Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1999-03-23

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you, Chairperson and Honourable Members of the Committee.  I would like to start to answer the last one which has been raised by the Chairperson, Judge Wilson.
	Chairperson, definitely it's clear that Donne Meyers, the evidence was adduced that had it not, what happened to her father she would not have been there, there's no doubt about that issue.  But Chairperson, the issue which has been read, the evidence is such that after the reconnaissance, they have done reconnaissance definitely they did not know that Donne Meyers would be there and it was the day which was selected as the day that they will conduct this operation and unfortunately Donne Meyers was there.  And on the instruction they had to do it on that day and unfortunately Donne Meyers was also there.  So on that score definitely because they have already set out and they have already arranged that on that day they would carry out and they expected that Mike Meyers will be the only person who is there, and unfortunately Donne Meyers was there.  So on that score they had to carry out the operation  as per instructions.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did they have to?  Why could they have not gone back and said, when we came up to the truck we saw there were two people in it?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Chairperson, definitely if you have been given an order, I don't think Chairperson they expected that, as the evidence according to them was given that they would harm Donne Meyers, but because as the first applicant put it, Kulman, that it's because he missed when he was shooting.  The first applicant, Kulman put it that it's because he missed when he was shooting the father and they ended up fatally wounding her on that score.

CHAIRPERSON: So it wasn't an act they intended to do?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Definitely.

CHAIRPERSON: And they can't ask for amnesty for it?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Chairperson, definitely if there was not an act they intended to do, but that the act was committed in the process of what they have been instructed to do, definitely Chairperson, if ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: If one is reckless as to the consequences, yes.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Chairperson, I agree with you if somebody is reckless, but let's look at it this way.  If somebody is not necessarily reckless in doing that, if one is going to ambush your vehicle, if I may make that example, and it so happens that there was one person which they did not foresee that he might be there in the vehicle, would one say, Chairperson, that what they did, if you find that it was politically motivated, it was done within the scope and operation of that organisation, then because there was one person who had nothing to do with that operation, then would you say that because of that then what they did had nothing to do.

CHAIRPERSON: What was the political objective in killing her?  You said it had nothing to do with that operation, but they nevertheless continued to open fire knowing another person was sitting there.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Chairperson, definitely if one, when I started and put it, the whole in context, the whole context of this operation, PAC policy as a whole, I was trying to put it that definitely if you look at the policy it is clear that even if they were not under any instructions they acted on their own as members of the PAC in furthering of the political objectives of the PAC, they would have been covered because it was still within the PAC policy to do that.

CHAIRPERSON: But they didn't say so.

MR LAX: You see, Mr Mbandazayo, my problem is this, and to this extent they haven't come here on the basis that the act that they committed was within the general context of the PAC's policy, they've come here on a different basis, they've come here on the basis that they had specific instructions to carry out a particular operation.  You've gone further than that, you've said their instructions were so specific that they had to do it on that day.  You follow?  Now that being the case  you can't rely on the general context, the general policy context to then provide the mantle of authority for them doing things outside the context of their orders.  Do you understand my concern?  But if you'd come back to the second issue, the first question that I raised.    You've attempted to deal with the second aspect.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you, Chairperson.  Let me go to your question which of course you raised and also that Mike Meyers had nothing to do with the AWB.  Chairperson and Honourable Members of the Committee, I think my answer to that, my argument to that would be that it's one of those cases where wrong information has been supplied with regard to the target, and that themselves they were not party to that, they have to carry out the orders which they have been given to carry out.  As it is clear that he was not a member of the AWB and he has nothing to do with the AWB, according to evidence.  It's clear that it is one of those orders and that information which was incorrect which they were supplied with and they carried out on the basis of that information which was not correct.
	Coming to this question of the instructions.  I agree with  you hundred percent that the instructions were specifically that they have to get Mike Meyers, they have to get Mike Meyers and that unless they are in danger it's then that they will have to kill.  And they said that they thought that he was shooting at them and that's how they shot him and that also that's how Donne Meyers was shot.
	But coming to this question of Donne Meyers, that she had nothing to do and it was not the instructions to do what they did to her.  Chairperson, it's just that it's so unfortunate that of course there was no evidence led from any other quarter to cover some of the aspect which an ordinary foot-soldier, when he's given an instructions what he is expected to do under certain circumstances, whether they cannot on their own, taking into account the policies, the principles and the policies of the organisation, whether on their own they cannot take initiative and do certain things out of their own.  But definitely I agree with you a hundred percent that on the day in question the instructions were specific.

CHAIRPERSON: But those instructions were based on the fact that they were told to reconnoitre Mike Meyers, that they spent two weeks doing this and supplied the information to their commander, and they were then told to carry out the operation on this day.  When they got there on this day they must have known that the truck was now being driven by somebody else, because he went round to the passenger side to point his gun at Mike Meyers.  There was nothing to stop them going back to tell their commander;  the position has changed, it is no longer as we reported to you, there is somebody else driving the vehicle.  There was no urgency, you conceded that.  They were the people who reconnoitred the vehicle, they were the people who reported what happened, that is that he drove it on his own on all the other occasions and now things had changed.  It's not disobeying an order, it's going back to tell your commander; things have changed, we'll have to alter the plan, isn't it?