Amnesty Hearings — Umtata — 2000-02-01

PUMELELE GUMENGU: Yes, as he was running away I can say he actually escaped.

MR MAPOMA: Then can't I suggest that you killed him because he was escaping for lawful custody?

PUMELELE GUMENGU: No, that was not the intention, I was killing him because I was instructed to do so.

MR MAPOMA: I have got you testifying here to suggesting that you are a person who likes adhering to the regulations in your police force, I've got that impression, that you were quite honest in adhering to the regulations of how the police practice is made, especially when it comes to apprehension of the arrestees.  Is my perception about you wrong?

PUMELELE GUMENGU: Yes, that is correct, that is true.

MR MAPOMA: What is it that is true actually?

PUMELELE GUMENGU: Yes, I adhered the rules in the police force, I do as instructed.  If I'm instructed to release someone, I do that, if I'm instructed to kill someone, I do as told.

MR MAPOMA: Now am I given an impression that during your period in your service there were orders to kill, in the police force?

PUMELELE GUMENGU: Yes, that is correct.

MR MAPOMA: And apart from the man who is now late, Mr Mfazwe, who else do you of having ever issued orders to kill, in the police force?

PUMELELE GUMENGU: Such instructions would be issued but it was not that direct, but you would realise that this instruction is not against the killing, but it wouldn't come as direct as Mr Mfazwe would issue it.  And the example, Gen Kauwe once summonsed me to his office and he actually instructed me to go to a place called Nzamba in Mbizana where there were two MK members, he told me to remain there, he mentioned straight away that he was there to guarantee my life, but those people's lives were not guaranteed, if I can bring them alive or dead they would accept that because those people have already killed a lot of people.  But what was most important in this instruction was the fact that my life was guaranteed and anything I would be involved in, I have to be sure of what was going to happen  ...(intervention)

MR MAPOMA: Yes, I understand, he guaranteed the cover-up, is that what you're saying?  He guaranteed that you will have a cover-up.

PUMELELE GUMENGU: Yes, that is correct.

MR MAPOMA: Yes.  But he was not direct that you must go and kill those people.

PUMELELE GUMENGU: He was direct because he said if the situation prevailing at the time was suitable, I had to kill them because for whatever mistake when trying to apprehend them, I had to kill them and I had to decide at the spot what to do, whether to kill them or apprehend them.

MR MAPOMA: But the deceased man now, Mr Mfazwe, gave you precise orders that you must shoot and kill Zokwe on sight, is that what you want to tell this Committee?

PUMELELE GUMENGU: Yes, that is true.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you, Chairperson, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MAPOMA

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Mapoma.

JUDGE MILLER: Yes, thanks, just briefly.
	Mr Gumengu, in your trial - we've got before us also in bundle 2, a copy of the indictment, that's the charge sheet and also a document on page 4 called a "Summary of Substantial Facts", which is made in terms of Section 149 of the Criminal Procedure Act.  If I could just briefly explain to you, this summary of Statement of Facts is a document that is prepared by the prosecuting staff, right, and if your matter were to go to trial, this document would be handed in or read out into the record.  It contains a very short description of what the State case against you would be and the person who drafts this document is expected to be able to lead evidence to substantiate any fact that he or she discloses in this document.  It's a brief summary of the State's evidence.  Whether the evidence they lead will be accepted by the Court or not, that's another story, but when they draft this document they base it on evidence that they have in their possession.  Now I just want to read to you, just for you comment, from page 6 of the bundle, it's on the fourth line.  I'll read from there, and this is describing the incident that took place on the 11th of January, this is from what the prosecuting authority put in their Statement of Facts, essential facts -
"Once inside the house, accused number 1 (that is your colleague, Mr Tyani) opened fire upon the deceased.  Both accused thereafter took his body into one of the rooms.  In their possession were two handgrenades of Russian origin which the accused', who were both trained in the use of explosive, secretly had in their possession.  One grenade was put on the bed whilst the other was activated behind the deceased who was lying on his side on the floor, so as to create the impression that he was shot and killed in an attempt to stop him from throwing an already activated handgrenade."
What do you say to that?  Which if this matter went to trail, one would expect the State would be able to lead some evidence to substantiate that.  Whether that evidence be accepted by the Court or not is neither here nor there.

PUMELELE GUMENGU: This evidence that was going to raised by the Prosecutor, I'm sure that he had no proof because that was not the case.

JUDGE MILLER: And then also just again for your comment, I again refer to this document contained in the supplementary bundle.  This is the statement from one, Shologu, I think he's known as Chris Shologu.  I'll just read this for your comment, and I know that this is not evidence, it's merely an unsigned statement, but we have it before us and I think it's fair that you comment on this.  I'm reading from page 9.  He's describing, you're now in the motorcar, this is the first incident when you're going to the quarries.  You're now in the motor vehicle with Mr Zokwe and this is what Mr Shologu says, and it's the last sentence on page 9
"About the possession of arms, he tried to deny them, but at a later stage he directed us towards Mgola administrative area where he alleged that the arms were hidden."
	What do you say to that?

PUMELELE GUMENGU: I do not know that, but that was never mentioned in my presence.

JUDGE MILLER: And then comes the passage which was read out to you by Mr Mnqandi - sorry, or Mr Mapoma, and then says here, he describes that you chased him, he ran away and you chased him.  He says
"After a couple of minutes I heard some gunshots, I couldn't go further because of the darkness and so I had to turn back.  On the edge or verge of the dongas away from the place, Gumengu re-emerged saying that Sthembele tried to grab his pistol, so he had to shoot him and he ordered that we should leave without getting the arms."
	What do you say to that?  Is that wrong?

PUMELELE GUMENGU: Yes, that was not the case, that is a mistake.

JUDGE MILLER: Can you think of any reason why Mr Shologu should come and make such statements if there's no truth to them?  Why should he say something like this?

PUMELELE GUMENGU: Perhaps Mr Shologu was making a statement as the accused.  I am not sure if that was directed to the TRC or to the police during their investigation, or at the time he was merely doing that to protect himself, but that was not the right story.

JUDGE MILLER: Do you agree that he was one of the people with you in the vehicle in the first incident, when Mr Zokwe was shot?

PUMELELE GUMENGU: Yes, he was there.

JUDGE MILLER: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

MR SIBANYONI: This training you underwent in Groblersdal in demolition and the training you gave evidence about, to enable you to break into houses, was it specifically to equip you with the expertise of doing some covert operations?

PUMELELE GUMENGU: That training I never acquired it in Groblersdal, I was trained to that effect here in Butterworth and again in Johannesburg.  Yes, the intention is to make sure that whenever given some assignment by the government to go and fetch something or open a certain office and get something there, I have to do that.