Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1999-04-28

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Ntanunu.
	Mr Mayapi, just for the record, you confirm the contents of your application and of Exhibit A, the affidavit as well?

PUMZILE MAYAPI: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Mr Jaco, have you got any questions?

MR JACO: Thank you, Mr Chairperson and Members of the Committee, I just have a few questions for Mr Mayapi.
	Can you tell this Committee, Mr Mayapi, why did you choose the casino as your target?

PUMZILE MAYAPI: Thank you, Sir.  First of all I would like this Committee to know that this incident took place in 1986, at a time that I am sure that everyone knows that a conflict between the freedom fighters, or liberation movements and the government was at a high level.
	This took place at a time when the movement that was leading the battle of the South African freedom fighters said South Africa should be rendered ungovernable.  That means that each and every institution that was seen as the ANC, as the extension of the oppressors in South Africa, that particular institution would automatically become a target.  These gambling casinos, all of them - or let me talk about this one in particular.  This was in the homeland of Transkei.  
	This casino was an ivory tower that was so clear that this casino of Wild Coast, its presence in that particular place made it possible that there would be complaints from the people who were residing there, that that casino was there without any consultation with the people or community.
	Secondly, this casino was a place that was clear for one to see that it was there for people who would, during the battle in South Africa, who would ...(indistinct) for people to go there and relax, people who would go there and relax without knowing what was happening in this country.  Even the people who were employed there were the people who were working under the extreme oppression.  Even the few people who were offered jobs there were the people who were oppressed.  That is why I say that under those circumstances it became clear that this particular casino, after grievances or complaints from the liberation movement, had become a target.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, Mr Jaco.
	Mr Mayapi, in my reading of your affidavit, paragraph 6, I thought it was the decision of Mzizi Bilo Makwageza(?), that the casino should be bombed.  Were you part of this decision?

PUMZILE MAYAPI: Let me respond like this.  Yes, Mr Makwageza was a commander, as explained in my affidavit, but as a commander he would sometimes ask for other people's opinions as to how the target is.  That is why I'm saying this is the definition that I had.  Yes, the order was coming from Mr Makwageza, it's true.

MR JACO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.  Now in paragraph 9 of your affidavit you state that your actions were committed with a political objective, can you explain that?  What political objective did you want to achieve?

PUMZILE MAYAPI: As I've already explained, as the soldiers who were fighting for freedom it used to be our duty to make known that the organisation that is protecting the oppressed is existing.  If there were complaints or if there are complaints from the people about this casino it became necessary to give support or power to the people who were there, that led to this type of an incident.
	I can say that after this incident our objectives were fulfilled solely because even the workers in the casino after that stood up and their eyes were opened and they could see that they can get some assistance, because in the early '90's there was a great change as far as the workers were concerned in that particular casino.

MR JACO: Right.  Again in your affidavit, paragraph 9,  you state that there was no personal gain on your part, can you explain that, what do you mean by that?

PUMZILE MAYAPI: Yes, that is true.  If we were involved in the battle fighting for freedom, we were there not expecting any personal gain, but we were doing this under the organisation which we knew was there for the needs of the people who were oppressed in South Africa.

MR JACO: Again in paragraph 6 of your affidavit you state that you acted under the command of the later Makwageza, is that correct?

PUMZILE MAYAPI: Yes, that is correct.

MR JACO: Can you tell this Committee what was this command?

PUMZILE MAYAPI: This command said something should take place at the Wild Coast Casino, in the sense that it should be known that there is someone who can listen to the complaints of the people, therefore limpet mines were to be used.

MR JACO: Thank you, that is all, Mr Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JACO

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Wild(?), any questions?

MS WILD: Yes, thank you, Mr Chairman.
	As I understand what you're saying the ANC viewed the Kerzner's casinos as a legitimate target, is that correct?

INTERPRETER: Will the speaker please repeat the question?

MS WILD: Yes.  The ANC viewed Kerzner's casinos as a legitimate target, is that correct?

PUMZILE MAYAPI: Yes, that is correct.

MS WILD: They undoubtedly did so because they formed a very strong component of the economic viability of the homelands, is that correct?

INTERPRETER: Will the speaker please speak a bit slower so that the interpreter can interpret?

MS WILD: Is it correct that the casinos formed a very significant component of the economic viability of the homelands?

PUMZILE MAYAPI: I would like to disagree with that statement because in our opinion we saw it, we saw this casino as something that was there for the minority, more especially when it comes to the economy.  The majority of the people, even the people who were staying nearer, there was nothing much that they were gaining by the existence of this casino.

MS WILD: Thank you.  No, we're not at difference, what I'm trying to say to you is, it was a very important part of apartheid structure, in keeping the homelands alive, isn't that what the ANC believed?  The casinos were a significant component of the homelands to keep apartheid alive by having the homelands, isn't that right?

PUMZILE MAYAPI: Yes, that is correct.

MS WILD: No with respect to the orders that you were given, did you have any opportunity to make input with regard to those orders or to refuse those orders?

PUMZILE MAYAPI: The time to make an input to say yes or no, you can get that opportunity in the sense that you are also a soldier, but as a human being you have an opportunity to use your own initiative, you can see that this unreasonable or this one is reasonable.  You also get that kind of an opportunity.

MS WILD: Well having regard to that, wouldn't it have been more damaging to have made your presence felt and your organisation's message felt, by for example perpetrating a malicious injury to the property of the roulette wheels of the casino, which are very expensive components?  Wouldn't that have been a far more appropriate thing to have done?

INTERPRETER: Will the speaker please repeat the question and will you please speak a bit slower.

MS WILD: I'm asking whether it would not have been more appropriate if one wished to achieve the objectives that were set about, to have destroyed the roulette wheel and perpetrated malicious injury to property at the casino than to have planted a bomb which injured civilians and which killed the late Mr Hudson, whose daughters I represent?

PUMZILE MAYAPI: The purpose was to destroy this casino building, but because of the weapons or instruments that we had we had to use this limpet mine and we had to place it in a place where we knew that at least that particular spot wouldn't be frequented by people. The aim was to destroy the building or the property of the casino, not the people.  That is why had placed that limpet mine in that position.