Amnesty Hearings

MR PRIOR: Good morning Mr Chairman on the 16th of April 1998 the amnesty application of Zama Thutha, amnesty application 2891/96 and Luvuyo Kulman, amnesty application 2892/96.

The application arises out of the death of Mr Mike Meyers and his daughter Donné Meyers which occurred during 1993 in the Umtata district. I appear as the evidence leader for the Amnesty Committee, Advocate P C Prior for the applicants Mr L Mbandazayo and for the victims Mr Neels Botma. Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: One question I have Mr Prior, you gave the numbers of the amnesty applications. They differ from the numbers on the affidavits. You have said 2891 and 2892. The number that I have on the application is 2883 which is the number on the affidavit and the number on the second application is 1638 which is the number on the affidavit.

MR PRIOR: Thank you Mr Chairman I notice that. I do not know how that occurred. May I ask then that on the covering sheet of the bundles be amended suitably or accordingly. Mr Chairman I wish to place on record that bundles have been prepared documents and have been distributed to all interested parties, may they be marked at this stage for easy reference? Could I ask that the first bundle that was prepared, that is the amnesty applications plus the court judgment on sentence be marked A and there was a supplementary bundle. May that be marked A1 or shall we give it the next number?

CHAIRPERSON: B.

MR PRIOR: Then I wish to mark a bundle of photographs, a set of photographs one to nine, could that be marked C. Those are the photo's relating to Donné Meyers. And a medico-legal post mortem report on the body of Donné Meyers could that be marked D. And then we have the affidavits which were handed up this morning of the applicants. Mr Kulman if his affidavit could be marked E and the affidavit of Mr Thutha marked F. Thank you Mr Chairman. Sorry Mr Chairman there was reference made to one Thanduxolo in the applications. I understand my information that Thanduxolo has died. He died during I understand the shoot out at Da Gama during March of 1994. I think he was referred to as TNT.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman I would like just to correct that Mr Chairman. He is not the one who was at Da Gama, he is not the one at Da Gama Mr Chairman.

MR PRIOR: Well maybe my learned friend can during the course of these proceedings find out who Thanduxolo was and produce if he can a death certificate.

CHAIRPERSON: Is he necessarily dead?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman according to my information Thanduxolo is the same person who was called Mandla and Pawa during my investigation. He has many names who was an administrator in the office of the PAC. That is information I have myself. I have investigated the name of Thanduxolo. I went to the members of the high command. They told that it is Mandla who they know was called Thanduxolo, was also known as Thanduxolo he was in Umtata.

CHAIRPERSON: Is he now working in the office of the PAC?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman he is no longer working Mr Chairman. He was integrated but I understand he was discharged because he was ill. And he subsequently died. He was shot at Cape Town.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh he is dead?

MR MBANDAZAYO: He is dead Mr Chairman.

While you are about it, could you place yourself on record?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman I confirm that I appear on behalf of both applicants in this matter, Kulman and Thutha, Mr Chairman.

MR BOTMA: As it pleases Mr Chairman I do confirm that I appear on behalf of the family in this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Your name please?

MR BOTMA: Advocate N Botma, D E C Botma.

CHAIRPERSON: The Committee remains the same with myself, Judge Wilson as chairman; Advocate Gcabashe still acts and Mr Sandi.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman the first applicant is Luvuyo Kenneth Kulman. And I would request the Committee to swear him in.

MR PRIOR: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Kulman would you please stand? If you could just switch you microphone on by pressing the red button in front of you. Do you have any objection to taking an oath?

MR KULMAN: No objection

LUVUYO KENNETH KULMAN: (sworn states)

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Kulman do you confirm that this affidavit which is before the Committee was made by you and you abide by it?

MR KULMAN: Yes I do confirm.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman as usual I will not got through the affidavit. I will go through certain portion of the affidavit just for the applicant to clarify. Mr Chairman I will start with paragraph 4. In your affidavit you are saying that you joined PAC 1989 through Azania, underwent military training in the Zimbabwe in 1990. Can you tell the Committee about your training in the Zimbabwe, how did you go to Zimbabwe?

MR KULMAN: Do you want me to tell you about the training in Zimbabwe? I went to the commandos course and infantry course in Zimbabwe. That is the training I got. I came back in 1992. I was then involved in APLA operations.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Can you tell the Committee how long have you been in Zimbabwe?

MR KULMAN: The infantry course took six months and the commandos course took nine months.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman I will move to paragraph 6: "I received instruction in respect of this operation from Comrade Thanduxolo, who was also known as Mandla." Can you tell the Committee about this Thanduxolo?

MR KULMAN: Thanduxolo was my regional commander. I was receiving orders from Thanduxolo. That is what I know about him.

ADV GCABASHE: Would you know whom he reported to?

MR KULMAN: There was a chain of command. So it is obvious that there was a senior person above him but I do not know that person. I was reporting to him but I do not know who he was reporting to.

ADV SANDI: Are you able to give us full names as well as code names of Thanduxolo?

MR KULMAN: I only know him as Thanduxolo. I only reciprocate that he was also referred to as Mandla and Pawa. Other comrades referred to him as Mandla and Pawa but I knew him as Thanduxolo.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman I proceed to paragraph 7. "The target was identified by comrade Thanduxolo. The weapons used in the operation was supplied by comrade Thanduxolo. After comrade Thanduxolo identified the target he asked me to make a reconnaissance, that is checking the days and the times it comes to Transkei to sell the milk. Comrade Thanduxolo told me that this farmer is a member of the AWB and he pretends as if he likes the african people by coming to sell milk to them, yet he wants their money. He further told me that the APLA's department of intelligence has discovered that his farm was used by AWB when it camped at Elliot the (...indistinct) of APLA."

Can you elaborate and tell the Committee more details, your discussion regarding this target with Thanduxolo?

MR KULMAN: I would like you to repeat your question please?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Can you tell the Committee about this operation, about this target Thanduxolo told you about?

MR KULMAN: As the local commander, Thanduxolo called me to brief me about the targets, the target that he identified, Mike Meyers. During those briefings Thanduxolo said that there was information that Mike Meyers was a member of the AWB and Mike Meyers accommodated white people or Boers in his farm they wanted to identify the APLA bases. So I was given orders to take him and bring him. I do not know whether it is clear.

CHAIRPERSON: You said you were given orders to take him and bring him. Does that mean you were given orders to capture him and bring him back to comrade Thanduxolo?

MR KULMAN: Yes.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Can you tell us what were you going to do about his truck?

MR KULMAN: APLA was not supported by organisations, we were struggling. The truck therefore was going to be used for APLA activities to deliver comrades during operations and other matters that would benefit the APLA. The truck therefore was going to be used in such a manner.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman I proceed to paragraph 8. "I was always reporting to comrade Thanduxolo (...intervention)

ADV SANDI: I am sorry Mr Mbandazayo can I just ask one or two questions, taking you a step back? You were told to bring Mr Meyers to Thanduxolo. Where were you going to get Mr Thanduxolo when you bring Mr Meyers?

MR KULMAN: There is a place that we had selected where we were going to meet.

ADV SANDI: How were you supposed to take him there?

MR KULMAN: Meyers?

ADV SANDI: Yes by what mode of transport? How were you supposed to take him there?

MR KULMAN: We were going to use his own transport.

ADV SANDI: The same transport, the truck?

MR KULMAN: Correct.

MR MBANDAZAYO: "I was always reporting to comrade Thanduxolo about the progress in my reconnaissance of the route of this farmer." Can you tell the Committee how long did it take you to establish the times and the days this farmer was coming to Transkei and selling and milk?

MR KULMAN: The reconnaissance that I made took plus, minus 2 weeks. I was trying to see which times he goes to Transkei, which areas stops at. That is what I did. When I was satisfied I gave Thanduxolo a report.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Can you also further tell the Committee who decided about the date of the attack?

MR KULMAN: Comrade Thanduxolo.

MR MBANDAZAYO: "On the 27th of August 1993 he gave me a .38 and gave comrade Zama a home-made gun." It should be Mr Chairman, rifle. It seems it was a home-made rifle. "And transported us to the rural area where the truck was and dropped us there." Can you explain to the Committee how did this happen? Taking the Committee step by step on the morning of this attack. When you were taken by Thanduxolo, given firearms and you went to be dropped there. Tell the Committee?

MR KULMAN: Thanduxolo picked me up. I stayed in Nthogane in Umtata. Thanduxolo picked me up on the 27th August 1993. After I had already reported the availability of the target. Thanduxolo took me saying that I have to meet a certain comrade. He first asked how many people would be needed for the operation. I then said two people would be enough. I then told him that I would point out what I needed too and the second person would assist me.

On the 27th therefore Thanduxolo went to pick up Zama. He briefed me about the unit command. I have forgotten which village he took us to. I do not know the area very well, the Transkei. He then took us to a certain rural area where milk was being sold.

MR MBANDAZAYO: When you arrived at the area you said that you were dropped by Thanduxolo, what did he do himself, Thanduxolo?

MR KULMAN: He told us about the place where we were going to meet. He said that we were going to meet near Mbashe. We were going to take Meyers, deliver him to Thanduxolo. Thanduxolo was using a Toyota. After we picked up this white man we were going to take him to Mbashe and Mbashe was then, Thanduxolo was then going to take over from Mbashe.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Paragraph 10 Mr Chairman.

"The instructions were not to kill the farmer but to bring him to Thanduxolo who told me that they want him for interrogation before dealing with him. But if we were to kill if we see that we can be in danger."

Can you explain that to the Committee?

MR KULMAN: As the orders stipulated that we were not to kill him, however if he did resist then we would have to kill him in defence. That is what happened. He resisted and unfortunately they both died.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Let's go to paragraph 11 so that you encompass the whole of your answer with paragraph 11.

"I went to passenger's side and pointed the firearm to the white man and asked where the firearm is. Instead of telling me where the firearm is, I saw him diving and I thought that he was reaching for a firearm and I shot at him and I missed him and shot his daughter in the face. And I also heard a shot on the other side of the truck. And Zama had shot the farmer before he saw him coming out of the truck. He thought that he was the person who was shooting".

MR MBANDAZAYO: Take the Committee through the whole incident. When you arrived there at the truck and take it step by step until eventually shooting of the daughter of Mike Meyers?

MR KULMAN: When we got there I had a .38 special rifle.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry a .38 special what?

MR KULMAN: A revolver.

MR MBANDAZAYO: May I continue?

MR KULMAN: I had a .38 revolver and I went to the passenger's side. When I got there I said to Zama he must go and sit behind and pretend as if he was buying milk. I would then do the job myself. I drew the pistol at this white man. I demanded that he give us his weapon. As I was speaking to him he made a certain movement. I think he was going towards his cabinhole. I thought that he was taking his weapon. I shot. I missed him. He ran away. And Donné then cried out. I heard a noise as he was getting out of the car and he had been shot and he fell on the ground. The people around the area were being shocked. We then got into the car and drove off.

CHAIRPERSON: Who got out of the car and fell to the ground? You have said now somebody, you heard Donné cry out, he got out of the car and fell to the ground.

MR KULMAN: What happened is. I am going to repeat this. I got onto the passenger side. I pointed a gun at Mike Meyers. Whilst I was pointing at him I demanded that he give us his pistol. He tried to reach to his cabinhole. I thought that he was taking his weapon and was defending himself. This happened very quickly. I shot, I missed him and the bullet got his daughter. He got out of the car. Whilst he was out there was a sound. Mean while he was being shot by my comrade. I hope that is clear.

CHAIRPERSON: Who got out of the car? Mr Meyers?

MR KULMAN: Mr Meyers.

CHAIRPERSON: So he was in the car when you asked him for the gun, was he sitting in the car?

MR KULMAN: Correct, he was in the car.

CHAIRPERSON: Passenger side?

MR KULMAN: No on the driver's side. My Meyers was driving. He was on the driver's seat.

CHAIRPERSON: You who wanted to talk to him went round to the passenger side. Is that what you telling us?

MR KULMAN: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And when did he fall out of the car or get out of the car?

MR KULMAN: Sorry?

CHAIRPERSON: When did he get out of the car, after you had shot?

MR KULMAN: After I had shot.

ADV GCABASHE: Just to finish it off, where was Donné at that point? You were at the passenger's side.

MR KULMAN: Donné was on the passenger's seat.

MR LAX: And where do you say you shot her? You said you missed Mr Meyers but you shot her.

MR KULMAN: Around the face. (As the applicant is indicating.) I am not sure exactly where on the face, but around the facial area.

CHAIRPERSON: The front of the face?

MR KULMAN: Yes.

MR LAX: So how could you have missed him and shot her if he was in driver's seat and she was in the passenger seat closest to you? You would her before you could have hit him?

MR KULMAN: I had not gone there to shoot. I had gone to capture the people. I was just defending myself. I thought he was reaching out for a gun. Unfortunately I missed him. Donné was nearest to me. She was also moving at that time. That is how she got shot. My aim was not to go there and kill. If that was so I would have killed Mike Meyers first and then Donné.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you sure of what you are telling us?

MR KULMAN: Yes I am positive.

CHAIRPERSON: You made an application for amnesty didn't you? That you swore to?

MR KULMAN: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: In that application you said and I am reading from page 10 it is paragraph 9 a.4 of the application.

"As a result of that attack two people were killed through their resistance. One was shot at the scene. The other was shot at Mbashe river."

You make no mention there of having shot Donné at the scene.

MR KULMAN: What is your question?

CHAIRPERSON: What is your explanation for your failure to include that in your amnesty application?

MR KULMAN: The space here is small on the paper. There is no way I could have given details on the paper. I thought that the TRC would give me a chance to sit here and to divulge all the details.

CHAIRPERSON: The instructions contained on the beginning of the application says

"Please use a separate page if more space is required."

That is your explanation is it?

MR KULMAN: I was ignorant perhaps. It happened a while back. Some times you forget. But this is why I am here now to give all the details, to give more information and to furnish you with whatever you need.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you seriously suggesting that you forgot that you shot a young girl in the face at close range?

MR KULMAN: No it is not that I forgot that. I did not notice that this was not stated on the paper, on the application form.

ADV SANDI: In your application form you also make no mention of Mr Meyers being a member of the AWB. We saw it for the first time this morning when you gave us your affidavit.

MR KULMAN: Are you saying that this is not on my application form?

CHAIRPERSON: No it is not in your application form. In your application form you say, paragraph 9 a. 4 the beginning

"We were 3 and we were given orders by our commander, Thanduxolo to attack Mr Meyers in order to confiscate his car and firearm which were wanted by our commander. We were told that our unit was short of transport and arms and ammunition as were operating inside the country."

You make no mention whatsoever of having been told to kidnap Mr Meyers because he was wanted for interrogation because of helping the AWB.

MR KULMAN: Could the speaker repeat that please?

CHAIRPERSON: You have your application in front of you, your attorney is showing you the passage where you say you were given orders to attack Mr Meyers in order to confiscate his car and firearm which were wanted. You have now in your affidavit presented to us this morning given a completely different reason.

MR LAX: The question really is for you to explain this complete difference between what you say in your affidavit and what you say in your application. So are you clear what we want from you?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Can I help Mr Chairman?

MR LAX: I do not think it is necessary at this stage.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Not to explain just to tell him what the Committee wants from him, make it clear to him.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we have made it clear. We want an explanation from him why he did not mention in his application for amnesty, which is what we are considering today that he was told to kidnap Mr Meyers, to take Mr Meyers to Mr Thanduxolo because they wanted to interrogate him about his activities. He made no, he twice in his application says, because he says this again in paragraph 11 b.

"We were ordered to attack and disarm the Meyers family in order to get arms and transport."

Can he explain to us why when he now has put forward a completely different motive and completely different instructions why he did not set them out in his application for amnesty?

MR LAX: Do you understand?

MR KULMAN: Yes I do understand.

MR LAX: Will you just explain?

CHAIRPERSON: (...indistinct) explain?

MR KULMAN: I did not write it because I wanted to get this chance to explain to the Commission exactly what happened and what information I got concerning Mike Meyers.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you not know that you were required to make a full disclosure in your amnesty application? That is the application we have before us today.

MR KULMAN: I do know however it is difficult to explain all the details on such small space. This is why I thought you have hearings so that you can complement what you have said on your form to what you have said in the hearing. This is why I am here to give you all the details and to sort that out.

CHAIRPERSON: Your application is not for amnesty in respect of kidnapping My Meyers. Your application for amnesty is what is set out in your application. It would have taken very little for you to have mentioned

"We were told to kidnap Mr Meyers and take him to Mr Thanduxolo."

I understand you would not put all the details of why but this you now say was the prime object of your action which you saw fit not to mention in your amnesty application. Can you give us any explanation why you did not very briefly say that is what you went there for?

MR KULMAN: I heard it in court that we were meant to kidnap Mike Meyers. I heard it in court for a particular reason. As APLA was based in Transkei we were not permitted divulge anything that would jeopardise the army's security. Since then I stayed with that information, not divulging it until at this point at which you ask me the questions.

CHAIRPERSON: So you concede that your amnesty application is false? That you have not disclosed the truth in your application?

MR KULMAN: I disagree with that.

MR LAX: Just one other aspect. If one reads your amnesty application the object of your mission was to obtain a vehicle and arms and ammunition. If one reads your supplementary affidavit and your evidence this morning there is a very different object. The object was to capture Mr Meyers. What would happen to his vehicle was totally ancillary. It was not an object at all. It was just by the way. Do you understand the difference?

MR KULMAN: Please repeat that? Please do not get tired of me, be patient?

MR LAX: I will be very patient. We have got all day to get through this thing. It is fine with me. What I am trying to say to you is this. In your amnesty application the object of your operation, the aim of your operation was to obtain the vehicle and arms and ammunition. That is what you say the object of your exercise was. However in your supplementary affidavit and in your evidence before us today you give a different object. That object is the kidnapping of this man for interrogation purposes and then maybe at a later stage he would be dealt with. That is what you say in your affidavit, by Thanduxolo. What happened to the vehicle that was purely a side issue. That was not your direct object at all. And you have said as much. Do you understand what I am pointing out to you?

MR KULMAN: Yes I hear you.

MR LAX: So I want you to explain to us why you have two very different objects here? One object in your amnesty application and a new object today which we hear for the first time. And the two are not the same.

MR KULMAN: As I have already said I was hiding these facts most of the time and I had reason. I was protecting the army. Even in court I could not divulge such a thing.

CHAIRPERSON: How were you protecting the army?

MR KULMAN: APLA was accommodated in the Transkei and this happened within the boundaries of Transkei. If it had come out that the intention of APLA were to kidnap Mike then the South African government was going to react against the Transkein government.

CHAIRPERSON: And if it came out that the intention was to rob him and you name the name of your commander? Would that not also cause the same effect?

MR KULMAN: Yes, however if the main intentions of the operations were not divulged that would have been fine. A lot of people were not sure that APLA was in Transkei. Even some of the Transkein forces themselves were not sure that APLA was in Transkei. We were defending ourselves in a sense. It would have jeopardised the security of the army this is why I hid these facts for such a long time. In this Mike Meyers case his .38 pistol special magnum there was an emblem on the handle of his pistol, an AWB emblem meaning that corresponds with my evidence here. He was a member of the AWB.

MR LAX: Now are you saying then that you hid this thing even when you made your application?

MR KULMAN: Yes I told myself that I was going to be given this chance to explain. Even in my first form. First of all I was not aware about the TRC. I had told myself that I was going to finish all the years that I had been sentenced. Even with the cases that I was involved in, in the Free State.

On my second form I mentioned my involvement in all the other cases except this one. I do not want the TRC to perceive me as somebody who is not truthful. If I knew I would have stated everything, I would have stated all the intentions. But because of my ignorance I failed to do that.

MR LAX: So at the time you made this application you were trying to protect APLA and that is why you did not tell us the full truth is that what you saying? Just a simple yes or no would be good enough.

MR KULMAN: I filled in the application by myself. I had no assistance.

MR LAX: Answer my question. At the time you made this application, the one in the papers, you were trying to protect APLA and that is why you did not tell us the full story, yes or no?

MR KULMAN: I did not want to disclose a lot of information without consulting with members of the high command. Yes I was defending (...intervention)

MR LAX: But you see the date of this application is the 8th of July 1996. By that stage APLA was already being incorporated into the SANDF. There was no need to protect APLA at that point in time.

ADV GCABASHE: Mr Kulman and your second application is dated 20th of February 1997. You could have put that information then.

MR KULMAN: Sorry?

MR LAX: The question is just explain in the light of that, there was nothing to protect?

ADV GCABASHE: I am simply pointing out that your second application, I am looking at page 21 of the first bundle is dated the 20th of February 1997 at St. Aubus. Now you could have added any necessary information there surely in 1997?

MR KULMAN: I must have forgotten to mention it even then.

MR LAX: You see you did not forget to mention it, you said you purposely left it out. That was your earlier evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes you said, you did not earlier in your evidence say you did not know about the TRC. You said you left it out because you thought you would be given the opportunity of appearing before the TRC and telling them all the details of everything. That you purposely left it out.

ADV GCABASHE: And just one other point. If you look at page 17 of the second application, that is the 1997 application. Maybe you can explain this as well because it is all around the same issue. Page 17 you say there as your political objective: "Whites had to be killed in order to attain our liberation." Now I understand you to say that for this incident, the Meyers incident the intention was not to kill. Can you just explain that sentence on page 17. 10 a. in relation to the Meyers incident?

MR KULMAN: The intention was not to kill but ... The APLA position is very clear. It is 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 have stated this. I was trying to encompass my entire involvement in the APLA activities.

MR LAX: If I can just take you to paragraph 10 of your affidavit. You say

"The instructions were not to kill the farmer but to bring him to Thanduxolo who told me that they want him for interrogation before dealing with him."

What do you mean before dealing with him? What do you mean by those words?

MR KULMAN: The instructions were not to kill the farmer but to bring him to Thanduxolo, obviously (...intervention)

MR LAX: No answer my question. The words I am referring to are not "bring him to Thanduxolo." The question is they want him for interrogation before "dealing with him." What did you understand those words to mean?

CHAIRPERSON: The words my friend are referring to are the words: "dealing with him."

MR KULMAN: Sorry Sir can I read this first for my understanding because I do not want to answer exactly your question?

MR LAX: Please read the paragraph, it is fine with me. Maybe the interpreter can translate it for you if you like or Mr Mbandazayo can translate it for you if you like. But the words we are looking for are "dealing with him." What did you mean when you used those words in your affidavit?

MR KULMAN: We wanted to interrogate Mike Meyers. The matter of dealing with him would depend on Mandla. I however am not part of that. My role goes as far as handing over Mike to Mandla. If Mandla were here perhaps he would be able to explain that. I am not in a position to do that. He would explain what they would do with him after they had interrogated him. I was not in the field of interrogating Boers.

MR LAX: You still have not said what you understand those words to mean. Never mind what Mandla might have done. What do you understand those words to mean?

MR KULMAN: To deal with him?

MR LAX: Precisely.

MR KULMAN: It would depend on him what he meant. However I think that he would have killed him after he had gotten information from him or he may have tortured him. It would depend on the particular situation.

MR LAX: You see what I want to put to you is that you could not have had any other expectation other than that he would have killed him after that. Because what you just told us before about the attacks on the Transkei if it was found out that he had been interrogated, they would not let him go. They would have to kill him and you would know that. Not so?

MR KULMAN: It could be so but it may not be so. It would depend on the people that are interrogating him. Some times you would find that they are satisfied with the information that they get from the person then they let him go or perhaps they would decide to kill him. It would decide what they think.

MR LAX: But in any event your evidence is that you thought it is most likely they would have killed him or tortured him?

MR KULMAN: Yes, it could happen that they would have killed him.

MR LAX: Thanks Mr Mbandazayo?

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman I will move to paragraph 12.

"We drove towards Mbashe where we were to meet Thanduxolo. And we met him there and told him what happened and said the woman is useless and she was badly injured. And he shot her and he asked us to take another direction to Umtata and we were arrested on the way."

Can you tell the Committee, you told the Committee that your instruction was to take Mike Meyers to Thanduxolo but you left Mike Meyers and you went away with his daughter after she was shot. Can you tell the Committee what was the reason?

MR KULMAN: For Mike to be killed?

MR MBANDAZAYO: The reason why you did not take Mike Meyers. Instead you took Donné Meyers?

MR KULMAN: As I had already explained Mike Meyers got out of the car and was shot by my comrade and fell on the ground. After the sound of the shooting the people around the area were shocked and were looking at the place of incident. I said to my comrade that he must get into the car and drive off. Donné was in the car. I think she was unconscious by then. We then drove off and went to Thanduxolo in Mbashe. I reported to Thanduxolo how the whole operation went. I reported to him that it did not go according to plan. We left Mike Meyers behind. However he had been shot, we were not able to take him into the car. Therefore we brought the girl. Thanduxolo just said she would be useless she had already been injured.

CHAIRPERSON: I take it that was she?

MR KULMAN: Yes.

MR KULMAN: Thanduxolo then took a .38 and finished her off.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Can you tell the Committee which .38, you also had a .38 and I understand even Mike Meyers had his own .38? Whose .38 was he using in finishing Donné Meyers?

MR KULMAN: I cannot remember which one was used between the two. However they used one of those. I just cannot remember exactly which one but one of them was used.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Now can you tell the Committee after Donné had been shot what happened thereafter?

MR KULMAN: After we got there we left her with Thanduxolo. Thanduxolo then said we must leave with the truck. On the way to Idushua we were arrested by the police.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Where was it that time, the .38? The gun which you were using?

MR KULMAN: The one I had was my own. It was given to me by Thanduxolo. Then my co-accused had the other one.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Now (...intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry was your co-accused armed with a .38 is that Zama?

MR KULMAN: He was armed with the home-made rifle. However when we got Meyers' weapon he dropped his own rifle and used the .38. He did not use it, he had it with him. He took Mike Meyers' .38.

MR LAX: When and how did you find this Mike Meyers' .38? You have not told us where you got it from or how you got it or when you got it.

MR KULMAN: We got it from his car.

MR LAX: Yes and the rest, when? At what stage did you find it in the car?

MR KULMAN: We got it whilst we were in Mbashe.

CHAIRPERSON: And what happened to it?

MR KULMAN: I am not sure which one was used between the two .38's. However Thanduxolo found it as he was checking the car to see if he can get anything from the car.

CHAIRPERSON: So he found it, Thanduxolo? So Thanduxolo found it?

MR KULMAN: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And what did he do with it?

MR KULMAN: After he found it he told me that he had gotten this .38. I then also checked the car to see if I can get something else. And then I heard a noise, he was shooting. This happened very quickly. After he had shot he said that we must move quickly. I then moved with my co-accused.

CHAIRPERSON: But what happened to the .38 that he apparently used to shoot with?

MR KULMAN: I am not sure whether he used Mike Meyers' .38. But between these two revolvers there is one that he used to shoot the girl. I think it is Mike Meyers' one.

CHAIRPERSON: And what happened to it after that?

MR KULMAN: He gave it to us so that we could defend ourselves. We left with it then the police confiscated it.

CHAIRPERSON: So the police took it?

MR KULMAN: Yes.

MR LAX: I am sorry to harp on a gruesome detail but how many times did fire with the firearm?

MR KULMAN: Thanduxolo?

MR LAX: Yes.

MR KULMAN: I just one big sound.

MR LAX: One big sound?

MR KULMAN: Yes.

MR LAX: So you could not distinguish whether there were more than one shot or not? Is that what you trying to say?

MR KULMAN: I might have forgotten, that is the problem. However there was a big sound. I do not know exactly how many. This happened in 1993. I cannot remember clearly. It is almost 5 years.

MR LAX: It was not like rapid fire of automatic though?

MR KULMAN: No it was either a single shot or a shot one after another.

MR LAX: Well if you heard a big noise and you only heard a shot it could only have been one shot. Otherwise you would know as a soldier what more than one shot sounds like. You must have been on many shooting ranges to hear that and you used firearms yourself.

MR KULMAN: Some times it can be confusing. You can perceive that there has been one shot meanwhile there have been two. In that kind of position your instincts perhaps do not function well. Everything happened very quickly. You do not take particular note of things. Like a camera, a camera records everything. In the situation that I was in you could not keep all the information.

MR LAX: So you do not know how many shots were fired then? If some one were to say for example three or four shots were fired you would not be able to dispute that?

MR KULMAN: If somebody would say that I cannot dispute it. And this evidence I cannot dispute that. However if somebody then again said that the person only shot once and the evidence was as such, I would agree with that.

MR LAX: No I hear you. Now at the time you arrived and you met up with Thanduxolo, this was near the Mbashe River right?

MR KULMAN: Correct.

MR LAX: Tell us exactly what happened piece by piece, from that time you arrived to the time Donné was shot? Won't you just give us a clear breakdown of it?

MR KULMAN: We got there. Thanduxolo's car was already there. Thanduxolo had said we were going to meet at Mbashe. His car was there, I went to him and gave him a report when we got there. I told him how the operation went and then said there is a female Boer in the car. He said that we must take her and we did that. We took her over the fence. After we had taken her over the fence Thanduxolo was busy searching the truck. He came back saying that he had found a pistol. I know that farmers carry more than one pistol at a time. I then thought I should also go and check. Perhaps when he found the pistol he got excited. I got to the truck. My co-accused followed. I checked, I did not find anything. Whilst I was checking I heard the noise. After I heard the noise, Thanduxolo came to us almost immediately saying that we must move from the area. My co-accused and I drove away in the truck and we were arrested on our way to Idushua.

MR LAX: At this stage was, at the time you arrived there was Thanduxolo's car parked on the side of the road?

MR KULMAN: Please repeat your question?

MR LAX: At the time you arrived there at Mbashe for your rendezvous, was Thanduxolo's vehicle parked on the side of the road?

MR KULMAN: It had been there already by the road.

MR LAX: So it was just, where was it on the tar, on the side of the tar?

MR KULMAN: You do not find tar roads in a rural area, it is gravel road. There is no tar there, it was rural area.

MR LAX: Was it in the road, was it on the side of the road, was it right off the road? That is what we are trying to understand from you?

MR KULMAN: Thanduxolo's car?

MR LAX: Well which other car am I talking about my friend?

MR KULMAN: I want to explain something to you before I answer.

MR LAX: Just we talking about Thanduxolo's car. We talking about that car.

MR KULMAN: Yes it was there next to the road.

MR LAX: Okay. Now you said Donné was unconscious when you left the place where the first shooting took place. That is why you left her in the car. She was unconscious. In the truck rather.

MR KULMAN: We had thought that since we had missed the father then we should take her to show to Thanduxolo that we had complied with the orders. There was no other way. We could not have left her behind because she was in the car anyway.

MR LAX: Now was she still unconscious when you got to Mbashe?

MR KULMAN: I think so. I think she was still unconscious.

MR LAX: Well you carried her over the fence so you must know whether she was unconscious or not.

MR KULMAN: Yes she was unconscious because she could not walk by herself. We carried her.

CHAIRPERSON: But could she talk? Did she know what was going on?

MR KULMAN: I do not think so. I do not think she knew what was going on. She was unconscious.

MR LAX: But were her eyes open for example? Or was she like she was sleeping, like some one who you would expect was unconscious would have their eyes closed?

MR KULMAN: I did not take note of her eyes. I was not able to look at her face.

MR LAX: Well you see you spent 30 minutes or more with this person in the vehicle next to you, you cannot tell us a simple detail like that?

MR KULMAN: You mean about whether her eyes were open or closed?

MR LAX: Precisely.

MR KULMAN: I was not there to look at her eyes. I insisted to capture her whether her eyes were opened or not I cannot recall that?

CHAIRPERSON: Was she sitting up in the van?

MR KULMAN: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Where was she?

MR KULMAN: She was on the floor of the car.

ADV SANDI: Who carried the body over the fence?

MR KULMAN: My co-accused and I carried the body.

MR LAX: Sorry is that Zama?

MR KULMAN: Yes.

MR LAX: Now where did you put her down after you carried her over the fence?

MR KULMAN: There were bushed there. That is where we put her.

MR LAX: And you just put her down on the ground?

MR KULMAN: Yes.

MR LAX: Was she sitting, was she lying, was she kneeling, what was the story?

MR KULMAN: As it is on the pictures she was lying down.

MR LAX: And so when you and Zama then returned to the vehicle to search it again, that is when you heard the shots or the shot, the noise? You just heard a noise?

MR KULMAN: When we were going to search? Hear properly could the Commission be patient with me. I was interrogated by the police. My one ear is not functioning well. Please do not panic, please be patient with me. If you do not panic, I do not panic. I have a problem with my ear. I cannot hear well. Please be patient. Please try to accommodate my problem.

MR LAX: No problem, take your time.

MR KULMAN: Please repeat your question? You were asking about searching something?

MR LAX: I said after you put the body down and then Thanduxolo came with a firearm and said: "Look what I found in the car," or words like that you got excited, you went to the car thinking you might find another one.

MR KULMAN: Correct.

MR LAX: And then Zama followed you.

MR KULMAN: Yes. After Thanduxolo got the gun I went to the truck myself to search as well. After I had finished searching my co-accused was next to me.

MR LAX: And then you heard a noise?

MR KULMAN: Yes.

MR LAX: Did Thanduxolo say anything to you when he came back to the car about what he had done? To the truck rather.

MR KULMAN: About killing Donné?

MR LAX: Precisely.

MR KULMAN: He did not say anything. He came back and his special expression had totally changed. He said we must take the truck. He gave my co-accused a weapon and gave me a weapon too. He said that we must go, we will meet wherever.

MR LAX: So he gave your co-accused a weapon and you a weapon. You already had a weapon. Your evidence is that you had a .38?

MR KULMAN: Yes.

MR LAX: So what additional weapon did he give to you?

MR KULMAN: He gave my co-accused a .38.

MR LAX: Yes and what did he give you?

MR KULMAN: He gave me orders to leave.

MR LAX: No you said he gave you a weapon?

CHAIRPERSON: A moment ago you said: "He gave me a weapon and he gave my co-accused a weapon."

MR KULMAN: My co-accused was given a .38, Mike Meyers' one. I had my own. I must have made a mistake.

MR LAX: Sorry what was the last comment he made?

MR KULMAN: He said that we must take the truck and leave.

MR LAX: No before that he made a comment, I just did not hear what it was, by slip of the tongue thank you. Now you have not told us anything about the money. What happened to the money?

MR KULMAN: It was part and parcel of the operation to repossess.

CHAIRPERSON: Where did it come from? Where did you find it?

MR KULMAN: The white man had money.

MR LAX: Well you have not told us how you got it? Where you got it from? Why didn't you say anything in your previous evidence about it? Where we would have expected it to happen as part of your evidence?

MR KULMAN: You want all the details everything? Because I have mentioned in my application form what I was charged by the Supreme Court. Armed robbery, hi-jacking. This requires me to be here to tell you how the kidnapping went, the possession of firearm, the hi-jacking. I cannot explain all this on this small form.

MR LAX: Well you see Mr Kulman, you yourself said this was your opportunity to tell us all the details. So we would have expected you to tell us all the details in your evidence. You said this was your opportunity. This was when you were going to tell us all the details. This was when you were going to tell us the truth rather than the lies you told in court. Yet you have not said a word about the money, about the robbery, about how you acquired that money or what you call repossession.

MR KULMAN: I thought you were going to go step by step and ask how did this happen or how did that happen. However let me answer you right now. They found the money with us in the truck.

MR LAX: The question is where did you get the money from, not where they found it on you?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Sorry can I just come in here. I thought maybe it will be fair to this witness. I understand he is still giving his evidence in chief, maybe in the course of that he was still going to tell us about those things. And I also understand that normally the lawyer leading the witness will ask him if he has forgotten to mention anything before finishing his evidence in chief.

CHAIRPERSON: We have gone way past his evidence about what happened at the scene and his lawyer did ask him to go through it step by step.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes Mr Chairman he was still, I have not yet completed. But I am not saying, of course I was going to ask him to say whether is there any other thing he wants to tell the Committee after completing his evidence in chief, maybe then the Committee. But since the Committee was asking questions so I was giving it chance to ask and finish it so that I can complete my.

CHAIRPERSON: Well perhaps we could save some time if he just told us now where they got the money?

MR KULMAN: We got the money from the truck, Mike Meyers' truck.

MR LAX: When, at what stage?

MR KULMAN: Around Mbashe.

MR LAX: Maybe I misunderstood you but earlier on you said you got the money when you shot Mr Meyers.

CHAIRPERSON: He said the white man had money.

MR MBANDAZAYO: I do not think Mr Chairman he mentioned money at any stage.

MR LAX: That is why I prefaced to say maybe I have misunderstood. No we leave it at there. You carry on Mr Mbandazayo.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: What are you going to carry on with now Mr Mbandazayo?

MR MBANDAZAYO: I am almost finish.

CHAIRPERSON: Because I am looking at the time. Should we take the adjournment now or do you think? It is now ten past eleven.

MR MBANDAZAYO: We can take the adjournment Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well it will give you a chance to consider your position. We will now take a short adjournment which should be fifteen minutes.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman I am grateful for the indulgence, the time. We actually sent out for the firearm. May I place on record that the firearm of Mr Meyers that has been referred to in the evidence is available, is in my possession. It has been checked and made safe Mr Chairman.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Kulman can you tell the Committee what else did you find in Mike Meyers' car and what did you do about what you found in Mike Meyers' car?

MR KULMAN: In his car we found a pistol, sorry a revolver and a .38 and some money.

MR MBANDAZAYO: How much did you get in the car?

MR KULMAN: I did not get to count it because when we got to the place where we were supposed to take, I do not know how much money there was. What was important to me is to get the weapons for the army.

ADV GCABASHE: Sorry, we missed something just there. It was because when we got to the place, if you could go back to that. There is a little bit that we missed.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman. Let's get this clear, which place did you get the money, at which place did you get the money?

MR KULMAN: We found the money in Mbashe.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Where did you get it in the car? Exactly where?

MR KULMAN: There was a safe in the car between the driver's seat and the passenger seat. There was a trunk there. (The applicant is complaining about his headphones.)

MR LAX: Sorry it is affecting all of us. There is a loose connection somewhere that is causing a crackle.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman. I was asking you exactly where did you get the money in the car?

MR KULMAN: There was a trunk between the passenger's seat and the driver's seat. Therefore that is where he kept his money. It was in the truck. I think the trunk was welded into the car.

MR MBANDAZAYO: What did Thanduxolo say about the money?

MR KULMAN: He said that we would account about the money when we get to the destination.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Is there anything that you have left out? Maybe you have recalled now that you want to say to the Committee that is regarding this incident, what happened during the whole incident of Mike and Donné Meyers?

MR KULMAN: What I have not mentioned is probably something that I have forgotten.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Now my last question to you would be let's forget about your order, whether you went to attack or you kidnap or you take the truck. Let's forget about that you were given an order. Let's come to you personally that as you say that you were an APLA cadre would you have done that? And if yes, what would have been your reason for doing that? Can you tell the Committee?

MR KULMAN: Yes I could do that. APLA's position is clear. APLA war against whites because we have a belief that the oppressors were the white people. Those were the reasons why I would do it. I would have also killed.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Now let's say Mike Meyers and Donné Meyers were not in the government. Let's forget that you say that it was alleged that they are members of AWB whether any other party, let's forget about that. Put it aside. Would you have done that? Taking into account even the age of Donné Meyers. That she was still young, possibly she was still schooling, maybe she did not know anything about politics of the day. Let's assume that, would you have done that?

MR KULMAN: Nothing would have stopped me. I was going to go ahead and do it.

MR MBANDAZAYO: What would have been your reason. Let's forget her father, let's say her father well he was killed because okay you wanted the truck, you wanted to take him for interrogation because it is alleged that his farm is used by AWB. Let's talk about the young Donné Meyers that is a kid, would you have done that? Why would you kill her? That is Donné Meyers.

MR KULMAN: I could have killed her because I do not see a difference in the age difference. I do not see a difference in the age whether a person was young or older, they oppress the same way. There is no difference between a small snake and a big snake, they both poisonous and the snakes deserve, both deserve to be killed. She could not have escaped or had been saved because she was an oppressor. She also had a lot of benefits from the privileges she enjoyed from the previous government. I did not enjoy those benefits as an indigenous person of South Africa. She was the pillar of the government because directly or indirectly she supported the government. Those were the reasons why I would have executed her.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman I would like just for the sake I will ask the applicant whether he recognises this firearm as the one that belonged to Mike Meyers. Can you have a look at this firearm and tell the Committee whether you recognise it?

MR KULMAN: I do not remember this gun. This is not the one that he carried. This is not the one. That one was shorter than this. The one I had was shorter and the hammer was sharper.

CHAIRPERSON: The one you had? You said: "The one I had was shorter and the hammer was sharper." What are you talking about?

MR KULMAN: This is not the weapon that I took or I saw with Mike Meyers. They have changed it. I know that one, I know how it was. They are different revolvers. This is a 357 Magnum. There is another shorter 357 Magnum. I can see with the hammer that one is sharper. Secondly where the witness is pointing there was an emblem, AWB. It was as the witness is pointing. They have changed the gun. This is not the one I know.

MR LAX: Just for the record the witness points to the broad portion of the handle of the firearm, the butt sorry.

MR MBANDAZAYO: That is all Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MBANDAZAYO: .

ADV SANDI: Just one thing so that we do not have to come back to it. Mr Kulman should we understand you to say that it did not make any difference to you whatsoever whether or not you had instructions to do this you would have done it, even without orders or instructions from a commander? Is that what you saying?

MR KULMAN: If the operation was within the lines of the party and if the party was going to benefit I would have done it without hesitating.

ADV SANDI: Would you have done it without orders or instructions from any one of your superiors within APLA?

MR KULMAN: As a commander you have your own prerogatives that you could exercise. You had a right to have initiative as long as the initiative would not be contrary to the policies of the army I had the right to carry out the operation.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BOTMA

MR BOTMA: Thank you Mr Chair. Mr Kulman you did not testify during the trial in Umtata is that correct?

MR KULMAN: Correct.

MR BOTMA: And during the trial your co-accused Zama Thutha did testify. Is that correct?

MR KULMAN: Correct.

MR BOTMA: And you have listened to his evidence while he was giving evidence in the Supreme Court, is that correct?

MR KULMAN: Yes.

MR BOTMA: Do you say that his evidence there during the trial is correct or what are you saying about his evidence during the trial?

MR KULMAN: It would be difficult to answer because I did not talk to the judge. He is around I am sure he would answer for himself whether he told the truth or not.

CHAIRPERSON: You were asked what you thought. Do not evade the question, answer it.

MR KULMAN: I thought, what are you asking me about his evidence? Excuse me are you asking about his evidence whether it was true or not?

MR BOTMA: That is correct. You listened to his evidence whilst he was giving evidence in chief as well as during cross-examination. Is that evidence correct or not according to your own opinion?

MR KULMAN: The reason why I am taking time to answer this question is because when somebody is in court they do not want to see themselves in a tight corner. You try to defend yourself when you are in court. Perhaps he was defending himself telling the truth or maybe he was not telling the truth. I did not take part in court at all. I do not want any questions that would concern what happened in court except in connection with my application for amnesty. You were a prosecutor in court. You know that I did not take part. There is the person who spoke in court, he is sitting there. It would be difficult for me to say whether he was telling the truth or not. You must be aware that you do not want to see yourself in a tight corner. You apply a whole lot of measures to take yourself out of that spot.

ADV GCABASHE: Mr Kulman just assist the Committee in answering this question? Because it is informative for the Committee. Just what you can remember of the evidence that was led. If you cannot remember certain aspects well be that as it may but there must be areas you can remember. What was your opinion of what you can remember your co-accused in that case saying? That is all that the advocate wants to know. What did you think, was it true or not? Your own opinion, it would assist us.

MR KULMAN: There were things that he said that were true.

ADV GCABASHE: Would you be able to remember which particular aspects were true and where you may differ with him? Just what you can remember of that would assist us.

MR KULMAN: I could not remember because I was not interested in the trial.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you.

MR BOTMA: During the trial whilst the state witnesses were giving evidence certain instructions were given to counsel that was put to the witnesses, can you recall that and did you participate in those instructions given to your counsel?

MR KULMAN: I would appreciate it if you would remind.

MR BOTMA: What I am saying is that instructions were given to your counsel about what happened there at the scene and let us talk specifically about the killing of Mr Mike Meyers of what the shooting itself, what happened there. Instructions were given there, let's start first of all with Thanduxolo's truck, where it stopped, etc. Can you recall that?

MR KULMAN: I do not want to answer a question that I do not understand well. Instructions that were given to the attorney by the court? I cannot remember please assist me?

MR BOTMA: Your counsel, Mr Zilwa, who appeared on your behalf put certain versions to the state witnesses about the truck of Thanduxolo at the scene where the shooting of Mr Mike Meyers took place. Can you recall those instructions?

MR KULMAN: I cannot remember. I have forgotten.

MR BOTMA: Let me then rephrase or help you with your memory there, refresh your memory. Right at the beginning there is a witness who testified there with the name of Zingalela and it was put to your counsel, Mr Zilwa to this witness that a truck of Thanduxolo was parked about 25 metres from the truck of Mr Mike Meyers in a ditch or sort of a quarry there. Can you recall that?

MR KULMAN: I must have forgotten, seriously. I have already said I have a problem. I was tortured, I have memory lapses. Even some of the operations that I was involved in. I have scars on my head. My head is full of scars and indentations. I have problems with memory. I cannot remember exactly. I am surprised that we are going back to the trial in court. The prosecutor was there. I did not say a thing in the trial. I had no interest. I am surprised that he is raising this matter. I am here at the TRC to tell the truth, you take me back to court now. I do not know if I can cope with that. There is the person who spoke in court. They can ask him. I did not take part in court. I was sentenced, I had not said a word there. Please can your questions focus on my application? (...indistinct) Can you put the trial aside because it is not helping me at all?

MR BOTMA: I do not believe I am out of order otherwise the Chairman would have ordered so. Let me go back to the trial and the question of - I am not interested in what you told your counsel but, did you give instructions to your counsel during the trial? Did you consult with your counsel?

CHAIRPERSON: The reason why you are being questioned in this regard as I understand it is to determine your credibility and whether one can rely on what you are now telling us. You sit back and say: "I am now telling the truth." The advocate is quite entitled to test that and to see whether you are now telling the truth by comparing it with what you may have instructed your attorney to say on your behalf at the trial. We know you did not give evidence but we also know that you were represented throughout the trial by an attorney as you are at the present time. And attorneys take instructions from their clients before they put versions to the other states of the state witnesses. And that is what you are being asked about. Do you understand?

MR KULMAN: I understand. I want to answer again. I did not give any attorney any instructions. Because I did not say a thing in the trial. I was expecting anything. I did not take part in the trial. I did not instruct any attorney. I was expecting anything. Whatever the sentence was I was prepared. I told myself that I am going to cope with whatever they hand out to me. Please could you withdraw your question?

MR BOTMA: Are you now saying that you did not give any instructions at any stage to your counsel during the trial?

MR KULMAN: What kind of instructions?

MR BOTMA: About what happened during any of these incidents from the beginning, from the time that you got to Mr Mike Meyers until the end when you were arrested?

MR KULMAN: I see that this is necessary, I am going to tell you what happened during the trial. They found representatives for us to represent us in the case. I told him or her that I was not going to testify. He begged me for my statement. I gave him a statement. That was it if I remember well. I do not remember anything else beyond that. I gave in a statement as to how I was arrested. Everything else really depended on my co-accused because he is the one who gave evidence in court. I did not say a word in court.

MR BOTMA: At the beginning of the trial you were represented by Advocate Muller as he then was and then at a later stage Mr Zilwa took over as counsel. Now in the beginning you first gave instructions to your counsel, Advocate Muller then that you knew nothing about this incident and that you were only along the road when you were arrested. Is that correct Sir? Along the road towards Adishua.

MR KULMAN: I could not say it is so or not. I cannot remember what was happening in the trial. What I do remember however is that Muller withdrew from being our representative. Whether I said that or not, it could be so. I have not kept this in my memory.

MR BOTMA: The instructions you gave in the beginning to Advocate Muller as he then was that you were on the way walking along the road between Adishua and Umtata when the police came across you and arrested you there. And you know nothing about this incident, about the killing of Mike or Donné Meyers. See if you can recall that now?

MR KULMAN: Maybe I did say that. Maybe I did not say it. I do not know.

MR BOTMA: So you gave instructions to your counsel at the beginning of the trial?

MR KULMAN: I am not sure about giving instructions or the word instruction. What happened is I gave in a statement. I cannot remember what the statement said. That is all, that is all I had to do with the matter. I do not know whether giving a statement is instructing an attorney. I have never been an attorney before. I do not know about the procedures, legal procedures. I do not know how you instruct an attorney.

MR BOTMA: We started during March in 1994 the trial and it was postponed to July 1994 on that day you then changed your plea and you gave a different plea to the Court. Can you recall that?

MR KULMAN: I cannot remember, it could be so or it could not be so.

MR BOTMA: And the reasons advanced at that stage for a change in plea was because of the change of the political situation. Can you recall that?

MR KULMAN: I do not know how many times I must say this. I have a problem. It is going to appear as if I am running away from questions. However I cannot recall exactly what happened during the trial. I am not disputing anything. I am not admitting anything.

MR MBANDAZAYO: I think if we can just be given that (...indistinct) maybe if I can go through with the witness because we do not have all this. Maybe with the applicant he may be able to recall some of these things? Because now he is taking certain portion which we have no knowledge offhand. He is always saying he does not remember. We do not know even the context of it.

CHAIRPERSON: The context as I understand it was that after an adjournment he changed his plea and gave an explanation.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman we do not even know what was the plea. That is the problem. He changed his plea to what? We do not know what was the plea. We do not have the record.

MR LAX: Sorry is that a transcript you have there or are those notes or?

MR BOTMA: It is in fact a part of the transcript of the record of the proceedings up to a certain stage. And then thereafter the rest of the transcript is not available.

MR LAX: Should we not at least make a copy of that available or let them study it? Perhaps indicate what portions you propose referring to so that they can see those portions. It is a bit unfair to take them by surprise in a sense.

MR BOTMA: I do agree. I thought that this was not going to be disputed that is why I, we made copies of the rest of the record which is available, about what happened on a later occasion. But I my talk is going to be about the changing of the plea, that unfortunately the record is not available. I do agree that it should have been made (...indistinct)

MR LAX: Is it not maybe a practical suggestion to carry on with another line of questioning and then during the lunch break you can copy this and give them a chance to have a look at it and you can come back to this?

MR BOTMA: As it pleases.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I would suggest that rather we would ask my secretary if she could start copying it now if you are not going to use that particular portion at the moment. Rather than try to do it during the lunch break.

MR BOTMA: It is fact only about 4 or 5 pages, so you can make copies at any time.

MR LAX: Let's please continue?

MR BOTMA: Thank you Mr Chair. Let's carry on. Can you recall that during this trial we had to go out for inspection in logo of the scene of the killing of Mike Meyers?

MR KULMAN: I vaguely remember that day.

MR BOTMA: And at the scene we were looking for a spot about 25 metres from the truck and there was no indication of any quarry or any indentation in the land and we walked further and then about 435 metres from there you pointed out a spot or the two of you pointed out a spot where the truck of Thanduxolo was parked. Can you recall that?

MR KULMAN: Maybe my co-accused would remind me. I was not part of the trial. I did not participate. I did not furnish anything for the judge. I did not assist. I could not have assisted whilst I did not take part in the trial. I was a part of the trial in the sense that I had been arrested and charged. I did not recognise the person as a judge then.

MR LAX: Can I just clarify something in your question. I thought I heard you say the place where Mike Meyers was killed and are you referring to that or to where Donné Meyers was killed?

MR BOTMA: I refer to the spot where Mike Meyers was killed. So you cannot recall, or let me ask you this way. Are you now saying that you did not participate in the pointing out of the spot where Thanduxolo's vehicle was parked at the first inspection in logo, that was at the scene where Mike Meyers was killed?

MR KULMAN: Perhaps you can remind me and tell me that look this is the role that you played or this is how you participated. But I personally do not remember taking part. Maybe I have forgotten. I would appreciate your help if you cold remind me and tell me that this is what you did and when.

MR BOTMA: Unfortunately I do not know what happened between yourself and your counsel but we walked towards a spot, that was you and your co-accused were leading, we were all following you and we walked around for some time and then you came to a spot and sort of the two of you, I cannot recall whom of the two but one of the two or maybe both of you pointed out the spot. That is the spot where Thanduxolo's vehicle was parked.

MR KULMAN: Before I answer. Who is it that pointed out the place? I am sorry for disturbing you. I am going to answer your question but I would like to know who pointed out the spot between him and I?

MR BOTMA: Either you or he or the two of you. I cannot recall that. Maybe your memory is better but it seems it is unfortunate (...indistinct) So you are unable to help us on that point?

MR KULMAN: No as I have stated to the Commission I have a problem I was beaten by the police. I am surprised that Botma does not mention that. I cannot stand in the sun with this, I have got pains on my head. I have got huge scars. I was beaten up. You know that I did not even go to the doctor. I was unable to go to the doctor. These things affected my memory. I am not through that. I go into spasms just sitting down, you know about my problem.

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Botma. Have you taken any steps about your problem?

MR KULMAN: I did try. I was taken to a doctor. I still have the receipt. The police talked to the doctor. Doctor Tim Khulo is treating us. The doctor said that he could not see scars on my head but there were scars. I did not get assistance. The police spoke with the doctor.

MR LAX: Slow down a bit. It is very difficult for the interpreters to interpret and listen to you at the same time. Please just talk a little bit more slowly?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman I do understand what does he mean by smuggling. He means that it was not properly handled. Everything was cooked, the report that he is well, there is nothing wrong with him.

MR LAX: So there was a cover up, is that what he is trying to say?

MR KULMAN: I am sorry I am used to the lingo that we use in exile. I am sorry about that. I did not then consult properly with a doctor to this day. Perhaps the Commission can understand that I still have a problem from 1993 and I am still suffering. I cannot even shower in jail. My head still aches when I shower. I cannot stand in the sun when other prisoners are out in the sun exercising I cannot go out. I have to stay in my cell. I go into spasms sitting down as if I am going to go into a fit. That is not my nature I know these things I got in the way I was beaten up by the police. This is why I have a lapse in memory. My memory is not as sharp as it should be.

ADV SANDI: Did you, sorry Mr Botma I do not intend to interrupt you. Did you tell your lawyer that you have such problems that you are not even able to remember these things? Does he know about that?

MR KULMAN: Are you referring to Mbandazayo?

ADV SANDI: Yes.

MR KULMAN: Yes he is aware of these things.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman just before, I want to confirm that Mr Chairman but it was not related that he told me about the memory when I was dealing with those Orange Free State incident that he cannot even remember because he was beaten by the police. So his memory is bad. Not necessary about this incident here, Donné Meyers. I know that he told me about the memory, that he has bad memory. In fact I could not even get an affidavit for him regarding other incidents. I was helped by other, I happen to trace some who were involved with him, who happen to help in those incidents in which he was involved. So he could not remember some of those incidents in the Free State. So I do confirm that he told me about the loss of memory.

CHAIRPERSON: Have any endeavours been made or arrangements made to have him consult with a doctor to see if there is any treatment that he can be given for this?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman I only talked to the head of the prison at St. Aubus, Mr Nomsang about this, this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know if he did anything about it because the correctional services are usually careful about having people examined if they are suspected to be unwell?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman after that I left St. Aubus prison and I met him here and he told me that, that has not yet been done. And unfortunately Mr Chairman I must concede that because of the bulk of the cases I am handling I am not in a position to communicate with the prison because there is also another prisoner who is also having a similar problem I was intending that I will take their issue, both of them. Because there is another, Bobby Tshala who is also having that similar problem. I was going to approach the East London whether there is something can be done for them. Because it is worse with him as compared to him. At least him, he was able to remember this case of Donné Meyers. So that is why I felt that we may be in a position to proceed with this, regarding this one. But I have not taken any further steps Mr Chairman. I must concede on that aspect. I was unable to do that.

CHAIRPERSON: I must confess that I have great difficulty now in understanding that you say you were not able to get affidavits in respect of other events, he cannot remember. But now we have been given an affidavit today in respect of this which we are apparently supposed to rely on. What weight can we attach to it?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman I think more than not the remembering, he does not remember the incidents because, clearly because, those other incidents because he is not familiar with the ground in which they operated, more specifically. That it was in Free State. But he remembers that he was involved in operating in a certain place in Free State he was involved in other (...indistinct) But he cannot give me the details, where it was exactly because he was not familiar as such. But he did mention the question of loss of memory to me. But I take it when he was explaining to me is that the reason why he cannot even give the affidavits because he is not familiar with the terrain in which they were operating because he is not from that area. Hence even in this case Mr Chairman he cannot even tell us the location, what was the place in Transkei in which it happened. But he knows that this thing happened and it happened this way. But he cannot say precisely some of the locations, that it was in this place. He remembers some of them which are well known but the rural areas it is difficult for him. Except to know that the other place was Mbashe because of the well known Mbashe River.

ADV SANDI: In the light of what you have just said Mr Mbandazayo, how much weight then should we attach to this affidavit which you gave us this morning?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman I would not say there is no weight that can be attached to this affidavit. If he cannot remember what was happening in court. He explained to the Committee that he had no interest in what was happening in the court. So definitely I would understand then he will not remember anything because he did not care what was happening. Whether whatever sentence he get, whatever happens in the trial. Then definitely a person is that not necessarily because of the damage as a result of assault that he does not remember. I think it is attributed to the fact mostly because he had no interest in the trial. I would not have assisted in making this affidavit Mr Chairman if he did not remember anything regarding the incident itself but of course I asked him about the court he said he did not participate in anything that was happening in court.

ADV SANDI: Any way in this affidavit when I look at it he seems to have a reasonably clear recollection of what happened.

MR MBANDAZAYO: That is why I am saying Mr Chairman that I do not see any reason that this affidavit can be discarded as a result of what the applicant is saying. Because it is not relating to the actual incident that took place. If I get him correctly he saying that because he had no interest at the trial at that time, he cannot remember what was happening and because he was not part of it. He was there just because he was arrested and he was charged. That is my understanding Mr Chairman, I do not know.

ADV SANDI: Maybe you can let Mr Botma continue.

MR BOTMA: Thank you. Just to get back what is being said now by your legal representative, are you saying that your lack of memory of the trial is because you were not interested in the trial or because of the injuries you sustained when arrested by the police?

MR KULMAN: First of all I had no interest. Secondly my having been beaten up affected. At the time I had not even recovered. I was not fine. I was beaten up too much. It created an attitude problem as well. I told myself that I am not going to cooperate with these people, they badly injured me. They did not even take me to a doctor. They must do what they think best to do with me.

MR BOTMA: Just a last aspect. Can you recall that after the first inspection in logo there was a second inspection in logo where another spot was pointed out where the truck of Thanduxolo was parked? This time about six hundred metres of this place where Mike Meyers' truck was. Can you recall that or not?

MR KULMAN: I do not know how many times I went there but I do remember going there. Perhaps my co-accused can help me where I do not remember. I cannot remember all this.

MR BOTMA: So you cannot recall the second inspection in logo?

MR KULMAN: Perhaps I did go a second time. I am not disputing that. I am not admitting to it. I do not know.

MR BOTMA: Let's get back to your affidavit here (...indistinct) it is marked e. in this matter. Are you saying this affidavit is correct and it is a true reflection of what happened on that day?

MR KULMAN: Yes that is correct.

MR BOTMA: There is no problem with your memory the way you were affected by assault by the police when making this affidavit?

MR KULMAN: Maybe there would be a problem here and there, things that I have not mentioned because I have forgotten. But the affidavit is as I say it is true.

MR BOTMA: Everything inside this affidavit is correct?

MR KULMAN: Yes because it is what happened.

MR BOTMA: Now on this day, the 27th of August where did you meet Thanduxolo the first time on that day? ... Thanduxolo, before this incident before the killing of Mike Meyers on that day?

MR KULMAN: I think so because I was given the orders directly. Yes I think it was so. I must have seen him before. If I remember correctly yes I met with him because he asked me to do a reconnaissance before the attack.

MR BOTMA: Sorry for interrupting. I am talking about the day of the incident. Did you see him on that day prior to the killing of Mike Meyers?

MR KULMAN: We were dropped off by him at the target place. We were using his car.

MR BOTMA: So where did you meet him on that day before he dropped you off at the scene?

(The interpreter cannot hear the witness.)

MR LAX: Please tell him to speak up?

MR KULMAN: No I am just trying to recollect my memory. If I remember accurately we left with him from Umtata and then he dropped us off at some village, I cannot remember the name. I think we left with him from Umtata if I remember well.

MR BOTMA: The evidence of your co-accused was that you travelled there by public transport. Can you recall that? That you travelled to the turn-off to the spot by public transport from Umtata?

MR KULMAN: It is difficult to speak for my co-accused. I have already said here that when you in court you apply any measures to protect and defend yourself. It could be that he was protecting himself and was trying to get means to absolve himself perhaps. I cannot speak for him.

MR BOTMA: The purpose of the question is just merely to try and to determine how you got to the scene. So you cannot recall whether you went there with Thanduxolo or whether you went there with public transport?

MR KULMAN: If I remember well I think we used Thanduxolo's car, a Toyota. Perhaps I could be reminded by my co-accused but I think that we used his car. Yes we did, yes we did.

MR LAX: Sorry I just want to clarify this. Was his Toyota a car or a "bakkie" or a truck? What was it?

MR KULMAN: It was a "bakkie".

MR LAX: Thank you.

MR BOTMA: So you travelled with that Toyota bakkie from Umtata towards the scene. Now you said he dropped you off at a locality, you cannot remember the name of the locality. Are you talking in the locality where Mike Meyers was killed? Did he drop you there?

MR KULMAN: Yes.

MR BOTMA: How far from the truck of Mike Meyers did he drop you off?

MR KULMAN: I cannot remember accurately. I do not even want to estimate but we parked at a place where we could see the truck well. Maybe you can give me the information of the distance?

MR BOTMA: Unfortunately I was not together with you on that day. I am talking, he came there and he dropped you off. You say you cannot recall the distance or you cannot estimate the distance. What happened to Thanduxolo after he dropped you off?

MR KULMAN: I was the last person he spoke to. I used "Max" as a combat name. He then said that we must make sure that the operation will be successful. I said yes we would try our best. He said that he would wait for us in Mbashe as he was going to take Meyers from us and move on.

MR BOTMA: Can I take from that did he then drive off or did he stay behind and you walked towards the truck of Mike Meyers?

MR KULMAN: We went to the truck.

MR BOTMA: Did he drive off?

MR KULMAN: Yes he left.

MR BOTMA: The spot where he dropped you, was that before you reached the truck of Mike Meyers or past the truck of Mike Meyers?

MR KULMAN: There were a lot of people there. My concentration was on the target. I did not really take note of who should he use to, I had to look and see where they are and how they sat in the car. I knew that I was going to meet Thanduxolo again in Mbashe.

MR BOTMA: Sorry I have to go back then to the distance he dropped you from the truck. Could you see clearly from where you were the people inside the truck, the occupants of the truck? What was going on in the truck? Or was it some distance away that you have to walk closer to observe what was going on?

MR KULMAN: We were not able to see them. We could only see the back of the truck. The truck had tanks of milk therefore we could not see the people. We were coming from behind. It was difficult to see them, the people inside the truck.

MR BOTMA: He dropped you next to the road or did he drop you in the veld area? What is the position?

MR KULMAN: Please elaborate which field are you talking about? I do not know which field you are talking about.

MR BOTMA: As you were coming from Umtata, you get to the turn off, the Bithi turn off you turned left and you were travelling on this gravel road. That is now the one leading towards the spot where Mike Meyers' truck was. Did he then drop you at a spot just next to this gravel road or did he drive into the veld area surrounding the gravel road and dropped you there? What is the position?

MR KULMAN: He did not drop us off the gravel road. He drove into the village. There is a junction that we used to drive into the village. That is all I remember.

MR BOTMA: Let me just try to refresh your memory once again. You were travelling from Umtata towards direction of Nxnobo and then you make a left turn and you travelled along this gravel road, is that correct?

MR KULMAN: Correct.

MR BOTMA: And this spot where the truck was parked was along side this gravel road, is that correct?

MR KULMAN: It was next to the gravel road where the truck was parked. I do not even remember where the truck was parked. It could be so.

MR BOTMA: Can you recall or can you remember the spot where he dropped you off? Was it next to the gravel road or was it away from the gravel road?

MR KULMAN: It is the first time I had gone to that area really. I was not used to the place. Gravel roads, I cannot. What I do remember is that I could see the truck from where I was dropped off. I did not really take note whether it was parked next to a gravel road or not. I was just there to do my job.

MR BOTMA: Did you walk straight from this point where you were dropped off up to the point where the truck was parked?

MR KULMAN: Yes we did.

MR BOTMA: And did the Toyota van of Thanduxolo follow the same direction as you were walking towards this truck?

MR KULMAN: I cannot remember but what Thanduxolo did was that he dropped us off. After that we went to the truck. My concentration and my focus was on the truck. I could not take note of other things.

ADV GCABASHE: But surely you would have seen him had he driven past you because after all he is your commander?

MR KULMAN: I did not really take note. There were a lot of people from the village. I did not want to lose sight of where I was going. Thanduxolo was not going to do anything to me. He was not going to shoot me if I had my back towards him. My focus was on the truck because there were a lot of people as these Boers were selling. I did not want to lose sight of the truck. I had to look at them. I had to prepare myself mentally to position myself.

ADV GCABASHE: Yes but there was, sorry can I just finish this off? There was no other traffic was there? There was the truck in front of you with people there and no other traffic. It was not a busy road?

MR KULMAN: There are people with cars in the village. I could not be looking at each and every car. After Thanduxolo dropped us off I was already given orders. I knew what I was going to do. Thanduxolo had already told me where we were going to meet. I had no problem with Thanduxolo then. My focus from then on was on the truck. Whether his car passed me or not I did not take note of.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you walking on a road or were you just walking through the village?

MR KULMAN: Through the village.

MR BOTMA: When you got to the spot or to the truck itself did you go straight to the passenger's side or did you first stay behind the truck?

MR KULMAN: Just before we got to the truck I said to my co-accused he must stand behind the truck. I was going to fetch them myself from the front of the car. I would give him a signal thereafter. I went to the passenger's seat side not the driver's side.

MR BOTMA: Were you having a firearm with you at that point in time?

MR KULMAN: Yes I did.

MR BOTMA: Was that the .38 special revolver?

MR KULMAN: Yes.

MR BOTMA: And your co-accused was he armed at that point when you were walking towards this truck?

MR KULMAN: Yes he was armed.

MR BOTMA: Was he carrying the home-made shot gun or rifle?

MR KULMAN: He had the home-made shot gun with him.

MR BOTMA: Can you recall the detail of this home-made shot gun, how big it was?

MR KULMAN: (The applicant is demonstrating how long it was. He says that he thinks it was that long.)

CHAIRPERSON: 50 to 60 centimetres.

MR BOTMA: As it pleases Mr Chairman.

MR KULMAN: But I am not really sure of the measures, I am estimating.

MR BOTMA: This firearm was a firearm which was used by your cell or by the cadres of APLA is it correct?

MR KULMAN: Yes. APLA used it, we used home-made weapons.

MR BOTMA: And did you use this weapon before or let me ask you, did you handle this weapon before that day?

MR KULMAN: No. Well it was not mine. I cannot answer. The person who used it perhaps will be able to answer.

MR BOTMA: No I am asking the question because it seems as if you have got a lot of detail when looking at firearms because you can now after five years recall a firearm, small detail of this firearm. That is why I am asking the question. Did you have a look at this shot gun being carried by your co-accused?

MR KULMAN: He was very good at making arms. I help him, I spent a lot of time with him. It would be easy for me to remember it.

CHAIRPERSON: Who was very good at making weapons?

MR KULMAN: My co-accused.

MR LAX: Is that Zama?

MR KULMAN: Yes.

MR LAX: The other applicant in this matter, Mr Thutha?

MR KULMAN: Yes.

MR BOTMA: How was he carrying this firearm, this shot gun from the point where Thanduxolo dropped you until the point that you were reaching the truck of Mike Meyers?

MR KULMAN: He was hiding it. He had put it in a sack of potatoes. I think he had put it in a sack of potatoes. That is how he had hidden it.

MR BOTMA: Now the object of your whole operation was to capture Mike Meyers but you went to the passenger's side. Can you explain to the Commission why?

MR KULMAN: First of all the aim for the operation was to take Mike. Unfortunately on that day there was the daughter as well. I then thought that I should start from the passenger seat side. I knew that the father could not leave the daughter behind alone in the truck. I had deployed my co-accused such that he would safe guard the driver's side as well. He would stand behind the truck on the right hand side. I then would go and approach them. The reason why I went on the side of the passenger is that I had deployed some one already to watch the right hand side of the car. I hope it is clarified.

MR BOTMA: Mr Chairman I am looking at the time. Is it a convenient time maybe to take adjournment?

CHAIRPERSON: We will take the adjournment for the mid day now. We hope to resume at a quarter to two.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: That is the post mortem report H and the insignia J.

MR PRIOR: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you ready?

MR KULMAN: I am ready.

CHAIRPERSON: Can we continue then?

MR BOTMA: Thank you Mr Chairman. I presume that the witness has been reminded of his previous oath (...indistinct)?

MR LAX: We remind you that you are still under oath Mr Kulman?

LUVUYO KENNETH KULMAN: (s.u.o.)

MR BOTMA: Mr Kulman I believe that in the meantime that your legal representative has gone through with you of the copies of the court record made available. Specifically page 63 of that record. Is that correct?

MR LAX: Sorry you must talk. Your nod does not get picked up on the machine unfortunately.

MR KULMAN: Okay.

MR BOTMA: You confirm it?

MR KULMAN: Yes.

MR BOTMA: Now I want to read to you from this record, I want to refer you to this record. If you look down at line, let's start about line 10 starting from your counsel there stating as follows, actually line 8.

"My Lord then as indicated yesterday (...indistinct) relating to the amendment it will be evidenced later that explaining this that at the time that the accused initially pleaded during February of this year there were certain constraints upon them relating to the divulgence of the organisation to which they belong and the activity that they were involved in. For political reasons and it was for this reason that the initial statement was given. And My Lord will realise that it was complete lack of knowledge of any of the offences or applications against them. A complete denial and an alibi and My Lord will note from the amended statements made from the plea that - and then the rest is audible. The reason for this My Lord is that since February till now there has been a drastic change in the whole political set up. Particularly in relation to the Azanian People Liberation Army of which the accused are members. And they have now acknowledged this fact and explained in their plea that what they were doing on the day in question was taking part in an operation for the furtherance of their objective. And they consulted with higher authority and in the circumstance I personally have accepted reason for the difference in the pleas."

The question I would like to put to you now is that do you agree with this, what was said by your counsel at that point in time?

MR KULMAN: Yes I do agree with it.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Can I just establish something? Do the interpreters have a copy of this?

(Yes we do, thank you.)

MR BOTMA: Thank you. Now the initial plea that you gave was a complete denial and an alibi is that correct?

MR KULMAN: That is correct.

MR BOTMA: And then because of the change of the political set up from the time of the initial plea till this time, that was now 19 July 1994 you decided to take the Court into, in other words to tell, to divulge the whole set up to the Court there and your involvement in this political organisation?

MR KULMAN: Yes. That is correct.

MR BOTMA: Now did you at that stage accept the presiding officer as a judge and the Court as being a competent Court?

MR KULMAN: At the time I did not recognise the judge, the Court as a whole.

MR BOTMA: And the reason for that?

MR KULMAN: Because they were oppressors. It is the very same people that I was fighting. They are the same people that were going to sentence me. They were not going to understand the cause that I was about. They were not going to look at the case from my perspective. They were going to just see it as I killing their brother. This is why I did not respect the Court. Africans did not take part in the law of South Africa until Madiba was president. This is then that black South Africans could have a contribution to the affairs of our country. We did not take part in the laws that were constituted by the previous government. This is why I did not recognise him as a judge. I just saw him as another Boer.

MR BOTMA: And did that include your counsel as well?

MR KULMAN: Muller?

MR BOTMA: That is correct, your counsel at that time?

MR KULMAN: Yes if you understood the situation, we did not trust Muller. I looked at the case I was never informed that I was going to be represented by Muller. Muller was just sent to me. I could not assist him in the case. He perceived that, that I am not willing to cooperate with him.

MR BOTMA: In those circumstances can you then explain to this Commission why did you then decide in spite of all these to change your plea on 19 July 1994?

MR KULMAN: Let me give you the reasons first of all why I hid information. In my statement I had before the case to protect certain forces that were based in the Transkei and also to protect Transkei in a sense. Now divulging later was because it was clear that what was going to happen, we then decided to come out. It was clear politically which side things were taking. It was clear as to which direction things were taking. They were encouraging the army to be integrated. We did not have an alternative except to reveal the truth. That is all.

MR BOTMA: I am trying to reconcile all the statements you have made now. The first plea was given during March 1994, that was before the elections and at that stage you wanted to cover for your fellow APLA members, is that correct?

MR KULMAN: Yes we were not part of the elections. Everything I have done, I did it to protect the army. Therefore I agree with you, I was protecting the army.

MR BOTMA: Now subsequent to that the elections took place of which if I recall correctly the PAC also took part in and then on 19 July 1994 almost 2 months after the election, you then decided to change your plea and to take the Court and to tell the Court what happened exactly there. Is that correct?

MR KULMAN: Correct.

MR BOTMA: So at that stage, on 19 July 1994 you then regard the Court as being a competent Court because it formed now part or let me put it this way the new government is already into operation and did you then take or believe in this Court as being a genuine Court?

MR KULMAN: It was the same to me. I made a contribution. This is why we had elections. I also gave my own contribution. I could no cooperate with the Court because it recognised me or it saw me as a murderer whilst I claimed that I am a freedom fighter. They do not recognise me as a freedom fighter. According to the Court I was a criminal. That is totally, I am not a criminal. That is different from what I define myself as. I am a soldier guided by politics. The Court labelled me on my forehead as a criminal. I could not cooperate with people who saw me as a criminal, as a common hooligan. I could not cooperate with the Court therefore.

MR BOTMA: What was then the reason for changing your plea if you regarded the Court as such?

MR KULMAN: To rectify this. I had to inform the people that had given me mandate to do the operation. I had to say who I was involved with. The reason for having changed my plea was because it was clear which direction things were taking in the country. Even though I was not satisfied because I was in jail at the time. Secondly I believe what I did was part of South African history. For the next generation to understand history they have to know who was involved and who took part. I am tired of talking now.

CHAIRPERSON: If that is your attitude do you want to withdraw your application at this stage? Otherwise you will continue please to behave properly and to answer questions that are put to you.

MR BOTMA: I am still referring to the record.

MR KULMAN: Now I am still waiting for your question Sir?

MR BOTMA: Do you want to continue with your application?

MR KULMAN: Yes Sir.

MR BOTMA: Now on the record page 63 your counsel stated there that, I am referring to line 27 of page 63. "And they consulted with higher authority." Now is it correct? Did you consult with higher authority before you changed your plea?

MR KULMAN: Correct.

MR BOTMA: And during the consultation with higher authority did you take up the question of Mike Meyers being a member of the AWB?

MR KULMAN: They knew already.

MR BOTMA: Any reason for not divulging that fact that you regarded or that you saw Mike Meyers as a member of AWB during the trial?

MR KULMAN: Please repeat your question Sir?

MR BOTMA: Any reason for not divulging the fact that you regarded Meyers as a member of the AWB during the trial at that point?

MR KULMAN: Yes that is the reason.

MR BOTMA: What is the reason? Can you please state it to the Committee?

MR KULMAN: First of all as APLA was based in the Transkei we did not want to divulge this information in court because then we thought the South African government would retaliate in a bad way against the Transkei causing raids. Secondly we were protecting the Transkein government as they had accommodated us. We did not want to spoil our relationship with the Transkein government. We were also protecting the APLA bases in the Transkei. That is my explanation.

MR BOTMA: I am referring to the period that is 19 July 1994 and you using terms like Transkei as African government. By then there was no Transkei, no South African government. It was a government all over for the whole territory. Transkei was just a region inside the territory. And furthermore are you saying that there were still APLA bases at that time 19 July 1994 in the former Transkei?

MR KULMAN: Please repeat your question? I am just missing it somewhere.

ADV SANDI: Can you assist Mr Botma?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Kulman the question to you is as follows. I will try and simplify it. On the 19th July 1994 when your lawyer informed the Court that you had changed your plea because of the political changes that have taken place in the country, did APLA still have bases in the Transkei at that time?

MR KULMAN: No some of them were already integrated. There were no APLA bases at that time. I was in jail at that time but I do not think there were any bases left.

MR BOTMA: So who were you trying to cover for then at that point in time? I am talking about specifically 19 July 1994?

MR KULMAN: Concerning what? Please explain yourself?

CHAIRPERSON: You have said that you did not mention the fact that Mr Meyers was a member of the AWB because APLA was based in the Transkei and you did not want to divulge this to the Court because it might cause the South African government to respond against the Transkei. You wanted to safe guard APLA bases in the Transkei. That is the explanation you gave for not mentioning the fact. You have now just told us that by July 1994 there were no APLA bases in the Transkei. There was no reason to protect them, they were not there. There was also as you have been told no Transkei any more. South Africa was one country. So can you advance any other reason why you did not disclose the truth or what you now say is the truth to the Court?

MR KULMAN: Since I have already stated that first of all I did not recognise the Court at the time. I was arrested in 1993, I was not in touch as such with outside activities. I cannot say whether there were bases or not really. It is difficult. Everybody in this room knows there was confusion between PAC and APLA. Some people within the PAC were saying we should vote, other groups said that we should not vote. Some of us wanted to continue with the Arms Struggle. The other group agreed to integrate. Therefore I cannot say whether there were bases or not.

CHAIRPERSON: Well a few minutes ago you did say there were no bases in the Transkei. Now that it becomes difficult for you to explain you change your evidence. Do you remember telling us in a very short space, a very short time ago that there were no APLA bases in the Transkei in July 1994?

MR KULMAN: I was in jail (...intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: The question was do you remember telling us that a few minutes ago? You have no answer that is it?

MR KULMAN: No it is not that I do not have any answer. It is just that I am trying to recall what I have said because I may appear as a liar to you but you say that on the 19 July 1994 I mentioned that date. I do not think I said that on the 19th of July 1994. Perhaps somebody could explain to me or remind me?

MR LAX: Let me try and help you. It is really a very simple matter. The 19th of July 1994 was the day you changed your plea in Court. That is the date we are talking about. That date was after the 27th of April, which was when the election happened. And that date was after the inauguration of President Mandela, which was on the 10th of May. By that date the Transkei had ceased to exist as a separate entity. And by that date on your own evidence which you have told us already, the APLA bases had been disbanded and people had begun to be integrated into the SANDF. You with me?

MR KULMAN: Yes I am with you.

MR LAX: So in the light of all of that, the original question which Mr Botma put to you was can you now explain to us why you did not tell the Court an important part of your motivation for your operation which was that Mr Meyers was a member of the AWB at that stage? In other words as at the 19th of July 1994? You with me, you understand the question?

MR KULMAN: Yes I understand. Is this the question Mr Botma was asking?

MR LAX: Correct.

MR KULMAN: Alright I think I gave the reasons why I did not divulge this in Court. I still did not recognise the Court and it did not recognise me.

CHAIRPERSON: But you did change your plea. When you changed it why didn't you change it properly. You did not ignore the Court. Your advocate on your behalf changed your plea and put up other grounds. So you were not ignoring the Court. You went on to tell Mr Botma that the reason why you did not disclose this was not because you did not recognise the Court but that you wanted to safe guard the Transkei and APLA bases in the Transkei. Which is now being shown to be completely without any basis.

MR KULMAN: In responding to your comment about changing my plea, if I was going to change it in such a manner that I would divulge all the details concerning Meyers perhaps I would have been given even a worse sentence than I have been given now. We were still trying to defend ourselves in a way so that we could be released from jail.

CHAIRPERSON: Another version.

MR LAX: But you see you told us earlier in your evidence you did not care what happened in court. You were not interested in the court case. You did not even want to participate in it. That is what you told us, so?

MR KULMAN: Yes and I did not take part in the trial. This all rotated around my co-accused and I. What I said would affect my co-accused as well. He made a statement so that we could be released. I am not bringing different versions to the Commission. I am still saying I did not recognise the Court. I did not take part in the trial.

MR LAX: Mr Botma just one question before you continue?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Sorry Mr Chairman just not to interrupt you just before you may (...indistinct) encompass what (...indistinct) say. Mr Chairman I have some problems about this plea because we do not know what was contained in the statement except that it was because of the political situation, we do not know what actually was said. Whether it was, what was written by the legal representatives there. Whether he himself wrote everything except to tell about the political change in the country.

MR LAX: Mr Botma do you want to shed any light?

MR BOTMA: Unfortunately I do not have a copy of the plea as such. I could not get hold of it, it is in the Court file as well. But the question was more aimed towards during the whole trial this question of the fact that Mr Meyers being a member of the AWB never came up during the whole trial. And it was also acknowledged by the applicant himself that this question of him being an AWB member was only very recently even after he filled in this application form that this was now brought to light for the first time.

MR LAX: Mr Mbandazayo is the actual plea that relevant, the actual detailed contents of the plea? We have the wording, the gist of it as mentioned by Advocate Muller in the transcript. Which is to note the change of the nature of the plea. The precise wording we do not have. The issue, ja I am just interested to see whether he takes it any further or whether he contests the (...indistinct) verba of that plea or not.

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't the importance that the first was a complete denial they then on a change of plea they told the Court what they were doing on the day in question was taking part in an operation for the furtherance for the objective of APLA obviously. He has agreed that they still did not mention the fact that Mr Meyers was a member of the AWB and given all sorts of reasons for it. The question is if they were taking part in an APLA operation and this was the main base for it, why didn't he tell the Court? Because he has agreed he did not tell the Court. He did not tell the Court on the 19th of July 1994 and he did not in his amnesty application filled in September 1996 and - when was the next one? 1997 he still did not disclose the fact. And that is what is this issue, isn't it?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman. I agree with you fully Mr Chairman but my problem was that to me it seems as if I agree with the Committee that he did not tell them that he was a member of the AWB but he told the legal representatives that he was participating in the APLA operation. So (...indistinct) it was politically motivated. Now the question was the detail that he never told Mr Muller about the detail of what happened. And my understanding is that he explained to this Committee that he did not even trust Mr Muller. That is what he told the Committee here. That he did not even trust Mr Muller also.

MR LAX: We hear that but can we take it any further now?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman I am not saying that it must produce. I understand now the context into which Mr Botma was asking the question. I have no problem about that.

MR LAX: I just have one additional question just to elucidate. You say here or you confirmed that you did consult higher authorities in APLA?

MR KULMAN: Yes they did come and consult with me.

MR LAX: Who came and consulted with you?

MR KULMAN: Mandla.

MR LAX: And who else?

MR KULMAN: Similo, he came to court. Mandla came to the prison and Similo went to court.

MR LAX: Anybody else?

MR KULMAN: Lethlapa came to the trial to inform us about the suspension of the Arms Struggle.

MR LAX: And that was before you made this change?

MR KULMAN: Yes.

MR LAX: Thanks Mr Botma I just wanted to clarify that.

ADV GCABASHE: Just to clarify, Mandla is Thanduxolo? It is the same person who was in Ruwanda in this particular instance?

MR KULMAN: Yes.

ADV GCABASHE: And has Similo got another name?

MR KULMAN: I know him as Similo.

ADV GCABASHE: And Mr Lethlapa when he came to see you he knew nothing of this particular matter or he just did not discuss it with you?

MR KULMAN: As he was not in the area he asked what had happened and he explained but what he has come to do was to tell us about the suspension of the Arms Struggle.

ADV GCABASHE: When Mandla came to see you, did you discuss the AWB issue and how much of that you should divulge?

MR KULMAN: He had known already because I had gotten information from him. I just elaborated that I had gotten a revolver with a AWB emblem.

ADV GCABASHE: But did you not agree with him therefore that this fact that Mr Meyers was an AWB member could be told to the Court in mitigation of your actions?

MR KULMAN: We did not agree with him?

ADV GCABASHE: Ja on this particular issue, just the AWB one, that you could talk about it in court just so that the Court could understand where you are coming from?

MR KULMAN: Mandla just told us that he would send us a representative. As soldiers then we would defend ourselves as well.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you.

MR BOTMA: Let's go back to the day of the incident and the question of the time that you approached the truck. I understood your evidence earlier that you instructed your co-accused to remain at the back of the truck is that correct or am I wrong on that assumption?

MR KULMAN: That is correct.

MR BOTMA: And you then told him that you will take care of this whole operation and that is why you went towards the front of the truck, correct?

MR KULMAN: Correct.

MR BOTMA: And you told this Commission before that the whole purpose of going there was to arrest or to take care of Mr Meyers and to take him back to Thanduxolo. Is that correct?

MR KULMAN: Yes.

MR BOTMA: Now let's go back then to the question why did you then go to the passenger's side and not towards the driver's side where Mr Meyers was?

MR KULMAN: I had to pro... he was getting out at the right hand side of the car. I went to the passenger's side so that I could see the victim from a distance so that he does not make any movements or perhaps trying to take my arm from me.

CHAIRPERSON: You were standing outside the truck?

MR KULMAN: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You could stand a metre away from him, couldn't you and he would be close to you, you could see everything he was doing and take any action that was necessary without having to shoot his daughter because she was in the way?

MR KULMAN: It would have been difficult because if I was going to stand at a distance it, a person could move their hand without really moving the shoulder. They could shoot through the door of the truck. He could shoot me through the door of the truck.

CHAIRPERSON: He could do that from either side of the truck. It was easier for him to move his right hand up when you were right on the other side and the other side of the passenger, wasn't it?

MR KULMAN: It would have been difficult. Because whatever movement he made you could see it because I saw him from that distance. I could see that his arms were not moving. I did not have a problem with the girl because she was not armed.

CHAIRPERSON: But as you have already told us she was moving.

MR KULMAN: She moved after the noise because she was in shock from the noise.

MR LAX: How did you know she was not armed?

MR KULMAN: She was not armed.

MR LAX: The question is how did you know? You could not see, you could not see through the door?

MR KULMAN: I did not know that she was not armed. It is from their movement that I could determine everything. I had to look at the motion they made, any movement they made it would be clear to me as to whether they were trying to defend themselves or not.

ADV GCABASHE: Can I just take this maybe one step back? When you approached the truck, did you know that Donné was sitting there?

MR KULMAN: I did not know.

ADV GCABASHE: And where exactly was Mike Meyers as you approached, inside or outside the truck?

MR KULMAN: He was in the truck, driver's seat.

ADV GCABASHE: There is evidence to the contrary but I think I will leave that too. It is okay I was just checking on something.

MR BOTMA: Are you certain that Mike Meyers was inside the truck when you approached the truck?

MR KULMAN: Yes I am certain.

MR BOTMA: Because I put it to you and if necessary evidence will be presented later on that Mike Meyers was standing on the right hand side of the truck when the first shot was fired. Right hand, I mean on the driver's side of the truck, towards the back.

MR KULMAN: He was on the driver's seat. I remember that. He got shot as he was trying to run away, in the stomach. He was not standing. We found him sitting on the driver's seat.

MR BOTMA: Now the whole idea of yours was when you approached the truck was to get Meyers as soon as possible and to take him away from the scene. Is that correct?

MR KULMAN: Yes.

MR BOTMA: So what was the reason for pretending as if you were coming there to buy milk?

MR KULMAN: For us to pretend as if we were going to buy milk? Is that what you asking? We did not want the villagers to identify us easily. We were taking cover as if we were going to buy milk.

MR BOTMA: You realised that when you arrived there at that scene and mix with the people from that area that all the people will immediately realise that you are not from that area, correct?

MR KULMAN: Yes we realised that.

MR BOTMA: Now getting back to the time when you approached him, let's carry on, on your version. You instructed Meyers to hand his firearm to you, is that correct?

MR KULMAN: Correct.

MR BOTMA: Did you know at that point in time where his firearm was?

MR KULMAN: No I did not know. Because he was a white man and they always carry firearms I thought I would disarm him first.

MR BOTMA: Can you recall the words you used when you instructed him to hand over a firearm to you?

MR KULMAN: I cannot remember the exact word but I know that I demanded his pistol from him.

MR BOTMA: And then he bended over and reached for the cubbyhole to take out the firearm (...indistinct) is that correct?

MR KULMAN: I thought he was reaching out for a gun to defend himself because he reached towards the cabinhole.

MR BOTMA: You just instructed him: "Hand me over your firearm." Now he was bending towards and to take the firearm and to hand over to you to comply with your instruction. Why did you think he was defending himself?

MR KULMAN: He could point at the gun and tell me where it is and then I would take the gun myself. When he reaches out for the gun himself that is something else. He reached out for the gun himself. He could have reached out for it, taken it and pointed it at me and killed me.

MR BOTMA: That was not your instruction. Your instruction to him was: "Hand over your firearm." Your instruction was not: "Point out your firearm to me." He was complying with your instruction on your own version.

MR KULMAN: Unfortunately then he got shot. Then it was an accident. However I expected him to point at the gun not for him to reach out and take it. He uses a gun, he knows how you handle it. You do not reach out and take a gun. I will explain. I am making an example. If somebody comes to me and I am in a car and demands a pistol from me. When that person demands that pistol from me I cannot give it to him like I am handing over a bunch of keys. I have to point at the pistol because that person will think that my gun is loaded and I am going to shoot them. It is not like a bunch of keys where you can hand over the keys. You point at the weapon and then the person who is demanding the gun from you would stipulate and say what you should do. I thought that he was defending himself, he wanted to fight.

MR BOTMA: This truck was if I remember it correctly a 3 tonne truck Canter is it correct?

MR KULMAN: Please repeat your question Sir?

MR BOTMA: This truck was a 3 tonne Canter. The (...indistinct) of the make of the truck. If you look at the application itself right in the front page one of B (...indistinct) is a photo of the truck. Is that the photo of the truck?

MR KULMAN: Yes it is.

MR BOTMA: Now were you standing on the ground next to the truck or were you standing on the steps of the truck? What is the situation at the point when you demanded the firearm from Mike Meyers?

MR KULMAN: I do not see any steps. What steps are you talking about?

MR BOTMA: Let me rephrase my question. Where were you standing? Let me ask you simply where were you standing at the time when you were demanding the firearm you were standing next to this truck? First of all was the door of the truck open or close?

MR KULMAN: I was standing by the passenger's side, the door. Both doors were closed. The people that were busy were selling from behind the truck. I was standing by the door outside the truck.

MR BOTMA: With both your feet on the ground? Your feet were on the ground?

MR KULMAN: Yes.

MR BOTMA: Now if you look at this truck, were you looking upwards towards the people or were you on the same level as they were, as they were seated?

MR KULMAN: Where I was standing it is a village, there are sloped. They were parked next to the road. Where I was standing it was a bit higher than where the truck was parking. Therefore I could see both people. It was not difficult for me to see people inside the truck.

MR BOTMA: So you were on the same level as they were? Position they were seated in the truck, your shoulder and their shoulders were more or less on the same height?

MR KULMAN: Not that we were all at the same level but I could see them. They were in my view. I could see them. I did not have any difficulty.

MR BOTMA: How far were you standing away from this door?

MR KULMAN: Two or three steps from the door.

MR LAX: Sorry by steps do you mean paces?

MR KULMAN: Yes Sir.

MR LAX: Thank you.

MR BOTMA: Now Mike was bending towards the cubbyhole of the vehicle and then you fired a shot at him, is that correct?

MR KULMAN: Yes that is correct.

MR BOTMA: And according to your own evidence you are a trained gunman, you know how to use a firearm and how to aim with a firearm. Is that correct?

MR KULMAN: Correct.

MR BOTMA: For which part of his body were you aiming?

MR KULMAN: I was aiming at him from the top of his head downwards.

MR BOTMA: And that whole portion of his body was visible from where you were, from his head downwards? Or let me ask you this way. Which part of his body was visible when you aimed at him?

MR KULMAN: From his head to his waist. The truck was built in such a way that there was glass where the witness is pointing. (The interpreter could not see which area the applicant was pointing at.)

CHAIRPERSON: The window has a extension downwards towards the front of the vehicle and that is what he was pointing at. He can there see through that lower down.

MR LAX: Just for the record it appears there is a dark portion below the window on the photocopy we have of the vehicle.

MR BOTMA: And what happened then? You fired a shot, how did it come about that Donné was shot?

MR KULMAN: I think that she got shocked from the sound. The father was going towards the cabinhole, I went backwards, I did not know what she was going to do. It all happened very fast, very quickly. (The applicant is explaining to the interpreter what the arc of fire is.)

MR LAX: What the what is sorry?

(He mentioned that Donné was in his arc of fire.)

MR LAX: Arc of fire okay. We understand what that is. He said I would explain it to him?

(Yes he did Sir)

MR LAX: Arc of fire means the range in an arc from your barrel.

MR KULMAN: It all happened very quickly. She was in my arc of fire. I shot intending to shoot Mr Meyers. Unfortunately I missed him and he tried to run away. That is how I got to shoot Donné.

MR BOTMA: Let's get back to this version of yours.

ADV GCABASHE: Can I just get one little thing straight? Are you suggesting the windows were open or shut? That is the only little bit I am trying to understand. As you shot into the car?

MR KULMAN: They were open, both windows on both sides.

MR BOTMA: Well your evidence is that he bended over towards the cubbyhole of the truck. So his face was much lower than that of Donné. Is it correct?

MR KULMAN: Correct.

MR BOTMA: And you were aiming for an area from his face downwards, is that correct?

MR KULMAN: Correct.

MR BOTMA: And she was still seated upright in the truck, is that correct?

MR KULMAN: Correct.

MR BOTMA: And that was the position at the time you fired the shot?

MR KULMAN: This all happened very quickly. Mike did not inform me that he is reaching out for his weapon. After I demanded a gun from him he reached for his cabinhole, I took a few steps backwards not knowing what he was doing at the same time the passenger was also moving. This is why she got shot on the face. After the shot Mike started to run away. After the shot Donné still tried to move. I lost sight of Mr Meyers for a moment and I thought that I would not be able to shoot at him properly because I do not know what he was trying to say.

(The interpreter apologises. Could the applicant please repeat the last part of his answer?)

MR KULMAN: I did not know what Mike was trying to reach for at his cabinhole.

CHAIRPERSON: Where was the cubbyhole that you are talking about?

MR KULMAN: It is usually on your left hand side of the car.

CHAIRPERSON: And with what hand was he reaching?

MR KULMAN: I think that he was using his left hand side but I do not really take note of that. But his movement disturbed me. He must have used his left hand because his left hand was closer to the cubbyhole than his right hand.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know if he was left handed?

MR KULMAN: No I do not know.

ADV SANDI: After he was shot did you bother to find out what exactly he was trying to get out of his cubbyhole?

MR KULMAN: After the sound that hit Donné, this happened quickly he then got out of the truck and there was another sound. The villagers were then running away because they did not know what was happening. I then said to my co-accused that we must run off.

ADV SANDI: Did you go to the cubbyhole?

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry could I go back before we move on? Did you say a moment ago that after you had fired the shot, you thought that Mike was still moving and would get away before you could shoot him properly.

MR KULMAN: That he would be able to run away?

CHAIRPERSON: Before you could shoot him properly, did he get out of the vehicle, did you say that?

MR KULMAN: Could somebody explain this question to me?

CHAIRPERSON: It is perfectly simple. Did you say that after you had fired at Donné and she was still moving, Mike moved and you thought he was going to get away before you could shoot him properly?

MR KULMAN: Are you asking before Donné was shot?

CHAIRPERSON: No after?

MR KULMAN: No, at that time Meyers was already outside the truck.

CHAIRPERSON: What was he outside the truck before she was shot?

MR KULMAN: No, let me explain to you again. I got to the truck, I pointed the revolver towards Mike, I demanded his weapon. He reached for his cubbyhole, I moved a few steps backwards. I did not know what he was going to do. I thought that he is reaching out for his gun. I shot, unfortunately Donné got shot in the face. After the sound he tried to get out of the truck and tried to run away and then there was another sound that got him whilst he was outside the truck.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes but the question was simply did you say a few minutes ago, we can check it on the record later. That Donné had been shot, was still moving and you thought Mike would escape before you could shoot him properly? If you do not remember tell me. I do not want a long explanation. Can you remember saying that a few minutes ago or can't you? It is a very simple question.

MR KULMAN: Please summarise the question?

CHAIRPERSON: If you cannot remember say so? I am not trying to trick you I am just trying to clarify my own note. If you cannot remember, you cannot help.

MR KULMAN: No it is not that I cannot remember. It is just that I just need a broader explanation because this question is not clear.

MR LAX: Maybe I can help you, maybe I can help you. What Judge Wilson is asking you is he thinks he remembers you saying that after Mike Meyers jumped out of the car you, or as he was jumping out, after you shot and hit Donné that you were worried that he might get away before you could shoot him properly. Did you say such a thing or didn't you in your evidence now in the last while? Do you understand what I am asking?

MR KULMAN: That Mike would run away?

MR LAX: Ja, were you worried that Mike might manage to run away? Yes or no?

MR KULMAN: Yes. We left Mike behind and he was still alive.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman I think the applicant is missing the point. Can I offer some assistance here?

MR LAX: Please do.

MR MBANDAZAYO: What the judge wants from you is this. The judge says that did he hear you properly or clearly that you were worried that Mike Meyers would get away without being in a position to shoot him properly after you have fired the first shot? If I am correct then. After you have fired the first shot?

MR KULMAN: Yes that is so.

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Botma can I just?

MR MBANDAZAYO: I do not know whether Judge you get the answer interpreted correctly what you?

CHAIRPERSON: We have, your client appears to find it impossible to give a simple answer to any question. Let's go on.

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Botma for one moment please? Did you at any stage check what was in this cubbyhole, the one Mr Meyers was diving at, according to your evidence?

MR KULMAN: I was not able to check right then. But after he had been shot my co-accused and I left without having searched the truck. We went to Mbashe. The truck was then checked at Mbashe. I did not find anything in the cubbyhole. I do not know where Thanduxolo found the revolver. However when I checked there was nothing.

MR BOTMA: Now getting back to the point where Mike reached for the cubbyhole of the vehicle. You could see his body, his head downwards and you were aiming at that portion of his, correct?

MR KULMAN: Correct.

MR BOTMA: And the moment he reached for the cubbyhole you thought he was going for his firearm and that is why you fired the shot at him. Correct?

MR KULMAN: Correct.

MR BOTMA: So can you now explain to this Commission how was it possible for you to shoot Donné instead of Mike? Because you were aiming at him, he was bending forward, you were aiming at him, you could see properly and she got shot in the face, according to your evidence it is on a higher level than that what you were aiming for?

MR KULMAN: After Mike moved, Donné also moved. As a result she blocked my arc of fire, which is why she got shot.

MR BOTMA: You using the term arc of fire, are you talking about line of fire or are you talking about arc of fire?

MR KULMAN: Line of fire.

MR BOTMA: Are you saying that Donné moved right into this line of fire, turning her head, looking towards you?

MR KULMAN: I do not remember but I do remember that she had a wounded. She was wounded around the nose, downwards to the mouth.

MR BOTMA: To be more exact, if I remember correctly from the post mortem report, there was a gun shot right underneath her left eye. Is that the shot you referring to?

MR KULMAN: Yes it must be.

MR BOTMA: At what stage did you notice this wound? At a later stage while you were driving away?

MR KULMAN: It is when we were getting into the truck that I realised that she was bleeding. That is when I took note of it.

MR BOTMA: How was she positioned in the truck whilst you were driving away? Was she bending forward with her head on her knees?

MR KULMAN: Yes. Yes.

MR BOTMA: And could you also blood from the back of the head as well?

MR KULMAN: I cannot remember, perhaps I did not take note of that.

MR BOTMA: Can you have a look at bundle C, the photos taken from Donné Meyers after the incident? And let us be more specific, let us refer to for example photo 3, 4, 5. Did she have injuries on her head like this, what you seeing there? At the time you were, I am specifically referring to the top of the head. Photo 5 shows that more clearly. At the time you were driving away from the first scene to the second scene?

MR KULMAN: No she had not gotten it.

MR BOTMA: See if we once again go back to the post mortem report, page 4 of it and on the topic

"Additional Observations - entry wound noted on the left auxiliary area, fracturing the auxiliary bone and floor of the anterior cranial vast (...indistinct) entering the brain. And see Annexure p.t.o."

Unfortunately we do not have the second page or the one referring to. Are you with me?

CHAIRPERSON: Does nobody have a copy of that?

MR PRIOR: We made that available with the bundle of photographs Mr Chairman.

ADV GCABASHE: (...indistinct)

CHAIRPERSON: I am talking about annexure which is supposed to be on the back, it says at the bottom there: "See annexure, p.t.o."

MR BOTMA: That is correct unfortunately (...intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: When you p.t.o. there is nothing.

MR BOTMA: We only having a copy and it seems that instead of the normal post mortem report you will have a of part of the sketch of the body and a sketch of the brain area. And the person who made the photocopies only made the photocopy twice of the body area. And I wish to add that we only have a copy available, not the original one which form part of the court record.

CHAIRPERSON: Was the original not available?

MR BOTMA: Mr Chairman I will loo into, I will try to obtain it as soon as possible. I had a copy of that in the Attorney General's office the file there. The original one that is handed in and we could not get hold of a judge to ask him, the presiding judge about happened with their original exhibits as such.

CHAIRPERSON: Because I understand the doctor is going to be giving evidence?

MR BOTMA: We are trying to get hold of a doctor (...intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Presumably he would have to have the proper record. Because he will not or I doubt that he will be able to remember the details.

MR BOTMA: We will see how far we can get on this point Mr Chair. Actually what I am driving at is this wound the one who entered just below the left eye, that shot went through the portion of the floor of the mouth and went into the brain, entering the brain. Now it seems to be the most, that was being the fatal shot. Are you saying that, that shot was fired at Donné at the first point where Mike was also shot?

MR KULMAN: Yes.

ADV GCABASHE: No but the question is; did this happen at the time that you were shooting at Mike? Just when did that shot, when was she shot at that spot?

MR KULMAN: At the time when I thought that Mike was reaching out for his pistol. I think the picture is correct, towards her left eye.

MR BOTMA: But do you agree that, that seems to be the fatal shot according to the post mortem report?

MR KULMAN: I cannot say I agree or not. I do not know about the post mortem.

MR BOTMA: And you are saying that Donné was still alive even at the point when you arrived at the second scene? That is where she was shot according to you, by Thanduxolo?

MR KULMAN: I think that I said she was unconscious. She was not conscious.

MR BOTMA: Now on the way from the first scene to the second scene was she crying and screaming, groaning with pain?

MR KULMAN: She was groaning.

MR BOTMA: And you could see that she was in severe pain as well?

MR KULMAN: Yes.

MR BOTMA: What was the reason for taking her along?

MR KULMAN: We were complying to the orders that we had been given.

CHAIRPERSON: What order had you been given?

MR KULMAN: We were given an order to take Mike. However there were two of them there that day.

CHAIRPERSON: So you did not take Mike and you took some one who you had not been ordered to take. Instead of taking Mike you killed him. A gross breach of your orders, wasn't it?

MR KULMAN: It is not that we did not comply with the order. We did that.

CHAIRPERSON: You were told to bring him back alive so he could be questioned. You did not comply with that order. You shot him on the scene.

MR KULMAN: We did comply with the order. I was given an order to bring Mike. If he resisted then he would be executed. We could not take Mike, we then took the girl. We did not have a chance to drop the girl off. I reported to my commander how the operation went; "This is the person who was with the Boer." He then said the person is useless.

MR LAX: Wasn't it obvious to you she was useless at the point you left the scene, the first scene? Here was some one shot through the eye or just below the eye. How on earth could she have been of any use to you after that?

MR KULMAN: I do not want the Commission to take Donné's death in a special way. She did pass away. I sympathise with the family. However there are a lot of people who passed away. Especially Africans. Her death was within the policies of APLA. APLA was engaged in a war. Her death was not far from the policies of APLA. She was going to be killed.

MR LAX: You still have not answered my question. What use would she be to you with that fatal wound in her? It is nothing to do with APLA's policy. I am perfectly aware of the struggle and how many African people got hurt in the struggle as well. What use would she have been to you at that point with such a wound in her face and in her head?

MR KULMAN: Perhaps she would have been of help to Thanduxolo as my commander. I did not want to leave anybody behind. I was worried that I left Mike behind. Perhaps she would have been able to help Thanduxolo in whatever way, even if she was wounded.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you took her along with a bullet through her head, why didn't you take Mike?

MR KULMAN: Donné was in the car already. This is why we were able to take her. Mike was outside the truck.

CHAIRPERSON: Lying right next to the truck, wasn't he?

MR KULMAN: Yes but he was not that close to the truck. He was not that close to the truck. It would have taken time to carry him in the way that he was, wounded. My co-accused got into the car and Donné was in the truck and that is how we got to take her.

CHAIRPERSON: But the whole mission was to go and fetch Mike and there he was, available to you. Why did you not carry out the mission you said you went there to do? You have also in your application said that if you did not carry out missions you would be shot by your commanders. Do you remember saying that?

MR KULMAN: I do not think I said that in my application.

CHAIRPERSON: No it is your co-accused. I have difficulty in understanding why Mike had been shot, he was lying there within reach of you. There were two of you who could have picked him up, put him into the van and driven off with him. Why didn't you?

MR KULMAN: We could not have been able to do that. Our operation was already spoilt. It would have taken time to pick him up, put him into the car. That would have taken a lot of time. The police could have gotten us or arrested us there or there would be people who would be able to identify us. There is something else that happens within the army structures, when you given a responsibility as a commander during difficulties you are able to apply your authority as a commander in defence. I wanted Mike alive. I did not want him dead. However things did not go as I planned. There were injuries, there were deaths.

CHAIRPERSON: But you have made no mention in your evidence of any attempt by you or your co-accused, as you call him, to examine Mike. To see how he was injured. You just, he was shot at and fell down and you just left him there.

MR KULMAN: This is why I am saying that the operation did not go as we planned. It was spoiled. We shot him defending ourselves because I did not know what he was trying to reach for in the cubbyhole. He got shot and lay on the ground. If somebody is laying on the ground shot in the abdominal area you got a difficulty dragging the person. It is either the person has passed away or is badly wounded. It would take time to carry the person and take him to hospital. We did not have money. We then decided to leave him behind and report to our commander as to how the mission went.

CHAIRPERSON: You did not know where he was injured. You did not examine him.

MR KULMAN: My co-accused aimed at his stomach. A lot of damage can take place when somebody is shot.

CHAIRPERSON: You co-accused aimed at his stomach you say after he had got out of the car with bare hands, nothing in his hands, no weapon. Can you explain how you were protecting yourselves? He was not grabbing at anything, he got out of the car carrying nothing.

MR KULMAN: If I was in my co-accused position I would shoot. CHAIRPERSON: I have no doubt you would have.

MR KULMAN: Sorry?

CHAIRPERSON: I have no doubt you would have shot. But I am asking you how that agrees with the orders you got to go and fetch this man and bring him back?

MR KULMAN: My co-accused thought that I had lost Mike. (The applicant's answer is not clear. Could he repeat himself please?)

MR KULMAN: Okay. I think that my co-accused might have perceived that this white man was going to do something as we did not know where his gun was. I had already stipulated my role to my co-accused that I was going to capture both people. He then must have realised that I was overpowered in some way. That is why he must have decided to shoot.

ADV GCABASHE: I have got a bit of a problem there. Mr Kulman you did not know there were two people in the truck. Or have I got something wrong here? Please just help us through this one?

MR KULMAN: Yes I did not know.

ADV GCABASHE: So your partner could not have known that you meant to disarm the two people that were there. He only knew of one person who was going to be there. Or have I missed something somewhere?

MR LAX: Perhaps I could help you just to rephrase the question slightly. He said he told his partner that he was going to capture both people. And the issue is how could you have told him you were going to capture both people if you did not know there were two people there? Because you separated before that. That was your earlier evidence. And only when you got there did you realise there were two of them. That is your previous evidence. So how could you have told him such a thing if you did not know it?

MR KULMAN: According to our plans I told my co-accused that I was going to take over. I was going to point at them with the weapon. I realised when I was there that there were two people. My co-accused and I were prepared for one person. We were worried about the people who were working with Mike that they might want to assist.

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Botma, just one question. Did you hear Mr Meyers as saying: "Leave my child. Take the money, take the truck"?

MR KULMAN: I personally did not hear him because as I was pointing at him we did not exchange any words. I am the one who demanded the gun. He did not verbally respond to me. He just reached out to the cubbyhole. I do not remember him saying that.

MR BOTMA: Getting back to the point before you reached this truck did you also inform your co-accused about the reason for the mission? What you were supposed to go and do there?

MR KULMAN: As a commander I had to tell him.

MR BOTMA: And your instruction to him was that you must capture Mike Meyers and bring him to Thanduxolo. Is that correct?

MR KULMAN: Correct.

MR BOTMA: And you told him that only when he is resisting and putting your lives in danger that he must be shot, only at such a stage, is that correct?

MR KULMAN: Yes he is a soldier, he knows that.

MR BOTMA: Did you tell him, was the question?

MR KULMAN: Yes.

MR BOTMA: So his instruction at that point in time was that by all means you must try to take him to Thanduxolo without killing him. Is that correct?

MR KULMAN: Correct.

MR BOTMA: Now after the shooting when Donné was shot Mike Meyers jumped out of the vehicle and he ran towards the back. Is that correct?

MR KULMAN: Correct.

MR BOTMA: What did you do?

MR KULMAN: After he tried to run away I, before I got to the back of the truck there was a sound. And the people who were working in the truck also were running away. When I got to the other side my co-accused was there and had shot the man. I then said he must go into the other side of the truck and we got in and we left.

MR BOTMA: Is it correct that when the shot or shots were fired that all the people who were surrounding the truck ran away back to their houses and back into the locality?

MR KULMAN: Yes that is true.

MR BOTMA: So at that point in time nobody from the locality were in your immediate vicinity or near to you, correct?

MR KULMAN: It could happen that they were there but I did not take note of any such people because people were all dispersing, trying to run away.

MR BOTMA: Trying to run away or have they already run away from the scene?

MR KULMAN: They started running away after the first bang.

MR BOTMA: And then after the second shot they were already away from the scene?

MR KULMAN: Yes I could say that after the second bang then people started running into their houses. After the first sound I do not think people were able to say whether it was a pistol or not because the first sound was not too loud. They ran away.

MR BOTMA: The point I an driving at is at the time after the second shot was fired there was nobody at the scene except yourself, your co-accused, Mike and Donné. Is that correct?

MR KULMAN: Yes.

MR BOTMA: So you had ample time to examine Mike and to see how serious his injuries were?

MR KULMAN: The mission was not to examine Mike. He was shot, the entire mission was messed up. We were not able to take him with. I then had to explain to my regional commander how the operation went. The order was to take Mike. Unfortunately he got shot. After he got shot we could not examine him. As to whether he would cope or survive until we got to Thanduxolo. It is not like a regular army where you would kidnap the person in whatever state they are. In a guerilla warfare you use initiative. We could not take Mike along. Even our commander would perceive us as being stupid if we had taken him along in that state.

MR LAX: Can I just check something? When I heard him answering he seemed to be agreeing with the question but then explaining he said: "Yes but," and then he went into the explanation. Was that correct? Because that was not interpreted. Just help me there if you right?

MR KULMAN: I think I am getting a bit confused. Could the question then be repeated?

MR BOTMA: And before I repeat the question I would like you please kindly keep your answers shorter. You giving us long explanations without answering the questions. The question was; you had ample time to examine Mike after the shooting, is that correct?

MR KULMAN: We only had enough time to retreat and not to examine him.

MR BOTMA: What was preventing you from examining him?

MR KULMAN: Because the operation did not go as planned. He ended up getting shot. That is what prevented us from taking him with us.

MR BOTMA: With due respect that is not an answer to that question. Was there anything preventing you from examining him at that point in time?

MR KULMAN: Yes because he was shot we were then not able to take him with, having been shot. That prevented us from taking him with. He was not well.

MR LAX: So instead you took his daughter who was shot and also not well. Where is the sense in that? And she was not even your target.

ADV SANDI: She was unconscious and groaning according to your evidence.

MR LAX: Didn't you expect Mandla to be just as angry with you for doing that as you said he would have been if you had taken Mike Meyers?

MR KULMAN: This is what happened, Donné was already in the truck. She was shot in the truck, she was unconscious. After Mike had been shot we immediately got into the truck with my co-accused with Donné in the truck. When we got to Thanduxolo I briefed him, gave him a report as to how the operation went.

MR LAX: Why didn't you just take (...intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You apparently find it impossible to answer questions. He goes on and on repeating the same story. Would you listen to the question and answer the question please?

MR LAX: I am going to move on to just one last question in this issue. You have told us there was nobody around you at that point, everyone had run away. There was no immediate danger to you at that point in time. You have conceded that. Now why don't you just pick her up and take her out of the car and put her down and drive away? Would have taken a few seconds to do. Just leave her behind. She is no use to you. You have admitted that.

MR KULMAN: Is your question that why didn't you leave Donné behind?

MR LAX: Precisely.

MR KULMAN: This all happened quickly. We did not plan to leave with Donné. Because she was already inside the truck we left immediately, we were not able to drop her off. The point of whether there were people around or there were people far off we would have gotten a chance to drop her off, it would have been tricky. What we thought at the time is that we should retreat immediately because the operation did not go according to plan. The plan was such that we were not to shoot anyone and nobody around should know what was happening. Unfortunately it did not go as planned and that is how things ended up.

CHAIRPERSON: Didn't you take her with you because she was still in the truck and at that stage was not badly injured? She in fact had apparently an injury to her hand.

MR KULMAN: Taking Donné with was not within our plans. When I got into the truck she was there. I did not get a chance to drop her off. We then just took off with her.

MR LAX: Just one last question. Who drove the truck?

MR KULMAN: My co-accused.

MR LAX: Thank you.

MR BOTMA: My (...indistinct) evidence is that before the time you decided to meet each other at the Mbashe bridge, is that correct?

MR KULMAN: Correct.

MR BOTMA: Any reason for meeting at that specific place and not in Adishua or any other place?

MR KULMAN: This place was selected by Thanduxolo. We could not dispute that with him or suggest another place.

MR BOTMA: Did you know where the spot was when he gave you instruction before the time?

MR KULMAN: My co-accused is familiar with the place. He knows the place.

MR BOTMA: Was your co-accused involved in this planning in this meeting or when it was discussed to meet at a specific place, was he involved in that?

MR KULMAN: I reported for him. He did not know. I told him that Thanduxolo says that we must wait for him at Mbashe. We went straight to Mbashe then. I reported to him from Thanduxolo.

MR BOTMA: The instruction from Thanduxolo was to meet at Mbashe, is that all he said?

MR KULMAN: Yes.

MR BOTMA: Did he mention a locality called Mbashe or did he refer to the river Mbashe?

MR KULMAN: It is only the river Mbashe that I know.

MR BOTMA: That is the question. Did he refer to: "We will meet each other at the Mbashe River," or what did he tell you?

MR KULMAN: Mbashe River he said.

MR BOTMA: And you agree with me that Mbashe River is starting somewhere up outside the boundaries of the previous Transkei running towards the sea, is that correct?

MR KULMAN: I just know the place where I was. I do not know where Mbashe River starts or ends.

MR BOTMA: Now did he ask you to meet him at the Mbashe bridge or did he just say: "I will meet you at the Mbashe"?

MR KULMAN: He stipulated the area. It is just that I have forgotten the name of the village. However not the bridge between Umtata and Nxobo.

MR BOTMA: Was there any discussion the route you were going to follow from that point towards the Mbashe River?

MR KULMAN: Since my co-accused knew this way he was aware of the route that were leading us to our meeting place. Thanduxolo would use his own route.

MR BOTMA: You see I am trying to establish from you whether this rendezvous or this point where you were supposed to meet was known to everybody. You were just told: "Meet me at the Mbashe." Is that correct?

MR KULMAN: He mentioned the area because next to Mbashe there is the club Barry. There are also villages around but I have forgotten the name of those villages around.

MR BOTMA: So did he mention the locality to you or the area where you were supposed to meet?

MR KULMAN: Yes he did.

MR BOTMA: And was that conveyed to your co-accused by yourself or by Thanduxolo?

MR KULMAN: Thanduxolo told me and then I told my co-accused.

MR BOTMA: Now the distance from the first point, that is in other words the point where Mike was shot and the second point where Donné was finally shot, can you give the Commission an indication of this distance?

MR KULMAN: I would not be accurate but I think it is plus, minus forty or fifty kilometres. I am sorry I am not clear or I will not be accurate.

MR BOTMA: Definitely more than one kilometre only?

MR KULMAN: Maybe I was wrong if it is more than one kilometre.

MR BOTMA: You see I am asking the question because on page 10 of your application, bundle marked A, page 10. One was shot at the scene the other was shot at Mbashe River since the distance was plus, minus one kilometre from where the operation begun.

MR KULMAN: I do remember what is written here. I was the one who wrote this form.

MR BOTMA: What I am driving at is that in this you are trying to bring the Amnesty Committee under the understanding that the two scenes were about one kilometre from each other. Now today we are talking about forty to fifty kilometres apart from each other. Can you explain that?

MR KULMAN: I made a mistake. Anybody could make the same mistake. I admit that I must have made a mistake. I do remember that I filled in this form. I was just assuming or estimating. Anybody could make this mistake. I admit that it was a mistake.

MR BOTMA: To get clarity are you saying that the mistake is in the application not today?

MR KULMAN: I did not measure from the first place of the incident to the next. I just thought that perhaps it is this number of kilometres. I estimated. I doubt even now that it is just a kilometre.

MR BOTMA: Can you recall the clothing Donné was wearing on that day?

MR KULMAN: I forgotten perhaps if I look at the picture.

MR BOTMA: Can you recall whether she was wearing a jersey on that day, blue jersey on the way from the first point to the second point?

MR KULMAN: Maybe she was wearing it but I do not remember. Maybe I could look at the picture.

MR BOTMA: Before we go there, was it a hot or a cool day on that specific day? Can you recall that?

MR KULMAN: I cannot remember. I know that it was not raining though.

MR BOTMA: Right let's just get back now this route you were following from the first point towards the second point, are you saying your co-accused he was the one doing the driving and he knew where to go? You did not give him any orders from the first scene to the second scene?

MR KULMAN: Is there a question?

MR BOTMA: Are you saying that from A to point B your co-accused he was the one doing the driving and taking the directions, you did not give him any instructions where to go to? Is that the situation, the position?

CHAIRPERSON: Well he gave instructions where to go to, he did not tell him how to get there.

MR BOTMA: What I am saying is that on the way there he was, he was, during the driving he did not tell him turn left or turn right here whatever the situation is.

MR KULMAN: He is the one who was driving because he knew the area well. I did not direct him. I was just told the name of the place where we were going that I told him. As he knew the area well he drove us there.

MR BOTMA: And for a whole distance Donné was groaning and complaining about the pain she was suffering from point A to point B?

MR KULMAN: Yes she was groaning.

MR BOTMA: Did you have any conversation with her on the road?

MR KULMAN: No we did not.

MR BOTMA: When you reached this point you saw Thanduxolo's van or the Toyota van parked next to the road. Is that correct?

MR KULMAN: Yes.

MR BOTMA: Did you park in front of him or behind him?

MR KULMAN: I do not remember clearly but we got to Mbashe and Thanduxolo was already there.

MR BOTMA: What I want to know is when you approached this vehicle did you drive past the vehicle and stopped in front of the vehicle or did you stop behind the vehicle when you arrived there?

MR KULMAN: I do not remember whether we parked by the side or behind his car. I cannot remember. I never knew that I was going to come to the TRC and testify in such a manner. I cannot remember.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it of any importance?

MR BOTMA: It is in fact important Mr Chairman with regard to a witness. Can I repeat myself. About a witness who was on the scene and who could see down at the vehicle. In other word if the truck was parked in front of the Toyota van then of course one would not have, it is possible he could not have noticed the van. That is the only reason for asking the question. But if I can proceed on that point. Did Thanduxolo approach you while you were in the vehicle?

MR KULMAN: Yes.

MR BOTMA: And you made a report to him. Did he come to investigate, to have a look at Donné?

MR KULMAN: Let me explain to you. Thanduxolo got out of his van. I also then got out of the truck. My co-accused also got out. I then went towards him as he was coming as well to tell him how the operation went.

MR BOTMA: And after you made the report he inspected Donné and he instructed you to take her into the forest. Is that the position?

MR KULMAN: Could the speaker please repeat the question?

MR BOTMA: After, when you made the report to him he came to you, he inspected her and he instructed you to take her into the forest.

(Could the speaker please come closer to the mike, Mr Botma?)

MR BOTMA: There seems to be some problem here. I am asking you. Can you hear me now? That when you made the report, after you made the report Thanduxolo went to, he made the report to you and thereafter he inspected her. Is that correct?

MR KULMAN: Could you please (...intervention)

MR LAX: let me help. Let me help again. It is really quite simple.

ADV GCABASHE: It is a sound thing. Speak a bit louder, so she can pick it up. I am listening to the Xhosa here. (...indistinct)

MR LAX: Ja he is speaking very loud on the thing. It is very loud in my ears. Yes, no I know you are listening to the Xhosa. He is speaking loudly. I do not know what the problem is but.

(The interpreter can hear Mr Lax clearly however I cannot hear Mr Botma as clearly as I can hear you. I have a problem.)

MR LAX: Okay what he is saying is, the question is this; Thanduxolo got out of his car, walked towards you, you got out of the car, you walked towards him. You made a report to him.

MR KULMAN: Correct.

MR LAX: After that did he go and inspect Donné in the vehicle?

MR KULMAN: Yes I told him that there was a white female in the truck then he went to the truck to look.

MR LAX: After that, after he had inspected her did he then order you to carry her over the fence and put her in the forest?

MR KULMAN: Correct.

MR LAX: And you did that?

MR KULMAN: Correct.

MR BOTMA: What happened to Thanduxolo at the time that you took her into the forest?

MR KULMAN: He was busy searching the truck. He was busy searching the truck. After we put Donné over the fence Thanduxolo came with a 357 Magnum, a shorter one. He then said he found this weapon in the truck. After he got it I then went to the truck to see if I could find anything in the truck. This is when I found this small trunk closed. I tried to open it. However this was happening very quickly. It was not as slow as I am telling the story. After I opened the trunk I heard a sound, a bang. Thanduxolo then jumped over the fence saying that we should leave. My co-accused was next to the door of the truck and we got in and we left.

MR BOTMA: Did Thanduxolo went to that, or let me ask you this way. You saw him with this 357 in his hand?

MR KULMAN: Yes I did see him.

MR BOTMA: Did you see any knife or any other sharp instrument in his possession?

MR KULMAN: Yes I think that he had a knife. Because after he jumped over the fence I noticed that his hand had blood. He had something in his hand, a sharp weapon. I am not sure what it was.

MR BOTMA: Was it something like a knife or another sharpened instrument?

MR KULMAN: I did not see the handle. However it was some form of sharp instrument.

MR BOTMA: I am asking these questions because according to the post mortem report there were several incised wounds on the body of Donné. You are not able to explain the reason for that to this Commission?

MR KULMAN: No I am not able to because we left Donné with Thanduxolo. After that I do not know what happened to Donné. I last saw her whilst she was in the truck.

CHAIRPERSON: You last saw her while she was in the truck. What do you mean by that?

MR KULMAN: He was asking specifically about the wounds. I said that the last time she was in the truck that I saw her she had no such wounds.

MR LAX: Well you saw her all the way to the place that you put her down.

CHAIRPERSON: You carried her yourself.

MR LAX: How could have that been the last place you saw her whether she had wounds or not?

MR KULMAN: I was responding to the question specifically about the wounds. Botma asked me if I saw any wounds. I was not able, the only wound I saw was the bullet wound in her face.

CHAIRPERSON: The reply you gave was: "The last time I saw Donné was in the truck."

MR KULMAN: I then incorrectly answered because Botma was asking about the wounds.

CHAIRPERSON: Why should you think the wounds had anything to do with when you last saw her in the truck? Did you cause the wounds after you took her out of the truck?

MR KULMAN: No I did not cause the wounds. I did not cause the wounds.

ADV SANDI: Do you know if Zama or Thanduxolo caused

(The speaker's mike was not on.)

ADV SANDI: Do you know whether it is Thanduxolo or Zama who caused those wounds on the body of Donné?

MR KULMAN: I think that it was Thanduxolo because when I got to the truck I searched the truck. After that there was a bang that disturbed me whilst I was searching. When I looked my co-accused was on the passenger's side, standing there. After that Thanduxolo came with blood in his hands and on his T-shirt that he was wearing. He is the one who caused the wounds on Donné.

MR BOTMA: Mr Chair can you give any indication till what time the Commission is prepared to sit today?

CHAIRPERSON: I am afraid we will have to adjourn in half an hour because we have the trouble with the, they have to close at four, they close at four and I think. That is so isn't it? Four 'o clock is the deadline as far as you people are concerned?

Can one sit later?

MR PRIOR: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Well we have taken considerably much longer than I thought we would on this hearing and I think we should take some more time. Half past four. I think we will continue until at least half past four, is that alright? I am sorry I misunderstood you. Okay we will go on until half past four.

MR LAX: Are you guys doing alright, the interpreters?

INTERPRETERS: We are fine.

MR LAX: Okay.

MR BOTMA: Except for searching of. I will start again. The reason for searching the truck was to look for another firearm. Is that correct?

MR KULMAN: Yes. Anything that would be useful.

MR BOTMA: Useful in what sense?

MR KULMAN: Something like money or anything that would be useful to the army.

MR BOTMA: Useful to the army or to you personally?

MR KULMAN: When you are referring to me, you are referring to the army because I was part and parcel of the army. I am talking about the army APLA.

MR BOTMA: Is it correct that at the time you were searched, that is after your arrest that some of the money was found in the possession of your co-accused?

MR KULMAN: At that time I was with Magathlela. So I was at a distance from my co-accused. I did not notice what was found in his possession because he was on the other side and I was on the other side with the other group of the police ... money was with us.

ADV GCABASHE: Now having listened to APLA applications in the last two weeks my understanding is anything you repossess you immediately hand over. You as soldiers hand it over. Did I get the wrong impression?

MR KULMAN: That is correct. After we found something we have to surrender it.

ADV GCABASHE: Now would you not surrender that to your commander as you were filing your report?

MR KULMAN: When we got to Mbashe Thanduxolo said that we are going to meet in some other place. Everything was in the car with us. Everything depended on me as I was the one who was given the responsibility. We reported to him that there is money and then he said that no we will talk about that. We were then unfortunate and then we were arrested before we reached our destination.

ADV GCABASHE: Did you discuss the possibility of capture between the Mbashe and Adishua and being found not only with the truck but with a gun and money, with Mandla?

MR KULMAN: No we did not discuss that. I even thought that since we were in the rural areas there are no phones in the rural areas. People will take time to inform the police. At that time we would be in our area or in our destination. We did not discuss, we did not have a chance to discuss that. We did not discuss it.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you.

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman one of the translators from the booth on the right hand side has just indicated to me that they are extremely tired. The strain or apparently the focus is on that booth then. The Committee only looked I think to the left.

CHAIRPERSON: No we looked to the right as well.

MR PRIOR: Well I beg your pardon. She came up onto the podium behind me and complained that they are feeling quite tired.

CHAIRPERSON: Well what time can we start tomorrow morning? We have got to finish this matter tomorrow.

MR PRIOR: Eight thirty.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Well I will try my best Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: It will of course mean that the interpreters are even more tired tomorrow because it will be a longer day. Very well we will now reluctantly adjourn until eight thirty tomorrow morning.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS