Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1998-10-06

MR ZILWA: I think there is a problem with the interpretation, I think the proper thing that he said is I was saying something that would make things easy for me in court.

ADV SANDI: I must confirm that, Mr Zilwa has been listening to both Xhosa and English.  He did not specifically say conviction.  He said that to save his skin, that is what he was saying Mr Zilwa, not so?

CHAIRPERSON: To what extent would the contents of this confession, save your skin?  How did you think it was going to save your skin?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: I thought that was going to save me so that I could not get a sentence.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you hope that you would get a sentence other than, or that you would avoid a sentence by admitting to murder?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: Even if I was to get a sentence, I thought that at least the sentence would not be as severe.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Smuts?

MR SMUTS: How would including a sentence which explains a difference of opinion because your organisation does not promote racialism, in your view, effect the possible sentence which could be imposed upon you?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: That would depend on the Presiding Officer, that would look like, I think the Magistrate would regard me as a person who is prepared to cooperate and as a person, he would look at me as a person who was prepared to bring the truth forward.  That would depend on him.
	I also want this to be understood that the confession, I did the confession under pressure, unwillingly.

CHAIRPERSON: That is what I can't understand.  On the one hand you say you made the confession and its contents was made in the hope that you would find, or the Magistrate or whoever was going to decide on your fate, would approach the issue very leniently because you would be a person who has indicated that he is being cooperative and from whom the absolute truth was forthcoming.   That you say on the one hand, on the other hand you say you made this statement under duress.
	Somewhere something isn't right.  Can you explain it?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: I mean that when I went to do this confession, I was from the police.  police who were actually assaulting me and harassing me and they threatened me and they said if I don't say anything that was right in front of the Magistrate, I will go back and experience the same torture that I was getting from them.
	Therefore I went there unwillingly, I was forced because if I was not forced to do so, I wouldn't go there, but because of what they did, I had to go to the Magistrate and at the same time, I tried to save my skin from, I tried to save my skin as I have already explained.

MR SMUTS: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Can I ask you one last time, are you saying ...

CHAIRPERSON: Is that a promise, one last time?

MR SMUTS: How was your skin to be saved by including in your confession, an account of a dispute between you and others relating to the identification of your victim because your organisation did not promote racialism?

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't it because it was the truth?  He wanted to be a truthful cooperative witness, being put unwillingly though, put in this position, and he might as well, he decided he might as well take advantage of the situation and be a cooperative and truthful witness?  Isn't that so?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: Yes, that is correct, as I have already said.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you in fact then use those words and stated it?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: Yes, that is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: And was it true that you discussed it between the five of you and said to each other, our organisation wouldn't admit racialism.  Was there such a discussion?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: No, we never had that discussion.

ADV DE JAGER: So you never had a discussion whether you should identify a white to be killed, and who the white should be?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: Our intention there, as Mbande was used as the base, the whites who happened to be there at the time, we would regard them as John Costello's associates.  Those were the issues that we discussed, not the one that appears on this confession.

ADV DE JAGER: You didn't regard them as the associates of Dr Hally?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: No.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you mention Dr Hally's name in this so-called confession?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: Yes, Dr Hally, yes, it appeared.

ADV DE JAGER: Why did you mention his name?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: I explained that in court, that Dr Hally's name came from me, because I had policemen, when they were torturing me, they were talking about this camping site of Mdakeni because they said that they think that is the place that Dr Hally normally visits.
	I wanted to be released from this torture, I used that point.  That is how this name came about.

ADV DE JAGER: Why didn't you use the name of Costello?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: It is because we were not prepared to tell the truth in court.

CHAIRPERSON: No, in your statement?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: That did not occur to me.

CHAIRPERSON: But wouldn't that have been the truth in terms of your beliefs, in terms of the information that you had received?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: You mean if I tell that to the police, if I had told that to the police?

CHAIRPERSON: Let us just read that, we then resolved to go to a certain camping site near the coast, where some white people spend their weekends, including Dr Hally.  Instead of Dr Hally, Costello?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: I was not prepared to bring something that would implicate me more, in court.  That was the truth that I wrote there.

CHAIRPERSON: So Dr Hally was a person who spent his weekends in that area?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: As far as I am concerned, I don't know that.

CHAIRPERSON: You knew Costello had something to do with that area over weekends, and perhaps even some other days, not so?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And you gave that to the Magistrate, being forced in that position, you decided I am going to tell the truth in the hope that I will receive some leniency for being truthful and for being cooperative, not so?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So why didn't you tell the truth about Costello then, as you believed it was the truth?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: I was running away from that truth, the one that would lead to my sentence.  That is why I said so.  I thought that if I bring that, if I gave them that information, although I did not reveal that information about Costello, I did not think about it.

MR SMUTS: Mr Hermans, is it your evidence that the police were applying duress to you to compel you to confess your involvement in the murders and attempted murders for which you are now seeking amnesty?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: Yes, that is correct.

MR SMUTS: And is it your evidence now that you made this statement to stop them from applying that duress to you, in other words to satisfy them in their requirement that you confess?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: Yes, that is correct.

MR SMUTS: Well, if it was not so that you had a difference of opinion within your organisation, because of the fact that yours was not a racist organisation, but you put it into the statement, how did you think that was going to satisfy this pressure that the police were putting on you to confess your involvement in the crimes?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: They were satisfied the way I saw them, because they never pressurised me thereafter, after that torture.

MR SMUTS: They were satisfied, because what they wanted was a confession of your involvement in the attack, and that you gave them, not so?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: I was saying anything that I think would save me from them.

ADV DE JAGER: Who were these police who tortured you?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: From the Murder and Robbery of Umtata, Murder and Robbery Department of Umtata.

ADV DE JAGER: Were they black policemen?