=====================================================================
DATE:&#9;11TH MAY 2000
=====================================================================
 DATE:&#9;11TH MAY 2000

NAME:&#9;DANIEL MALIMA

APPLICATION NO: AM2537/96

DAY:&#9;&#9;4

_____________________________________________________

MR MAPOMA: The applicant is Malima, application number 2537/96. Advocate Mushasha is acting for the victims in this matter and Mr Ndou for the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malima, what language would you want to use?

MR MALIMA: Venda.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, have you any objection to the taking of the oath?

DANIEL MALIMA: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR MR NDOU: Thank you Mr Chairperson.&#9;Mr Malima, done an application for amnesty, you've filed an affidavit which appears on page 9 of the bundle. Have you had a look at this affidavit?

MR MALIMA: Yes I have had a look.

MR MR NDOU: Does it reflect the position as it happened on the day in question?

MR MALIMA: Yes it does. However, there is a minor correction as I did indicate to you earlier.

MR MR NDOU: Where?

MR MALIMA: Page 22, from birth date, date of birth.

MR MR NDOU: Paragraph number 3?

MR MALIMA: Third paragraph.

MR MR NDOU: Yes? When were you born?

MR MALIMA: On the 5 July 1970. What happened is that in the form that I filled, I think I said 10 July, that's the date I used in court when I was going to be sentenced.

MR NDOU: So your application shows your date of birth as the 10th July 1971?

MR MALIMA: Yes it is true.

MR NDOU: Okay. What else?

MR MALIMA: Furthermore, it is on 22 - well they then took place in 1990, 20th March not in 1999.

MR NDOU: So it was just a typographical error?

MR MALIMA: It was.

MR NDOU: Okay. 

MR MALIMA: Furthermore it is on 29. 

JUDGE DE JAGER: But what is on 29 now? Is it paragraph 29 or what is 29?

MR MALIMA: Well I was referring to, you know, when we submitted the list it's not at that king's place or chief's place.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes, Ndou, could you point it out to us please where? Don't leave it to your client. Point out to which paragraphs you're referring?

MR NDOU: Okay, he is referring to paragraph 17. He says that list was not drawn at the headman's kraal but at the meeting which was held elsewhere.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Right, thank you.

MR NDOU: Okay. Now could you explain to the Committee as to the events as to what happened when this deceased was killed?

MR MALIMA: Yes I can.

MR NDOU: And how it came about and how you connect that to a political motive?

MR MALIMA: Well firstly, on the 14th March 1990 I was at home. Samuel Mshanglanise and Piet Mhlanga arrived and they explained to me that comrade, here the situation was getting bad and I asked them as to what had happened because I haven't been informed. They told me that Comrade Elvis Shruga as we speak, he was not feeling well and I wanted to know how and they said he seemed to be mad. Well, it was on that occasion that I said to them seeing that I do have a job and I do trust that the comrades do help one another, may I request that you go and find out exactly what happened. If the situation means that in your view it requires a meeting, an urgent meeting, therefore you shall convene a meeting and I will make sure that we meet at the supermarket. If I do not appear, please send someone immediately. I will appear. Well, they did not come back and I went straight to the supermarket. That is when I met them and they said we had already found out as to what the cause is. I then said to them if that was the case we needed to do something and what was that?

&#9;As in the previous meetings, we did discuss the issue about the suppression by the government together with the witchcraft practising people and I was then told that we shall not talk on behalf of the people because we were comrades who worked jointly. 

&#9;We held a meeting in a particular playground. During that meeting I explained to these people that fellow men, don't be surprised why there's such an urgent meeting, I received information that Elvis Shruga was mad and as such I requested that the other comrade shall give us directions.

They ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Isn't it true that you gathered and that you - because Elvis was mad, you instructed three people who you suspected to be witches to heal Elvis and they couldn't do so?

Is that correct?

MR MALIMA: Yes it is true.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And then you went to the deceased's place and the deceased was considered to be a professor in wizardry, she was a chief witch, is that right?

MR MALIMA: Yes, it is true.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And what was the purpose of going to her place, was it to ask her to heal Elvis?

MR MALIMA: Well the main purpose of the day was to kill her because she failed to follow the instructions as requested.

CHAIRPERSON: What instructions? To heal what's his name?

MR MALIMA: To heal, yes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Is it correct that she was killed because she didn't heal Elvis?

MR MALIMA: Well, could I correct something? I think what the interpreter is saying, I did not say they killed Elvis.

JUDGE DE JAGER: No, you killed Mulaudzi because Mulaudzi didn't give medicine to Elvis so that he could be sane again?

MR MALIMA: Yes, that is part of what is being said.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But was that the reason why you killed Mulaudzi?

MR MALIMA: Not that only or not that alone.

JUDGE DE JAGER: What other reason was there?

MR MALIMA: Something else was that he explained that he used to help Mr Tabalala who was the chief at the time and he was the one who was supporting Mr Tabalala who was also an MP of the government at the time.

CHAIRPERSON: But what had Elvis to do with the killing of the deceased?

MR MALIMA: Because the deceased who was prepared to reduce the number of comrades. As such that in my view if we were 50, he will even go to an extent of making these other ten people go mad which eventually means that the number of comrades were being reduced unnecessarily.

CHAIRPERSON: But was he regarded as having caused the problem? I thought you said that the reason was because he couldn't cure him?

MR MALIMA: Sorry, could you repeat the question?

CHAIRPERSON: I thought you testified that he was killed because he couldn't cure Elvis. Is that not so?

MR MALIMA: Yes it is true.

CHAIRPERSON: Who was thought to have caused that problem to Elvis?

MR MALIMA: You mean for making him mad?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MALIMA: The late Mudzunga Mulaudzi, William Musimu and Mr Mofamadi.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't follow. The three suspects who you people thought had caused him to become mad were who?

MR MALIMA: The late Mudzunga Mulaudzi, William Musimu, number two. Number three Chinakau Mofamadi.

CHAIRPERSON: Wait, let me just get that now. 

MR MALIMA: On page 12.

CHAIRPERSON: Now what I find strange then is that there's an attempt to ask the deceased who is regarded as one of the causes of the madness to kill him? Is that correct?

MR MALIMA: Yes, that is true.

CHAIRPERSON: And that is the reason he was killed because he was unable to do so?

MR MALIMA: Yes it is true.

CHAIRPERSON: Now was that the only reason he was killed?

MR MALIMA: No. Something else, not that only.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's hear it?

MR MALIMA: Because when I enquired I was told that he was the one who was supporting Mr Tabalala and there was nothing that could be done and Mr Tabalala at the time had political seat in parliament. As such, we saw that seeing that it was like that, it meant that somebody else will be following him because he supported himself in the sense that seeing Mr Tabalala was in political leadership, there was nothing that could be done and we were convinced because we once went to a meeting where Mr Tabalala will call police and sjambok us even though we did not have an intention to fight them.

CHAIRPERSON: Now let's - before we get to there now. This Elvis, why were you so upset that he was deranged by the deceased and others?

MR MALIMA: It is because he was one of the youth persons who belonged to our youth congress.

CHAIRPERSON: And you felt that if this was allowed to go on, more members of the youth congress may be affected in the same way?

MR MALIMA: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay and then you were also informed that it was him who was associating with whom?

MR MALIMA: Could you repeat that please?

CHAIRPERSON: You were informed that he was associating with some people whom you found unacceptable, Tabalala?

ADV SIGODI: Tabalala.

CHAIRPERSON: Tabalala?

MR MALIMA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Who was Tabalala?

MR MALIMA: He was a chief at the Tabalala area, the main chief in the Tabalala area.

CHAIRPERSON: And was his name Tabalala?

MR MALIMA: Yes Tabalala is the surname, the first name is Freddy.

CHAIRPERSON: Freddy?

MR MALIMA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Now what was so wrong with that?

MR MALIMA: Well it is because Mr Tabalala said nothing could happen to him because the two were supporting each other and as such Mr Tabalala had a political leadership and role in parliament. 

CHAIRPERSON: Who did he support?

MR MALIMA: The late - the deceased.

CHAIRPERSON: Which political party did he support?

MR MALIMA: Mr Tabalala supported the former Venda government.

CHAIRPERSON: The National Party?

MR MALIMA: Yes, the National Party.

CHAIRPERSON: Now why was his relationship with the deceased so problematic?

MR MALIMA: Because at the time when one's getting the muti from a traditional healer and again working for the community, suppressing us, it was quite unacceptable at the time and as such we needed Venda to go back to South Africa.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, carry on?

MR MALIMA: As such we viewed that at Tembuvu area that if we could go and fight against Mr Tabalala as the chief we were going to be defenceless and as such it was going to be better to deal with the deceased because they were being used as batteries so that there could be lied to the chief so that they could work without any problem and as such some things that happened was that we could not go and attack Mr Tabalala because the chiefs were protected and that is why he was able to call the police, although we wanted to talk to him peacefully in accordance with our grievances.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR NDOU: Yes, you can proceed?

MR MALIMA: Something else that happened is that at the time during 1990, ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou, can't you lead him onto the actual event?

MR NDOU: What I've asked you is to explain your role on the date in question?

MR MALIMA: Thank you. What I did at the kraal of the deceased, I arrived there and the house was already burning and I talked to the deceased, that before we could do anything that we were there for, I asked her to really tell us the truth and she did admit that she knew something. I gave her the order to get into the kitchen which was already burning at the time. 

&#9;Something else that happened was that when she was already in the kitchen and the crowd was forcing her, after having ordered her the same way, having said that we were having a number of people to deal with. I thought the deceased will escape. I hit her by a stone on the leg and she fell right in the kitchen.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou, I expect you to lead the witness properly. What was resolved at that meeting? Why did they go to the deceased's house?

MR NDOU: Okay, can you explain to the Committee as to why you decided to proceed to the deceased's kraal?

CHAIRPERSON: It is because we realised that the deceased has not followed the instruction as given.

MR NDOU: And what decision was taken there?

MR MALIMA: The decision taken during the meeting was that the witchcraft practising people had to die the same day together with their household.

MR NDOU: I see, so when you proceed to the deceased's kraal, your intention was to go and kill her?

MR MALIMA: Yes that was the intention.

MR NDOU: And why?

MR MALIMA: So that we could get some ...(indistinct) because we were getting worried.

MR NDOU: And how would that benefit you politically?

MR MALIMA: It would benefit us politically in a sense that those people who were being given muti in support of them, they were not going to get that kind of muti and as such they will lose power because as we all know, the government of Venda had to collapse because it was uncontrollable at the time.

MR NDOU: I see and you say when you arrived at the kraal the cooking hut was on fire. Who put it on fire?

MR MALIMA: Well on discovery, I realised that Piet Mglanga, Michael Msindani were the ones who were responsible.

MR NDOU: Yes and the deceased was standing next to the cooking hut?

MR MALIMA: Yes.

MR NDOU: And you forced her into the hut?

MR MALIMA: Yes it is true.

MR NDOU: And when she was in the cooking hut you hit her with a stone?

MR MALIMA: Yes on the leg, I used a stone.

MR NDOU: And did you do anything to the cooking hut?

MR MALIMA: Nothing else on the cooking hut.

JUDGE DE JAGER: The cooking hut at that stage was burning and you prevented her from coming out so she was burnt to death? Is that correct?

MR MALIMA: Yes that is correct.

MR NDOU: Yes, after that what did you do?

MR MALIMA: Well after that one person said this woman might escape and I instructed the comrades to stand in the lapa. We were so crowed there the other person said the roof was about to fall and we ran away.

MR NDOU: So this crowd stood there making sure that she doesn't escape?

MR MALIMA: Yes it is true.

MR NDOU: And after that you then ran away?

MR MALIMA: Yes we ran away and went to Mr Mufamati.

MR NDOU: And what did you do at Mufamati's kraal if anything?

MR MALIMA: Well I do not want to lie, I didn't do anything in particular.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you push her into the hut, the burning hut?

MR MALIMA: No, I did not push her, I just instructed her, told her.

CHAIRPERSON: And she went into it?

MR MALIMA: Yes.

MR NDOU: That is all, Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NDOU

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mushasha?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MUSHASHA: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

&#9;Mr Malima, my instructions are that the deceased was an old lady receiving old age pension, is that correct?

MR MALIMA: Well seeing that she was old I cannot dispute that.

MR MUSHASHA: My further instructions are that the deceased was neither a wizard or a herbalist?

MR MALIMA: I dispute that.

MR MUSHASHA: Was she a herbalist?

MR MALIMA: She was a witch.

MR MUSHASHA: In her life did you ever see her now dealing with herbs?

MR MALIMA: It is difficult to see a witch using those medicines or mutis.

MR MUSHASHA: To your knowledge she was not a witch doctor, was she?

MR MALIMA: What I know is that she was a witch.

MR MUSHASHA: Who did she bewitch?

MR MALIMA: Elvis was bewitched by her.

MR MUSHASHA: How did you come to know about that?

MR MALIMA: I believed that because I was informed and also on the day on which, just shortly before we came there, the old lady she admitted it herself and that was when I was convinced that she has been practising. Then if you look at that it was stated that she was a professor in witchcraft. 

MR MUSHASHA: Chinako Makwarela, in your paragraph 18 of your affidavit, was she also a wizard, a witch?

MR MALIMA: Yes.

MR MUSHASHA: Who did she bewitch.

MR MALIMA: I know that they were working hand in hand as was mentioned by the deceased.

MR MUSHASHA: Are you telling this Committee that Elvis was bewitched by the five people listed in paragraph 18 of your affidavit?

MR MALIMA: There are three people mentioned.

MR MUSHASHA: In paragraph 8 I have Chinako Makwarela, William Mitzimu, Mutsimuratotsi and Poppy Wendo.

MR MALIMA: Well just to correct you there, Wendo - I think there was a mistake, Wendo is not associated with that. If you look towards the end it is said Mr Mafumati there, there are two Mafumatis there. Mr Mafumatis. Well the people who are there are three and those are the ones that I mention.

MR MUSHASHA: So your evidence is that you heard that Chinako Makwarela, William Mitzimu and the deceased Mudzunga Mulaudzi were responsible for the insane condition of Elvis?

MR MALIMA: Yes it's true.

MR MUSHASHA: But you had no concrete or any reliable source with regard to this information, did you?

MR MALIMA: If you had listened to me carefully, I did explain to you that the evidence was confirmed together with the other two, Mr Mitzimu and Mafumati because she said that she was collaborating with them and I had already been told that the three people were working hand in hand and those were the ones who were responsible for making - contributing towards Elvis' insane condition together with the whole crowd.

MR MUSHASHA: Do you know the gentleman sitting on my right?

MR MALIMA: Well I don't - I'm just surprised, maybe if he could identify himself I will be able to know him.

MR MUSHASHA: He is the son to the deceased's eldest sister and then he used to live with the deceased.

MR MALIMA: Could I just ask a question please?

MR MUSHASHA: Yes.

MR MALIMA: Are you saying that she used to stay with the deceased? I know that the deceased used to stay alone when I was growing up.

MR MUSHASHA: Right. Let's leave that. He will say as far as he is the only closest relative of the deceased alive and as far as he knew the deceased he never handled any medicines or herbs.

MR MALIMA: Well as they are related, I understand why somebody cannot admit that some relative is a witch. Nobody can really admit. Naturally, even in Venda culture, I do not think I can accept and believe and agree that my mother is a witch.

MR MUSHASHA: How do you explain the association which you have alleged in your evidence between the deceased and chief Tabalala that was the nature of the relationship or association?

MR MALIMA: Well the association was based on muti and the two of them knew exactly. Well naturally, if it is happening during the night according to the African nature of things, maybe they were visiting each other during the night or maybe Mr Tabalala during the night.

ADV SIGODI: Are you saying maybe? Because if you say maybe then it means you've never seen that happening? You've never seen that happening, is that your version?

MR MALIMA: Well truly I am convinced that Mr Tabalala used to work hand in hand with the deceased.

ADV SIGODI: Why?

MR MALIMA: Because she said it, she said she was the one who was really supporting Mr Tabalala or protecting him.

ADV SIGODI: When did she say that?

MR MALIMA: On the day on which we had already arrived at their kraal.

ADV SIGODI: Yes but she only said it on the day when she was dying? When you went there you didn't know that, did you?

MR MALIMA: Well I had already heard about that, it's just that the confirmation was given according to how she explained. I had already heard about that.

ADV SIGODI: Yes, but what if she was scared of people trying, coming to kill her? Maybe she thought by saying so, then maybe you would leave her? What basis have you to conclude that she associated with this Tabalala?

MR MALIMA: Well I'm convinced because the chiefs at the time will rely on muti and as such that was quite understandable that he also got the medicine or the muti from the witchcraft practising people.

ADV SIGODI: Yes but she - it is put to you that she was never a traditional healer, she never handled herbs or anything? What is your basis for saying that Tabalala got muti from her? If she was practising witchcraft which is unseen, what is your basis for saying that Tabalala relied on her?

MR MALIMA: Well I'm saying that a witchcraft practising person and the muti that he or she uses, is different from the ones that are used in curing a person if sick. It is about contributing to death and normally there is a basis and one can say one becomes so powerful if having used it.

ADV SIGODI: Have you ever seen Mr Tabalala at her place?

MR MALIMA: Well I haven't seen him there.

ADV SIGODI: And then what is your basis for saying that he got the muti from her?

MR MALIMA: It is because it is possible that Mr Tabalala might have gone there in the evening because during the day he could not because the chief himself and other elderly people or leaders of the government could not go to people who are associated with witchcraft during the day.

ADV SIGODI: And you never saw him?

MR MALIMA: No I have never seen him doing that.

ADV SIGODI: Then what is your basis for saying that?

MR MALIMA: Well my basis is that I had already heard that Mr Tabalala was cooperating with the witchcraft practising people in our community in (...indistinct) together with what was confirmed by the deceased during the day in which we went to her kraal.

ADV SIGODI: Yes but when you went to her on that day you had already concluded that she was a witch? What evidence have you got to prove that before you went there that to lay a basis for your suspicions, what evidence can you put to us to lay a basis for your suspicions. She was not a traditional healer, is that correct?

MR MALIMA: Yes, the fact that she was not a traditional healer is true.

ADV SIGODI: Yes, so in other words there were never any herbs or anything in her house, isn't it?

MR MALIMA: Well, a witchcraft practising person will have muti that may not be displayed in the same manner as what the traditional healer could do, that's hidden and if I need to go to this person in order to kill somebody, sort of, I'll go there during the night when nobody will be seeing me and as such ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: How would you know that you should go to her because she hasn't got muti, you can't see the muti? How would - if I want to go to a witch now, how would I know she's a witch? She's not advertising, how would you know?

MR MALIMA: Well, if I needed help and I do have a friend who perhaps got assistance, I will get that explanation from that person and I will be forced to go there because I will be having an interest.

MR MUSHASHA: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

&#9;Alright. You see, from your affidavit I got the impression that the reason why you killed her was because, according to you, she had bewitched Elvis and that was the only reason. This association, this other reason about the association by herself with Chief Tabalala is not on both your affidavit. How do you explain that?

MR MALIMA: Well as you are explaining about the situation in the affidavit, it's true. However, what I've added about Mr Tabalala is also based on the fact that I had that in mind.

I might have omitted that, however I had that in my mind.

MR MUSHASHA: Surely for the purposes of your application, this other reason which you are now advancing which according to the victims is an afterthought? It's so important that you couldn't have omitted in your affidavit if it was true?

MR MUSHASHA: Well, I understand your explanation and that it is very important that I should have done that.

MR MUSHASHA: You see, the person whom I've already referred you to who is sitting on my right, lived with the deceased or do you deny that fact? He says the deceased was not a relative of Chief Tabalala. She was not even a traditional doctor who treated Chief Tabalala with medicines or that there is no basis, absolutely, for your suspicion that she used to assist Chief Tabalala medically?

MR MUSHASHA: Well I'm convinced that they were helping one another or she used to help him. As somebody who was quite close I think it is necessary that he had to deny that because he is so close.

MR MUSHASHA: I put it to you that your conviction is without any basis. I've no further questions, Mr Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MUSHASHA

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chairperson 

&#9;Mr Malima, I need an explanation or clarity on one issue here. You said in your evidence if I understand you, correct me I'm wrong. When you arrived at the deceased's kraal the house was already on fire, is that correct?

MR MALIMA: Yes that is correct.

MR MAPOMA: Which one was that, was that the cooking hut?

MR MALIMA: The cooking hut.

MR MAPOMA: And that is the hut where the deceased ultimately got burnt to death, is that so?

MR MALIMA: Yes it is true.

MR MAPOMA: You also said that you instructed her to get into the hut?

MR MALIMA: It's true.

MR MAPOMA: So when you arrived there, where was she?

MR MALIMA: She was in the lapa.

MR MAPOMA: And not in the cooking hut?

MR MALIMA: No.

MR MAPOMA: When you hit her with a stone where was she?

MR MALIMA: She was already in the cooking hut.

MR MAPOMA: And where were you?

MR MALIMA: I was already in the lapa.

MR MAPOMA: Is that the cooking hut?

MR MALIMA: Yes.

MR MAPOMA: Are you saying that when you arrived the hut was already burning and you got into it whilst it was burning?

MR MALIMA: I did not say I got into the hut when it was burning. The deceased went into the cooking hut when it was burning.

MR MAPOMA: Yes and you say you hit her with a stone inside the burning hut?

MR MALIMA: Yes it's true.

MR MAPOMA: And you say you yourself was inside the hut?

MR MALIMA: I am saying the deceased Mudzunga was in the hut, not myself, I was in the lapa.

MR MAPOMA: Oh, the lapa and the hut are different?

MR MALIMA: Yes the lapa and the hut are different. She was inside the cooking hut and myself I was in the lapa.

MR MAPOMA: Okay. But is it conceivable for a person on your instructions, you just instruct her to get into the cooking hut, to walk into it. Is that possible? You just told her "get into it" whilst it was burning?

MR MALIMA: It is possible, yes it is possible.

MR MAPOMA: You never pushed her?

MR MALIMA: I did not push her. She just heard from the kraal, from the comrades, instructing her to get in and there was no alternative. She had to follow the instruction.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MAPOMA

MR NDOU: Nothing further, Chairperson.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR NDOU

ADV SIGODI: Why did you hit her with a stone?

MR MALIMA: It is because I thought she might escape from the cooking hut as it was burning.

ADV SIGODI: Who set fire to the cooking hut?

MR MALIMA: It's Michael Machenda and Piet Mhlanga.

ADV SIGODI: Did you see them doing that?

MR MALIMA: I was informed because I enquired.

ADV SIGODI: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you. You're excused.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MR NDOU: No further witnesses.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mushasha, any witnesses?

MR MUSHASHA: No witness to call from the witness side.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: I have no witness Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou, have you got any submissions to make?

MR NDOU IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Honourable Chairperson.

&#9;I admit that if one looks at the affidavit it would appear that the main motive was that because the deceased was alleged to have caused the illness of Chaluka, she should be killed. But now, after the applicant had given evidence it does indicate that at the time when they proceeded to the deceased's kraal they were already in the know that the deceased practised witchcraft. Perhaps what's important to -what appears to be a problem and a misunderstanding in these proceedings is the understanding of the word witchcraft perhaps and what it's all about.

CHAIRPERSON: I'll tell you what the problem is. 

MR NDOU: The problem seems to be ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I will tell you. I will tell you.

MR NDOU: Yes Sir?

CHAIRPERSON: The reason why the deceased was killed, does the applicant comply with the requirements of the Act, especially in respect of the political motivation?

MR NDOU: Well Chairperson, it is my submission that in view of the evidence that he has given, that when the time when she was being questioned, she indicated that she's the one who was protecting Chief Tabalala and Chief Tabalala was an MP of the National Party of the old Venda government and now, by virtue of that evidence, it gives an impression that there was a connection between the death of Chaluka, the deceased and her support for the chief who was a member of the then government which the youth of the day were fighting against. I accept that it is a very difficult position but it is my submission that by virtue of that connection, I'll leave it in the Committee's hands.

CHAIRPERSON: Any submissions Mr Mushasha?

ARGUMENT BY MR MUSHASHA: May it please the Chairperson.

&#9;My submission is that the applicant did not meet all the requirements for the granting of amnesty. In particular the requirement that he should have had the political motive in mind when the killing was committed.

&#9;It is very clear from the written submissions by the applicant that the motive behind the killing of the deceased was that he bewitched one Elvis and it was not political but he submits now, which from our point of view it's an afterthought that he was killed because at the time of killing, when it was already decided that he should be killed, he admitted - she admitted being associated with Chief Tabalala who apparently was a political leader. It is my submission ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Let's accept for a moment that the Tabalala link was an afterthought. What would you say about the evidence that he gave that they were afraid that more members of their society of their congress could be bewitched and that would weaken their position?

MR MUSHASHA: I don't think that in this particular case that will be a valid excuse or a valid reason because the intention, the group had already gone there to kill and they had gone there to kill the deceased, who according to the evidence, they did not believe had anything to do with the political set up at the time on his evidence. They are trying just to put together pieces of information just to achieve their aims, their objectives. What I'm trying to say is that the evidence from the applicant's side is that he, the deceased was bewitching one Elvis, that was the reason for the killing. Then it was only for that purpose that the deceased had to be killed, that is the evidence. But now, when approached, obviously, when approached by a crowd of that magnitude, she had to say that now she was responsible for wizardry or whatever. She had no option in order to save her life. But now, whether she had agreed or not, according to the evidence from the applicant's side, she was going to be killed, not because she was associated with the chief but because she had bewitched on Elvis.

CHAIRPERSON: Anything more?

MR MUSHASHA: That will be all, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: I have no submissions, Chairperson.

NO SUBMISSIONS BY MR MAPOMA

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you. We will adjourn now until 9 o'clock tomorrow sharp.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

