Amnesty Hearings — Thohoyandou — 1999-07-14

ABEL MULADY: On the 6th, maybe it was not given to the Committee, I said that I was one of those people who tried to call other members, people who are applying now, that they should come to the meeting.

CHAIRPERSON: So there was a meeting?

ABEL MULADY: That is what I am saying.

CHAIRPERSON: To discuss the deceased's position?

ABEL MULADY: That is what I am saying.

CHAIRPERSON: What was the decision of that meeting?

ABEL MULADY: The decision that was taken was to go to the late's house.

CHAIRPERSON: And?

ABEL MULADY: So that on arriving there, I was one of those people who on that day, the 6th ...

CHAIRPERSON: What was decided at the meeting, to go to his house for what purpose? To go and have a party, what were you supposed to go and do there?

ABEL MULADY: It was to try to tell the late that he should leave.

CHAIRPERSON: And in the likely event of him refusing, did you decide what would happen then because everybody knew that he was likely to refuse?  He was refusing all the time?

ABEL MULADY: Well, I understand that it was the last day of him, in the understanding that we were going to chant, sing and shout all the slogans that we would try all available means that he should be evicted.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mulady, I don't think anybody is under any misapprehension as to what we are talking about.  We are talking about an important meeting, the decision of what ought to favour you as an applicant, now what was decided at that meeting?  In the event of him not listening to your request to leave, what would happen?  Was there a decision in that meeting about what would happen to him if he refused to leave or to respect the "trek pass"?

ABEL MULADY: No, I can't remember, but I think it was said that we would try by all means on that last day to evict him, that was the decision that was taken.

CHAIRPERSON: So there was no decision there to kill him in the event of him refusing?

ABEL MULADY: That is what I am saying.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so why was he killed?

ABEL MULADY: Well, in many cases it was explained by the other applicants.   I understand that they only said so many things as to what really led to the death of the deceased.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mulady, why in your view, was he killed, why did you put the tyre on his body?

ABEL MULADY: Well, as we were right in the house after we had tried our best to talk to him, to convince him to leave, the decease tried to dispute that and he said he wouldn't leave.

CHAIRPERSON: That was the decision of the meeting, you will try to persuade him to respect the "trek pass" in effect, he refused, so why was he then attacked?

ABEL MULADY: He was attacked because he didn't want to leave.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but that wasn't the decision of the meeting according to you?

ABEL MULADY: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So why was he attacked?  Why was his house burnt, why was he burnt if the meeting didn't decide that?

ABEL MULADY: Well, in the meeting it was said on that specific day we will make it possible to evict the man, but with regard to the crown and the way it was, people had different ideas which were not in line with what was decided.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you then put the tyre, you were party to that meeting decision, why did you then take this tyre, light it and put it on the body or put it on him, we don't know if he was alive?

ABEL MULADY: I have explained that there were stone throwing and he went on to the house and people kept on throwing stones and then I took the tyre which was already lit by then, I threw it on top of the body of the deceased.

CHAIRPERSON: That was not supposed to happen in terms of the decision of the meeting?  That is why I asked you what did the meeting decide if he didn't want to go, which was supposed to be expected in terms of what you say?  You should have expected this man to say, "no, I am not going."  He was doing so for a long time?  That is why I ask you what did the meeting then decide, you say nothing.  The only decision you went to that house with from the meeting, was to try and persuade him to respect the "trek pass" and go, not so?

ABEL MULADY: Yes, it is true.

CHAIRPERSON: Then I am going to repeat myself, why was he then killed?

ABEL MULADY: The late was killed because he was involved in so many allegations, in so many things.  He was killed because he disrespected the instruction of the Headman and the Police and also disrespecting the people who were talking to him.  That led to the death of the deceased.  By practising witchcraft as it was explained and that also influenced the death of the deceased and also obstructing whatever the Youth were trying to advance in as far ...

CHAIRPERSON: Did you then at one stage decide, I am going to ignore the decision of the meeting?

ABEL MULADY: Well, on my own I went there with an idea that the late was going to be taken away, but what came to me lately, after he was being thrown at, I also participated in the throwing of the stones and also becoming one, I mean a person who followed him when he was already in the house, then I took the tyre which was already lit and it had already caught petrol, and I threw it over the body of the deceased.  I am saying this because it also seems to have been influenced by the rift that I had because I was already furious after the deceased had already been beaten, because when he was being beaten, it came to my mind that I had a lot in my mind which  I had, especially from the children of the deceased and the wife.    In that way, the stones and the assegai and the shield and also the sling, whatever the deceased was using on the day when there was this fight, influenced me in killing him because if he was able to surprise us all or overpower us, then he would be able to give us a problem individually.  Therefore that is why it led to the death of the deceased, after I had seen the assegai and the shield and the sling, whatever equipment he used on that specific day.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that your answer to my simple question?  Carry on Mr Van Rensburg?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Was Mr Finnias Mulady present at that important meeting on the 6th of April?

ABEL MULADY: I have already demonstrated that I cannot say whether he was in or not.

CHAIRPERSON: You have not already, the question was was he in the meeting, the question is not whether he was at the house?

ABEL MULADY: Yes, on the 6th, he was at the meeting at school.  When we went to kill the late, I cannot say he was in or not.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, you can just answer what we ask you and then we will go a lot faster.  You say that he was at the meeting before you went to kill him, he was there?  Thank you Mr Chairman.

ABEL MULADY: Yes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Did he address the meeting?

ABEL MULADY: Well, I can only think and quote on what he said.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone was not on, he is still waiting for the response.

CHAIRPERSON: ... in terms of the answer, the leader did address the meeting.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Was it his insistence, I am talking about Finnias Mulady, was it his view that immediately after the meeting, the people must go to that kraal and evict the deceased?

ABEL MULADY: Well, my request is that, in fact when you talk of Mulady, are you normally, I am not too sure whether you are referring to Abel Mulady or Finnias Mulady, I would like to get clarity.

ADV DE JAGER: He is referring to your leader of the Youth Congress, we are speaking about the leader of the Youth Congress, the man who called the meeting, who sent you to summon the people to the meeting, we are talking about him.  Don't pretend to be confused, really you are not persuading us that you are in fact confused.

ABEL MULADY: Finnias Mulady was in the meeting, however I didn't hear his voice.  There is another Mulady, Abel and I am the one who spoke during the meeting.

ADV DE JAGER: Finnias didn't speak in the meeting?

ABEL MULADY: No.