Amnesty Hearings — Vanderbijlpark — 1999-05-19

MR MALINDI: During this attack, were you personally attacked?

PHULANE HILDA MONOKOANE: It was at the time I was hiding.

MR MALINDI: And during the duration of that attack did you see any member of the family being attacked?

PHULANE HILDA MONOKOANE: I did not see them but where I was hiding I heard them.

MR MALINDI: Is there anything in particular that you heard that was uttered during this attack?

PHULANE HILDA MONOKOANE: Yes, Sir, there is.

MR MALINDI: What did you hear?

PHULANE HILDA MONOKOANE: I heard at the time my husband started shouting, saying: "Zulu, what have I done to you when I worked with you?"

MR MALINDI: After you heard that did you hear any other things being said?

PHULANE HILDA MONOKOANE: Yes, I did.  At the time they have attacked my daughter-in-law and my daughter.

MR MALINDI: What is it that you heard?

PHULANE HILDA MONOKOANE: The other one who got into my daughter-in-law's room stabbed her with this spear.

MR MALINDI: These words that you heard, could you link them to any particular person?

PHULANE HILDA MONOKOANE: The person I may say might have said those words has since passed away.

MR MALINDI: Is that your husband?

PHULANE HILDA MONOKOANE: That is correct.

MR MALINDI: Now after this attack at your house, did you discuss this attack with you - in fact before I ask that question, when did your husband die?

PHULANE HILDA MONOKOANE: In 1996.

MR MALINDI: Before your husband died did you discuss this attack with him?

PHULANE HILDA MONOKOANE: Yes, I did.

MR MALINDI: Did he tell you anything in particular about this attack?

MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, if the witness is now going to state what her late husband to her I submit it's hearsay evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Malindi?

MR MALINDI: Chairperson, if she relates the late husband said to her it would not be hearsay, it will be something that she herself can testify about.  If it is something that her husband experienced himself and then told to her, then that would constitute hearsay and ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: What is it that you want to the witness to say?  I mean you know what the witness said.

MR MALINDI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't have to lead - you know that you can't just lead hearsay evidence unless it falls within the exception of the 1998 Evidence Act.

MR MALINDI: Chairperson, the witness heard her husband utter certain words and her husband must have later told her what had happened to him and who he identified as one of the attackers.  That is what I want to put to this witness.  And Chairperson, I submit that if it is hearsay it will fall within the exceptions that will be allowed in the circumstances.
MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

CHAIRPERSON: You see, to the extent that this, that evidence is going to be highly prejudicial to the person that is implicated, we are disposed of not allowing that evidence to be led unless you can convince us that there is a good basis for it.

MR MALINDI: Chairperson, the person who will be identified is a person whose name has previously been identified in these hearings and a person who is represented.

CHAIRPERSON: If it is highly prejudicial against that person, we are disposed not to allow the evidence of what he was told who the person was, identifying the person.
	Yes Mr Strydom, do you have anything to add?

MR STRYDOM: Ja, to fall within the ambit of the Act, there are seven criteria, which I can't mention now, but one of them is if it's highly prejudicial then it would not be allowed.  That's one.  I would in any event say at this stage that no basis has been laid for that evidence to be accepted.

CHAIRPERSON: Well since I understand the criteria, one of them is that the witness who made the statement must be shown to be unavailable to give evidence, he himself or herself, and secondly, if it is in the interest of justice to allow the evidence, and thirdly, one has to consider how prejudicial the evidence is.  But at the end of the day it's a discretionary matter as to whether or not that has to be led and I'm satisfied that it doesn't fall within any of those.  The Acts asks us for our discretionary ...(intervention)

MR MALINDI: Chairperson, the person who can give evidence as to identifying who it was being referred to as: "Zulu, you are doing this to me when I've worked with you for such a long time", is dead, it's the witness' husband.  And Chairperson, I would submit that this evidence at this stage can be allowed and then it is the property(?) value thereof that can be weighed at a later stage and the Committee can use that discretion ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Well we've heard the evidence from her indicating what she overheard.  Is that going to take it any further than that?  Because we have heard the evidence of what she herself heard.  I mean, what else is there?  She heard what was said.

MR MALINDI: Chairperson, I will abide by the ruling.
	Mrs Monokoane, in your mind, when you heard your husband uttering these words did you conclude in your mind who he was referring to?

PHULANE HILDA MONOKOANE: I reached the conclusion that he knows this person, he knows these persons because he has been working with them for a long time.

MR MALINDI: Do you know any Zulu that your husband has worked with for a long time?

PHULANE HILDA MONOKOANE: My husband worked at Iscor, worked with everybody at Iscor.

MR MALINDI: And when your husband referred the Zulu who was attacking him, with whom he had worked for a long time, do you know who he was referring to?

PHULANE HILDA MONOKOANE: The person I knew was the same Vanana Zulu.

MR MALINDI: Besides seeing the attackers who came into your house, is there anything else that you saw during this attack?

PHULANE HILDA MONOKOANE: I have already stated that during the attack I did hide myself, but as I came out of hiding I found blood all over the place.

MR MALINDI: After the attack, did you observe anything that's relevant to the attack itself?

PHULANE HILDA MONOKOANE: I cannot remember, Sir.

MR MALINDI: During or after the attack, did you see anything outside?

PHULANE HILDA MONOKOANE: Nothing at all.  I never went outside, I was helping the children inside.

MR MALINDI: Thank you, Mrs Monokoane.  No further questions, Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MALINDI

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lowies, are you in a position to commence your cross-examination?  I know I have said we will lead the evidence-in-chief, but ...

MR LOWIES: Can you proceed or do you want ...

MR LOWIES: No, I can proceed.

CHAIRPERSON: You can proceed, very well.

MR LAX: Can I just - before you do.  The bundle GG refers to a statement by this person, but I can't - is it Miriam Monokoane?  But there's nothing there with the surname Monokoane that I can find.

MR STRYDOM: Ja, I think the reference is too that she, a Miriam Monokoane testified in the criminal trial.  That is what we have, not the statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Now is there a statement by Hilda Monokoane?

MR LAX: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: There is a statement?

MR LAX: It's shown as number 7 on this list, but ...

CHAIRPERSON: What page?

MR LAX: I can't find it in my bundle.  It should be between Anna Mbatha and Diana Maneyka, but there's nothing there, in this bundle.  It's obviously missing.

CHAIRPERSON: What about - Mr Berger, do you have it?

MR BERGER: No, we don't have any statement.

MR STRYDOM: We have the statement of Miriam Monokoane, and she testified at the hearing.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, but not this witness.

MR STRYDOM: Not this witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, okay.  Okay so there is only - as I understand the position, Miriam Monokoane is somebody else is it?

MR STRYDOM: It's the family members that lives at the same house, 544 Bafokeng Street.  I think the witness mentioned her name.

CHAIRPERSON: There is no statement by this witness, is that correct?

MR LOWIES: Not as far as we know, Chairman.