Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1998-10-06

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: We didn't think about that because we didn't expect an ANC person who would be having fun in the coastal area at the time of Chris Hani's death.

MR SMUTS: May I pose it marginally differently, were you alert to the fact that not all white people might fall within the ambit of what you describe as the enemy?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: That is correct.

MR SMUTS: Was it accordingly important that you should identify that those whom you eventually did decide to attack, indeed fell within the definition of the enemy as you saw it?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: That is correct.

MR SMUTS: Did you make any effort, other than to determine a broad geographic area, within which you may find white people, to determine that those you were attacking, were in fact the enemy?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: We didn't make such efforts, but we used the information we heard, we used the hearsay or the rumours.

MR SMUTS: Have you ever before today, in any statement, declaration or application, mentioned Mr Costello in connection with your wish to identify a victim for your operation?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: No, I didn't mention his name.

MR SMUTS: You didn't mention his name in your application form, filled in on the 3rd of April 1997?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: I wouldn't be sure, I don't remember very well.

MR SMUTS: You didn't mention his name in your affidavit of the 1st of April 1998?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: The application of 1998?

MR SMUTS: The affidavit?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: I don't remember mentioning it.

MR SMUTS: Was it explained to you what the requirements were, that you should make a full disclosure if you were to secure amnesty when you proceeded in these applications proceedings?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: I was told.

MR SMUTS: But you didn't make any mention of Mr Costello before today?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: It is because I knew that I was going to appear before the Truth commission and I would get a chance or an opportunity to do all that.

MR SMUTS: You had an opportunity when the form was completed which was coming to this Committee, why didn't you do it then?

MR ZILWA: Mr Chairman, for all fairness, I think the witness has answered the question.  He says I did fill in the form, I did make an application, I did know that for my application to be granted, I had to make a full disclosure.  I knew I was still going to come and give viva voce evidence before this Commission, which I am now doing.  I think that is an answer to the question, he has answered the question.

CHAIRPERSON: Costello, in terms of your evidence today, seems to me to have been an important cog in the whole operation, not so?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Wouldn't you have thought that when you filled in Form 1, that while we don't expect every detail, that such an important cog would at least be mentioned?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: I didn't think that.

MR SMUTS: Hasn't Mr Costello's name come up in your evidence for the first time, Mr Hermans, because he is mentioned in Mr Guleni's form one, and it is important that you should tell the same story?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: I didn't hear him talking about him.

MR SMUTS: Are you saying that you have had no regard to the application presented on behalf of Mr Guleni?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: That is correct.

MR SMUTS: Have you spoken to Mr Guleni, he is one of your fellow applicants, concerning this application and the evidence you are to give?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: We spoke about what happened in Port St Johns, the things that we both know and the steps that we took about reporting, about Costello.  We then made the applications.

MR ZILWA: I think for the interpretation to be full, he says we spoke about that before we made the application, but we knew at some stage we would be making the application.

MR SMUTS: Can I get clarity on that.  Are you saying that you conversed with Mr Guleni before your application form was completed?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: Yes.

MR SMUTS: And did you speak about what it was, that it was necessary for you to present as your application?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: We were reminding each other about things that were happening in 1992.  Things that we knew that we were supposed to say here in the Truth Commission, things that led us to do what we did.

MR SMUTS: And that critically centred around identifying Port St Johns as a target because of the activities of Costello?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: Because we found out there was infiltration in Port St Johns, and it involved Costello.

MR SMUTS: This discussion you had between the two of you before you submitted the form which was completed for your application for amnesty?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: Yes.

MR SMUTS: And yet your explanation on that form is silent regarding Costello?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: We didn't decide to put his name on the application form, because I knew that I would appear before the Truth Commission, where I would reveal everything.

ADV SANDI: So you wanted to catch us by surprise Mr Hermans, and mention this Mr Costello for the first time?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: That is not the case.

MR SMUTS: In launching the attack which you planned and executed on the 13th of April 1993, in the interests of what group or organisation, were you acting?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: We were acting in the interest of the ANC and its allies, Communist Party and COSATU.

MR SMUTS: We have established that you sought no authorization from any organisation for this action?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: That is correct.

MR SMUTS: We have established that you were aware that the ANC was committed to non-violent action at this very time?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: That is correct.

MR SMUTS: To your knowledge, there was no alteration in that policy before you committed these acts?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: That is correct.

MR SMUTS: How were you promoting the interests of the ANC and its associates in the light of its commitment to non-violence when you launched this attack?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: First of all, I wanted to be clear that when the ANC and the then government made an agreement that the armed struggle was to be suspended and there had to be no violence, that was said to the Self Defence Unit, they were not to attack and they were not there to attack, but they would defend.
	We did that, we were defending as the Self Defence Unit.

MR SMUTS: Well, let's get that clear for the record.  Is it your contention that on the 13th of April 1993, when you lay in wait for this fishing party on its return to Mbande ...

CHAIRPERSON: I think let's be fair to the witness, Mr Smuts, he didn't regard them as only a fishing party.

MR SMUTS: When you lay in wait for this party that you had been advised had gone fishing, with in your midst an automatic firearm, pistols and handgrenades, and with the intention to attack the occupants of that vehicle, is it your contention and your serious contention, that this was an act of defence?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: Yes, that is correct.

MR SMUTS: At what stage could it become an attack if that was defence?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: It wouldn't be an attack according to the Self Defence Unit, it would be an attack if a person was doing whatever he was doing, not under the organisation.  For example if a person went out to rob, that would be an attack.

MR SMUTS: Is a difference between this action and an attack, simply the fact that there was no theft in addition to the violence that was applied to the occupants of the vehicle?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Smuts, didn't he say so at the beginning, towards the beginning of his evidence, that this was retaliation in order to send a message to those who thought they could continue assassinating the witness' leadership?
	Be that right or wrong, that is what he said.