Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1998-10-06

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: I think it was important, maybe it was not important more than our mission.

MR SMUTS: Mr Hermans, I would like to canvass with you aspects of the confession proved at your trial which appears in the judgement in the bundle, Mr Chairman, the text thereof from the bottom of page 8.
	I wish to canvass it with you Mr Hermans, from page 9 at line 15.   You had set out in that confession that you had been at the ANC offices and then you discussed how on the 12th of April, five of you gathered at the bus rank and proceeded to a certain open space by car and at line 15 it says, we then discussed the tragic incident and as to what we should do.
	We then resolved that as Chris Hani had been killed by a white person, we should also kill a white man.  Does that correctly reflect the decision that was taken by you and your colleagues from Flagstaff?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: I am not sure whether you want to ascertain whether that was true, or it is something that I said in court.  I am not sure what is it actually that you want to ascertain.

MR SMUTS: Listen to the question and we will get through it a whole lot quicker.  Does that correctly reflect the decision taken by you and your colleagues from Flagstaff?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: No.

MR SMUTS: Where is it contained in your confession?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: In court sir, it should be clear that we were lying, that should be understood that we were lying there.

MR SMUTS: I appreciate that Mr Hermans, and that is why I ask you about this, because you denied this confession in court.

ADV DE JAGER: Didn't you agree to kill a white man because a white man killed Mr Hani?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: Are you talking about the court?

ADV DE JAGER: No, not at court, after you left the office and the five of you gathered together, what did you resolve there, who are you going to kill?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: We had to kill a white person, but not just any white person, but a person whom we think that we associate that person with that situation with Costello's situation, as a member of AWB and the fact that there were suspicious white people who used to visit his place.
	That was not just an ordinary white man.

ADV DE JAGER: It was not an ordinary white man, but in the first place, we could hear the rest later, in the first place, you resolved to kill a white man, isn't that so?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: Yes, in the sense that we regarded a white person as an enemy, a person who was actually associated with Mr Costello.

MR SMUTS: So, when you said this in your confession, it was correct, but not detailed enough, is that what you are saying?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: Yes, that is correct.

MR SMUTS: What should it have said?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: It should have clarified the fact that we intended to attack a white person, and the fact, and it should show a category, a criteria that we had views to identify that person as an enemy.

MR SMUTS: Was that criteria some link or other with Mr Costello?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: Yes, that is correct.

MR SMUTS: Well, then I would like to canvass with you the next sentence in that confession, which reads as follows

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Smuts, before we go on there, as I remember reading as I understand, that the contents, this confession was contested?

MR SMUTS: That is so Mr Chairman, there was a trial within a trial, and it was then ruled admissible.

CHAIRPERSON: To what extent are we bound by that finding?

MR SMUTS: Well, Mr Chairman, that is one of the drawbacks in the Administrative decision taken to  deny this Committee access to the record.  If one had been able to canvass the record against the evidence now tendered, the Committee may have been placed in a position to make its own assessment.

CHAIRPERSON: What would have been the position of the status of this document, had the ruling been that it was inadmissible?  Could you rely on it?

MR SMUTS: No Mr Chairman, I am canvassing sentence by sentence with the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you be able to rely on it had it been found inadmissible?

MR SMUTS: No Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Hence my question, to what extent am I bound by that finding?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: Mr Chairman, I don't think it is a finding that relates to this Committee, it relates to the admissibility of the evidence in those proceedings.  So it doesn't have a bearing here.
	If the witness wishes to tender evidence about the circumstances, he is entitled to.  It wasn't disputed that the statement was made.

CHAIRPERSON: You see, what gives me difficulty, if that document was not supposed to have existed in the first place, then it casts some type of doubt on us to whether you are able to use it.

MR SMUTS: Mr Chairman, until the witness denies having made it, it is on the face of it, a statement which he made and if he wishes to tender whatever explanation he now seeks to tender, for saying what he then said, then the Committee will obviously wave that explanation in the context of all the evidence that is tendered.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you are right.

MR SMUTS: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Mr Hermans, your statement continues, there was a difference of opinion as ...

CHAIRPERSON: Don't you think we must warn him of the possibilities and give him his rights and let him choose?

MR SMUTS: He is represented Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Under cross-examination, I think Mr Zilwa is loath, perhaps I must do it then.   Mr Hermans, you are being referred to a confession that was used in your trial, in the High Court, in Umtata.
	Do you understand that?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: Yes, I understand that.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand that during those proceedings, you disputed the admissibility of that confession.

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: It was nonetheless ruled admissible.

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: Are you talking about the confession?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: I just want to point out to you that at this hearing, it is a different hearing.  If there is anything that you want to put in dispute once again, then you are entitled to do so.  You are not bound by the finding of that Court, in respect of the admissibility of the confession.
	Do you understand that?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: Yes, I understand that.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Smuts, I am going to allow Mr Smuts, to continue asking questions related to the contents of that statement.  Do you understand that?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: Yes, I understand sir.

CHAIRPERSON: It will be up to you to dispute anything or raise issues which renders the question invalid or inadmissible, do you understand that?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: Yes, sir.

MR SMUTS: Thank you Mr Chairman.  At line 17 of your statement, line 17 on page 9 of the confession as quoted in the judgement, the following sentence occurs after you had explained that you had decided to kill a white man:  there was a difference of opinion, as our organisation does not promote racialism, we foresaw problems in identifying the victim as to who was for us or against us.
	Was there in fact a difference of opinion amongst the five of you?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: No, there was no such argument.

MR SMUTS: Is it correct that your organisation does not promote racialism or racism, racial discrimination?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: Yes, that is correct.

MR SMUTS: How did this sentence come to be pertained in your statement?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: It is clear that it is inserted because that is what I said at the time.

MR SMUTS: Why did you say it at the time?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: I was talking because I thought I was saying anything that was going to save me from conviction.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you mean conviction?