Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1998-04-16

LUVUYO KENNETH KULMAN: Yes, however if the main intentions of the operations were not divulged that would have been fine. A lot of people were not sure that APLA was in Transkei. Even some of the Transkein forces themselves were not sure that APLA was in Transkei. We were defending ourselves in a sense. It would have jeopardised the security of the army this is why I hid these facts for such a long time. In this Mike Meyers case his .38 pistol special magnum there was an emblem on the handle of his pistol, an AWB emblem meaning that corresponds with my evidence here. He was a member of the AWB.

MR LAX: Now are you saying then that you hid this thing even when you made your application?

LUVUYO KENNETH KULMAN: Yes I told myself that I was going to be given this chance to explain. Even in my first form. First of all I was not aware about the TRC. I had told myself that I was going to finish all the years that I had been sentenced. Even with the cases that I was involved in, in the Free State.
	On my second form I mentioned my involvement in all the other cases except this one. I do not want the TRC to perceive me as somebody who is not truthful. If I knew I would have stated everything, I would have stated all the intentions. But because of my ignorance I failed to do that.

MR LAX: So at the time you made this application you were trying to protect APLA and that is why you did not tell us the full truth is that what you saying? Just a simple yes or no would be good enough.

LUVUYO KENNETH KULMAN: I filled in the application by myself. I had no assistance.

MR LAX: Answer my question. At the time you made this application, the one in the papers, you were trying to protect APLA and that is why you did not tell us the full story, yes or no?

LUVUYO KENNETH KULMAN: I did not want to disclose a lot of information without consulting with members of the high command. Yes I was defending (...intervention)

MR LAX: But you see the date of this application is the 8th of July 1996. By that stage APLA was already being incorporated into the SANDF. There was no need to protect APLA at that point in time.

ADV GCABASHE: Mr Kulman and your second application is dated 20th of February 1997. You could have put that information then.

LUVUYO KENNETH KULMAN: Sorry?

MR LAX: The question is just explain in the light of that, there was nothing to protect?

ADV GCABASHE: I am simply pointing out that your second application, I am looking at page 21 of the first bundle is dated the 20th of February 1997 at St. Aubus. Now you could have added any necessary information there surely in 1997?

LUVUYO KENNETH KULMAN: I must have forgotten to mention it even then.

MR LAX: You see you did not forget to mention it, you said you purposely left it out. That was your earlier evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes you said, you did not earlier in your evidence say you did not know about the TRC. You said you left it out because you thought you would be given the opportunity of appearing before the TRC and telling them all the details of everything. That you purposely left it out.

ADV GCABASHE: And just one other point. If you look at page 17 of the second application, that is the 1997 application. Maybe you can explain this as well because it is all around the same issue. Page 17 you say there as your political objective: "Whites had to be killed in order to attain our liberation." Now I understand you to say that for this incident, the Meyers incident the intention was not to kill. Can you just explain that sentence on page 17. 10 a. in relation to the Meyers incident?

LUVUYO KENNETH KULMAN: The intention was not to kill but ... The APLA position is very clear. It is lodged war against the white oppressors. I do not know whether he was going to survive if he had not resisted. We were going to take him alive and take him to Mandla. We do not know what Mandla was going to do with him. That is why I have stated this. I was trying to encompass my entire involvement in the APLA activities.

MR LAX: If I can just take you to paragraph 10 of your affidavit. You say
"The instructions were not to kill the farmer but to bring him to Thanduxolo who told me that they want him for interrogation before dealing with him."
	What do you mean before dealing with him? What do you mean by those words?

LUVUYO KENNETH KULMAN: The instructions were not to kill the farmer but to bring him to Thanduxolo, obviously (...intervention)

MR LAX: No answer my question. The words I am referring to are not "bring him to Thanduxolo." The question is they want him for interrogation before "dealing with him." What did you understand those words to mean?

CHAIRPERSON: The words my friend are referring to are the words: "dealing with him."

LUVUYO KENNETH KULMAN: Sorry Sir can I read this first for my understanding because I do not want to answer exactly your question?

MR LAX: Please read the paragraph, it is fine with me. Maybe the interpreter can translate it for you if you like or Mr Mbandazayo can translate it for you if you like. But the words we are looking for are "dealing with him." What did you mean when you used those words in your affidavit?

LUVUYO KENNETH KULMAN: We wanted to interrogate Mike Meyers. The matter of dealing with him would depend on Mandla. I however am not part of that. My role goes as far as handing over Mike to Mandla. If Mandla were here perhaps he would be able to explain that. I am not in a position to do that. He would explain what they would do with him after they had interrogated him. I was not in the field of interrogating Boers.

MR LAX: You still have not said what you understand those words to mean. Never mind what Mandla might have done. What do you understand those words to mean?

LUVUYO KENNETH KULMAN: To deal with him?

MR LAX: Precisely.

LUVUYO KENNETH KULMAN: It would depend on him what he meant. However I think that he would have killed him after he had gotten information from him or he may have tortured him. It would depend on the particular situation.

MR LAX: You see what I want to put to you is that you could not have had any other expectation other than that he would have killed him after that. Because what you just told us before about the attacks on the Transkei if it was found out that he had been interrogated, they would not let him go. They would have to kill him and you would know that. Not so?

LUVUYO KENNETH KULMAN: It could be so but it may not be so. It would depend on the people that are interrogating him. Some times you would find that they are satisfied with the information that they get from the person then they let him go or perhaps they would decide to kill him. It would decide what they think.

MR LAX: But in any event your evidence is that you thought it is most likely they would have killed him or tortured him?

LUVUYO KENNETH KULMAN: Yes, it could happen that they would have killed him.

MR LAX: Thanks Mr Mbandazayo?

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman I will move to paragraph 12.
"We drove towards Mbashe where we were to meet Thanduxolo. And we met him there and told him what happened and said the woman is useless and she was badly injured. And he shot her and he asked us to take another direction to Umtata and we were arrested on the way."
	Can you tell the Committee, you told the Committee that your instruction was to take Mike Meyers to Thanduxolo but you left Mike Meyers and you went away with his daughter after she was shot. Can you tell the Committee what was the reason?

LUVUYO KENNETH KULMAN: For Mike to be killed?

MR MBANDAZAYO: The reason why you did not take Mike Meyers. Instead you took Donne Meyers?