Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1999-03-23

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you, Chairperson.
	And the evidence - I was still on the part that they travelled, after she was also shot and the evidence of Kulman was that she was slumping on the seat when they were travelling together until that particular spot where they dropped her off and they took her over the fence and they allege that they left her with Thandukolo, who I suppose that he's the person who did the final damage.  
	But Chairperson, the second applicant, Zama Thutha also gave evidence and his evidence was slightly different from that of Kulman.  He did not know whether, what position she was at the time they were travelling to that particular spot, which raises some question if somebody was shot and it was, she was sitting between the two of them he would not have noticed in what position she was at the time because the other applicant says she was slumping whilst the second applicant did not know what was the position of Donne Meyers at the time, until they reached the spot.  
	And I think according to the second applicant was that she was walking on her own when they took her out of the truck and they were trying to assist her in crossing the fence to putting her on the other side of the fence, which of course the question was raised that that must be the reason why it was said that there were some evidence that there was some scuffles somewhere somehow in that particular spot, that there must have been some resistance.
	Now I'm raising these things because it raises some questions definitely, that there were two people and these were the two applicants with the deceased, especially Donne Meyers.  And both of them are not able to tell the Committee exactly what actually took place.  And all of us were not there, we were relying on them to tell us exactly what actually took place there.
	Now that raises some questions, but my argument would be that inasmuch as it raises some questions, it's not an incident first of its kind and it's always the case with the people that all of us we witness one incident and at the end of the day when we have to narrate you doubt whether the other person was present when that actually happened.  And it's in the human nature, not necessarily that he's telling a lie, but it's in the human nature that most of the time you find that people are not able to tell the story the same way, as to what actually happened, and even to the extent of coming with a version which you come to doubt whether this thing actually happened the way. 
	It is therefore my argument that when the Committee is considering the evidence it should take those things into account, that the circumstances under which they are, they were.  And inasmuch as it is a process where everybody, we are all not, not a single person is on the other side, all of this is the same inquiry, one is searching for truth as to what actually happened.  But at the same time, when it comes to the applicants there's still that apprehensiveness, that fear that I'm still facing people who are going to decide on my fate, so it's difficult to sometimes express themselves in most of the issues the way a person who is not under pressure of anything would express himself. And as such I would like that the Committee to take that into totality.
	Of course the question also which arises is the manner in which Donne Meyers was killed, which of course I will be the first one to concede that it was not consistent with APLA operations as what happened on the day in question.  I will be the first one to concede.  But the question as they put it themselves is that they don't what actually took place after they have left Donne with Thandukolo.  Though the incident, the way it happened, is not consistent, the way she was killed as the post-mortem reflects it, how she was killed.  Normally in all the incidences which involve APLA be they repossession and somebody ends up being killed, it's only people are shot.  
	You get sometimes one or two bullets in somebody, it's not a situation where you find in Donne Meyers where even an attempt was made even to take out, if I may, to cut her throat, which of course in all the hearings in all, as I indicated that his not consistent with APLA operations.  
	And now it reflects back to my earlier point, the political motivation which now brings it into question, whether the incident, if the Committee takes into account and the evidence as a whole and that incident, the manner in which the deceased was killed, whether that has anything to do with political motive or it was associated with a political objective, the manner of the killing of Donne Meyers.
	Chairperson, I will leave it to the Committee, I wouldn't be able to argue except to say that as the applicants have put it that their role ended when they killed Mike Meyers and they also shot Donne Meyers and thereafter they handed her over to Thandukolo and they don't what actually happened thereafter.
	Chairperson, at the present moment I would like to pause there and wait for any questions that will come up.

CHAIRPERSON: I take it from what you have just said that you concede that having regard to the injuries she sustained, it was grossly disproportionate in any political objective.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Chairperson, exactly, that's what I'm trying to get at.  That is why I'm saying that it reflects now on the political objective or the association with a political objective, the manner in which she was killed.

MR LAX: Mr Mbandazayo, you've raised the general aspect of the PAC's policy in relation to the killing of white people, and I understand that, white people as beneficiaries and agents of oppression were legitimate targets but that wasn't the intention of your clients in this particular instance and it wasn't their instructions, they weren't relying on a general, for want of a better word, a general policy view of the matter, they were acting on specific orders.
	Now on the probabilities those orders, on the evidence before us, you haven't dealt with any of that evidence, the rest of the evidence, the counter-evidence for example, you've only dealt with the applicants' case.  Would you mind looking at addressing us on the evidence to the contrary?  For example, that Mr Meyers had nothing to do with the AWB, he was never a member of the AWB, there was never any inkling of him being involved with such a reactionary organisation.  Add to that the evidence that Donne was highly respected in her local community, her interaction with people was on the face of it, hardly one in which she might be regarded as a reactionary.  So if you can just help us in that regard because you haven't dealt with any of that evidence at all.

CHAIRPERSON: Another aspect I would like you to deal with is as to whether there was any urgency in stealing this truck and possible firearms, if it had to be done that day, because as I recollect the evidence, Mr Meyers resided there, he was a regular seller of milk to the community and Donne was only with him on this day because he had injured his foot by dropping a spanner on it and he needed somebody to help him.   If they had waited another day or two, he would have again been by himself.  She wouldn't have been there, would she?