Amnesty Hearings — Thohoyandou — 1999-07-14

ADV DE JAGER: So you annexed this letter, or this statement, to your indemnity application and you took an oath and said it is the truth thing, in your indemnity application, you took an oath and said everything I said here, is the truth and you included "see Annexure A" on page 7?

MR NDOU: Perhaps if I may just come in here ...

MS PATEL: Sorry, if I may just, sorry, Adv De Jager, if I may just intervene, the statement which Mr Van Rensburg is referring to, is the statement that we got from the docket, it wasn't annexed to the application or to the indemnity application.

ADV DE JAGER: Oh.

MR NDOU: Annexure A is page 8.

ADV DE JAGER: Oh, only page 8?

MS PATEL: Yes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you, may I continue.  This statement that we are talking about contained on pages 9 ...

CHAIRPERSON: What does the family say about this money?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I can put that to the witness, I would have preferred to have his answer to that before I put it to him, but...

CHAIRPERSON: Well, maybe you just then.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, thank you.  Let's forget about the statement for a moment, are you saying that after the deceased was killed, there was a collection of money and there was some kind of compensation tendered to the family?

ABEL MULADY: There was that kind of compensation, regarding the compensation and ...

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, then I have to put it to you that Rosinnah who is the victim in this hearing, will state that there was absolutely no compensation and that she has received no money or any compensation from the community.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it tendered?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Or that it was tendered?

ABEL MULADY: I will say in explanation, am I allowed to say that?

CHAIRPERSON: Answer the question, if you need to say what you need to say to answer the question, go ahead.

ABEL MULADY: After the whole incident and the death of the deceased, it was discovered that Ms Rosinnah was no longer a member of the household where the deceased used to live.  I am basing this on those people who were left in the house, who were the children of the deceased.  As I am saying now, Rosinnah could not be aware that he is no longer there, as I speak now.

CHAIRPERSON: You say there was money collected with the intention of compensating the family for the death of the deceased?

ABEL MULADY: Yes, that is what I am saying, regarding the ...

CHAIRPERSON: What happened to that money?

ABEL MULADY: Well, all I know is that it was collected and it was taken to the Chief's kraal.

CHAIRPERSON: It was taken to the Chief's kraal?  Handed, it was given there, handed in to the Chief?

ABEL MULADY: Well, when the issue was raised on the collection of the money in order to compensate based on the destruction and the death of the deceased, I believe that whatever was contributed or collected regarding that incident, it used to be handed to the Chief's kraal and I also believe that the same money should eventually be handed to the Chief's kraal so that the Headman would take it to the children of the deceased or the family of the deceased.  I am not too sure whether that was true.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't know whether the Chief took it?  I don't want a long story, just whether you know or not?

ABEL MULADY: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it taken or not?

ABEL MULADY: The money was collected.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and handed over to the Chief.  Did the Chief take it further on to the family or don't you know?

ABEL MULADY: I could not have a logical follow up on that, I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman.  The next point, after the Chief took up this problem with the deceased, can you remember that at the time, the deceased responded to these allegations by way of a letter that he had written, can you remember that?

ABEL MULADY: Well, repeat the question, it should be a live question, it should not be indirect, it should be a live question, directed to me in a direct manner.

CHAIRPERSON: It is not for you to dictate here, do you understand, you answer the question.  If you don't understand a question, ask for it to be repeated or to be clarified.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I will repeat the question.  The question is can you remember that after the Chief spoke to the deceased about these allegations against him, the deceased responded by writing a letter, do you remember that?

CHAIRPERSON: To whom?

MR VAN RENSBURG: To the Chief or to the community, I am not sure Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Van Rensburg, I mean the community is 10 000 people.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, let me be a bit more clearer.

CHAIRPERSON: To whom would that letter be addressed?

MR VAN RENSBURG: The letter was according to the statement, this is not very clear, I am still on the statement on page 10, the Chief informed the residents that one will read the letter in question of the people at a special meeting called for that purpose, the problem is the transcription is not very clear, that is why I am a bit vague about it.

CHAIRPERSON: You know Mr Van Rensburg, I don't know if it is absolutely fair to cross-examine an applicant on this statement, after all, it bears his signature but it seems to be that it was a statement taken down by a Policeman, am I correct?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, it looks like it formed part of the ...

CHAIRPERSON: Now, we don't know if he agrees with the contents of that statement.

MR VAN RENSBURG: With all due respect Mr Chairman, then the witness can just say that it was a false statement, or that he did not agree with the statement or that it was not the truth.

CHAIRPERSON: I wonder if,  did he see the statement Mr Ndou?

MR NDOU: Yes, I showed him the statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Does he know what the contents is?

MR NDOU: But he indicates that most of the things were done by the Police and most of the things were not correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, why wasn't that raised here now?  That responsibility of raising that issue falls squarely on your shoulders, not your applicant.

MR NDOU: Perhaps if I may explain this way, it is not part of our application.  This document was put in by the Evidence Leader.

CHAIRPERSON: I know, but it is put in to indicate to you that it may be used and you've got to deal with it.

MR NDOU: Yes, I wouldn't have had any problem with it, I thought you would  answer, (indistinct)

CHAIRPERSON: Issues like this, you can't leave the applicant in the lurch you know Mr Ndou.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: I want you to listen to me very carefully now.  You are being questioned on a statement that you allegedly made to a Policeman, I don't know if you made it freely or voluntarily or what the position was.  Any way, the contents of that statement has been read and the Attorney here, Mr Van Rensburg, is using parts of that statement to cross-examine you on.  You are at liberty to indicate to us whether you agree that the contents of that statement is true or not, before you answer whatever he asks you, do you understand or do you need further explanations?

ABEL MULADY: I need further explanation.

CHAIRPERSON: You see when a person wants to use a statement taken down by the Police, allegedly or purportedly being that statement of an accused, then certain warnings must be given to that accused or any person.  Sometimes it happens that the wrong thing is written down, maybe deliberately or by accident.  The person who is alleged to have made that statement, is entitled to contest the accuracy of that statement and where there is instances of involuntary or where the statement was not made voluntarily, he is entitled to raise a defence that he can't be asked any questions on that.  Do you understand that?  You are being asked about the contents of a particular statement that bears your signature.  We don't know as a Committee what your attitude is towards that statement.