CHAIRPERSON: Are we ready to begin?
MS MTANGA: Yes we are, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Samuel, you are appearing for the Applicant?
MR SAMUEL: I am, Your Worship.
CHAIRPERSON: You are calling him to give evidence?
MR SAMUEL: I didn’t get that, Your Worship.
CHAIRPERSON: Are you calling him to give evidence?
MR SAMUEL: I will be calling him to give evidence.
CHAIRPERSON: Are you Mr Gumede?
MR GUMEDE: Yes.
DENNIS FELAMANDLA GUMEDE: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: Yesterday this Committee decided we were going to commence at 9.30 this morning. Why are you late?
MR GUMEDE: I told them yesterday that I am supposed to be here in the morning and nobody came to fetch me and I don’t know what has happened.
CHAIRPERSON: Where were you all this time this morning?
MR GUMEDE: I was in prison.
CHAIRPERSON: And nobody came to fetch you.
MR GUMEDE: No they didn’t come. They only came now to fetch me, while they are rushing.
CHAIRPERSON: Alright, thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes please proceed Mr Samuel.
MR SAMUEL: As Your Worship pleases.
EXAMINATION BY MR SAMUEL: Mr Gumede, do you confirm that you are the Applicant in this matter?
MR GUMEDE: Yes.
MR SAMUEL: There are two applications here, one for the death of Bhekumuzi Zondi and the other Ntsanya Colin Tsoanyana. Is that correct?
MR GUMEDE: Yes.
MR SAMUEL: Beginning with Bhekumuzi Zondi’s death, you make application for amnesty. Could you confirm that you are proceeding with that application for amnesty?
MR GUMEDE: Yes.
MR SAMUEL: Do you confirm that on the 18th July 1991 you caused the death of Bhekumuzi Zondi at Greytown?
MR GUMEDE: Yes.
MR SAMUEL: Could you tell this Commission the reason for your killing Bhekumuzi Zondi?
MR GUMEDE: Mostly, we were in the times whereby we were very emotional and angry, especially myself, Nhlanhla and Bheki, who were those that I was with on that day. I was out of prison on a Tuesday and then on Thursday people who were under Bheki Chamane.
CHAIRPERSON: I want you to go slowly so that we can take down the names that you have mentioned, do you understand? Who were you with on that day? You are probably aware of all the names but I am not
and I’d like them to be spelled out so that when we leave we know what we’re talking about.
MR GUMEDE: Yes.
MR SAMUEL: Mr Zondi could you tell this Commission who you were with on that day?
MR GUMEDE: The first one is Bheki and the surname is Chamane. The second one Mzwandile Mchunu. The third one is Nhlanhla Dladla.
On our arrival in town, we were actually looking for these boys. We were on our way to buy underwear because we were going to a congress at Ncuthu. It was on a Thursday morning.
CHAIRPERSON: I thought he said they were in town, they were looking for these boys. What boys is he talking about?
MR SAMUEL: Mr Gumede could you please go slowly and also as you go along, if you could tell the Commission exactly what happened and when you’re mentioning boys or any other person, if you will mention their names please.
CHAIRPERSON: It might help if you put leading questions at this stage, you see, instead of allowing him to ramble on.
MR SAMUEL: As the Commission pleases.
Mr Gumede I’m going to ask you some questions, alright, if you’ll just give me some answers to these.
Mr Gumede, you went to Greytown, am I right?
MR GUMEDE: Yes I did.
MR SAMUEL: And you were in the company of three other people namely Bheki Chamane,
CHAIRPERSON: You don’t have to traverse that ground, we’ve got that.
MR SAMUEL: When you got to Greytown, what was your purpose for going to Greytown? Was it look for some person or was it to buy something?
MR GUMEDE: We were going to buy the underwear so that we can go to Ncuthu on Friday, so we were all together, moving in a group and then all of us, we were in a group. Those that I’ve actually counted the names, they were nearby me and there were actually more than that number. When we were nearby Shop 1. We wouldn’t actually meet or associate with an ANC person and we met Bhekumuzi when we were just passing shop 1 and then I met with Bhekumuzi, I was nearby the rooster and then I said "here is the meat" because I saw who was there.
CHAIRPERSON: Just stop there. Is Bhekumuzi the deceased?
MR GUMEDE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: So when you were passing Shop 1 you saw Bhekumuzi and then what happened?
MR GUMEDE: He was across at Mr Rooster’s side. Then I crossed the road and then when I was actually about to cross, the others, there were some in front of me, then as soon as I uttered the words "here’s the meat" then there were gunshots.
CHAIRPERSON: You uttered the words. What words did you utter?
MR GUMEDE: As I was crossing the road when we were proceeding there, Nhlanhla and them were already in front when I was about to reach Bheki, then I said "here is the meat".
CHAIRPERSON: What did you mean when you mentioned these words "here is the meat"?
MR GUMEDE: I was actually saying that here is the meat that we were supposed to shoot.
CHAIRPERSON: Just hold on. Who told you that he should be shot?
MR GUMEDE: Let me say, this Bhekimuzi, in most cases whereby the houses were burned and where the windows were broken in my area, his name would be mentioned and I would actually see him and most of us knew that he is a person who is actually in the forefront in the struggle, so...
CHAIRPERSON: What struggle are you talking about?
MR GUMEDE: He was in the UDF and we were the IFP.
He was always in the forefront heading the people who were actually going to break the windows, his name would always be mentioned. So we are there in town, we were already in a fight and all our belongings were burned and my clothes were burned.
CHAIRPERSON: Please, please, please. He is giving us a jumbled version. If he is in town how can his clothing all be burned while he is in town? What is he saying?
MR SAMUEL: If I may please lead the witness so that we can ¼
CHAIRPERSON: I suggested to you that you should lead the witness sensibly.
MR SAMUEL: It seems that he is just going off on a tangent.
CHAIRPERSON: That is precisely why I said put leading questions to him, step by step, so that we can get a coherent story from him.
MR SAMUEL: Thank you.
Mr Gumede we are trying to get clarity on what happened on the day in question. If you will please just answer the questions I put to you, we will go over everything you need to say, but please answer the questions only. Right?
Now you mentioned that you went to town on the day in question. Is that correct?
MR GUMEDE: Yes it’s the truth.
MR SAMUEL: And you were in the company of other persons?
MR GUMEDE: Yes that’s the truth.
MR SAMUEL: And you met the deceased, Bhekumuzi Zondi at Mr Roosters?
MR GUMEDE: Yes, it’s the truth.
MR SAMUEL: Now how did you know Bhekumuzi Zondi?
MR GUMEDE: I knew him from the township because we were residing in the same street, Komba road. He was the UDF member and I was IFP member.
MR SAMUEL: You knew him from the township as being a member of the UDF? When you say UDF do you mean the United Democratic Front at that stage?
MR GUMEDE: Yes.
MR SAMUEL: And you were a member of the IFP?
MR GUMEDE: Yes.
MR SAMUEL: Prior to this day in question, did you have any reason or any conflict with the deceased?
CHAIRPERSON: Him personally?
MR SAMUEL: Yes, Your Honour.
MR GUMEDE: Well, personally no, we’ve never actually spoken to each other face to face.
MR SAMUEL: You mentioned that your clothes were burned, when were your clothes burned?
MR GUMEDE: It was burned in the same month, although I can’t remember the month. The way it was burned, we were still in town so we actually couldn’t go back and then I was told that at home my home was burned and I couldn’t actually go back home because the soldiers wouldn’t allow us in and then in those days we were still actually hurting because our clothes were burned.
CHAIRPERSON: Please just stop there Mr Samuel.
You say that about a month before this incident your clothes were burned?
MR GUMEDE: Although I don’t remember the date it was almost a month. Because our clothes were burned, we were actually taken out of the township.
CHAIRPERSON: Just stop, just stop. I am talking about your clothes. You say our clothes, are you talking about your clothes that were burned?
MR GUMEDE: It is actually the whole, it is a lot of houses that were burned, the IFP houses. It was almost a month or two. When the clothes were burned, we were in town because in the morning¼
CHAIRPERSON: Answer my question please. About a month before the death of this man you were in town and you heard that your homes and belongings were burned. Is that what you’re saying?
MR GUMEDE: Yes, I was told and I could actually see from town, because I am sure I saw the smoke.
CHAIRPERSON: You were telling us what happened on the day that you met the deceased in town.
Now you said to us that you went there to buy underwear because you were going to Ncuthu.
MR GUMEDE: The congress is at Ulundi.
CHAIRPERSON: Not at Ncuthu?
MR GUMEDE: No not at Ncuthu at Ulundi.
CHAIRPERSON: This is a congress of what body?
MR GUMEDE: IFP.
CHAIRPERSON: Now then, you come there in town, you see the deceased and you utter these words "here is the meat".
MR GUMEDE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: By that you said you meant that here is the person we must kill.
MR GUMEDE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Who gave you instructions to kill this person?
MR GUMEDE: As there was this war nobody would actually give us the instruction. Anybody would fight. The UDF and the IFP would fight and nobody would have surely told anyone to do whatever, so if they would meet, they would actually attack you in one way or another.
CHAIRPERSON: And as a result of your uttering these words, what happened?
MR GUMEDE: Nhlanhla Dladla is the one who was next to me. As I was saying, his gun was already out. As soon as I uttered those words Nhlanhla shot at him and then he fell down, and then he continued shooting.
CHAIRPERSON: Where was your gun?
MR GUMEDE: On that particular day I wasn’t going to carry any firearm because I was from jail, from prison. I hadn’t actually made arrangements to get one because I was immediately from jail. As it was myself who was the person who was leading in the youth, even the cases that would happen at night they would say it’s me who was actually involved. I was in prison for murder and I was told that I was the murderer.
CHAIRPERSON: Had you been charged with murder?
MR GUMEDE: That case didn’t proceed and I actually didn’t know because I was told that that was withdrawn and I was actually out on bail and it happens on several occasions where I will be taken to jail and actually taken out and then I will be told that that has been withdrawn.
CHAIRPERSON: How long were you in jail at that time?
MR GUMEDE: Approximately a month, if my memory serves me well. I can’t quite remember whether it was three weeks or a month but I remember that I was out of prison by days only, from Tuesday.
CHAIRPERSON: And this incident occurred on what day?
MR GUMEDE: This incident was on Thursday.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. As a result of your telling Nhlanhla, he pulled out his gun and shot the deceased. What happened next?
MR GUMEDE: Thereafter we actually ran away. We went to Matimatolo where we resided with the other comrades.
CHAIRPERSON: Stop there please. I’d like you to spell the name of this place that they ran away to.
MR GUMEDE: Matimatolo.
CHAIRPERSON: Where is that?
MR GUMEDE: When you are there in Greytown as if you are going to Kranskop, it’s a township somewhere there.
CHAIRPERSON: Will you take the story from there. They ran away to this place Matimatolo, will you carry on from there please?
MR SAMUEL: Did you get to Matimatolo on that day?
MR GUMEDE: Yes I did and then I remembered that I actually didn’t shoot anyone and I didn’t even buy the things that I actually wanted to buy.
CHAIRPERSON: He suddenly remembered that he didn’t shoot anybody, what does that mean?
MR SAMUEL: Mr Gumede, try and be clear. We understand it’s been a long time since this incident. You say that you got to Matimatolo. How did you get there? Did you take a taxi on that day?
MR GUMEDE: Yes, I and the taxi man, we were actually in the same organisation with the taxis so as this incident had occurred we actually went to the taxi rank and boarded the one taxi which was ready for us. We boarded that taxi and it took us straight to Matimatolo.
CHAIRPERSON: What happened there at Matimatolo after you arrived?
MR GUMEDE: And then the rest of the group actually went out of the car, the taxi, with the gun and then myself and the others actually went back to town. That’s when I got arrested and then I was told that I was there when the person was killed.
CHAIRPERSON: Do I understand his evidence to be that they arrived at Matimatolo, that he arrives at Matimatolo, some of his friends get out of the taxi and he goes back to town again?
MR SAMUEL: That seems to be his evidence, My Lord.
Why did you come back from Matimatolo into town?
CHAIRPERSON: What does he say?
MR GUMEDE: It was the same day when we actually on arrival, some of the people went out of the taxi and some of us went back by the same taxi to town.
MR SAMUEL: Why did you go?
MR GUMEDE: Town to Matimatolo it’s a distance of about 24 kilometers. The taxi, because it moves fast, would actually move
CHAIRPERSON: Just answer the question please. Don’t give long answers please. Just answer the question that you are asked. Understand? When you are asked to explain, then you must explain. Understand?
MR GUMEDE: Yes, I do.
CHAIRPERSON: You have now come back to Greytown and then what happens when you are back in Greytown?
MR GUMEDE: On arrival I went to the shop, Asmal, it is nearby Mr Rooster, and then I bought the underwear and then took them to the kombi and then I sat there at the rank and then the sergeants came and they told me that the Station Commander wants me. Then I boarded the car because they were in a Golf. I went then to the Station Commander. On my arrival they told me that I must be arrested because it is that I am the one who shot that person.
CHAIRPERSON: Go slowly please.
I want to convey my remarks to the interpreter. Have you enough time to interpret all that he is saying or do you find that he is too fast for you?
INTERPRETER: Well at times if he is too fast I do stop him but at the moment I was on the same par with him.
CHAIRPERSON: Some of us are finding it difficult to keep up with him. I would rather that you give his answers, instead of allowing him to make a lengthy statement, for you to break down his answers so that we can take it down sensibly.
INTERPRETER: Okay. I’ll do that.
CHAIRPERSON: Please. Yes, he arrives at the taxi rank, waits there and a sergeant comes there and takes him away to the police station. Am I right in that?
MR GUMEDE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Is he the only one that was taken to the police station or were there others with him?
MR GUMEDE: I was the only one. Yes, I was the only one.
CHAIRPERSON: What happened after you were brought to the police station and told that you were arrested? What happened after that?
MR GUMEDE: They told me that I am being arrested now and well I denied that I actually had any relation with that shooting because I knew very well that I’m not the one who shot. I actually thought it would be a problem if I would say that I was part of the shooting although I did not shoot, so I just denied everything.
CHAIRPERSON: Carry on, what happened after that?
MR GUMEDE: Then I was arrested on that day. I slept there and then on Friday morning a certain Zondo came and asked me what happened yesterday because now he heard that the sergeant was saying that what happened, because now it is being said that I am the one who actually shot, and then I told him that look I am not the one who actually did that, I was only there going to buy meat. That’s what I told him.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR GUMEDE: Then I told the sergeant Zondo that because I was denying everything, knowing very well that I didn’t shoot, I told him that I was passing there going to buy meat at Mr Rooster and that was not the truth because I knew that I would win the case and then I indicated
CHAIRPERSON: What is the answer? He answered you and you asked him questions.
INTERPRETER: No, no, no I was surely repeating the same thing I was saying to you so that he could slow down. We are still there when he actually is denying everything.
CHAIRPERSON: He said I did not shoot.
INTERPRETER: He is actually repeating that he denied everything, that I did not shoot and I wasn’t party to the shooting and then I lied that I was going to buy meat at Mr Rooster. We are there. So now he will proceed.
MR GUMEDE: And then he also heard that Nhlanhla at Matimatolo had died, shot by the police.
CHAIRPERSON: Who is talking now?
INTERPRETER: This sergeant Zondo is telling him that Nhlanhla was shot at Matimatolo.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Just hold it.
So Sergeant Zondo told him that Nhlanhla had been shot at Matimatolo. What happened after that?
MR GUMEDE: I then realised that I said I didn’t see who actually shot there, now I wasn’t, I then realised that I just indicated that I wasn’t party to the shooting and I didn’t even see who actually shot and now when I am being told that Nhlanhla has actually been killed, I find myself then in that dilemma. And I couldn’t actually change the story and then that’s the story I maintained, that there were a lot of people who were actually selling there and the Indians. I maintained that I did not shoot and I was going to buy meat at Mr Rooster and then I got bail. I surely stayed there for about a month and then the case was postponed and postponed and then people were actually trying to look for me, they wanted to shoot me. They kept on postponing the case and then that is when the trial was and I was charged then and sentenced in 1993 on a Friday. I stayed in prison Friday, Saturday, Sunday and then on Monday I was out on appeal.
CHAIRPERSON: You were convicted of the murder of the deceased in 1993 and then you were released on bail because you went on appeal. Is that it?
MR GUMEDE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: How much bail?
MR GUMEDE: It was R1 000.
CHAIRPERSON: Who paid that money?
MR GUMEDE: I paid because I was already working somewhere.
CHAIRPERSON: And then was your appeal heard, actually?
MR GUMEDE: It actually surprised me because I was there and then I was out at new prison and then ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: My question was, was your appeal heard? Did the appeal take place?
MR GUMEDE: No, until today. Then I was actually told that I didn’t actually get it.
CHAIRPERSON: Can you tell me whether there was in fact an appeal or merely an application for leave to appeal, which was refused.
MS MTANGA: The permission for leave to appeal was granted Chairperson. And then the matter was taken on appeal.
CHAIRPERSON: And the appeal was dismissed?
MS MTANGA: And the appeal was dismissed.
CHAIRPERSON: I am told by the leader of evidence that your appeal was heard and your appeal was dismissed, in other words you lost the case on appeal. Did you know that?
MR GUMEDE: No I didn’t know that, I was never told. This is the first time I’m told.
CHAIRPERSON: So when did you go back to prison to serve your sentence?
MR GUMEDE: Once I was outside on the bail appeal, the same year in 1993, end of the month, a certain guy who is a brother to Delisani came to Durban Station where I was.
CHAIRPERSON: Hold it. You mentioned a name. In 1993 at the end of the month, what month are you talking about?
MR GUMEDE: The same month which I was released on appeal. It wasn’t after a long time after I was released on appeal bail, I was taken again.
CHAIRPERSON: Where were you taken to?
MR GUMEDE: After I was released on the appeal bail I went back to Umlazi. Whilst I was at Umlazi, I was still scared of carrying a gun, because other people were looking for me.
CHAIRPERSON: I didn’t ask you what you were scared of doing. Just try and answer the question please. Okay?
MR GUMEDE: Yes, I understand.
CHAIRPERSON: You were out on your bail while your appeal was pending.
MR GUMEDE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Now tell me, what happened then?
MR GUMEDE: After a month a certain guy attacked me after I saw Bhekumuzi’s brother and I shot him. That’s when my appeal came back and I was told that I lost the appeal.
MR SAMUEL: May I assist the Commission?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes please. This is as clear as mud just now.
MR SAMUEL: Mr Gumede, we don’t want the details as to how you were re-arrested but is it not true that in October 1993, after your case, after you were released on bail in the Bhekumuzi Zondi Case, you were re-arrested for another murder. Am I right?
CHAIRPERSON: While he was still on bail?
MR SAMUEL: That is correct, Mr Chairman.
MR GUMEDE: Yes, that’s correct.
MR SAMUEL: And the deceased in that case was Tosayama, am I correct?
CHAIRPERSON: Just hold it.
MR GUMEDE: It was Aetsoanyana.
CHAIRPERSON: How do you spell that?
MR SAMUEL: Tsoanyana.
MR GUMEDE: If its Letsonyana, it is Letsonyana (spelled).
CHAIRPERSON: Where was this man Letsonyana killed?
MR GUMEDE: In Durban Station, Umgeni Road.
CHAIRPERSON: So now the murder of Letsonyana took place within a month of your being released on bail for the first crime. Did you know this man?
MR GUMEDE: No I didn’t know him.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, do carry on.
MR SAMUEL: That is the evidence in regard to your first application because the Letsonyana case is another application for amnesty, am I right?
MR GUMEDE: Yes that’s correct.
MR SAMUEL: May we then complete the Zondi matter before we proceed to the Letsonyana matter, before we get confused. Now just one question in regard to the Zondi matter. You told this Commission at the time that you were involved in this incident, you were not in possession of a firearm because you had just come out of jail on that Monday?
MR GUMEDE: That’s correct.
MR SAMUEL: Being your Attorney it is my duty also to assist this Commission insofar as the application you made. In the statement of your application at page 6 of the bundle, you say that "I was also in possession of a 9 mm pistol but I did not intend to take part in the killing."
CHAIRPERSON: Place that before him.
MR SAMUEL: You confirm that that is your statement?
MR GUMEDE: I actually had no problems in possession of guns but in that particular day I didn’t have a gun. I used to carry a gun which was authorised. I didn’t have the gun on that day because the person who was supposed to authorise a gun for me, wasn’t there. There were many guns on that day.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes see, this statement of yours reads
"My intention was to inform these people to kill Bhekumuzi Zondi. I was also in possession of a 9mm pistol but I did not intend to take part in the killing as Bhekumuzi’s mother was well known to me."
Now your attention is drawn by your attorney to what you have said in that statement. Now before you answer anything else, is that statement correct or have you lied?
MR GUMEDE: I think the statement actually saying the truth because I was telling the truth when the statement was made. The reason I am saying it's the truth, because when the statement was made, it was immediately after the incident, therefore I think when I wrote this I could remember everything and it’s the truth that Bhekumuzi’s mother is well known to me. I know her from the bank, she assisted me in opening an account there.
CHAIRPERSON: No we are talking about not only that you know her, but the important part of the statement is the fact of your being in possession of a gun and you say that that statement is correct?
MR GUMEDE: I had a 9mm gun on that day. It wasn’t authorised.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, do carry on.
MR SAMUEL: As the Chairman pleases. So your evidence is that you were in possession of a 9mm pistol on the day in question.
MR GUMEDE: Yes, I had a 9 mm pistol. The reason I didn’t mention this today is because I had forgotten but now I remember I did have a 9mm pistol.
MR SAMUEL: So now the evidence that we have before us, am I correct in saying that you are asking for amnesty, not for the killing of Bhekumuzi Zondi, but rather for giving the order to kill Bhekumuzi Zondi, or for bringing about the death of Bhekumuzi Zondi, is that correct?
MR GUMEDE: Yes, that’s correct and I’m the one who actually said : "there’s the meat" and when I saw his mother it became heavy for me to actually shoot him, so in other words, the reason I didn’t actually shoot him is because I saw his mother.
MR SAMUEL: So do you take full responsibility for the death of Bhekumuzi Zondi, although in your version you say you did not fire the shot that killed him?
MR GUMEDE: Yes, that’s correct, I take full responsibility. Since I was just released from prison, my supporters or people who were the supporters of IFP were respecting me a lot and they would do anything I would tell them to do.
CHAIRPERSON: Just hold it. What happened to that pistol that you had that day?
MR GUMEDE: When police came and told me that the Station Commander wanted to see me, as I was walking towards the police car there was a kombi and I took the gun and I just threw it inside the kombi. They couldn’t see that.
CHAIRPERSON: It seems strange to me that the police arrested you for murder and before their very eyes you throw the murder weapon inside a kombi and they don’t see.
MR GUMEDE: I would like the judge to understand one thing, when they called me, they didn’t come out of the car. There’s grass and there’s a taxi rank and they saw me sitting down, I had a tracksuit on and they called me to come there. I immediately knew that they were about to question me about the incident which just happened earlier and as I was walking towards their car, that’s how I managed to throw the gun inside the kombi. I knew police very well, they used to call me even at home to come to the police station, they would not come and arrest me like they usually arrest others. They will call me, maybe over the phone to come and question me.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, carry on.
MR SAMUEL: Mr Gumede, are you sorry for your actions, for bringing about the death of Mr Zondi?
MR GUMEDE: Yes I am very sorry, more especially when one takes into consideration the situation, more especially his mother. I had no problem with his mother and even in Court his mother asked me why I did this and we are related somehow with the Zondi family and his mother thinks I’m the one who actually killed her son. I was angry and mad because of what happened. They burned our houses, I didn’t even have clothes. The only think I had was the clothes which were on my body and the reason I said to the guys there was the meat is because I was angry at that time.
MR SAMUEL: If this Commission, after hearing all your evidence, decides not to grant amnesty in this matter, would you still like to apologise to the deceased’s family?
MR GUMEDE: Yes, because I never had a problem with the Zondi family, in fact I never had a problem with a single person from Mhlongwane area, it was because of the situation I was forced to do what I did and I would like to apologise to anyone who was affected by my actions. It was because of the political situation, it wasn’t personal at all because I never had a personal problem with anyone from that area.
MR SAMUEL: Is there anything else you would like to tell the Commission in regard to this matter?
MR GUMEDE: With regard to the Zondi matter I think I have said everything except to say that there were people among IFP members who didn’t like Zondi at all, people like Nhlanhla and them because initially Nhlanhla and them, they were UDF themselves and they left UDF because they didn’t like Zondi. Therefore it was easy for me to influence them against Zondi. It was so unfortunate that he was the first person we met in town, that’s why he was killed, but he wasn’t actually the only one from UDF who was going to be killed. Anyone whom we were going to meet on that day belonging to UDF was going to be killed, but then it was so unfortunate that it was him. It wasn’t planned, even in Court people asked me, or his brother actually asked me why I didn’t talk this matter with him and I told him that I wasn’t the one who actually shot his brother and they were all crying when I was sentenced. I never had a chance to apologise to the Zondi family.
ADV SANDI: Mr Gumede are you saying Nhlanhla left the UDF because he did not like Zondi?
MR GUMEDE: Yes, they never got along very well, but I never investigated as to what caused that but they left UDF and they became ZIM and after that they became the IFP. They never liked Bhekumuzi but I never had a personal problem with Bhekumuzi.
ADV SANDI: Amongst the names you have mentioned, is there any other person who had left the UDF because he did not like Zondi?
MR GUMEDE: I am not saying the reason they left UDF is because they didn’t like Zondi. We were staying in one street but Nhlanhla and them used to know Bekhumuzi very well. They were together in UDF and therefore when he became IFP he actually showed them that he didn’t like UDF, not specifically that he didn’t like Bekhumusi himself, but turned against UDF.
ADV SANDI: Alright, amongst the names you have mentioned, who else was UDF before joining IFP?
MR GUMEDE: Wonder Ximba was also among them. Their parents were IFP. Wonder and Nhlanhla.
ADV SANDI: What about Bheki Chamane?
MR GUMEDE: No, I am not certain about Bheki Chamane, but I know him from Hammersdale. He had relatives at Gwakamane in Greytown.
ADV SANDI: Had he been a member of the UDF before joining the IFP?
MR GUMEDE: Yes, he was UDF, not in Greytown but in Hammersdale. When he arrived in Greytown he became IFP member.
ADV SANDI: Thank you.
ADV BOSMAN: May I just interpose here please?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV BOSMAN: Mr Gumede, I just want clarity on this. You said you were a leader in the IFP, a youth leader. Is that correct?
MR GUMEDE: Yes, that’s correct, in Greytown.
ADV BOSMAN: Did you have any position? Were you a chairman or a committee member or anything like that?
MR GUMEDE: In Greytown IFP wasn’t a majority. We left Hammersdale for Greytown. The reason we left is because there were conflicts and violence between IFP and UDF and we became IFP members and most of the IFP members considered me as a leader or a commander.
MR SAMUEL: That is the evidence for the Applicant in this matter.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR SAMUEL IN THIS MATTER
CHAIRPERSON: What was the evidence in the trial at Court about the gun with which the deceased was killed?
MR SAMUEL: As far as the evidence went Mr Chairman that gun was not recovered at the scene, all that was recovered was the cartridges, there was no gun recovered at the scene or from the accused in the matter.
ADV SANDI: Wasn’t there a gun found in the possession of Nhlanhla Dladla when he was arrested?
MR SAMUEL: Nhlanhla Dladla had a gun, yes, that’s correct.
MR GUMEDE: The gun which was used to kill Mr Zondi is the gun which was found when Nhlanhla was arrested.
CHAIRPERSON: Is there evidence in that regard? Is there any reference to it in the Judgment?
ADV SANDI: There is no ballistic evidence in this report.
CHAIRPERSON: I see. On how many previous occasions have you been arrested for the death of people and let out because there was not case? Were there many such occasions?
MR GUMEDE: It is countless, it’s quite a number. What I can say it’s quite a number they have been arresting me for in Greytown, for numerous times. Sometimes they will release me on bail, sometimes they will release me without bail and sometimes I will try. The cartridges which was found in Mr Zondi’s body were the cartridges from Nhlanhla’s gun, even in Court they did find this.
CHAIRPERSON: I am told that there was no such evidence. Anyway, you say that you have been arrested on countless occasions for murders and that you’ve been released on bail, or the case did not proceed against you, is that what you’re saying?
MR GUMEDE: Yes, that’s correct.
MR SAMUEL: At page 18 it makes some reference.
CHAIRPERSON: I see that.
MR SAMUEL: I apologise, Mr Chairman, at page 18 it does make reference to the gun that was found in Nhlanhla’s possession, being the gun that was used in the killing, Mr Chairman.
MR GUMEDE: I would like to first apologise and to tell the judge that really I am seeing this attorney of mine for the first time today, maybe that’s why we never discussed this thing before and I don’t think he’s got full knowledge of my case.
CHAIRPERSON: What was the sentencing imposed on him for the murder of the deceased?
MR SAMUEL: Fourteen years.
ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Samuel, if I can just come in here. I understand that you have finished your evidence-in-chief.
MR SAMUEL: On this count, yes.
ADV SANDI: That kombi, the one where you say you threw the firearm into, whose kombi was that?
MR GUMEDE: I think it was Mr Nthatsi’s E20.
ADV SANDI: Where was Mr Nthatsi at the time you had thrown this firearm into this kombi?
MR GUMEDE: I didn’t see him at that time, but when I threw the gun there, I think most people who were there at that taxi rank, they were Inkatha people and they saw me, but then they couldn’t tell the police. They saw me as I was walking towards the police car, since we were in one organization, they couldn’t sell me out and I knew that I wasn’t like throwing the gun away, like to just throw it away, to lose it. I knew that it was going to be safe because those people were IFP as well.
ADV SANDI: Was there anyone inside the kombi at the time you were throwing this firearm?
MR GUMEDE: Yes, there were passengers.
ADV SANDI: I did not quite follow you. You were giving reasons as to why the deceased had to be killed, do you mind if I can ask you to repeat that? He was a member of the UDF and there was a conflict between the UDF and the ANC and some houses had been burned. Did you say your home had also been attacked?
MR GUMEDE: Yes, my home was also burned down and the property inside.
CHAIRPERSON: And have you been burning down and attacking other people’s homes as well?
MR GUMEDE: I cannot deny that IFP people used to burn UDF houses and as a leader I can take full responsibility for IFP burning down UDF houses.
CHAIRPERSON: So this was something that was carrying on in that area, both sides were attacking each other.
MR GUMEDE: Yes, that’s correct.
ADV SANDI: So if I understand you well, Zondi was said to be one of those people who were burning the houses of members of the IFP?
MR GUMEDE: It is correct. In many occasions his name will be said that he was one of the people who were attacking and burning down IFP houses and IFP tried to kill him before the incident and Sipo, one IFP member, actually attempted to kill him and he was using a homemade gun, but then he failed and he was sentenced to four years. But in the area he was well known as a UDF member and an active one.
ADV SANDI: On the day in question, the firearm you had in your possession was unauthorised. Who was supposed to give you an authorised firearm?
MR GUMEDE: Yes, it was not authorised. I was released on Tuesday and one of my group members gave me the gun. There was a chairman, his name is Mr Zondi, IFP Chairman, he will authorise guns for us but on that day he didn’t. In that area one couldn’t move around without a gun because the violence was corrupt that we had to carry guns.
ADV SANDI: And you say the police know you so well that they could even contact you by telephone and call you for questioning at the police station?
MR GUMEDE: Yes, that’s correct.
ADV SANDI: Were you generally known amongst the police, or is it the position that there were specific officers who knew you well, who would contact you by telephone and call you to the police station?
MR GUMEDE: We were few and the violence detectives will call me because the detectives were divided into two, there were criminal detectives and the violence detectives, so the ones who used to call me were the violence detectives, not the criminal ones.
CHAIRPERSON: I think that what you are trying to establish is that there was a special friendship. Anyway. My colleague wants to know whether there was a kind of friendship between you and the police, that is why they didn’t arrest you. Is that so?
MR GUMEDE: Yes, they used to have a relationship and friendship. There were other cases which were similar to this one, but I was never arrested, but on this one I was arrested and actually I told myself that I wasn't going to be arrested since I wasn’t the one who actually shot Mr Zondi. There were other cases where I’ll be present when someone has been killed and when I’m called to be questioned they will just simply release me.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. You have experienced many such killings?
MR GUMEDE: Yes I experienced that in my area and that’s why people used to hate me because I used to be present in many incidences and sometimes, even if I am no longer present, people would say that I was there because they knew that I used to be present many times.
CHAIRPERSON: You must have been a very dangerous man.
MR GUMEDE: Yes, in that area the people used to consider me dangerous. Maybe it is more so because I arrived in that area when the violence was ripe and the only things which I’ve done were to be involved in violence. They don’t know me for any good thing. They only thing they know about me is the bad things. That’s why I came here to apologise about this.
ADV BOSMAN: Mr Gumede, how old were you at the time?
CHAIRPERSON: In 1991?
MR GUMEDE: Maybe if we can just count back, I am now 32 years old. If we can count back we will come out with my age.
ADV BOSMAN: I thinks its easier to tell us when were you born Mr Gumede?
CHAIRPERSON: 32 years ago.
MR GUMEDE: 1967 on the 15th of February.
ADV BOSMAN: 24 years old, about.
MR GUMEDE: Yes, I was still very young, I remembers.
ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Now before you lead the evidence on the second, is that what you are going to do now?
MR SAMUEL: Yes Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, just give me some background as to how in point of time the second offence, when did that take place?
Would you rather finish your cross-examination on this count before we proceed to the next count?
MS MTANGA: Yes Chairperson I would prefer that.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes please do that, I am sorry. Thank you.
MS MTANGA: Chairperson, before I put questions to Mr Gumede, my instructions from the victim, the mother of the deceased, is that she still maintains the evidence in Court, so I’m not sure whether this Committee will allow her to give evidence or you will consider the evidence that she gave in Court as it is.
CHAIRPERSON: Well, we were not going to be considering his guilt or innocence at this stage, we want to know whether this is a political offence or not. Isn’t it? He has been found guilty and there was an appeal and his appeal was dismissed.
MS MTANGA: I thought, Chairperson, you would consider factual discrepancies between his evidence and the next of kin’s evidence. But he actually shot the deceased.
CHAIRPERSON: You can put that to him without the necessity of having to call witnesses.
MS MTANGA: Thank you Chairperson.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MTANGA: Mr Gumede, the mother of Bhekumuzi Zondi, Mrs Zondi, still maintains the evidence that you are the first person who shot Bhekumuzi Zondi, what do you say to this?
MR GUMEDE: I don’t like to disagree with Mrs Zondi but the truth is that I didn’t use my gun because even the police who came, they would have found different cartridges. I did take out my gun, but I didn’t use it and I have already admitted that it was because of what I’ve said that led to Bhekumuzi’s death, but I didn’t shoot Bhekumuzi, Nhlanhla did.
CHAIRPERSON: So the position is that she, the mother of the deceased, actually saw a gun in your hand at that time.
MS MTANGA: Yes, Chairperson, that’s the position.
MR GUMEDE: Yes. I did take my gun out after Nhlanhla started shooting because the reason I took my gun out, I didn’t think that Bhekumuzi will be alone in town, I actually thought some people, his members, will be nearby. The reason I took the gun out, it was because of that thought. If I had a legal gun or an authorised one I would have given that gun to the police, but this one was not authorised and it wasn’t legal, that’s why I hid it away before I went to the Police vehicle.
ADV SANDI: Mr Gumede, if we can just make a request which we have made to you already. When you are asked questions, you must just answer the questions and not give longwinded explanations otherwise it becomes too difficult to understand what your answer is to the question. Please. Thank you.
MS MTANGA: I have no further questions Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS MTANGA
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please proceed.
MR SAMUEL: Mr Chairman, in order to give the Commission some indication as to the times ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Now this relates to the murder of Letsonyana, Ntsana Colin Letsonyana. I think its page 42 of the bundle.
MR SAMUEL: The application is on page 35, the applicant’s affidavit.
CHAIRPERSON: Just give me that page reference again.
MR SAMUEL: Page 35, the applicant’s affidavit. The indictment to the charge in that case is at page 42.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes we’ve got that thank you.
MR SAMUEL: Mr Chairman in this matter Mr Letsonyana was killed on the 28th October 1993. At that stage the accused was on bail pending appeal in the Gumede case, which evidence was just led just now.
ADV BOSMAN: You are referring to the Zondi case.
MR SAMUEL: Sorry, that is correct. Therefore I just want to bring to the attention of the Commission that there was some overflow as such in the evidence of the applicant when he referred to him being on bail in another case, when he was arrested in the Letsonyana case, so that ties up I think. May I then proceed with the evidence.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for clearing it up.
EXAMINATION BY MR SAMUEL: Mr Gumede, without giving longwinded answers, we have the documents before us, we have the trial record before us and the judgment so we don’t need longwinded answers, please just be brief and answer the question.
Now we are dealing with the Letsonyana case, this is a matter where Mr Letsonyana was killed at the Durban Station. Do you admit that you were the person that killed Mr Letsonyana on the 28th October 1993?
MR GUMEDE: Yes, I do.
MR SAMUEL: Do you also agree that you were in possession of a 9mm firearm on the day in question?
MR GUMEDE: Yes.
MR SAMUEL: And that that was the firearm that was used in the murder of Mr Letsonyana?
MR GUMEDE: Yes.
MR SAMUEL: And this incident took place in the toilet at the Durban station.
MR GUMEDE: Yes.
MR SAMUEL: And there were policemen sitting outside or near to the toilet when you had run out of the toilet after you had shot Mr Letsonyana?
MR GUMEDE: Yes, there were police and when I was arrested there were two police who arrested me.
MR SAMUEL: That is correct. Now, Mr Gumede, is it also true that you were arrested a few minutes after the incident and almost immediately in the vicinity of where the murder took place?
MR GUMEDE: Yes, it was a few minutes after I killed him. They arrested me whilst I was walking towards the car.
MR SAMUEL: That was at Joshua Doore in Umgeni Road?
MR GUMEDE: Yes.
MR SAMUEL: The matter proceeded to trial and you were found guilty for the murder of Mr Letsonyana?
MR GUMEDE: Yes.
MR SAMUEL: Now, could you tell us what happened in the toilet at the Durban station on the day in question and the reason for your killing Mr Letsonyana?
MR GUMEDE: Am I allowed to give a long answer here, or should I just say one thing?
MR SAMUEL: No, you can give us a little detail as to what transpired in the toilet and why.
CHAIRPERSON: No, no, no. You’re asking him a complex of questions already. What transpired and then why. Let’s just confine the question. Narrow your questions down so that the answers are purposeful.
MR SAMUEL: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Gumede, (intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: First of all let’s ask him, did you know the man?
MR GUMEDE: No, I didn’t know the man, it was my first time to meet the man.
MR SAMUEL: Did you know any person in whose company this man was on the day in question?
CHAIRPERSON: In the toilet?
MR SAMUEL: In the toilet or immediately outside the toilet.
MR GUMEDE: No, I didn’t know anyone. I saw him alone. I didn’t know him and there was no one with him. I was there on my business.
MR SAMUEL: You went to the toilet to relieve yourself, is that correct?
MR GUMEDE: No, I didn’t go there to relieve myself. Police came to the station, police used to come to Durban Station to search and on that day I gave somebody my gun and when I went back to fetch the gun, to go and hide it somewhere, that’s when I met this man, just as I was leaving the toilet.
MR SAMUEL: Were you supposed to meet someone in the toilet to get your gun?
CHAIRPERSON: No, he’d already got his gun.
MR SAMUEL: I see. Now, can you tell this Commission what happened in the toilet?
MR GUMEDE: The reason I went to the toilet, I was going to hide the gun to myself, or in my body. I had an appointment with someone at 3 o’clock outside, near Umgeni, or the street opposite Umgeni and when I was hiding the gun in my body, immediately after I finished hiding it, I looked in a mirror, I saw someone who was looking at me and there were too many people in the toilet, people came there to fetch water so that they go and wash the kombis outside, and some people came there to relieve themselves in the toilet, and I noticed that someone was looking at me constantly.
CHAIRPERSON: Confine yourself to what happened between you and this man, instead of all the others. Do you understand? You saw a man looking at you through the mirror. What happened then?
MR GUMEDE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: So what happened when you saw this man looking at you?
MR GUMEDE: As I was walking towards the door he asked me my name. I didn’t want to give my name to this person. I ask him who he was and he said to me he wanted to search me and I told him he won’t see that in this world. That’s when he pulled his gun and, at that time I was ready because I’ve suspected him, and he hadn’t yet cocked his gun, and that’s when I took my gun out and I shot him.
When I heard in Court, is that he had two guns and I also heard that he was a police. What aggravated my fear was that I just met Bhekumuzi’s brother and I went to him and greeted him and I wondered why he was in Durban.
After that I heard that people were looking for me and they wanted to kill me.
CHAIRPERSON: This is all what you heard afterwards, but at the time, did you kill this man? You didn’t know even that he was a policeman, you heard later that he was a policeman. Isn’t that so?
MR GUMEDE: That is so. I didn’t know that he was a police, I thought that he was someone who was being sent to kill me. I only heard that he was a police in Court, but in the toilet I though he was someone who was being sent to kill me.
CHAIRPERSON: And so before he could cock his gun, you shot him?
MR GUMEDE: Yes, my one was always cocked, therefore I just took my one and I shot him.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please proceed.
MR SAMUEL: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Now, you have been involved in these types of murders, or been in the vicinity of murders, did you live in fear, Sir, of someone killing you?
MR GUMEDE: Before these two incidents I have been in fear. I would be in fear and sometimes I would question if I see someone from Greytown, if I see that person somewhere, I would question why that person was there. Even when I was in Court, there were people who were saying threats, that they were going to kill me. I was shot many times.
MR SAMUEL: I see. So on the day in question when you went into the toilet and you saw this man staring at you, did you have fear that you might be killed in the toilet?
MR GUMEDE: Yes, I was scared because I realised that he was there to kill me and since I was scared, I didn’t even wash my hands in the toilet, I rushed out and as I was going outside, he stopped me at the door and that’s when I got scared because not very long I just met the brother of the deceased and I was scared that that person was there to kill me.
MR SAMUEL: Now how long before this incident did you meet the brother of the deceased, Mr Zondi, that was killed in Greytown? How long before this incident did you meet him?
MR SAMUEL: I think it was after a week or two weeks and the last time I saw him was in ‘Maritzburg Court and then later I saw him in Durban.
MR SAMUEL: Just restrict yourself to the incident in Durban. Now you walked into the toilet....
CHAIRPERSON: Let’s just clear this up please.
You were asked a question, let’s just get the answer. You met the brother of the deceased about two weeks before. The last time you saw the brother of the deceased was about one or two weeks before this incident, is that right?
MR GUMEDE: Yes, a week or two.
CHAIRPERSON: And that was in Durban?
MR GUMEDE: Yes, that was in Durban and I knew at the time that he was working in Greytown therefore I questioned myself as to why he was in Durban.
CHAIRPERSON: Anyway, that sets the time. In other words he didn’t meet the brother of the deceased on the day the killing took place.
MR SAMUEL: It seems that way.
May I just rather clear that point up for my purposes?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes certainly.
MR SAMUEL: Did you meet Mr Zondi, the deceased, did you meet the deceased, Mr Zondi’s, brother on the day that this incident took place in the Durban station? Did you meet him on that day? Let me put it another way. Did you meet Bhekumuzi’s brother on the day in question?
CHAIRPERSON: He has told us he met him about a week before this incident.
MR SAMUEL: As the Commission pleases.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR SAMUEL: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Now, did you have any opportunity, when you saw this man pull out a gun, to enquire which political party he belonged to?
MR GUMEDE: No, I didn’t think of that. What I realised there is that the way he looked at me, he knew a lot about me and I didn’t know anything. It’s like he was told as to what to ask me and to simply shoot me then and there. He wanted us to finish then and there in the toilet because I wanted to go out because I knew that outside there were other people, or IFP people outside who knew me very well, but he didn’t want us to go out of the toilet, he stopped me at the door.
MR SAMUEL: Although your version seems like self-defence, did you believe that there was a political motive in this man coming in to a toilet with you and pulling out a gun?
MR GUMEDE: I don’t think there’s anyone who will attack someone for no apparent reason. I know that it was difficult for someone to go in that area to simply kill me because in that area, those taxi drivers or taxi owners were IFP, but one thing, he was going to kill me there in the toilet but it was going to be difficult for him to escape outside because most of the people who are there are the people who are always alert and who know that they are being hunted by other oppositions or other political oppositions.
ADV BOSMAN: Mr Samuel, may I just come in here?
Mr Gumede, what I don’t understand is, how did you make the connection of Zondi with this man? Its not clear to me, can you just try and explain it? You saw Mr Zondi about a week or two before the time and now you make a connection of Zondi and the man in the toilet. Can you explain that?
MR GUMEDE: Let me say this, people will track you down and trace you if they have a grudge. Before the Truth Commission, people used to have rivals and they will track you down and it was scary to meet someone you know that he is your rival. You meet that person somewhere, because the last time I saw Zondi’s brother was in Court and he was crying and I knew Mr Zondi’s brother that he’s real good in firearms, he aims and shoots and he’s a real good shot. When I saw him in Durban, I went to him and I greeted him and he answered back and I asked him if he was well. He said yes, he was well. He was with someone I didn’t know and this person he was with was sitting in the car in the back seat and I realised that in the passenger seat there was someone and later after he left I saw that there was someone on the passenger seat, even though I didn’t know those people. And I saw them leaving. What made me make this connection was that he was a policeman and now I am seeing this guy and he wants to attack me and the recent incident was the Zondi incident. At that time people who considered that I was an enemy to them, were the Zondi family. That’s why I made the connection.
ADV BOSMAN: Thank you Mr Gumede. My problem was that you made the connection after more than a week, that was my problem.
CHAIRPERSON: That was obviously far-fetched.
MR SAMUEL: Mr Gumede, at the trial of this matter it seemed that this was an ordinary killing for the purposes of robbery. Did you take any firearms from the deceased on the day in question? Did you rob the deceased after you had shot him?
MR GUMEDE: No, the police, who were outside, who were with him, came after me immediately. The only thing they found in my possession was my gun, the gun that I used in killing him. I didn’t take anything from him. The police can be my witness in this because after I shot him and after I left the toilet, I was walking and they were right behind me, following me, until they arrested me in the car.
MR SAMUEL: Mr Gumede, there’s just one more discrepancy that I want to raise with you, just for the purposes of this Commission, to apply their minds to it. On page 35 of the bundle, in your affidavit in this application, you mention that
"I aimed at his hand and on not seeing the firearm falling, I thought that I had missed and I shot him on his head."
Now, Sir, at the trial the postmortem report did not show any head injuries, rather what it showed is a chest injury and an injury to the cheek where the bullet had gone through the throat. Now what do you mean when you say that you shot him on the head? Could you explain to the Commission please?
MR GUMEDE: I aimed at his head but since I was scared, firstly I aimed at his hand and I saw that the gun didn’t fall and then I aimed at his head. Even in Court I told them that I aimed at his head, but then they did mention that the bullet went through his throat.
MR SAMUEL: Thank you, Mr Gumede.
Mr Gumede, I don’t know whether the family of the deceased is present today. You have made application for amnesty. Are you sorry for what you have done, for taking the life of an innocent man?
MR GUMEDE: To tell the honest truth, it is very, very difficult to ask for apology to people you don’t know. I didn’t know the man and I would like to apologise to his family. I only discovered a lot about him after I killed him. I also heard that he’s from Umlazi B Section. Up until today I don’t know if he wanted to kill me, why he wanted to kill me. I also heard that he was with other people and they were waiting for him outside. It’s probably because I was confused, I thought he was there to kill me. I didn’t know why he wanted to kill me because I didn’t know the man. I don’t know how to apologise to his family.
I still have a problem with this matter because I don’t know the actual truth as to what happened, if he really wanted to kill me and if he did, why he wanted to kill me. Today I am doing 28 years in prison because of him. I don’t know why it came this far, because it’s not like I wanted to kill him, but I thought he wanted to kill me and I still don’t know why today he wanted to kill me, if he wanted to kill me. I heard also that he had two guns in his possession. The only gun which I saw was the one he was trying to cock. I also didn’t touch that gun.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR SAMUEL
ADV BOSMAN: Mr Samuel, just clear up something for me. If you could perhaps refer me, or the Committee, to the page, you mentioned that the Court found that this was robbery, could you just refer us to the relevant section please?
MR SAMUEL: If the Commission will bear with me.
MR GUMEDE: I heard about the robbery in Court. Police wrote this statement themselves. It wasn’t robbery, they just wrote what they thought, they thought it was robbery but it wasn’t robbery at all. I didn’t take anything from this man. The witness who came to Court told a lie, because he said he saw me taking a gun and giving it to Nongalaza, something which I didn't do. I didn’t give Nongalaza a gun. Fortunately for me, the police, who saw me leaving the toilet, followed me up until the car and that’s here they searched me and the only thing they found in my possession, was my gun which I used in killing this man.
I don’t know why they tried to drag me into a robbery, something which I didn’t do.
MR SAMUEL: Unfortunately Ma’am, I did come across it, I don’t know whether it was a submission of the Prosecutor in that
matter that suggested that this was a senseless killing with the purposes of robbery.
ADV BOSMAN: Mr Samuel, but we have a statement now by the legal representative that it was a finding of the Court, perhaps you should clear that, because I do not recall having read this as a finding and it is rather important. Chairperson, I don’t want to waste any time, perhaps we could clear that later on.
MR SAMUEL: It seems that I have misconstrued something. I notice at page 57 of the record that there is no such finding. May I then withdraw that submission, Madam Chair?
ADV SANDI: Yes, but I thought, Mr Samuel, that is in terms of what appears in the contents of the papers that we have in front of us, that the Applicant had made a statement in Court, a plea actually, admitting to having killed the deceased and he said he was doing so in self-defence.
MR SAMUEL: That is correct. In his plea to the possession of firearms, and he pleaded not guilty to murder but to the possession of a firearm and the robbery he submitted a plea. In that plea he stated that he had killed in self-defence.
CHAIRPERSON: I fail to find a reference to any attempted robbery in the time that I’ve had.
ADV SANDI: I couldn’t find anything either with reference to robbery or any attempt to rob the deceased.
CHAIRPERSON: What was he convicted of, just murder?
MR SAMUEL: Yes he was convicted of the murder plus the possession of the firearm together with the ammunition.
CHAIRPERSON: And the sentence was?
MR SAMUEL: 25 years for murder.
CHAIRPERSON: Does this run concurrently or separately from the first one?
MR SAMUEL: No, separately from the first one.
ADV BOSMAN: Mr Samuel I think you have it wrong. If you refer to the sentence there, from my reading of it, the sentence will be served, I’m sorry, yes it is consecutively. I’m sorry.
MR SAMUEL: Yes, because the Judge did mention that it had no relation to the first murder.
ADV BOSMAN: I’m sorry, I made a mistake there.
CHAIRPERSON: Where does all this appear?
ADV BOSMAN: On page 64 of the bundle, Mr Chairman.
MR SAMUEL: What I was referring to, most probably in a very round about way, where I said that the Judge made a finding, I wish to refer Madam Chair to page 56 of the document, of the bundle, where the Judge in his Judgment says, "We know that the deceased’s firearms was removed. The witness, Ndlamini, who seems to be a completely independent witness, explained what happened to him. It makes sense as we know that often people who wish to obtain firearms kill the police or persons who have firearms and take their firearms. I think in that context I referred to it as being a murder for the purpose of robbery. Thank you.
ADV BOSMAN: It is a suggestion, however.
MR SAMUEL: It was not a finding by the Court. Thank you for bringing that to my attention.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Any cross-examination on this?
MS MTANGA: No questions, Chairperson.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MTANGA
CHAIRPERSON: So what is the present position as far as his actual terms of imprisonment are concerned? He was sentenced to 14 years on the first murder of Mr Zondi and now he is serving a further 25 years?
MS MTANGA: 27 years.
CHAIRPERSON: 27 years altogether?
MS MTANGA: For the second offence.
CHAIRPERSON: Have you any questions?
ADV BOSMAN: I have no questions, Chairperson.
We will adjourn now and resume at a quarter to 2.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
DENNIS FELAMANDLA GUMEDE: (s.u.o.)
MS MTANGA: Chairperson, can I just clarify, are you asking in relation to the second offence?
CHAIRPERSON: That’s right. You are reminded that you are still under oath. You have already told me that in respect of the second application, you had never seen or known the man before the day that you shot him?
Now, apart from the fact that he asked you your name, you had had no argument with him before that, had you?
MR GUMEDE: No, I actually thought I would find the family here and they would be the ones who would actually tell me. I just considered him as a person who was attacking me.
CHAIRPERSON: We are not talking about the family now, just think about yourself before you shot him. I am talking at that time. Do you understand? Just talk about what transpired. My question was, before the actual shooting, there was no argument between him and you, apart from the fact that he asked you for your name and you did not want to give him your name.
MR GUMEDE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: You didn’t assault him, or punch him before that?
MR GUMEDE: That didn’t even occur in my mind. I didn’t do anything of that sort.
CHAIRPERSON: Neither did he assault you or punch you?
MR GUMEDE: No he didn’t.
CHAIRPERSON: He did nothing physical to you except pull out his gun?
MR GUMEDE: Yes he took out his gun.
CHAIRPERSON: And he didn’t succeed in hurting you anyway?
MR GUMEDE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Was there anybody else, when you were in the toilet, that you noticed or spoke to, apart from this man with the gun?
MR GUMEDE: There were a lot of people that I knew, however, I did not speak to them because everything happened so fast.
CHAIRPERSON: When you walked into the toilet, you walked in normally?
MR GUMEDE: When I entered the toilet, I was in a hurry however. I just was bumping on people but it wasn’t a big deal. It’s just that in Court I put it in another way. But it wasn’t him, he actually found me already in the toilet.
CHAIRPERSON: Wait, what do you mean by that? You say you put it to the Court in another way. What do you mean by that?
MR GUMEDE: Actually, this case was problematic to me, the way it had happened, so I actually thought that I should lie and then say that, I actually lied in Court and stated that the person that I bumped into at the door as I was rushing, it was him. That was a lie.
CHAIRPERSON: Was there any other lie in your evidence at that time about the scene in the toilet?
MR GUMEDE: In actual fact, I can’t quite remember this. I lied a lot although I was actually trying to make everything to relate, to actually indicate that I was protecting myself, and I was actually trying to defend myself there, while I was speaking in Court. I was actually saying everything so that it can relate or correlate with what I was saying.
In Court I put it like that, they were supposed to see that it was self-defence. However, they had a question that if I had any quarrel with him. I didn’t have a reason to give, however, indicated that I realise that he was actually approaching to kill me and then I realised that I actually had to take out the gun and cock it because I realised that, I was aware that I could be killed at any minute.
CHAIRPERSON: I understand. I don’t want to take this any further. Thank you. Any questions you might want to ask arising out of the questions put to him by me?
MR SAMUEL: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you very much.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: Are you calling any other witnesses.
MR SAMUEL: No further witnesses Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR SAMUEL IN ARGUMENT: Mr Chairman, in the Application for Amnesty of Dennis Gumede, for the death or murder of Bhekumuzi Zondi, it is my submission, Mr Chairman, that all the provisions, all the elements for the granting of amnesty to this applicant have been proved.
It is abundantly clear that the motive for the killing of Bhekumuzi Zondi was a political objective. In this regard, I wish to refer the Honourable Commission to page 18 of the bundle of documents, to the Judgment of your learned brother, Judge Thirion. At the 27th line the Judge says :"It is obvious that the deceased was killed as part of the ongoing struggle between the ANC and INKATHA". The Judge further goes on to say: "the accused is a prominent member and office bearer of INKATHA".
In regard to the order, Your Worship, it is clear that the applicant in this matter had given the order because he was regarded as the leader at that point in time.
CHAIRPERSON: What order are you talking about?
MR SAMUEL: The order to kill. When he told his comrades "here is the meat".
CHAIRPERSON: What have you to say about that?
MR SAMUEL: According to the applicant, that was an order or an indication by him to his comrades that they should kill the deceased and it was because of this order that the deceased was killed.
CHAIRPERSON: So what were you saying about the reason for him giving the order?
MR SAMUEL: It is obvious that the applicant had no personal grievance against the deceased and the only reason why he gave the order was because it was known to him that the deceased was a member of the UDF and he was also a leader on most occasions when houses were being burned. Although the Court had found that the accused had killed the deceased, it is still my submission, Mr Chairman, that the applicant had made full disclosure. In this regard, the ballistic report on page 18 of the bundle of documents, corroborates and substantiates the applicant’s version, that the gun that was used to kill the deceased was a gun that was found near, or on the dead body of Nhlanhla Dladla.
In the circumstances, it is my submission that the applicant should be granted amnesty.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Carry on.
MR SAMUEL: May I proceed
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please do carry on.
MR SAMUEL: On the Letsonyana case. Mr Chairman, in the application for amnesty in regard to the Letsonyana case, it is my submission that the accused should be considered for amnesty. Mr Letsonyana ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: The applicant you mean, rather than the accused.
MR SAMUEL: I’m speaking in terms of the applicant.
CHAIRPERSON: You were referring to him as the accused, you mean the applicant.
MR SAMUEL: My apologies, Mr Chairman. Whilst there is no direct evidence that he acted under a political order, at the time of shooting the deceased, Mr Letsonyana, it is my submission that nevertheless, it has never been proved otherwise, that there was no political motive involved. It is quite clear ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: That is an unusual statement to make, isn’t it. Requiring somebody to prove the negative, instead of proving the positive. Now shouldn’t you be going around telling us why.
MR SAMUEL: That is what I am going to do.
Thank you. Mr Chairman, what could have been the motive on the day in question? The only conclusion that one could come to, the accused had no prior knowledge of the person Letsonyana on the day in question. He did not have any argument with Mr Letsonyana on the day in question. All we are left with is a factual situation where a man pulls out a gun in a toilet, in an enclosed space, after asking only one question, asking the applicant what is his name. The applicant, as he has given evidence before the Commission, was under a constant fear or threat of being killed, and he lived with this fear and any unknown person that inquired after his name, especially with a gun in his hand or in his possession, immediately the accused would jump to the conclusion, rightly so, that that person is inquiring after him only for the purpose of getting rid of him in the sense of killing him. It is obvious that he had been involved with, and was convicted for a murder quite recently prior to this incident. He was out on bail on appeal, Your Worship, and it is obvious that family members of the deceased, Bhekumuzi Zondi, would have placed a price on the applicant’s head.
CHAIRPERSON: Why is that obvious?
People feared him and kept away from him. He seems to be the one that has gone around doing a lot of shooting.
MR SAMUEL: As much as that is the case Your Worship, that he was feared by the people whilst he was in the area, now that he was not in the area it would be far more easier to get rid of him because he would not have pulled the trigger, neither would he have had accomplices or all people to defend him if an attempt on his life had been made.
Be that as it may, as far-fetched as it may seem, Mr Chairman, it is not expected of me to say that the applicant has made no case.
CHAIRPERSON: I understand the limitations you have.
MR SAMUEL: I have these limitations.
CHAIRPERSON: You say far fetched, (¼ indistinct) estimated how far fetched it is.
MR SAMUEL: It is far fetched Your Worship because we cannot find the necklace between the death of Bhekumuzi Zondi and the death of Mr Letsonyana, but be that as it may, I would still urge this Honourable Commission to consider the motive. It is quite clear that the applicant in this matter had not robbed the deceased on the day in question. The evidence that was led at the trial showed that the deceased was in possession of two firearms. If robbery was the motive it would have been easy for him to have removed those firearms.
CHAIRPERSON: No, I think we accept that, robbery was not the motive.
MR SAMUEL: So if there’s no other motive, one can accept, at least partly, that the applicant had a justified fear of his life on the day in question.
He had no opportunity to verify the name of the person that he was going to kill, or to injure, he had no way of knowing what political party the person had belonged to and Bhekumuzi Zondi’s brother being a police person, the applicant would have been justified in believing that this person who was sent into the toilet, or who had come into the toilet with him, was sent by the family of Bhekumuzi Zondi.
CHAIRPERSON: This man may have been there, if at all, because he recognised him, isn’t it?
MR SAMUEL: That might have been the position.
CHAIRPERSON: And suspected him of some offence or the other. It had nothing to do with who is your name, or what is your name, whether he knew the name of the man or not, the other person. Now this other person may have had all kinds of reasons to ask these questions. He may have mistaken him for somebody else. We are in the field of great conjecture here as to why this resulted. There is not the faintest tinge that any political consideration arose in the mind of the applicant at the time.
MR SAMUEL: That is quite true.
CHAIRPERSON: You see, subsequently he may have sat down in jail and started thinking of all the possible reasons why this may have happened, but at the time that he killed, he was not being driven by a political motive or a political objective. The rest is rationalization.
MR SAMUEL: I have foreseen that difficult. In the circumstances, may I submit, may I leave the decision of this matter in the hands of the learned Commission? Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Is there anything you wish to say?
MS MTANGA IN ARGUMENT: Yes Chairperson, thank you.
It is my submission on behalf of the Zondi family that the applicant has not given full disclosure regarding the death of Bhekumuzi Zondi in that he has failed to give evidence regarding his involvement in this matter. According to Mrs Zondi, the applicant did actually shoot the victim and he had denied that evidence before this panel. It is on these grounds that the family feels the Committee should refuse his application.
My submission regarding the death of Mr Letsonyana. I submit that the applicant had no political motive in killing Mr Letsonyana. His efforts of linking the death of Bhekumuzi Zondi and his fears of the Zondi family are far fetched, Chairperson in that the incident of Zondi took place on the 18th of July 1991, the applicant was arrested a day later. He was on bail soon after and the incident of Mr Letsonyana took place in 1993 and he had been on bail all this time. He has given evidence that he had appeared, he had made several appearances in Court, where his matter would be remanded each time and the family had ample time to do anything, if they did do anything, to Mr Gumede.
CHAIRPERSON: In other words, if the Zondi family wanted to take revenge on him there was ample time after he was released on bail.
MS MTANGA: Yes Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Something like 2 years at least.
MS MTANGA: Yes Chairperson. It is therefore my submission that there is no political motive in the death of Mr Letsonyana and therefore Mr Gumede’s application should be refused.
ADV BOSMAN: Ms Mtanga, what is your submission on the probability that Mr Zondi’s mother may have made a mistake when she gave evidence. This was a very traumatic incident, she saw the gun in the applicant’s hands, what are the probabilities of her having made a mistake when she gave evidence that both he and Mr Dlandla shot?
MS MTANGA: Madam Chairperson, if one looks at the Judgment, there was consistent evidence from Mrs Zondi, even at the time of the incident, when the police found her next to the body of her son. She had indicated that the applicant had committed the murder.
ADV BOSMAN: That doesn’t really answer my question. Even if she was consistent, what are the chances that she had made a mistake, the probability that she had made a mistake? Because she’d seen the gun in his hands, she’s heard the shots ring out, how sure could she have been that he had actually shot? That is my question.
MS MTANGA: Well, Chairperson, I would say that there is that possibility.
CHAIRPERSON: But she was cross-examined at length.
At the trial she was questioned, the evidence was tested.
MS MTANGA: And the Court accepted her evidence. If there is any question to be applied, I would say the Court did so, and found the evidence credible and the applicant was convicted on those grounds.
ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.
MR SAMUEL: May I just make one submission?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR SAMUEL: There is no explanation given by any side, either the Court or anybody as to how the gun that was used in the murder eventually found its way to Mr Nhlanhla Dladla, because that gun was eventually found on his body and the applicant at that stage did not know that Nhlanhla Dladla was in fact killed.
CHAIRPERSON: I don’t think that is too far fetched because these chaps left immediately after the shooting, got into the same taxi and they all went away together. And it could easily be that during that time, he was coming back into town, he left his gun with Nhlanhla.
MR SAMUEL: I can see that.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. The Committee have heard the application, they will consider the application and in due course will make known its decision to all the parties concerned.
Will you kindly convey to those who are here as defendants that when the Committee makes its decision it will be made known to them.
Ms Mtanga, will you, after the hearing, convey this to the defendants that our decision will be made known to them in due course?
MS MTANGA: I’ll do so Chairperson, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: And you will make the list of the people who are the direct descendant or rather dependent of the victims and make that known to the R&R Committee.
MS MTANGA: Yes Chairperson, I’ll do so.
CHAIRPERSON: And their addresses as well, just in the event of there being any possibility of reparations. We start at 9.30 tomorrow.
Mr Samuel are you appearing in the matter tomorrow?
MR SAMUEL: I will be appearing and I will get here early.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
We will adjourn now and resume at 9.30 tomorrow morning.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS: .
