Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1998-10-07

MR SMUTS: In your application form when you are asked to describe the acts, omissions or offences in respect of which you apply for amnesty, you respond with the phrase "attacked the Boers".  It's on page 37, it's indistinct in the copy that I have but it's been transcribed Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: I can't read a word in this application, Mr Mapoma, I don't know why the TRC forwarded this to us, it's illegible, one can't see a word here so I don't ...[inaudible]

MR MAPOMA: Yes, yes chairperson, let me just explain.  The application as it was when it was handed in to the Committee was hand-written and it was written in blue pen and it became illegible.  For that reason then we decided to make a typed
version of that application.  In fact that typed version appears in the bundle from page 45 of the bundle.  Unfortunately chairperson, I must apologise for this, these pages which follow after page 44 seem not to have been marked but the third page from page 44 does contain this particular phrase where it appears "attacked Boers".  When you count page 1, 2, 3 after page 44 of the bundle.

ADV DE JAGER: Well there's no pages 1, 2, 3, 4 after page 44.

MR MAPOMA: Perhaps that must have been the initial bundle that was sent to the Committee.  Anyway chairperson, I do have a separate copy of this particular application by the applicant, I can hand it in for whatever reason.

ADV SANDI: If I could assist, in the bundle, in the paginated bundle, it starts at page 36 to page 42.

ADV DE JAGER: You can have a look at mine ....[inaudible]

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, I've got one copy in the meantime.

MR SMUTS: Thank you Mr Chairman.
	I was dealing with your evidence that this was not a racist attack and I refer you to your description of the act or offence in respect of which you apply for amnesty, which you record as being ....[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Which paragraph is that?

MR SMUTS: Mr Chairman it's paragraph 9a(i).
	You record as being "attack the Boers".  By that were you referring to the people in the vehicle at which you shot?

FUNDISILE GULENI: No specifically people who were at vehicle that we shot but people who were at the area.

MR SMUTS: Did you attack other people in the area then?

FUNDISILE GULENI: Yes they were at the area.

MR SMUTS: Which other people did you attack in the area?

FUNDISILE GULENI: I'm talking about the victims.

MR SMUTS: You're talking about the people whom you attacked, those in the vehicle?

FUNDISILE GULENI: Can you come again with that question?

MR SMUTS: You were asked in the form to describe details of the acts or offences in respect of which you sought amnesty and you answered "attacked the Boers".

CHAIRPERSON: Could you make it clearer?  The description of Boer in this country over the years have taken on or has taken on racial connotations, do you agree with that?  It refers to white people, not so?

FUNDISILE GULENI: Yes I agree.

CHAIRPERSON: Now earlier in your evidence you've indicated that the attack wasn't based on any racial considerations.  What is being pointed out to you and I assume it's for your comment, is that if it wasn't based on racial connotations, why is it that the acts for which you apply for amnesty is described as "attack on Boers".  Have I got it right Mr Smuts?

MR SMUTS: Yes thank you Mr Chairman.

FUNDISILE GULENI: I think this statement doesn't end there according to me because we talk of the Boers whom we could find in the area which we suspected to be an area where there's an infiltration.  I agree with the fact that we refer by saying Boers, we're referring to the white people whom we can find in the area.

ADV SANDI: Were you not referring to the people you thought were associated with the AWB when you're saying here "we attacked Boers".

FUNDISILE GULENI: Yes we are referring to them.

ADV SANDI: You were trying to explain what was going on in your mind at the time you attacked these people?

FUNDISILE GULENI: Yes.

MR SMUTS: In the light of the information which has come to your knowledge about the people whom you attacked, do you describe them as Boers?

FUNDISILE GULENI: Ja, to us there's not that much difference between a white person and a Boer.

MR SMUTS: Well give us your definition if you will of a Boer?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Smuts, where's this going to get us to?  He says that, his evidence is whether we believe it or not is another matter that the attack was directed at AWB people who were Boers by definition.

MR SMUTS: I'm not sure of that definition Mr Chairman, but in any event.

CHAIRPERSON: That's what the AWB claimed themselves, take it from me.

MR SMUTS: Well Mr Chairman, we know what the facts are in this case and we know who was attacked.  We know that AWB people were not attacked.  If he's claiming amnesty in this application in respect of an attack on members of the AWB, then so be it, then I have no questions.  If he's claiming amnesty for the attack which was perpetrated at Mpandi on the 13th April 1993, then with respect, he owes an explanation for the use of racist terminology in his amnesty application.

ADV SANDI: But Mr Smuts, looking at the context of all of this having regard to the evidence that has been led by the applicants since they started on Monday, when he says there "we attacked the Boers" is it not clear that he is referring to those people whom he thought were AWB people?

MR SMUTS: No, on the contrary Mr Chairman, it is manifestly unclear.  He knows and knew when this application form was filled in because he says so in the form that the people that he attacked did not fall within his target group but he seeks amnesty, he says, for an attack on the Boers.  The amnesty process, with respect, is a step in the reconciliation process and he owes an explanation as to how this fits, this terminology, fit into the reconciliation process.

ADV SANDI: So are you suggesting that you - he was supposed to have said there "we attacked people we thought were Boers who in fact they appeared to have been innocent fisherman".  Were you expecting him to have given such details in the application form?

MR SMUTS: No Mr Chairman.  He could have said attack on occupants of a vehicle.  He chose to describe it in racist terms.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Guleni tell me, when did you find out that the victims of your attack were in fact - or when were you informed and when was it alleged to you that the victims of this attack for which you make application for amnesty were not in fact members of the AWB and therefore, according to Mr Smuts' argument not Boers?

FUNDISILE GULENI: It was after a few months after the incidents where I got it from the media that these people were not AWB members.

CHAIRPERSON: So you were aware of that at the time you filled in this, that there was an allegation that these victims were not members of the AWB?

FUNDISILE GULENI: Yes I was.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on Mr Smuts?

MR SMUTS: Why did you use the term "Boers" in your description, "attacked the Boers" relating to your actions in respect of which you apply for amnesty?

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't it because there's a tendency in terms of language to refer to all white people as Boers?

FUNDISILE GULENI: Yes it is.

MR SMUTS: I believe I should explore that.  A tendency amongst whom?

FUNDISILE GULENI: In fact according to me there is no difference when I refer to a white person as a Boer or let me put it this way, in this context I think I used the term Boer not because I was trying to be racist.  I don't know how to put it but it's a tendency that I normally - I don't know how to put it, but it's a tendency that there's no difference when you say a Boer or a white person, there's no difference according to me.

ADV DE JAGER: So you'll refer to Minister Irwin as a Boer or Mr Slovo?

FUNDISILE GULENI: No because I know them.

MR SMUTS: Why then would you not refer to them as Boers?