=====================================================================
DATE:&#9;21-05-1999
=====================================================================
 DATE:&#9;21-05-1999

NAME:&#9;ANNA MBATHA - WITNESS

MATTER:&#9;BOIPATONG MASSACRE

DAY:&#9;&#9;15

--------------------------------------------------------------------------ON RESUMPTION:

ANNA MBATHA: (still under oath)

CHAIRPERSON: You had concluded your examination in chief, Mr Malindi?

MR MALINDI: Chairperson, I had concluded my examination in chief.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, all right. Yes Mr Lowies?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LOWIES: Thank you Mr Chairman. Ms Mbatha, when you gave evidence yesterday, you were asked by the Chairman regarding the clothing etc, of the person that you described as a white man and then you said "I did not see him facially, I only saw his back. He had a torch in his hand" - words to that effect. Do you remember?

MS MBATHA: Yes, I remember.

MR LOWIES: When you saw him as such, where was that?

MS MBATHA: He was in the house. 

MR LOWIES: Was that the first time that you saw him?

MS MBATHA: Yes, that is in the house?

MR LOWIES: Was that the last time that you saw him, in the house?

MS MBATHA: I said yesterday that he entered and he went out again.

MR LOWIES: So all the time that he was in the house, you only saw him from the back?

MS MBATHA: Yes, I saw him at the back, because he was not facing at me.

MR LOWIES: How far was he away from you when you saw him?

MS MBATHA: It can be from where I am sitting to where Mr Sibanyoni is sitting.

MR LOWIES: Estimate about four metres?

MR MALINDI: I will agree with that estimation.

MR LOWIES: Were they able to see you, the people inside the house?

MS MBATHA: He did not see us, because we ran into the bedroom.

MR LOWIES: Do I understand correctly that the house was pitch dark, so much so that even with the torch you could not see properly?

MR LOWIES: He lit the torch in the dining room because it was dark in the dining room, although it was not that dark.

MR LOWIES: You said the torch did not want to work or words to that effect, it was not working properly. What did you mean, can you just describe, what was the problem with the torch?

MS MBATHA: What I observed, it seemed as if he had a battery problem.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what Counsel wants to find out is, what made you to conclude that he had a battery problem, what did you see that led you to conclude that he had a battery problem or was having a problem with the torch, do you understand the question?

MS MBATHA: Yes, I do understand. It is because the light wasn't that bright, that is why I thought that it was a battery problem.

CHAIRPERSON: That is now the light from the torch?

MS MBATHA: That is correct sir.

MR LOWIES: He did not shine the torch in your direction, he shone it away from you or did he, I am asking?

MS MBATHA: He did not light the torch in the bedroom, he only lit that torch in the dining room.

MR LOWIES: He never spoke to you, is that correct?

MS MBATHA: He never talked to me.

MR LOWIES: On your version, there was Zulu spoken to him, by the other attackers, am I correct?

MS MBATHA: The black person was talking to us, he was not talking to this white person.

MR LOWIES: So none of the black people spoke to him?

MS MBATHA: I did not hear them.

MR LOWIES: You did not hear him speaking to the people that you say were black attackers?

MS MBATHA: No, I did not hear him.

MR LOWIES: What precisely did you hear him say, can you repeat the words?

CHAIRPERSON: Who?

MR LOWIES: The white man, sorry.

MS MBATHA: I will try to imitate what he said as he spoke to my mother when he was outside - he said "Ma'am Tani, maak die deur oop, maak die deur oop, maak oop die deur", meaning open the door, open the door.

MR LOWIES: Did he repeat himself or did he just say once to open?

MS MBATHA: He repeated twice.

MR LOWIES: He said twice "open the door"?

MS MBATHA: Yes, he said so.

MR LOWIES: What made him know the name of your mother?

MS MBATHA: It is because the person heard the - I mean he heard Rebecca Matope calling my mother's name.

MR LOWIES: When did she do so?

MS MBATHA: Rebecca was calling my mother saying "Ma'am Tani, open for me, I am dying".

MR LOWIES: What language was she speaking? What language was she speaking?

MS MBATHA: Sotho.

MR LOWIES: So he must have then been able to understand Sotho to know that she was talking to the mother?

MS MBATHA: I think so, that he might have understood Sotho.

MR LOWIES: Otherwise he would not have known that she was talking to the mother, to your mother, do you agree?

MS MBATHA: I would say he was speaking to my mother because he called out my mother's name.

MR LOWIES: Yes. But he would not otherwise have known your mother, if he understood what she was saying and he understood that the name that she mentioned was that of the person, Matope.

CHAIRPERSON: You know, that is a matter for argument because you are inviting her now to comment on the understanding of this person's knowledge, he may, he may not, she doesn't know.

MR LOWIES: It could be argued, I understand.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LOWIES: If I can summarise your evidence, and you must tell me if I am wrong, there are two aspects which made you think this person is a white person - he spoke Afrikaans on that occasion when he said your mother must open the door, that is the first instance, and the second one is, you saw him from behind whilst in the shack? Is there anything else?

MS MBATHA: Anything else, like what?

MR LOWIES: To indicate to you that the person who entered the room, was a white person?

MS MBATHA: I do not comprehend what you say when you say is there anything that I can say to say the person was white.

MR LOWIES: I mean is there any other reason why you say he was white, except for these two issues?

MS MBATHA: I have been explaining to you that I have seen this person.

MR LOWIES: Do you fanagalo?

MS MBATHA: No.

MR LOWIES: You are a seSotho?

MS MBATHA: I beg your pardon?

MR LOWIES: You are Sotho speaking?

MS MBATHA: I am Zulu, but I know Sotho.

MR LOWIES: Could it have been that the person who was speaking, was speaking in fanagalo?

MS MBATHA: He was speaking in English or Afrikaans.

INTERPRETER: The words that she use is, he was speaking in Segoa, it becomes ambiguous for me to say English or Afrikaans, maybe I should ask her to say exactly what she means.

MR LOWIES: What exactly - Chair, I can't hear - the elements are against us. 

INTERPRETER: Chairperson, it becomes difficult for us to hear with the rain, it becomes difficult with the rain. 

CHAIRPERSON: We can't hear the witness?

INTERPRETER: It is not that we can't hear the witness, but she has to speak a bit louder and slowly, give us a chance to interpret and wait for us to interpret before she can answer, otherwise we cannot hear.

CHAIRPERSON: Shall we try once again and if it - if we have the same problem, it may well be that perhaps you should stop your cross-examination. There is a request from the sound people that if we could make sure that when one person is speaking, the other microphones should be off so that we don't have the background sound. Okay, you may proceed Mr Lowies.

MR LOWIES: Thank you Mr Chairman. 

MR LAX: Can we just go back to just after she said - you asked her whether she could speak Fanagalo and she said - you asked her "are you Sotho speaking" and she said "no, I am Zulu speaking, but I can speak Sotho", that is about as far as I got, after that, I lost it.

MR LOWIES: Thank you Mr Chairman, I will proceed with that. I think what I then asked you is "could the person have been speaking Fanagalo to you" and then I think your reply was "he was speaking Segodi", that is what the Interpreter said.

INTERPRETER: Yes, she said the person spoke Segoa, it is ambiguous for Afrikaans or English.

MR LOWIES: I apologise to Adv Sigodi. I apologise.

CHAIRPERSON: I was just wondering whether my colleague understood Sotho.

MR LOWIES: Could you just explain your answer?

MS MBATHA: Who was speaking in English or Afrikaans or Segoa as she says, the white person or the black person, I cannot understand which person you are referring to.

MR LOWIES: I am asking you. The person that requested your mother to open the door, could he have spoken in Fanagalo?

MS MBATHA: I have been explaining to you that this is a white person and he spoke in the white man's language.

MR LOWIES: Why do you say that he was white if he spoke in that language, that is the point I want to make?

MS MBATHA: I said to you Rebecca Matope was crying and saying "Ma'am Tani, open up I am dying", the white person said "maak die deur oop, maak oop Ma'am Tani", meaning open the door Ma'am Tani, open the door.

CHAIRPERSON: When this person uttered these words, could you see him?

MS MBATHA: I saw them.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LOWIES: When he spoke?

MS MBATHA: They were outside, I was inside the house, I saw them.

MR LOWIES: When he spoke, that is the question?

MS MBATHA: Even if I did not see him speaking, I heard that this was a white person speaking, there is no black person who could speak like that.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand Ma'am, that, but did you not say that as he spoke, you saw him? You didn't see him, is that what you are saying, you only heard the voice?

MS MBATHA: I heard when he spoke.

CHAIRPERSON: So you did not see him?

MS MBATHA: I saw him when he had already entered the house.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, so from the voice that you heard, you thought that this was a white person speaking?

MS MBATHA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Lowies.

MR LOWIES: Thank you Mr Chair, and then some time elapsed, and then they broke down the wall and then they entered the shack, is that how it happened?

MS MBATHA: That is correct.

MR LOWIES: When they entered the shack, you were already hiding?

MS MBATHA: We were still standing at that time, we saw them at the time they entered.

MR LOWIES: If I understand you correctly, you never saw his face?

MS MBATHA: That is correct.

MR LOWIES: How do you know that the person who entered is a white person?

MS MBATHA: I saw the hair, that this was a white person.

MR LOWIES: You saw the hair? Only the hair?

MR LAX: Sorry, was it hair or head, I couldn't hear?

INTERPRETER: Hair.

MR LOWIES: Only the hair?

MS MBATHA: Yes.

MR LOWIES: Did he enter alone or not?

MS MBATHA: They entered the three of them, into the house.

MR LOWIES: Simultaneously?

MS MBATHA: All at the same time, following each other, the three following each other.

MR LOWIES: Was he in front or not?

MS MBATHA: He was up front.

MR LOWIES: Was that the first time that you managed to observe his clothing?

MS MBATHA: I saw them when he was inside the house, it was the first time.

MR LOWIES: You were not able to identify the clothing of the other people that entered with him?

MS MBATHA: I was not able to.

MR LOWIES: Why?

MS MBATHA: It is because they were much closer to us then we managed to hide ourselves.

MR LOWIES: I don't follow. If they are closer, you should see them better?

MS MBATHA: I was not going to wait for that because I observed that if we would wait any longer, we were going to die. It was when we were hiding ourselves, that is why I did not observe what they were wearing.

MR LOWIES: How is it possible that you only saw him from behind? He didn't enter surely with his back towards the house, he must have entered with his face forward? Do you understand?

MS MBATHA: He entered and he was not facing us, he came in facing the other side.

INTERPRETER: As she pointed.

MS MBATHA: I do not know what their duty was at that time.

MR LOWIES: Can you just describe how he entered and where you were in relation to him then?

MS MBATHA: I won't be able to. They have pulled down things in the house and everything was upside down, he entered the way he did.

MR LOWIES: I don't follow how it is possible for him to enter and you are in that house and you can't see his face, that is all I want you to describe.

MS MBATHA: Where they have pulled things down, I saw him when I observed his hair that he was a white person, then we moved back into the bedroom.

MR LOWIES: Ma'am, maybe we are not understanding each other. Did you actually see him as he entered the house?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lowies, she has answered you, she saw them entering, he was the first person to enter the house. All she could see was the back of this person and she saw that he was a white man because he had hair.

MR LOWIES: Thank you Chair. Now that we have established that you had seen him when he entered, I mean if you are inside and he comes from outside, in, one would have expected you to see his face. Where were you that you could not see his face, that is all that I am asking?

MS MBATHA: I was in the bedroom.

MR LOWIES: Is the bedroom opposite the place where he entered?

MS MBATHA: Yes.

MR LOWIES: Directly opposite?

MS MBATHA: When you enter, you enter through the kitchen, you go onto the dining room, into the bedroom.

MR LOWIES: Yes, but the question is did he enter directly opposite where you were, opposite the bedroom?

MS MBATHA: It was not in that manner, he entered like he was leaning towards the stove, I did not know what he was going to do there. He didn't come in directly to the bedroom, he was in the kitchen. That is why I saw his back.

MR LOWIES: You did not see him from the side either?

MS MBATHA: No.

MR LOWIES: Then I want to put it to you that it was impossible to see him in the manner that you described, having regard to the house as it was situated.

MS MBATHA: I was not able to see him.

MR LAX: Do I understand you correctly, sorry Mr Lowies, I am not sure what you are saying now, did you see them properly when they came through the door or did you not see them properly when they came through the door? At what stage did you notice his hair, etc, that is what I am trying to understand, I am just not clear in my own mind what you are saying?

MS MBATHA: It was at the time when they entered, they were following each other. He went to the side when the others came into the dining room. He went into this direction next to the stove, that is why I could only observe him from behind.

MR LAX: Is that the first time you saw him clearly, when you saw his hair? I am just a bit puzzled.

MS MBATHA: Yes. It is the first time.

MR LAX: How did you know it was him who came in first then?

MS MBATHA: I knew because he was speaking white man's language.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand this is what happened - whilst inside the house, you heard someone shouting your mother's name, saying "maak oop die deur, maak oop die deur"?

MS MBATHA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, and shortly thereafter three people entered the door?

MS MBATHA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And the person that was in the front was this white man that you have described to us?

MS MBATHA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And when they entered, you were looking at the door?

MS MBATHA: Yes, I was looking at the door.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, but all you could see of this white person, as he entered the door, was his back, is that right?

MS MBATHA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And then from that you then concluded that the person who had been saying "maak oop die deur, maak oop die deur", must have been this white person?

MS MBATHA: Yes, that is so Chairperson.

ADV SIGODI: Can we get some clarity here? At the time that they entered through the door, where were you?

MS MBATHA: We were at the door of the bedroom.

ADV SIGODI: Who else was with you at the door of the bedroom?

MS MBATHA: It was myself, my sister and my mother.

ADV SIGODI: And as they entered through the door, what did you do?

MS MBATHA: We then retreated into the bedroom and we hid ourselves.

ADV SIGODI: As you retreated into the bedroom, did you have a chance to have a look at the people who were coming in from the door?

MS MBATHA: I looked at them at the time they had entered into the dining room.

ADV SIGODI: No, did you have a chance to look at the people who were coming in through the door as you retreated into the bedroom?

MS MBATHA: Yes, I did have the opportunity, the chance to look at them.

ADV SIGODI: What were you doing when you saw this person, the back of this white person? What were you doing?

MS MBATHA: I was walking around in the room, I was not just standing, trying to find where I would hide myself.

ADV SIGODI: And you say that this shack was divided by means of curtains inside?

MS MBATHA: That is correct.

ADV SIGODI: So how could you see him if you were in the bedroom and he was in the kitchen?

MS MBATHA: I am saying he was in the dining room at that time when I had the chance to look at them.

ADV SIGODI: Okay, thank you.

MR MALINDI: Chairperson, I am just waiting for Mr Lax to finish writing, may I indicate that the witness' evidence so far as been that the people did not come through that door, because they could not open it, but they broke a side of the shack to enter.

MR LOWIES: Thank you Mr Chair. If they entered - I can't hear a word - I will try again, you were not on the side where the shack was broken, is that correct, you were not hiding there?

MS MBATHA: I was next to that side, near that side.

MR LOWIES: Near or next to?

MS MBATHA: I was near that side.

MR LOWIES: Yes, but you were not on the same side as the wall that was broken down?

MR LAX: Sorry, same side of what?

CHAIRPERSON: The wall that was broken down.

MR LOWIES: The wall that was broken down.

MR LAX: Yes, but are you meaning in one of the divisions of the shack or - I am not clear what you are saying.

CHAIRPERSON: How many sides were broken down?

MR LOWIES: How many sides were broken down?

MS MBATHA: One side of the kitchen.

MR LOWIES: Were you at that side that was broken down?

MS MBATHA: No, I do not understand.

MR LOWIES: You know which side was broken down?

MS MBATHA: I was in the bedroom. I was in the bedroom when that side was broken down. It is the kitchen side.

MR LOWIES: Right, how far were you from the side that was broken down?

MS MBATHA: I was a bit far, I was in the bedroom.

MR LOWIES: Show us the distance, can you indicate the distance?

MS MBATHA: I do not know how I can estimate the distance in here. I think the distance can be to that wall.

INTERPRETER: I am not sure which wall is the witness pointing at.

CHAIRPERSON: Which wall Ma'am, are you referring to?

MS MBATHA: The one behind the ...

INTERPRETER: I think she is referring to Counsel, behind the Counsel, Mr Lowies and Mr Strydom, behind them.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, not this one, the one right at the back there?

MS MBATHA: I am referring to the wall, the white wall.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, all right.

MR LOWIES: It is about 13 metres?

CHAIRPERSON: It is about - what from where the witness is seated to this table, did we say it is about seven metres, so that is about 15 paces?

MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, I also measured this, this was seven and a further five from here, that was 12 from here, yes.

MR LOWIES: We will make Mr Strydom the expert.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, yes?

MR LOWIES: And you maintain that you saw the white person as he entered the shack?

MS MBATHA: Yes, I maintain that, I cannot lie.

MR LOWIES: Then it was impossible for you only to see him from the back.

CHAIRPERSON: You saw him Ma'am, didn't you, you saw him as he entered?

MS MBATHA: Yes, I saw him.

MR LOWIES: Regarding his hair, what did you see to make you think that he is a white person?

MS MBATHA: I am saying I saw the hair, I saw his hair.

MR LOWIES: What was so special about his hair, what was the colour, do you know?

MS MBATHA: I did not see him because his back was facing me.

MR LOWIES: I am talking about the colour of his hair, you can't say what the colour was?

MS MBATHA: I can say white or light in colour, bright in colour.

MR LOWIES: The length?

MS MBATHA: I could not observe the length because I have been telling you, we were trying to hide.

MR LOWIES: You can't even give us an estimate?

MS MBATHA: Sir, I won't be able to.

MR LOWIES: At that time when you saw his hair, were you in a state of panic?

MS MBATHA: Yes, I was in a state of panic.

MR LOWIES: I want to suggest to you that you are making a mistake regarding the hair because you were in a state of panic?

MS MBATHA: A mistake in what way?

MR LOWIES: There was no white person.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you understand what Counsel is putting to you? You see what Counsel is putting to you is that given the state of mind in which you were at the time, namely you were frightened, shocked, it was dark in the room, you are making a mistake when you say that the person that you saw inside, was a white person. Do you understand that?

MS MBATHA: Yes, I understand but now why, because I have seen this person.

MR LOWIES: You see, isn't it in your mind the following, you heard a white man ...

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lowies, we have covered this point, I have taken through the witness. This is a matter for argument, she has accepted that she heard the voice, when she saw the person enter, she then concluded it must be a white person. She is not making a mistake about who she saw, that is what she is telling us.

MR LOWIES: Thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: The remaining issues are matters for argument.

MR LOWIES: Thank you Chair. What I would like to suggest to you is the following - when you heard the person outside, did you not think it was the Police speaking in Afrikaans?

MS MBATHA: The Police, I would not think of that. I thought it was a white person.

MR LOWIES: Now what would a white person do there, what did you think, if it is not the Police?

MS MBATHA: That never came to my mind, I was focused on what was happening in the house.

MR LOWIES: I want to suggest to you the following - the attackers wanted you to think that they are white Policemen, that is why they spoke in Afrikaans.

MS MBATHA: No, that is not so. I do not believe.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you understand what he is putting to you, what he is suggesting might have happened? He is suggesting that the persons who were attacking your shack, spoke in Afrikaans saying "maak oop die deur", so that the people inside the house, would think that these are the Police and therefore open the door when in fact, they were not Police, but they were attackers. Do you understand what he is suggesting, might have happened? Do you understand that?

MS MBATHA: Yes, I understand what he is saying but the voice or the accent of a white person won't be the same to that of a black person. I may not just say things that are incorrect about a white person, that white person.

MR LOWIES: Can you speak Afrikaans?

MS MBATHA: I only hear Afrikaans here and there, in bits and pieces.

MR LOWIES: If that is the case, I want to suggest to you that you cannot say that the person that spoke Afrikaans there, was a white person, because you don't even understand Afrikaans properly?

MS MBATHA: It is not that I do not know Afrikaans in total, but I know it in bits and pieces, not that much.

MR LOWIES: Because you cannot for a fact say without a shadow of doubt, that the person that spoke, was definitely Afrikaans, not so?

MS MBATHA: I beg your pardon?

MR LOWIES: You cannot for a fact say definitely, not just a possibility, definitely, that the person that spoke Afrikaans, was a white person, you cannot say that, that is what I want to put to you?

MS MBATHA: I understand the question, I did answer you about that white person, now what do you want me to say further on?

MR LOWIES: Did you make a statement for the purposes of the Goldstone Commission to Ms Cambanis, which was handed in then? Maybe it was Ms Nichols.

MS CAMBANIS: I was never at Goldstone, Chair.

MR LOWIES: Maybe Ms Nichols.

MS CAMBANIS: There is no Nichols.

CHAIRPERSON: Why don't you ask her a simple question, did she make a statement, did she make a statement which was submitted to the Goldstone Commission?

MR LOWIES: I will ask that question sir. Did you make a statement which was submitted to Goldstone?

MS MBATHA: I do not know.

MR LOWIES: Well, I would like to put the following to you then - I am in possession of a statement which we obtained from the Goldstone file, which is in the file Mr Chairman, but I see that page 2 thereof was not handed in, do not ask me why, I would like to hand that in as an exhibit, and to form part of the statement which was handed in to Goldstone. You will see Mr Chairman that it is page 1 and 3.

CHAIRPERSON: This is the statement that were the statement where the name Anna is scratched, it has been deleted?

MR LOWIES: That is correct, yes. According to this statement, it starts off with the fact that you are extremely reluctant to give evidence to the Goldstone Commission or to anybody else, but you nevertheless made a statement. Can you recall that such a statement was taken from you?

MS MBATHA: I do not remember such.

MR LOWIES: It states further that on the 17th of June 1992, you lived at a shack in Slovo Park, but you no longer reside there and do not want to reveal your address, can you recall making such a statement?

MS MBATHA: I do not remember the statement.

MR LOWIES: It goes on to state that you went to sleep on the night of the incident, together with your mother and your sister, can you recall making such a statement?

MS MBATHA: Presently I do not remember well, there were a lot of people who handed their statements there, I do not remember well at this moment.

MR LOWIES: Were you at Goldstone?

MS MBATHA: I have never been there.

MR LOWIES: Did you make a statement for the purposes of the Goldstone Commission?

MS MBATHA: I do not remember.

CHAIRPERSON: Let me explain this to you Ma'am, what counsel is referring you, he is referring to a statement which on its face purports to have been made by you, Anna Mbatha.

MR LAX: The name is crossed out?

CHAIRPERSON: Which is unsigned, do you understand that? All right. This statement was apparently taken with a view to being submitted to the Goldstone Commission of Enquiry, do you understand that?

MS MBATHA: Yes, I understand.

CHAIRPERSON: So whatever question he puts to you, bear in mind that that is what he is trying to do. That is the document that he is referring you to.

MR LOWIES: Did you ever make a statement wherein you stated "I was woken by my sister who told me to wake up and listen because people were fighting outside"?

MS MBATHA: Yes, that is so.

MR LOWIES: And went on to state "I could hear the smashing of glass, the sound was very near"?

MS MBATHA: That is so.

MR LOWIES: "I could also hear people screaming and the sound of gunshots". Can you recall saying that in the statement?

MS MBATHA: That is so.

MR LOWIES: "I peeped through a hole in one wall of the shack", can you recall saying that?

MS MBATHA: That is so.

MR LOWIES: "I saw a woman coming towards the shack with a baby, this was Ms Matope", do you recall making such a statement?

MS MBATHA: That is so.

MR LOWIES: "She was screaming, there was a black man running right behind her, who was busy stabbing her".

MS MBATHA: There were two black men.

MR LOWIES: "A little distance away" - the statement goes on - "there were two other people running behind them", can you recall this?

MS MBATHA: Yes, that is correct.

MR LOWIES: Now, once we have gone a bit further, let's just go back to the immediately preceding sentence "there was a black man running right behind her, who was busy stabbing her", is this now correct if you take into consideration that further on you state "there were two others"?

MR MALINDI: Chairperson, she corrected that statement and said there were two people immediately behind Ms Matope.

CHAIRPERSON: What he wants to find out is that what was read initially was that there was a black man running right behind her who was busy stabbing her, and she said that that was incorrect. What Counsel wants to find out is whether it is correct that there was a black man who was running behind her and then there were two other men behind this man who was stabbing her.

MR MALINDI: Let's get her answer Chairperson.

MS MBATHA: He was not alone, there were two.

CHAIRPERSON: Were these two people behind the man who was stabbing Ms Matope?

MS MBATHA: The two came stabbing her and the other two passed by and went up front.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, so there were four people?

MS MBATHA: That is correct.

MR LAX: Can I just clarify this, you said there were two stabbing her and then you said there were two passing from the front, were they running from behind or were they running from the front, I am not clear now?

MS MBATHA: They came from behind and they went passed them towards the shack.

MR LAX: Okay, now I understand you okay. Sorry Mr Lowies.

MR LOWIES: No problem. Did you state the following - "as she came running, Ms Matope was shouting 'Ma'am Tani, open up'"?

MS MBATHA: Yes, that is correct.

MR LOWIES: "She was using the popular name of my mother", did you state this?

MS MBATHA: That is the name given to her by the residents, sort of a nickname.

MR LOWIES: Yes, and it was a popular name, that is how she was known?

MS MBATHA: Yes, the very well "Ma'am Tani".

MR LOWIES: Yes, did you state as I have read to you, "she was using the popular name of my mother when she said 'Ma'am Tani, open up'"?

MS MBATHA: Yes, the very one.

MR LOWIES: "However, we did not open the door", did you state this?

MS MBATHA: I beg your pardon?

MR LOWIES: "However, we did not open the door", did you state this?

MS MBATHA: That is correct.

MR LOWIES: "As this was happening, I heard one of the men outside say 'Ja, Ma'am Tani, maak oop'"?

MS MBATHA: He said "maak die deur oop".

MR LOWIES: Did you state further "it sounded to me as if it might be a white man"?

MS MBATHA: That is correct.

MR LOWIES: "Ms Matope reached our shack and slipped down next to the door into a sitting position", did you state that?

MS MBATHA: Yes, she sat next to our shack.

MR LOWIES: "She was leaning against the door"?

MS MBATHA: Yes, that is correct.

MR LOWIES: Did you state "the man who had been stabbing her, then broke into our shack"?

MS MBATHA: These who came behind.

MR LOWIES: Did you state "one of the sides was simply pushed in"?

CHAIRPERSON: What do you mean, not the man who had been stabbing her, but those who were behind those men who were stabbing her, entered?

MS MBATHA: Those who came behind her, they are the ones who broke the side of the shack.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and entered the shack?

MS MBATHA: Yes, but they entered, there were three of them who entered, now I don't know where the third one came from.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LOWIES: Did I read to you "she was leaning against the door"? Then once we have done that, "the man who had been stabbing her, then broke into our shack. One of the sides was simply pushed in", that had been read to you? Then did you state "the other three sides and roof remained standing"? Did you state that?

MS MBATHA: That is correct.

MR LOWIES: "When this happened, we ran into the part of the shack which is divided as a dining room", did this happen? Did you state it?

MS MBATHA: In the room, yes.

MR LOWIES: "I looked out from there and saw that one of the men was a white man", did you state this?

MS MBATHA: Yes, that is correct.

MR LOWIES: "He was in the kitchen of our shack, shining a torch"?

MS MBATHA: That is so.

MR LOWIES: "He was wearing a light blue tracksuit and a white headband", did you state this?

MS MBATHA: That is correct, but I said with regards to a tracksuit, I could not see properly but it looked like a tracksuit.

MR LOWIES: Did you state that "there were also two black men saying in Zulu that we were the dogs of Mandela and that we should come out"?

MS MBATHA: The other one stated that when the white man and the other black man went to our back, opposite. He is the one who talked to us saying that we are the dogs of Mandela and that we should come out.

MR LOWIES: Did you state that "there was then some noise just outside our shack and all three went running out"?

MS MBATHA: I never said the three, I said two went out running.

MR LOWIES: "Generally there was a great deal of commotion and screaming and the sound of gunshots around our shack", did you say this?

MS MBATHA: At the back, opposite of our shack.

MR LOWIES: "After it seemed that the men had gone, I went out to try to help Ms Matope", did you state this?

MS MBATHA: That is correct.

MR LOWIES: And then you describe how they passed away, I don't want to go into that, the last sentence reads as follows - "the first time that I saw Policemen in the vicinity of the shacks, was later the next morning, 18 June 1992", did you state this?

MS MBATHA: That is correct.

MR LOWIES: If I have a look then at your statement which you have agreed with, is that you stated in paragraph 4 thereof, page 2 "it sounded to me as if it might be a white man", that is now the one that said "Ma'am Tani, maak oop".

MS MBATHA: What is not correct? I never said it was a Police Officer, or what was your question?

MR LOWIES: You must have misunderstood me.

CHAIRPERSON: I think he said "it sounded like a white man".

MS MBATHA: That is correct.

MR LOWIES: So you were not sure that it was a white man? It sounded as if ...

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lowies, I canvassed this issue with the witness and she made it clear that all she heard was a voice, which she thought was that of a white man.

MR LOWIES: I will leave it at that. I would like to suggest to you then the following, being in a state of panic, having heard Afrikaans, you came to the conclusion that the person who entered the shack was a white person, whereas this didn't happen.

MS MBATHA: That is the situation and I was in the house.

MR LOWIES: I have no further questions. Sorry, just one aspect, how far was the white person from the wall that gave in when you observed him?

MS MBATHA: I do not know.

MR LOWIES: Did you understand the question though?

MS MBATHA: Yes, I am listening.

CHAIRPERSON: You mean when he entered?

MR LOWIES: Yes, when she observed that he was a white man?

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MS MBATHA: I explained to you that I was not far, I managed to observe that it was a white person.

MR LOWIES: It appeared to me that when the wall was pushed down, you were the distance as indicated which we know is 12 metres from here to the wall, right?

MS MBATHA: That is correct, if I combine it with the bedroom.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. What Counsel wants to know is how far was this white person from this wall that had collapsed when you saw him, do you understand the question?

MR LOWIES: For the first time.

CHAIRPERSON: For the first time, yes?

MS MBATHA: He was not that far, I can estimate from here up to Mr Sibanyoni there.

MR LOWIES: Did he ever come closer to you?

CHAIRPERSON: Let's just get that distance? About four paces, yes.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, we have agreed previously, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it from the collapsed wall? Yes, thank you.

MR LOWIES: Did he ever come closer to you than this, from there?

MS MBATHA: He did not see me.

MR LOWIES: Did he come closer to you?

MS MBATHA: He did not.

MR LOWIES: Thank you Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LOWIES

CHAIRPERSON: Did I understand you to say that and this is what your Counsel said, that the white man, these three people that came in, did not come in through the door, but they came in through the collapsed wall, is that what happened?

MS MBATHA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: I see, okay and this collapsed wall, did it collapse with the door, is this the side where the door was?

MS MBATHA: The door did not give in because we had chained it and locked it.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, yes, indeed. When you then testified that you saw them as they entered the door, I think I put the door, what you meant was that you saw them when they entered the shack through this opening? Is that what you meant? Because I think I put it to you, when I questioned you I said did you see them as they entered the door and I think you said yes.

MS MBATHA: Yes, well I did not understand you well, but it is the truth that you are saying that they entered through the side that gave in, not through the door.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, yes. And then when you said that you saw them as they entered, you were saying you were looking at this side that had collapsed and you saw them as they come in through that side?

MS MBATHA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, very well. The time now is about quarter past eleven. Shall we have a short break now until about half past and then come in and - unless there are no questions - come in? Your problem has been solved Mr Da Silva, okay, why don't we take a short adjournment now and then shall we come back at about half past, or shortly thereafter? Yes, we will take a short adjournment and come back at about half past.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION:

ANNA MBATHA: (still under oath)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well, Mr Strydom?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR STRYDOM: Thank you Chairperson. Ms Mbatha, I want to refer you to a statement which purports to be signed by you, it is in the bundle Chairperson, it is the statement after the statement that has been referred to by my learned colleague. I want you to look at the first page of that statement, roughly page 20. At the bottom of the first page, is that your signature there?

MS MBATHA: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: And the same would apply at the bottom of the second page and also your signature on the third page, is that correct?

MS MBATHA: That is correct.

MR STRYDOM: According to this statement, it was taken on the 26th of March 1993 and it was taken by Lucky Simon Kakana, do you remember that?

MS MBATHA: Yes, I remember.

MR STRYDOM: Did you have an opportunity to look at the statement before you gave evidence?

MS MBATHA: No.

MR STRYDOM: It is not my intention to read through the full statement, but I want to refer you to the bottom of the first page, I will start with paragraph 3 - "Machidi kept on running until at a point, where I could no longer see her. The person who was stabbing Machidi and a baby, came and broken the shack next to the door and the kitchen unit fell down". I read that portion just to put you in context, I want your comment on the next sentence - "I saw another black person with a white male person, running towards the door", I will stop there. According to this statement you saw a white person running towards the shack, is that correct or not?

MS MBATHA: Yes, he was outside.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, but you testified here today and yesterday that you heard a person outside.

CHAIRPERSON: I am sorry, this thing just came off, I didn't realise it was off. Now, what was the answer to the question that you put there? "I saw another black person with a white male person running towards the door".

MR STRYDOM: The question was is that a correct statement, what is your answer?

MS MBATHA: It is the one that I have been speaking about.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but what Counsel wants to find out from you is that what appears here is that you saw a black person with a white person, okay, running towards the door of your shack, I think it is the door of your shack, do you understand that?

MS MBATHA: Yes, I understand that. The white person was next to Rebecca Machidi.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, just follow this line.

MR STRYDOM: What I want to put to you is that what you are saying now is different from what you have told us earlier on in your evidence? You never said whilst testifying, that you saw the white person running towards the shack. Do you have any comment?

MS MBATHA: I said he was speaking outside, this white person was near Machidi. Even as he went towards the door, he was near Machidi.

CHAIRPERSON: You say this white person was next to Machidi as he was speaking, is that what you are saying?

MS MBATHA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And what else did you see?

MS MBATHA: I said he spoke and said "Ma'am Tani, maak die deur oop, maak oop".

MR STRYDOM: I am just putting to you that you are changing your version, but I will leave the rest for argument.

CHAIRPERSON: What Counsel wants you to do is to comment on the following - up to this stage you have been telling us that you only saw the white person once he was inside the shack and again you only saw the back of this white man, do you understand that?

MS MBATHA: Yes, I understand.

CHAIRPERSON: You did not tell us that you saw this white man when he was still outside. Do you understand that?

MS MBATHA: Yes, I understand.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, you are now telling us that you saw this white man outside and you saw him as he uttered the words that you have attributed to him and you have continued to tell us that as he spoke, he was standing next to Machidi, I think you said, do you understand that? Do you see the difference in the two versions that I have just put to you? Do you see the difference first of all?

MS MBATHA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, I think what Counsel wants you to do is to explain to us these two, do you understand that?

MS MBATHA: Yes. I heard him saying to me did I hear a white person outside and I heard him also when he said did I see him clearly when he got into the house, that is why I managed to answer him and said I saw the white person inside the house.

CHAIRPERSON: We understand that fully, that is what you have said, but what you are saying now is that you saw this white person outside, running, he was running towards the door, together with a black man I think, and that as he spoke those words that you have attributed to him, he was standing next to Machidi. That is something that you didn't tell us about at the beginning, do you understand that?

MS MBATHA: You never asked me in the proper manner, I was telling you that as Machidi came screaming, two people came stabbing her along with the child, and two passed and broke the shack. He asked me how did I observe that it was a white person, I saw this white person inside the shack. That is what I am telling him. As he asked me now, I take that he says did I see him clearly that it is a white person. Now outside, I am saying I heard him as he spoke.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, wait, let's go for the second time again and if you don't understand the question, say so. What he read to you is the following - "I saw another black person with a white male person, running towards the door", do you understand that?

MS MBATHA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Did that happen, did you see that, is that true?

MS MBATHA: That did not happen.

CHAIRPERSON: Right. 

MR STRYDOM: I want to read to you a further portion.

CHAIRPERSON: Just hold on a second. When you told us a minute ago that when the white man spoke, he was next to Machidi, that didn't happen either?

MS MBATHA: That did happen.

CHAIRPERSON: I see. 

MR STRYDOM: I am going to continue reading.

MR LAX: Just hang on - why do you say that happened? Did you see it? If you didn't see it, why do you say it happened?

MS MBATHA: I told you previously that I was peeping through a hole. That is why I managed to see these people with Machidi, two of them passed Machidi and broke the shack. Let me say the white man and the black man were with Machidi, this white man came into the shack when they had already broken down the side of the shack. This other one, I don't know where he went.

CHAIRPERSON: How big was this hole that you are talking about?

MS MBATHA: It was as big as I am showing to you.

CHAIRPERSON: Just show.

MR LAX: It is about two, three centimetres.

MR STRYDOM: Can I be of assistance, as big as a golf ball.

CHAIRPERSON: Where is your ruler Mr Da Silva?

MR DA SILVA: I agree with Mr Strydom, as big as an old R1 coin.

CHAIRPERSON: Where is the ruler?

MR DA SILVA: No, I haven't got it here, sorry.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, you don't, okay. Do you accept that Mr Malindi, a golf ball?

MR MALINDI: A golf ball, more or less, Chairperson.

MR STRYDOM: Chairman, but that is not very accurate, it depends on whether it was hit by Tiger Woods, if it is a distance, it might be smaller, I am sorry.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we accept that it is an average golf ball.

MR STRYDOM: All right. I am just going to read "I saw another black person with a white male person, running towards the door and a white man said 'Ma'am Tani, maak oop' and it was an Afrikaans tone. Ma'am Tani did not open and the two people got into the house through the broken part of the shack. While they were inside the shack, the white male put his torch light on, but it was dull." Is that what you said?

MS MBATHA: That is correct.

MR STRYDOM: You must tell me if I am wrong, but if you read that the impression is gained that only two people, a white person and one other person, entered the shack and that there weren't three people in the shack, what do you say about that?

MS MBATHA: That is not the truth.

MR STRYDOM: If you read the next paragraph, paragraph 4 "the same white man plus a black male, left the shack when they heard sounds of people screaming in the next shack, while the other black male stayed behind and he was armed with a spear and confronted my mother". That will indicate that there were three people, is that correct?

MS MBATHA: There were three people who entered, two left and the other one who was left behind, did not try to stab my mother, my mother was holding me from behind. As he tried to stab, my mother pulled me back and that is when he shouted that we are Mandela's dogs.

CHAIRPERSON: Could this person see you?

MS MBATHA: Yes, he did.

MR STRYDOM: Just lower down you state "the attacker tried to light up a stick of a match twice, and he could not get it right. He left the shack and ran away".

MS MBATHA: He left the shack after he had tried to stab me. The match sticks, he tried to light them when I got to under the table. He was trying to stab me when he heard noises from the back, opposite our shack. He went out and followed the others who went before him.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, but what I want to suggest to you is that it was so dark that he couldn't see you, it was so dark in the shack that he couldn't see you and that is why he wanted to light the matches, is that correct?

MS MBATHA: May you repeat the question.

CHAIRPERSON: You have mentioned that the white man tried, I mean lit his torch, okay, but the light from the torch was I think here it says it was dull. The black person who tried to stab you also tried, I think you testified earlier on that three times I think it was, to light matches. Did you say that?

MS MBATHA: Yes, I did. And he got a piece of tissue paper, tried to ignite it and it went off.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, you see what Counsel is putting to you is that the reason why all these people did that, is because it was so dark inside that they couldn't see, do you understand that?

MS MBATHA: Yes, I understand that, sir. It was dark in the bedroom because we have pulled our curtains, we had closed our curtains. I think they tried to enter and get a candlestick and light the candlestick so as to find us.

CHAIRPERSON: And the white man ended in the dining room, he didn't enter the bedroom?

MS MBATHA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. And the black man entered the bedroom or did he end up in the dining room as well?

MS MBATHA: He ended up in the dining room. Actually, he did not end up in the dining room, he ended up in the kitchen.

CHAIRPERSON: Did the black man enter the bedroom?

MS MBATHA: They did not manage to get into the bedroom.

CHAIRPERSON: So the attempts to light the torch light and the toilet paper, all of that occurred in the dining room?

MS MBATHA: The black man was in the kitchen when he did all this, the white person was in the dining room.

MR STRYDOM: What I want to suggest to you is that if it was so dark that he tried to make light to see properly, it must have been as dark for you to see?

MS MBATHA: In the dining room, it was dark, in the kitchen it was bright.

CHAIRPERSON: This is where there was this black man who was trying to get some light, that is in the kitchen?

MS MBATHA: Yes, he found this piece of tissue paper in the kitchen and he came towards us.

MR STRYDOM: And then I want to put to you being so dark, you would not have been in a position to distinguish between a black person and a white person in that house?

MS MBATHA: Dark - because it was bright in the kitchen, there was moonlight, these people I saw as they entered the kitchen.

MR STRYDOM: But the black man tried to make some light in the kitchen because that is where he tried to light the matches?

MS MBATHA: He was coming to us at that time, as he was looking for something to light, so as to get light, he was coming to us with his match sticks.

MR STRYDOM: I've got no further questions, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR STRYDOM

MS PRETORIUS: I've got no questions for this witness, thank you Chair.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PRETORIUS

MR DA SILVA: I have no questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DA SILVA

MS CAMBANIS: I have no questions, Mr Chair.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS CAMBANIS

MR BERGER: I have no questions, Mr Chairman.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BERGER

MS PRETORIUS: Mr Mey says he has no questions, Chair.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MEY

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma?

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

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAPOMA

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Any re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MALINDI: There is a little, Chairperson. Ms Mbatha, you say you heard this voice which to you seemed like a white person's voice?

MS MBATHA: That is correct.

MR MALINDI: When the side of the kitchen was broken down, and you looked towards that area, you say you saw a white person come in?

MS MBATHA: That is correct.

MR MALINDI: In your mind, did you think it was a different person to the one you heard outside or did you think it was the same person?

MS MBATHA: May you please repeat the question sir.

MR MALINDI: When you saw this white person inside the shack, did you think it was the same person that you heard saying "Ma'am Tani, maak die deur oop"?

MS MBATHA: That is correct sir.

MR MALINDI: When you saw Machidi Rebecca Matope running towards your shack and being attacked together with her baby, when would you say you heard the voice "Ma'am Tani, maak die deur oop"?

MS MBATHA: I heard that voice when they were busy stabbing her, when she was crying.

MR MALINDI: As a result, did it seem to you that the person saying these words, was very close to Machidi as you saw her running to the shack?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malindi, what is the value of that evidence, because she has told us that she saw this white man, he was next to, he was standing next to Machidi. He said that, she said that. Now you want her to tell us that she was making a conclusion simply because she heard this person, it must have been firstly the same person and secondly he must have been standing close to her? But doesn't that follow because what she says is of no consequence? I took her through that initially and she told me that she heard the voice, it appeared to her to be that of a white person. When the person entered, it was then that she confirmed that it was this person who had been shouting out.

MR MALINDI: Chairperson, I agree that the hearing of the voice and the seeing of the person coming in, confirms, made a link between the person ...

CHAIRPERSON: Because it was shortly thereafter?

MR MALINDI: Yes, Chairperson what I was trying to do was just to clear what was put to her on the top of page 21 about whether she actually saw the white man next to Machidi, but I am happy with what her answers seem to suggest, which is that she made the link.

CHAIRPERSON: The impression that I get from her is that it is a conclusion, that is based on what she said.

MR MALINDI: I agree with that Chairperson. Ms Mbatha, is it your evidence that where you were hiding yourselves, a person would have needed light to reach you or to see you?

MS MBATHA: That is correct sir.

MR MALINDI: The side of the kitchen wall that fell, was it the whole side or part of that wall?

MS MBATHA: Only the side of the kitchen fell.

MR MALINDI: Thank you Chairperson, no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MALINDI

CHAIRPERSON: You say only the side of the kitchen. Could you indicate to us the length of the side that fell down?

MS MBATHA: I am unable to do that, but it is the whole side, because the door was not in the middle of the shack, it was on the corner of that side. If the door is at this corner, to where I am pointing.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you are saying that the whole side fell down, is that what happened?

MS MBATHA: Yes, the whole side fell down.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, and how long is this, are you able to indicate to us the length of this side that collapsed?

MR LAX: If I could put it in another way for you, how big was the hole that was created?

CHAIRPERSON: From where you are up to where?

MS MBATHA: From where I am pointing to that jacket that I am pointing.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, that is about three paces? So the whole of that side just fell down?

MS MBATHA: Yes, the whole side fell.

CHAIRPERSON: On the ground?

MS MBATHA: That is correct Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, all right.

MR MALINDI: Chairperson, may we just confirm that we agree with your estimation of three metres.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Mr Sibanyoni?

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Ms Mbatha, how high was this opening for example were you able to walk out while standing or was a person supposed to kneel when coming through that hole, that hole opening?

MS MBATHA: Yes, a person would be able to enter without kneeling down.

MR SIBANYONI: Do you know how tall you are?

MS MBATHA: I don't know.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

ADV SIGODI: I have no questions for this witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Lax?

MR LAX: No questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Mr Mapoma, did I call upon you?

MR MAPOMA: Yes Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, very well, yes. Thank you Ma'am, you may stand down.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps before you stand down, because we are about to conclude, we have now come to the conclusion of this session of the sitting of the Committee. We still have to hear further evidence, we will return on the 19th of July this year in order to finish these hearings and hopefully we will then be able to conclude these hearings. On that day, we will start at nine o'clock.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

