Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1998-10-06

MR SMUTS: Were there then three of you, according to your evidence, three of you standing next to the bakkie, one in the bakkie and three who had taken up the ambush position?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: We were eight, three of them were there for the ambush, four of us were standing outside the car, and there was only one person inside the car.

MR SMUTS: Those of you who were standing next to the vehicle, were you standing open and clearly visible to the occupants of the 4 x 4 as it approached?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: Yes, that is correct.

MR SMUTS: You never took up a position in which you hid yourselves?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: Not at all.

MR SMUTS: And that is notwithstanding your evidence earlier that you expected to be fired upon once the attack started?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: Can you please repeat the question sir, I don't follow it.

MR SMUTS: In your earlier evidence, you testified to an expectation that you would be yourselves fired upon by the occupants of the 4 x 4, once you had started the attack upon them.

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: That is correct, yes.

MR SMUTS: Notwithstanding that expectation, and the fact that you were unarmed, you never at any stage tried to hide yourselves?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: It is clear that we were, we knew what we were doing because we were checking up on any movement that would take place, if we had noticed that they were trying to make some movement, we would take cover and it is always easy to take cover behind the car.

MR SMUTS: I want to suggest to you that the reason why you never found it necessary to take cover, was that there was never any prospect nor did you have any expectation of being fired upon by the fishermen.

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: I disagree with that, we expected to be attacked.

MR SMUTS: Was the hooter of your vehicle sounded as the 4 x 4 came passed?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: Yes.

MR SMUTS: (Microphone not on)

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: To indicate to the other group that it was the right time to attack.

MR SMUTS: Was that the signal that all the occupants of the vehicle were white?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: Yes, that is correct.

MR SMUTS: If it was possible to ascertain that all the occupants of the vehicle were white, then clearly it must also have been possible to ascertain that two of the occupants, were children?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: I think that did not need any special attention, because it was bright, it was daylight.  We did not have to pay much attention on that aspect.  It was clear.

MR ZILWA: In fact Mr Chairman, I think maybe the interpretation, I am not sure that it is very correct.  Maybe the witness should be asked to repeat what he had stated.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you repeat what you had stated?

ADV DE JAGER: Couldn't you perhaps assist us?  Couldn't you perhaps assist us because I believe you understand the language quite well?  It may be that in rehearsing the question, he wouldn't follow it as in the first place.
	Your legal representative, couldn't he assist us.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Zilwa, can you tell us what he said?

MR ZILWA: Oh, yes, I could, I thought you were talking to the witness, Mr Chairman.  I think he said it is clear to recognise white colour, so it was not difficult for us to recognise that the occupants were whites.  I think that is what he said.

CHAIRPERSON: Given that, it wasn't you that did the - who was at the lookout, not so?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: I said the people who were left next to the car, were the people who were responsible for the lookout.  I was also one of them.

CHAIRPERSON: So you could see who was in the car?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you not see that there were children in the motor vehicle?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: No, I only saw that while reading the newspaper, that there were children in the car.

CHAIRPERSON: If you were able to see the colour of their skin, how is it that you couldn't say whether they were adults or children?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: The other thing is this, if those were children, maybe they were right inside, because the adults that we were sure about, they were just on the side.  I remember the one had his arm exposed through the window, and even those who were inside, it was not clear that there were not children.
	Therefore we got confused, therefore we believed that all of them were adults.

CHAIRPERSON: Did I understand your evidence correctly earlier, that you specifically looked out if the occupants of this motor vehicle, to establish whether there were any blacks in it and to check if there were any women or children, not so or did I misunderstand you?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So, you established there is no blacks there, correct?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: Yes.  Are you saying that there were not blacks inside the car, black people inside the car?

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand your evidence, you established that there were no blacks inside that motor vehicle?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You established there were no women in the motor vehicle?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: It looked like, to us it looked like there were no women inside, but we were sure because we were told that the people who had gone fishing, there was only one woman who was left behind.  We took it as if there was no women in the car, and that is the way we saw things.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you establish how many adults and how many children there were in the motor vehicle?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: No.

CHAIRPERSON: You were specifically posted there, you were one of the people specifically posted in that position, to establish that?  Not so?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Wasn't that done?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: We did that.  As I am saying, we just saw the people who looked like men to us at the time, and it seemed there were no children in the car.  It was actually a surprise to us to find out later that there were children in the car.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Smuts, how old were these children?

MR SMUTS: Mr Chairman, the boy who now sits in the front row, he is 16 years old, he was 11 at the time, and Mr Rumble's son, Brett was 7.

CHAIRPERSON: Seven?

MR SMUTS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: There is a seven year old child in the motor vehicle, and you tell me that you were unable to establish whether it was a child or not?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: That was a van with a canopy.  When it passed, the only people that were easily identifiable were the people who were sitting on the sides.  Those were just in between, it was not easy for us to say whether they were men or women, but there was no indication of a child either.
	I am not sure whether there were children who were 11 years old, maybe they were taller when sitting on their seats, and they looked like adults, but the car was in motion.
	Therefore it was very difficult for us to see. Some of the things didn't happen, we couldn't see some of the things.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Smuts, I don't know if we are going to get anywhere on this issue.

MR SMUTS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I think in fairness to the witness I must clarify the one aspect where he says that the people were sitting and they could only see those sitting on the sides.
	Thomas O'Keeffee, the 11 year old, was sitting on the right hand side of the vehicle, directly behind the driver.  He could see the people on the side, he must have been visible to you on your own evidence?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: What I am saying is this, I saw an adult.  If that was him, to me he looked like an adult.  That mistake happened.

MR SMUTS: I am going to suggest to you Mr Hermans, that the gender and the age of the passengers of that motor vehicle, were unimportant to you.  It was only the race with which you were concerned?