Amnesty Hearings — Thohoyandou — 1999-07-14

MR RAMASITSI: What happened was that there was no serious indication that he bewitched a particular person, it was alleged that he was found in the early morning of that day on top of a certain woman with whom he was in love, but the woman could not feel that person was a human being, she only realised when the priest arrived that this person was only doing what he was doing, that was when they were able to realise that the women were being taken to that area to sleep with the late, that was why people really could not understand why they thought that many wives were being taken to this man.

ADV DE JAGER: Was that a reason for killing him or one of the reasons for killing him because he took women to his house and slept with them?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes it was one of the reasons.

ADV DE JAGER: Can you perhaps give us any reasons why you killed him?
We've got the women sleeping with him, we've got  his opposition to you singing songs and toyi-toyiing, and what else caused his death?

MR RAMASITSI: I can.  What led to the death of the deceased is because he refused to relieve the community when he'd already been given the "trek pass" and when he disputed the fact that he had to leave and he experienced an assegai and people lost control, that is why they lost control and it was havoc which led to his death.

ADV DE JAGER: And the fact that he had tractors and land and was a fairly wealthy person.  Was his wealth connected with witchcraft?

MR RAMASITSI: No it was not connected.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Did you tell your attorney all this that you're telling us?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes I did.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Explain why you were not led on those things.

MR RAMASITSI: Will you repeat that question please?

MR VAN RENSBURG: You can't explain why you were not led on those aspects?

MR RAMASITSI: Well I did explain that the reason we could not touch on witchcraft was that the deceased, after the meeting, when he was not co-operating with the people, he could not realise that the political activities were quite important, especially that led to the people no longer concentrating on witchcraft but on dealing with the political activities, freedom especially.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on Mr van Rensburg.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman,  and you agreed on this topic of witchcraft, that at the meetings that you held, the people were actually chanting that the witches must be burned, isn't that so?  Perhaps I should rephrase that, on the meeting that was held about the behaviour of the deceased and his family it was chanted that the witches must be burned.

MR RAMASITSI: Yes it is true.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay now let's turn to the incidents that took place on the 25th to the 28th of February of that year, and I specifically refer to the attacks that were launched at the house of the deceased's brother, Mr Petrus Mahvunga and I want to ask you, were you part and parcel of those attacks?

MR RAMASITSI: Yes I was.

MR VAN RENSBURG: So how many times did you go to Mr Petrus Mahvunga's house?

MR RAMASITSI: We went there twice.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And what did you do there.

MR RAMASITSI: Well the first day we poured petrol around the house and it could not catch fire.  Then next time when we did he really ...(indistinct) us or followed us.

MR VAN RENSBURG: The next day, that was on the 26th, correct?  That was on the 26th of February 1990, he chased you.

MR RAMASITSI: Yes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And on that specific day you actually successfully burned down his house or his hut?

MR RAMASITSI: The next day we could not burn.

MR VAN RENSBURG: On which date was his hut burned down?

MR RAMASITSI: It was burned during the ...(indistinct) when the news about his move was released and that was when he said he was not going to move and whosoever...(intervention)

MR VAN RENSBURG: Mr van Rensburg has that got relevance on this.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes it is very relevant regarding the question of full disclosure Your Worship.  If I can refer you to the statement of the witness or the applicant contained in paragraph 41 of the bundle.  The statement there is not completely  transcribed, the actual hand-written statement is on page 42 and page 43.  This is the statement that was contained in this specific case docket.  This statement actually refers to the attack on the house of Mr Petrus Mahvunga, it only says there halfway through the statement, Mahvunga, but I will prove that this actually took place at the house of Mr Petrus Mahvunga, this is the attack.

CHAIRPERSON: Still ask a question, of what relevance is that attack to this enquiry?

MR VAN RENSBURG: As I've said, it is relevant to the question of full disclosure and I'm trying to show to this Commission that the applicant actually was involved in more actions which he in fact did not make application for and in fact which he was not convicted but he was involved in that and then obviously therefore he should have made application for amnesty for those acts.

CHAIRPERSON: But he didn't.

MR VAN RENSBURG: He didn't.

ADV DE JAGER: I'm, perhaps while you mention it, both of you legal representatives could overlook, at the indictment on page 154 and at the judgment.  There are three arson, counts 1, 2 and 3 relates to arson.  The first one related to Petrus, the second one to Edward and the third one also to Edward.  The judge found him guilty of arson and murder.  He didn't specify which count of arson.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Ja I think it was specified that he was found guilty on Count 3 and Count 7.

ADV DE JAGER: Oh so he didn't find him guilty of Petrus?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Of Petrus, I actually agree with that, he was actually found not guilty of the arson of Petrus' house which took place on the 28th as it was stipulated in Count 1...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: In any case he did not make application for that matter.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Why should he have disclosed it then?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Well Mr Chairman this is the Commission where he should make application.

MR VAN RENSBURG: He should make application now, he should have but he didn't.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: He must male full disclosure in respect of those offences committed by his acts for which he applies..
...(intervention)

MR VAN RENSBURG: For amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja.  That's the restrictions of the 'Full Disclosure' concept.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I understand.

CHAIRPERSON: Otherwise we'll hear about all his misdemeanours since he was a baby.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I understand that but I suppose there is also a cut-off point relating to the dates.  Thank you Mr Chairman, if I can just ask one question on this if you will allow me to finalise this specific point.  Mr Ramasitsi, would you agree that your actions as you have now testified relating to your actions at the house  of Mr Petrus Mahvunga, would you agree that that amounts to arson or attempted arson?

MR RAMASITSI: Sorry could you repeat your question please?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Would you agree that the reactions that you have now testified about today, actions that you have taken at the house of Mr Petrus Mahvunga amounts to arson or attempted arson?

MR RAMASITSI: Well it has connection to arson.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay and just one thing that I think the Committee will also have a problem with, what was your fight with Mr Petrus Mahvunga?

MR RAMASITSI: Well firstly Petrus Mahvunga was one of the suspects regarding witchcraft.  Secondly Petrus Mahvunga was with the deceased on the day we were on being beaten on the mountain.  That is why he was deemed to have been incorporated in our...

ADV DE JAGER: You burned his house long before the beating on the mountain occurred?  You attempted to burn his house in February, the beating in the mountain was round about April.

CHAIRPERSON: In how many attacks on Edward's house were you involved?

MR RAMASITSI: Twice.

CHAIRPERSON: When was that?