--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: For the record, it is Thursday the 29th July 1999. It is the continuation of the sitting of the Amnesty Committee in Port Elizabeth. The Panel is constituted as had been indicated on the record earlier. We will be hearing the application this morning of Edwin Lumko, Amnesty Reference AM7967/97. For the record, Mr Nompozolo, do you just want to put yourself on record?

MR NOMPOZOLO: I confirm that I appear on behalf of Edwin Lumko, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Nompozolo. And Mr Spittal.

MR SPITTAL: I confirm that I appear on behalf of the family of Mr Welili Olifant, Mrs Olifant.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, in fact, let me apologise. My attention has just been drawn to the fact that Mr Tyatya is actually appearing.

MR TYATYA: I apologise Chairperson, it's spelled Tyatya. I also didn't say.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, we apologise. Yes Mr Spittal. Then Ms Thabethe.

MS THABETHE: I'm Ms Thabile Thabethe the Evidence Leader for the TRC.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ma'am. Yes, Mr Tyatya, is there anything that you want to put on record or do you want to proceed to lead the evidence of your client, in which case we will administer the oath to him?

MR TYATYA: Chairperson, there is nothing I would like to put on.

EDWIN LUMKO: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Tyatya.

EXAMINATION BY MR TYATYA: Thank you. Edwin Lumko you appear before this Committee today in respect of the application you made for amnesty, is that correct?

MR LUMKO: ...(indistinct)

MR TYATYA: On the 27th August 1993, can you tell the Committee briefly what happened?

MR LUMKO: On this particular day a man came, Mr Olifant, at my place, at my home. It was in the evening. He told me that he was - he knocked at the door, he told me that he was not there on a bad manner or something. I opened the door for him, he came in and he said, "This evening, tonight, we are going to be coming to your place because you don't want to associate yourself with us. You are just far away from us. As Klabendlini had died, you are also the next," and then he left and then when he was going out I asked him if he was going to his home. He said yes, he was going to his house.

I prepared myself because he had mentioned that I left Hofmeyr because I did not want to associate myself with the people. Then I collected my things. I took a hammer, I took a torch, I took a revolver, I emptied the generator, the petrol that was in the generator, meaning I removed the petrol from the generator, I put it in some container and I followed him after that.

I hit the front windows with a hammer, I poured petrol and I set it alight. I went to the side of the kitchen. He went out running with something in his hand. When he appeared I shot him. Because he mentioned the fact that even at Hofmeyr I had to leave because of those reasons, my cars were burned down and I was only left with the clothes that I was wearing and then now this was about to happen to me again. That is all.

MR TYATYA: When you said that he came to your place that particular evening and he said you're going to go the same way, did you regard that as a warning, or as a threat?

MR LUMKO: I did not take it as a warning because he was also a leader of the Youth, he was a leader in that conflict that was taking place because I was under the headman there. He was in the ANC as I was with the headman, because he wanted us to be out of the headman and people were killed because Klabendlini, he told me that I was going to follow him because he was also killed.

MR TYATYA: So when you got there, when he left you thought he was threatening to kill you?

MR LUMKO: I did not know how did they kill Klabendlini, but I knew that they were coming to my place because I knew that as we were together with Klabendlini and I knew that I was going to be the next.

MR TYATYA: Why didn't you run away if you were afraid? Why didn't you run away and sleep elsewhere instead?

MR LUMKO: There was no other place that I could use because I used to sleep in the kraal, I couldn't go anywhere, I couldn't go to anyone, the people whom I could run to were not there. As I was the secretary of that headman, he was also staying far away from my place.

MR TYATYA: You got this petrol from a generator or from a car?

MR LUMKO: It was from the generator.

MR TYATYA: The quantity of the petrol?

MR LUMKO: It was not that much. It was just below the half of the 5L container.

MR TYATYA: Now you went there in order to do what, in fact, in his house?

MR LUMKO: I went to destroy because we were destroying each other, or one another. The parties were fighting.

MR TYATYA: Did you know this man well, Mr Lumko?

MR LUMKO: Yes, I knew him very well. We were coming from Hofmeyr together and even there I was suspecting that he knew what was happening at Hofmeyr. We were from there.

MR TYATYA: With whom was he staying in the house?

MR LUMKO: He came out alone. His wife was working at Whittlesea Hospital. I came while he was alone.

MR TYATYA: So when you went there you knew he was alone?

MR LUMKO: I knew that he was alone. I went there, I knew he was alone.

MR TYATYA: Now, when the house was on fire you said you went around and waited for him?

MR LUMKO: Yes, I waited him next to the kitchen.

MR TYATYA: You said you also had a gun with you?

MR LUMKO: Yes.

MR TYATYA: Was it a licensed gun?

MR LUMKO: Yes, it was licensed because I did acquire a licence for that.

MR TYATYA: Were you trained in shooting?

MR LUMKO: No, I was never trained.

MR TYATYA: Where did you get it?

MR LUMKO: I got it at Bisho.

MR TYATYA: Where exactly at Bisho?

MR LUMKO: In the offices, under the secretary, Mr Khambe.

MR TYATYA: When he gave you the gun, what did he say it was for?

MR LUMKO: I was with the headman, we were looking for protection, then the headman was talking to him and then the gun was later given to us. I told the headman that I was also looking for protection, that is when we went there and the headman talked to the authorities and then I later got that firearm.

MR TYATYA: So when you were performing this act, were you protecting yourself, or were you attacking?

MR LUMKO: I was attacking.

MR TYATYA: So you said you were handling the gun for the first time that evening?

MR LUMKO: I had this gun, this firearm for some days, but I was using it for the very first time. I first tested the firearm on a tree, therefore I was using it for the second time on this particular day.

MR TYATYA: So you were standing next to the door, waiting for him to get out and how far was he from you when you shot?

MR LUMKO: He was not that far, because I was just next to the door, kitchen door, when he came and he moved a little bit, some distance and I shot.

MR TYATYA: Was it as far as those two gadgets there, or...?

MR LUMKO: I cannot be that sure, but he was not that far, maybe he was at the distance of the first box.

MR TYATYA: You said it was at night, ,,,(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Just for the record, that is probably about 5 metres that the witness indicated. Thank you.

MR TYATYA: So you say you were shooting for the first time and it was dark?

MR LUMKO: Yes.

MR TYATYA: You hit him?

MR LUMKO: I shot him and I saw him falling and I was so sure that I hit him.

MR TYATYA: Was it only one shot?

MR LUMKO: Yes, only once.

MR TYATYA: Why did you think he fell, because of the shot? He didn't stumble over or maybe because of the fright from the sound of the gun?

MR LUMKO: I did not know that he could just fall because of the fright. I thought that he could only fall because I hit him.

MR TYATYA: Are you sure you shot only once?

MR LUMKO: Yes, I shot only once.

MR TYATYA: You said from the beginning that your purpose was to destroy and I would imagine that a person intent on destruction would have hit the second, the third time, why didn't shoot him for the second or third time?

MR LUMKO: I went there to fight with him. I wanted him to feel the pain, whether he was injured or dead, but I wanted him to feel what he wanted to do to me.

MR TYATYA: So you say you shot him once, then what happened?

MR LUMKO: I left.

MR TYATYA: Where did you go?

MR LUMKO: I went to my home.

MR TYATYA: What did you do when you got home?

MR LUMKO: I went to a place where I used to sleep because I used to sleep in the kraal. I used to sleep there because they were chasing me.

MR TYATYA: In your mind you had just killed a man and you decided to go back to sleep. What about the threats because you said they were going to kill you? This is what you said you believed at the beginning. You said you believed that they were going to kill you that evening. You attacked and then killed a man and you went to sleep. Wouldn't you say that is funny?

MR LUMKO: I was just relaxing there in the kraal. I was expecting them to come and I could do anything because they wouldn't be chasing me for the very first time.

DR TSOTSI: First of all, why did you sleep in the kraal, not in the house?

MR LUMKO: It is because I was avoiding them because we were not happy. People were chasing up, their houses were being burned. Houses were burned down.

ADV SANDI: But Mr Lumko, had they been to your house before? This group of people you say wee attacking and burning people's houses, did they come to your house before?

MR LUMKO: No, they were coming for the first time. I used to see them moving up and down and chanting songs.

ADV SANDI: Yes, but I thought you said that it was only the deceased, Mr Olifant, who came to you that day?

MR LUMKO: Yes, that's what I said.

ADV SANDI: Was he not alone?

MR LUMKO: He came alone.

ADV SANDI: Who was there at your house when he came?

MR LUMKO: I was all alone.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

MR TYATYA: Mr Lumko, you said from the beginning that you got a gun from Bisho and you told us the name of the person you go it from and you also told us that he gave you so that you protect yourself against some group of people who were with a reign of terror in the village. Did you belong to a political organisation?

MR LUMKO: Yes, I was under the ADM for the headman.

MR TYATYA: And the leader of the ADM was?

MR LUMKO: It was the headman, the one that I was serving under.

MR TYATYA: Were you a card carrying member?

MR LUMKO: Yes.

MR TYATYA: What were the objectives of this political organisation you belonged to?

MR LUMKO: We had to associate ourselves with the headmen and the rules or policies. And then the other party was against the rules or was against this party of the headmen.

MR TYATYA: Thank you. And then when you - let's go back to the events of that particular day. You woke up in the morning. Did you sleep there the whole night? What time did you wake up and what did you do thereafter?

MR LUMKO: I woke up very early. We were not sleeping with blankets, we would sleep there without blankets.

MR TYATYA: And what did you do?

MR LUMKO: I just moved around the house. After that I went to the headman. I told him about what happened and I handed over myself to the police. I went to report the matter to the police.

MR TYATYA: And then what? What happened?

MR LUMKO: We were arrested.

MR TYATYA: You and whom?

MR LUMKO: I went to report the matter to the police and after that there were other people also who were there. I don't know what were they there for, but we were later locked up. I did report the matter with the headman and even the headman himself was locked up together with myself and the two people, I cannot remember whether the four of us...

MR TYATYA: Did you serve any prison sentence for this act you committed?

MR LUMKO: I was never arrested, I was only arrested now recently.

MR TYATYA: I mean for this act you committed, did you undergo any prison sentence? About killing Mr Olifant.

MR LUMKO: Yes, I was arrested.

MR TYATYA: And how long was the sentence?

MR LUMKO: They said it's 12 years and 3 years inside with the other years suspended.

MR TYATYA: Did you serve the whole three years?

MR LUMKO: No.

MR TYATYA: How long did you stay in prison?

MR LUMKO: Only 21 days.

MR TYATYA: Do you know why?

MR LUMKO: I took ill. I am not sure whether I was released because of the illness.

MR TYATYA: Where, in which prison were you kept?

MR LUMKO: I was at Cezi.

MR TYATYA: Now when you got sentenced, this period, this number of years, did you feel that you were guilty of anything?

MR LUMKO: I felt that I was guilty and I was also sympathising with the wife of the deceased, but I was forced by the conditions. I had sympathy for the wife because she was the one who was responsible for the house.

I even went to an extent of showing my sympathy when this man was busy burning the people's property in the village, I went to the family, I told them to tell the wife that if this man is destroying my property, I'll also do the same to him. I was sympathising with the wife because I know that it's the wife who was responsible of buying everything in that house. She can even attest to that if she's willing to tell the truth, the wife, that is.

MR TYATYA: Do you still feel the same way you felt? In other words, do you still feel the same guilt today, now?

MR LUMKO: Yes, it is still with me. The guilty feeling is still with me.

MR TYATYA: Is the wife of the deceased here today?

MR LUMKO: Yes, she is there.

MR TYATYA: Did you at any stage ever speak to her, I mean try to approach her and express your guilt feeling?

MR LUMKO: I did not see her since I left the place.

MR TYATYA: If you got the chance to speak to her, would you ask for forgiveness?

MR LUMKO: Yes, I can talk to her. As I say, I used to sympathise with here even before.

MR TYATYA: That will be all, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR TYATYA

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Tyatya. Mr Spittal, have you got any questions?

MR SPITTAL: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR SPITTAL: Mr Lumko, to which organisation did you belong at the stage of this killing?

MR LUMKO: I was serving under the ADM.

MR SPITTAL: Who was the leader of the ADM at that stage?

MR LUMKO: It was Mr Methusi.

MR SPITTAL: Did you serve under Oupa Qozo?

MR LUMKO: Yes, all the headmen were serving under him. I was under Qozo.

MR SPITTAL: When did you receive this firearm which you used to kill Mr Olifant?

MR LUMKO: I think it was about a month, I am not sure but I think it was a month before the incident.

MR SPITTAL: Were you a headman?

MR LUMKO: No, I was a secretary to the headman.

MR SPITTAL: Did only the headman receive firearms?

MR LUMKO: There were other members, other committee members who got firearms.

MR SPITTAL: What was the purpose of receiving the firearm?

MR LUMKO: It was to protect.

MR SPITTAL: To protect who?

MR LUMKO: It was for individuals to protect themselves.

MR SPITTAL: On the day of the incident, you said that you were visited by Mr Olifant, is that right?

MR LUMKO: Yes, that is correct.

MR SPITTAL: Mr Olifant wasn't armed at that stage when he visited you, is that right?

MR LUMKO: I did not notice, I did not see what was in his hand.

MR SPITTAL: And he was alone when he visited you?

MR LUMKO: Yes, he was alone.

MR SPITTAL: What exactly did Mr Olifant say to you?

MR LUMKO: He said on that particular night they would come and visit me because I did not want to join them. They were going to do the same to me as what they did to that other man, the man that was killed, because even at Hofmeyr, I left Hofmeyr because I did not want to join the people.

MR SPITTAL: So he said to you that because you didn't want to join them, they were going to visit you that night? Is that right?

MR LUMKO: Yes, that's what he said.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, can I just get this clear here? Now was he telling you about people who were going to come and attack you that night, or was he saying he will be one of such people? How exactly did he say it?

MR LUMKO: He said, "Today, we are going to come to your place because you do not want to join us. We are going to do the same as what we did to Klabendlini with you."

MR SPITTAL: And did he say to you that you had to respond to this or not?

MR LUMKO: I did not respond. He spoke to me and he said he was leaving and then I asked him where he was going. He told me that he was going to his house.

MR SPITTAL: So he came, according to your evidence, to visit you to warn you that tonight they were coming to your house because you didn't want to join them, is that right?

MR LUMKO: Yes.

MR SPITTAL: Did he at any time ask you to join them while he was there?

MR LUMKO: No, they never came to my place, they used to move up and down chanting toyi-toyi songs.

MR SPITTAL: Was it normal procedure for this group of people to come to people's houses before they attack their houses to warn them? Had this happened in the past?

MR LUMKO: I do not know their procedure. I do not know.

MR SPITTAL: Can you think of any reason why he would come to your house to forewarn you, to tell you that "I'm going to come and kill you and burn your house tonight"? Why would he do that? Why didn't he just come that night and do what they were going to do?

MR LUMKO: I do not know.

MR SPITTAL: I put it to you it's very unlikely that that would happen. Do you have any response to that?

MR LUMKO: I do not know.

MR SPITTAL: I also put it to you that this is a version that you are just dishing up to save your own skin.

MR LUMKO: No, that is not like that. I am just telling you what makes sense, because I don't know whether they used to do that or what is it that they used to do when they were about to kill a person, because he made an example about a person that they had killed and he even mentioned the reason that made me to leave Hofmeyr.

MR SPITTAL: So then you decided to go and attack Mr Olifant, is that right, after he left?

MR LUMKO: Yes, that is correct.

MR SPITTAL: According to you, did Mr Olifant have any other members in his group?

MR LUMKO: Yes, he had a lot of them.

MR SPITTAL: Did you decide to attack any of them?

MR LUMKO: I wanted to attack anyone, but at least the person that I was going to, as he said to me they were coming, I thought I would find some of them there, I was even prepared to die there in front of them and I was prepared to use my weapon.

MR SPITTAL: I want to know from you why did you decide to go and kill Mr Olifant?

MR LUMKO: What was the reason for them to kill the people?

MR SPITTAL: I'm asking you the question. Why did you go and decide to kill Mr Olifant?

MR LUMKO: I was killing because they were also killing, that was the reason. If there is a fight, I also lift up my stick and fight.

MR SPITTAL: So you didn't kill Mr Olifant to protect yourself, is that right?

MR LUMKO: I went there to fight, Sir, that's what I'm saying. We were fighting. The parties were fighting.

MR SPITTAL: So you didn't go and kill Mr Olifant to prevent him from coming back that night to kill you?

MR LUMKO: Will you please repeat your question, Sir?

MR SPITTAL: You didn't go to go and prevent Mr Olifant from killing you that night, you went to kill him because of the fight? Because you wanted to fight with him?

MR LUMKO: That is correct.

ADV SANDI: When you came to his house that evening, were there any lights burning?

MR LUMKO: No, there were no lights. The lights were off.

ADV SANDI: What did you think? Did you think he was sleeping inside?

MR LUMKO: Yes, I thought he was sleeping in there, but I was prepared to set the place alight because that is what was happening. The people were setting the houses alight.

ADV SANDI: Who did Mr Olifant say had killed Klabendlini?

MR LUMKO: He did not divulge that to me and I did not even ask him.

ADV SANDI: Did he say he had taken part in the killing of Klbendlini?

MR LUMKO: He said to me I was going to follow Klabendlini, they were on the way to me, that meant that he knew what happened because I was the next, as he said.

ADV SANDI: But he did not say he was one of the people who had killed Klabendlini, did he?

MR LUMKO: He did not mention anything else, except what he was telling me, that I was next, they were also coming to my place.

ADV SANDI: Did Olifant say to you he had killed any person at all?

MR LUMKO: He did not mention anything to that effect.

ADV SANDI: Did you personally know of any person who had been killed by Olifant?

MR LUMKO: I said it is Klabendlini who was killed by Olifant's party, that is what gave me a shock because he told me that they were coming to me. I was going to be the next.

ADV SANDI: Where were you when Klabendlini was killed?

MR LUMKO: I was in my house.

ADV SANDI: Did you see those people who were killing Klabendlini?

MR LUMKO: I did not see them because that happened in the evening. He was also killed in the evening.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

MR SPITTAL: Thank you. If I may just be granted an indulgence just to look at my notes please, thank you.

Do you have a son by the name Benny?

MR LUMKO: There's my son, Benny. (pointing at the audience)

MR SPITTAL: Was Benny involved in the ADM at that stage?

MR LUMKO: Benny was not residing there. He was working somewhere.

MR SPITTAL: For whom was he working?

MR LUMKO: He was a soldier. He is a soldier, working for the government.

MR SPITTAL: Was he a soldier for Oupa Qozo?

MR LUMKO: Yes, that is correct.

MR SPITTAL: Where was he stationed at that stage?

MR LUMKO: I do not know that, but I know that he was working.

MR SPITTAL: Do you know Mzubukile Velem?

MR LUMKO: I do not that young man, Mzubukile Velem, I only heard about him later that there was a person called Velem when they came to take a statement they said he is the person whom we were arrested together.

MR SPITTAL: With you?

MR LUMKO: Yes. We were escorted with him to Cezi. We met him in one of the police stations as we were sent to Umtanzani from Bisho.

MR SPITTAL: And you served in the Middeldrift prison with him, is that right?

MR LUMKO: Yes, we were together there at Cezi.

MR SPITTAL: I don't understand. Is Cezi at Middeldrift?

MR LUMKO: Yes, Cezi is Middeldrift.

MR SPITTAL: He made a statement that you had informed him that you were taking responsibility for your son's action and that it wasn't you, but it was your son who killed Mr Olifant.

MR LUMKO: I do not know that. I do not even remember any conversation whereby the prisoners would reveal their secrets to the other. Even this Velem, I heard afterwards that he was Velem, I did not know him as Velem initially, I just saw him, that there was a person that was escorted and we met with him when we were sent to Umtanzani, I just saw him in East London. I remembered that this is the guy that we were together, when we were being escorted. If he says that I shared some secret with him, there is nothing like that. If that is the gentleman that I met with when we were being escorted. What can make me to share my secret with that child? He's not even my age. I cannot even tell him about my secret. I cannot share my secret because I don't even know any secret of his. He never told me anything about his secrets.

MR SPITTAL: He said that you instructed him to notify your daughter that he was serving a sentence for your son, that you were serving a sentence for your son, sorry.

MR LUMKO: What daughter is that? Who's my daughter?

MR SPITTAL: Do you have a daughter?

MR LUMKO: I want the name of this daughter.

MR SPITTAL: I'm asking you the question Sir, do you have a daughter?

MR LUMKO: Yes, I do have a daughter, Sir.

MR SPITTAL: He said that you later then confessed to him that you had taken responsibility for your son's actions and he's prepared to give evidence in front of this Committee to that effect.

MR LUMKO: I can be very much pleased if such a person can come forward and be given a chance to question him here in front.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lumko, can you write?

MR LUMKO: I have my standard 6. No one will ever write for me, I have my own standard 6, I passed standard 6. Why would a person write for me?

CHAIRPERSON: No, I'm asking you, can you write?

MR LUMKO: Yes, I can write.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you at any time asked Mr Velem to write a letter on your behalf to your daughter?

MR LUMKO: Sir, not even at once, I never wrote a letter, I never asked anyone to write a letter for me.

MR SPITTAL: Thank you. You say that you're not aware why you were released after 29 days in prison. Is that right?

MR LUMKO: No, I do not know the reason for that.

MR SPITTAL: May I just take instructions from my client?

Thank you Mr Chairman and Members of the Committee. You didn't receive an instruction from anybody in any political organisation to kill Mr Olifant, is that right?

MR LUMKO: No, no instruction.

MR SPITTAL: You made a decision to go and kill him by yourself, although you were not aware of anybody else who he had killed or any murders he had committed but because he was a member of the ANC, is that right?

MR LUMKO: Yes, that is correct.

MR SPITTAL: At the time when you killed him, there was no threat to your life, or a threat to the life of anybody else?

MR LUMKO: No one threatened me before.

ADV SANDI: Whilst you are trying to work out what next question to ask, did you ever have any quarrel Mr Lumko, with Mr Olifant?

MR LUMKO: No, we never quarrelled.

ADV SANDI: Did Mr Olifant ever try to burn your house?

MR LUMKO: No.

ADV SANDI: Do you know of any person's property in your area which Mr Olifant had burned?

MR LUMKO: He burned Methusi's property.

ADV SANDI: Where were you when that happened?

MR LUMKO: When that incident took place, we were called. He was arrested by the police. He was running from Methusi. He was arrested while running from Methusi's property. He was arrested, but he was released immediately thereafter.

ADV SANDI: Was he released on the same day of his arrest?

MR LUMKO: They wouldn't be kept for long. They would burn down properties and go to the police station and they would be seen around immediately. They would do it again and you would see them around after that.

ADV SANDI: Yes, but if he was arrested and released on the same day, does that not suggest that there was no evidence that he had committed any crime?

MR LUMKO: I won't know the reason for that, but they used to burn down the properties.

ADV SANDI: Did you see him trying to burn the house of Mr Methusi?

MR LUMKO: When they were setting the house alight, I was somewhere else. Someone called us telling us that Mr Methusi's property was on fire. They ran away and he was seen running away towards the river and he was arrested there.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

MR SPITTAL: There's just one more aspect which I'd like to cover with you Mr Lumko, why did you after what you perceived to be a threat from Mr Olifant, not report the matter immediately to the army or to the police? Why didn't you go and say, "Here's a man who threatened my life, please help me"

MR LUMKO: Sir, I did that before as I was sleeping in my kraal, I told the police that I wanted protection. They told me that there was nothing they could do except patrolling. I've been to the police before.

MR SPITTAL: Why did you then not report to the headman?

MR LUMKO: The headman knew very well, he was the one who was always protected, but no one was protecting me.

MR SPITTAL: Why didn't you report the matter to the headman and tell them that there's going to be an attack on my house tonight, I want you to come and protect my house?

MR LUMKO: When would I get time for that, because they would be coming that particular evening, would - I have to run to the headman's place because the place was far away from my home, because this guy came in the evening and the headman was staying far away from my place.

MR SPITTAL: Did you have nobody who you could report this matter to?

MR LUMKO: There was no one who could do anything about it, everyone was scared. I've been to some people looking for shelter. They were afraid to give me a shelter because I would bring this whole trouble with me.

MR SPITTAL: There where you lived, is there, were there no neighbours around you, or people who belonged to the ADM?

MR LUMKO: They were far away from me, the people who were serving in the committee. Even if there were other members, they were scared because their houses would be burned down.

MR SPITTAL: Why didn't you then just wait at your house, arm yourself with your firearm, to defend yourself?

MR LUMKO: That was not going to render any help, to sit home and wait for them to burn myself down, I should die out there. Why would I wait in my house whereas people were dying?

MR SPITTAL: How far is the closest police station to you?

MR LUMKO: I don't even know how many kilometres, but it was far away.

MR SPITTAL: I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Spittal. Ms Thabethe, any questions?

MS THABETHE: Yes, Mr Chair, thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE: Mr Lumko, you've indicated that you used to sleep in the kraal. Can you just advance a reason why you did that?

MR LUMKO: It is because I didn't want to sleep in the house to burned down with the house because in the kraal I could see the people who were coming inside the yard.

MS THABETHE: Why did you think your house was going to be burned?

MR LUMKO: Because all the other houses were being burned, the houses were being burned in that area.

MS THABETHE: You see what I'm trying to understand is, you've given evidence that people's houses were burned, people were scared and you couldn't go to other people's houses because people were scared that if you go and stay in their houses, you're going to bring attacks into their houses, now I'm trying to find out why? Why did you think this way? What is it that these people had against you, or what did you think these people had against you? Why would they want to attack you? That's what I'm trying to understand.

MR LUMKO: I've already said Mr Olifant said he would be visiting me because I didn't want to join them.

MS THABETHE: What- did Olifant belong to any political organisation?

MR LUMKO: Yes.

MS THABETHE: What organisation did he belong to?

MR LUMKO: The ANC.

MS THABETHE: They wanted you to join the ANC and you were an ADM, that's why you thought they could come and attack you anytime, is that your evidence?

MR LUMKO: Yes.

MS THABETHE: Now, you've also ...(intervention)

ADV SANDI: I'm not sure if one can put it that way. As I understand his evidence, there was a conflict between two organisations namely the ANC and ADM. he was a supporter of the ADM and I think he said he thought they wanted him to join the ANC and leave his own organisation. It's what he thought.

MS THABETHE: That's what he's confirming, yes.

ADV SANDI: Let's ask it again. Mr Lumko, did these people say to you, "You, Mr Lumko, must join the ANC and leave your organisation, the ADM?"

MR LUMKO: Yes, Sir.

ADV SANDI: Who was saying that to you?

MR LUMKO: It is this man who said that I must join their side.

ADV SANDI: When did he say that?

MR LUMKO: During the day of the incident, he said that I didn't want to join them but they didn't tell me that before. They didn't ask me before to join them.

ADV SANDI: Do you know why these ANC people were opposed to the headman system?

MR LUMKO: No, I don't know.

ADV SANDI: Were you interested? Did you ever become interested to know why they were opposing the system of the headman?

MR LUMKO: I only know that when Mr Sebe was overthrown, the ANC ruled. I was also there and after some time it was said that the headmen should be the ones who are leading us, so the ANC was not leading at the time, so I was also taken at that time and I was serving under the headman, I was the secretary of the headman, but when the ANC was ruling our area I was together with the ANC at that time. I was also elected there to be the secretary of the Chairperson of the ANC and then after that was disbanded, I was then elected to be the secretary of the headman.

ADV SANDI: Who was the headman in your village?

MR LUMKO: It was Mr Methusi.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

MS THABETHE: Thank you. Do you know why, what was the reason behind Klabendlini's death?

MR LUMKO: It's a political reason. It's because of politics.

MS THABETHE: Are you saying his death was associated with politics?

MR LUMKO: He was a politician, the ANC.

MS THABETHE: So who killed Klabendlini? Which organisation killed him?

MR LUMKO: The ADM, the one I belonged to.

MS THABETHE: Now I'm trying to understand this. You're saying the ANC came to you and said you're going to follow Klabendlini and Klabendlini belonged to the ANC. Is that what you mean?

MR LUMKO: Klabendlini was the ADM.

MS THABETHE: Alright and he was killed by? Which organisation?

MR LUMKO: He was killed by the ANC.

MS THABETHE: Now my last question to you is, you've also indicated, actually you've also indicated that you were fighting. There was a war, you were fighting, that's why you killed Mr Olifant. What were you fighting for?

MR LUMKO: They were trying to kill the ADM. They were trying to make people join the ANC, not be under the headman.

MS THABETHE: So what would you say the ADM was fighting for?

MR LUMKO: The ADM that was being killed was fighting back because they were being killed.

MS THABETHE: Thank you Mr Chair, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Thabethe. Mr Lumko, was it the policy of the ADM at that time to kill it's opponents?

MR LUMKO: The ADM wanted one system, the headmen system, so the other group didn't want to join in that system, so it is when the conflict started.

CHAIRPERSON: But was it ever part of their policy to kill their political opponents?

MR LUMKO: No, it was not their policy.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you say that you have used this firearm only once before you used it to kill the deceased in this matter, is that right?

MR LUMKO: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now on that first occasion what did you do with it? How did you use it?

MR LUMKO: I shot at a tree, I was testing it shooting at a tree.

CHAIRPERSON: How many rounds did you fire?

MR LUMKO: I shot only once, one round.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you ever handled a firearm in your life before that incident when you fired at the tree?

MR LUMKO: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, how's your eyesight?

MR LUMKO: I can see with my eyes, well.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you wear the same spectacles that you have now when this incident happened?

MR LUMKO: No, I was not wearing glasses at the time. My glasses were broken, I had glasses but they were broken.

CHAIRPERSON: Now for what purpose do you use those glasses that broke?

MR LUMKO: I was using them for my eyes.

CHAIRPERSON: To be able to see better? In other words to improve your eyesight?

MR LUMKO: Yes, to improve my eyesight.

CHAIRPERSON: But you say they were broken at this time when this incident happened?

MR LUMKO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So you had no glasses on?

MR LUMKO: No, I had no glasses on.

CHAIRPERSON: Did they tell you afterwards that this deceased was shot only once through the head? A single shot through the head.

MR LUMKO: I heard that in court, that I shot him in his head.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you surprised to hear that your shooting was apparently so accurate?

MR LUMKO: Yes, I was surprised.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you say that your son Benny, he was attached to the Ciskeian Defence Force at the time, is that right?

MR LUMKO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he used to carry a firearm at this time?

MR LUMKO: He wouldn't come with a firearm at home, he would just come without a firearm.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, now apart from that, to your knowledge was he carrying a firearm?

MR LUMKO: What I'm saying is he did not carry a firearm when he would visit us.

CHAIRPERSON: So have you never seen him in possession of a firearm as a soldier?

MR LUMKO: I never saw him with a firearm.

CHAIRPERSON: Would he have his uniform on when he comes?

MR LUMKO: No, he was wearing his private clothes.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you ever seen him in his uniform?

MR LUMKO: Yes, now I see him wearing a uniform but at the time he was not wearing a uniform when he was coming home.

CHAIRPERSON: At that time you've never seen him in a uniform or never seen him in possession of a firearm?

MR LUMKO: I never saw him with a firearm.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he ever discuss his training as a soldier with you? Did he for example tell you that they train them how to shoot with firearms in the army and so on?

MR LUMKO: No, we wouldn't even discuss such issues.

CHAIRPERSON: So you're not sure whether he was able to use a firearm?

MR LUMKO: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you see him around this time when this incident happened, when the deceased was killed?

MR LUMKO: My son was not in that area at that time.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Lumko. Are there any other questions for the Panel?

ADV SANDI: Your son's life, was it not in danger when he visits you at your house?

MR LUMKO: I wouldn't know. I don't know.

ADV SANDI: Yes, but wasn't there a problem at that stage between members of the ANC in those villages and Ciskei Defence Force members?

MR LUMKO: I didn't hear about that.

ADV SANDI: You do not know that at that stage Ciskei Defence Force members were being attacked in many of those Ciskei villages by ANC supporters? You are not aware of that?

MR LUMKO: In our village that didn't happen.

ADV SANDI: Did you ever discuss with your son how you could go about securing a firearm so that you could protect yourself?

MR LUMKO: No, I didn't discuss that with my son.

ADV SANDI: How did it come about that you went to the office of Mr Khambe in Bisho?

MR LUMKO: I went there with the headman Mr Methusi, I told the headman that I also wanted protection.

ADV SANDI: Did you tell - oh sorry - did you say to the headman you wanted protection as well whilst you were there before Mr Khambe or in Mr Khambe's office?

MR LUMKO: No, when we left Tendergate I had already told him that I can't just sit like that, I'm not protected, I want protection.

ADV SANDI: Where did he say you were going when you left Tendergate?

MR LUMKO: He said we were going to Bisho.

ADV SANDI: Did he tell you what you were going to do in Bisho?

MR LUMKO: He said that he was going to ask whether we can't get protection.

ADV SANDI: When Mr Khambe gave this firearm to you, did he give you any instructions?

MR LUMKO: No, he just gave us the receipt, said that we would have to go to the magistrate when we arrived.

ADV SANDI: Did he tell you what you should do with this firearm?

MR LUMKO: No, he didn't tell me.

ADV SANDI: Where is this firearm now?

MR LUMKO: The firearm was taken from me.

ADV SANDI: Who took the firearm?

MR LUMKO: The police.

ADV SANDI: Who were those police?

MR LUMKO: The Ciskeian police.

ADV SANDI: Did they tell you why they were taking it away from you?

MR LUMKO: No, they didn't tell me they just took the firearm saying that they were told to do so.

ADV SANDI: Did they ever give it back to you?

MR LUMKO: No, they didn't give it back to me.

ADV SANDI: You say you were a member of the ADM, did you ever attend ADM meetings?

MR LUMKO: I was the Secretary and the headman was the Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: You also said the leader of the ADM was Oupa Gqozo. Did you ever meet Oupa Gqozo?

MR LUMKO: No I was only meeting with Methusi. Methusi would be the one who would tell us what to do, or what was required from us to do.

ADV SANDI: Who did you stay with at your house?

MR LUMKO: I was staying alone because my daughter-in-law was attending school and my son was working.

ADV SANDI: Did anyone ever say to you you should use this firearm to attack ANC supporters?

MR LUMKO: No, nobody ever said that.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lumko, just one other thing, if you can help us. What was your age at the time of this incident?

MR LUMKO: This happened in 1992 and I was born in 1929.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, are you calculating?

MR LUMKO: 62.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, 62 or 63, thereabouts. Yes thank you. Adv Sandi.

ADV SANDI: Just one question left which I forgot to ask. Did you have any political objective when you killed Mr Olifant?

MR LUMKO: Yes, I had a political objective.

ADV SANDI: What was your political objective?

MR LUMKO: It is because the political organisations were fighting each other.

ADV SANDI: What were you trying to achieve when you killed Mr Olifant? How was that going to assist your organisation, the ADM?

MR LUMKO: There was nothing my organisation would achieve, but because the situation was like that, people were killing each other, we were also doing the same thing.

ADV SANDI: You and Mr Olifant, how far did you stay away from each other? Was he your neighbour?

MR LUMKO: No, he was quite far from me.

ADV SANDI: But this day when he came to you he said, as I understood you when you started your evidence, he said "I have not come to fight with you." Didn't he say that?

MR LUMKO: Yes, he said that.

ADV SANDI: Did you not believe that?

MR LUMKO: I did not believe that because I don't know their procedure how they go about when they are going to attack a person, because he said to me that I would also follow Mr Klabendlini, so I didn't know what they used to do.

ADV SANDI: Yes, but after he had talked to you he went back to his house to sleep.

MR LUMKO: Yes, he went back to his house.

ADV SANDI: And when you attacked him he was sleeping.

MR LUMKO: I don't know whether he was asleep, but it was dark in the house. I hit the windows and the house was dark.

ADV SANDI: Yes, but if it was dark, he must have been sleeping inside the house.

MR LUMKO: I don't know, Sir.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

DR TSOTSI: When this gentleman, what is his name, who attacked you, when he came to your house and he said, knocking at the door and said he had not come in a bad way, what did that convey to you?

MR LUMKO: Sir, I don't know how they go about when they were going to kill a person, I don't know what they say, I just grabbed the fact that they were coming.

DR TSOTSI: I mean had he come to you at any time before this in a bad way?

MR LUMKO: No.

MR TSOTSI: Well, what would you consider to be a bad way, that's what I'm trying to get, what did he mean by saying he was not coming in a bad way?

MR LUMKO: I though that maybe he was trying - he was lying to me.

DR TSOTSI: Perhaps you can tell us, what is not a bad way, he was not coming in a bad way. What would have been a bad way of coming, from your understanding of what he said?

MR LUMKO: When a person comes to another person, he doesn't come with the good intentions but you can see his actions. A lot of people died because of that, thinking that a particular person has got good intentions even though he's got a hammer with him. So you can't know what a person thinks.

ADV SANDI: Did you not think that Mr Olifant was trying to be a good neighbour to you, to warn you that there's trouble coming to you? Don't you think that he was being good in doing that to you? To warn you that you can be attacked?

MR LUMKO: Sir, at the time I didn't trust anything.

ADV SANDI: Was your house ever attacked after you had killed Mr Olifant?

MR LUMKO: The windows were broken of my house.

ADV SANDI: When was that?

MR LUMKO: It was after this incident. The windows were taken out, or they were broken, two windows.

ADV SANDI: Who did that? Who took the windows out of your house?

MR LUMKO: I don't know but it was at the time when I was arrested. When I came back, two windows were taken out.

ADV SANDI: Did any one of the ANC supporters in your village try to attack you after killing Mr Olifant?

MR LUMKO: After getting out of jail, I didn't stay there, I went to De Aar.

ADV SANDI: Are you staying in De Aar now?

MR LUMKO: I'm in Middelburg now, but I was in De Aar first and then I moved to Middelburg.

ADV SANDI: Where were you before coming to Tendergate? Did you say you were at Hofmeyr?

MR LUMKO: Yes, I was in Hofmeyr and then I went there in a bad way.

ADV SANDI: Why did you leave Hofmeyr?

MR LUMKO: I was being attacked in Hofmeyr. It is where my cars were burned down and I was left with the clothes that were on my body and then I moved to Tendergate.

ADV SANDI: Did any one of the ADM members or leaders come to see you whilst you were in prison?

MR LUMKO: No, nobody came to see me in Prison.

ADV SANDI: Did they not even assist you with getting a lawyer to defend you in your case?

MR LUMKO: No, I didn't hear anything of that sort.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Your release from prison, did that come as a surprise to you? In other words, you didn't apply for release or apply for parole, for example?

MR LUMKO: No, I didn't apply for that.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you surprised to learn that you were now being released after 29 days?

MR LUMKO: Yes, I was surprised.

CHAIRPERSON: Just one other thing, I know that you've already said that the deceased Mr Olifant was living far from you. Can you give us a sort of a better idea of that distance? Did you have to walk from your house to Mr Olifant's home?

MR LUMKO: Yes, I was able to walk from my home to Mr Olifant's.

CHAIRPERSON: Now how long did it take you to get to his home?

MR LUMKO: I'm not sure but I think it might be 10 minutes or less.

CHAIRPERSON: Walking?

MR LUMKO: Yes.

ADV SANDI: Yes but Mr Lumko, would it be correct to say that when Mr Olifant left your house, the two of you were not in a fighting mood? There was no hostility between the two of you?

MR LUMKO: No, there was no hostility, I never fought with Olifant, never quarrelled.

ADV SANDI: Yes. You asked him where are you going and he said "I am going to my house".

MR LUMKO: Yes, I asked him.

ADV SANDI: Why did you ask him where he was going from your house?

MR LUMKO: It is because I thought that he was going to call his members, the ones that he said they were going to visit me.

ADV SANDI: And then he told you, he said "I'm going to my house", did you not believe that? Did you not believe that he was going back to his house?

MR LUMKO: No, I didn't think like that.

ADV SANDI: Where did you think he was going?

MR LUMKO: I thought that he was going to his group or maybe if he was going to his house they would meet in his house.

ADV SANDI: Yes, but when you went to his house it was dark. You set the house on fire and you waited outside for him to come out.

MR LUMKO: Yes.

ADV SANDI: But did you honestly believe that he had gone to meet his group? Why were you waiting for him outside his house if you thought that he had gone to join his group so that they could attack you?

MR LUMKO: Can you please repeat the question, Sir?

ADV SANDI: We can leave that one. But Mr Olifant did not know that you were going to attack him, did he?

MR LUMKO: I don't know.

ADV SANDI: Thank you Mr Lumko. Thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Tyatya, have you got any re-examination?

MR TYATYA: Yes, just one or two points, Chairperson.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR TYATYA: Mr Lumko, how was the mood in the township at that time? Was it peaceful or was it cool?

MR LUMKO: There was no peace.

MR TYATYA: And Mr Klabendlini died in the midst of that?

MR LUMKO: Yes, he died in the midst of that.

MR TYATYA: You said you have a family, your son and your daughter-in-law?

MR LUMKO: Yes.

MR TYATYA: Would you do anything to protect their lives and your property?

MR LUMKO: Can you please repeat the question Sir?

MR TYATYA: Would you do anything to protect your life, your property and the life and property of your daughter and the son?

MR LUMKO: Yes, Sir.

MR TYATYA: When Mr Olifant came to your house, is it what you felt, that he had threatened you enough, to put your family in danger?

MR LUMKO: Yes, Sir.

MR TYATYA: Where did you say Benny was on this day in question?

MR LUMKO: He was at his working place.

MR TYATYA: Where exactly?

MR LUMKO: In King William's Town but I'm not sure where. But he was in Bisho.

MR TYATYA: Yes. Lastly, did Mr Olifant...(end of tape)...ANC.

MR LUMKO: I don't know which position he had.

MR TYATYA: Did the ADM regard or perceive him as a troublemaker in the objective of the ADM?

MR LUMKO: He was the one who was leading the toyi-toyi or the people who were singing freedom songs.

MR TYATYA: When Mr Olifant said to you, when he referred to what happened in Hofmeyr, did you think he regards you as an obstruction in the objectives of the ANC?

MR LUMKO: Yes, Sir

MR TYATYA: Thank you, that will be all.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Tyatya. Mr Lumko, thank you, you are excused.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Tyatya, have you got any other witnesses?

MR TYATYA: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the case for the applicant?

MR TYATYA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Yes, we'll take a short adjournment.

ON RESUMPTION:

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Spittal, are there any witnesses that you intend calling?

MR SPITTAL: We don't intend calling any witnesses, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Yes. That concludes the evidence. Mr Tyatya, argument?

MR TYATYA: Yes, Mr Chairperson, thank you very much.

MR TYATYA IN ARGUMENT: Mr Chairperson, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was formed with the purpose of doing exactly what we have been trying to do this morning, disclosing everything we know regarding the abuse of human rights.

This morning we listened to my client Mr Lumko disclosing the events of that day and a day which happened to fall directly at the time when there was political upheaval all over the country. Especially in that area too, things were not normal. The ADM which was an organisation formed by the leader of the then Ciskei Government, had it's own object of perpetrating the system that was prevalent at the time and then there was ANC on the other side which was trying to change things. And now the followers, especially my client in this case, were caught in the middle of that.

Mr Lumko testified here this morning that he had suffered immensely before he got to Tender gate. In Hofmeyr he lost everything. On this particular day, he regarded the events as going to be a repeat performance of what happened to him a few years ago. When he got the threat, which he called a threat, that he was going to go the same way Mr Klabendlini had gone. He perceived that to be telling him that he was going to die the same evening and because it was almost the order of the day, things you were seeing on TV and he thought it was going to happen to him and he had a choice to let the people he suspected were doing that, were going around doing that, come to him and do it to him, or he doing it to them. Unfortunately he chose the latter route which maybe in retrospect he thinks was not the correct route because we heard him this morning saying he felt guilty after doing this thing and he would like to stretch a hand of friendship and ask for forgiveness from the family of the deceased.

Mr Chairperson, the old man thought he was actually advancing the political objective of his leader, the ANC and when he did this, he did it so that although he admits that the organisation itself was not going to benefit, but I disagree with him because it was, because the organisation because they actually wanted to have roots in the area. Mr Chairperson, I think the old man, being an old man like he is, I think at the time this happened he was 65 years, that's what the court record is saying, and 7 years down the line he's today at 72, he feels guilty about what he did and I think he would be a proper candidate for amnesty.

ADV SANDI: What political objective did he say he was trying to achieve when he killed the deceased?

MR TYATYA: The political objective he said he was trying to achieve, Sir, was that the objective of the UDM was to actually put in place the headman system and this is what he was trying to protect because he had been told to actually abandon that against the instructions of his leader, who had in fact, went even further than saying these, he gave them guns to protect themselves.

ADV SANDI: Yes, but did he have an order to commit this crime?

MR TYATYA: He didn't get a direct order.

ADV SANDI: But he was given, as I understand it, he was given this firearm to protect himself, not to be killed by the ANC members in that area. Was he protecting himself when he killed the deceased?

MR TYATYA: Sir, when he said he regarded the utterings by the deceased as a threat, I said he had an option either to, he chose the latter one which was to go and kill him, for which he is sorry.

ADV SANDI: Having regard to what transpired between the applicant and the deceased in the conversation he was referring to here, was there any reason for the applicant to think that the deceased was going to come back and attack him?

MR TYATYA: Because he mentioned what happened back in Hofmeyr, all those memories came back rushing in and he thought it's a trap.

ADV SANDI: Yes, but did the deceased have anything to do with the events which occurred at Hofmeyr?

MR TYATYA: It was not clearly stated in the evidence, but because he mentioned things that have been painful to the client, and he lost everything and he thought this is another, this time around it's going to happen, so I might just as well take some action.

ADV SANDI: He didn't say the deceased was part of the cause of the suffering which he had experienced at Hofmeyr, he had nothing to do with what had happened at Hofmeyr, he has never had a quarrel with him. He comes to warn him and say, "You have to be careful, you're going to be attacked if you continue your membership with the ADM" and he asks him "Where are you going now?" and he says "I'm going home". The deceased surely never expected that the applicant would come and kill him?

MR TYATYA: The applicant was also preparing for a funeral for a person who had died in the mayhem and when reference is made about dying the same death as that person, I mean what it actually says to the applicant was that he was going to die the same death, so he took the action, which now he regrets he took.

ADV SANDI: I thought he made it very clear that the deceased was not - he had no personal knowledge of the deceased having been one of the people who killed Klabendlini. Klabendlini is one of the people who were killed in the course of this conflict. There was no claim whatsoever by the applicant that the deceased had killed Klabendlini and that he was going to kill the applicant in the same way that he had done with Klabendlini.

MR TYATYA: Yes, during this time I think it's known by almost every - by many people that people who held offices or who were political leaders especially in that area where the fight was, were targets and he thought maybe he has been targeted by ...(indistinct) What he was saying actually confirmed that he's targeted and something was going to happen to him that evening.

ADV SANDI: Where do you get an attacker in the world coming to the prospective victim and saying "We are going to attack you tonight? Where do you get that?" If the deceased was going to attack the applicant, why would he come to him and say "tonight you're going to be attacked"? Can one seriously construe that as a threat?

CHAIRPERSON: On top of that Mr Tyatya then the deceased goes home and he sleeps.

MR TYATYA: He also threatened that, not threatened but said "If you don't change, something is going to happen to you" and this brought memories rushing in of what happened in Hofmeyr and I think he also said this morning that he was no longer sleeping in his bed, he was sleeping in the kraal because there had been threats in the village that the ADM members were targeted and they were going to be killed and this had happened in fact even if he didn't see that but because people from the other side died and he was busy preparing a funeral for them, so he thought this was going to - this is no idle talk.

ADV SANDI: There had never been an attempt before to attack his house and not even after he had killed the deceased was there such an attempt.

MR TYATYA: On him yes, but he was preparing a funeral for somebody who belonged in his organisation and immediately he left he was arrested. His property was burgled in and things were removed. I think this is the evidence he also led.

ADV SANDI: That could have been done by thieves. There was no one at the house. Isn't that what thieves normally do? If there's no one in the house they come and steal whatever they can get.

MR TYATYA: But we also know that people who have been caught in a situation like the applicant was caught in, people in the village sometimes come and destroy the property in his absence, so that's also - it could have been thieves.

ADV SANDI: But why did they not destroy the entire house? Why remove only the windows of the structure? Why not destroy the entire house if it is done by the other side as part of this political conflict in the area?

MR TYATYA: I can't remember now whether it was said windowpanes or the whole window.

ADV SANDI: He said windows.

MR TYATYA: But I think this was - it could have been thieves, it could have been people who actually had spite against him.

ADV SANDI: Are you aware of your difficulties in this application.

MR TYATYA: I didn't quite get that Sir.

ADV SANDI: You are very much aware of your difficulties, the difficulties the applicant has if one looks at the nature of the evidence here and if you look at the requirements of the Act as well. The requirements of the legislation. The requirements to be complied by an applicant for amnesty. It's not enough to show that this was the political context. I'm sure the background to this, the political context of conflict in the area, will be common cause.

MR TYATYA: The evidence led here as far as defence is concerned doesn't actually pose problems. I think we have gone some way.

ADV SANDI: Yes, you can carry on. I was just responding.

MR TYATYA: I had said already that will be all.

CHAIRPERSON: Does it conclude your submissions?

MR TYATYA: I had already concluded it when ...

CHAIRPERSON: Oh yes, you were just responding to the points that were raised. Yes, thank you Mr Tyatya.

Mr Spittal, have you got any submissions?

MR SPITTAL: Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR SPITTAL IN ARGUMENT: Acting on behalf of Mrs Eunice Olifant, I have discussed the matter and my point is to just bring her feelings across to the Commission.

Mrs Olifant has serious doubts whether the applicant is the one who killed her husband. This is her feeling. If we look at the applicant's version, there are certain indications which would tend to the fact that the applicant was not involved in the killing of her husband and we will leave that aspect in the hands of the Commission.

With regards to the applicant's version as to what happened, if the Commission accepts his version, and we have to make a finding with regards to his amnesty application on his version which he has put before the Commission, it is highly improbable. There is no political motive. The improbability of his version firstly and as the Commissioner has already pointed out, who goes and warns somebody that we're going to attack you tonight? This attack was not as a result of instruction from any political party. The instruction from the party which he was representing at that stage was to keep the firearm for self-defence. Mr Olifant went to this man in peace as a friend. Now why all of a sudden would this man turn around and go and kill him?

ADV SANDI: Was there evidence that the two were friends?

MR SPITTAL: Well, not as a friend, sorry, Adv Sandi, it wasn't as a friend that he went to him but he went in a friendly nature and that was the applicant's evidence as well. He went to him in a friendly nature. Why would he now all of a sudden just go and kill the man? And also, what would he achieve if he wanted to protect his home or his goods? His own evidence is that this man was a member of a group, what would he achieve by going to kill him?

It is my humble respect that on his version the applicant didn't disclose sufficient for him to qualify for amnesty and I'm not going to take the matter any further, I think.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Spittal. Mr Tyatya, have you got anything further that you want to add?

MR TYATYA: Mr Chairperson, nothing further.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Yes, that concludes the proceedings in the application of Edwin Lumko. The Panel will consider the matter and will notify the parties as soon as the decision in the matter is available. We accordingly reserve the decision in the matter.

That also concludes the proceedings for this session. It simply remains for us to firstly in regard to this matter that we've heard, Mr Lumko's matter, thank the legal representatives Mr Tyatya and Mr Spittal for your assistance, which is appreciated and the other interested parties for their participation and their input in assisting us in deciding the matter. In general we express our thanks to all of those many people that normally make it possible for us to have a hearing of this nature. It takes quite a great deal of hard work and organisation to be able to have a session of this nature and we are always grateful and appreciative of the efforts which are made by our staff and all of the other people, the interpreters, the security services, South African Police Services, and the proprietors of the venue for making it available to us and of course we always appreciate the presence of members of the public to witness the process and hopefully to benefit from the work that the Commission and the Committee in particular is engaged in. And then in conclusion, to my colleagues on the Panel with me, Dr Tsotsi and Adv Sandi, for their assistance which is also much appreciated. We're adjourned.