Amnesty Hearings — Thohoyandou — 1999-07-14

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr van Rensburg.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you.  Still talking on the role that the deceased played before his death.  There are two statements that you made in your evidence in chief that I think compete with each other and I want your explanation on that.  The one is that you said the deceased was a commoner and that he played no significant role on the one hand, that's the one statement that you made, and later in your testimony you state that he acted as if he was the chief in the area.  Can you please explain that apparent contradiction?

MR RAMASITSI: Well I can start by saying he was not a better-off person.  When he started not co-operating with the people, I was one of those people who used to attend, although he used to have workers, the tractor was not relieved for greasing, it was just an ordinary activity, he did not have a lot or property as it is mentioned.  	Secondly with regard to co-operation with the people, the reason why he competed with people is because the youth went to tell him he could not allow that to happen, because he didn't want to know what was happening.  As time went on ....(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Do you understand the question?  The question is you said at one stage yesterday that he was not a significant person, he was in fact a commoner in the area.  On another occasion you speak about the deceased and you refer to him as somebody who acted like some type of leader, a chief.

MR RAMASITSI: It was true.

CHAIRPERSON: The simple question that the attorneys ask is for you to explain what you meant by this, by what we think is a difference between the status that you initially gave him as a commoner and in behaving or acting like a chief...run down of his property and that sort of thing, we want you to explain what he spoke about you spoke about yesterday.

MR RAMASITSI: Well when I said that he used to be a commoner, I wanted to say that whatever he used to do was not so difficult in the eyes of the people.  He was not really very co-operative, even the ...(indistinct) he was not really very relevant.

CHAIRPERSON: So what you mean is that his actual status was that of a commoner.  Do you understand me correctly?

MR RAMASITSI: Well maybe I could not explain vividly yesterday, I did not expect the questions the way - I think now it is quite simpler.  Well surely the way he was explained as a commoner, he didn't have really status there, his life did not have any contribution towards the community.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay tell me what you meant by saying that he acted like a chief?

MR RAMASITSI: Well what used to be said in the kraal, he used to renegade, he didn't really cooperate with the chief people or the kraal meeting.

MR VAN RENSBURG: He was acting contrary to the chief, not acting as the chief.

CHAIRPERSON: No I think what he's saying Mr van Rensburg is that when he did not adhere to certain decisions, chiefs could ignore decisions and in that sense he behaved or acted like a chief.  I'm just suggesting that that's how I understand his answer.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Let me get this clear, thank you Mr Chairman, you're saying that he was acting like a chief because he went his own way and did not adhere to the chief's instruction.

MR RAMASITSI: Well he used to suppose that matters it's matters being discussed in the chief's kraal, that is finances, he used to say no that was not the correct way of doing things.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And you knew very well that he wasn't the chief or acting chief.

MR RAMASITSI: He was not an acting chief, he was just a royal family member.  I can't tell exactly how he was, he was just a relative so he used to claim to be a chief.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ramasitsi the question is, did you know at the time that he was not a chief or an acting chief.

MR RAMASITSI: Yes I knew.

CHAIRPERSON: At which time?

MR VAN RENSBURG: At the time before April 1990.

MR RAMASITSI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Then I want to put it to you and I want to ask you, why did you write your application for amnesty, I'm referring to page 37 of the bundle specifically paragraph 9a.4 and I will quote it to you.  It was expected of you to state the nature and particulars and deeds that you have done and you said
"A group of villagers attacked the deceased who was an acting chief in the area".
Now the question is simple, why did you put in your application that he was an acting chief when you very well knew that he wasn't a chief or an acting chief?

MR RAMASITSI: Well I would like to present this.  It was not put in a very consistent way.  What I'm saying today is quite true, maybe it was not put in a very logical way.

CHAIRPERSON: So you agreed that the information supplied by you in the application regarding this paragraph is not correct.

ADV DE JAGER: I don't want to interfere, I think you've got a valid point and a valid question.  I just want to put, we've come across things like this very often in our travels, especially where you get a person who writes these things out in English when English is not his first language.  And if one has to just fiddle around with this statement that you refer to and said, "..who was acting as a chief in the area", it also makes sense, and then it would be consistent, but I'm just pointing that out, you can carry on on the line you have chosen, I just thought I'd mention to you, that one could manipulate the import.

MR VAN RENSBURG: No Mr Chairman I will not labour the point, I just want to put the language..

CHAIRPERSON: Well you don't have to get the answer to..
...(intervention)

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you.  Can I repeat the question for you?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: The question is do you then agree that the information supplied in this paragraph 9a.4 of your amnesty application is not correct as it stands there?  Would you care to read what you wrote there?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And also then I refer you to paragraph 10.a where the question was
"State the political objectives sought to be 	achieved..."
and you stated there in paragraph 10.a of your amnesty
application on page 37:
"To make the country ungovernable and to remove a repressive chief".
Do you also agree that that is not factually correct as it stands there?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you.  Let's start talking about the role of the deceased and your relationship with.. ...(intervention)

ADV SIGODI: Sorry to disturb Mr Chairperson, on this point I just want some clarity.  Who filled in this form for you, did you fill it in yourself?  Your application form on pages 36, 37 and 38?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes myself.

ADV SIGODI: And did you fill in this paragraph, 9a, 9a.1, 9a.4, 10a and 10b, yourself?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And did you also fill in the name?

CHAIRPERSON: Be very careful, we're going to take into consideration whether you're telling us the truth or not.

MR RAMASITSI: Yes I do have three different hand-writings.

CHAIRPERSON: I was not yet at the point of different handwritings, I was going to ask you, did you fill this form in on the same day at the same time?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes I'm saying that truly.

CHAIRPERSON: Are there three different types of handwritings on this, are there three?

MR RAMASITSI: Well when we see this application we you used to have some tense moments or resting moments and then continue just like that.  That is why it seems to be in conflict or quite different.

CHAIRPERSON: So you say all these different hand-writings are your own.

MR RAMASITSI: Yes I will say.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And just on that point were you all together, all the applicants here today, they were all together when you completed the statement?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And everyone filled his own application.

MR RAMASITSI: Well some of us were writing for others, for one-another.