Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1999-03-23

ADV PRIOR: Thank you, Mr Chairman, just a few points.  Both Mr Mbandazayo and Mr Botma have argued virtually everything.
	Mr Chairman, an area that does concern one is the whole motive behind the attack.  The difficulty that I have as Evidence Leader is obviously the motivation for the attack, and obviously the applicants have been at pains to attempt to convince the Committee that they were acting on orders from a commander by the name of Thandukolo.
	Mr Chairman, at page 1224 of the record, Mr Kulman under cross-examination was asked, if he was acting under orders and if the operation was part of the general type of operations performed by APLA, that is to obtain material support and funding.  He could not explain why the money had not been handed over to Mr Thandukolo at least at the stage near the Bashe River.  In fact the money was recovered from Mr Thutha's person when they were arrested by the police.  It seems to my mind at least that they had ample opportunity when they met up with Mr Thandukolo at Bashe, that is the place where Donne was murdered, to simply hand over the funds or the money that they had obtained in this operation.  This wasn't the case.  We know Thandukolo was not seen at all by any of the other players.  His bakkie, or a white bakkie in which he supposedly was driving on the day had not been noticed by the, I forget his name for the moment, he was working at the timber station, Mr Makasi.  But be that as it may, it would seem to my mind that that would have been the golden opportunity, if they were acting under orders and Mr Thandukolo was going to leave the scene, to simply hand over to him the money.
	According to the post-mortem report, Donne sustained, on my count Mr Chairman, nine incised or stab injuries to her body in addition to the gunshot wound.  My submission is that this would be totally disproportionate.  The manner in which she met her death is totally disproportionate to any political objective sought to be gained from her death.
	If I may refer the Committee to a portion of the record, that is volume 1 that is before you, at page 1210.  This was a question put to Mr Kulman by the learned Member, Advocate Gcabashe.  She asked him:
"And then in relation to Donne Meyers, you would have killed her even if she had not resisted, again in relation to the general APLA policy, and your answer again was 'yes'. Did I get that right?"
His answer was:
"Yes, that is so."
He then confirmed later on that that was in line with APLA policy.  However at the outset of his evidence, when he was asked by the learned Member, Mr Lax, and this appears at page 1089 of volume 1 of the record, it was pointed out to him that his amnesty application or the information contained therein differed substantially from the information supplied in the supplementary affidavit.  And it was pointed out that the object initially was to capture Mr Meyers and that would happen to his vehicle was totally ancillary, it was not the object at all.  
	And then at the next page he then went on, there was a discourse between Mr Kulman who said Mr Lax shouldn't become impatient with him.  He didn't really answer the question.  He then said he did not divulge these facts because he was protecting the army, meaning that APLA had been accommodated in the Transkei and at that time he could not divulge that information.  That appears at the bottom of page 1090.
	Again at page 1093 of the record the learned Member, Advocate Gcabashe at the bottom of the page again poses the question concerning his original application, dealing with political objective.
"Whites had to be killed in order to attain our liberation"
The question was:
"Now I understand you say that for this incident, the Meyers incident, the intention was not to kill.  Can you just explain the sentence on page 17.10(a) in relation to the Meyers incident"
Now this goes on at page 1094 of the record.  Mr Kulman then replied:
"The intention was not kill.  The APLA position is very clear.  It has lodged war against the white oppressors.  I do not know whether he was going to survive if he had not resisted.  We were going to take him alive and take him to Mandla.  We do not know what Mandla was going to do with him.  That is why I've stated this.  I was trying to encompass my entire  involvement in the APLA activities."
	Mr Chairman, if one reads this evidence of Mr Kulman in particular as to particularly what was the reason to continue with this operation, it was certainly not to injure or harm Mr Meyers and certainly they were unaware of the presence of Donne, but we can possibly also accept that it wasn't the intention to injure anyone at that time.  
	Now the reason that Mr Kulman gives for shooting at Mr Meyers, was that he believed he had made a movement towards the cubbyhole.  He believed that the weapon, he was going for a weapon with which to possibly shoot at them.  Yet, one will recall that despite the fact that he drove in the vehicle after dispatching of Mr Meyers, that he never looked into the cubbyhole.  And one would have expected that if he believed Mr Meyers was reaching for a firearm that was in the cubbyhole, he would at least have looked there.  The pattern in which the operation was carried out seems to, as Mr Botma has pointed out, seems to have all the trappings of a robbery in which persons are simply shot and then the property is then thereafter taken.
	Mr Chairman, I don't have any other aspects to bring your attention to, I think they have all been canvassed by both parties, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Did Mr Kulman say something about the money, did he say ...

ADV PRIOR: Sorry, Mr Chairman, I've referred to page ...

CHAIRPERSON: 1224?

ADV PRIOR: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Where he said he didn't see it?

ADV PRIOR: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And Mr Thutha denied that he had it?

ADV PRIOR: Yes.  But at ...

CHAIRPERSON: 1303?

ADV PRIOR: Yes.  But certainly the evidence was that money was recovered and the indictment indicated Mr Thutha, but between both of them there was a denial of that aspect, but the evidence from the police was that they recovered money, I think from Mr Thutha.  The point that I simply make is that they had enough time or sufficient time to give the funding, if funding was what one of the objectives was, to Thandukolo, if in fact he was there.  And I think that also may strengthen the probability that he was not there or not at the scene.

CHAIRPERSON: But if it was found on them by the police, there hasn't been full disclosure, has there?

ADV PRIOR: Yes.  Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you wish to say anything further?