Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-05-13

CHAIRPERSON: You couldn't see?  Well let's try and see if we can meet the needs, I don't think it fair that the witness ought to sit at an angle where counsel is questioning him cannot see him properly.

UNKNOWN: Mr Chair, if the witness moves up about half a metre I will be perfectly comfortable from where I sit.  That's sufficient, if the witness sits there.

MR LAX: Mr Zuma, if you sit at the corner of the table there, how does - is that comfortable for you?

BETHUEL MONDLI ZUMA: Yes.

UNKNOWN: It's fine with me, thank you Mr Chair, Members of the Committee.
	Mr Zuma, you've explained that you're now assigned to V.I.P Protection, have you been assigned to anybody in specific to protect?

BETHUEL MONDLI ZUMA: I deal with the Presidents.

UNKNOWN: I would like to refer you to an extract from your evidence in front of Mr Justice Nugent and just ask your comment as to the correctness of this response made by yourself at the time of the inquest proceedings?  I'm referring specifically to page 3170 of the record and this is the conclusion of a long debate as to where you saw the person with the AK47, what he was doing, why you started to react, why you decided to fire shots and the whole line of questioning is concluded with the following question and I read from line 15 onwards at page 3170.
	"As I understand your evidence, the reason that you fired was because you were being fired at by a man with an AK47, is that right?"  and your response is "yes".  Do you agree with that?

BETHUEL MONDLI ZUMA: Yes that was a decisive reason.

CHAIRPERSON: Whether he agrees with the evidence he gave on a previous occasion, is that what you're asking him?

UNKNOWN: I'm simply asking whether he agrees with that portion of the evidence being that he decided to fire shots in retaliation because of the man with the AK47 firing in their direction and I think the response was in the affirmative.
	Now Mr Zuma am I correct if I would put it to you then that the question of the existence of the man with the AK47 rifle or not would either have warranted your actions on the day or would not have warranted it?

BETHUEL MONDLI ZUMA: It warranted my actions.

UNKNOWN: Now can we please turn to your application which is contained in bundle C, it also contains affidavits which was attached to the actual application which was submitted on your behalf at the inquest proceedings, is that correct?

BETHUEL MONDLI ZUMA: Sorry, what page is that?

UNKNOWN: Your actual application commences at page 30 of Bundle C and the affidavit is contained at page 37 to 43 of the application.

BETHUEL MONDLI ZUMA: That is correct.

UNKNOWN: No mention is made in your actual affidavit of the man with the AK47, do you agree?

BETHUEL MONDLI ZUMA: Yes, no mention is there but if you read paragraph 16 of the affidavit, page 39, that that first sentence there "a shot was fired from this group in our direction" and then I explained to you, previously you asked me the same question in the inquest - I said to you this is what happened, it was fired at us but the fact of the calibre of the weapon is not here in the statement but that is the reason why I was called in order to testify to it and explain because I don't believe every nitty gritty has to be put in the statement.  This was what was put in my affidavit.

UNKNOWN: Mr Zuma, did I hear you correctly, you're referring to paragraph 16 of page 39 of your affidavit.

BETHUEL MONDLI ZUMA: That is correct.

UNKNOWN: But with the greatest respect that does not refer to the incident that I'm referring to.  This is a previous incident where the policemen were involved.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Mr Zuma - Mr Dorfling...[intervention}

BETHUEL MONDLI ZUMA: Sorry, I made a mistake, that will be paragraph 22, first sentence there - if you read the first sentence in paragraph 22, that's where I put this.

UNKNOWN: Are you referring to the sentence that says "some shots were fired towards Shell House by people in the charging group" - is that correct?

BETHUEL MONDLI ZUMA: That is correct.

UNKNOWN: Can you explain to the Committee why you didn't mention the person with the AK47 amongst the marchers and the fact that the marchers opened up and allowed the person to fire in your direction?

CHAIRPERSON: Do we have to go into that detail for the purpose of this amnesty application if that's what you're trying?

UNKNOWN: No, with the greatest respect, the witness gave a certain response with his failure to disclose this because the same affidavit was also used at the time of the inquest proceedings.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] that there was a man with an AK47 who fired, you made no reference to the AK47, is that correct?

BETHUEL MONDLI ZUMA: That is correct and I said ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think that's the question that is being put to you.

UNKNOWN: You're being asked to explain why it wasn't put in your affidavit?

BETHUEL MONDLI ZUMA: The reason why - I thought because normally the courts does not rely entirely on statements - they call witnesses so I knew that the statement is just to give you the picture of what happened then the rest - the witness has to come and testify himself and it is precisely for that reason that I thought this and together with my legal advisors because they were helping me in putting together the statement that at some stage I will be called and I will give evidence as to the particulars.

UNKNOWN: Mr Zuma, the objectors for whom I appear would deny that there was any attack on the guards and or the property of Shell House at the time, they would say if called to give evidence at this hearing that they had no firearms in their possession, there was no justification for them to be shot at at the time when the shooting occurred.  Would you care to respond to that?

BETHUEL MONDLI ZUMA: Well the fact that there was no attack at Shell House is incorrect.  There was an attack at Shell House.  Maybe when they say they were not armed, them as particular individuals, that we are here for, I cannot comment on that because I could not identify certain individuals, it was a big crowd.

UNKNOWN: I want to put it to you that your evidence on the existence of this man with the AK47 is a fabrication to justify your actions on the day?

BETHUEL MONDLI ZUMA: Well I stand by what I have said in the inquest and I stand by what I've said before the Committee.  But let me say also that I'm sure you're taking that from the verdict of Justice Nugent because Advocate Dorfling did put a version on us - if you look he put a theory that there was an ambush at Shell House and that was dismissed by the Judge, that submission, it does not mean that he was lying.  If you read from the judgement there are things that will favour you there are things that won't favour you.  There are things that doesn't favour us, there are things that favour us.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Zuma we are not here to debate the findings of the inquest court, we are just here to listen to what occurred on that day and what you observed on that day.  Do you understand that?

BETHUEL MONDLI ZUMA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

UNKNOWN: Mr Zuma, would you care to respond to the question, I'm putting it to you as a fact that the existence of the man with the AK47 is a fabrication, there simply was no such man on that day who fired in either your direction and who fired in the direction of other guards at the corner where you were position.

BETHUEL MONDLI ZUMA: That is totally not true.

UNKNOWN: I put it to you that the reason why this is not contained in your affidavit is because it simply didn't happen that way?

BETHUEL MONDLI ZUMA: Well I disagree with you.

UNKNOWN: Can you advance any reason why the following of your colleagues did not see the man with the AK47 to whom the crowd opened up for purposes of allowing him to shoot - Mr Kruser, Mr Marainsamy Singaram, Mr Mangena, Mr Khumalo.