Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1998-10-06

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: Yes, that is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Were they in the employ of the Transkeian government at that stage?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: Yes, that is correct.

MR SMUTS: Thank you.  Why was it necessary for you to give an extended explanation of your motivation, if what the police were seeking from you, was a confession as to the act?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: I was answering the questions they were asking.

MR SMUTS: No you weren't, you were speaking to a Magistrate.

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: Can you please repeat your question sir.

MR SMUTS: You weren't answering the questions they were asking, you were speaking to a Magistrate who had recorded this statement.

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: You were referring to the police, that is why I answered about the police.

MR SMUTS: I wasn't referring to the police at all.  I am asking you, why if the police wanted you to make a confession to the Magistrate of your involvement in the crimes, was it necessary for you to give an extended motivation as to why you committed that crime?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: What I said to the Magistrate, to this confession, I already said that to the police and they wrote it down.  They told me to tell the Magistrate what I had already told them, or else I would go back to them and they would continue with whatever they were doing to me.

MR SMUTS: If they, if you had told the police about Dr Hally and his involvement in the Mdakeni area, even if you confessed to the Magistrate to your involvement in the crimes, if you had mentioned to the Magistrate the truthful position that it was Mr Costello's associates and not Dr Hally's associates that you were after, you feared that the police would continue doing to you what they had done to you before, is that your evidence?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: Yes, because I was not sure whether they would see what I told the Magistrate.  I was sure that they would see the confession that I gave to the Magistrate and if it is different from what I told them, I would be in trouble.

ADV SANDI: I think Mr Smuts, he is trying to say that as I understand him, he is trying to say when he went to the Magistrate to make this confession, he structured the contents of the confession in such a manner that he would cover those aspects which arose in the questioning by the police.  I think that is what he is trying to say.

MR SMUTS: In your view, were the police more concerned about your repeating what they had said to you, than in your making, what you had said to them previously, than in your making just a full and frank confession of your involvement in the crime?

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Smuts, I think, sorry, you put a question to him, let him answer that first.

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: Please repeat your question sir.

MR SMUTS: Do you believe, or did you believe that the police were more concerned that you should repeat to them in precise detail what had gone, what you had said to them before you made the confession to the Magistrate, than simply that you go to the Magistrate and admit your, confess your involvement in the crimes?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: They told me to do so.

MR SMUTS: Mr Hermans ...

ADV DE JAGER: We haven't heard the interpretation of the answer.

MR SMUTS: What I understood is that they told him to do so, was the interpretation.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Smuts, at the end of the day we will have to decide whether the act was associated with a political objective.  I think it will play a role, the evidence that they wanted to kill somebody associated with Costello and whether that was in fact, at the time of the occurrence, one of their criteria for picking the victim or whether they decided that they should kill a white, because a white had killed Hani, and they would kill any white.
	As it transpired, whether they intended to kill a particular white associated with Costello, in fact they killed the first white they came across.  Whether that would satisfy the criteria of the Act, I don't think we will get any further in further cross-examination, but I don't want to stop you.  I think we should, you should consider whether you could achieve anything more than that and whether it even if they killed the first white, whether it wouldn't still fall within the ambit of the Act?

MR SMUTS: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman, there are two legs which need to be considered here.  The one is the political motivation, but the other is the frankness of the matter now being placed before the Committee.
	Whether it meets the requirements of the Act.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Smuts, really full disclosure means substantial disclosure.  Whether he used Dr Hally or Costello, it is a side issue, really.

MR SMUTS: The veracity of either is critical though, with respect.  With respect, Mr Chairman, would you grant me the indulgence of pursuing this through another two or three questions and then I think the groundwork, the basis of my approach would become apparent.
	Is it correct Mr Hermans, that in your confession to the Magistrate, there is no reference to Mr Costello or your seeking to identify a victim linked to Mr Costello?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: That is correct.

MR SMUTS: Your confession does refer to problems in identifying a victim because it was of a difficulty in determining who was as your confession says, who was for us or against us.

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: Can you please repeat that sir?

MR SMUTS: Your confession refers to a difference of opinion between you and your foreseeing problems in identifying a victim as to whether the person was for you or against you?  Is that correct?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: Can you please explain that to me sir?

MR SMUTS: It says the following, there was a difference of opinion as our organisation does not promote racialism, we foresaw problems in identifying the victim as to who was for us or against us.

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: I hear you sir.

MR SMUTS: It continues, we then decided to leave Transkei and go to an area that was within the RSA.

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: Yes.

MR SMUTS: It continues, we then also realised even there we would be unable to identify our enemy.

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: I hear you sir.

MR SMUTS: And it then continues, we then resolved to go to a certain camping site near the coast where some white people spent their weekends, including Dr Hally.

ADV DE JAGER: You have told us you hear him, was it the truth, did it happen in that way or didn't it happen in that way?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: It didn't happen this way, when we were together to attack.

ADV SANDI: Mr Hermans, I understood you to say that when you made this confession to the Magistrate, what was uppermost in your mind, was simply to satisfy the police, not so?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: That is correct.

ADV SANDI: You were not concerned about the accuracy of whatever goes in there, but simply to make the police happy and stop pressurising you?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: That is correct.  I was not prepared to tel l the truth, you wanted to satisfy the police?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: If that is the position, did you ever discuss whether this victim would be for you or against you?  Would he support you or would he be against you, did you ever discuss that?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: Who will be for us or against us, sir?

ADV DE JAGER: The man that you were going to shoot, to kill, would he be a supporter of your organisation or would he be against your organisation?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: The person we were going to shoot, the person we were going to shoot, was the person whom we associated with Costello because of the rumours we heard.
	I don't follow the question.

ADV DE JAGER: And in the end, you never ascertained whether the person you shot, was a supporter of the ANC although he is white, or whether he was against you?