Amnesty Hearings — Thohoyandou — 1999-07-15

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Ndou, okay, you didn't sign it, it's okay, it's not your affidavit in that sense, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So we've pointed out the problems that we may have at the end of the end of the day.  We're not here to give you advice, you must make certain decisions yourself.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you, Mr Chairman.  If we can jump right to paragraph 31 on page five, at the bottom.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I'm glad to hear that, a big leap.  We'll get to the end of this business.

MR VAN RENSBURG: "Seeing that the men at the top had fallen, we called the village meeting on the morning of 6 April."
Now I'm going to ask you a really simple question...(intervenes)

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, you've jumped so far...(intervenes).

INTERPRETER: Speaker's mike is not on, please.

ADV DE JAGER: ... so far, I haven't got that page.

MR VAN RENSBURG: It's at the bottom of page 5, paragraph 31.

ADV DE JAGER: Unfortunately it's not included in my...(intervenes)

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, it was also not included in mine originally but if you look on the other statement, I suppose it should be included, perhaps we can just get that from Mr Ndou.

ADV SIGODI: I don't have it either.

MR NDOU: Which paragraph is that?

ADV SIGODI: 31.

CHAIRPERSON: Look, I tell you what, it's 11h00, I'm going to have some tea.  Mr Ndou, will take these documents back and see that they are properly formulated, please.  We have extreme difficulty in proceeding with this bit of evidence.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Van Rensburg.

NGOMANDU AMOS MUHADI: (s.u.o.)

MR VAN RENSBURG: (cont)
	Thank you, Mr Chairperson.  During the tea break it was brought to my knowledge that the witness, Mr Muhadi actually wants to effect certain amendments to his affidavit and I don't know exactly what the position is regarding this.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou, what is the position about that now?

MR NDOU: Well, we thought that the Applicant will be able to cure the problem in the affidavit because we couldn't just go there and change it and let him sign because there will be a problem with the attestation.  So, we thought perhaps if, it's only two instances that pertain to paragraph 25 and 31, I think where (indistinct).

CHAIRPERSON: What does he want to do?  What does he want to...(intervenes).

MR NDOU: It's just that the wording, just slightly change to on paragraph 25 to read
"Further meetings were held whereat the villagers resolved to allow the deceased to leave the area."
without indicating whether he was there not.

CHAIRPERSON: And then will he initial that amendment?

MR NDOU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And where's the other amendment?

MR NDOU: And then on paragraph 31, the sentence will now read that
"Seeing that the men at the top had fallen, a village meeting was called."

CHAIRPERSON: And he'll sign and initial there?

MR NDOU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got any objection to that, Mr Van Rensburg?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I just want to put on record that I don't think I really have, in the circumstances of the whole scenario at this stage, have a problem but, formally, obviously the regulations also stipulates that the Commissioner of Oaths should normally also be requested to initial...(intervenes)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well, I've asked Mr Ndou to see to it that every page is initialled by those who must sign it.

MR VAN RENSBURG: In those circumstances...(intervenes).

CHAIRPERSON: That - not instruction - that proviso still applies.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I understand.

CHAIRPERSON: If it isn't done by the time we finish with this matter, we will have complete disregard for the affidavit.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I understand that and under those circumstances I will have no objection, thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Van Rensburg, if we can push along, please, sir.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you, I will do that.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm hoping to finish today.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.  I had previously referred to paragraph 31 on page five, I will in view of the amendment also skip that and proceed to paragraph 37 on page six.  It reads, Mr Muhadi, that
"As we had arrived at his home at about 10h00, we continued to negotiate with him to leave and even called in the police to advise him to leave but he would not budge."
	Now this is interesting because it's the first time that we have evidence to that effect that the police were actually involved on the 6 April, can you just tell me, did the police arrive there or what was the role of the police on that day?

NGOMANDU AMOS MUHADI: The police spoke with the deceased to leave.

MR VAN RENSBURG: On 6 April, did you see the police there?

NGOMANDU AMOS MUHADI: Yes, I mean on that date.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And did the police leave while the crowd was still there at the house?

NGOMANDU AMOS MUHADI: Yes, the police left and left the crown behind.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I also have to put it to you that the victim will testify that the crowd only arrived in the afternoon and not 10h00 like you've stipulated in paragraph 37.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you able to give further details, Mr Van Rensburg, like only ten people came and a bigger crowd arrived later the afternoon or what is the position?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I think the situation from the victim's side is, let me put it this way.  After the meeting was dispersed, the first people went there.  So, I got the drift from the evidence that immediately after the meeting, the people went there in a huge crowd.

CHAIRPERSON: My problem is the understanding of what you're saying to the witness by the witness himself.  Your client may have a view of what a crowd is.  He may have a different idea of what a crowd is and that's relative.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I understand.

CHAIRPERSON: So, tell him that your instructions are that a crowd didn't come there.  Twenty people may be a crowd to him.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And that's why I'm saying, maybe in fairness to him, we get more details.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Better details on that, thank you, I'll do that.  In paragraph 37 you state
"As we had arrived at his home at about 10h00."
Can I just establish from you, did you yourself also arrive at the deceased's home at 10h00?

NGOMANDU AMOS MUHADI: On the house of the deceased, I arrived but I cannot say at exactly 10h00 but it was round about that time.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Were there already other people there when you arrived there or were you of the first people to arrive at his house?

NGOMANDU AMOS MUHADI: There were no other people.

MR VAN RENSBURG: (Indistinct) some, you were part of the first people to arrive at this house?

NGOMANDU AMOS MUHADI: Yes, that's correct.

MR VAN RENSBURG: (Indistinct) can put it to you that it is not so according to the victims.  They say that the first people arrived at the house only in the afternoon, 14h00 perhaps.

NGOMANDU AMOS MUHADI: I won't deny what the victims are saying.  Maybe that is the way they perceived it which is different from my own perception.

MR VAN RENSBURG: The reason why I'm putting this to you is, and perhaps I can refresh your memory, one of the previous witnesses testified, the Applicants testified that there was a lengthy four to five hour consultation with the deceased before the house was attacked.  Do you agree with that evidence?

NGOMANDU AMOS MUHADI: Yes, I agree.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And then I put it to you that the victim will testify that that was not the case, she will say immediately, in the afternoon, when the crowd arrived at the house, they immediately attacked the house.

NGOMANDU AMOS MUHADI: I won't dispute on their behalf, that is evidence that they can give.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that they say correct?  Is what the attorney is putting to you correct?  That the attack only occurred when the large crowd came to the house at about 15h00 that afternoon?  In other words they're saying at 10h00 that large crowd wasn't there.

NGOMANDU AMOS MUHADI: No, it was there.