Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1998-10-06

MR SMUTS: Yes, but it goes further now Mr Chairman, the suggestion now is that this was an act of defence, not an act of retaliation.

CHAIRPERSON: If you look at it in context, I won't argue about the matter, it is that he was defending the leadership that was still alive.

MR SMUTS: If you were promoting the interests of the African National Congress, has that organisation at any stage claimed your action as its own and is it prepared at this hearing, to state so on your behalf?

MR ZILWA: Mr Chairman, I don't want to be seen to be wanting to be objecting, but I must say I am not very sure about the fairness of the question.
	The witness says in his belief, or in their belief, they believed that they were carrying on the objectives of the ANC, they were protecting its leadership.  That is what they subjectively believed at the time.  
	As to whether or not the ANC viewed it in the same way or not, I am not sure that that is something that at this stage, the witness should be asked about.

CHAIRPERSON: Tell me, did you prior to this hearing, approach the African National Congress with a view of finding out whether they would accept that you acted in their interest, or don't you know?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: I didn't meet them.

CHAIRPERSON: So you can't tell us?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: Yes.

MR SMUTS: Do recall the evidence of Mr Ntekiso in your trial, which appears by reference at page 76 of the judgement, where he advised that he had reported to the regional command of MK, that Mr Maxhayi had informed him of the use of the R4 weapon in the attack, and that the regional command had distanced itself from that incident?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: Yes, I heard him.

MR SMUTS: Do you know whether that is in fact so, MK, the regional command had distanced itself from that incident?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: No, I don't know.

MR SMUTS: Is it your evidence today that the action taken by you on the 13th of April 1993, is and was at the time reconcilable with the policies of the African National Congress?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: Killing people is not being promoted by the ANC, because it was a non-violent organisation.

ADV DE JAGER: The reference in the record where it was disapproved by the regional command, what page was that?

MR SMUTS: Mr Chairman, it is in the volume fronted Judgement and Sentence, Volume 1.  Mr Ntekiso's evidence starts on page 63 and it is on page ...

ADV DE JAGER: The Volume is marked A or ...

MR SMUTS: It is not marked, it is called Judgement and Sentence, Volume 1, page 76 paragraph 5, Mr Chairman.  Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions to this witness.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR SMUTS

ADV DE JAGER: But you have heard this evidence that it was disapproved at the trial, given by the regional MK command?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Have you done anything to ascertain whether it was in fact disapproved?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: No, I didn't do anything.

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, sorry for the sake of accuracy, this thing reads to the extent of saying that it was not approved by, I mean the regional command of the MK distanced itself from it, because it was not committed by the MK member.  That is the reason for which it seems MK distances itself from it.

CHAIRPERSON: Not the act itself, but because of the line of command?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, that is what appears in this document.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma, do you have any questions?

MR MAPOMA: No, I have no questions, Chairperson, thank you.

MR MAPOMA: .

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Zilwa?

MR ZILWA: Yes, Mr Chairman, I do have a few.   You have told this Committee, that at the time you committed the offence or the action, let's put it that way, you did that furthering the aims of the ANC and its alliances?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: That is correct.

MR ZILWA: You say in so far as those organisations are concerned, you were furthering their interest in that you wanted to ensure that other members of its leadership in the position of Chris Hani, would not meet the same fate as Chris Hani?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: That is correct.

MR ZILWA: If you had known that your actions would not be approved, or would be running contrary to such organisations, would you have committed the offence?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: Please explain your question sir.

MR ZILWA: If you had known or you had any idea at all that your actions would not be approved by the ANC and its alliances, would you have committed that action?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: No.

MR ZILWA: Do you view that your action in any way, did achieve the desired objective ie defending the other surviving leadership of the ANC and its alliance?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: That is correct.

MR ZILWA: If you had known, let's put it this way, let's start again, you were questioned by my learned friend at length about the occupants of the motor vehicle in question, to you remember that?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: Yes.

MR ZILWA: And you have told this Committee that it was not your intention to attack children and women, correct?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: That is correct.

MR ZILWA: And you have also stated that in the camp itself, that is when you went to reconnoitre it, you did see a white child that was present there, you are not sure whether it was a girl or a boy?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: That is correct.

MR ZILWA: If your intention was to kill anything white, whether it be a child or a family, would you have spared that child?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: We would have attacked that child at that time.

MR ZILWA: Thank you Mr Chairman, I've got no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR ZILWA

ADV DE JAGER: If Mr Costello was your real enemy, why didn't you go and kill him at night?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: It is because he was staying in town, and there were police and there was a military camp there in town.

ADV DE JAGER: So you were looking at a soft target?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: That is not true.

ADV DE JAGER: Wasn't that a soft target?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: I didn't take them as soft targets?

ADV DE JAGER: Driving passed you, not as far as you could see, did they have any weapons with them?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: We were not sure whether they had weapons or not, we were expecting that they might have weapons.

ADV DE JAGER: Far from the police, far from other people who could help them?

PUMELELE CIVILIAN HERMANS: Yes, they were far from the police.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

<UNKNOWN>: .

MR ZILWA: Mr Chairman, I notice the time is about quarter to four.  I would be calling the last applicant Guleni, but I understand that this is the last day of our sitting today, and I always try to avoid a witness testifying and maybe getting cross-examined half way and maybe some months thereafter, he is cross-examined again.  I always believe that plays ...

CHAIRPERSON: The most he will be inconvenienced, is overnight.  We will finish tomorrow if he is not finished tonight.

MR ZILWA: Yes, but I must indicate that I had set aside only this two days for this matter and I have other commitments for tomorrow.
	I am prepared to go on as long as the Committee wants, tonight.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Zilwa, you know the rules of the Bar, to carry on until we give away work, not so?

MR ZILWA: No, the point I am making Mr Chairman, is that I was engaged in this matter only for two days, ie yesterday and today.  Tomorrow I've got other word unfortunately because I only knew that I am engaged in this matter for two days.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand that, but when one takes a brief, any type of brief, it is understood that the matter may run over, is it not so?

MR ZILWA: Well, Mr Chairman, I always thought you can only reserve the dates on which the matter is set down and not beyond that.