Amnesty Hearings — Thohoyandou — 1999-07-12

UNKNOWN: He has got no right, at least from a Venda point of view, the chief does not try a person, it's a tribal court that tries a person.  It goes through a chief.

CHAIRPERSON: The chief just sentences.  Well he's got some problems with the new constitution, hasn't he?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay, in the specific instance that we are talking about today, there is evidence that the group of youths actually ordered the deceased to leave the area, they wanted to expel him.  In these specific circumstances there is no indication that the chief actually approved such an expulsion.  Therefore, the deceased refused to go.  Are you equipped to wage an opinion as to what can happen to such a person if he refuses to move in such circumstances.

MR NDOU: If I may just come before you answer, I don't think that you are putting the correct facts.  If you go back and you read Justice Liebenberg's Judgment, you will note there from the Judgment that in fact the deceased was given a "trek pass" by the chief himself.  So that's why I don't understand your question because it doesn't give the true picture of what transpired.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay, perhaps I should just rephrase my question then.  In the circumstances, if the chief approves of a person and gives him a "trek pass" and he refuses to leave, what will happen to him?

UNKNOWN: I'll explain that.  Before the days of the Pretoria Supreme Court and Bloemfontein, the chief was the most senior person.  If he said out, you were out, but although Venda people adopted the so-called independence, their cases were still tried by Judges from Pretoria, so in that case, if the chief believed or thought that his own case could have a strong backing from Pretoria or from Bloemfontein, he could say he doesn't go away because in that case he ...(indistinct) the person, if I say he goes out, who will accept him?   Whereas in the past, the other chief will be sympathetic, for various reasons.

ADV DE JAGER: I think the questions is, suppose we had the position now like in the past the chief gave him a "trek pass" and he wouldn't go, what would the community or the chief do to him then?

UNKNOWN: At present the chief has got no right to give a "trek pass".

CHAIRPERSON: I know that, but let's leave for a moment the present out of the position, in the past when the chief had the authority and he would give somebody a "trek pass" and he wouldn't go, what would the traditional leader do then?

UNKNOWN: It was just unthinkable that he could have, that a subject could really defy the highest authority on land.

ADV DE JAGER: And if he would do that, wouldn't the people kill him because be is defying the highest authority?

UNKNOWN: I wouldn't like to speculate here, because I don't know any other case of that nature.

ADV DE JAGER: But it is unheard of that he wouldn't obey the "trek pass"?

UNKNOWN: In the past once you were told to leave the place, you had to leave that place.  I do not know of any person who, before white power, challenged a native chief.

CHAIRPERSON: Their own version of forced removals.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Okay, let's move on now.  You testified, and I see that I have to put my statements to you very carefully, you testified something to the effect of that, during the 1990's perhaps, I've got round about that time, not to be taken too seriously or too strictly on the time, the youths in this area took certain actions based on political motives and the reason why they took those actions was because they did not want to feel backward, and they did not want to be left out.  Is that correct?  Did you say, was that part of your testimony?

UNKNOWN: They said so, we are not 'barries', we don't like to be seen different from Jo'burg, Cape Town people, they said so themselves.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And is that why, according to you, that was the motivation for them for killing people and burning their houses and things like that?

UNKNOWN: I wouldn't put it in that way.  What they wanted was to have a new order.  Killing and burning was not done everywhere.  There were many places in which people accused of ritual murder or perhaps witchcraft were not killed in Venda.  It's not everywhere.  You will only find that where perhaps the situation went out of control.  You can then go further.  A lot of these cases happened mostly in the most backward areas of Venda.  Not a single case was reported here at Thohoyandou or at Sibasa.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, we're not talking about witchcraft motivated killings now, we're talking about the political actions that the youths had taken at the time and the motivation for that was that they did not want to feel backward, or they want to indicate that they are not backward?

CHAIRPERSON: I think Professor, let me make it easier for you.  The question is directed at questioning one of the requirements of the Act to obtain amnesty.  One of the requirements is that whatever action or act for which amnesty is applied for, must have been committed for political reasons or with a political motive.  Now if these youths did what they did in respect of the murder for which we are gathered here, merely to show the rest of the world that they are not  'barries', as you put it, it could be argued that there was no political motive for what they did.  Do you understand?

UNKNOWN: I do Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Now take that explanation and apply it to the question posed by Mr van Rensburg and deal with it please.

UNKNOWN: I'll answer that.  Now first of all I must stress this thing, I never generalised.  I even asked you, look into each case and find out if indeed the motive was political, but on the whole when they're singing here outside, they were saying Viva, Viva.  Then again our traditional leaders here belonged to a party called the Venda National Party and it's motto was unity, then the youth would say unity in ritual murder.  So whatever chiefs stood for was actually resented.  But I'll be the last person to say that every case committed in Venda was because of politics.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Now if I put it to you that the applicants will one after the other come and testify that they killed the victim because they did not want to feel backward in relation to the other communities, Jo'burg, and all those people, what would you say as to the merits of such a motivation for killing a person?

CHAIRPERSON: Is that what they're going to come say, Mr van Rensburg?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I'm trying to rephrase the statement made by the witness and trying to apply that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: But you can't put to him what the applicants are not going to say, unless you have information that that is what they're going to say.

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, my question was that if they are coming to say that.  It is a hypothetical question.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's put it this way, that if someone were to come say here, not necessarily the applicants.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr chairman.

MR VAN RENSBURG: If someone is to come say that they killed a person and set his house alight merely for the reason that they did not want to be backward, what would you say of that?

CHAIRPERSON: Is that a fair question to the witness?

UNKNOWN: The point is, I never said ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Besides that, he is asking for your expert opinion.  I'm just wondering whether the witness is an expert in interpreting the law.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I don't think he is.

CHAIRPERSON: So isn't that a matter for the Committee to decide, rather than seeking an opinion from an expert who's not a legal expert.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman, I will accept that.  I will withdraw the question.
You said that recently, in the recent years, the occurrence of witchcraft related killings or incidents has been drastically reduced.  Is that correct?