Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-05-13

CHAIRPERSON: Yet the picture that there was firing from the man with the AK47, there was firing by Mr Khumalo, you heard sounds of the firing, you then see pieces of cement falling down or dust falling down from you and you draw the conclusion that that happened as a result of the firing coming from somewhere else and not from Khumalo, is that the kind of picture you have?

BETHUEL MONDLI ZUMA: No that's not the kind of picture I have.  Khumalo fired only in response to the fire that was emanating from there, from the crowd.

UNKNOWN: In other words the man from the crowd with the AK47 fired first, that was your evidence and as a result dust sifted down from the parapet?  I want to put it to you, sir, that that shows your evidence to be untruthful, there could on no basis be any misconception in your mind as to where these shots were being fired from, if they were emanating from Mr Khumalo's firearm only two and a half to three paces from you?

BETHUEL MONDLI ZUMA: Let me say that we are talking about two shot bursts, I mentioned before the Judge, I mentioned when he was asking me how did I know that the fire came from that direction - I said after the first shot burst, that from that man, we reacted by warning shots and the second shot burst and it was then that I said I could see dust coming down and which is possible that Eddie might have been also firing at the time.  We are talking about two shot bursts, I am not talking about one.  I didn't say he fired the first time and then immediately there was dust coming down.

UNKNOWN: I've got no further questions, thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DORFLING

MR VAN WYK: Thank you Mr Chairman.
	Mr Zuma, I want to know from you in preparation for your evidence here, did you read the transcript of your evidence at the inquest?

BETHUEL MONDLI ZUMA: Yes I did.

MR VAN WYK: Do you confirm the contents thereof?

BETHUEL MONDLI ZUMA: The one that I've gone through - you see some of them, let me tell you, there was an interpreter there.  I was speaking in Zulu and he was speaking in English so some of the terms he might have used in putting what I was saying, I might not agree but I cannot go through each and every sentence where I say this I could have put it other way around.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you in general agreement?

BETHUEL MONDLI ZUMA: In general I do agree.

MR VAN WYK: Thank you.  You signed your application for amnesty on the 6th May of last year is that correct?  It's on page 36.

BETHUEL MONDLI ZUMA: That is correct.

MR VAN WYK: You filed your additional statement exactly a year later and now you address that you've been advised by your legal advisors in respect of the ballistic reports and the post-mortem or the medical evidence.  Did you know that the medical reports, the post-mortem reports of these deceased people were in possession of you legal representatives as early as April last year already before you had filed your application?

BETHUEL MONDLI ZUMA: I did not know that.

MR VAN WYK: Were you then not already advised as now that the people were shot or most of them were shot in the back when you filed your application?

BETHUEL MONDLI ZUMA: I heard that from Judge Nugent.

MR VAN WYK: Do I understand your evidence correctly that you today still persist that you were fired on that day by a person with an AK47?

BETHUEL MONDLI ZUMA: I am saying I saw the person with an AK47 fire but it might not have been fired in our direction as it has been proved by the objective evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] already several times to the previous questions.

MR VAN WYK: Mr Chairman, I just want to take up one point, he has given several versions because I understand his evidence even to be today that he was fired on by this person.  I want to suggest that he is changing his version as it suits him because I've made a note that he testified today "I still say they fired in our direction" and that is - and then a few minutes later he says he accepts the ballistic evidence.  I want to know what is his version that he wants to put forward to this Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: I think the picture he says "that my recollection or my picture I have in my mind is that this man fired first and we had fired back however the ballistic evidence proves something else" he's prepared to go by the ballistics evidence.  I think that's the impression he left me with but if you think that that is wrong, please proceed.

MR VAN WYK: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Do you then concede that the picture you have of the happenings of that day is a wrong picture?

BETHUEL MONDLI ZUMA: The picture might be wrong in some instances, not the whole picture.

MR VAN WYK: Or if it's not wrong, you're giving a false version is that not correct?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Wyk, in all fairness to the witness, I think that's too much of a generalisation.  The witness, as I understand his evidence is the effect that there are certain aspects of his evidence which he much concede that in light of the variable objective evidence may not be accurate, I think that's how far one goes with what he says.

MR VAN WYK: Thank you sir, but the point I want to make it's either a wrong perception that he has or it's false it's either one of those two and that's what I want to put to the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Then you should put it direct and indicate to him precisely what that aspect is.

MR VAN WYK: Thank you sir.  Mr Zuma, I put it to you that there had been no firing in your direction, there had been no armed attack on you and there was no need for you to act in the so called self defence and that is a lie.

BETHUEL MONDLI ZUMA: I think you've got it totally wrong.

MR VAN WYK: You also testified today that you might have exceed self defence, the bounds of self defence.

CHAIRPERSON: He's been advised by his lawyers that that is what will be said that he might have exceeded the bounds of self defence.

MR VAN WYK: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Mr Zuma I want to know from you, you yourself, not what you're being advised, do you yourself persist that your acts were justified or do you personally concede that your acts were not justified?

BETHUEL MONDLI ZUMA: The fact that we were attacked, I believe I was justified in repelling the attack but I might have been unjustified, I might be unjustified in having continued to fire when they're fleeing.

MR VAN WYK: You say you might have been unjustified is that in the light of the ballistic and the medical evidence?

BETHUEL MONDLI ZUMA: And also in the light of the findings of the inquest.

MR VAN WYK: And you now accept the ballistic and the medical evidence, is that correct?

BETHUEL MONDLI ZUMA: I've already accepted that and it's in my application.

MR VAN WYK: So do you now then concede that you were unjustified?

BETHUEL MONDLI ZUMA: I have explained to you the unjustification that I mentioned.  I think I was justified in so far as defending Shell House and repelling the attack but I was unjustified maybe in pursuing with shooting when some of them were fleeing.

CHAIRPERSON: When some of them did what?

BETHUEL MONDLI ZUMA: When they were fleeing or when they turned their backs as I might have injured some of them because the ballistic and the medical reports says that some of them were shot from the back so I concede that some of them might have been shot from the back by the gun that I was using.

CHAIRPERSON: But when you shot at them were you advancing towards you or were they fleeing?  From you recollection?

BETHUEL MONDLI ZUMA: From my recollection they were charging.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR VAN WYK: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN WYK

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.