused.





MR NDOU: I now call Mr Matshisevhe.

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



EXAMINATION BY MR NDOU: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

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

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

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

MR MATSHISEVHE: Yes I know it.

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

MR MATSHISEVHE: Yes I confirm.

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

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

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

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

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

MR NDOU: Paragraph?

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: I'm talking about 33(d)

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


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

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

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


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


MR NDOU: What is the deceased to you?

MR MATSHISEVHE: It's my uncle.

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

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

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

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

"I was there. I did nothing. It is said that I threw stones."

What did you mean by that?

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

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

MR MATSHISEVHE: I threw stones.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you say you didn't?

MR MATSHISEVHE: I think that is a mistake.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"I was there, I did nothing. It is said that I threw stones."

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

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

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Did you fill in the application yourself?

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

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


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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on Mr Ndou.

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

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

MR NDOU: That is all.



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

MR MATSHISEVHE: Yes I know her.

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

MR MATSHISEVHE: I disagree with that.

MR MUSHASHA: Who is Buti?

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

MR MUSHASHA: Can I establish precisely what she means?

CHAIRPERSON: Because it may be by common purpose.

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

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

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

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

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

MR MUSHASHA: That's right.

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

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

MR MUSHASHA: I wanted just to complete that question.

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


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

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

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Is that true?

MR MATSHISEVHE: No, surely that is not true.

CHAIRPERSON: Any more questions?

MR MAPOMA: No further questions Mr Chairperson.


MR MAPOMA: I've no questions Chairperson.

MR NDOU: Nothing further Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you're excused.





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

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


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

ASAPH MAMMBURU: No. (sworn states)


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

MR MAMMBURU: I was born on 14 September 1972.

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

MR MAMMBURU: Yes I have.

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

MR MAMMBURU: I do with everything there.

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

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

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

MR NDOU: That is so.

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

MR NDOU: That is so, that is so.

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

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

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

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


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

"another meeting was called on the morning of the 6th"

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

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

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

MR NDOU: Yes I agree Chairperson.

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on Mr Ndou.

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

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

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

MR MAMMBURU: I suspect it's a pick.

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

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

MR MAMMBURU: I was throwing stones to the deceased.

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

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

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

MR MAMMBURU: Yes it is true.

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

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

MR NDOU: Was the deceased doused and set alight?

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

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

MR MAMMBURU: I saw Albert doing that.

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

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

MR NDOU: Why did you kill the deceased?

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

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

MR MAMMBURU: We heard that he was a witch.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

CHAIRPERSON: You felt it right that time?

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


MR MAPOMA: I have no questions, thank you.

MR MUSHASHA: None Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. You are excused.


CHAIRPERSON: Is that all Mr Ndou?

MR NDOU: That is so, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got any witnesses?

MR MUSHASHA: Yes, yes Mr Chairperson.


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

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


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


EXAMINATION BY MR MUSHASHA: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

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


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

CHAIRPERSON: She's seen all the applicants.

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Did she not say yes?

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

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

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

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

JUDGE DE JAGER: What didn't he say?

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

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

MRS MAVHANDU: Yes I know Mr Ramabulana.

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR MUSHASHA: Did you see him do it?

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

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

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

MR MUSHASHA: Did you see him do it?

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

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

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

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

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

MR MUSHASHA: And Mammburu, the last applicant?

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

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

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

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

MR MUSHASHA: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

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

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

MR MUSHASHA: Did you see him do that?

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

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

MRS MAVHANDU: You mean what they omitted?


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

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

MR MUSHASHA: It was Ramabulana.

MRS MAVHANDU: Are you referring to Mr Ramabulana?

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on Mr Mushasha.

MR MUSHASHA: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

Is it true that your husband was a wizard?

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

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

MRS MAVHANDU: Nobody asked him to leave or relocate.

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

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

MR MUSHASHA: Was he the supporter of the family?

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

MRS MAVHANDU: No, he was not a member.

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Did you tell your advocate that?


CHAIRPERSON: I see. Yes, carry on?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

CHAIRPERSON: Did you have any children from the deceased?

MRS MAVHANDU: Seven children I had with the deceased.

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: And their names and ages and addresses?

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

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

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, I thought perhaps after.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou, have you got any?


MR MAPOMA: I have no questions, Chairperson.


CHAIRPERSON: You're excused.


CHAIRPERSON: Have you got that list Mr Mushasha?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Where is he?

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

CHAIRPERSON: I need that list today. Now.


CHAIRPERSON: Shall we take the tea break?



CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mushasha, is that all?

MR MUSHASHA: That is so, Mr Chairperson.

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

MR MAPOMA: I've no witnesses to call.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the end of the evidence?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: And he hasn't returned since?

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: But he wasn't here?

MR MUSHASHA: I saw him in this room.


MR MUSHASHA: No, no, not today.


MR MUSHASHA: No, the day before yesterday.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma, what is the position?

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

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

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

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


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

MR MAPOMA: That is correct.

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

MR MAPOMA: I agree Chairperson.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR MUSHASHA: May it please the Chairperson.


MR MUSHASHA: Today. Thank you.



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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

MR MULOVHEDZI: On the 10th October 1963.

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

MR MULOVHEDZI: Yes that is correct.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Tell us what he's applying for?

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



CHAIRPERSON: That's assault and then?

MR MULOVHEDZI: And arson, I burnt his houses.

CHAIRPERSON: Whose houses?

MR MULOVHEDZI: The houses belonging to Mafulane.

CHAIRPERSON: How many of them?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, what else?

MR MULOVHEDZI: And attempted murder.


MR MULOVHEDZI: And arson again.

CHAIRPERSON: Attempted murder of you?

MR MULOVHEDZI: Khwatheleni Nemandandila.

CHAIRPERSON: Spell please?

MR MULOVHEDZI: K for Khwatheleni and then the surname is


CHAIRPERSON: Nemadandile?

MR MULOVHEDZI: Nemandandila - L-A.

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

MR MULOVHEDZI: And murder.

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Only one building?

MR MULOVHEDZI: Two rondawels.

CHAIRPERSON: Anything else? You said murder?

MR MULOVHEDZI: Yes, including murder.


MR MULOVHEDZI: Selina Ralulimi.

CHAIRPERSON: Spell that?

MR MULOVHEDZI: S for Selina and then the surname is


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

Okay, proceed.

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

MR MULOVHEDZI: In 1990 ...(intervention)

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

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Are you satisfied that he has covered everything?

MR NDOU: Yes, I'm quite satisfied.

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Tell me, did you know Sharon Masinga?

MR MULOVHEDZI: I've heard about her.

CHAIRPERSON: And James Mavena?

MR MULOVHEDZI: I also heard about him.


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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but what was decided about them?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Which people was to be eliminated?


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

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

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


CHAIRPERSON: And that was a decision at the meeting?

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


MR NDOU: Yes, you can proceed?

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

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

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

MR MULOVHEDZI: Approximately 600 to 700 people.

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

MR MULOVHEDZI: My group had almost 200 people.


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

CHAIRPERSON: How did you beat him?

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

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

MR MULOVHEDZI: Could you repeat the question please?

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

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

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

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

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


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

MR MULOVHEDZI: Yes we intended to kill him.

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

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

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

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

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

MR MULOVHEDZI: On the 4th February.




MR NDOU: Yes, you can proceed?

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

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

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

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

MR NDOU: And when was that?

MR MULOVHEDZI: That was 1993.

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

MR MULOVHEDZI: No, I was still awaiting trial.

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Tell me, why did you kill Selina?

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: So you killed her for cultural reasons?


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

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

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

MR MULOVHEDZI: Yes, truly speaking.

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


CHAIRPERSON: Was that a man or a woman?

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

MR MULOVHEDZI: Yes it is true.

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

MR MULOVHEDZI: Yes it is true.

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

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

ADV SIGODI: Thank you.

MR NDOU: Yes, you can proceed?

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

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

MR MULOVHEDZI: Khwatheleni Nemadandila.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

MR MULOVHEDZI: Just the underwear.

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

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

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

MR MULOVHEDZI: Yes, just like that.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

MR MULOVHEDZI: No, not me.

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



MR MAPOMA: I have no questions, Chairperson.


MR NDOU: I have nothing further, Chairperson.

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


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

MR VAN RENSBURG: No witnesses to call.


MR MAPOMA: No witnesses to call Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the evidence, Mr Ndou?

MR NDOU: That is the evidence, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got any submissions on this matter?

MR NDOU: No, Honourable Chair.

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



_____________________________________________________CHAIRPERSON: The next matter?

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

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

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

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

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

MR NDOU: That is so.

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Is this matter part heard?

MR NDOU: It is not part heard.

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


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

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

JUDGE DE JAGER: He is present here today?

MR NDOU: Yes he is present.

CHAIRPERSON: Who are you calling now?

MR NDOU: I'm calling Mr Magoro.

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


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


EXAMINATION BY MR NDOU: Thank you Chairperson.

Mr Magoro ...(intervention)

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

MR NDOU: That is correct.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Is he applying for amnesty?

MR NDOU: That is so.

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

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

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

MR MAPOMA: You mean the applicants Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: The victims.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

INTERPRETER: Could you repeat that please?

CHAIRPERSON: Did you do that appeal?

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

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

INTERPRETER: The mike is not on.

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

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

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: He would have served that already?

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


MR NDOU: 1992, yes.

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Is he under oath already?

MR NDOU: He is.

CHAIRPERSON: Proceed then.

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

MR MAGORO: Yes I can.

MR NDOU: Please do so?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

MR NDOU: That is all.


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

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

CHAIRPERSON: But you know she was burnt?

MR MAGORO: Yes I know that.

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

MR MAGORO: Could you please repeat the question?

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Was she still burning when you hit her?

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

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

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


MR NDOU: That is so.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll take the lunch adjournment.




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

MR VAN RENSBURG: Mr Chairperson, I notice that the legal representative for the applicant is not present so I don't think he'll appreciate me proceeding in his absence.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Well we'll appreciate you proceeding.

CHAIRPERSON: That's his fault.


Okay, Mr Magoro, tell us, that night when you met the people there in your village, where were you coming from?

MR MAGORO: From Hamayela.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Why didn't you attend that meeting that they held before you arrived in the village?

MR MAGORO: Could you please repeat your question?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Why were you not present at that meeting?

MR MAGORO: I left that village early in the morning and I came back in the evening.

MR VAN RENSBURG: So you didn't even know about the meeting, is that correct?

MR MAGORO: Yes, I was not aware.

MR VAN RENSBURG: What was your political involvement, before that specific day, in the community?

MR MAGORO: Sometimes when I come from the Reef, I used to attend the meetings from the headman's kraal. Normally when I come back from the Reef I sometimes attended these meetings.

MR VAN RENSBURG: At those meetings, was the position of the witches and the influence of the witches ever discussed?

MR MAGORO: Yes in the meetings held in the headman's kraal it was said that they're regarding the people who practise witchcraft, we must collect money so that we can go to the bone throwers so that we can establish people who are committing these witchcraft issues.

MR VAN RENSBURG: So there was nothing political regarding the witches discussed on the other meetings you had attended, is that correct?

MR MAGORO: Sometimes the political issues were discussed because we were not in favour of the government of the day which was oppressing us because as I'm saying that we used to collect money for nothing and we collected monies and money was used for nothing.

MR VAN RENSBURG: When you met this group of people in the street after the meeting, who was the person who gave you information regarding the meeting itself?

MR MAGORO: It's Soul Ndo, but now he has passed away.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes and what exactly did he tell you about the meeting earlier the day?

MR MAGORO: In explaining he said - you mean by the time I immediately joined the people?


MR MAGORO: He explained that they held a meeting in the afternoon. Yesterday we were from the headman and we were assaulted severely and that is why today we are deciding to burn the witches because the headman didn't accept our grievances.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay, but was it explained to you why the witches should be burnt?

MR MAGORO: Yes it was explained to me.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Please tell us what was explained to you?

MR MAGORO: I was told that there was this money which we once collected in the previous month with the promise that we will go to the bone throwers and nothing has happened and now we tried to go to the headman to talk about the fact that people are being killed and we have already collected money and the headman, there at Thoyhoyandou suppresses the issue and when we went to the chief and then the chief called the police and soldiers and they were beaten and that is why they decided to kill those people who practised witchcraft.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, but I still can't make the connection between the witches and the political meeting as it was explained to you when you met the people in the street. Can you explain that to us or how did you understand it, at least?

MR MAGORO: As far as I'm concerned, I agreed that during the time of 1990 that the issue of burning witches was linked with politics because that, in my life I've never expressed those things and I can see that the burning of witches was in line with the political atmosphere of the time.

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, my question relates to what was explained to you when you met the people in the street? What was explained to you regarding the witches and their political involvement when you met the people in the street?

JUDGE DE JAGER: What did Soul Ndou tell you, why should the witches be burnt?

MR MAGORO: Because those witches take medicine and give it to the people in the highest office in the government so that they could remain intact, their place and then they cannot be removed. As I've explained, then we used to collect money and the money was used for nothing and they used to buy cars with the money we've collected.

MR VAN RENSBURG: What was the money supposed to be used for?

MR MAGORO: The money was supposed to be used to go to the bone throwers so that we can find out who are the witches so that they can be evicted or made to leave that village.

CHAIRPERSON: And if that didn't happen? If those witches refused to go?

MR MAGORO: That is why we turned to the resolution of burning them because we released that even the chief is collaborating with the people who are practising witchcraft.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay, now if you knew that the chief was collaborating with the forces of the government, why did you ask if they have already gone to the chief to get his permission to chase or kill the witches?

MR MAGORO: Could you please repeat your question?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, armed with this knowledge that the chief is actually on the side of the government forces, why did you then ask the people there, when you met them in the street, if they have already gone to the chief?

MR MAGORO: Could you please repeat your question? I'm unable to understand your question.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay, I'll repeat it. After you've now talked to the people in the street and they informed you, they'd given you certain information and also knowing that the chief is not on your side but on the government's side, why did you then ask if the people had already been to the chief?

MR MAGORO: On that day I was not aware as to whether they took which decision on that day because I only knew that they were once beaten from the headman's kraal. On that day I was not aware or of what was happening.

MR VAN RENSBURG: But why did you want to know that information if they had been to the chief?

MR MAGORO: But the moment I met them I was not aware but I know of the things which happened in the past and that is why I wanted to know because when they went to the headman's kraal I was not there but it's only then that they explained to me that they went to the chief to enquire about the money they've collected and then the chief called the police and soldiers and the youth were beaten and that is why I also accepted joining them, when they decided to do what they told me they were about to do.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes. I'll leave that there. Did Mr Soul Ndou or any of the other people that went to the meeting, did they give you the names of the witches?

MR MAGORO: Yes they gave me those names.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Who gave you those names?

MR MAGORO: It's Soul Ndo.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And what did he say? What names did he give you?

MR MAGORO: The names were Petrus Maimela, Thovhala and Nyamayholisa and others, I cannot remember that very well but I think - no, I can't remember that other people. The names of other two people but I now have forgotten their names.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And did you know that when you joined that party that these people that were mentioned that were going to be killed?

MR MAGORO: As they have explained, yes I was aware of anything which could happen saying that I will stand for anything which would happen.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And why did your brother refuse to go with?

MR MAGORO: To my own understanding I thought my brother was collaborating with the previous government which was oppressing us, that is according to my own observation.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay, now tell me something about the deceased. Did you know her before that incident?

MR MAGORO: Yes I knew the deceased before the incident.

MR VAN RENSBURG: How did you know her, can you for instance tell us how - did she support herself and the family?

MR MAGORO: Regarding how she supported her family I'm not sure but I know that her child was responsible for supporting her because her husband has already passed away.

MR VAN RENSBURG: So are you saying that at the time of the killing of the deceased her husband had already passed away? Do I understand you correctly?

MR MAGORO: What are you referring to?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I'm referring to the husband of the deceased.

MR MAGORO: You say you're referring to the husband of the deceased?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, the question is, at the time when the deceased was killed, was the husband already dead or what was the position?

MR MAGORO: He was already dead.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay, now when you eventually arrived there on the scene and the deceased was killed, can you explain to us, why did you hit her with a stick?

MR MAGORO: Well I saw that everybody else was beating then everybody was participating. It was necessary that when we were supposed to be arrested, we'll say it was a joint venture.

MR VAN RENSBURG: So the reason why you hit her was so that you can all stand together before the law, is that correct, and not any single person?


MR VAN RENSBURG: Is there any other reasons why you hit her?

MR MAGORO: No, other than that she was a witch, there's nothing else.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Now tell us about that. Why did you hit her because she was a witch?

MR MAGORO: All the witchcraft participating people had to be killed at the time because they were not supportive of what we were doing.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And that explanation that you now have given explains all the action what you have taken that specific day, is that correct?

MR MAGORO: Yes it is true.

CHAIRPERSON: Tell me when you went into her house, who started that fire?

MR MAGORO: I explained from the beginning that when I arrived I stood next to the door and the child came out quickly and ran way and then only she was left in the house.

...(indistinct) poured petrol when she was seated by the fire and the flame just went straight to her and that is how she got burnt.

CHAIRPERSON: Was the house burnt?


CHAIRPERSON: So why are you applying for arson?

MR MAGORO: Because we killed this person.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but arson isn't killing?

MR MAGORO: Yes, it is killing.

CHAIRPERSON: So you don't know anything about the burning of the house?

MR MAGORO: I haven't witnessed that, I only know that the flame caught her and other ...(indistinct) were on the other side, at a higher level, it's not in a place that was a little lower.


MR VAN RENSBURG: Now if it was your intention that day and that you have excepted that it was the mission of this group to go and kill the witches, why is it that you on the same day also assaulted David Singa Bulimu and also threatened to assault another Makwabela Duvala?

MR MAGORO: Could you please repeat that question?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, if it was your mission because now of political objectives to go and kill the witches and to burn them, why did you also assault these other two persons on that day?

MR MAGORO: If all these people were found it will be saying that today four people would have been involved, if we had found all of them.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Just repeat the answer? I don't understand that answer?

MR MAGORO: What I am saying is, just because on that day there was list. If all the people were found, the ones who were targetted, we would have been associated with four murder cases.

MR VAN RENSBURG: That's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about the other two assaults that you were convicted for. Why did you assault those people if it is true that your mission was to burn the witches and to kill the witches for political reasons on that day.

MR MAGORO: Who are these two people that you are referring to?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I've already mentioned their names. They are the persons mentioned in count five and count six for which you were convicted for. That is David Singa Bulimu and Makwabela Duvala?

MR MAGORO: Could I just explain that I am not talking about that, I am particularly referring to Maduwa's case.

CHAIRPERSON: No but the attorney is referring to that. Why did you go attack those other people? Let's put it this way, did you attack the other people?

MR MAGORO: Who are these that you are referring to.

CHAIRPERSON: Petrus Maimela, Thovhala and let me just get the charge sheet here? Yes, those two.

MR MAGORO: May I explain something to the Committee? I believe you said we must suspend the other side. We are now dealing with the ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Magoro, don't be smart.

MR MAGORO: Okay. Could you repeat that?

CHAIRPERSON: Answer the question because the attorney wants to find out on what basis you were doing everything you were doing that day?

MR MAGORO: Are you referring to Petrus' case?


MR MAGORO: We were 50 when we went to Petrus' household.

CHAIRPERSON: I didn't ask - I'm asking you, no never mind what the attorney - I'm asking you, why was Petrus attacked?

MR MAGORO: We couldn't find Petrus so he wasn't beaten.

CHAIRPERSON: Why was his house attacked?

MR MAGORO: Because he was not found when the house was burnt.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes but why - if he was there what would have happened to him?

MR MAGORO: He could have been killed.


MR MAGORO: Because he was on the hit list for those witchcraft practising people.


MR MAGORO: He too. It was decided that he too would be killed if found.


MR MAGORO: He was beaten while we were asking him to the whereabouts of Petrus.

CHAIRPERSON: And Makawarela?

MR MAGORO: Makawarela who?


MR MAGORO: That person was not beaten.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, the last person who was not beaten, but you also threatened to set her alight with petrol and a tyre, that's what I want to know, why did you do that?

MR MAGORO: I haven't seen a tyre.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you threaten her?

MR MAGORO: Who are you referring to now?

CHAIRPERSON: Makawarela.

MR MAGORO: She had a baby on her back, she just left peacefully.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you threaten her?


CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr van Rensburg?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I put it to you Mr Magoro that the reason why you were found guilty of count five and six, that's the assault on these other people who were not on the list is exactly the same reason why you killed the deceased. Namely, that you were on a murderous spree to kill witches and it had nothing to do with political motive at all?

MR MAGORO: If I don't know if it doesn't have any bearing or link but I think it had.

MR VAN RENSBURG: No further questions, thank you Mr Chairperson.



Mr Magoro, can I just confirm this with you? In your locality there was no political organisation, is that correct?

MR MAGORO: My brother, I cannot explain exactly. Could you repeat the question clearly?

MR MAPOMA: I put it to you that in your locality there was no political organisation operating there?

MR MAGORO: Yes there was a political organisation. It was just an organisation which was operating underground.

MR MAPOMA: What organisation was that?

MR MAGORO: I think it was Maduwa Congress, I'm not too sure about it now.

MR MAPOMA: You were not a member of that, were you?

MR MAGORO: No, I was not a member.

MR MAPOMA: Then how could you know an underground political organisation which you were not even a member of?

MR MAGORO: Well, that was an organisation for young boys and we were elderly people at the time. I wasn't aware that the youth had their own particular organisation.

MR MAPOMA: Yes, so you can't say there was a political organisation when you were not aware of that?

MR MAGORO: Well there was a youth organisation.

MR MAPOMA: As I understand it, it was just a group under which community members, not a political organisation?

MR MAGORO: Well as I go back now, I think there were political situations because such things never used to occur in the past.

MR MAPOMA: Even in your affidavit you make no mention of a political organisation from your locality at the time?

MR MAGORO: Well there was a youth organisation.

MR MAPOMA: I have no further questions, Chairperson, thanks.


JUDGE DE JAGER: When you attacked these people, did you in your own mind think you're enhancing the cause of a political party and you act in support of a party or organisation?

MR MAGORO: Well in my view the government of the day had to collapse so that we will go back to that government.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Okay, you were against the government of the day so you acted against the government. But who did you support?

MR MAGORO: Well I favoured ANC. Well I, personally, yes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes and did you, when you acted like that, thought that you're acting on behalf of or in support of the ANC?

MR MAGORO: Well we thought that if the government had collapsed there will be a new ANC government as it is currently, just to move away from the old apartheid government.

MR NDOU: I have nothing further.


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





MR NDOU: I call Salani Phillemon Baloyi.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Baloyi, what language would you choose?

MR BALOYI: I'm going to use Venda.

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


EXAMINATION BY MR NDOU: Thank you Chairperson.

Mr Baloyi, you've filled in a form in terms of which you are applying for amnesty, is that right?


MR NDOU: In respect of whose murder are you applying for amnesty?

MR BALOYI: In respect of Nyanavhikusa.

MR NDOU: And then we also heard from the previous witness that arson was also committed at Nyanavhikusa's kraal? Are you aware of that?

MR BALOYI: Yes I'm aware but when it happened I wasn't there, I hadn't appeared at the time.

CHAIRPERSON: What arson are you talking about Mr Ndou? Which arson are you talking about?

MR BALOYI: At Maduwa's kraal.

CHAIRPERSON: Well your previous client said there was no fire.

MR NDOU: Yes I heard him saying that if you look at the applications and the evidence in court it shows that there was an arson so that's why I wanted to find out from him.

CHAIRPERSON: Well it may have been committed by somebody else?

MR NDOU: Okay thank you.

So you are applying for amnesty in respect of the murder of Nyanavhikusa Maduwa, is that correct?

MR BALOYI: Yes it is.

MR NDOU: Now can you explain to the Committee as to what role you played on the day in question?

MR BALOYI: I hit her with a stick and also threw stones at her. Those are the things that I did.

MR NDOU: I think that is all.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Why did you want to kill her?

MR BALOYI: Because she was a witch.

CHAIRPERSON: And so, what was wrong with being a witch?

MR BALOYI: We were killing her just for that reason.


MR BALOYI: For being a witch.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that all?

MR BALOYI: And also that our organisation used to kill witches which were operating locally.

MR NDOU: I don't think I can take it further than that.


MR VAN RENSBURG: No questions Mr Chairperson.


MR MAPOMA: No questions Chairperson.


JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Baloyi, what did the witches do wrong that you should kill them?

MR BALOYI: Because many people were dying and the youth see people who were dying, these were associated with the witchcraft participating people and so they should not live. I'm referring to my local area in Tebela.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Did the witches have anything to do with politics?

MR BALOYI: They would take medicine and send it to high officials.

JUDGE DE JAGER: How do you know that?

MR BALOYI: Because our organisation - I've already explained, it was explained like that.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you believe it when you were told?

MR BALOYI: I believed it because I could witness people dying.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr van Rensburg, if you want to ask questions flowing from my questions, or questions of the Chairperson?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, you are excused.


CHAIRPERSON: Is there anything further Mr Ndou?

MR NDOU: No further evidence, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van der Merwe?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Chairperson, I believe that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I'm terribly sorry.

MR VAN RENSBURG: It's been a long day. Thank you Mr Chairperson. I believe, Mr Chairperson that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Now before you carry on, are you going to call any witnesses?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, pardon, I've got no witnesses to call.


MR MAPOMA: I've no witnesses, Chairperson. Yes Mr van Rensburg?

MR VAN RENSBURG IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Mr Chairperson. I believe that the second applicant in this specific instance actually in his simplicity is telling the truth. These people were killing the witches because there were some explained deaths in the community. That's what the meeting was about and that is why the witches were killed. Having said that, I have to argue that the second applicant, Mr Baloyi, definitely does not meet the requirements set by the Act in order to qualify for amnesty. The fact that the witches took medicines to the officials does not constitute a political motive to kill the witches, not even by a long stretch of the imagination and I would submit that in view of the evidence of the second applicant, we can now explain why the first applicant, Mr Magoro, had such a problem trying to make this link. Obviously, Mr Magoro is a much more intelligent person than the second applicant and yet he still had the problem explaining what exactly the political link was with the killing of the witches and I submit that the evidence of the two applicants taken in total is enough to argue that there was actually no political motive involved and therefore these two applicants should not qualify for amnesty as applied for.


CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou, what do you want to submit?

MR NDOU IN ARGUMENT: In all honesty, Chairperson, I wish to leave it in the court's hands. When I look at the evidence of the two applicants, although one may say that they are not of such high intelligence, but I want to submit that from the evidence that was led by Mr Magoro, it is quite evident that there was a body of some sort in the area and that this group of people were intent on killing witches and as evidence by what the applicant has told us ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Well let's assume that we accept that.


CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) on dealing with the witnesses -with the witches. Mr van Rensburg has argued that even if that was so, there's no political linkage with that and all this was an anti-witch campaign for reasons other than political. What do you say about that?

MR NDOU: Thank you Chairperson. I do not agree with that submission. My submission is that if one looks at the totality of the facts as they occurred, it seems that this group, the youth at the time, they were fighting the Venda Government and where they were all set out to see to it ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Where is that evidence that the youth was set out to destroy the Venda Government of the day? Where is that in the evidence?

MR NDOU: But if one looks at the affidavit by Mr Magoro, he does indicate that from what he learnt from the people that when he spoke to them, they told him that they are set all out to try and dissolve the problems and again if you look at his affidavit, he indicated that the deceased was a pedi headman, a pedi headman's wife ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: Could you repeat what you said Mr Ndou?

MR NDOU: Yes and so they were in a position of authority and that whenever they took problems to the pedi headman, the pedi headman was supposed to take the matters to the chief. But the pedi headman and the chief appeared not because they were in collaboration of the government, the things were not moving properly and the people remained dissatisfied.

Now coupled with the fact that it was generally believed that she practised witchcraft and the fact that she occupied a position of authority within the community and when one looks at the atmosphere that prevailed at the time, one will quickly come to the conclusion that in view of the fact of what was happening in the whole of Venda at the time, that the group was set out to kill the wizards coupled with a political motive.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Ndou, wasn't her husband dead?


JUDGE DE JAGER: ...(inaudible) he might have been a headman before but according to what was put here, he was dead at the time, deceased?

MR NDOU: Let me come into that, if I may - had a pedi headman or herdman and if the head of the kraal dies, because the institution is in the family and it's not vested in a person, that authority will still continue because people will continue bringing their problems to my family which means in this particular case, after the death of her husband, she's now occupied that position as pedi headman of the area until such time that another pedi headman would be appointed.

ADV SIGODI: Yes but would she also carry the same burden or carry the same conviction of supporting that government. Was there any evidence that she supported the government and not for instance the ANC?

MR NDOU: Yes from his evidence he indicated that they were being made to collect monies with the intention that certain things would be done but the monies were used for other purposes and nothing could come right.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes but did they hand the money to her?

MR NDOU: Yes, ...(inaudible) what happens is that the money will go through the pedi headman who will take the money to the chief.

JUDGE DE JAGER: There was no evidence at all before us that they handed any money to her to take to the chief?

MR NDOU: Maybe there was a problem of interpretation, he did indicate that they were collecting monies and that nothing was happening.

CHAIRPERSON: No, but that was in context of why he had a problem with the governmental authority, not to the deceased?

MR NDOU: That's why I say in the circumstances it will still be my submission though that I think this is one of those cases that would qualify for amnesty and I wouldn't want to take this any further.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma have you got any submissions?

MR MAPOMA: No Chairperson, I've no submissions.

CHAIRPERSON: Well that brings an end to that hearing.

What's the next one?




MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, I intended to call incident number three. Advocate Mushasha said he would do that but seeing that he's not in I'll call number 15 and Mr van Rensburg acts for the victims in that one.

MR NDOU: Mr Chairperson, which matter is that?

MR MAPOMA: 15, incident 15.


CHAIRPERSON: Mutali is withdrawn, isn't it? Applicant Mutali, that application is withdrawn?

MR NDOU: He arrived here now, he has arrived.

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

MS MULAUDZI: I'll use Venda.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, have you any objections to the taking of the oath?


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

Ms Mulaudzi, when were you born?

MS MULAUDZI: 19th May 1970.

MR NDOU: Now you have applied for amnesty in respect of the murder of Mr Limvumu, is that right?

MS MULAUDZI: Yes it is true.

MR NDOU: Now can you explain to the Committee as to how it came about that Mr Limvumu was killed?

MS MULAUDZI: Yes, I can explain. Limvumu was known to be a witchcraft practising person. According to the situation at the time in the period 1988 to 1989 we had a serious problem in Venda. The National Party people, which was the ruling party at the time, was labelled with a lot of allegations and way back there was no transparency in such a way that people wouldn't know. So in the '88 period, during the during ...(inaudible) Mashege's ...(indistinct) James Mavega, Motiwana was also involved and was also killed. People were not tolerating the situation in such a way that in 1988, July, August, September, we as a youth organiser ourselves said that we had to establish a congress. Ours was Shinga Youth Congress. The main objective of the congress was to oppose and to make the government collapse at the time because the government had to go back to the then South Africa.

We were tired, we were intolerant in such a way that things were happening in Venda. It was not safe and I viewed it as a woman that I had a child whom I loved and I knew that as I will be supporting the child, she may eventually get these murderers. It really pained me and that is why as a woman I had to stand up and do something.


MS MULAUDZI: Because something had to be done with that government. I started engaging myself in a campaign to explain to the youth about the situation at the time, political situation at the time. I think indicated to them as to how the then government was oppressing us, the manner in which they were engaged in ritual killings, nepotism, killings of the comrades who were in support of politics and also the perpetual detention of those who used to give us political advise, they used to be detained quite often.

At the time, although it used to be said that Venda was an independent State, one argued that it was not. That is why the Youth Congress was established and very often I would chair the meetings and there were a lot of meetings that we were engaged in, discussing issues at the time.

Well, during the marches, we were the ones responsible and we were under the same congress. It was at the time of 2nd February 1990 that I organised the youth, that we had to hold a meeting and the meeting was continuing and we were discussing the government's activities and also witchcraft practising. Mainly what I was addressing was to show that we as Venda people we are growing, believing that a human being, if he is she's involved in ritual killing, it was not purely because he or she had moved from a household, it means that a person was an expert or had gone to somebody who had given her or him some political gains information so that once you'll end up getting involved in ritual killing.

We would believe that the parts would be used, mingle with medicine, so that according to the instruction there will be some achievement. That is why we believed that the ministers who ended up involved in ritual killing, including Piet Booi who eventually got handed into that meeting also. I do believe that in the evidence given ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: I think you should go a little bit slower because the interpreter should interpret everything and he can't keep up with you.

MS MULAUDZI: Thank you very much, Sir.

MR NDOU: Okay?

MS MULAUDZI: Well there was an indication but he went to the traditional leader, that is why the youth were able to say that we wouldn't ...(indistinct) the leaders if we do not eliminate the bases, their bases, because their bases was medicine and if that is true it would be in heart that they wanted to remain being in leadership roles. They did not want to be defeated. That is why the National Party immediately after 1979, those who were in the National Party, especially Venda people in our region, including my family, were getting R30 cheque every month. I could not understand why because I was still young but now that I'm a grown up person I now realise that it was in view of the fact that they were supporting the National Party.

Well let me continue this way, as we discussing in that way we realised that the people in my area, Shinga, whom we saw a link with the political National Party at the time, I also believe that they were witchcraft practising people at the time, a number of people. I also asked the people under me as to whether National Party people used to visit those people. When the answer was no we said that was an outset issue because our objective was to fight or eliminate any person who in his or her knowledge of medicine at the time will really contribute towards the changes at the time. That was our goal.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Okay, we understand that now, can we come to the meeting of the 2nd February? What did you decide on that meeting?

MS MULAUDZI: Yes, I'm right there Sir. As we were discussing by the same one, then the Defence Force truck arrived. At the time they used their loud haler speaker, instructed us just to stop there immediately because the meeting was illegal and we were not prepared to stop at the time. That is why we dispersed, ran away. But however, two of our comrades were arrested.

After the truck had left we reconvened because we were so cross. We started talking through the freedom song language. The song included the late Limvumu that was emanating from the fact that Mr Limvumu used to be visited by the National Party leaders who were at the time and then we were convinced that the man somewhere, somehow was in support of the National Party people. That is why were singing down the streets of Shinga and we were joined by several other youth who heard that we were saying "join, join, ...(indistinct)". We then stationed at a place where we talk about the way forward because we realised that we were getting too late and as such there was a big problem about that. As such we had to do - and it was getting darker. We had to proceed. I was behind and the people were leading because at the time I used to be on guard because we knew that our comrades were getting detained.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you carry on now, at this meeting were there any decisions made?

MS MULAUDZI: Yes, during the meeting we had already held several other meetings other than the one and we had already identified that Mr Limvumu was having connection with the National Party, we knew that. He had already been targetted as a person identified and at the time I was trying to establish the names of those people who were being submitted and I was querying as to the involvement of several other people as to whether they were getting visitors from the National Party and as such it was deemed to be out of the question. However, the very individual, Limvumu, was the one.

JUDGE DE JAGER: So you marched to his house and what happened there?

MS MULAUDZI: Freedom songs were being sung and I was at the back. They got into the lapa ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Wait before you get there, I'm interested in finding out the exact decision or the resolution of that meeting, if there were any and if there were, how that was linked to what happened afterwards.

MS MULAUDZI: Okay, thank you Sir.

After those people had been arrested, we were singing freedom songs and I asked these people as to what the way forward would be and because we were getting late and we had targetted Mr Limvumu and we were able to see him getting visitors by these National Party people and as such we had to act before the time.

ADV SIGODI: We cannot keep pace with you.


ADV SIGODI: We have to take down the notes and we can't keep pace, just try to slow down?

MS MULAUDZI: Alright thank you ma'am, I had just forgotten, thank you.

MR NDOU: Okay, you can proceed slowly?

MS MULAUDZI: The same day, Mr Limvumu, we had to hunt for Mr Limvumu, so we shall get him.

ADV SIGODI: What resolutions were made at the meeting? That should be your starting point. After you had reconvened, after your two comrades had been arrested, you reconvened and then what resolutions, if any, were made at that meeting? Could you address us on that?

MS MULAUDZI: The only resolution was the fact that Mr Limvumu would have to be burned that night.

CHAIRPERSON: Why? Was it because of his relationship with the National Party?

MS MULAUDZI: Because we were also involved in the struggle to make the government collapse. I've already ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I appreciate that, ma'am, I'm saying the deceased was chosen, if I understand you correctly, because of his relationship with the Nationalist Party?

MS MULAUDZI: Yes, the deceased was being visited by these National Party people.

CHAIRPERSON: And what was wrong with that?

MS MULAUDZI: Because, I mean he had thorough knowledge on medicine and as such his traditional healing had connection with witchcraft practising and that was confirmed in 1985 by Nlangisani but I didn't but that in the affidavit because that was not the main objective of us killing him because of killing Nlangisani, no. That was not our main objective to eliminate him, it was just based on the government of the day.

The relationship between this man and the National Party gave us problems because we will see that they were getting support, medical support so that they will remain in their leadership role.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you referring to what is normally referred to as muti?

MS MULAUDZI: Yes indeed.

CHAIRPERSON: So it's not actual medicines like tablets that one will find in a chemist?

MS MULAUDZI: Well, traditional medicine, muti.


MR NDOU: Okay, then you were walking behind this crowd. What then happened?

MS MULAUDZI: Well we arrived. Okay, before we got into the kraal of the deceased people said now that we've arrived, I volunteered that I'll provide a spare tyre and paraffin.

CHAIRPERSON: In order to burn him?

MS MULAUDZI: Not the house, the man, I'm terribly sorry.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I don't follow, just repeat that?

MS MULAUDZI: Yes the man, not the house, sorry.

When the people arrived there at the lapa they were standing around the fence and others were rushing the lapa. Myself and comrade Mengeni said no, we must stand on guard because now we are threats and police might come back again and then we must remain at the back while the guards were getting the job done.

MR NDOU: And how big was this crowd?

MS MULAUDZI: We were at about one hundred and something.


MS MULAUDZI: As I was standing from the back, immediately I heard the sounds of the stones at the time the person was being pelted by the stones. It was during the night and it was dark and I was unable to see what was happening there or as to how he was being pelted with the stones but I could really feel that the stones were pelting that person.

MR NDOU: And how far away were you standing from this crowd?

MS MULAUDZI: I'm not that good in mathematics but I think I was at a distance of 50 metres from the scene of the crime where he was being pelted by the stones because I was outside of the lapa and I was in the middle of the mealies and I was behind from each and every person who was there but I just estimate that it could be 50 metres.

MR NDOU: And you associated yourself with what was happening in that kraal?

MS MULAUDZI: Yes I associated myself with that because I was involved in that and I went to the home of the people or to the scene of the incident and I was there guarding the police so that when they arrive I must alert the people so that they can run away.

CHAIRPERSON: You knew what was going to happen?

MS MULAUDZI: Yes I was aware since it it's something that we have already discussed about.

CHAIRPERSON: And guarding and watching out for the police was part of the plan?

MS MULAUDZI: Yes and even guarding because we were already ...(indistinct) because our two comrades were already arrested so I must keep on guard so that if they can by any virtue appear, we must run away. So I was prepared to alert others so that we could run away.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And you supplied the tyre and the paraffin?

MS MULAUDZI: Okay ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: No, I'm only asking you, you supplied it?

MS MULAUDZI: Yes, yes Sir.

JUDGE DE JAGER: So you knew exactly that they're going to burn him?

MS MULAUDZI: Yes I was convinced.

MR NDOU: That is all Chairperson.


CHAIRPERSON: Is that all?

MR NDOU: That is all, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I want to ask you a question, you must listen very carefully. I'm not talking about your beliefs now, I'm talking about your beliefs then. Did you believe, like the others, that these witches or wizards were in fact able to assist these unacceptable parliamentarians to maintain their power?

MS MULAUDZI: By then, yes Sir, I believed it in my heart because we were raised up to believe that witchcraft exists and muti, traditional muti works.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, thank you. Mr van Rensburg?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Mr Chairperson, may I just ask, there's some things that I have to consult on that I didn't have the opportunity before, I'm just asking for 10 minutes if it's possible?




CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairperson. I won't be long.

Ms Mulaudzi, would you care to explain to us what do you see the difference or how do you describe the difference between a medicine man and a witch?

MS MULAUDZI: (s.u.o.) One who uses medicine, perhaps explain vividly to me what you actually expect of me?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I expected you to explain to me the difference between a medicine man and a witch?

MS MULAUDZI: I can give you an example of myself. If I'm using muti, I would have gone to a traditional healer who will give me so that I shall use it if I'm ill. A witch who will take one's life, a witch who will cause some bad omens in a human being.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, now what was your problem if you keep these two definitions in mind, what was your problem with the deceased, that he was a medicine man or that he was a witch?

MS MULAUDZI: Are you referring to Mr Limvumu?


MS MULAUDZI: Meaning that he was a muti person?

CHAIRPERSON: He's asking you what do you define him as, a witch or a medicine man?

MS MULAUDZI: He was a witch. He had bad traditional healing.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Just repeat that? He had a what?

MS MULAUDZI: Bad traditional healing. Bad traditional healing is witchcraft.

MR VAN RENSBURG: From the translation I understood your evidence to be that the main problem that you had against him was that he was supplying medicine to some people related or opposing to the struggle, is that correct?

MS MULAUDZI: The person was giving medicine or muti to those who were in the National Party who wanted to remain in leadership forever and we were saying the government should go back to South Africa, that is why in view of that, seeing those people visiting the deceased's house, we were worried.

MR VAN RENSBURG: So the problem that you had with the deceased was not that he was a witch in the sense that he was suspected of being involved in the killing of any person?

MS MULAUDZI: The person I'm referring to was a witch or wizard. I also demonstrated to Judge Pillay that I did not put it down on my affidavit because it was not our main objective that he killed Nlalisande Mtembo. What we had ...(indistinct) as comrades, was that it was confirmed in 1985, during Nlalisande's death, it was merely confirmed.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Ms Mulaudzi, did you expect the deceased of killing anyone using witchcraft.

MS MULAUDZI: That he was a witch or wizard was confirmed after he had killed somebody. That is why in 1985 we knew him as a wizard.

ADV SIGODI: This person that he killed in 1985, how did this person die?

MS MULAUDZI: Hey, something very terrible happened. In Shinga we did not have toilets in our households because it is in a deep rural area and as such we will go to the bush to answer the call of nature and one will just meet other elderly people helping themselves in the bush. As such, one day, the late Nlisande, as she was going to the bush, she met the late Limvumu, whom we burnt, he too was helping himself and he had undressed as well and the child laughed at him ...(intervention)

ADV SIGODI: I don't want to hear all the details, was she strangled or did she die of a heart attack or something like that? We don't want the details.

MS MULAUDZI: Okay, thank you. Well as she was laughing, the old man got cross, that is what she told me before she died because I enquired, I asked her. I actually wanted this understanding to be clear, I won't be long. I think she spent quite a long time, she was just laughing continuously and he got cross and said to her "this is the last time you are laughing at me and you won't see how far life goes with you" and as such, in our culture if you are told that you'll only see the sun rise and not sunset, it means that you are going to be killed. If somebody says that to you and you get sick and you die, therefore the ...(indistinct) is associated with that person. As such Nlisande got ill and she died lately and as such she was taken to Jilisine to the morgue. However, she was refused because they saw her fingers moving because they could not accept that person. So she was sent back ...(intervention)

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, thank you very much.

MS MULAUDZI: And that death ...(intervention)

MR VAN RENSBURG: Just wait a minute please. Except for that person that you're now testifying about who died in 1985, was there any other person that the community or yourself suspectedly died because of the deceased's involvement? And please just answer the question, don't give us all this background, I'll ask you for it if we need it. Do you understand the question?


MR VAN RENSBURG: Please answer the question?


MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay. Now the situation is that you let this deceased live from 1985 when he now allegedly caused this other person's death, why all of a sudden in 1990 you decide to kill him because of something that he did in 1985?

CHAIRPERSON: No, that's not the reason they killed him in terms of her evidence. The evidence that she's given, that he was killed because he thought to be assisting the parliamentarians and when you asked what he did as a witch, it's just killing that she refers to a being proof that he was able to do so.

ADV SIGODI: Tell me, where there any ritual murders in your location at that time, when people were killed? Any ritual murders?

MS MULAUDZI: Around - Chera Mashege's place was ten kilometres away from my place and Victor Moytampewana's place 20 kilometres away from my place.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay, so are you saying that that alleged killing or involvement in the killing of this youth in 1985 had absolutely nothing to do with the killing of the deceased, is that your version?

MS MULAUDZI: No, no connection at all.

MR VAN RENSBURG: So that's why I say you eventually, and that's your evidence, you killed him because of his role as a medicine man, not as much as a witch, isn't that so?

MS MULAUDZI: As somebody who was a wizard and all I'm saying is - please tolerate what I'm saying, we knew this person as confirmed as a wizard in 1985 after he had killed somebody or caused ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Maybe this can help it and just keep your answer short? If the political leaders of the National Party or whoever wanted assistance of muti, who would that person go to, to a witch or a medicine man?

MS MULAUDZI: Thank you. They will go to a person who will be able to give them support and that person will be a traditional healer or a wizard who was known as an expert because there are those who have strong mutis. That is why we had a problem during the National Party Government, visiting there.

CHAIRPERSON: No, but the medicine man that you described just now, is that if you were sick you'd go to the medicine man, he'd give you something to take or to drink or to rub and you'd be cured? Understand? That's how I understood your answer?


CHAIRPERSON: Now would the politician who seeks this muti to keep his position and stifled progress of the community, would he go to a medicine man for this muti or not? Would he be able to get this strong muti to keep his political position from a medicine man that you described as giving you something to get better?

MS MULAUDZI: They would go to a traditional healer and to a wizard.


JUDGE DE JAGER: Suppose I want keep in power, if I'm ill I'm going to a medicine man, a traditional healer. But I'm not ill, I'm well but I want to keep the power to suppress people. To whom should I go?

MS MULAUDZI: You'll go to a wizard or a traditional healer.

CHAIRPERSON: Now what would that traditional healer - if I want to keep power, what would that traditional healer be able to do to help me?

MS MULAUDZI: She will give me muti.

CHAIRPERSON: And what, if you were sick one day, could you go to that same traditional healer who would give you something to cure you from your illness?


CHAIRPERSON: Now do I understand you correctly then, if someone wanted to have power, political power, that person could also go to a traditional healer to obtain muti?


CHAIRPERSON: Now why weren't then the medicine people also attacked as opposed to wizards or witches?

MS MULAUDZI: Are you referring to us who'll go to them in order that they could assist us or which ones are you referring to in particular?

CHAIRPERSON: The medicine man, you say, would either give you medicine to cure from your illness or give you muti to maintain your political power, understand?

MS MULAUDZI: Yes, they both will give me medicine - I mean muti to suppress other people.

CHAIRPERSON: Why wouldn't such people be the targets of the youth, let's call it that, at that time?

MS MULAUDZI: Are you referring to both?

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, I'm referring to the medicine man, not the witch. You have just told me that the medicine man is able to give muti to anybody to retain political power. Never mind the witch now, why would the medicine man not be a target of the youth?

MS MULAUDZI: Okay Sir, you are referring to the traditional leader that why didn't we attack the traditional leader?


MS MULAUDZI: That is why Mr Limvumu was attacked.

CHAIRPERSON: But you described him as a witch who was able to give bad medicine? That's what you told us just now?

MS MULAUDZI: Yes in Venda there's not a big difference between a traditional healer and a witchcraft practising person, they are in the same category although the activities will define how this person is practising because you know, in a way, it is associated with the ancestral spirit and something along those lines. Well, if this person then decides to kill other people, it is then said that this is bad traditional healing, it is not used to assist people or to support people in whatever they need. I think Mr van Rensburg you understood me now?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Can you explain to us, for instance, muti received from Mr Limvumu and was given to a politician, how could that help the politician to sustain political power?

CHAIRPERSON: Are you able to do so?

MS MULAUDZI: I'm really unable to explain that. In a way what we believed in is that the muti will make that we are defenceless and as such we believe strongly that it is very useful to use muti and as such I believe that the National Party people who were ruling at the time also believed that the muti will help them.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg, can't we get to the nub of the case?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, thank you Mr Chairperson.

That, as you've already testified, that place where the deceased lived, was in the deep rural area, is that correct?

MS MULAUDZI: Yes, indeed.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes and did you yourself see these politicians and people supporting the National Party visiting the deceased?


MR VAN RENSBURG: Would they get there by cars or how would they get there to his house?

MS MULAUDZI: They used to leave cars at the chief's place and I remember Mr Itchebasa saying - or visiting the late - or using the 4x4 car. He parked the car at the chief's kraal and went to the house of the deceased. At the time when Mr Itchebasa went there I ran straight to the late Comrade Todani Banogi and said he's a National Party person and we went straight to where the car had been parked and we saw him leave after he had left Mr Limvumu's place.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I put it to you that there was no such politicians visiting the deceased at the time, that he was a traditional leader who sold muti to everyone that asked him but there was no political people visiting him at the time?

MS MULAUDZI: Truly speaking, we did not imagine this or make any mistake. They used to visit.

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



MR MAPOMA: I have no questions, Chairperson.


MR NDOU: Nothing further, Chairperson.


CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mulaudzi are you in prison?


CHAIRPERSON: And how long have you been in prison?

MS MULAUDZI: I've been in prison since 1993 by the 10th September.

CHAIRPERSON: And what sentences are you serving?

MS MULAUDZI: 15 years sentence on a murder charge of Mr Limvumu.

CHAIRPERSON: What's your views on witchcraft now?

MS MULAUDZI: Could you repeat the question?

CHAIRPERSON: What's your views on witchcraft today?

MS MULAUDZI: Well in my view, I just want to say Chairperson, that when I was in prison something really happened in my life. I accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Saviour and as I speak the Government that we wanted, that we did not want at the time, collapsed at the time and we went back to this South African Government and as such I believe that there's no association with witchcraft at the moment. And as I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Saviour now, I do not want to associate myself with witchcraft and I promise that if I could be pardoned, I am going to involve myself in campaigns and projects that teach people and the mistakes associated with the witchcraft practising. I just want to be a good citizen who is productive, who has love in the community and that is why I'm applying for amnesty, I'm not really in line with witchcraft any more.

CHAIRPERSON: We've heard that witchcraft still is in operation and I appreciate what you've just said, if you are granted amnesty, how you will deal with the issues. At that time there was a battle going on, a political battle and certain things occurred. In some quarters they say it was wrong and other quarters they say it was a necessary facet of that struggle. But today we have come a long way. It is unfortunate that you have not been able to participate in what we've gone through so far in this new South Africa, but have you got anything to say to the families or family members of Mr Limvumu?

MS MULAUDZI: Yes, I want to say particularly that - well, I thought you were not going to ask me because I wanted to appeal to you to really mention that and Wandalele Limvumu and the sister, I have really wronged you, I contributed to the death of your personal family member. The time when you really loved him. When I look back, I do realise that the situation of fighting against the government really contributed to us doing that. However, I truly say I'm pleading for forgiveness. This will never happen again. I promise you. I just want to say again that I'm so thankful and grateful in such a way that you did indicate that you are not really worried about the case in such a way that you did not really punish me. You seem to have forgiven me because you'll visit my family and will meet and discuss issues around their health and other things. Now you are in this Commission and the two of us greeted each other and as such if you had not forgiven me, you wouldn't be doing that. I thank you for that and I believe that I've learnt a great challenge. I am challenged, truly. Please pardon me, forgive me, I won't repeat that.

For the seven years that I've spent in prison, I spent it horribly. My child grew up without a mother and it is really affecting her at school. If you forgive me and if I were to leave here, the child will really grow under the guidance of the mother and myself, as a woman, will go out and build the community and the South African country which is quite democratic, which I also fought for. Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. You are excused.





MR NDOU: Thank you Mr Chairperson. I now call Mmbengeni Mutali. You'll notice that this applicant is the applicant who was released early in January and we were looking for him and we couldn't find him until one of his relatives traced him and brought him. He is back here.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou, we notice that an application for attempted murder has been made by this applicant?

MR NDOU: Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the position?

MR NDOU: That is the position.

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


CHAIRPERSON: Have you any objections to taking the oath?

MMBENGENI MUTALI: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR NDOU: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

Mr Mutali, when were you born?

MR MUTALI: On the 10th July 1971.

MR NDOU: I see. Now you've brought an application for amnesty in respect of the attempted murder on Mr Limvumu, is that correct?

MR MUTALI: Yes it's true.

MR NDOU: Now you've heard Mmabatho Mulaudzi giving evidence, is that correct?

MR MUTALI: Yes it's true.

MR NDOU: And now we understand that on that day you were also present there, is that right?

MR MUTALI: Yes it's true.

MR NDOU: Now what role did you play on that particular day?

MR MUTALI: On that day it was on the 2nd February 1990. By then we were in the ground, playing field, where there was a meeting.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Could I just enquire, you've heard her evidence? Do you agree with everything that she said?

MR MUTALI: Yes I agree with all that she has said.

JUDGE DE JAGER: In your mind, why did you participate in killing the deceased?

MR MUTALI: I participated in attempting to murder the person or the deceased because I was falling under Chinga Youth Congress which was intending to do so. Usually or normally I used to attend the meetings of that organisation.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And what did you think the deceased had done wrong?

MR MUTALI: The wrong which the deceased had done was that the deceased was a witch and that the deceased was practising a bad traditional healing methods in the community, more especially towards us, the youth.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Why do you say he practised a bad medicine, what did he do that was so bad? Because some people are doing good things, some bad, what did he do that you considered to be bad medicine tradition?

MR MUTALI: I was born being a typical Venda person and I know that there are different kinds of mutis.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes, but what did he do, why was he labelled a bad person?

MR MUTALI: Mr Limvumu truly was collaborating with the people who were working in the previous government.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And were you against the previous government?

MR MUTALI: Yes I was opposing it since I was there, supporter of the ANC although it was banned by then.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And in killing Mr Limvumu did you think that you would enhance the case of the ANC and change the government?


JUDGE DE JAGER: Thank you.

MR NDOU: Now what role did you play on the day in question?

MR MUTALI: The day on which the deceased was killed, what I did is this. I was in a guard standing next to my sister who is Mulatu, a distance which is about 15 metres from the home of the deceased. When the group entered the house of the deceased and started to attack the deceased, within 15 minutes the one called Popular went home and fetched a tyre and petrol. On arriving with those things she gave me that tyre and petrol - and paraffin. There at the home of the deceased, the crowed grabbed the deceased out of the house and then they made him lie on the footpath next to the gate leading to his home. The deceased was no longer alive by then and then I moved away from the guard and I took that paraffin and a tyre to the direction of the deceased who was already dead by then. What I did is this. I took the tyre and put it on top of the body of the deceased and then asked for a match from the people who were standing behind me and then I lit. After lighting the match, then I ran away to the direction where Popular was standing and then we dispersed in running. That is what happened.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Do you want to say anything to the family of the deceased?

MR MUTALI: Yes. I'm humbling myself seeing Ms Wandele Limvumu and her mother there, I don't recall her name. I'm so sorry, I humble myself before you and before this Committee with all the wrongs that I have done during those days whereby the country was in turmoil and everything was not in order. But looking now, I realise that the situation is different from that one of the past, so I humble myself in the light that by then I was still young although there was some objective we were intending to meet, just like the changes which are now at the moment. With these few words I humble myself before you saying that please forgive me for all the wrongs I've done in the past. I thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got any further questions?

MR NDOU: Nothing more.


CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN RENSBURG: This bad medicine practises that the deceased and other witches used at the time, could you see this working, could you see those bad practises working in the community?



MR MUTALI: It can't whether to myself or Mr Ndou, if I don't want Mr Ndou to occupy his post now, it's possible that I can go to a traditional healer who is involved in witchcraft and receive the medicine which I can use it against Mr Ndou as he is here and it's possible that Ndou might lose balance as he is or rather lost his job and that those ...(indistinct) oppressing the rights of another person by using that muti or medicine. What is most important here, we know that this is related to jealousy so that those people who would be jealous that they didn't want you to work, to occupy the post they're occupying and sometimes, just like myself as I am here, I can go to the traditional healer so that I can have a medicine or muti which can protect me against other or bad omens at my workplace and that there are other medicines or mutis that can be used to heal ones wound and which is traditional muti or traditional medicine and these medicines are different.

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


MR MAPOMA: I have no questions, Chairperson.


MR NDOU: Nothing more, Chairperson.


CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you.

MR MUTALI: I also thank you.


CHAIRPERSON: Any witnesses, Mr Ndou?

MR NDOU: No further witnesses.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No witnesses, Mr Chairperson.


MR MAPOMA: No witnesses, Chairperson.

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

MR VAN RENSBURG: In this specific instance I leave it in the hands of the Committee and I have no further submissions to make.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr van Rensburg. We don't need any submissions neither from you, Mr Ndou. What's the next one?

MR MAPOMA: The next one is incident number 3, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg, you're excused for the day then. Can we perhaps start? I don't know how long tomorrow's matter is going to start but we're hoping to finish at about 11 tomorrow. If we start 9 o'clock, do you think we can manage to finish the case? Okay, then we'll adjourn till 9 o'clock tomorrow. You're excused.