This resource is hosted by the Nelson Mandela Foundation, but was compiled and authored by Padraig O’Malley. It is the product of almost two decades of research and includes analyses, chronologies, historical documents, and interviews from the apartheid and post-apartheid eras.

To search the O'Malley archive please click here.

Name: Anna Mbatha - Witness

21-05-1999: Day 15

Matter: Boipatong Massacre

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

19-07-1999: Day 1 (Resumed Hearing)

Matter: Boipatong Massacre (Cont)

Held At: Vanderbijlpark

CHAIRPERSON: Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Are we ready to proceed? Yes. Just before we proceed, is it Adv Botha? Yes.

MR BOTHA: Indeed, Mr Chairperson. Thank you, Mr Chairperson. As we discussed in chambers my instructing attorney as well as my own mandate has been terminated by the State Attorney on behalf of Mr Peens. I request the Commission's permission to withdraw as advocate of record of Mr Peens.

I've tried to get hold of Mr Peens. As yet I was not successful. I'm still trying to get hold of him as well as my instructing attorney. The last known address that we have of him is the farm Leewfontein.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you just hold on a second. What was that address?

MR BOTHA: The address, Mr Chairperson, is the farm Leewfontein, L-E-E-W-fontein in the district of Ventersdorp. He used to stay with his parents there. We managed to get information that this farm was sold and they're staying somewhere in Potchefstroom now. I also received information that there's a possibility that he may work in Pretoria at a security firm.

CHAIRPERSON: Is the upshot of this that you've not been able to contact Mr Peens and to notify him that you're withdrawing as his legal representative?

MR BOTHA: Indeed Mr Chairperson. At this stage although my mandate has been terminated by the State Attorney I don't know what Mr Peens' attitude will be. I don't think he will be in a financial position to afford the legal fees for this whole proceedings further on, but I am prepared however, if I receive instructions from him and if the Commission make a ruling that he must testify, that I may assist him. I'm even prepared that if it's a day or even two days to prepare on his behalf pro amico.

CHAIRPERSON: I suppose ...(indistinct) Yes, Mr Botha, you are excused from further attendance.

MR BOTHA: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr May.

MR MEY: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. I'm in exactly the same position. I'm acting on behalf of the implicated persons Messrs Chaka and Greeff. My mandate has been terminated by the State Attorney and I'm not in the position to proceed. Therefore I request permission from the Commission to withdraw as attorney of record on behalf of the two implicated persons. They know that I'm going to withdraw as attorney of record and they've been accordingly informed. Mr Chaka and Mr Greeff.

CHAIRPERSON: You have told them, have you?

MR MEY: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know whether they are here?

MR MEY: They are present. Mr Chairperson, they're in the media room at this stage, both of them.

CHAIRPERSON: Where is the media room?

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Chaka - are you Mr Chaka? Okay. Would you just speak next to the microphone, please. Are you Mr Chaka?

MR CHAKA: ...(no English interpretation)

CHAIRPERSON: You're Mr Greeff.

MR GREEFF: That's right.

CHAIRPERSON: It is my understanding that both of you have been advised by Mr May that he will no longer be able to represent you in these proceedings because the State Attorney has withdrawn the mandate. Is that right?

MR CHAKA: That is correct, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: "Mnr" Greeff.

MR GREEFF: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Is the position now that you are without legal representation?

MR CHAKA: That is correct.

MR GREEFF: That is right.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you be representing yourself?

MR CHAKA: That is correct.

MR GREEFF: Yes, I will.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well. Thank you, Mr May. You are excused. Thank you.

MR MAPOMA: Excuse me, Chairperson, before Mr Botha ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I beg your pardon. Would you just call Mr Chaka and Mr Greeff here. If during these proceedings there is anything that you'd like to draw to the attention of the Committee, would you do so?

MR CHAKA: I will do so, Sir.

MR GREEFF: Yes, I will.

CHAIRPERSON: If amongst the witnesses who are yet to testify, anyone of them implicates either of you, you will be afforded the opportunity to dispute that evidence by way of cross-examination. Do you understand that?

MR CHAKA: I understand.

MR GREEFF: Yes, I understand.

CHAIRPERSON: Just listen to the evidence very carefully. Do you understand?

MR CHAKA: Yes.

MR GREEFF: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Mapoma, I wanted to...

MR MAPOMA: Thank you, Chairperson. About Mr Peens. I understand Mr Botha was instructed by Mr Du Plessis who is an attorney and unfortunately Mr Botha seems to have left now, but the Committee has not been brought to light as to the situation regarding Mr Du Plessis's instructions for Mr Botha.

CHAIRPERSON: My understanding from Mr Botha is that both of them were instructed by the State Attorney and that the State Attorney has withdrawn the mandate from both of them.

MR MAPOMA: As the Chairperson pleases.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that right, Mr Botha?

MR BOTHA: Indeed, Mr Chairperson.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, before Mr Botha leaves. Might I just place this on record.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BERGER: It is the intention of the victims at the end of their case to formally ask the Committee to rule that Mr Peens be called to give evidence. There's - we will argue why we believe his evidence is crucial to this application. At the moment Mr Peens is under subpoena and in terms of section 39(e) of the Act any person who fails to - having been subpoenaed who fails to appear or fails to remain in attendance until the end of the hearing has committed an offence.

I don't know if it's premature to ask now that you refer the matter to the police so that Mr - so that the police can arrest Mr Peens for having contravened Section 39(e) of the Act or whether you would want us to wait until the end of the applicants' - of the victims' case. My problem is - or not my problem, my fear is that if we do wait at that stage it will still take some time for the police to locate Mr Peens and perhaps they should start now trying to locate him.

CHAIRPERSON: I suppose that's a matter that the evidence leader would have to consider and if so satisfied, refer the matter to the police because one of the difficulties of these proceedings is that they have been dragging for a long time and I know that some of the applicants have asked that they be excused so that they can pursue their employment. It's not necessary to require everyone to be here. But that's a valid point.

MR BERGER: Chair, what I'll do is I'll ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Would you look into that, Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, Chairperson, I will look into it and in fact liaise with the legal department of the TRC.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, indeed. In particular in view of the fact that we're about to finish.

MR MAPOMA: Yes, Chairperson. Very well.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well. Yes. Let's just dispose of another matter and that is the late filing of the affidavits filed on behalf of the South African Defence - what is it South African National Defence Force, I think it is. The application for the condonation of the late filing of those affidavits. Yes. Will you just place on record the explanation for the delay, Mr Da Silva.

MR DA SILVA: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, you will note in the documents which have been handed to the Committee as well as my learned colleagues, that there is an affidavit made by Mr Kluth who sets out the reasons for the late delivery of these documents.

The first reason which he deals with you'll find at page 7 of his affidavit. It became aware during the investigation of this matter from the Defence Force's point of view that many documents have been either mislaid, lost or destroyed and that they cannot be found.

We could not find any documents in regard to one of the Defence Force components, group 17, which patrolled the area around Vanderbijlpark. And the only other way that we could explain what happened on the 17th of June 1992, was to approach the investigating officer, Mr Davidson.

Mr Davidson at the stage that we spoke to him was no longer in the employ of the Defence - of the Police, he is not a member of the Defence Force and there were certain steps that we had to take to be able to consult with them, to make documents available and to prepare an affidavit which is annexed hereto.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that Mr Christo Davidson?

MR DA SILVA: That is correct, Mr Chairman. Another difficulty which arose, Mr Chairman, is you will recall that when we adjourned on the 21st of April 1999, Mr Burger indicated at the pre-trial conference what his attitude was in regard to further evidence in regard to the Defence Force.

That put us in the precarious position in that we foresaw that the Defence Forces might terminate our mandate and we had to explain what our position was to the Defence Force. I may add, and Mr Burger can correct me, that there is still a legal argument which is going to be advanced on behalf of the victims as I understand implicating the Defence Force.

So the matter is not as cut and dry as what it appears on the face of it. But in order to prepare that memorandum, submit it to the Defence Force and obtain instructions. That also led to a delay of time.

The principle reason, Mr Chairman, which led to this delay of time. You will note that there is a letter which is annexed as Annexure AK2. It's annexed at page 19 of the papers. In terms of that letter my instructing attorney - I apologise. It's at - AK2 is the covering fax and the letter appears on page 20, Mr Chairman.

In terms of that letter our mandate was in fact terminated and we were not in a position to proceed. Instructions had to be obtained to proceed and the complicating factor was that it was not just a decision taken by my client, Mr Chairman.

It wasn't just the mere fact of my client giving me and my instructing attorney instructions to proceed. There had to be some co-ordination with the State Attorney and the Department of Justice. We in fact only received firm instructions to proceed on behalf of the Defence Force from the Defence Force last Monday, the 12th of June.

And in fact received instructions from the State Attorney on the 15th of June. Both these instructions were oral instructions and at - to date hereof we haven't received written instructions and we could only in fact really start preparing from last Monday.

The Committee will note that documents are voluminous. They attempt to cover a wide spectrum of evidence. We've tried to make them as short as possible and we worked full out, apart from the pre-trial conference which took place from Wednesday. The whole of Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday and in fact these documents were only finalised this morning at two o'clock.

And this is what has led to the delay and I would request in the circumstances that you condone the late filing of these papers, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Berger, do you have any difficulty with the application for the condonation of the late filing of these documents?

MR BERGER: Chairperson, as a matter of principle we don't have any problems. We haven't read the documents, I don't know what it contains, but in principle we have no objection.

CHAIRPERSON: My understanding was that the victims' position is that they will not be contending that they were members of the South African Defence Force. Is that right?

MR BERGER: Well, Chairperson, the victims have said throughout that they don't know whether the whites who were there were members of the police or members of the SADF. They don't know whether the vehicles that were there were police vehicles or army vehicles. At best we would contend for the SANDF, they were outside Boipatong. As those earlier affidavits that we handed in show they were in the road where the firms are and that they heard shooting or shots being fired and that they never intervened. That would be the best for them. But we can't say whether the ...

CHAIRPERSON: They were inside.

MR BERGER: .. whether they were inside or not.

CHAIRPERSON: At the time, ja.

MR BERGER: But we can't exclude that either because there were - we say, military vehicles or police vehicles. We don't distinguish between the two.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Mapoma, do you have any difficulty?

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, I have no difficulty with ...(indistinct) Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: The other applicants, do you have any difficulty with the application for the condonation of the late filing of these affidavits?

MR CAMBANIS: None, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, the...

MR BERGER: Chairperson, I should also place on record in fairness to Mr Da Silva and Mr Kluth, that at the pre-trial conference last week Wednesday we were handed a tog bag full of documents which is very difficult to go through, but they did provide us with documents last Wednesday as well. And for that we thank them.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well. The late filing of the affidavits on behalf of the South African National Defence Force is hereby condoned. Yes, Mr ...(indistinct)

MR DA SILVA: Mr Chairman, may I enquire. I'm indebted that the order has been granted. Will this document then be received$- if my memory does not fail me I think the next exhibit is Exhibit JJ.

CHAIRPERSON: My only concern Mr Da Silva, is that you know, you've given us a voluminous document. I looked through them. I couldn't find photo's of the promised hippos or the casspirs.

MR DA SILVA: Mr Chairman, in regard to the photographs steps have been taken to take photographs. I understand that they are being developed today. The person that took them undertook to do that today. As soon as those photographs are available I'll make them available to the Committee and my learned colleagues. I apologise for the delay in the photographs, Mr Chairman.

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Yes.

MR CAMBANIS: Thank you, Chair. We beg leave to call the next witness, Emily Ntomazonkwe Mashinini, who will give evidence in Sotho, Chair.

NTOMAZONKWE EMILY MASHININI: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MS CAMBANIS: Ma'am, is it correct that on the night of 17 June 1992 you resided at no 242 Thababosio Street in Boipatong?

MS MASHININI: That is correct.

MR CAMBANIS: Could you please tell the Chair and the Committee what happened, what you saw and heard during the course of that evening at your home.

MS MASHININI: It was round about 10 o'clock when I was at home and I heard gunshots. It was chaos outside.

INTERPRETER: Chairperson, there's a problem with Ms Cambanis's head set.

CHAIRPERSON EXPLAINS CHANNELS

MR CAMBANIS: Thank you, Chair. Chair, may I ask the witness please to repeat the answer. Thank you.

Ms Mashinini, could you please repeat the evidence you've just given.

MS MASHININI: I said on the 2nd of June 1992 round about, at 10 o'clock I heard gunshots and I peeped through the window and I saw a large group going the other way and I saw a koyoko driving in my street. When it approached my gate it wanted to drive in.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you please slow down so that we can take notes. You say that on the day in question you heard gunshots?

MS MASHININI: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now would you take it from there.

MS MASHININI: I peeped through the window and I saw a large group of people walking in Bapedi Street.

MR CAMBANIS: Ms Mashinini, are you able to tell us anything more about this group of people? Can you describe them at all?

MS MASHININI: It will be difficult for me to describe anything. It was just chaos.

MR CAMBANIS: Please continue.

MS MASHININI: I saw a koyoko driving down in my street. When it arrived at my gate it turned as if it was getting into my gate. Then there was loud-speaking and they drove back into the road.

MR CAMBANIS: You said you saw the koyoko and it drove in your street. You said you heard loud-speaking. Can you just expand, what do you mean loud-speaking?

MS MASHININI: It is the loud speakers. It has just spoken outside right now.

MR CAMBANIS: Are you trying to convey that the sound was coming from the koyoko?

MS MASHININI: No, the sound was from the large group of people and the koyoko drove in Thababasio Street and it stopped a while at my gate and that phone announced something from the koyoko. And it drove in Bapedi Street in a high speed and it went to join, to go to those, to that group of people. And there were gunshots all the way.

MR CAMBANIS: Thank you. Can I just get back to what you call the phone.

MS MASHININI: I was outside right now and there were sounds coming from the koyoko outside right now. It's that type of a thing that I referred to.

MR CAMBANIS: For the record I think I am allowed to place on record that when we were standing outside the radio transmission was heard and the witness was referring to that.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, the radio transmission in the police van, in the koyoko. She is saying that the sound that she heard on the day in question was that she heard while she was outside just now?

MR CAMBANIS: That is what she's attempting to convey, yes, Chair.

MS MASHININI: That is correct.

MR CAMBANIS: Now this sound that you heard on the - on what you call the phone, the radio transmission, could you hear what was being said?

MS MASHININI: I could not hear. I did not hear what they were saying.

MR CAMBANIS: Could you hear - ascertain what language was being spoken?

MS MASHININI: I think it was English. I could not understand what they were saying.

MR CAMBANIS: But is it correct, Ms Mashinini, you're not sure, you don't know what language, is that correct?

MS MASHININI: I did not hear quite well. Had it been Sotho I would be in a position to hear.

MR SIBANYONI: Now when you say Siqowa are you referring to English or Afrikaans?

MS MASHININI: I'm referring to Afrikaans and the English.

MR CAMBANIS: But really what you're saying as far as you remember it wasn't Sotho, that's what you're sure of.

MS MASHININI: I am sure I would have heard had it been Sotho.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry. Can I just clarify this. You said you could not hear what they were saying.

MS MASHININI: I could not hear.

MS SIGODI: You could not hear or did - are you trying to say that you could not understand what they were saying? You could hear that they were speaking, but you could not understand what they were saying.

MS MASHININI: I heard that they were speaking, but I could not understand what they were saying.

MR CAMBANIS: Just for clarity, Ms Mashinini, when you saw the koyoko turning, getting towards your house, where was the group at that time, the group of attackers?

MS MASHININI: My house is no 4 from the corner. The group was walking in Bapedi Street.

MR CAMBANIS: And the koyoko was in which street?

MS MASHININI: The koyoko was also heading for Bapedi Street.

MR CAMBANIS: Please continue.

MS MASHININI: It drove off while the gunshot was still in place.

MR CAMBANIS: Ms Mashinini, did you see who was in the koyoko, who was driving?

MS MASHININI: I could not see who the driver was.

MR CAMBANIS: And besides the shooting that you heard, did you hear anything else at that time coming from the group of attackers?

MS MASHININI: I just heard sounds ... (intervention)

MR STRYDOM: I object to that leading question to mention attackers all the time because she didn't say attackers, she talked about a group. My learned friend keeps on referring to as to the attackers. She never said so.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, the group that - are you suggesting that apart from the attackers there was another group which was in the township?

MR STRYDOM: It will be the case on part of - the case of the applicants that the police - they weren't in the presence of police. So - and it will be the case that the police vehicles only arrived after the attack. And on that basis it cannot - the possibility cannot be ruled out that some of the residents gathered afterwards in the streets and she could have been confused. So what I'm saying is that if she gives evidence and she does not refer to attackers, my learned friend can't lead her as to let her believe that they were in fact the attackers.

MR CAMBANIS: I will concede that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Perhaps Ms Cambanis, describe them as no more than just a group of ...(indistinct)

MR CAMBANIS: I will do that. Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR CAMBANIS: Ma'am, is it correct that when you referred to the group in the street you said there was chaos?

MS MASHININI: It was a chaotic group. They were breaking windows on their way.

MR CAMBANIS: And besides breaking windows, what else did that group do? Did you see anything further?

MS MASHININI: I saw this group breaking windows, going down Bapedi and there were gunshots.

MR CAMBANIS: When you say there was gunshots are you able to assist this Committee about where the sound was coming from?

MS MASHININI: From the side of the shops towards the west.

MR CAMBANIS: Is that quite a distance from your home?

MS MASHININI: From the shops? My house is on the third street from the shops. It's not far.

MR CAMBANIS: And this group that was breaking glasses did you see if they had anything in their - were carrying anything in their hands?

MS MASHININI: I was in a state of shock. I ran into the house, I closed the door and I just peeped through the window.

MR CAMBANIS: And while this group was breaking windows, where was the koyoko?

MS MASHININI: It was driving towards them and it was firing in the other direction. It was - I saw it with my eyes. It was firing towards the other direction.

MR CAMBANIS: And once you'd got into your house what else did you see, Ma'am? What else can you tell?

MS MASHININI: I was still at the window, the koyoko drove back, it stopped again at my gate and there was loud-speaking again and it drove back.

MR CAMBANIS: Sorry. It drove back where?

MS MASHININI: It drove back to Bapedi.

MR CAMBANIS: Thank you, Chair. I have nothing further.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS CAMBANIS

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well. Yes, Mr Strydom.

MR STRYDOM: Thank you, Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR STRYDOM: On that night when you first heard guns shots, what were you doing?

MS MASHININI: After work I would come home and do the household chores. Everybody would go to bed and I would remain behind.

MR STRYDOM: Can I gather from that that you were ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: What you're being asked is at the time when you heard the gunshots, what were you doing?

MS MASHININI: I was relaxing in the house.

MR STRYDOM: When you heard the gunshots did you leave the house?

MS MASHININI: I left the house and closed the gate quickly.

MR STRYDOM: When you went out now to close the gate did you see anything outside going on?

MS MASHININI: I saw that group smashing windows and I saw the koyoko driving downwards.

MR STRYDOM: If you say the koyoko was driving downwards, was it downwards in Thababasio Street or in Bapedi Street?

MS MASHININI: It was driving down in Thababasio turning into Bapedi.

MR STRYDOM: So do you say that the koyoko passed your house and travelled in the direction of Bapedi Street?

MS MASHININI: That is correct. It even stopped at my gate as if it was driving in and I heard loud-speaking and it drove back, it reversed and then it went down to Bapedi.

MR STRYDOM: So at the time you saw the koyoko at your gate you were still outside.

MS MASHININI: I was at the window. I was looking through the window.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, but... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Ma'am, is the position this. When you heard the gunshots you went out of the house, closed the gate and then returned to the house?

MS MASHININI: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And then you subsequently watched what was going on outside through the window.

MS MASHININI: That is correct.

MR STRYDOM: But what I want to know is what you saw whilst you were outside. When you went to close the gate, what did you see then at that stage? That's what I want to know.

MS MASHININI: I saw a group smashing windows. They were walking in Bapedi. When I ran back into the house here was a koyoko.

MR STRYDOM: Just to get clarity then. You only saw the koyoko whilst you returned, or at the stage when you returned to your house?

MS MASHININI: It was approaching. I got into the house, moved straight to the window.

MR STRYDOM: And through the window you saw the koyoko.

MS MASHININI: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: You testified earlier on that it was approximately or round about 10 o'clock that night.

MS MASHININI: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: I gather from that, by you using the words round about, that is just an estimation, is that correct?

MS MASHININI: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: It could have been half an hour later isn't it so?

MS MASHININI: I do not consider. I estimate it to be around ten.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, but it could have been half an hour before ten or half an hour past ten, isn't it so?

MS MASHININI: I do not know.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Strydom, once the witness admits that this is just an estimate, I mean she could either be thirty minutes out of what the time was at the time. I don't think that's going to take us any further.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, Chairperson.

MR STRYDOM: I want to ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: What you can do is simply to put what you consider to be the correct time to - whatever proposition you want to put to her.

MR STRYDOM: Thank you, Chairperson.

MR STRYDOM: I want to put to you that if you in fact saw a koyoko, it could only have been thirty minutes past ten because the first police vehicles, according to the police themselves, that entered Boipatong on that specific night came in at thirty minutes past ten. Do you have any comment?

MS MASHININI: I do not know what you have just said.

CHAIRPERSON: That was after the attack was it?

MR STRYDOM: Yes. Maybe just to make it clear for the witness I'll add those words "after the attack".

The first police vehicles that came in only came in after the attack and the time that is put on that is approximately thirty minutes past ten.

MR CAMBANIS: Chair, sorry to interrupt. But this - we've not had this evidence before. I'm not sure where my learned friend is getting this proposition, on what it is based.

CHAIRPERSON: My understanding of the evidence is that the police arrived after the attack. That's my - there were ... (end of tape 1, side A)

MR CAMBANIS: Chair, that's instructions. There's nothing before this Committee saying - we're not disputing that they did arrive, but when they arrived is certainly in dispute.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible - )

MS CAMBANIS: Thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Ma'am, what is being put to you is the following. The police came to Boipatong but they did so after the attack, when the people or the group that had been breaking windows had left. Did you understand what's been put to you?

MS MASHININI: I'm mentioning what I saw. I saw this group in Bapedi smashing windows and I saw a koyoko and it turned driving with them in Bapedi at the time of that attack.

MR STRYDOM: Thank you, Chairperson.

Just to answer my learned colleague and I was in fact referring to the latest exhibit, Exhibit JJ. On page 119 of that document a time is given about movements of a certain police vehicle, and if the document is read in context it would mean that that was the first police vehicle after the attack.

CHAIRPERSON: I see.

MR STRYDOM: From your position where you stood at your gate, could you see where this - at which house this group was breaking windows?

MS MASHININI: It's at the house that was at the corner, white in colour and I even heard the smashing of windows as the group went along. But when I was at the window I could see the house at the corner.

MR STRYDOM: Is that the corner between Thababasio and Bapedi Streets?

MS MASHININI: It goes parallel with Thababasio.

MR STRYDOM: I'm not clear on that one. You say it's the house that still is in Thababasio or in another street? Can you give the name of the street if possible if it's another street?

MS MASHININI: The house is at the corner of Bapedi when you come from the shops. The street I live in goes down right at this corner.

MR STRYDOM: Do you know where Lekwa Street is?

MS MASHININI: Lekwa is right at the back, far at the back.

MR STRYDOM: Now the house you are referring to is that close to the shops where you saw people breaking windows?

MS MASHININI: It's at the corner of the third street from the shops, on the same line.

MR STRYDOM: Just to make it clear. Is that in the same street where you live?

MS MASHININI: No, it's in Bapedi. My street goes down.

MR STRYDOM: If I show you Exhibit J, it's a map of Boipatong ...(intervention)

MS MASHININI: I'm not good at maps. Can I draw it myself?

MR STRYDOM: Do you want to draw - I just want to get clarity where this house is where you saw the group had broke the windows.

MS MASHININI: The group was going in Bapedi, but my street goes this way. Now they were going to cross Thababasio and go straight. Now there's a house, a white house at the corner.

MR STRYDOM: Is that at the intersection or close to the intersection between Bapedi and Thababasio Streets?

MR CAMBANIS: Chair, may I bring my exhibits to you to show which house she's marked on J?

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

MR STRYDOM: We've established now that the house that you are referring to is the house on the northwestern corner - no, sorry, that's wrong, southwestern corner at the intersection of Bapedi and Thababasio Streets.

MS MASHININI: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: From your gate you could see people breaking windows there.

MS MASHININI: Yes, I saw them.

MR STRYDOM: So did you see only windows being broken at that house or other houses as well?

MS MASHININI: I could hear sounds of smashing windows.

MR STRYDOM: And the group you saw can you give any indication how many people were in this group?

MS MASHININI: It was quite a group. They were busy with their work. I could not even count.

MR STRYDOM: Ja. And you also can't give any description as to what kind of clothing they wore, if they had instruments with them, anything of the kind. You can't give.

MS MASHININI: I can't explain. I also got shocked and I went back into my house to switch off the lights.

MR STRYDOM: So let's just take it step by step. So after you saw the group there breaking the windows at that house you went into your house. You put off the lights. Is that right?

MS MASHININI: I switched off the lights. I went to the window.

MR STRYDOM: How long have you waited at the window before you saw the koyoko?

MS MASHININI: When I ran into the house the koyoko was driving downwards in a high speed.

MR STRYDOM: Then at what stage did the koyoko stop at your house?

MS MASHININI: It stopped immediately at my house and I switched off the lights and I heard the loud voice and it drove back.

MR STRYDOM: The window you were looking through was that pointing now direction of the street at Thababasio?

MS MASHININI: My house is facing in Thababasio.

MR STRYDOM: Yes. Now if a vehicle travelled past your house towards Bapedi Street and turned into Bapedi Street you won't be able to see that vehicle anymore. Is that so?

MS MASHININI: I will not see it because - I would not see it because it was fast.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, but even if it travelled slowly. If it passed your house and it gets to Bapedi Street and you must bear in mind that you've got the fourth house from the corner. So it goes past your house. And if it... (intervention)

MS MASHININI: Yes, I would see the car when it drives by.

MR STRYDOM: Yes. But after that you won't be able to see the car anymore. Isn't that so?

MS MASHININI: That is correct.

MR STRYDOM: So after the koyoko passed your house you can't say what happened to the koyoko. Is that right?

MS MASHININI: I heard gunshots and I said to myself it is the sam koyoko that's doing that.

MR STRYDOM: Ja. But apart from what you heard you could not see the koyoko anymore and you couldn't see any person firing from the koyoko.

MS MASHININI: That is correct. I heard the gun fire.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, but that gunfire could have been from the group you saw earlier on. It is not necessarily from the koyoko, is that correct?

MS MASHININI: After it drove by there were - there was a heavy gunfire.

MR STRYDOM: Ja. Do you know in which direction the koyoko turned when it reached - it came past your house, it got to Bapedi Street, now it could either go left or right. Do you know if it went left or right?

MS MASHININI: I have big windows. When I'm looking through the window I see up to the last house in Bapedi because my windows are very big.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, but the question is do you know if the koyoko went left or right?

MS MASHININI: It was driving in Bapedi. It turned towards Slovo.

MR STRYDOM: So do you say that from your window, which is the fourth house, you could see right to the intersection between Thababasio and Bapedi Streets?

MS MASHININI: Yes, yes. Even when you pass there I would even see you.

MR STRYDOM: And after the koyoko turned left, what did you see further in connection with the koyoko?

MS MASHININI: My siblings arrived and they told me that the daughter in law and the child had been killed. That's what I was told.

MR STRYDOM: So just after the koyoko passed your house your siblings arrived. Is that what you're saying?

MS MASHININI: That is correct.

MR CAMBANIS: Chair, I thought that he was asking after the koyoko had turned into Bapedi Street towards Slovo Park. That is the time that he's asking. And then he said did you see anything further in relation to the koyoko and she said after that her siblings arrived. Not after it drove past he home.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, Chairperson, the witness already gave an answer. I've just asked that question on the basis that it can take only a few seconds for a vehicle to get from - to pass the house to the intersection. But more correctly would be after the vehicle turned. So just after you saw the vehicle for the last tim the siblings arrived. Is that - that's basically the question.

MS MASHININI: A minute. Just after a minute they arrived and they told me that there are deaths in the family.

MR STRYDOM: Do you know from which house did they come, the sib.. - your family?

MS MASHININI: They came from the settlement area. They came through Bapedi Street.

MR STRYDOM: Ja, the settlement area do you refer to Slovo Park?

MS MASHININI: That is correct. When you are in Bapedi you're heading towards Slovo, isn't it so?

MR STRYDOM: In your evidence-in-chief you said the following: That the koyoko was driving in the direction of the group.

MS MASHININI: That's what I'm saying because they were going - the group was going down and the koyoko drove after them.

MR STRYDOM: Yes. But you also said that the koyoko was firing in the other direction. Why did you say that?

MS MASHININI: It's because there was a heavy gunfire, severely heavy gunfire. That was after the koyoko drove from my house.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, but you couldn't say that the koyoko was responsible for that fire - gunshots. The question is you can't say if the koyoko was responsible for that guns shots being fired.

MS MASHININI: I'm saying it's the koyoko. Why after it drove off from my house there were heavy gunfire?

MR STRYDOM: You also testified that the koyoko drove back at a certain stage. What did you refer to?

MS MASHININI: Yes, it drove back.

MR STRYDOM: When was that?

MS MASHININI: It was after my siblings arrived to tell me that there are death in the family, the koyoko came back. It stopped at the gate and there was a loud voice again and it drove back.

MR STRYDOM: Did you see from which direction the koyoko came when you say it came back for the first time?

MS MASHININI: No, I only heard when it was talking outside because I was now concentrating on the issues that were brought by my siblings.

MR STRYDOM: After you saw the group breaking the window there at the intersection, you never saw that group again, is that correct? That was the last time for you to see them.

MS MASHININI: Yes. Moving in Bapedi towards Slovo.

MR STRYDOM: So then I will be correct to say that you never saw the group and a koyoko at the same time.

MS MASHININI: It was driving fast to keep pace with them. I don't know why are you saying that.

MR STRYDOM: All I'm saying is you never saw the koyoko and the group at the same time.

MS MASHININI: What are you expecting me to say? The group had not even walked past when the koyoko drove from my house to join the street. They were shouting and just joined. The group had not walked past when then the koyoko joined them.

MR STRYDOM: Yes. I'm going to leave this for argument but I'm putting to you that according to your evidence you saw the group for the last time at the intersection. Then you went into your house and then you looked through the window and then you saw the koyoko. So what I'm putting to you is you never saw the koyoko and the group at the same time.

MS MASHININI: Can you just repeat what you've just said the - about the intersection the last time I saw the group at the intersection.

MR STRYDOM: I asked you when was the last time for you to see the group that was busy breaking a window at that house at the intersection.

MS MASHININI: The group was walking past. They were going down. They were just passing. It was a group and the koyoko joined them whilst they were still in a group.

MR STRYDOM: So do you say now that you saw the koyoko joining the group?

MS MASHININI: Thank you very much. You have it.

MR STRYDOM: When did you see that?

MS MASHININI: When I was at the window. I can see from my window.

MR STRYDOM: So what did you - when you looked through your window you saw the koyoko pass. Where was the group at that stage?

MS MASHININI: Sir, I was going outside to close the gate, I saw a koyoko approaching. I went back into the house, I went to the window and I saw people. They were many.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you see this koyoko whilst you were still outside?

MS MASHININI: When I looked at this group after closing the gate, I wanted to run into the house and I saw a - before I could run into the house I saw a koyoko. These people were still around and because the koyoko was at a high speed I just ran into the house to watch the window and I heard a loud voice and it drove back at a high speed. And I could see the people as well even after the koyoko had turned. That's correct, I saw them.

MR STRYDOM: When the koyoko passed your house where did you see the people, the group?

MS MASHININI: The group was in Bapedi Street. That is the street from the shops going this direction.

MR STRYDOM: Why did you earlier agree with me when I put to you that the last time you saw the group was when they were at that house breaking the windows?

MR CAMBANIS: Chair, with respect. That house is in - there is no difference, it is in Bapedi Street.

MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, as I understand the evidence this people were moving. She said they were moving, they were not standing there.

MR CAMBANIS: It was showed on the map where she marked on the corner of Thababasio and Bapedi Street.

MR STRYDOM: Chairman, I will leave this for argument. But what you've just testified now is also something new. I want to put to you that you saw the koyoko whilst you were still at the gate and when you ran towards the house. Earlier on I understood your evidence to be that you saw the koyoko through the window for the first time.

MR CAMBANIS: No, Chair, that is not - she said she closed the gate, she returned to her house and she saw the koyoko. That has been her evidence.

MR STRYDOM: That's her latest evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: It was put to - you know she was asked:

"Did you see the koyoko when you were inside the house?"

And she said:

"Yes, through the window".

MS MASHININI: Please. No, when I saw the koyoko I was outside and I ran to the window to see it clearly. That was when - I saw it first when I was outside.

MR STRYDOM: Can you give any description of this koyoko?

MS MASHININI: I would have been a fool to concentrate on the koyoko while there was chaos. I just saw it was a koyoko, very dark in golour. I would not concentrate on colours of a koyoko while there was trouble.

MR STRYDOM: Did you see any occupants in the koyoko?

MS MASHININI: How could I see them whilst they are inside, because when they speak you only hear the voice, you don't see them. They are inside, aren't they? It's at night.

MR STRYDOM: And later when they returned, did you have an opportunity to look at the colour and to see who was inside this vehicle?

MS MASHININI: I was helpless. My siblings had just arrived to tell me that there was trouble in the family, but I did see it though.

MR STRYDOM: I want to put to you that you might have seen a koyoko but that was some time after the attack on Boipatong.

MS MASHININI: That's not what I saw.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR STRYDOM

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Lowies.

MR LOWIES: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LOWIES: Ms Mashinini, when you saw the koyoko in front of your house, was there anybody in the vicinity or the koyoko at that stage?

MS MASHININI: No. The people were down there walking in Bapedi. There was nobody in the vicinity, It was just the koyoko itself.

MR LOWIES: Now when you saw it the first time, did it stop actually there at your place?

MS MASHININI: It stopped at my house. There was a voice and it sped off.

MR LOWIES: From what you observed, do you have any idea why it stopped there at your house?

MS MASHININI: I do not know, I just got surprised when it stopped at my house. There was this sound and driving off again.

MR LOWIES: When it approached your house did you see anybody in the vicinity of the koyoko?

MS MASHININI: No, I did not see anybody. The group was right there at the back.

MR LOWIES: So the road was clear for the koyoko?

MS MASHININI: The road was clear, there was nothing in the street.

MR LOWIES: Now when it stopped in front of your house, did it actually turn or did it just come to a standstill facing the same direction?

MS MASHININI: It turned into the house. The house was even lit by the lights.

MR LOWIES: So the nose was actually physically there by the gate. Am I understanding you correctly?

MS MASHININI: That is correct.

MR LOWIES: And then it started to move again.

MS MASHININI: Yes, that was after the loud-speaking.

MR LOWIES: Approximately how long would you say did it come to a standstill there in front of your house?

MS MASHININI: It was in a hurry, Sir, it was in a hurry.

MR LOWIES: No, but how long did it come to a standstill?

MS MASHININI: A short time, difficult to estimate. It sped off.

MR LOWIES: Can you estimate time?

MS MASHININI: I had no time to estimate, I was just surprised as to what was happening.

MR LOWIES: No, but normally can you estimate time in general?

MS MASHININI: What do you mean, Sir? How do I estimate time?

MR LOWIES: Can you estimate time in general?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lowies, where is this going to take us?

The ...(indistinct) was there or she can't tell us, her ability to estimate.

You are not able to tell us how long the koyoko was there in front of your house?

MS MASHININI: No, Sir, I can't. It was in such a hurry.

MR LOWIES: So then it could have been there for an hour because you can't estimate?

MS MASHININI: I am not estimating, but it was in a hurry. It was not an hour.

MR LOWIES: Could it have been half an hour?

MS MASHININI: I do not know, Sir, it was in a hurry.

MR LOWIES: Now whilst the koyoko was standing there in front of your house, could you see the attackers?

MS MASHININI: I could see them clearly from my window.

When I'm at my window I can see at the corner. Even if I know you I can even see that you are coming.

CHAIRPERSON: Would that be the corner of Thababasio and Bapedi Street?

MS MASHININI: Yes.

MR LOWIES: If you have to give us an indication, if possible, can you maybe show us the distance or can you tell us the distance that they were at that stage, the attackers?

MS MASHININI: Sir, my house is number four from the corner. From the corner of Bapedi my house is number four.

MR LOWIES: Yes. And how far were the attackers from there at the time when the koyoko was standing in front of your house for the first time?

MS MASHININI: They were moving in Bapedi, many of them. They were engaging in their activities and here comes a koyoko. I get into the house, I go straight to the window, I look through the window.

MR LOWIES: Yes. How far were they from the koyoko?

MS MASHININI: What do you mean, Sir? These people are in Bapedi Street and my house is number four from the corner from Bapedi Street.

MR LOWIES: I actually mean a simple thing. How far was the closest group of people from the koyoko, then?

MS MASHININI: Where are you taking me to, Sir, because I'm telling you that the koyoko is right here at my house and they are in Bapedi Street going downwards. What do you want me to say? What else do you want me to say?

MR LOWIES: Do you want to answer the question as to how far they were?

MR CAMBANIS: Chair, I think she said several times that they were in Bapedi Street, corner Thababasio, her house is the fourth house from that corner, that is how far they were at the time.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, what he wants to find out is in relation to the koyoko how far. Is she able to estimate that distance?

MS MASHININI: When it drove off my house it was going straight to them.

MR LAX: Can you - if I can interpose, Chair. Can you tell us, are you able to work in distances in metres or in feet or in showing us in this room? That's what you're being asked. You're being asked to try and help us get a picture. You know it is four houses. That's what you've told us, but you're being asked to try and give us some idea of how far is four houses, how far is it from the koyoko to where the people were. Do you understand?

MS MASHININI: It's a distance, but I can't - I'm not good at distances, but my house is the fourth from the corner. But when I'm at my house I can see you at the corner when you're walking.

MR LOWIES: Are you trying to say that the attackers at that stage were at the corner?

MS MASHININI: Yes, they were walking past. It was quite a group.

MR LOWIES: Were they walking or running?

MS MASHININI: They were walking picking up something from the ground and you would hear smashing windows.

MR LOWIES: Did you actually see a window being smashed or did you just see people in the vicinity and then hear the sound of windows being smashed?

MS MASHININI: I heard windows smashing. In the morning we went to see, we went to see.

MR LOWIES: Did you actually see a person near a window of a house?

MS MASHININI: Which person? There were many people walking past smashing, now which person do you want me to specifically concentrate on?

MR LOWIES: I understood your evidence that you only heard the sound of smashing windows, is that correct? You didn't see.

MS MASHININI: Sir, I heard. That's when I went outside. When I've just closed my gate I saw this large group of people, I closed the gate, I got into the house, I went to the window. When something is being - when something is breaking you can hear. I heard windows shattering.

MR LOWIES: All right. But you didn't see a group of people near windows that they were breaking. That's what I'm asking you, not what you heard.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lowies, I mean the witness makes it clear that all she heard was the breaking of the windows, and she must have assumed that they were being broken by this group of people that she'd seen.

MR LOWIES: That is the conclusion, Chairman. I'll proceed.

Was your house attacked?

MS MASHININI: No.

MR LOWIES: Your neighbours, your next-door neighbours?

MS MASHININI: They were not attacked.

MR LOWIES: Now when the koyoko sped off in the direction of the attackers ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Sorry. If - I didn't hear the answer to whether her house was attacked.

INTERPRETER: It was not attacked, Chairperson.

MR LAX: And the neighbour's house? That was the next question.

INTERPRETER: The neighbours were not attacked as well.

MR LAX: Thank you.

INTERPRETER: Thank you, Chair.

MR LOWIES: Now when the koyoko sped towards the attackers, did you see what it was doing? I'm talking about the koyoko.

MS MASHININI: I only heard the gunfire worsening.

MR LOWIES: Did you actually see them joining the attackers or not?

MS MASHININI: Yes, this is what I saw. These people were not yet - all of them had not passed this street and koyoko joined them. In other words there was a group in front, the koyoko joining them and other people coming after.

CHAIRPERSON: Coming after what? ...(indistinct) koyoco.

MS MASHININI: These people are going, the koyoko joins them, it goes with them and these people still came after - behind the koyoko.

CHAIRPERSON: And these people were they still passing next to your house?

MS MASHININI: They are not passing next to my house, they are passing in the street, but I can see them through the window.

CHAIRPERSON: So these are the people who were walking along Bapedi Street.

MS MASHININI: That is correct, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: And you could only - you could see them at the corner of Bapedi and Thababasio, is that right?

MS MASHININI: That is correct. They are coming from the direction of the shops. They are many, they are still smashing, Koyoko joins them and they still come behind the koyoko.

MR LOWIES: Now these people that were following, were they not normal citizens staying there in Boipatong, residents of Boipatong?

MS MASHININI: No. These people were busy.

MR LOWIES: Why do you say so?

MS MASHININI: These people were picking something from the ground throwing. What were they doing? Were they not breaking?

MR LOWIES: So you saw them actually throwing something from the ground.

MS MASHININI: Yes, I saw them.

MR LOWIES: Are you sure about this?

MS MASHININI: Sir, I am sure. I saw with my eyes.

MR LOWIES: And what do you think they were throwing, culd you see? What were they throwing at?

MS MASHININI: It must be - it's stones, because windows were shattering.

MR LOWIES: So you could actually see how they were breaking the windows and that was by throwing stones at it?

MS MASHININI: They were throwing. They were busy. It was just a chaotic group.

MR LOWIES: Now why didn't you tell us before that you could actually see the attackers were throwing stones at the houses?

MR CAMBANIS: Chair, she has previously given evidence that they were picking something from the ground.

CHAIRPERSON: And the house ...(indistinct)

MR CAMBANIS: ...(indistinct) stones.

MR LOWIES: It was not in-chief.

CHAIRPERSON: But at some point she did tell us that.

MR LOWIES: I want to put it to you that this is only something that you sucked out of your thumb during cross-examination.

MS MASHININI: I never sucked anything out of my thumb, I will not go through such pain and come here and create my own story.

MR LOWIES: When you told us how the koyoko joined the attackers, you showed with your hands that they were actually going around a corner.

MS MASHININI: Yes.

MR LOWIES: So am I to understand from that, that when the koyoco joined the attackers, they were going around the corner?

MS MASHININI: These people are going in Bapedi straight, they are going towards the informal settlement. The koyoko leaves my house, it's going to join these people.

MR LOWIES: Now where did it join, at the corner or was it already turning towards the group?

MS MASHININI: At the corner of this white house that I've referred to. That is the corner of Thababasio and Bapedi.

MR LOWIES: Now when it joined the group, surely you could not see what they were doing, what the attackers were doing at that stage?

MS MASHININI: They had not all gone past this street, they were still going down.

MR LOWIES: And the koyoko did it come to a standstill or did it also turn at the corner?

MS MASHININI: It did not stop, it turned in the group and they were still following from behind.

MR LOWIES: And the koyoko was it still driving fast?

MS MASHININI: Yes.

MR LOWIES: And the group, were they just walking or running at that stage?

MS MASHININI: It was a chaotic situation.

MR LOWIES: Well, were they walking or running? Can you say?

MS MASHININI: Sir, I'm saying it was a chaotic situation, you would not even check as to whether they were running or walking.

MR LOWIES: Then the koyoko returned.

MS MASHININI: They had all gone now, they were now in the informal settlement. My siblings arrived. They told me there's trouble in the family, people have died. The koyoko came back. It was at the gate. I heard the loud voice and it drove away.

MR LOWIES: Now what did it do at the gate? Did it... (intervention)

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, Mr Lowies, just to get some clarity. Are you able to say that the koyoko you saw for the second time is the same koyoko that came by the first time?

MS MASHININI: I do not know the colour, but I just saw koyoko. I saw a koyoko in Thababasio, one koyoko in Thababasio. I would not differentiate between whether there were two or not.

MR LOWIES: Does that mean you can't say whether they had the same colour either?

MS MASHININI: I did not have time to check the colour, Sir.

MR LOWIES: Now the question was put to you, I did not catch your answer, what did the koyoko do on the second time there in front of your house? Did it actually come to a standstill or not?

MS MASHININI: It did as in the first instance, it stopped at the gate and drove away.

MR LOWIES: Did it also turn into your driveway, nose facing the door or the on-ramp?

MS MASHININI: It did exactly what it did in the first instance. It turned into the house, there was loud-speaking and it drove away.

MR LOWIES: Which direction?

MS MASHININI: ...(no English interpretation)

MR LOWIES: I didn't catch the answer.

MS MASHININI: It headed for the first direction.

MR LOWIES: Did it come from the same direction that it headed in again?

MS MASHININI: When I saw it for the second time it was already at the gate. I was not concerned with its coming, I was concerned with the deaths that occurred in the family.

MR LOWIES: Did you know anything of an attack thereafter or did you see anything of the attackers thereafter, after it left?

MS MASHININI: We left for the informal settlement.

MR LOWIES: Yes and then?

MS MASHININI: I've heard already that my siblings had been killed, so I went to see.

MR LOWIES: And when you arrived in the informal settlement did you see any attackers?

MS MASHININI: No, they had gone already.

MR LOWIES: So can I ask you to tell me whether the following scenario is correct from your evidence. You saw the koyoko joining the attackers the first time.

MS MASHININI: That is correct.

MR LOWIES: Approximately a minute after the koyoko was there at your place your siblings arrived with the bad news.

MS MASHININI: It was - yes, it was quite some time.

MR LOWIES: No - quite some time?

MS MASHININI: They had been long gone. That is the group and the koyoko.

MR LOWIES: So it wasn't a minute?

MS MASHININI: Sir, it was quite a long time.

MR LOWIES: Right. They arrived there and how long did you remain at your house before you decided to leave for the informal settlement, can you give us an indication?

MS MASHININI: We stayed a while. Actually we were on our way out. We saw the koyoko, went back into the house. We were now scared of this koyoko.

CHAIRPERSON: That is now - would that be the stage when it was coming for the second time?

MS MASHININI: Yes. I had received the report already that my - other of my siblings have died.

MR LOWIES: After it left for the second time, how long did you remain at the house? Can you give us an indication?

MS MASHININI: We stayed in the house and the children were crying in the house, so I was assisting them.

MR LOWIES: How long did you stay there before you left for the informal settlement? Can you help us with an estimation?

MS MASHININI: Sir, there were five children at my house, all crying. I had to attend to them. I do not know how long we stayed.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. We understand that. You have told us ...(intervention)

MS MASHININI: We arrived at 6 o'clock in the informal settlement.

CHAIRPERSON: That is 6 o'clock in the morning?

MS MASHININI: That is correct, Sir.

MR LOWIES: Was it light already in the morning? Was the sun out already?

MS MASHININI: It was dark, Sir, because there was smoke all over and there was teargas as well.

MR LOWIES: Teargas?

MS MASHININI: We could not see, our vision was impaired by their things.

MR LOWIES: I don't follow.

MS MASHININI: I'm saying it was dark and the situation was worsened by the smoke of what they fired.

MR LOWIES: Who do you mean fired smoke and when?

MS MASHININI: I'm saying the koyoko did that.

MR LOWIES: When?

MS MASHININI: On that day there was a large smoke.

MR LOWIES: No, but let's just get this clear. 6 o'clock the morning when you went to the informal settlement, was the smoke that was fired from the koyoko still in the air?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lowies, the witness is telling us that they arrived at this informal settlement in the morning at approximately 6 o'clock and it was dark, there was smoke, and presumably she must be assuming that it must be some smoke that might have been fired by the police during that evening. She hasn't told us about seeing police firing teargas.

MR LOWIES: Chairman, I would say it's very important. If this is a witness... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Then ask the witness the question whether she saw anyone firing the teargas.

MR LOWIES: I was trying to, Sir, with respect. Now did you see anybody firing teargas from the koyoko?

MS MASHININI: No, but the smell indicated that they were fired from a koyoko. Who else could have fired those?

MR LOWIES: Now when did you become aware of this smell?

MS MASHININI: There was smell all over. There was dark - it was dark and there was a cloud of smoke.

MR LOWIES: When did you become aware of the smell for the first time?

MS MASHININI: Sir, we left our houses, we were heading for the informal settlement. Sir, you're really giving me trouble.

MR LOWIES: Maybe because you're not telling the truth. I'm asking you when did you see the smell - or, become aware of the smell for the first time?

MS MASHININI: When these things happened there was a cloud of smoke in Serela and there was this smell.

MR LOWIES: Now when you're talking about when these things happened, are you talking about the attack or are you talking the next morning?

MS MASHININI: We've been told that there are deaths in our families. We left for the informal settlement. We looked at the time, it was 6 o'clock when we arrived there. We were going to look for our families.

MR LOWIES: But it's still not clear to me, when did you become aware of the smoke for the first time?

MS MASHININI: Sir, I was there. I heard the smell - I could smell. Now what are you referring to when you say ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: What he wants to find out, at what stage did you ...(indistinct) this smell for the first time?

MS MASHININI: I did not look at the watch, but when we arrived in the settlement it was 6 o'clock when we looked at our watches.

MR LOWIES: Are you assuming that the smell comes from the koyoko?

MS MASHININI: That's my assumption, where else could this funny smell come from.

MR LOWIES: You also assumed that the koyoko fired shots in the opposite direction than the people that it joined that night, correct?

MS MASHININI: When it joined the people - are you referring to the people who were in Bapedi Street?

MR LOWIES: Yes.

MS MASHININI: Yes, these people were going down, it came speeding, it joined them.

MR LOWIES: Now I want to put it to you that you are assuming a lot of things and one of those things that you are assuming is that the koyoko was working in conjunction with the attackers, and it's not true.

MS MASHININI: Sir, you will say that because you were not involved, nothing happened to you. I was there, I saw. I saw this. I will not come here and lie.

CHAIRPERSON: You see, what you're putting to this witness she never said that. She never testified that the police were working with the attackers, all she said was that she saw the koyoko along the street joining the attackers.

MR LOWIES: I want to put it to you that you're also assuming - let's hear, are you saying that the koyoko was working in conjunction with the attackers?

MS MASHININI: Sir, what I said was the koyoko joined these people. That's what I said.

MR LOWIES: That the koyoko helped the people or did it stop the people?

MS MASHININI: I don't know what kind of help you're talking about. Please listen.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lowies, you've covered this ground. Do you want this witness to say that the koyoko was working with the police?

MR LOWIES: Chairman, that - I am flabbergasted. I ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: All that the witness has told is that she saw the koyoko on the spot follow the attackers. It joined them. It came back later on. She never said that the police in the koyoko were working together with the police - I mean with the attackers.

MR LOWIES: Chairman, may I not explore whether this is indeed the fact? Because I could ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, if the witness has not said that.

MR LOWIES: I could very well imagine, Chairman, that at the end of the day it may be argued what did the koyoko do there? Why did it not do anything? And I mean if I don't canvass this with the witness I would not be able to rebut it. And I ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ... (indistinct) something that doesn't exist is not ...(indistinct) of inferences.

MR LOWIES: Well, may I not explore the inferences?

CHAIRPERSON: No, if it is irrelevant.

MR LOWIES: Well, Chairman, in that case I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY LOWIES

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Lowies. Yes, Mr Da Silva? Ms Pretorius?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PRETORIUS: Ms Mashinini, the shooting you say you heard, you don't know who shot, you just assumed it was the people from the koyoko.

MS MASHININI: I did not see, but I saw the koyoko turning and joining the group and the gunfire got worse.

MS PRETORIUS: So it could have been the group shooting at the koyoko?

MS MASHININI: Which group?

MS PRETORIUS: The people it was joining. You don't know.

MS MASHININI: I don't think that is the scenario.

MS PRETORIUS: But you can't say it did not happen like that.

MS MASHININI: I will not respond to what I do not understand.

MS PRETORIUS: I have no further questions, Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PRETORIUS

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well.

MR DA SILVA: Mr Chairman, you indicated that Ms Tanzer should ...

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS TANZER: When you first saw the koyoko, were you scared of the koyoko or did you think it was there to protect you?

MS MASHININI: I got shocked, I got scared when I saw this large group. When I saw the koyoko the fear worsened and I ran into the house.

MS TANZER: Did you have any prior warnings or did you hear anything, rumours that there was going to be an attack that night?

MS MASHININI: No, I never heard of anything because I was working.

MS TANZER: Thank you, no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS TANZER

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Da Silva.

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

NO QUESTIONS BY MR DA SILVA

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: No questions, Chairperson.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR MAPOMA

CHAIRPERSON: No re-examination?

MR CAMBANIS: There's no re-examination.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MS CAMBANIS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lax?

MR LAX: No questions, Chair.

MR SIBANYONI: I've got no questions, Mr Chairperson.

ADV SIGODI: No questions, Mr Chairperson

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Very well. You may stand down.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: The time now is about twenty to one, shouldn't we take a break now perhaps and then ...

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

CHAIRPERSON: Is the next witness ready?

MR CAMBANIS: The next witness is ready, but we've had a bit of a long stretch, we'd appreciate taking the adjournment now if we may.

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

MS CAMBANIS: Chair I did not hear you.

CHAIRPERSON: Shall we - Okay. We can do two things. One we can take the luncheon adjournment now and then perhaps come back at quarter past one or one thirty, or we can - what would work best? Do you have to leave at three today?

MR CAMBANIS: Tomorrow.

CHAIRPERSON: Tomorrow. Okay. Well, perhaps let's take the lunch adjournment now at half past one. Very well.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Are you ready to ...

MR BERGER: Chairperson, the next witness is Ms Florina Dlamini. Ms Cambanis had gone to locate her. I see they've just come into the hall now.

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

MR BERGER: I'm sorry, Judge, I thought the witness was going to be sworn in.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know what language she's going to speak?

MR BERGER: She's going to speak in Sotho. For the record, if I could just put her full names on the record. It's Selane Florina Dlamini.

SELANE FLORINA DLAMINI: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Berger.

MR BERGER: Thank you, Chairperson.

EXAMINATION BY MR BERGER: Ms Dlamini, is it correct that on the 17th of June 1992 you were living at 1110 Barolong Street, Boipatong?

MS DLAMINI: That's correct.

MR BERGER: Is it also correct that on that evening you were - immediately before the attack, you were at your house?

MS DLAMINI: Yes.

MR BERGER: And that there were other people also in the house with you?

MS DLAMINI: Yes.

MR BERGER: What was it that caught your attention that there was an attack happening?

MS DLAMINI: There is nothing, but I just heard the sound.

MR BERGER: What did you hear?

MS DLAMINI: I just heard the sound outside.

MR BERGER: The sound of what?

MS DLAMINI: As if people were smashing the windows outside. That's what I heard.

MR BERGER: Can you estimate what time that was?

MS DLAMINI: It was around 10 o'clock in the evening.

MR BERGER: Why do you say it was around ten?

MS DLAMINI: Because we had just watched the film in the dining room which started at half past nine until - it ran until 10 o'clock.

MR BERGER: That was on the TV.

MS DLAMINI: That's correct.

MR BERGER: When you heard the sound of windows smashing or being smashed, what did you do?

MS DLAMINI: I peeped through the window.

MR BERGER: And what did you see?

MS DLAMINI: I saw a large group of people.

MR BERGER: Could you estimate how many people?

MS DLAMINI: They could be more than 200.

MR BERGER: And what were they doing?

MS DLAMINI: They were moving along the tar road.

MR BERGER: What is the name of that road that they were moving along?

MS DLAMINI: That is Lekwa.

MR BERGER: How far was your house - is your house from Lekwa Street?

MS DLAMINI: I'm at the corner of Lekwa Street.

MR BERGER: The corner of Lekwa and Barolong.

MS DLAMINI: That's correct.

MR BERGER: Is it correct that your house was also attacked?

MS DLAMINI: That's correct.

MR BERGER: How long after you saw these men - or... - yes, these men moving along Lekwa Street was it that your house was attacked?

MS DLAMINI: The time when I said to the other people inside the house that they should hide themself under the beds then the smashing of the windows has started.

MR BERGER: That's the smashing of the windows of your house?

MS DLAMINI: That's correct.

MR BERGER: Did anyone come into your house?

MS DLAMINI: Two men entered the bedroom where we were.

MR BERGER: Could you describe these men?

MS DLAMINI: They were big men.

MR BERGER: And what were they wearing?

MS DLAMINI: What I recognises was their white headband.

MR BERGER: Were these black men or white men?

MS DLAMINI: They were black men.

MR BERGER: And then they proceeded to attack the people inside your house, is that correct?

MS DLAMINI: That's correct.

MR BERGER: What did they use in the attack?

MS DLAMINI: They were using spears. There were heavy spears with them.

MR BERGER: How many members of your family were injured in this attack?

MS DLAMINI: Are you referring to the people who were in the house?

MR BERGER: Yes.

MS DLAMINI: That's my daughter, my mother and myself.

MR BERGER: Was anybody killed inside the house?

MS DLAMINI: Yes, my mother and my daughter died as a result of the attack.

MR BERGER: The interpreter is indicating for you to come a bit closer to your microphone. During the attack did any of the men say anything?

MS DLAMINI: The one who attacked me and my daughter was speaking in Zulu.

MR BERGER: Do you remember what he said?

MS DLAMINI: He said: "These dogs should die because they killed our people."

MR BERGER: And when he said that he was busy stabbing you and your daughter.

MS DLAMINI: He started with me and those who were standing at the door said to him: "Let's go." And that ms when this man uttered this words.

MR BERGER: So it was during the attack on you, your daughter and your mother?

MS DLAMINI: After attacking me, he attacked my daughter and then uttered those words.

MR BERGER: How long - if you can, how long did this attack in your house last?

MS DLAMINI: It could not be long. It can be about fifteen minutes.

MR BERGER: According - to you it did not seem like a long time.

MS DLAMINI: They entered into the dining room and they broke the property and then they entered the bedroom and they stabbed us and I think - according to my estimation that could be fifteen minutes.

MR BERGER: And then how did the attack end? Did they just leave, walk out?

MS DLAMINI: The others said to the people who were attacking that they should all go and that's when they left.

MR BERGER: And which way did they go?

MS DLAMINI: The last one went through the gate. As I peeped through the window I could see the last one who went through the gate.

MR BERGER: And which way did that last one go?

MS DLAMINI: He went down Lekwa Street towards the shops.

MR BERGER: And what else did you see as you peeped out the window?

MS DLAMINI: As I was peeping through the window I could see the last one was going through the gate and I saw the hippo at the corner of that street.

MR BERGER: How far was the hippo from the last of the attackers as you saw at the corner?

MS DLAMINI: He was not far because my gate and the corner Barolong Street are close, very close.

MR BERGER: He was at the gate and the hippo was in which street?

MS DLAMINI: It was at the corner of Lekwa.

MR BERGER: The hippo was at the corner of Lekwa and Barolong.

MS DLAMINI: That's correct.

MR BERGER: And at that time the hippo - I beg your pardon, the last of the attackers was leaving your gate.

MS DLAMINI: That's correct.

MR BERGER: And where were the rest of the attackers?

MS DLAMINI: I could not see the rest because I saw the hippo.

MR BERGER: And in which direction was the hippo moving?

MS DLAMINI: Towards the shops.

MR BERGER: Up Lekwa Street towards the shops.

MS DLAMINI: That's correct.

MR BERGER: Is there anything else that you witnessed the hippo doing in relation to the attackers or as it moved up Lekwa Street?

MS DLAMINI: I did not see anything because I stopped peeping through the window because I was now attending to my kid.

MR BERGER: When the attackers left your house did they leave more or less as a group or did it happen in a different way?

MS DLAMINI: When they came first it was a large group.

MR BERGER: Yes, no I'm asking when the attackers who were in your house, when they left your house did they leave more or less as a group?

MS DLAMINI: I only saw this last one and I could not see the rest, and that's when I saw this hippo.

MR BERGER: Thank you, Chairperson. I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BERGER

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Yes, Mr Strydom.

MR STRYDOM: Thank you, Chair.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR STRYDOM: Ms Dlamini, did you give evidence in connection with this Boipatong massacre at the Goldstone Commission?

MS DLAMINI: Yes, I went to Vereeniging where we were giving statements.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, but did you sit down and give oral evidence in a committee similar to this?

MS DLAMINI: Yes, that was in Pretoria.

MR STRYDOM: You gave a statement in Vereeniging and you testified in Pretoria. Is that what you're saying?

MS DLAMINI: That's correct.

MR STRYDOM: In Pretoria when you gave evidence, were you referred to under some kind of different name or was it your own name you used?

MS DLAMINI: The name that I haven't mentioned here is Mukaba. Now because I'm known as Ms Dlamini because I married the Dlamini family.

MR STRYDOM: Did you give evidence at the criminal trial?

MS DLAMINI: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: And then you used the surname Mukaba, is that correct?

MS DLAMINI: Yes, I did.

MR STRYDOM: And as far as your memory serves you, did you mention to the Court during the criminal trial that you saw a hippo?

MS DLAMINI: Yes, I did.

MR STRYDOM: Apart from yourself in the house, were the following people also in that house, that 1110 Barolong Street? Steve Senekowa?

MS DLAMINI: He arrived after the attack.

MR STRYDOM: Maria Mukaba?

MS DLAMINI: I don't know Maria Mukaba.

MR STRYDOM: If the Committee can just bear with me. Do you know a person with the name of Salina Cihinane. I'll spell it C-I-H-I-N-A-N-E.

MS DLAMINI: I don't know her.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you spell that name again.

MR STRYDOM: C-I-H-I-N-A-N-E.

INTERPRETER: The witness said she doesn't know.

MR STRYDOM: Because I want to put to you that Steve Senekowa, Maria Mukaba and Saline Cihinane are the persons that testified in the criminal - during the criminal case in connection with what happened at 1110 Barolong Street. Do you have any comment?

MS DLAMINI: May I request you to tell me?

MR STRYDOM: No, we'll get to that. I just want to establish the names of the witnesses that you know that testified in connection what happened at 1110 Mosheshwe Street.

MR BERGER: It's not Mosheshwe.

MR STRYDOM: Sorry. Barolong Street.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you understand what was put to you?

MS DLAMINI: My understanding is that he wanted to tell me that Mr Senekowa and others have given evidence in the criminal trial. That is why I'm saying I'll ask him to tell me what they said.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. But as far as you can recall do you know whether they gave evidence at the criminal trial or not?

MS DLAMINI: I know Steve did, but I don't know Maria Mukaba. I only know Maria Dlamini who is my daughter.

CHAIRPERSON: And did Maria Dlamini give evidence at the criminal trial?

MS DLAMINI: No, she did not because she died on the same day of the attack.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and these other persons, Selina, do you know her?

MS DLAMINI: I don't know her, I only know Steve.

MR STRYDOM: Let me ask you this. Apart from the people that died in the house, were there other ...

...(end of side A of tape)

MS DLAMINI: I was with children in the house.

MR STRYDOM: And no adults, is that correct?

MS DLAMINI: No.

MR STRYDOM: You testified earlier on today that after the last person that you looked through the window. You saw that that person was now leaving and at that stage you saw a hippo, is that correct?

MS DLAMINI: That's correct.

MR STRYDOM: You also testified that the hippo you saw went up Lekwa Street. Is that right?

MS DLAMINI: That's correct.

MR STRYDOM: And in which direction was that person walking? Was he walking in the same direction as the hippo or in another direction?

MS DLAMINI: That's correct. That is down the street towards the shops.

MR STRYDOM: So the hippo was - just to get clarity - was then moving in the opposite direction as the person you saw leaving?

MR BERGER: No, Chairperson. The witness said the hippo was moving towards the shops. Then she said the last person was moving towards the shops. In one instance it was up and the other one it was down, but if one has a look at the street it can only be in one direction. From the corner of Lekwa and Barolong one can only move in one direction towards the shops.

MR STRYDOM: Yes. So basically what you are saying they were moving in the same direction, is that correct?

MS DLAMINI: That's correct, that is in the same direction.

MR STRYDOM: Now the people that attacked you, did they attack you whilst the lights in the house were off?

MS DLAMINI: There was a light inside although the lights were off, but the light could penetrate because the curtains had already fallen down.

MR STRYDOM: You mean light from outside?

MS DLAMINI: That's correct.

MR STRYDOM: Would you be able to identify the attackers?

MS DLAMINI: I could not see their faces well.

MR STRYDOM: How do you know that the person you saw, when you saw the hippo, was one of the people that was part of the attack?

MS DLAMINI: When he went through the kitchen door that's when I was throwing down the blankets moving towards the window. And through the window I could see him going through the gate.

MR STRYDOM: When he was going through the gate, where was the hippo?

MS DLAMINI: As you peep through you will hear the sound and then when you look further you will see that hippo. It was easy to recognise it.

MR STRYDOM: Yes but I want to know, at the time the last attacker left your premises, what was the position of the hippo?

MS DLAMINI: The hippo was at the corner of Barolong Street, moving.

MR STRYDOM: And at that stage this one person was the only attacker which you could see whilst you were peeping through the window.

MS DLAMINI: That's correct.

MR STRYDOM: Can you give a description of the hippo you saw?

MS DLAMINI: Do you want me to describe it or to tell you how it looked like?

MR STRYDOM: Ja. Yes, colour, can you give the colour firstly?

MS DLAMINI: It was dark green in colour.

MR STRYDOM: The lights of that vehicle, was it on or not?

MS DLAMINI: The lights were dim.

MR STRYDOM: Did you see any occupants in the vehicle?

MS DLAMINI: I did not look inside that hippo. I only saw it as it was passing by.

MR STRYDOM: I want to refer you to your statement, which statement was taken for purposes of the Goldstone Commission. Chairperson, it's already been handed in as an exhibit of the bundle of statements of witnesses. Let me just get the number. DG, page 41, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you say page 41?

MR STRYDOM: Page 49. I said 41, Chairperson, but apparently it's page 49. Chairperson, I still have a problem with the numbering, but that statement ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

MR STRYDOM: ...(indistinct) Dlamini. That's right. That's the statement I want to refer the witness to. Statement - it's an unsigned statement according to what I have here.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, the ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

MR BERGER: It's the second last one, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: The second last one.

MR BERGER: But Chairperson, the copy that I've got - I don't know if it's on yours as well - has got the name Flora Dlamini crossed out and it is unsigned.

MR STRYDOM: That's the statement I'm referring to. I'll ask the witness to identify the statement by reading certain portions. It may assist the witness to identify the statement. Chairperson, unfortunately that will be the only way to identify, if I read certain portions so that she can identify the statement, unless she can tell me that she admits this statement is hers. I'm not sure if she can read the statement by herself. Do you have a copy of the statement in front of you?

MS DLAMINI: No, I don't. It is written in English, I won't be able to read it.

MR STRYDOM: I will read certain portions to you and if you identify - if you're happy that it's your statement just please indicate so. It's states:

"I'm willing to give evidence to the Goldstone Commission, but do not want my name or exact address published. I feel that I might be attacked if it becomes known that I gave evidence."

MS DLAMINI: I don't know that.

MR STRYDOM:

"Before the 17th of June 1992 I was employed as a temporary worker in Meyerton."

Is that correct or not?

MS DLAMINI: That's correct.

MR STRYDOM:

"During the attack I sustained injuries which meant that I could not go to work."

MS DLAMINI: That's correct.

MR STRYDOM:

"I now also have to look after mydeceased daughter's child."

Is that correct?

MS DLAMINI: That's correct.

MR STRYDOM:

"On the night of the 17th of June1992 I was at home with other members of my family."

MS DLAMINI: That's correct.

MR STRYDOM:

"It was my mother, myself, my daughter aged 21, a second daughter aged 14, my four-year-old son and my daughter's two month old baby."

Is that correct information?

MS DLAMINI: Yes, my granddaughter is two months old.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what counsel wants to find out is what he has just read to you, is that information correct according to you?

MS DLAMINI: That's correct.

MR STR]DOM: I also want to put to you it seems to me this is in fact a statement of you. Would you admit that?

MS DLAMINI: Yes, I do.

MR STRYDOM: Without reading the full statement I want to put to you then that you go ahead to state what happened there, and it correlates with what you testified here today to some extent. But I want to refer you to a portion starting at paragraph 12, and tell me if it's correct.

"One of the men at the door then said in Zulu 'Let's go'."

MS DLAMINI: That's correct.

MR STRYDOM:

"As far as I can recall the man who had stabbed me mother ..."

It should probably read "my mother".

".. was already out of the room at that stage."

MS DLAMINI: Yes.

MR STRYDOM:

"The last one then also went out and all five of the men left the house."

Is that correct?

MS DLAMINI: The last one had already stabbed us then.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, but I assume it's after that.

"Then the last one then also went out and all five of the men left the house."

Is that correct?

MS DLAMINI: Yes, after the last one has stabbed my daughter they all went out.

MR STRYDOM: And then it's written here:

"I peeped through the window and saw two of them running up the road."

Is that correct?

MS DLAMINI: No, there was only one.

MR STRYDOM: So there must be a mistake here in the statement.

MS DLAMINI: Yes, concerning the second person.

MR STRYDOM: Before I read further. After that person ran away, did you start giving attention to the injured people in the house?

MS DLAMINI: After peeping through the window I went under the bed to look for those who had been injured during the attack.

MR STRYDOM: Paragraph 13 reads:

"I then lifted up my eldest daughter and called her name several times."

INTERPRETER: May I please ask Mr Strydom to repeat that portion, please.

MR STRYDOM:

"I then lifted up my eldest daughter and called her name several times."

MS DLAMINI: That's correct.

MR STRYDOM:

"She only moaned weakly a few times and then her head fell sideways. I think that she was then dead."

MS DLAMINI: That's correct.

MR STRYDOM: I don't want to read all this, to avoid the unpleasantness, so I'm not going to read paragraph 14. Would you just state then what did you do in the house. But the next paragraph reads, it's paragraph 15:

"As I was picking up the baby I heard the sound of a hippo coming up Lekwa Street from the direction of Mosheshwe Street."

MS DLAMINI: I don't know that.

MR STRYDOM: What's wrong with that portion of the statement?

MS DLAMINI: That I heard the sound of the Hippo in Mosheshwe Street. That one I don't know.

MR STRYDOM: Didn't you hear the sound of the hippo before you saw it?

MS DLAMINI: That's the one that I heard after we have been attacked. That's the only one that I heard.

MR STRYDOM: So after you have been attacked you heard a hippo, is that correct?

MS DLAMINI: Yes, that is the one that I saw when I peeped through the window.

MR STRYDOM: It goes further to state:

"I looked through the window and saw it passing the house."

MS DLAMINI: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: This was very soon after the men had left the house.

MS DLAMINI: Yes.

MR STRYDOM:

"In my view the people in the hippo ought to have been able to see the men moving up Lekwa Street."

MS DLAMINI: I don't know.

MR STRYDOM:

"I did not look out of the window in order to see where the hippo went or whether it took any action."

Is that correct?

MS DLAMINI: I don't understand that portion, Sir.

MR STRYDOM: After you heard the hippo, did you go and have a look to see what was making the sound?

MS DLAMINI: I was already peeping through the window because I was looking at that last person who just went through the gate.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, but - sorry, there was something else.

MS DLAMINI: That is when I heard the sound, but my intention was just to look for that person, that is the last person. That's when I heard this sound of the hippo.

MR STRYDOM: The question is, did you see the hippo?

MS DLAMINI: Yes, I did.

MR STRYDOM: And did you see - well, you already testified you saw the direction in which the hippo was driving.

MS DLAMINI: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: Now can you give any explanation why it is written in the statement that:

"I did not look out of the window in order to see where the hippo went or whether it took any action."

MS DLAMINI: When a person is taking a statement from you you will never know whether he's writing what you are telling him because as you are writing now I don't know whether you're writing what I'm telling you.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, in fairness to the witness the statement says:

"I looked through the window and saw it passing the house. This was very soon after the men had left the house."

Earlier on in the statement it says that the hippo came up Lekwa Street from the direction of Mosheshwe Street. If one considers what the witness has already told the Committee this morning, there's no inconsistency in that because her evidence is that the hippo - she saw the hippo through the window, passing up Lekwa Street in the direction of the shops. By implication it must have come from the direction of Mosheshwe Street which is one street below. So what my learned friend puts as an inconsistency in fact is not inconsistent at all.

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't that a matter for argument ...(indistinct). Which statement - you're referring ...(indistinct)

MR BERGER: The last sentence of the paragraph. I just enquire about that.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not activated.

CHAIRPERSON:

"I did not look out of the window in order to see where the hippo went or whether it took any action."

MR BERGER: Which is still what she's saying. She said she ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

MR STRYDOM: But Chairperson, I've read the full paragraph to her, but I will leave it at that. The point I want to make I'll just put it directly to her.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

MR STRYDOM: Ja. What I want to put to you, Ms Dlamini, is that according to the statement you did not see the hippo and an attacker or attackers at the same time, but according to your evidence you gave here today you saw at least the last attacker leaving your house and then at the same time saw the hippo. That's the difference I want to point out.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, and that's my objection. It's unfair because it - the statement does not say that the witness did not see the hippo and the last attacker at the same time. It does not say that.

CHAIRPERSON: What is his ...(indistinct)

MR BERGER: Her response was that she doesn't read English, so ...

MR STRYDOM: So what I want to put to you is I cannot argue that your house has been attacked, there's no argument about that, but my instructions from some of the attackers are that they did not work with or came in close proximity of hippos or military or police vehicles. So your evidence that you saw an attacker and a hippo at the same time is not correct.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand the applicant's case it's that once they were carrying on the attack they did not see any police vehicle in the township.

MR STRYDOM: That is the case and that's what I'm putting to the witness that - to the extent that her evidence is contrary to that instruction, she's not telling the truth.

MS DLAMINI: When you say I'm not telling the truth that's concerning what, Sir?

MR STRYDOM: That you saw an attacker and a hippo at the same time.

MS DLAMINI: That is correct, that's what I saw.

MR STRYDOM: What I'm suggesting to you is that you saw the attackers and some time passed and afterwards you saw a hippo or vehicles of the kind.

MS DLAMINI: That is not correct.

MR STRYDOM: Can you give any indication of the time when you saw the hippo?

MS DLAMINI: That is after we had been stabbed. The last of the attackers was going through the gate. As I was peeping through the window I saw the hippo passing by and that's when I went back to hide myself and attend to those who had been injured.

MR STRYDOM: You just referred to the last of the attackers, was it only one attacker that left when he saw the hippo or two as - let's just leave it at that, or two?

MS DLAMINI: I saw one who was leaving through the gate.

MR STRYDOM: Thank you, Chair, no more questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR STRYDOM

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well. Yes, Mr Lowies?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LOWIES: Ms Dlamini, in total, how many attackers did you see that night? Can you give us an estimate?

MS DLAMINI: According to my estimation there could have been around 2 000 of all the attackers that I saw that night.

MR LOWIES: When you saw the hippo ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Did you say 2 000 or 200?

MS DLAMINI: Yes.

MR LOWIES: ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

MR LOWIES: When you saw the hippo, during that time and after that time, that's now after you saw the hippo, did you see any attackers? It's not clear.

MS DLAMINI: Do you mean I saw the hippo before I saw the attackers?

MR LOWIES: No, I'm asking, I'm asking the following question. You now saw the hippo, whilst looking at the hippo or whilst seeing it, did you also see attackers? And the second part is, and after that did you also see attackers ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Why don't allow her to answer the first question.

MS DLAMINI: After the hippo I did not see the attackers.

MR LOWIES: ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

MR LOWIES: Whilst seeing the hippo did you see any attackers?

MS DLAMINI: I did not see them again.

MR LOWIES: Were your attackers already in the house when you saw the hippo, or did they already leave?

MS DLAMINI: The last of the attackers was leaving through the gate.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, just for clarity. When you are saying the last of the attackers was leaving through the gate, do you mean the attackers who were in your house or do you mean the attackers as a whole, even those who did not enter your house?

MS DLAMINI: That is the last one who was left behind in the house.

MR LOWIES: Can you dispute it that the hippo did not see any attackers?

MS DLAMINI: Well, I have never been inside the hippo, so I don't know whether you are able to see when you are inside or not.

MR LOWIES: I want to put it to you that if there was a hippo it was not aware of the attackers and the attackers were also not aware of the hippo.

INTERPRETER: May I please ask Mr Lowies to repeat that statement again.

MR LOWIES: I want to put it to you, if there was a hippo then the hippo did not see the attackers.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, on what basis can ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: And the attackers didn't see the hippo either.

Ma'am, what's being put to you is the following proposition. If there was a hippo, the hippo didn't see the attackers and the attackers didn't see the hippo either.

MS DLAMINI: That is why I'm saying that I've never been inside of that hippo. I don't know whether when you are inside you are able to see people who are outside, through that window, dark window.

MR LOWIES: My clients didn't see any hippos.

MS DLAMINI: I don't know.

MR LOWIES: I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LOWIES

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Ma'am.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PRETORIUS: How many people did enter your house, Ms Dlamini?

MS DLAMINI: Those that I saw could be seven because the other two were inside and the others were just standing at the door.

MS PRETORIUS: No further questions, thank you, Mr Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PRETORIUS

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS TANZER: When you talk of a hippo, is this an army vehicle, or a police vehicle?

MS DLAMINI: This hippo is used by SAPs. You will see them protruding through the roof.

MS TANZER: So according to my client's version, Mr Nosenga, when he says the police assisted in the attack, is that what you witnessed that night?

CHAIRPERSON: Ma'am, she didn't say that, did she?

MS TANZER: I'm asking her the question, Mr Commissioner.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

MS TANZER: I'll rephrase. Mr Nosenga gave evidence that he was part of the attackers that attacked Boipatong and that they were assisted by the SAP Police in the attack. Does that correlate in any way to what you saw or were a witness to on the night of the attack?

MS DLAMINI: Well I cannot say because it was following that person. Therefore, I don't know, I cannot comment on that.

MS TANZER: Thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS TANZER

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Da Silva?

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

NO QUESTIONS BY MR DA SILVA

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

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Any re-examination?

MR BERGER: None, thank you Chairperson.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR BERGER

CHAIRPERSON: Adv Sigodi?

ADV SIGODI: No, no questions, Chairperson.

MR SIBANYONI: No questions, Chairperson.

MR LAX: No questions, thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ma'am, you may stand down.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MR BERGER: Chairperson, the next witness was supposed to be Ms Diana Manyika, but apparently she's not here today. Could we have a very short adjournment just to consider our position and perhaps come in and speak to you in chambers on what our position is?

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

MR BERGER: We are going to have to see what we can do, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Shall we then rise until we hear from counsel in chambers.

MR BERGER: Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll take a short adjournment.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Berger, would you just record the position.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, as I indicated in the Committee room, the victims have only one further witness whom they wish to call and that is Ms Diana Manyika. Unfortunately she is at school at the moment, but we have taken steps for her to be made aware that her evidence is required tomorrow morning, and we have asked members of the community to ensure that she is here before 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. They have undertaken to do so. With your leave, Chairperson, we would ask that the matter be stood down until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Strydom, do you have any objection if this matter were ...?

MR STRYDOM: No objection.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LOWIES: I have no objection.

MS PRETORIUS: No objection.

MR DA SILVA: I have no objection.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well. Yes, Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: No objection, Sir.

MS TANZER: No objection.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well. Okay, very well, this matter will stand down until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock when we will hear the evidence of Diana Manyika. Mr Greeff and Mr Chaka, will you just call them in please.

MR LOWIES: Chairman, regarding Mr Greeff, I had been requested to request you that he be excused and I forgot to do so. He's got a business, a butchery apparently and he's got a crisis there. Not that I'm acting for him, I think I was the first person out of the room.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Chaka, the victims desire to call one more witness, Diana Manyika, who is presently at school and will only be available to give evidence tomorrow morning, and because of that this matter will then have to stand down until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock when we will hear the evidence of Diana Manyika. Do you understand that?

MR CHAKA: I understand. I don't have any problem with that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yew, very well. These proceedings are then adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

20-07-1999: Day 2 (Resumed Hearing)

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Strydom, the document that you handed to us on the Committee roll, that has not been given an exhibit number has it?

MR STRYDOM: No Mr Chairman, I think the next exhibit number is Exhibit KK.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes very well. Are you ready Mr Berger?

MR BERGER: Thank you Chairperson, yes. Chairperson, just before I start, Mr Malindi asked me to convey his apologies. He had some family issues which he had to deal with and he won't be present today but we can proceed without him.

Chairperson, the next witness is Sibongile Diana Manyika. She will be giving evidence in isiZulu.

SIBONGILE DIANA MANYIKA: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR BERGER: Mrs Manyika, is it correct that on the 17th June 1992 you were living at 734 Bafokeng Street, Boipatong?

MS MANYIKA: That is correct.

MR BERGER: With whom were you living at that time?

MS MANYIKA: With my siblings as well as my parents.

MR BERGER: How many siblings were there in the house at that time?

MS MANYIKA: There were seven of us, that is everyone in the family.

MR BERGER: Including your mother and father?

MS MANYIKA: Including my parents would be nine.

MR BERGER: And that night all nine of you were in the house before the attack, is that correct?

MS MANYIKA: Yes, we were all at home.

MR BERGER: Is it correct that by the time you became aware of the attack you had already been asleep?

MS MANYIKA: That is correct.

MR BERGER: What woke you?

MS MANYIKA: I heard the shattering of windows.

MR BERGER: Was that the windows of other houses or the windows of your house that you heard?

MS MANYIKA: That was my house windows.

MR BERGER: What did you do when you heard the windows of your house shattering?

MS MANYIKA: I woke up and I began asking myself what was happening. I then thought that it was the comrades because they had been sitting around a fire that they had made.

MR BERGER: Now I'm going to ask you just to speak a little slower as well. The comrades that you had seen sitting around a fire, had that been at an earlier stage before you'd gone to sleep?

MS MANYIKA: Yes, I saw them before they went to bed, they were sitting around a fire, that is because my house is at the corner.

MR BERGER: At the corner of which street?

MS MANYIKA: At the corner of Bafokeng and Hlube Streets.

MR BERGER: Earlier in the day you had also seen certain action involving the comrades, is that right?

MS MANYIKA: Yes the comrades were patrolling in the township.

MR BERGER: And the police were involved?

MS MANYIKA: The comrades usually patrolled the streets because we had already heard rumours that the IFP was going to attack Boipatong. The police dispersed the comrades, chasing them away from the streets so that they could go home.

MR BERGER: That dispersing, that was earlier in the day of the 17th June 1992, is that right?

MS MANYIKA: Yes.

MR BERGER: And the rumours that were circulating about a possible attack on Boipatong, were those rumours specifically for the 17th or were those just general rumours?

MS MANYIKA: It was not specified, there was just this rumour that there was going to be an attack.

MR BERGER: Now you said that when you woke up you thought that the attack on your house was by the comrades whom you had earlier seen standing around the fire, is that right?

MS MANYIKA: That is correct.

MR BERGER: How did things develop from there, was it the comrades who were attacking or what happened?

MS MANYIKA: No it was not the comrades. At that time I heard the kitchen door opening. I heard the kitchen door being smashed with a stone.

MR BERGER: What happened?

MS MANYIKA: I saw very frightening men entering the door, they had white headbands on their heads. At that time I was in the passage.

MR BERGER: And what did they do as they came into the house?

MS MANYIKA: I heard one saying "kill the dogs".

MR BERGER: In Zulu?

MS MANYIKA: Yes in Zulu.

MR BERGER: And was anything done to the house?

MS MANYIKA: When I asked them what have we done one of them said "shut up you bitch".

MR BERGER: And then what happened?

MS MANYIKA: Thereafter everyone was awake by that time, we were all standing at the passage. I thought these people were going to kill us. I then went to the dining room door, I opened it. As I was opening it I saw a large group of people. There were so many that I could not estimate how many there were. There were also women amongst them.

MR BERGER: Sorry, Mrs Manyika, could you just slow down a little? Right, you were at the dining room door and where did you see this group of people?

MS MANYIKA: I was standing outside in the yard. They had divided themselves into groups, some were standing outside the yard.

MR BERGER: Would that be in Hlube Street or Bafokeng or both?

MS MANYIKA: Bafokeng Street.

MR BERGER: And you said there were women amongst them, ululating?

MS MANYIKA: Yes they were ululating.

MR BERGER: What happened then?

MS MANYIKA: As I was stepping outside the door, some of them grabbed hold of me. Even today I still ask myself how I escaped because they grabbed me. I started running, some of them followed me.

MR BERGER: Where were you running?

MS MANYIKA: I then jumped over some fences. I was running behind the houses in Hlube Street.

MR BERGER: So you were jumping over the fences of houses which are situated along Hlube Street?

MS MANYIKA: Yes.

MR BERGER: And you were running away from Bafokeng Street?

MS MANYIKA: Yes.

MR BERGER: Who were you running from?

MS MANYIKA: I was running away from the attackers because when I looked back I realised that they were still chasing me and there were three of them chasing me.

MR BERGER: You looked back, you saw the attackers chasing you?

MS MANYIKA: Yes.

MR BERGER: As you looked back at the attackers did you see anything else?

MS MANYIKA: Yes I did see a koyoko driving slowly.

MR BERGER: And where was this koyoko?

MS MANYIKA: It was on Hlube Street.

MR BERGER: Would it be correct to say that the three attackers who were chasing you at that time were between you and this koyoko?

MS MANYIKA: They were chasing me until I went into a house number 743, Hlube Street. That's where I knocked and when they had already turned back that's where I saw the koyoko passing by.

MR BERGER: Yes, now my question was when you looked back and saw the three attackers you said you also saw this koyoko in Hlube Street?

MS MANYIKA: That is correct.

MR BERGER: Was the koyoko behind the attackers when you looked back?

MS MANYIKA: That is correct.

MR BERGER: Then you say you took refuge in 743 Bafokeng?

MS MANYIKA: That is correct.

MR BERGER: And what happened to the three attackers?

MS MANYIKA: They turned back.

MR BERGER: And is it after that that you saw this koyoko drive past 743?

MR LAX: Sorry Mr Berger. I think there may be a mistake here that's been made. Originally you said she was behind the houses in Hlube Street running away from Bafokeng Street and then I made a note that she went into 743 Hlube Street. You've just said Bafokeng Street, I'm just worried we may be making a mistake.

MR BERGER: Thank you Mr Lax, it probably is my error. Mrs Manyika, could we just clarify that? When you took refuge where did you take refuge, 743 which street?

MS MANYIKA: Hlube Street.

MR BERGER: And was it while you were taking refuge at 743 Hlube that the koyoko which you had seen then drove past?

MS MANYIKA: That is correct.

MR BERGER: Now after you had taken refuge did the attack come to an end?

MS MANYIKA: That is correct.

MR BERGER: How long would you say it took for the attack to come to an end from the time that you had taken refuge?

MS MANYIKA: It did not take long because as I was hiding there I thought of my home, thinking about what had transpired there. That was when I informed the people of number 743, that I wanted to go back home. They opened the door for me and I went home. As I arrived at home I found that the lights were on but no one was inside the house. I went to look for them at the neighbours house and I found them at the neighbours. I enquired about my parents where they were and they said they did not know. One of our neighbours approached and she called to me and said I should come and see where my mother lay. I asked myself that if my mother had died at the neighbours she must have been following me but because she was old she could not run fast that is why she got killed.

MR BERGER: How old was your mother at the time she was killed?

MS MANYIKA: I do not remember what her age was at the time but she was born in 1948.

MR BERGER: And your father? What happened to him?

MS MANYIKA: We got a message that he had been taken by an ambulance. Thereafter we got a message that he had died in hospital.

MR BERGER: Thank you Chair, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BERGER

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Strydom?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR STRYDOM: Thank you Chairperson.

Mrs Manyika, do you remember that you testified in Pretoria during the criminal trial?

MS MANYIKA: I remember giving evidence in Delmas, not Pretoria.

MR STRYDOM: Sorry, I apologise, that's indeed correct. Before you gave evidence did you make a statement to the police or the state advocates?

MS MANYIKA: There were people who would arrive wanting statements from us, there were many statements that were taken at the time.

MR STRYDOM: At Delmas itself, did you make a statement at Delmas, outside court?

MS MANYIKA: Yes, the statement I'm referring to now.

MR STRYDOM: Yes and in that statement did you mention that you saw a koyoko whilst you were running away?

MS MANYIKA: They did not ask me about the police. Had they questioned me on it I would have given that information. I responded to questions that was being asked.

CHAIRPERSON: Is the position that you did not mention seeing the koyoko in your statement at Delmas because no one asked you about that?

MS MANYIKA: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: When was the first time for you to mention that you saw a koyoko?

MS MANYIKA: Please repeat the question?

MR STRYDOM: When did you mention for the first time to any person that you saw a koyoko that night?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Strydom?

MR STRYDOM: The question I asked was when did you mention for the first time to any person that you saw a koyoko on the night of the attack?

MS MANYIKA: I first mentioned it when we were at the Roman Catholic Church.

MR STRYDOM: When was that?

MS MANYIKA: I do not remember.

MR STRYDOM: Was it recently or shortly after the attack?

MS MANYIKA: It was after the attack.

MS MANYIKA: And do you remember to which person did you tell this?

MS MANYIKA: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: Who was that?

MS MANYIKA: Mr Berger.

MR STRYDOM: Did Mr Berger come to you shortly after the attack or just recently? If I refer to recently within the last say two years?

MS MANYIKA: Please repeat the question?

MR STRYDOM: You just told the Committee that the first person you told that you saw a koyoko was Mr Berger. I just want to get a time frame here, when more or less did you tell this to Mr Berger?

MS MANYIKA: I said I do not remember.

MR SIBANYONI: Do you perhaps remember which year was it?

MS MANYIKA: When the hearing began.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying that it was at the beginning of this year?

MS MANYIKA: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: And before that you told nobody that you saw any koyoko, that you saw a koyoko on the night of the attack?

MS MANYIKA: No.

MR STRYDOM: Why didn't you tell any person before Mr Berger that you saw a koyoko?

MS MANYIKA: No one asked me about the police. He is the only person who asked me about it.

MR STRYDOM: When you gave evidence at the criminal trial held at Delmas did you feel free to tell the court everything you knew about the attack?

MS MANYIKA: Yes I was free.

MR STRYDOM: And did you try to tell the court everything you remembered about the attack?

MS MANYIKA: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: Why didn't you mention anything about the koyoko during your evidence in the criminal trial?

MS MANYIKA: I was not certain that the police had been involved in the attack but they had been present. I was of the opinion, I thought that they had been helping the residents of Boipatong. That is the reason why I did not mention them. Moreover, after that, after the attack the koyoko arrived to pick up my mother's body. I thought they were helping us, that is why I did not mention them.

MR STRYDOM: I want to put to you that the applicants for whom I appear already testified that they were not accompanied by koyokos and what I also want to put to you is that the only koyokos you saw was after the attack. What do you say about that?

MS MANYIKA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Ma'am, two questions were put to you. The first one was that the applicants who have applied for amnesty told us that there were no police during the attack, do you understand that?

MS MANYIKA: Yes I do.

CHAIRPERSON: Now what do you say to that?

MS MANYIKA: That is what they say.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay and then the second question that was put to you is that the koyoko that you saw was after the attack. What do you say to that?

MS MANYIKA: After the attack the koyoko that I saw was the one that came to pick up my mother's body. During the attack there was another one that I saw, that is when I went to the neighbours house. It was passing, driving by slowly, I do not know what happened to it thereafter.

CHAIRPERSON: And you also saw a koyoko which came to pick up your mother?

MS MANYIKA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: I want to - before I do that, whilst you were running away towards the house where you sought refuge, did you look back at a certain stage?

MS MANYIKA: Yes I did look back.

MR STRYDOM: What did you see when you looked back?

MS MANYIKA: I saw that people had been chasing me and realised that there were three of them.

MR STRYDOM: Anything else?

MS MANYIKA: I also saw the koyoko.

MR STRYDOM: And apart from that anything else?

MS MANYIKA: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you see a koyoko three times? The first occasion being when you looked back you saw a koyoko, this is while being chased by these three attackers, is that right?

MS MANYIKA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay and then the second occasion was when you were at house 743 Hlube Street when you saw a koyoko driving past?

MS MANYIKA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And the third occasion was when you saw a koyoko which came to pick your mother up?

MS MANYIKA: That is correct.

MR STRYDOM: I want to refer you to your evidence and for record purposes. It appears in volume 4 and the portion I want to refer the witness to appears on page 369.

CHAIRPERSON: What's the reference again?

MR STRYDOM: Volume 4, page 369. I'll read the Afrikaans and then translate it:

"I went out through the door."

It seems to me that the interpreter can understand the Afrikaans, must I translate the Afrikaans or can the interpreter translate the Afrikaans?

INTERPRETER: It is the other interpreter that understands Afrikaans, I request that she do interpret into English.

MR STRYDOM: I'll try my best.

"When I look back again, I saw that my parent's home was surrounded."

CHAIRPERSON: Whose home?

MR STRYDOM: Parent's home. "ouerhuis".

"I heard one of them say here's another dog, kill it. They wanted to grab me and then I fled. Whilst I was busy fleeing I looked back and saw that my mother was following me. She was also busy fleeing. I don't know what happened further in the house."

And then the question was:

"Where did you flee to?"

"I fled to the third house from my parent's home. I jumped the fence and whilst I was looking back I could see that the people are following me. I didn't see what happened to my mother. When I arrived at the house I knocked on the door and the opened the door for me."

Do you remember giving this evidence?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, would that be the evidence-in-chief or was that under cross-examination?

MR STRYDOM: That was part of the evidence-in-chief.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the beginning of the evidence-in-chief?

MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, the evidence starts at page 367 and this is on page 369 so this - ja that's very much towards the beginning of the evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: How long is the evidence?

MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, it carries on until page 393, 27 pages.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: The portion of your evidence I just put to you, do you remember giving that evidence?

MS MANYIKA: Yes I do remember.

MR STRYDOM: At that stage you were telling your version of what happened there on that night, is that right?

MS MANYIKA: That is correct.

MR STRYDOM: Why didn't you mention at that stage when you looked back that you saw a koyoko?

MS MANYIKA: I've already mentioned that I was not questioned on that.

MR STRYDOM: Yes but that's not a situation where you were asked a question and then immediately give an answer, you told your version from a certain time till a time when you arrived at the house you fled to, so why didn't you mention the koyoko?

MS MANYIKA: I did not mention it because I had thought that they were there to assist us, I was not aware that they were part of the attackers.

MR STRYDOM: Is this portion of your evidence correct that when you looked back saw your mother was also in the process of fleeing?

MS MANYIKA: Yes I did see her.

MR STRYDOM: I asked you a while ago what did you see when you looked back and you didn't mention that you saw your mother was also fleeing. Why not?

MS MANYIKA: The last time I saw my mother was when she was running behind me and when I looked back I saw the attackers following me. I do not know what happened to my mother.

MR STRYDOM: Is this evidence correct that you fled to the third house from your parent's house?

MS MANYIKA: That is correct.

MR STRYDOM: And your parent's house is the house on the corner where Hlube and Bafokeng Streets meet, is that right?

MS MANYIKA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Is the third house that you are referring to 743 Hlube Street?

MS MANYIKA: That is correct.

MR STRYDOM: I want to refer the witness to Exhibit J, perhaps someone can just show her Exhibit J?

CHAIRPERSON: Would that be the map?

MR STRYDOM: Yes Chairman.

Do you see Bafokeng Street and Hlube Street on that map?

MS MANYIKA: Yes I do.

MR STRYDOM: And that house, was it number 734, that's your parent's house, is that right?

MS MANYIKA: That is correct.

MR STRYDOM: And 743 Hlube Street is the fifth house from your parent's house, is that right?

MS MANYIKA: Yes it is the fifth house.

MR STRYDOM: So is that the house where you fled to?

MS MANYIKA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: What is your parent's house number?

MS MANYIKA: 734.

CHAIRPERSON: 734, that is Bafokeng, right?

MS MANYIKA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: That would be the house right at the corner there?

MS MANYIKA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Now 743 would be the fifth house from your parent's house?

MS MANYIKA: That is correct.

MR STRYDOM: Thank you.

After you left your parent's house, if you look at the map now can you just tell the Committee in which direction did you run?

MS MANYIKA: I went towards number 743.

MR STRYDOM: So did you run down Hlube Street in the direction of 743?

MS MANYIKA: There is Bafokeng and Hlube, I ran behind the houses in Hlube Street. I was not on the street but I was running through their yards.

MR STRYDOM: Yes so that would be between the houses in Bafokeng Street and the houses in Hlube Street?

MR LAX: No, she's talking about Hlube Street.

MR STRYDOM: I said between the houses of Bafokeng and Hlube Streets.

MR LAX: Through the yards of the houses in Hlube Street.

MR STRYDOM: Ja. Where did you jump the fence?

MS MANYIKA: My home is just situated on the corner, there isn't a ...(indistinct) - but behind my home. My next door neighbour doesn't have a fence that is where I went into and from there I just went over the other fence into the next house and I jumped over another fence into the next house then until I went into number 743.

MR STRYDOM: So whilst you were taking that route through the yards of these houses is that the time when you looked back?

MS MANYIKA: That is correct. I turned back to check if the attackers were still behind me.

MR STRYDOM: And then you saw three attackers behind you at a certain time, is that right?

MS MANYIKA: That is correct.

MR STRYDOM: And at that stage you were still amongst the houses?

MS MANYIKA: Yes at that time I was running through these yards.

MR STRYDOM: But where did you see the koyoko then?

MS MANYIKA: As I was running.

MR STRYDOM: Yes but I want the position of the koyoko, was it also travelling amongst the houses or along the road or where?

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand your evidence you were running at the back of the houses that are along Hlube Street, is that right?

MS MANYIKA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And you were jumping fences as you ran along?

MS MANYIKA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And then at some point you then crossed over to move onto the house that is the house 743 I think it is, which is along ...(indistinct), which is in Hlube? Okay, yes very well, right. And then you entered this house?

MS MANYIKA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you enter this house from Hlube Street or from the back? I mean if you can recall?

MS MANYIKA: The door was at the back.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes okay. Now what counsel wants to find out is at what stage did you see the koyoko?

MS MANYIKA: I saw the koyoko when they were still chasing after me because when I looked back checking on the attackers who were following me, my eyes also noticed the koyoko. It was driving along Hlube Street.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, was it proceeding towards the corner of Bafokeng and Hlube or was it proceeding towards ...(intervention)

MS MANYIKA: That is correct.

MR STRYDOM: So just to get it clear, so you from your position from behind the houses in Hlube Street you saw a koyoko travelling in Hlube Street, is that what you're saying?

MS MANYIKA: That is correct.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, can I just get some clarity on what the Chairperson just asked you now? In which direction was this koyoko travelling?

MS MANYIKA: It was coming from the direction she's pointing going towards the other direction. It was travelling along Hlube Street.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: Which was the point where Hlube meets Bafokeng or was it proceeding in the direction towards Lebwa?

MS MANYIKA: Yes.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, the witness is indicating on the map that it was driving from the direction of the corner of Bafokeng and Hlube Street, down Hlube in the direction of 743, in other words away from the corner of Hlube and Bafokeng proceeding towards Lekwa, yes.

MR STRYDOM: Now what I want to put to you is that the koyoko could not have been in between yourself and the three people that chased you?

MS MANYIKA: I didn't say that.

CHAIRPERSON: The people who were chasing you they were also running behind the houses in Hlube Street, were they? Jumping the fences? They were not on the road were they?

MS MANYIKA: Yes.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, my learned friend is incorrect, the witness never said that the koyoko was between her and the attackers.

CHAIRPERSON: Behind the houses as well.

MR STRYDOM: This koyoko you saw in Hlube Street travelling in the direction of Lekwa Street, at a stage you were running away. Can you give any description of that vehicle?

MS MANYIKA: I don't want to lie, I cannot describe police vehicles but I know a koyoko when I see one, I don't know these others.

MR STRYDOM: Yes but can you say if it was a yellow vehicle, brown vehicle, green or camouflage, what kind of painted vehicle? Can you give any description or not?

MS MANYIKA: No.

MR STRYDOM: The vehicle you saw later on, that is when you were already at house 743 Hlube, did it look similar to the vehicle you saw first or not?

MS MANYIKA: I don't know, I don't know whether they're the same or not.

MR STRYDOM: And the vehicle you saw later on is the third time you saw a koyoko, could you say if it looked the same as the vehicle you saw the second time or not?

MS MANYIKA: I'm unable to say so.

MR STRYDOM: What was the general position of the light at that stage whilst you were running? Was it dark, could you see properly or what?

MS MANYIKA: There was light.

CHAIRPERSON: As you were running behind these houses, the first time you saw the koyoko, what part of the koyoko did you see?

MS MANYIKA: The side of the koyoko.

CHAIRPERSON: When you saw it was it parallel with you when you were running along these houses?

MS MANYIKA: I didn't take notice of that because I was scared. The way I was scared, I was scared for my life and I didn't know what was going on.

MR STRYDOM: You also testified that you saw people who you said were women in the house?

MR BERGER: No, she never said they were in the house, she said they were ululating outside the house.

MR STRYDOM: Sorry. You saw women just outside the house, is that correct?

MS MANYIKA: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: Did you see their faces or because they made these sounds you thought they were women?

MS MANYIKA: No I didn't see their faces but the voices were female voices.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes but the people that you saw they were women were they not?

MS MANYIKA: Yes, together with men.

MR STRYDOM: During your evidence at the trial you also did not mention that you thought that there were women amongst the attackers?

CHAIRPERSON: She is not saying and her evidence is not that she thought they were women, she says she saw the women.

MR STRYDOM: Yes Chairperson.

But what I'm putting to you is that at the criminal trial you made no mention of these women. Why not?

MS MANYIKA: No I didn't mention them.

MR STRYDOM: The question is why not?

MS MANYIKA: I don't know why but there were women present during the attack.

MR STRYDOM: I just want to put to you that according to my instructions there were no women that formed part of the attack on that specific night.

MS MANYIKA: This is what they are saying.

MR STRYDOM: When you first heard the noises and you thought that the house was now under attack, why did you think that the comrades could be responsible for that?

MS MANYIKA: I said the last time I saw the comrades were around a fire therefore that's why I thought they were the ones who were attacking. One thing you should remember when you are just attacked while you are asleep you don't even think properly because you're still asleep, you're not awake and when your enemy attacks you.

CHAIRPERSON: When you heard the shattering of the windows why did you think that the comrades were responsible for that? Do you understand the question?

MS MANYIKA: I do understand and I thought it was the comrades responsible because the last time I saw them they were around a fire outside.

CHAIRPERSON: In other words, the simple question is, why would the comrades attack your house?

MS MANYIKA: I was asleep, I think that's why I came to that conclusion.

MR STRYDOM: Early during the course of the day of the attack, you said that the comrades were dispersed, is that correct?

MS MANYIKA: Correct.

MR STRYDOM: Can you give any indication of time when this happened?

MS MANYIKA: No, I do not remember.

MR STRYDOM: Was it already dark or still in the afternoon?

MS MANYIKA: I do not remember.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR STRYDOM

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Yes Mr Lowies?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LOWIES: Can you remember whether it was the police that dispersed them?

MS MANYIKA: Yes it was the police.

MR LOWIES: How did they disperse them?

MS MANYIKA: They were telling them to leave the streets where they were patrolling.

MR LOWIES: Did you hear this?

MS MANYIKA: Yes I heard.

MR LOWIES: Did they fire any shots at the comrades or any teargas?

MS MANYIKA: No they didn't. They were just telling them to leave to go to their respective homes.

MR LOWIES: What did they say? Can you recall more or less the words that they used?

MS MANYIKA: No, I do not remember.

MR LOWIES: Was it during daylight?

MS MANYIKA: I can't remember.

MR LOWIES: Did the comrades disperse?

MS MANYIKA: Yes.

MR LOWIES: Now how long after this did you see the comrades at the fires?

MS MANYIKA: It wasn't too long.

MR LOWIES: So it doesn't seem to me that the comrades adhered to the instruction in that they returned?

MS MANYIKA: It is so.

MR LOWIES: But you can't give us an estimate how long that was, not even an estimate that they again gathered at the fires?

MS MANYIKA: This happened a long time. I do remember some of the things and some of the things I cannot remember and I cannot tell something that I cannot remember, I'd be lying. I only tell of something that I remember.

MR LOWIES: Now was a regular thing for the police to tell the comrades to disperse?

MS MANYIKA: No it wasn't.

MR LOWIES: Did you see it before?

MS MANYIKA: It was the first time.

MR LOWIES: Do you know whether it was the police or the municipal police?

MS MANYIKA: No I do not know that.

MR LOWIES: Did you see any tyres on the day of the attack?

MS MANYIKA: I do not understand your question?

CHAIRPERSON: Where?

MR LOWIES: In your house or near your house?

CHAIRPERSON: What tyres are you talking about? Did I hear you say tyres?

MR LOWIES: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Tyres? Where on the car or the motor vehicles?

MR LOWIES: Loose tyres that were burning.

CHAIRPERSON: I think the question, ma'am, is this. Did you see any burning tyres on the night in question?

MS MANYIKA: When the attackers entered the house they brought the tyre which was used by the comrades earlier on and they threw it inside the house. That's the only tyre that I saw.

MR LOWIES: And at what stage was that, were they already in the house or did they bring it with them on entering the house?

MS MANYIKA: When they entered I didn't see when they threw the tyre inside the house but when we woke up there was a strong smell of that tyre and we realised that this is the tyre that was being used by the comrades and the attackers threw it inside the house.

CHAIRPERSON: Was this tyre inside the house?

MS MANYIKA: Yes, inside the house.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, alright.

MR LOWIES: Did you actually see the tyre inside the house or did you just smell it?

MS MANYIKA: I saw it. When I came back from the house where I hid myself it was still burning inside the house.

MR LOWIES: Did it cause any damage to the house?

MS MANYIKA: Yes, it caused damage, it burned the tiles.

MR LOWIES: Now the comrades that you saw that night, did you know any of them?

MS MANYIKA: Yes.

MR LOWIES: How many of them did you know?

MS MANYIKA: I knew my neighbours son, he is now in prison. He's the one that I knew.

MR LOWIES: Why didn't you seek help from the koyoko?

MS MANYIKA: When I woke up from my sleep I was dizzy, I was confused, I didn't know what was going on and I didn't know what I was supposed to do.

MR LOWIES: No but whilst you were running, why didn't you run towards the koyoko?

MS MANYIKA: I didn't think so.

MR LOWIES: But you thought at that stage that the koyoko was there to help you?

MS MANYIKA: I was running behind the houses and I was jumping fences and the attackers were right behind me, how was I supposed to turn back and go to the koyoko?

CHAIRPERSON: What counsel is asking you is the following. You told us that you were of the view that the police were there to protect the residents of Boipatong. Now you have these attackers who are chasing you and you see a koyoko. Now what counsel wants to find out is, why you then run in the direction of the koyoko so as to seek protection from the police?

MS MANYIKA: I don't know.

MR LOWIES: Why didn't you shout at the koyoko for help?

MS MANYIKA: I don't know.

MR LOWIES: Isn't it so that you were so confused that you didn't actually see a koyoko or maybe now thought that you saw one?

MS MANYIKA: I did see a koyoko.

MR LOWIES: But ma'am you will agree with me that if you thought at that stage that the koyoko was there to help you, that would have been the best place to run to, not so?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lowies ...(intervention)

MS MANYIKA: I don't you know, this is what you are saying to me.

MR LOWIES: I missed what you were saying, sorry Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: I'm saying you've asked the question why didn't she run towards the koyoko. She's given us the answer. Repeating the question is not going to get us anywhere.

MR LOWIES: Well Chairperson, is your ruling that I'm not entitled in cross-examination to put a question more than once in a different manner?

CHAIRPERSON: Indeed, yes.

MR LOWIES: Well Chairperson, with respect, I can't cross-examine under these circumstances, I would like to refer you,

with respect, to the well known book of Coleman on cross-examination wherein, with respect, it is said that on showing a witness that a certain set of circumstances which the witness wants the trier of fact to believe improbable, one is entitled and it is a well known manner of cross-examining to show to a witness that that set of facts is not plausible and then try to convince, through cross-examination, the witness to take a different stance. Now that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Look, I have no doubt in my mind that the book that you're citing may contain statements along the lines suggested by you but there is nothing to suggest that you will put one and the same question repeatedly where we have already, we do have the answer. The question has been asked, you asked the question, I asked the question, we've got the answer. You cannot keep on asking one and the same question.

MR LOWIES: No, I've only asked the question twice in a different manner Chairperson, with respect.

CHAIRPERSON: That's precisely the point, that's why we're not here to repeat questions. You asked the question once, you get the answer.

MR LOWIES: Well Chairperson, to bide by the ruling suffice to state that I am hampered in my cross-examination. I will proceed.

CHAIRPERSON: You will proceed with your questioning.

MR LOWIES: Thank you Chairperson.

Now ma'am, were you in any manner sure where you were going to end up that night when you started running, did you have a refuge in mind?

MS MANYIKA: No, I didn't know.

MR LOWIES: Did you know the people in 743 where you took refuge?

MS MANYIKA: Yes.

MR LOWIES: Why did you decide upon that place?

MS MANYIKA: Because I was running away from the attackers.

MR LOWIES: No, but what made you sure that this was going to be a safe haven, that you were going to be safe at this place or that this is the place to hide? What were the facts?

MS MANYIKA: At the time I didn't have time to think, I was scared, I just told myself I was going to seek refuge anywhere and I was looking for protection.

MR LOWIES: Now did your attackers follow you inside the house?

MS MANYIKA: No.

MR LOWIES: How did you manage to escape them that they didn't enter the house?

MS MANYIKA: As I was running I kept on looking back to see if they were after me and I realised that they had turned back.

MR LOWIES: When did they turn back, do you know? At what stage?

MS MANYIKA: No, I do not know. I only realised at one stage when I look back that they were no longer behind me. As to when they turned back I don't know.

MR LOWIES: Now when you saw that they were not chasing you any more, was the koyoko still in your sight or not? Could you still see the koyoko?

MS MANYIKA: It was at the time when I was knocking at the house therefore I couldn't see the koyoko at the time while I was knocking.

MR LOWIES: Now the koyoko that you saw whilst inside the house do you know and can you tell us whether it was the same koyoko that you saw whilst fleeing?

MS MANYIKA: No, I'm unable to tell you.

MR LOWIES: Was it the same colour?

MS MANYIKA: I don't know.

MR LOWIES: Do you know what the colour of the koyoko was?

MS MANYIKA: I don't know.

MR LOWIES: Now you saw a koyoko on three occasions, is that applicable to all three occasions that you don't know what the colour was?

MS MANYIKA: No.

MR LOWIES: I don't understand? No I don't know? What do you mean by no?

MS MANYIKA: No, I do not remember the colour of the koyoko in all three occasions.

MR LOWIES: Thank you. The comrades that you saw earlier that evening, were they armed?

MS MANYIKA: I do not know. What I know is that they were around that burning tyre.

MR LOWIES: Approximately how many of them were there?

MS MANYIKA: I do not know how many there were.

MR LOWIES: Can't even give us an estimate? I only want an estimate.

MS MANYIKA: No, I do not know, I don't want to lie and find myself being questioned about that.

MR LOWIES: Would the koyoko have been able, the one that you saw whilst fleeing, would it have been able to see you and the attackers running where you were actually running?

MS MANYIKA: I don't know.

MR LOWIES: Were you afraid and scared whilst running, were you in a state of shock?

MR BERGER: Chairperson, the witness has said several times that she feared for her life.

MR LOWIES: I don't know whether she said it whilst she was running.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lowies, the witness has repeatedly said, she said whilst she was running.

MR LOWIES: Now the fact that you were in a state of shock did that not make you dizzy, confused?

MS MANYIKA: Yes I was confused because I was scared, I did not know what was going on and I was scared for my life.

MR LOWIES: Now in this state of confusion, I'm suggesting you isn't it that as a result of that you though you saw a koyoko?

MS MANYIKA: I am not thinking that I saw a koyoko, it is so, I saw a koyoko.

MR LOWIES: Now when you saw the koyoko for the second time you were inside the house we've heard? At that stage were you able to see any attackers at all?

MS MANYIKA: No.

MR LOWIES: Can you give us an estimate as to how long you were already in the house when you saw the koyoko for the second time?

MS MANYIKA: I do not remember how long it took.

MR LOWIES: You can't even give us an estimate? I'm only asking for an estimate.

MS MANYIKA: No, I'm unable to do so.

MR LOWIES: So if I put it to you it could have been an hour or more you would not be able to respond to that?

MS MANYIKA: This happened a long time, I don't want to commit myself and give time.

MR LOWIES: Now whilst running for safety, besides the three attackers that you saw could you see any other attackers at all in Boipatong that day or that time?

MS MANYIKA: No, no one.

MR LOWIES: I want to put it to you that my clients' were not aware of any koyokos?

MS MANYIKA: This is what they are saying. Anyone can speak for himself or herself and one thing you should remember is that they will not tell the whole truth and they are requesting amnesty and some of the things they are saying here it's blue lies and yet they are asking for forgiveness. They don't tell you the honest truth, they will tell you some of it, not the whole truth.

MR LOWIES: Can you give us an estimate as to approximately what time it was when you were fleeing from the comrades?

MR BERGER: There's no evidence that this witness was fleeing from any comrades.

MR LOWIES: From the attackers. My mistake.

MS MANYIKA: I do not understand the question.

MR LOWIES: When you were fleeing from the three attackers can you give us an estimate approximately what time it was?

MS MANYIKA: No, I'm unable to do so.

MR LOWIES: Do you know Mr Balloi, Wilson Balloi?

MS MANYIKA: Yes I do know him.

MR LOWIES: Did you see his house on the night of the attack?

MS MANYIKA: No I didn't.

MR LOWIES: Did you see any koyokos in Bafokeng Street at any stage on the night of the attack?

MS MANYIKA: No I didn't, maybe I wasn't there.

MR LOWIES: I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LOWIES

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Pretorius?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PRETORIUS: Thank you Chair.

Mrs Manyika, were there any trenches dug in the road in Boipatong in Bafokeng or Hlube Streets so that the vehicles could not travel along those roads? Or any boulders put in the streets?

MS MANYIKA: I do not remember.

MS PRETORIUS: When did you hear that the people of the IFP were going to attack Boipatong for the first time?

MS MANYIKA: The same month in June but I do not remember the day.

MS PRETORIUS: So there were bad feelings between the people of Boipatong and the IFP at that stage?

MS MANYIKA: No, we were living peacefully, we were on good terms.

MS PRETORIUS: But why did you expect an attack from the IFP then?

MS MANYIKA: These were rumours.

MS PRETORIUS: Why were the comrades patrolling the streets if there was no reason for - everybody was living peacefully, why were the comrades patrolling the streets then?

CHAIRPERSON: She's told us that there was a rumour that they were going to be attacked.

MS MANYIKA: They had already heard that the IFP was going to attack.

MS PRETORIUS: I understand that Chairperson.

For how long had they been patrolling the streets on the 17th June, a month? Six months? Can you give us an estimate?

MS MANYIKA: No, I do not remember.

MS PRETORIUS: Do you know of any IFP people who were necklaced in Boipatong or in the Vaal Triangle?

MS MANYIKA: I heard of them.

MS PRETORIUS: You say there were women present, how many women, can you give us an estimate? Were there a lot of women present that night or one or two?

MS MANYIKA: I wouldn't be able to estimate because this was a large group of people, men and women, therefore I would not be able to estimate as to how many or the number of the women but there were quite many.

MS PRETORIUS: Because my instructions are that there were no women in Boipatong and apart from that, if I recall correctly, there has been no evidence before this Committee until today that any women were present during the attack, amongst the attackers.

MS MANYIKA: This is why I'm saying these people will not tell the whole truth.

MS PRETORIUS: But Ms Manyika, I'm talking about the victims also testifying and you are the first person testifying that there were women present amongst the attackers. Are you saying then that the victims are not telling the truth either?

MR BERGER: Chairperson, that doesn't follow at all.

MS MANYIKA: It may be that they didn't see them, I saw them.

MS PRETORIUS: It's true that you heard them, but did you see them as well?

CHAIRPERSON: Or did you see them, that's what she's asking you.

MS MANYIKA: I heard them.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, are you saying that you didn't see them?

MS MANYIKA: I heard their voices. It is easy to identify a female voice from a male voice and they were ululating and they were doing this because they were happy because the dogs were being killed.

CHAIRPERSON: This was a big group from what you've told us, wasn't it?

MS MANYIKA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And you saw this group, didn't you?

MS MANYIKA: Yes I did.

CHAIRPERSON: When you looked at the group did you see any women there?

MS MANYIKA: As I was leaving from the door I saw a large group of people and I heard the females ululating and I heard their voices.

MR LAX: Sorry Ms interpreter, did she say that she was running away as well? I just didn't hear you interpret that? I thought I heard it in Zulu but I might be wrong.

MS MANYIKA: This happened before I ran away when I was at the door and when they tried to grab me. That's the time I had already heard their voices, the female voices and I ran away.

MS PRETORIUS: So I am correct that you only heard them, you did not see them?

MS MANYIKA: Yes I heard them.

MS PRETORIUS: Ms Manyika, is it possible that you thought you saw a koyoko because the people were talking about ...(inaudible) and was suggested and when you thought back maybe you thought you did see a koyoko?

MS MANYIKA: I am not thinking so, I know and I'm talking what I know and I swear that I'm not here to lie and I would not waste my time to come and lie here. I cannot waste my time, I'm supposed to be in school, I cannot come here and lie to this Committee, I'm only telling you about what happened, what I saw and what I remember.

MS PRETORIUS: I have no further questions, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PRETORIUS

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Tanzer?

MS TANZER: I have no questions, thank you Chairperson.

NO QUESTIONS BY MS TANZER

MR DA SILVA: I have no questions, Chairperson.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR DA SILVA

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination Mr Berger? I beg your pardon.

MR MALINDI: No questions Chairperson.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR MALINDI

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR BERGER: No re-examination Chairperson.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR BERGER

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS CAMBANIS: No questions.

NO QUESTIONS BY MS CAMBANIS

MR BOTHA: No questions.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR BOTHA

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well. Thank you Ms Manyika, you may stand down.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Berger?

MR BERGER: Chairperson, that concludes the evidence to be submitted on behalf of the victims.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, Mr Mapoma is there any evidence you want to place before us?

MR MAPOMA: No, we have no evidence, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Strydom, on behalf of the applicants?

MR STRYDOM: On behalf of the applicants I appear for we intend to call no further witnesses.

MR STRYDOM: I intend to call no witnesses, I close my application.

MS PRETORIUS: I don't intend calling any witnesses.

MS TANZER: I don't intend calling any witnesses Mr Chair.

MR DA SILVA: Chairperson, I don't intend calling witnesses but there is a further aspect that I wish to canvass with yourself and the Committee. You have repeatedly asked me for a set of photographs.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DA SILVA: And I have undertaken to provide the Committee with a set of photographs. I only received some photographs last evening and I would submit I only have one set of photographs, I haven't made copies and I would submit that a set of photographs without an explanatory affidavit would actually be meaningless. I would want to enquire if it would be in order that if I would be able to draw the affidavit tomorrow and circulate it amongst the Committee Members and colleagues on Thursday if that would carry your approval, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I do not foresee any difficulty with that course. Are there any problems with that?

MR STRYDOM: Not from our side Chairperson.

MR MALINDI: I have no problems with that.

MR BERGER: On behalf of the victims we have no problems with that approach.

MR DA SILVA: Chairperson, I'll then make the necessary arrangements that the necessary set of photographs be provided to all the parties concerned on Thursday.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you not available as from Wednesday?

MR BERGER: As things stand at the moment I am not available from Wednesday next week.

CHAIRPERSON: Tuesday next week, is everyone available?

MR STRYDOM: That's in order with us, Chairperson.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, Tuesday next week is in order with us but before you make a ruling, on behalf of the victims I wish to make a formal application to you and your Committee that the evidence of Pedro Peens be placed before you and that you as a Committee, through the evidence leader, call Pedro Peens to give evidence.

If I could very briefly motivate why we say that? I spoke to Mr Mapoma yesterday and I asked him to ask the police investigators who are working with him to locate Mr Peens for the purposes of giving evidence. I don't know what has happened as a result of that but if I could just motivate very briefly, Chairperson, why we believe that the evidence of Mr Peens is so crucial to this application?

It's common cause that one of the key issues in dispute as far as the question of full disclosure is concerned is the participation or presence of police in Boipatong during the attack. Until now there has been no evidence from the police or from anyone that the police were present in Boipatong during the time of the attack. But what we have, there's evidence from the victims of the attack, the residents of Boipatong, the evidence of Mr Nosenga, but we've never had evidence from the police themselves that they were present during the attack. In the report of Mr Kjelberg which is Exhibit DD at page 20, Mr Kjelberg says the following, middle of the page, he says:

"In paragraph 2 of the argument on behalf of the Minister of Law and Order, Annexure A(x), it stated that"

and then it's italicised

"the South African Police was at all times ready to prove the whereabouts of each of it's casspirs country wide but did not do so by virtue of the fact that the Committee decided that no further evidence was to be heard."

And then he goes on, he says:

"From discussions with director, Christo Davidson, it has been understood that his investigation gathered all so called log sheets from police casspirs country wide related to 17 June 1992. This was done by his team for them to be able to establish where the casspirs were positioned on the night of the attack. Based on this information and from statements from police officers on duty in the Vaal area at the time of the attack, they argued that they could prove that allegations of police personnel travelling in casspirs were untrue."

So what the police said and this has been the police stance since the 17th June 1992, is that each and every casspir country wide had been accounted for and it has been shown that not a single casspir was in Boipatong at the time of the attack. We know since the affidavit of the journalist, Mr Riaan Malan, was tendered on behalf of the applicants, we know that Riaan Malan said under oath that he conducted an interview with Mr Pedro Peens and Pedro Peens admits in that interview for the first time that he was in a casspir with other members of the SAP in Boipatong on the night of the 17th June 1992. He says however, that it was at 3 or 4 in the morning of the 18th, 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning of the 18th, but it's clear from that interview and I'm not going to go through it in detail but it's an exhibit now before the Committee, it's clear from that interview that Pedro Peens' explanation is false. Objectively it can be shown to be false because he says that when he was in Boipatong at the time he was listening to the police radio and there had been no messages about an attack, or no reports about an attack and we all know that it's common cause that by 3 or 4 in the morning Boipatong was swarming with policemen and there had long since been messages or reports of a police attack on the police radio that night.

Added to that, Chairperson, you will see from the interview with Pedro Peens that he disposed of two AK-47s which he claims were used in the attack on Boipatong and he took them to KwaZulu Natal and handed them over there instead of handing over into the Vaal. He cannot explain why he never gave that information to Major Christo Davidson nor can he explain why he failed to tell Major Christo Davidson that he was in Boipatong on the night of the attack.

Chairperson, we submit that his knowledge, bearing in mind the fact that Mr Nosenga has actually identified Mr Peens as being part of the attack but the knowledge of Pedro Peens could greatly assist this Committee in coming to a conclusion as to whether or not the police were present in Boipatong at the time and we would ask the Committee to order that he honour his subpoena, that he come here and that he give evidence.

Chairperson, in brief, that is our application.

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, I'm not going to argue about the application as such.

CHAIRPERSON: Having this whole issue as I see it is whether or not his evidence is going to this matter any further, suffice as to say that he says that he was in the police casspir in Boipatong round about 3 or 4 in the morning. We know that at about that time there were casspirs perhaps and there was an ambulance around about that time which is well beyond - which is long after the attack. Now that's the sole issue, the question is whether if he comes here, that evidence, if he sticks to that evidence, where does that take us and assuming he doesn't, if he's proved to have been untruthful in that regard, where will it take us insofar as the central question whether or not there were police or not because that he may be untruthful with us as I see it, will not establish whether there were police. We will have to end up, as I see things, with the evidence of the victims who have testified positively to seeing the police casspirs at the time and consider the ...(indistinct) seeing that in the context of the evidence of Mr Nosenga. Well what's your attitude?

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, I agree. I agree fully with the outline that Chairperson has just given. I was just going to explain about the circumstances regarding him now and him being called now otherwise I'm of the view Chairperson that as things are now the Committee has got sufficient evidence for it to make a decision without necessarily calling him.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Now in regard to his whereabouts, where is he?

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, up to this point the whereabouts of him are unknown and that is one difficulty that we have. The second difficulty, Chair, is that his legal representation has been terminated by the State Attorney because he is an implicated person. The State Attorney's position now regarding legal representation for implicated persons is being terminated, has been terminated and I envisage a situation where he can come here and claim that as long as I'm not legally represented then I can't say anything. It may be an exercise in futility, that's what I envisage, if he gets called.

And thirdly, Chair, on the question of a subpoena there is also a technical problem there because whilst he was subpoenaed originally to appear at the hearing, we did adjourn last time and when we adjourned last time he was not formally warned to come and appear here and the effect of that subpoena therefore was not extended to this hearing. One may argue, especially given the fact that we intend now ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: But listen, I think we should go to the question of whether or not ...(indistinct) terms of the subpoena. If he is required to come and give evidence here, that the subpoena may have been that he may not have been warned to come here is neither here no there. He'll have to come here if we are satisfied if he should come here.

MR MAPOMA: Yes, I agree Chairperson but now it will have another technical problem because the legal department has sited a case of Van Wyk versus the TRC where a person must be given notice, a proper notice of at least 14 days before the person is compelled to ...(indistinct)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes I understand.

MR MAPOMA: It's rather difficult, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand but those difficulties though should not hamper the process.

MR MAPOMA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: If he is required to be here the necessary steps will have to be taken to make sure that he is here?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, I agree. Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, I'm sorry, could I just mention about the time that you spoke to - you asked Mr Mapoma about the time. Mr Peens in his interview isn't hard and fast about the time. If I can just read a very - Malan says:

"But the massacre ended at 10.30."

Question, long pause.

"He is not sure of the time"

And then a quote:

"My time can be totally wrong."

He says my time can be totally wrong. I'm translating from the Afrikaans.

"All my old pocket books were destroyed when I got out."

And then in English:

"All I can say is that there was nothing on the radio about it. Boipatong was chaos."

And then further down in the interview he says:

"I was at that stage the only police vehicle in Boipatong. A camouflage casspir. I was driving, I didn't see any other police. I was in permanent contact with radio control. It was only when we got to Sebokeng that I discovered there was trouble in Boipatong."

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Strydom?

MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, I would submit that his evidence won't take the matter any further. There's no indication whatsoever that he would come here and admit that he was in Boipatong during the attack. As you pointed out, Chairperson, if he changes his version he will be shown as a liar and then his evidence won't be relied upon so he won't take it further. What we have here is already evidence of all the applicants I appear for and they stated under oath that the police was not involved and under those circumstances I don't think his evidence will change anything, especially as they say in light of fact that I doubt if he will come and say that he was involved during the attack. The only person that made reference of him really was a Mr Nosenga. I will argue later that no reliance can be placed on his evidence in any event so my submission would be is that he won't take the matter any further at this stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lowies?

MR LOWIES: I support the application. I appear on behalf of Mr Vanana Zulu who is implicated and with respect, I see it as follows. Mr Peens is implicated and directly mentioned as a person who was involved with my clients whereas they deny it. Now his evidence will definitely take that portion further which is a vital aspect in this matter so I support the application.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Pretorius?

MS PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I feel that Mr Peens won't take the matter any further. All we have is hearsay evidence at this stage that he told Mr Malan so if he comes and he denies that then we're going to have to call Mr Malan again so we can prolong these proceedings forever and ever by calling more and more people. So I do not support the application.

MS TANZER: Mr Chairperson, I myself also support the application in the sense that if Mr Peens can undergo rigorous cross-examination which obviously we would like to avoid but if he would enjoy the same scrutiny that Mr Nosenga enjoyed, perhaps the truth might come out, some truth might come out regarding what happened that night and his whereabouts that night.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Is there any reason for this noise?

MR DA SILVA: Chairperson, I've been instructed to adopt a neutral attitude in regard to the Defence Force so I have no submissions to make in this regard.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr da Silva.

Mr Berger any reply?

MR BERGER: Chairperson, there is no doubt that Sergeant Peens was in Boipatong in a police casspir with other policemen on the night of the massacre. Of that there is no doubt now. If he is shown to be lying about his times, if he is shown to be lying about what he says happened whilst he was in Boipatong, then the inference will be inescapable that he has something to hide and from that the inference would be inescapable that what Mr Nosenga says about Mr Peens' involvement in the massacre will have to be accepted. Mr Peens' evidence, if he is shown to be a liar will provide strong corroboration not only for Mr Nosenga but also for the victims who testified that they saw police casspirs in Boipatong during the attack. In that regard we submit that his evidence is crucial to a proper outcome of this application.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll take a short adjournment and come back in 15 minutes time to give a ruling.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

The O’Malley Archives

Name: Anna Mbatha - Witness