Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1999-03-23

MR MBANDAZAYO: Chairperson, if what I've read is - let me put it this way, it is clear from what I've read that what they did was not because they did it out of hatred, what they did they did because of their policy, the policy of the organisation to which they belonged.

ADV GCABASHE: Mr Mbandazayo, are you going to go on further to relate all of what you've said, to the killing one, of Mike Meyers and the killing of Donne?  I mean in more specific terms.  I won't ask any questions if you are going to do that.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes, Honourable Member, I was going to do that.  When I was reading this I wanted to relate it actually to the killing of the two.
	Thank you, Chairperson.	I've read this extract with the specific purpose to, questions have been raised as to why the whites, not all whites, some people were innocent.  As I've read it here, Sobukwe puts it that he regards that all of them are shareholders in the oppressors company, inasmuch as there are those who would like to be identified with the struggle, but because of the material conditions and the position in which they are, it's very difficult for them to be on that.
	Hence they regarded them as part because they also in ...(indistinct) term, they were benefitting from the oppression of the black people.  Irrespective of whether they participated or not, directly or indirectly they benefitted from that oppression, and as such they were part and parcel of the oppressive system.

ADV SANDI: So your point then should be understood as follows:  the attack of Mr Meyers and his daughter took place in the context of a wider racial conflict in the country, is that what you are saying?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes, Honourable Member.

ADV SANDI: Thanks.

MR MBANDAZAYO: That's what I'm trying to get at, that it was committed in that context, what happened on the day in question.
	Chairperson, if I can move from that point to the second point I referred to as full disclosure, which I think is the one with regard to this incident, it's the most crucial point.  When I was going through the record and checking everything, that it's the one most important part of the hearing.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, Mr Mbandazayo, I keep on coming back to you.  I thought the applicants had said the idea was to confiscate the vehicle and some money as well as some arms, if Mr Meyers had any.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you.  Through you, Mr Chairperson.  I think the point, what they said was that the idea was to kidnap Mr Meyers, that was their main purpose, to kidnap Mr Meyers.

ADV SANDI: And it was not part of the idea to kill him.

MR MBANDAZAYO: It was not part to kill him but they were told to kill him if they are in danger.  I think that was the evidence which was led in this hearing, that was the purpose, and that they killed Mr Meyers and they decided to take Donne along because they could no longer take Mr Meyers along.  That's the evidence.
MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

MR LAX: Mr Mbandazayo, I have a number of questions, I'd rather from my point of view let you finish your address so I can hear the whole context instead of bits and pieces, because I don't think it's fair to you to keep interrupting your thought processes and so on.  I have a number of issues I'd like to ask you about later, but I'd much prefer it if you could get on with your argument.  You were going to move on to the issue of full disclosure.  I'll come back to the questions I may have dealing with political, the political association of these acts.   I'd rather not interfere with your train of thought and let you express yourself fully.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you.  Let me then go to this question of disclosure.
	Chairperson, the evidence, the first applicant who was Luvuyo Kenneth Kulman gave evidence before this Committee and told the Committee what happened on the day in question, that the purpose was to kidnap Mr Mike Meyers but unfortunately they couldn't do that, they ended up killing him and also in the process they shot his daughter and they left with his daughter and dumped her 60 kilometres away.
	And the second - and according to his evidence it was that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Who killed the daughter?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Chairperson, I would say that they killed the daughter because, the reason why I'm saying that, in a question which was put to the applicant during the cross-examination when Kulman said that he shot the daughter and when it was pointed out to him that the shot which he alleged to have fired struck him on the head is the one which possibly, according to the medical evidence, that killed him.  He said that's a possibility that he is the person because it was said that was a shot which was fired on her head.  That is why, Chairperson, I'm saying according to the evidence, inasmuch as they said themselves that at the time when they left with him he was not dead, she was not dead at the time.
CHAIRPERSON
"She was finally shot to death by our commander, Thandukolo"

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes, Chairperson, exactly.  That is what I'm trying to get at, but at the end he was asked about the medical evidence which points that according to him he shot her when he was trying, he missed her father, Mike Meyers.  And when it was pointed out to him that the way he is describing it before the Committee, the possibility is that it was his bullet which was fatal to her and he said he cannot dispute that.  That is why I'm saying, Chairperson, of course subject to whatever the Members, everybody who was here interpretation, that at the time themselves when they left with her she was not dead, which of course put it into dispute whether they would have travelled such a long distance with her, they would have travelled such a long distance without her being dead.

CHAIRPERSON: You will deal with the post-mortem report I take it?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Which gave the cause of death as a completely crushed skull, not one shot.