Amnesty Hearings — Thohoyandou — 1999-07-14

MR NDOU: Thank you Mr Chairman, before Mr van Rensburg proceeds may I request that the applicant's now speak in Venda because I realised yesterday that he was struggling in the beginning.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

MR NDOU: Thank you.

ROGER KACHERO RAMATSITSI: (s.u.o.)

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman, I'll proceed.
	Mr Ramasitsi can you please tell can you please tell  this hearing again as to what charges you were convicted of?

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't that on record?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I just want to confirm that Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well the record says 'murder and arson'.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Arson, okay.   The murder and arson that you committed, on which date were those two offences committed?

ROGER KACHERO RAMATSITSI: I will start by answering that.  All the charges that it is the murder and assault and I was charged on the 6th on the death of Mr Mahvunga, that's the charges I'm ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: The question  says or asks you what date did these incidents take place for which you were convicted.

ROGER KACHERO RAMATSITSI: It's murder and assault which happened on the 6th of April 1990.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you make an application for any further act except the arson and the murder?

ROGER KACHERO RAMATSITSI: No.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Is the murder of  Mr Edward, let me just get the page, Edward Mahvunga of Mahvunga village where you stayed, and the arson was in respect of his home.

ROGER KACHERO RAMATSITSI: Yes that's true.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman.   Let's talk about now of the role that the deceased played before he was killed and there was evidence led during the criminal trial that he was a farmer, and to a large extent a successful farmer.  Can you confirm that?

ROGER KACHERO RAMATSITSI: No he was not progressing that one but he was trying to be  farmer, he was not having so many things.

CHAIRPERSON: Before we carry on, can I ask you one thing on the records?  It seems that your defence in the criminal trial was somewhat different to the evidence you now provide to this committee, correct?

ROGER KACHERO RAMATSITSI: Yes it's true.

CHAIRPERSON: Which one of the two versions is the truth?  The one you're telling this committee or the one you told in court?

ROGER KACHERO RAMATSITSI: It's what I explained in court.   But the truth is what I'm telling the committee today.

CHAIRPERSON: Which one is the truth?  Is the truth the one that you are telling this committee?

ROGER KACHERO RAMATSITSI: What I'm explaining here today.

CHAIRPERSON: Was the one that you gave to the judge in the court untrue?

ROGER KACHERO RAMATSITSI: What was explained in court, we were intimidated and it was not true and you know it was not proper for one to tell the truth then.  But the time we were arrested we were intimidated by the police, so it was difficult for one to tell the truth because we were assaulted and we were not questioned properly because we were being assaulted.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there another version, even on your own version in Xhosa, not so?  Your advocate put a different version to the state witnesses correct, now that one's not the script as I understand your evidence.

MR RAMASITSI: I don't understand what you need by your question.

CHAIRPERSON: When you were told you killed Edward in the court, what did you say?

MR RAMASITSI: I disagreed.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you say that you weren't there or what?

MR RAMASITSI: I said I was not present.

CHAIRPERSON: ...correct?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes it was not the truth.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you tell untruths there?

MR RAMASITSI: That statement was taken before the police after I was assaulted, as such I was unable to tell the truth.

CHAIRPERSON: If you weren't then assaulted would you have told them that you killed Elliot or that you were...(indistinct)?

MR RAMASITSI: I think that I would actually have said that. I think I would have told the truth.

CHAIRPERSON: So you say you were assaulted by the police, that's why you did not the court the truth?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes it's true.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Mr Ramasitsi at the criminal trial you even called your brother to testify on your behalf, you were not there on the 6th of April, do you agree with that?

MR VAN RENSBURG: It's not true. I quote from the record, from the judgment on page 207 of the bundle.
"His brother Ananias gave evidence in support of this version, I find to have been completely unreliable".
He gave evidence as to the exact date when the accused on the 14th left and the exact date that he returned.

MR RAMASITSI: That is not my elder brother but my younger brother who gave evidence.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I did not mention whether it was your older or your younger brother, I said your brother.

MR NDOU: In English and Venda, when you said a brother, it does not distinguish whether it is an elder or a younger one, that's why he's confused.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I think these, when you called your brother ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Do you understand that Mr van Rensburg, that the Venda word used by the interpreter may be - I didn't know, I will clarify whether that was a possibility.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes I will accept that and I will clarify that, thank you Mr Chairman.  The point I'm trying to make Mr Ramasitsi is that at the criminal court your brother testified, your brother Ananias testified that you were not at the scene of the crime on the 6th of April can you remember that?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes I can remember.

CHAIRPERSON: So you and your brother led false evidence in the criminal court?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes that's true.

CHAIRPERSON: And the reason for this, you now say is that you were intimidated by the police.

MR RAMASITSI: Yes that's true.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay let's continue and talk about the role of the deceased. As I previously stated to you from the record, criminal record and the judgement of Judge Liebenberg, it appears that the deceased was a well-off man with quite a large house and many possessions, do you agree with that statement?

MR RAMASITSI: No it's not true.

CHAIRPERSON: Why don't you say so?  Why don't you agree.

MR RAMASITSI: Because the deceased was next to me and I used to work with his children, I used to stay with him at his home, I know him very well.

CHAIRPERSON: And is it not so that he had a motor vehicle as well as two tractors.

MR RAMASITSI: He was using two tractors and one car, the farm was not that big, it was very small.  He was not a farmer because he used to plant two or three onions or potatoes, not that big.

CHAIRPERSON: And is it not so that his house was larger than the other people in the village?

MR RAMASITSI: Ja it was bigger but it was burned long ago before the wife of that person was having something but by the time that he passed away he had nothing, he no longer had that much property.

CHAIRPERSON: So he didn't have that much property.

MR RAMASITSI: The deceased, by the time he was killed he had only a car and a tractor, he did not have so many things that people can say he had much property.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes but the point of the matter is that on your own evidence it's not everybody in that area that had a car.  Correct?

MR RAMASITSI: Could you please repeat your question.

CHAIRPERSON: Not everybody in the area had a car, correct?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes that's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And not everybody in the area was the owner of a farm?  Correct?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes that's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And not everybody in this area had a tractor?

MR RAMASITSI: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So generally he was better off than an ordinary person in the area?  That's all the attorney wants to get to you, do you agree with that?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes I agree.

CHAIRPERSON: No one is saying he was the richest man in the world, what he's trying to say is that the deceased was rather better off by comparison to the rest of the community or most of the community.  Do we agree on that?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes I agree.