Amnesty Hearings — Thohoyandou — 1999-11-16

MR VAN RENSBURG: What is your highest academic qualification?

NNDWELENI MULAUDZI: Standard 3.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Did you tell that person who helped you to complete the application form, did you tell him that you can't read English?

NNDWELENI MULAUDZI: Yes I did.

CHAIRPERSON: That's probably why he needed assistance.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Did you tell that person that you assaulted one of the deceased persons with a stick?

NNDWELENI MULAUDZI: Yes I did.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Is that the truth, did you hit one of the deceased with a stick?

NNDWELENI MULAUDZI: Yes it is true?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Who?

NNDWELENI MULAUDZI: Mr Madadzhe.

MR VAN RENSBURG: At what stage did you hit Mr Madadzhe with a stick?

NNDWELENI MULAUDZI: I beat him while he was being dragged into the house.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Now why didn't - or I put it to you in your evidence in chief you did not testify to that effect?

NNDWELENI MULAUDZI: I did mention here that I beat while he was being dragged into the house.

CHAIRPERSON: You said you hit him once after he'd died?

NNDWELENI MULAUDZI: Yes, while he was being dragged into the house, that is what I'm still explaining.

CHAIRPERSON: After he died?

NNDWELENI MULAUDZI: Yes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: So when he was dragged he was already dead, is that correct?

NNDWELENI MULAUDZI: Yes, seemingly he was dead because he was dead and no eyelashing and he was no longer speaking.

MR VAN RENSBURG: The question is, was he dead or was he weak?

NNDWELENI MULAUDZI: I think he was dead.

MR VAN RENSBURG: What makes you think he was dead at that stage when he was dragged?

NNDWELENI MULAUDZI: He was no longer breathing and there was no eyelashing and he was so weak.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Do you think it's an offence to hit a dead person with a stick?

NNDWELENI MULAUDZI: Yes I think it's a very big offence because it make you to seem as if you have participated in the killing of that person.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Did you tell that person who wrote down on the form that you set the house alight?

NNDWELENI MULAUDZI: Yes I did.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Did he write it down?

NNDWELENI MULAUDZI: I'm not sure.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Now I put it to you that that person did not write it down, do you agree with me or do you accept that?

NNDWELENI MULAUDZI: Okay, I accept that.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Do you have any reason to think why that person would have written down only some of the things that you said and not the others?

NNDWELENI MULAUDZI: Maybe I can try and explain that the thing which makes this thing difficult is that the ticket I received from jail is that is was written that I've committed murder and those other charges were incorporated in that murder that is why maybe while he was writing he doesn't include arson and assault.

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, that is not the answer to the question.  What I want to know is why would a person that wants to help you only write down half of the things you're saying and leave out the others.

CHAIRPERSON: Let me help you, I don't think you can really say why somebody else did certain things but what is going to be suggested to you is that in all probability it's not contained in this application form because you did not tell him.  What do you say about that?

NNDWELENI MULAUDZI: I have tried to explain this thing.  I explained to him that it's murder, arson and then assault.

CHAIRPERSON: I know you did say so.  If I suggest to you that that can't be true because otherwise he would have written it in, have you got any comment about that?

NNDWELENI MULAUDZI: Could you please repeat your question?

CHAIRPERSON: That because it is not contained in your statement you did not tell him, do you agree with me or not?

NNDWELENI MULAUDZI: No, I don't agree.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Now is there anything else that you've told this person that you have done that he also did not write down?

CHAIRPERSON: He can't say, he doesn't ...(indistinct)

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes perhaps I can rephrase that.  If we accept that that person who wanted to help you only wrote down that you assaulted the person with a stick and nothing else what else except for the fact that you set the house alight, did you tell that person which he did not write down?

CHAIRPERSON: He's telling the same story.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr van Rensburg, I think it's common cause that he's been convicted.  He is serving a sentence.  There must have been common purpose at least to kill the two deceased.  If that's the position and he's applying for amnesty for killing the two deceased whether he was convicted or not and he's telling us now that he's applying for that, it's a matter of argument whether it's a good application or not but that's a legal argument.  You could argue that he didn't apply for those offences and therefore we can't grant it.  He's only mentioning it now but that's an argument he can't give us the answer on, it's a legal argument that you'll have to address and we'll have to decide but apart from that it seems to me as though it's sort of common cause that he was present, that he's associated himself with the killings whether he in fact hit the body of a deceased person or hit him just before he'd been certified as dead I don't know but he associated himself with the killing and I think the only thing is why did he kill or why did he associate himself, was it associated with any political purpose or was it something else?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes I think that question has already been put to him by the Chairperson, there's just one aspect I want to clarify and then I will be finished.
	Did you tell your legal representative that you don't know what is on this application form?

NNDWELENI MULAUDZI: No I did not explain.

MR VAN RENSBURG: But why not?

NNDWELENI MULAUDZI: It's because I just think that everything inside there is what I've mentioned.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I don't follow your answer?

CHAIRPERSON: He says he didn't find it necessary to indicate to his representative that it may or may not be a problem because he assumed that everything as contained in there was in order.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairperson.
	Can I ask you in the annexures which is annexed to your application it is mentioned that one of the objects was or the main object was to make the area ungovernable?  Do you agree with that, that that was one of the reasons why you acted in this way?

NNDWELENI MULAUDZI: I agree.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay can I just again ask you to explain how would killing these persons from a list make the area ungovernable?

NNDWELENI MULAUDZI: I can explain.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Please?

NNDWELENI MULAUDZI: As I've mentioned when I started that here in Venda in the past government it was in turmoil, the officials were working together with the witches and the people in high offices used to get mutis from the Sangomas and the witches.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes and how would by killing them the area would become ungovernable?

NNDWELENI MULAUDZI: To kill the people like witches will assist that the high official, if we kill the witches which the high official get the mutis from them, it left that the power that they were using which they were getting from the witch they will no longer get it.

CHAIRPERSON: You cut off their muti, you'll stop the muti going to the politicians therefore the politicians wouldn't be able to govern the country and therefore the country would be ungovernable?  In actual fact the witches were running the country.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I don't understand that but I'll leave it there.  I don't think I have further questions, thank you Mr Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN RENSBURG

MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson.
	Mr Mulaudzi, there's just one aspect that I'd like clarity on.  You stated that your main purpose was to make Venda ungovernable.  Did that have anything to do with apartheid?

NNDWELENI MULAUDZI: Yes.