Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1998-04-16

MR BOTMA: What was the reason for taking her along?

LUVUYO KENNETH KULMAN: We were complying to the orders that we had been given.

CHAIRPERSON: What order had you been given?

LUVUYO KENNETH KULMAN: We were given an order to take Mike. However there were two of them there that day.

CHAIRPERSON: So you did not take Mike and you took some one who you had not been ordered to take. Instead of taking Mike you killed him. A gross breach of your orders, wasn't it?

LUVUYO KENNETH KULMAN: It is not that we did not comply with the order. We did that.

CHAIRPERSON: You were told to bring him back alive so he could be questioned. You did not comply with that order. You shot him on the scene.

LUVUYO KENNETH KULMAN: We did comply with the order. I was given an order to bring Mike. If he resisted then he would be executed. We could not take Mike, we then took the girl. We did not have a chance to drop the girl off. I reported to my commander how the operation went; "This is the person who was with the Boer." He then said the person is useless.

MR LAX: Wasn't it obvious to you she was useless at the point you left the scene, the first scene? Here was some one shot through the eye or just below the eye. How on earth could she have been of any use to you after that?

LUVUYO KENNETH KULMAN: I do not want the Commission to take Donne's death in a special way. She did pass away. I sympathise with the family. However there are a lot of people who passed away. Especially Africans. Her death was within the policies of APLA. APLA was engaged in a war. Her death was not far from the policies of APLA. She was going to be killed.

MR LAX: You still have not answered my question. What use would she be to you with that fatal wound in her? It is nothing to do with APLA's policy. I am perfectly aware of the struggle and how many African people got hurt in the struggle as well. What use would she have been to you at that point with such a wound in her face and in her head?

LUVUYO KENNETH KULMAN: Perhaps she would have been of help to Thanduxolo as my commander. I did not want to leave anybody behind. I was worried that I left Mike behind. Perhaps she would have been able to help Thanduxolo in whatever way, even if she was wounded.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you took her along with a bullet through her head, why didn't you take Mike?

LUVUYO KENNETH KULMAN: Donne was in the car already. This is why we were able to take her. Mike was outside the truck.

CHAIRPERSON: Lying right next to the truck, wasn't he?

LUVUYO KENNETH KULMAN: Yes but he was not that close to the truck. He was not that close to the truck. It would have taken time to carry him in the way that he was, wounded. My co-accused got into the car and Donne was in the truck and that is how we got to take her.

CHAIRPERSON: But the whole mission was to go and fetch Mike and there he was, available to you. Why did you not carry out the mission you said you went there to do? You have also in your application said that if you did not carry out missions you would be shot by your commanders. Do you remember saying that?

LUVUYO KENNETH KULMAN: I do not think I said that in my application.

CHAIRPERSON: No it is your co-accused. I have difficulty in understanding why Mike had been shot, he was lying there within reach of you. There were two of you who could have picked him up, put him into the van and driven off with him. Why didn't you?

LUVUYO KENNETH KULMAN: We could not have been able to do that. Our operation was already spoilt. It would have taken time to pick him up, put him into the car. That would have taken a lot of time. The police could have gotten us or arrested us there or there would be people who would be able to identify us. There is something else that happens within the army structures, when you given a responsibility as a commander during difficulties you are able to apply your authority as a commander in defence. I wanted Mike alive. I did not want him dead. However things did not go as I planned. There were injuries, there were deaths.

CHAIRPERSON: But you have made no mention in your evidence of any attempt by you or your co-accused, as you call him, to examine Mike. To see how he was injured. You just, he was shot at and fell down and you just left him there.

LUVUYO KENNETH KULMAN: This is why I am saying that the operation did not go as we planned. It was spoiled. We shot him defending ourselves because I did not know what he was trying to reach for in the cubbyhole. He got shot and lay on the ground. If somebody is laying on the ground shot in the abdominal area you got a difficulty dragging the person. It is either the person has passed away or is badly wounded. It would take time to carry the person and take him to hospital. We did not have money. We then decided to leave him behind and report to our commander as to how the mission went.

CHAIRPERSON: You did not know where he was injured. You did not examine him.

LUVUYO KENNETH KULMAN: My co-accused aimed at his stomach. A lot of damage can take place when somebody is shot.

CHAIRPERSON: You co-accused aimed at his stomach you say after he had got out of the car with bare hands, nothing in his hands, no weapon. Can you explain how you were protecting yourselves? He was not grabbing at anything, he got out of the car carrying nothing.

LUVUYO KENNETH KULMAN: If I was in my co-accused position I would shoot.

CHAIRPERSON: I have no doubt you would have.

LUVUYO KENNETH KULMAN: Sorry?

CHAIRPERSON: I have no doubt you would have shot. But I am asking you how that agrees with the orders you got to go and fetch this man and bring him back?

LUVUYO KENNETH KULMAN: My co-accused thought that I had lost Mike. (The applicant's answer is not clear. Could he repeat himself please?)

LUVUYO KENNETH KULMAN: Okay. I think that my co-accused might have perceived that this white man was going to do something as we did not know where his gun was. I had already stipulated my role to my co-accused that I was going to capture both people. He then must have realised that I was overpowered in some way. That is why he must have decided to shoot.

ADV GCABASHE: I have got a bit of a problem there. Mr Kulman you did not know there were two people in the truck. Or have I got something wrong here? Please just help us through this one?

LUVUYO KENNETH KULMAN: Yes I did not know.

ADV GCABASHE: So your partner could not have known that you meant to disarm the two people that were there. He only knew of one person who was going to be there. Or have I missed something somewhere?

MR LAX: Perhaps I could help you just to rephrase the question slightly. He said he told his partner that he was going to capture both people. And the issue is how could you have told him you were going to capture both people if you did not know there were two people there? Because you separated before that. That was your earlier evidence. And only when you got there did you realise there were two of them. That is your previous evidence. So how could you have told him such a thing if you did not know it?

LUVUYO KENNETH KULMAN: According to our plans I told my co-accused that I was going to take over. I was going to point at them with the weapon. I realised when I was there that there were two people. My co-accused and I were prepared for one person. We were worried about the people who were working with Mike that they might want to assist.

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Botma, just one question. Did you hear Mr Meyers as saying: "Leave my child. Take the money, take the truck"?

LUVUYO KENNETH KULMAN: I personally did not hear him because as I was pointing at him we did not exchange any words. I am the one who demanded the gun. He did not verbally respond to me. He just reached out to the cubbyhole. I do not remember him saying that.