Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1998-10-07

ADV DE JAGER: Why didn't you attack one of the politicians of the Government?  That would send a clear message "You're killing our leader and we're going to kill your leaders"

FUNDISILE GULENI: We didn't think about it at that time.

ADV DE JAGER: Wouldn't that be the clear message and the only message you could send in those circumstances?  Don't kill an innocent person here on the street.  If you really want to send a message, kill a politician?

FUNDISILE GULENI: We anticipated the situation where we would find politicians in the area where we went over to.

ADV DE JAGER: But you've never asked anybody whether the people camping there were politicians, you made no effort whatsoever to find out whether they were politicians.  So you couldn't have expected to find a politician there, not even enquiring whether there is one.

FUNDISILE GULENI: Perhaps the period was very short for us to make a thorough investigation before we carry on the operation.

ADV DE JAGER: No, perhaps the real truth is, I believe you wanted to send a message and it didn't matter whatever white you killed, whether he's a politician, as long as it's a white then you would send a message "listen white people, you've killed a black man, we're retaliating".  Isn't that the real truth in this case?

FUNDISILE GULENI: But if that is the case, we couldn't have avoided those who were coming from opposite direction.  We were going to the area, we could have hit them also.

ADV DE JAGER: No, it was too near to the police?

FUNDISILE GULENI: Not ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: And there were other people driving who could see you and you were very afraid of being seen, that's why you chose that isolated spot?

FUNDISILE GULENI: I don't believe that.

ADV DE JAGER: Okay, if that's not the case then we'll have to consider your case on the basis that you ...[inaudible]

ADV SANDI: Mr Guleni, do you accept that the way you went about your target, you were not very careful the way you did it?  Do you accept that?

FUNDISILE GULENI: Yes I accept that we were not very careful as it appears now, but at that time we thought we have done all what we were expected to do in order to carry on with the operation.

ADV SANDI: And you were not thinking rationally, should I understand you to say that?

FUNDISILE GULENI: At that time we thought the role we played by inspecting the area before we carry on with the attack was enough to do what we went there to do.

ADV SANDI: But when you look back, are you able to conclude that you were not very careful?

FUNDISILE GULENI: Yes I do.

ADV SANDI: Would you be able to go as far as to say that perhaps you were thinking with your blood and not your mind?

FUNDISILE GULENI: It's not clear to me what you mean.

CHAIRPERSON: You weren't being very rational in the circumstances because you were angry.  You didn't do what you would have done in other circumstances, to check out what you should have checked out?

FUNDISILE GULENI: Ja, but at the moment we believed we have done all what we expected.

CHAIRPERSON: At that moment ja, but the question is sitting now and thinking about it, do you agree perhaps there could have been other things you should have done first?

FUNDISILE GULENI: Ja I do.

MR SMUTS: Mr Guleni, in fact one of the men you killed was an opponent of the Government.  There's a newspaper column which appears in - as document Q of Exhibit B which reflects in it's third column and the third paragraph from the top, dealing with the activities of Mr Alistair Weakley
"More recently he involved himself in Grahamstown's Peace Committee and it's efforts to deal with the crisis of local government in Gienie.  On the day of his funeral he was supposed to be involved in a mediation meeting."
Do you think that in the killing of such a man you indeed sent the message that you wish to send to the Government of the day?

FUNDISILE GULENI: In fact the reason why we are asking for amnesty and the reason why I've said earlier on that I'm so apologetic to the victims of the families because we have been made to believe that the people we hit were not the people who were supposed to be hit.

MR SMUTS: In that column it concludes
"There's nothing that can be done the gunmen which would undo their act but there is something that can be said to them: 'Shame on you, you killed a new South African'"
Are you ashamed by your actions?

FUNDISILE GULENI: Yes I do.

MR SMUTS: Could you, with more care, have avoided targeting the wrong party?

FUNDISILE GULENI: I'm not sure whether what you mean by more care because I've already said at that time we thought we have cared enough.

MR SMUTS: I've no further questions, Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR SMUTS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: Just a few Chairperson.
	Mr Guleni, where did you complete your amnesty application form?

FUNDISILE GULENI: In Umtata, I completed it in Umtata.

CHAIRPERSON: Whereabout in Umtata?

FUNDISILE GULENI: With, I don't know that area but with Advocate.

CHAIRPERSON: Anyway, with a lawyer?

FUNDISILE GULENI: With a lawyer, yes.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chairperson.
	Now the theme of your application, general all of you is to the effect that you were retaliating the death of Chris Hani and your political objective was to send a message to the De Klerk regime about your intentions.  Now we know that the person that killed Chris Hani is Janus Walus who was not an agent of the De Klerk regime.  Now can you explain how come that you have to send a message to De Klerk when the killer is not a De Klerk agent?

FUNDISILE GULENI: What we wanted to achieve was that all the anti-revolutionary forces that are killing blacks should refrain from doing so.  If they continued doing so they will meet the anger from the people.  That's what, that we needed to be cleared ...[indistinct]

MR MAPOMA: Now did you link Janus Walus with the De Klerk regime, so to speak?

CHAIRPERSON: That be at the time on the commission of this act?

MR MAPOMA: Yes Chairperson, at the time of the commission of the act.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you know who killed Chris Hani that time?

FUNDISILE GULENI: At that time what I knew was that he has been killed by a white person, I didn't know ...[indistinct]

MR MAPOMA: In fact if I can remind you, Mr Guleni, the identity of the killer of Chris Hani was publicised that very day, I mean the following day, that it was a white man who was of Poland origin.

ADV SANDI: Mr Mapoma, was it not that very same morning the day Mr Hani was killed?

MR MAPOMA: Ja, ja, Chairperson, the very same day.
	Now what I want to find out from you, did you in any way associate the killer of Chris Hani with the South African Government of the day?

FUNDISILE GULENI: Yes I did.

MR MAPOMA: How?

FUNDISILE GULENI: What transpired in my mind immediately I get the information that Chris has been killed, then comparing that with the activities of the regime then, such as question of delaying the liberation process, question of perpetrating violence in a number of ways, I concluded that that was tantamount to a declaration of war against blacks, but actually when they killed a prominent leader of ANC like Comrade Chris.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination Mr ...[intervention]

MR ZILWA: Yes, Chairperson, a few questions.
	Mr Guleni, you've been questioned at length about the message you wanted to send to the regime regarding the killing of your leaders and it was put to you that if you really want to send that message, why didn't you claim responsibility.  Do you remember that?

FUNDISILE GULENI: Yes I do.

MR ZILWA: And it was suggested to you that the fact that you never claimed responsibility on the following day would mean that your message had not been sent.  Do you recall that?

FUNDISILE GULENI: Yes I do.