opened the shops on Thursday, but not very open. There was fear about soldiers and there were people who were saying don’t work, and don’t buy anything. That’s what I saw. Several of the interviewees also make it plain that vigorous searches ensued on the remaining days during that week. Their comments make it clear that both the ZRP and the ZNA were involved in these searches. The following day it was Tuesday, I was sleeping because I was in pain. I saw soldiers. They were in. On, Monday night there were those policemen with cars you know just walking everywhere and they were picking up the people …. You know, there was of violence that (Monday) night. So on Tuesday then ugh, I was sleeping at home. Then I heard a knock. Unfortunately I couldn’t go to attend that service. But they came in, because the door was not locked. So they came in. So I was in bed. Overall, the interviews confirm the general impression given in the press reports about Mabvuku and Tafara. The riots began early on Monday, 19 January 1998, but there had been indications over the weekend that there would be a disturbance of some kind. This is also admitted by the ZRP report, but clearly the ZRP had no conception about the likely scale and were woefully understaffed. It does not appear that the claim by the ZRP that “police quickly mobilised and reacted to the situation in all areas” is very accurate, and most interviewees describe a situation of chaos until the intervention by the ZNA on Tuesday afternoon. One interviewee puts the arrival of the ZNA at some time on Tuesday afternoon, 22 January 1998, which seems corroborated by others. Shootings In the ZRP report there is no admission of shootings, although they do report the use of tear gas. The ZRP were clearly trying to control the disturbance by conventional means — tear gas and rubber bullets — but this seemed to infuriate the crowds who retaliated. It seems that the retaliation and the determination of the crowds to loot intimidated the ZRP, who then had to resort to increasingly more violent means of control. In one case, the shooting may have been a direct act of revenge by angry policemen, as is alleged by one eye witness below. They were using tear gas and they were using some rubber bullets. Yeah, just firing into the crowd. They shot the warning, but people they still wanted to keep on coming to the shopping area, so that’s when they had to end up shooting. There was one soldier who was attacked by a stone, So, when I went to the supermarket that’s when I heard them talking. “I’m going to revenge someone must die.” He had a wound from (the stone.) So I think that the soldier shot the woman. It is difficult to be certain whether the person doing the shooting was police or army, and the one eye witness does not make a clear distinction between the police and the army. She was shot and she fell there. And the soldiers said, “No, we don’t want anyone helping her. She must get up on her own and go to the clinic.” So the woman stood up on her own and went to the clinic. She was running from there. (The shops) Most of the cops they were standing there, others they were grouping there. So she was running from that side and the soldiers were somewhere here. So they shot her ands she dropped there. This was not the only person shot, and another eye witness saw the body of a person who had been shot. There was another one who was shot but I didn’t see how it happened. I just saw him falling there. Then he was carried in a car and he was taken to hospital I think.