Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1998-10-07

ADV SANDI: Let us put it this way, Mr Guleni, if you killed a so-called black collaborator, a black person who had been a problem to your organisation and your people in that area, would that have had the desired political effect in the context of the time?

FUNDISILE GULENI: No, I don't think so.

ADV SANDI: You had to kill a white person in the circumstances, is that what you're saying?

FUNDISILE GULENI: Ja, what cropped out in our minds then was that now that - that began to suggest that the white people are declaring war against us when they killed Chris.  So we believed it will be soundable if we want to send a message that if they continue doing so they will encounter problems of being attacked back.  So that's how we felt we must target, I mean, those people, but those who are associated with perpetrating or ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Guleni, whenever a person was killed in order to send a message, there was some link between the killers, they could be identified as a certain group of people sending the message.  They would claim responsibility for the killing.  That happened even in Durban when right-wingers killed people, they claimed responsibility.  It happened in Ireland.  Why didn't you the next day issue a statement and say "Listen Government we're going to kill white people.  We, there's to you, accept responsibility for this killing" and make it clear that you're sending a message.

FUNDISILE GULENI: We could not do that because we knew that we'll make us to be prosecuted anyway and we never thought that a moment where we will be expected to sit for amnesty, will ever come, that wouldn't crop up in our minds then.  So we believed it won't be wise for us to divulge the information about the killings or to announce whatsoever.

ADV SANDI: Yes but you could do that Mr Guleni by calling the newspaper from a public telephone and you don't reveal who you are and you say:  " We are retaliating for the assassination of Chris Hani".

FUNDISILE GULENI: Well we avoided doing anything that will end up jeopardising ourselves like we avoided a situation where the information would lead that we have done that, but we believed that now that something of that nature has happened, at least it will give a message to ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: But there's a killing every weekend, every day in South Africa, somebody is being killed.  How would that convey a message that it was in retaliation for Hani's death?
If it's not said, told to the press by way of an anonymous telephone call or whatever?

FUNDISILE GULENI: Anyway, according to our reasoning then we felt it will be in trouble if we do that.

ADV DE JAGER: So you really considered this and decided against it?  Is that so?

FUNDISILE GULENI: Can you come again?

CHAIRPERSON: Or did you decide that you're not going to prejudice or risk any leak of identification?  Did you decide that?

FUNDISILE GULENI: Ja, we decided that in an attempt to secure ourselves.

ADV DE JAGER: Then I can't understand how you're sending a message.   Who acted as your leader in this operation?

FUNDISILE GULENI: There was nobody who was acting as a leader.

ADV DE JAGER: So there was nobody ordering you to do anything?

FUNDISILE GULENI: Ja, there was no specific body who was giving orders.

ADV DE JAGER: So there was nobody between the seven of you who took the leadership and said "listen I want you to do this or I want you to do that?"

FUNDISILE GULENI: No.

ADV DE JAGER: And there was no reason why you should have obeyed anybody asking you to do anything?

FUNDISILE GULENI: I don't understand this question.

ADV DE JAGER: If you were acting as a SDU and the SDU would order you to go and kill somebody, then you're acting on the orders of the SDU.  But the SDU didn't order you to go and kill anybody, is that correct?   It wasn't the chairperson ordering you to do this or take this rifle and shoot this person, that didn't happen?

FUNDISILE GULENI: Yes that is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: So you acted out of your own?

FUNDISILE GULENI: We acted as SDU members.

CHAIRPERSON: As a group in your own right, equally not subservient to any other person, not so?

FUNDISILE GULENI: Yes.

MR SMUTS: Mr Guleni, were you surprised by President Mandela's call for calm and for people not to take the law into their own hands?

FUNDISILE GULENI: Surprised how?

MR SMUTS: Did it come as a surprise to you that he should make such a call?

FUNDISILE GULENI: Well, I was expecting any kind of response to the situation from a person of his calibre.

MR SMUTS: Any kind of response?

FUNDISILE GULENI: Yes.

MR SMUTS: A call to take up arms and go and shoot people?

FUNDISILE GULENI: What I'm trying to say is that I wouldn't say I was surprised by the report because I was expecting that he could say, anyway let's remain calm.  That was expected also.

MR SMUTS: Wasn't his call for people not to take the law into there own hands entirely consistent with the policy that he and his organisation had expressed since 1990?

FUNDISILE GULENI: It was.

MR SMUTS: It was action which was out of line with that policy?

FUNDISILE GULENI: We didn't regard it as out of line with that policy because we thought there was a necessity to carry on with the operation in order to protect the ANC itself.

MR SMUTS: Why didn't you carry on with the operation of his call then, if there was this necessity?

FUNDISILE GULENI: Come again?

MR SMUTS: Why didn't you carry on with this operation, you said you planned further operations, why didn't you carry on with them after the President's call?

FUNDISILE GULENI: It's because he had made that call that we should remain calm and we were obliged to obey that call.

MR SMUTS: But the organisation and it's leaders had made such calls persistently over the previous three years and you didn't heed such calls on the 13th April 1993?

CHAIRPERSON: What calls are you talking about, persistent?

MR SMUTS: For calm, Mr Chairman and for peaceful activity and for people not to take the law into their own hands.

CHAIRPERSON: Chris Hani only died on the 10th April.

MR SMUTS: Yes, Mr Chairman, the document Exhibit B reveals a response to a number of incidents, surges in violence, the Bisho shootings, and on each such occasion there is a call from the ANC leadership for calm and for people not to take the law into their own hands.

ADV SANDI: But Mr Smuts, without initiating a debate on this, on those occasions you've referred to, did you have a situation where a prominent, very prominent leader of such an organisation had been gunned down by a white assassin?  Did you have such a situation at that?

MR SMUTS: No, Mr Chairman.

ADV SANDI: Is it not the evidence here from the applicant's very consistent evidence that their reaction was one of anger, they were emotional, I think they've been very frank about that?

MR SMUTS: They said so, Mr Chairman.

ADV SANDI: Can that be a fair question then to put to the witness at this stage?

MR SMUTS: Yes, I believe so Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I think, Mr Smuts, it cannot be denied that that was the policy of the ANC, public policy at least.  The fact of the matter is that these group of people did not heed to those calls at the time Mr Hani was killed.  All of them have explained that they embarked on this venture, if I may call it that, in a act of defence of their leadership as a warning "leave the leadership alone, we're not going to tolerate an attack on the leadership again."  Isn't that in essence what he's saying?

MR SMUTS: Yes, Mr Chairman, unfortunately they need to go further to qualify for amnesty and they seek to do so by saying that they were furthering the interests of the organisation and that is what I'm querying.

CHAIRPERSON: So?  Isn't the protection of the leadership in the interest of the organisation?

MR SMUTS: The defence of the leadership would be, Mr Chairman.