Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1999-03-23

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you, Chairperson.  Chairperson, the way you put it one would say I concede that's a point, but one would ask whether that would have been the case when it comes to them.  We don't know what would have happened, what - as I indicated that unfortunately there's no other evidence led on that aspect, as to what actually happened when somebody, if anything is not - when you were given an order and you have reconnoitred the place and you find out that it's not what you thought it is, can you despite that carry out those instructions?  Of course I may of course concede that in one of the, in some of the cases that has happened, where they have been reconnoitred and find that these people who were supposed to be targets are not the people and some have not carried out the instructions, taking into account that many people who were not supposed to be injured will be injured in the process.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry, I must correct what I said to you, Donne was not driving on that day, she was sitting in the passenger's seat which was the seat nearest to your client when he went, Mike Meyers was in the driver's seat and yet he says he in trying to shoot Mike Meyers he shot Donne.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes, Chairperson, exactly, that's what he told the Committee, that at the time they saw that there was somebody on the passenger's seat and he went there to take care of that particular person and Mike Meyers was on the passenger seat and it's that time ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Sorry, driver's seat.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you, Member.  ... was on the driver's seat.  It's that time when he saw him going for something which he thought that he was going for a gun and he shot.  It's then he fired and unfortunately he shot Donne Meyers.  And Mike Meyers went on the other side running and Zama Thutha, the second applicant, it's then that he shot Mike Meyers, thinking that he is the person who fired the shot on his comrade and it's how he shot him.  That's the evidence they gave before this Committee.

MR LAX: Can I move onto a different issue, it's around the issue of full disclosure.  I accept what you say with regard to the way witnesses vary in their testimony, we've seen that on numerous occasions, but that's usually in the context where something happens very quickly and it's a traumatic event, that people then see the same thing differently and they see different people in different places and so on.
	With regard to what happened in the vehicle, both applicants were in the vehicle, driving the vehicle, one was a passenger, for a long period of time from the scene of this attack to where it happened, they would have had plenty of time to see what was happening.  You would expect there would be some consistency in their perception as to what had happened to Donne.
	Just to refer you for example, to the evidence or the application of Mr Kulman where for example at page 10 of the papers, if one read that paragraph, that's paragraph 9(a).4 but over the page on page 10 of the papers, he says:
"One was shot at the scene, the other was shot at Bashe River."
I think he's trying to say:
"Some distance was one kilometre from where the operation began."
Okay?  Now on that version alone Donne Meyers wasn't shot there at all.  That would explain why she was purportedly still alive at that point in time, forced to kneel down below the dashboard, as the testimony went, and why she was then shot later or killed later.  Now that version raises a whole set of probabilities diametrically opposed to the other version, how do we deal with those inconsistencies?   That is the one thing.  
	The other thing is this, that on your issue around the orders, they would carry much more weight for me as someone listening to this whole matter, if the commander wasn't present at all, but the commander was present in the most bizarre way, he keeps coming backwards and forwards into this matter.  
	Now what I find highly improbable is that the commander arrived at them long after this thing and then despatched Donne Meyers.  How on earth could they have connected in that way?  The probabilities make it so absolutely unlikely, to me anyway, that that could have happened.  That would be the only way to explain their conduct.  The commander wasn't there, they couldn't refer to anybody.  Maybe they didn't even have instructions, then their course of conduct seems explainable.  So can you just address those two issues?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you.  Through you Chairperson.  Chairperson, with the question that they travelled such a long distance, Kulman I think when he was testifying before this Committee he told the Committee that he had a problem with remembering some of these issues, he's suffering from memory loss, whatever the reason may be for that.  But of course my argument is based on the fact that, what would have been the reason for him to say that he shot Donne Meyers, complicating issues for him, that he shot Donne Meyers where they shot Mike Meyers?  What would be the reason to say that they shot her there, not on the second spot when they gave evidence here.  One would be left with many questions.  	Chairperson, through you, I'm not going to attempt to say that I know the answer from there, the answer for that.
	I wouldn't like to dwell much again on the question of what happened in the truck from that spot to the second spot.  I think I wouldn't like to put it in so many words that I've highlighted that, that it raises some problems, some questions as to what actually happened.  That is why I ended up explaining that maybe it's because people don't have the same capacity to remember things as the others.  Some remember like if you were watching a football some would say the goal was scored in the first half, some would say in the second half, not knowing, yet all of them were watching the same game, they were there in the field.
	In any event, one would have to take this matter in its context, that's why I'm saying I don't want to dwell much on that because definitely I don't even myself have some answers on some other issues which have been raised, and I considered from the beginning that some of these issues are difficult to deal with, except that you can deal with them in a very broad way instead of being specific on certain issues because definitely you encounter problems immediately you deal with specific issues, you remain with many unanswered questions.
	Of course also the question of the commander which of course also in itself as you raised it, I had hoped that I would raise it, which also raises some questions that he was so near one would have expected that he had dropped them and left for good, but it so happened that he was in the vicinity which of course also itself was very unusual, the way it happened.
	But Chairperson, through you, as I indicated that I wouldn't like to dwell much because definitely I wouldn't have many answers for that because the more I answered, the more I tried to answer the more it raises more questions.

MR LAX: One last question from me.  I understand, and you can just correct me if I'm wrong because I just can't find it my notes, they were convicted of robbery as well.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes, through you, Chairperson, that's correct.

MR LAX: Now on their version they haven't committed any robbery, how do we deal with that as a Committee?  What submissions would you make in that regard?  Well of the vehicle, they robbed the vehicle, but the rest of the items, there were firearms, there was money, there was a whole range of other things.  How do we deal with those aspects?  The vehicle, that's cut and dried, don't worry about the vehicle, but it's the other items they deny having taken.