Amnesty Hearings — Thohoyandou — 1999-07-15

CHAIRPERSON: Were any of his family members present when that was happening?

NGOMANDU AMOS MUHADI: I can't say there was anybody because it was in the evening.  They might have been in.

CHAIRPERSON: (Microphone not picking up).

NGOMANDU AMOS MUHADI: Well it happened circumcision school.

CHAIRPERSON: (Microphone not picking up) his family members there, that you saw?  His wife and his children?

NGOMANDU AMOS MUHADI: I said that I cannot remember, I can't remember what they were in.

CHAIRPERSON: (Microphone not picking up) to have been at the circumcision school?

NGOMANDU AMOS MUHADI: Very unlikely.  Likely.

CHAIRPERSON: To have been there?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you, Mr Chairman.  If we can continue to paragraph 21, I think it's on the fourth page
"The deceased and his sons would ambush youth meetings or even sjambok or throw stones to cause them to disperse."
Did you see the deceased doing this?

NGOMANDU AMOS MUHADI: No, I heard about it.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Paragraph 24
"This day ended up with one of his brothers hacked, Petrus Mahvunga being burned out."
And that ties in with the previous paragraph which described the events on 28 February 1990, is that correct?

NGOMANDU AMOS MUHADI: Yes, it is true.

MR VAN RENSBURG: (Microphone not picking up) is it not so that one that specific day, 28 February 1990, the deceased's house was also damaged?

CHAIRPERSON: (Microphone not picking up) there was a series of attempts to at lease damage his house.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I think the windows at least were broken.

CHAIRPERSON: We're not too sure exactly what happened.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know about that?

NGOMANDU AMOS MUHADI: Yes, I wasn't there.  I heard about it when this happened.

MR VAN RENSBURG: (Microphone not picking up) of February?

NGOMANDU AMOS MUHADI: What I can remember, this happened when I was practising at a driving school and I used to come back at around 16h00 and, I will go to the practise after 16h00.  And I will attend many of these activities.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you.  If we can jump ahead then.

ADV DE JAGER: Can I just ask something about paragraph 25?"Further meetings were held where at we resolved to allow the deceased..."
You didn't attend any further meetings?

NGOMANDU AMOS MUHADI: No.

ADV DE JAGER: (Microphone not picking up) really got a problem with this affidavit.  This man is making statements under oath and he knew nothing about it, he wasn't there
	"We resolved..."
It's including him.  We had a lot of hearsay in here which he knew nothing about.

MR NDOU: May I comment?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR NDOU: That's fine, I don't have any problem with that.

CHAIRPERSON: You should (indistinct).

MR NDOU: What I want to indicate is that I'm worried there is a slight problem of with the reading of these sentences like I see sometimes my learned friend struggles in trying to interpret what's written.

ADV DE JAGER: Allow me just to put my problem.  My problem is it's not his affidavit, it's yours.

MR NDOU: I don't understand that.

ADV DE JAGER: He knows nothing about this.

MR NDOU: But you're not at my explanation, how do you come to that conclusion?  Do you want me to (intervenes).

ADV DE JAGER: Yes.

MR NDOU: I'm saying when you read the affidavit, it talks about the youth in general and then it goes to specific instances where that particular Applicant states as to what he or she did.  Now, here if you read paragraph 25, it says
"Further meetings were resolved to allow the deceased to leave the area to allow for political activity."
Now, what you read in that is that what he's saying is that the Youth held further meetings whereas they resolved that the deceased must be removed to allow for political activity which is a fact.  But then he'll go on to point out as to the time when he was there and just what he did at the time when he was there.  Because all that he then tries to do is to give a broad outline of what the facts are and, most of the facts are not in dispute.  What I think would be in dispute will be that which the particular Applicant is said to have done, even on that paragraph, I don't see any contradiction, I don't see any trying to take the situation out of ambit.

CHAIRPERSON: You see, Mr Ndou, there's no point getting
upset.  What Mr De Jager has pointed out to you is absolutely 
correct.  When an affidavit is made, it is made by a deponent who 
swears at the end of that affidavit that he understands and knows 
the contents of this declaration.  What is missing there also is 
that it is the truth.  It is normal practise that in affidavits that 
hearsay is always explained 'That this is not in my personal 
knowledge but I heard it.'  Otherwise it is assumed that this forms 
part of the personal knowledge of the deponent.  Now he says at 
paragraph 25,  whether it is disputed or common cause is 
irrelevant.  	"Further meetings where held whereat we resolved..."
	The import of that sentence says to us that this Applicant was party to that decision.  In order to be party to that decision, he must have been at that meeting to be party to that decision.  He now tells us he wasn't at that meeting.  Do you understand?

MR NDOU: I don't have any problem although it doesn't talk about 'a meeting,' it talks about 'meetings.'

CHAIRPERSON: Well, that's the point.  He wasn't there, he only attended one meeting.

MR NDOU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: There are a number of other issues here in this affidavit where he tells us no, he has no personal knowledge of those facts, he heard about them.  Now there is nothing wrong with inserting hearsay evidence in affidavits but it must be pointed out that it's hearsay.  And on those issues it only explains why he took certain actions, it doesn't mean it's the truth, do you follow?

MR NDOU: I don't have any problem.  I took it that the Committee also understands that he never indicated as to when he attended the meeting of Mahvunga Youth Congress.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I'm not arguing with you, I'm not even talking about what you thought and what you assumed, I'm pointed out to you what the rules and regulations are regarding affidavits in terms of the laws of this land.  And the practises as it developed over time.  And we have adopted the attitude that we will have regard for affidavits in terms of those practises as it was developed.  Do you follow?

MR NDOU: Yes.  If you go back to paragraph 3, it says
"The facts contained herein are within my own personal knowledge, information and belief and (indistinct) are correct."

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  Now, this decision at those further meetings, is it in his personal knowledge?

MR NDOU: No, but if you ask him, he'll tell you that they reported to him, he knew about it, he heard about it.

CHAIRPERSON: Then you are misunderstanding personal knowledge as apposed to hearsay.  Personal knowledge means 'I know about it myself, I experienced it myself.'  That's what it means when it says 'In my personal knowledge.'  And are true and correct.  How can you say hearsay is true and correct?  Do you follow what I'm saying?  If you haven't seen it.

MR NDOU: Okay, it's fine.  I don't have any problem with personal knowledge.  The problem that I had was information and belief but, it's fine.  Perhaps what we will say that, then maybe we will add on paragraph 25 that it is not (indistinct), that he heard about these meetings.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what Mr De Jager's pointing out to you is that we're going to have serious difficulty relying on this document.  I'm not going to tell whether you must supplement these affidavits or not, that is for you to decide.  You're representing these Applicants.  I think he's being fair to you when he points out to you that there are difficulties that we experience with these documents.  Anyway (intervenes).

MR NDOU: Although what I don't agree with him is that it is my affidavit.  That I don't agree with him.