Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1997-03-25

MISHEK MAY: I did understand his reasons but I felt that I wouldn't have done this if he had told me about these reasons, because it would - it seems that he did this because of his personal reasons, but we had to go there in order to satisfy ourselves collectively.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Thank you.  Just a minute.

ADV DE JAGER: It's not clear yet to me then, did you in fact disagree with Mr Leeuw's reasons?

MISHEK MAY: There was no point in disagreeing with his reasons because the operation was already done.  I didn't want us to argue over what he told me.

ADV DE JAGER: And so you didn't argue with him, but in fact he told you that he went there because of his own personal reasons, do I understand you correctly?

MISHEK MAY: I am not saying that we went there because of his own personal reasons, but what I am trying to say that if he did stop us - if he did explain to us before with his given reasons, I don't think we would have agreed with him because he would have distorted the order that we were given originally.

JUDGE MGOEPE: While we are still on that point you must
have heard this this morning when Mr Nkgwedi, I think he said that he was the one who had taken the decision that Mr Fourie be attacked.

MISHEK MAY: I would not disagree with him but his decision was not very clear to us, what he was saying was just to concur with comrade Leeuw, maybe that is what he is trying to explain, that's why he chose the reason he was concurring with Mr Leeuw by choosing that specific farm.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Before agreeing to go and attack Mr Fourie, did anybody, be it either Mr Nkgwedi or Mr Leeuw describe to you what sort of person Mr Fourie was?

MISHEK MAY: Are you referring to before?

JUDGE MGOEPE: Yes.

MISHEK MAY: No Sir.

JUDGE MGOEPE: You didn't even know that you were going to attack a farmer?

MISHEK MAY: We were going to attack farms and their farmers, but we never specified which one will we start with.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Yes, that's what I am trying to get from you.  I asked you whether anybody described to you Mr Fourie in advance, did anybody say to you, the person we have in mind is a farmer, was a White person, was a male person, did anybody describe that, that's what I want to find out from you?

MISHEK MAY: No Sir.

JUDGE MGOEPE: So when you left you did not know whether you are going to attack - now if I may use South African terminology as existed then, you did not attack a Black person, an Indian, a Coloured, a White, you did not know that?

MISHEK MAY: What I knew is we were going to attack farms.  I
knew that there was a need to attack a farmer in order to pursue our struggle, the operation.  Mr Fourie, as I have said, the people that were with knew him and we went into his house.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Thank you.

JUDGE WILSON: I think we will have to take an adjournment at this stage.  I have been waiting for a more suitable moment, but I think in regard to the people who have been working since 9 o'clock this morning we should take an adjournment now.  We will take a short adjournment.

MR MTHEMBU: Mr Chairman I just mention that Mr Khotle has arrived.

JUDGE MGOEPE: While we are taking an adjournment Mr Mthembu it may be that you should consult with him and then decide whether you want to call him as a witness.  Though of course if you don't call him as a witness, we may, on our own initiative still decide to call him.  But it is important for you to decide whether you call him as a witness because it has got certain implications as you know.  If you call him, which I think you would do, if you call him without consulting with him, you call him as a witness, you must know that you are not going to be allowed to cross-examine him.  So you must consult with him bearing that in mind and then decide whether you want to call him as your witness.

JUDGE WILSON: There is one other point which I would like to raise before the adjournment, and that is in the light of the very detailed evidence we have had about goods being taken, left in the car, what was recovered, I trust that there will be information available to us as to what goods were stolen and the nature of the goods that were not
recovered.  R8 000 worth of goods were not recovered.  I trust information will be available which undoubtedly was available at the trial. The indictment would have contained a list of goods stolen and as it appears on the record, the police record, there was R8 000 worth of goods missing, I take it that that evidence was also available to the prosecution and I trust it will be available us.  We will take the short adjournment.
HEARING ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

MR MTHEMBU: ....I have Mr Chair.

JUDGE WILSON: Is there anyone from the Prison's Department  in the hall now?  Nobody.

MR MTHEMBU: I think there is Mr Chair.

JUDGE WILSON: Where is he?

MR MTHEMBU: At the back in the second row.

JUDGE WILSON: I would like on behalf of the Committee to express our thanks and gratitude to the Prisons Department and to the head of Prison for their great speed with which they have acceded to our request to bring a certain witness from prison to the hearing.  We are very grateful to the prison and would you express our thanks to the head of prison when you return.  Thank you.

MISHEK MAY: (s.u.o.)

MR MTHEMBU: (cont)
	May I proceed Mr Chairman.  Mr May you were still testifying.  Sir would you tell this Committee what political objective did you seek to achieve by participating in the murder of the late Mr Fourie and as well as in the robbery of Mr Fourie and Mrs May?

MISHEK MAY: The objective was to carry out the policy as
outlined by Operation Great Storm.   From there PA  were from its military wing believed that these farms, the farm owners, if they can be attacked by using the operations of Great Storm this would make this - and hence the attacks on the farmers and we were referring to this land where they farmed on, we tried to acquire this land so that when they leave these farms the Africans could take over the farms.  However, they didn't have the right to own farms at that time.

MR MTHEMBU: What term of imprisonment are you currently serving?

MISHEK MAY: I was sentenced to death in 1992, on the 11th of September and sentenced for 15 years.

MR MTHEMBU: Sir is there any further thing that you wish to add?

MISHEK MAY: What I would say on to this Committee is that my participation in the struggle for freedom, forgive me, let me explain in this manner.  The struggle that we carried on under APLA, the objective was to attain freedom because everybody was under oppression and let them attain all human rights that were in existence.  We didn't mind how we attained freedom here in South Africa as the oppressed people.  We would do anything to attain freedom in this land of Africans.

MR MTHEMBU: And is that your case?

MISHEK MAY: Yes that is as far as I can go.

MR MTHEMBU: Thank you Mr Chair.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MTHEMBU

JUDGE WILSON: I am not sure that I understand you completely correctly, but the impression I have from your evidence is that the policy of the PAC or its military wing was against farmers in general, and it was not the purpose to pick individual people whom you had a grudge against, is
that so?

MISHEK MAY: It is not so Sir, it is not so.  The objective was not to single out those that we had a grudge with.

JUDGE WILSON: No, that's what I am saying, it was not to sort out those you had a grudge with, it was a general policy?  It was not to be used for matters of personal vendetta or vengeance, is that correct?

MISHEK MAY: Yes it is so.

JUDGE WILSON: And that is what you meant when you said you would not have concurred with Leeuw because he had a personal relationship and feelings with Mr Fourie, and you felt that that was not in accordance with your policy, is that so?

MISHEK MAY: Yes it is so.

JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.