Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1999-05-26

ADV STEENKAMP: So, you killed him and if I understand you correctly, sir, and please say if you don't understand the question, do I understand you correctly in saying that you actually killed the deceased in self-defence?

JOHN SERAME GULU: It's not that I killed him because I was defending myself.

ADV STEENKAMP: Do you understand my question? You've just said, you just confirmed that you told the Supreme Court, and you're still staying with that version, that you killed the deceased because he was armed with a firearm and he attacked you. Now my question is this, are you saying today or are you confirming that evidence you led at the Supreme Court or the evidence you put before the judge at the Supreme Court? Are you still sticking with that story basically?

JOHN SERAME GULU: Yes, I do hear about that evidence you are quoting.

ADV STEENKAMP: You testified that under oath in the Supreme Court. That was your defence.

JOHN SERAME GULU: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Gulu, the question is, is that true? Did he attack you with a firearm and did you defend yourself? Was that statement true?

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

JOHN SERAME GULU: That statement is not true at all that the deceased attacked me with a gun. He had his gun but he did not attack me with it.

ADV STEENKAMP: My last question. I didn't want to belabour this point, Mr Chairman. Can you just answer, or can I just ask you, why did you lie to the Supreme Court? And if I may ask, with all due respect, why should the Amnesty Committee believe you today?

JOHN SERAME GULU: I asking that you, I'm requesting that you repeat your question, sir.

ADV STEENKAMP: My question is this. First of all, why did you lie to the Supreme Court under oath? Why did you fabricate this whole story about the self-defence and the attack by the accused on your person with a firearm? Why did you lie to the Supreme Court? That's the first part. And the second part is ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Let him answer the first part first, question by question, please, Mr Steenkamp.

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

JOHN SERAME GULU: I was not lying. He was attacking me. I did not say he was attacking me with the firearm, I was just saying he was attacking me.

ADV STEENKAMP: Then did you act then in self-defence? Is that what you're saying?

JOHN SERAME GULU: Yes.

ADV STEENKAMP: Now, why didn't you say this, or why didn't you put this to the Amnesty Committee in either your amnesty application or in your evidence in chief today? Why didn't you tell the Amnesty Committee this today? Said yes, the applicant - the deceased attacked me and I acted in self-defence. Why didn't you tell the Chairperson this today?

JOHN SERAME GULU: When I was testifying it is because I did, I did not mention this because during our consultation my lawyer did not ask me this.

ADV STEENKAMP: You didn't think it was important enough to tell anybody about this?

JOHN SERAME GULU: It could have been of my benefit if I mentioned this to him, but I did not.

ADV STEENKAMP: You are aware of the legal requirements that you have to make a disclosure. Are you aware of that requirement?

JOHN SERAME GULU: Yes, I do.

ADV STEENKAMP: Would you agree with me at this stage, that you didn't make a full disclosure regarding this specific fact?

JOHN SERAME GULU: Yes, I do, that there are other facts which I did not put forward.

ADV STEENKAMP: I would like to give you the opportunity, so are there any other information or factual information that you would like to put before the Committee before I proceed in asking you any further questions?

JOHN SERAME GULU: You may continue, sir.

ADV STEENKAMP: So there is nothing further you would like to add to your statement or any further facts you would like to add? Do you understand that?

JOHN SERAME GULU: You may continue, sir.

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you. So, if I ... (intervention)

UNKNOWN: Mr Steenkamp, sorry, just before you proceed. Mr Gulu, just to be fair to you, I don't know what Mr Steenkamp is aiming at, but you said, according to the interpretation, there are other facts that you did not put forward to us this morning. Are those facts important?

JOHN SERAME GULU: Yes, that is what I said.

UNKNOWN: Are those facts important for us to know, and would you like to tell us those facts?

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

JOHN SERAME GULU: Yes.

UNKNOWN: Well then, what is it you want to tell us?

JOHN SERAME GULU: The facts which I forgot is about the firearm. As to whether I lied before the Supreme Court, that the deceased attacked me with a firearm. He was not attacking with the firearm, but he had it on his person and that is the reason which I did not put forward before this Committee. He had it on his person, but did not attack me with it. I acted fast to stab him with a knife and I denied him the opportunity to attack me with the firearm. That firearm was from the Postmasburg Police Station. He got that firearm from Mr Greyling and then the other one is Mr van Rooyen, and then another adjutant called Marthinus.

UNKNOWN: What was the third name?

JOHN SERAME GULU: Marthinus Thomas. He was the warrant officer.

UNKNOWN: What happened to that firearm? There is no record, or no reference to that firearm in the part of the record that we have before us.

JOHN SERAME GULU: The firearm was taken by members of the SAP after this incident. There was a certain woman who saw them whom I just forgot her name - her identity. The Court disputed his, her evidence that the gun, the firearm was taken by members of the South African Police that, who took the firearm and they did not want any mention of the firearm.

UNKNOWN: And who told you that he got the firearm from Greyling and Van Rooyen and from Thomas?

JOHN SERAME GULU: Mr van Greyling, as I have already mentioned his name, he was the Station Commander in that police station and Van Rooyen was his junior. As I knew Mr van Greyling he had, he was selling firearms and again then he is the Captain or the Station Commander, and the Eagles gang used to hold their meetings at his shop. So he, Mr van Greyling issued that gun to support the Eagles gang.

UNKNOWN: Mr Gulu, sorry, can we, can we just get a few points and let's do it point for point. You say that the deceased had a firearm on his person, is that correct?

JOHN SERAME GULU: Yes, that is correct.

UNKNOWN: Did you see that firearm that day?

JOHN SERAME GULU: At the day when I stabbed him, when he fell on the ground, I saw that gun. Then I wanted to disarm him, and my brother said I should not take that gun. Then I left him with that firearm.

UNKNOWN: OK. And then you said a woman, whose name you can't remember, saw the police take that gun. Is that correct?

JOHN SERAME GULU: Yes, that is correct.

UNKNOWN: Did she tell you this?

JOHN SERAME GULU: She told my brother about that. She told me again.

UNKNOWN: And then lastly, how do you or what is your, on what do you rely when you say that that gun, which you saw when he fell, and which the woman told you the police took off him, that that woman, that that gun came from the police? On what basis are you saying that? That specific gun.

JOHN SERAME GULU: The reason to say that is because the members of the Eagles gang used to attend meetings at the shop where they were selling firearms and the owner of that shop is Mr van Greyling.

UNKNOWN: Thank you, Mr Steenkamp

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Am I right in saying at the time when the deceased were killed, there were three people, namely yourself, Mr Frans Morwaeng and your brother, Mr Isaac Gulu? Am I right?

INTERPRETER: Who's the third one, sir?

ADV STEENKAMP: Isaac, Mr Isaac Gulu. Am I right?

JOHN SERAME GULU: Yes, that is correct.