Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1998-04-16

LUVUYO KENNETH KULMAN: No it is not that I do not have any answer. It is just that I am trying to recall what I have said because I may appear as a liar to you but you say that on the 19 July 1994 I mentioned that date. I do not think I said that on the 19th of July 1994. Perhaps somebody could explain to me or remind me?

MR LAX: Let me try and help you. It is really a very simple matter. The 19th of July 1994 was the day you changed your plea in Court. That is the date we are talking about. That date was after the 27th of April, which was when the election happened. And that date was after the inauguration of President Mandela, which was on the 10th of May. By that date the Transkei had ceased to exist as a separate entity. And by that date on your own evidence which you have told us already, the APLA bases had been disbanded and people had begun to be integrated into the SANDF. You with me?

LUVUYO KENNETH KULMAN: Yes I am with you.

MR LAX: So in the light of all of that, the original question which Mr Botma put to you was can you now explain to us why you did not tell the Court an important part of your motivation for your operation which was that Mr Meyers was a member of the AWB at that stage? In other words as at the 19th of July 1994? You with me, you understand the question?

LUVUYO KENNETH KULMAN: Yes I understand. Is this the question Mr Botma was asking?

MR LAX: Correct.

LUVUYO KENNETH KULMAN: Alright I think I gave the reasons why I did not divulge this in Court. I still did not recognise the Court and it did not recognise me.

CHAIRPERSON: But you did change your plea. When you changed it why didn't you change it properly. You did not ignore the Court. Your advocate on your behalf changed your plea and put up other grounds. So you were not ignoring the Court. You went on to tell Mr Botma that the reason why you did not disclose this was not because you did not recognise the Court but that you wanted to safe guard the Transkei and APLA bases in the Transkei. Which is now being shown to be completely without any basis.

LUVUYO KENNETH KULMAN: In responding to your comment about changing my plea, if I was going to change it in such a manner that I would divulge all the details concerning Meyers perhaps I would have been given even a worse sentence than I have been given now. We were still trying to defend ourselves in a way so that we could be released from jail.

CHAIRPERSON: Another version.

MR LAX: But you see you told us earlier in your evidence you did not care what happened in court. You were not interested in the court case. You did not even want to participate in it. That is what you told us, so?

LUVUYO KENNETH KULMAN: Yes and I did not take part in the trial. This all rotated around my co-accused and I. What I said would affect my co-accused as well. He made a statement so that we could be released. I am not bringing different versions to the Commission. I am still saying I did not recognise the Court. I did not take part in the trial.

MR LAX: Mr Botma just one question before you continue?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Sorry Mr Chairman just not to interrupt you just before you may (...indistinct) encompass what (...indistinct) say. Mr Chairman I have some problems about this plea because we do not know what was contained in the statement except that it was because of the political situation, we do not know what actually was said. Whether it was, what was written by the legal representatives there. Whether he himself wrote everything except to tell about the political change in the country.

MR LAX: Mr Botma do you want to shed any light?

MR BOTMA: Unfortunately I do not have a copy of the plea as such. I could not get hold of it, it is in the Court file as well. But the question was more aimed towards during the whole trial this question of the fact that Mr Meyers being a member of the AWB never came up during the whole trial. And it was also acknowledged by the applicant himself that this question of him being an AWB member was only very recently even after he filled in this application form that this was now brought to light for the first time.

MR LAX: Mr Mbandazayo is the actual plea that relevant, the actual detailed contents of the plea? We have the wording, the gist of it as mentioned by Advocate Muller in the transcript. Which is to note the change of the nature of the plea. The precise wording we do not have. The issue, ja I am just interested to see whether he takes it any further or whether he contests the (...indistinct) verba of that plea or not.

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't the importance that the first was a complete denial they then on a change of plea they told the Court what they were doing on the day in question was taking part in an operation for the furtherance for the objective of APLA obviously. He has agreed that they still did not mention the fact that Mr Meyers was a member of the AWB and given all sorts of reasons for it. The question is if they were taking part in an APLA operation and this was the main base for it, why didn't he tell the Court? Because he has agreed he did not tell the Court. He did not tell the Court on the 19th of July 1994 and he did not in his amnesty application filled in September 1996 and - when was the next one? 1997 he still did not disclose the fact. And that is what is this issue, isn't it?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman. I agree with you fully Mr Chairman but my problem was that to me it seems as if I agree with the Committee that he did not tell them that he was a member of the AWB but he told the legal representatives that he was participating in the APLA operation. So (...indistinct) it was politically motivated. Now the question was the detail that he never told Mr Muller about the detail of what happened. And my understanding is that he explained to this Committee that he did not even trust Mr Muller. That is what he told the Committee here. That he did not even trust Mr Muller also.

MR LAX: We hear that but can we take it any further now?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman I am not saying that it must produce. I understand now the context into which Mr Botma was asking the question. I have no problem about that.

MR LAX: I just have one additional question just to elucidate. You say here or you confirmed that you did consult higher authorities in APLA?

LUVUYO KENNETH KULMAN: Yes they did come and consult with me.

MR LAX: Who came and consulted with you?

LUVUYO KENNETH KULMAN: Mandla.

MR LAX: And who else?

LUVUYO KENNETH KULMAN: Similo, he came to court. Mandla came to the prison and Similo went to court.

MR LAX: Anybody else?

LUVUYO KENNETH KULMAN: Lethlapa came to the trial to inform us about the suspension of the Arms Struggle.

MR LAX: And that was before you made this change?

LUVUYO KENNETH KULMAN: Yes.

MR LAX: Thanks Mr Botma I just wanted to clarify that.

ADV GCABASHE: Just to clarify, Mandla is Thanduxolo? It is the same person who was in Ruwanda in this particular instance?

LUVUYO KENNETH KULMAN: Yes.

ADV GCABASHE: And has Similo got another name?

LUVUYO KENNETH KULMAN: I know him as Similo.

ADV GCABASHE: And Mr Lethlapa when he came to see you he knew nothing of this particular matter or he just did not discuss it with you?

LUVUYO KENNETH KULMAN: As he was not in the area he asked what had happened and he explained but what he has come to do was to tell us about the suspension of the Arms Struggle.

ADV GCABASHE: When Mandla came to see you, did you discuss the AWB issue and how much of that you should divulge?

LUVUYO KENNETH KULMAN: He had known already because I had gotten information from him. I just elaborated that I had gotten a revolver with a AWB emblem.

ADV GCABASHE: But did you not agree with him therefore that this fact that Mr Meyers was an AWB member could be told to the Court in mitigation of your actions?

LUVUYO KENNETH KULMAN: We did not agree with him?