CHAIRPERSON: We want to start. For the record, today is Thursday the 10th of December 1998. It is a continuation of the session of the Amnesty Committee hearing amnesty applications by members of Self Defence Units in the area of Tokoza.
F I N D I N G
The first matter that we wish to deal with is the decision in the application of Mr Ndzikilelo Jackson Zwayi, reference number AM7315/97.
The panel is constituted as has been reflected on the record previously. This application arises from an incident which occurred on the 18th of January 1994 at or near Swartkoppies Road, Brackenhurst when a taxi driver, Solomon Amos Ndangamandla, was shot and killed.
Pursuant to this incident, the applicant was charged and convicted in the Witwatersrand Local Division of the then Supreme Court of the following offences: One, murder, two, the unlawful possession of a .38 Special calibre Rossi model 27 revolver, three, unlawful possession of five rounds of .38 ammunition.
Applicant was sentenced to an effective 20 years' imprisonment on the 17th of February 1995. Applicant testified in support of the application and called a witness, Ms Sally Sealey who was at all material times, a representative of a non-governmental organisation, active within the amongst others, East Rand townships and who has extensive first hand knowledge of the situation of political conflict in the area, particularly during the period 1990 to 1994.
She has also testified before us in respect of the amnesty applications of various members of the Tokoza Self Defence Units. We wish to state at the outset that she has made an extremely favourable impression upon us as an objective witness with a wealth of personal knowledge and experience of particularly the situation of political conflict which we are called upon to deal with in this application.
We have no hesitation in accepting and attaching considerable weight to her evidence which has effectively dispelled a number of nagging questions and doubts left in the minds of the panel after having heard the applicant's testimony, which has not made the same favourable impression upon us.
We accordingly accept the following framework of relevant facts which form the basis of our decision in this matter. (1) in the course of the political conflict between IFP and ANC supporters or members in Tokoza, including Polla Park, a number of ANC supporters or members were abducted by what could be referred to as IFP taxi's and either killed or seriously injured; (2) the community of Polla Park met, and decided that the drivers of taxi's involved in these incidents, be abducted and brought to account to the community of Polla Park in respect of these occurrences; (3) pursuant to this decision, applicant was a member of the Section A, Polla Park Self Defence Unit, was ordered by his Commander, the late Ndoda Mqolombeli to abduct the drivers of two taxi's, identified by their registration numbers.
For this purpose the Commander issued applicant with the revolver referred to above, loaded with ammunition; (4) applicant was assisted in executing this order by one Xolani, a member of the Section K, Polla Park Self Defence Unit; (5) after some effort, applicant and Xolani tracked down one of the identified taxi's on the 18th of January 1994.
The nett effect of the tortuous explanation given by applicant in evidence was that the driver was shot and killed by Xolani after the original plan of action went array and the driver resisted efforts to abduct him.
Suffice it to say that having had careful regard to all the evidence and other material placed before us, we are satisfied that the incident resulted directly from the political conflict referred to above, and was accordingly associated with a political objective in terms of the provisions of Act 34 of 1995.
In view of the evidence of Ms Sealey, we are satisfied that the applicant has made a full disclosure in respect of all relevant aspects of the matter, in spite of various questions which arose concerning his version, which was exacerbated by his failure to give clear and crisp answers to simple questions.
We are however satisfied that the applicant has complied with the requirements of the Act and ought to be granted amnesty. We are however constraint to observe that the duty rests upon an applicant to satisfy the Amnesty Committee that the application complies with the legal requirements.
This is not a mere formality, but a positive duty. The Leader of Evidence, Adv Steenkamp has indicated that various steps were taken to ascertain the whereabouts of any possible next of kin of the deceased in this matter, which efforts have all proved fruitless. He also indicated that the investigation of the matter has produced no basis for opposing the application.
Ms Sealey has likewise indicated that attempts to ascertain the possible affiliation of the deceased driver, proved inconclusive, but it is likely that he belonged to the Faraday Taxi Association, which operated the route to and from Johannesburg.
The matter must therefore per force be decided on an unopposed basis.
In all the circumstances of the case, AMNESTY IS ACCORDINGLY GRANTED to the applicant in respect of the following offences; (1) the murder of Solomon Amos Ndangamandla on or about 18 January 1994 at or near Swartkoppies Road, Brackenhurst, Gauteng, (2) unlawful possession of a .38 Special calibre Rossi model 27 revolver, (3) unlawful possession of five rounds of .38 ammunition.
That is the decision in this matter.
ADV STEENKAMP: As it pleases you Mr Chairman.
MR SIBEKO: As it pleases the Committee.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: We would like to proceed to the addresses in respect of the bulk of applications that we have heard.
ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, I don't want to be rude to interrupt again, but may I ask if I can in the mean time take the necessary steps to implement the decision of this Committee in the mean time? Thank you Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: More than likely, it would entail the same thing that happened with the other applicant, some or other sort of indication from the panel confirming their decision that it was granted, I suppose.
ADV STEENKAMP: Yes Mr Chairman, as I understand it, this applicant must go to another prison now which is a bit far from here. What we will do now, we just have to start the admin process, we will do so immediately. If it is with your permission, we can start immediately.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please do that. We were called upon to sign some formal document indicating our decision in the other matter, so I am not sure, it might be very well the same thing here.
ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, that was extraordinary circumstances, but we will take the necessary steps immediately because the time unfortunately is running out as it is, we will just start immediately if that is permitted. We can do that immediately, thank you Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: What does it take, are you able to deal with that without us having to interrupt the proceedings? I am not sure?
ADV STEENKAMP: Yes, we are Mr Chairman, we are. We are going to give certain instructions to the Prison Authorities immediately. Normally they wait till after the amnesty hearing, but I think we are going to run out of time today if we have to wait for that. What I will do in the mean time, is start the process immediately. Thank you sir.
CHAIRPERSON: Adv Steenkamp, we just have a bit of a logistical question. The document that we have to sign, the written decision, is somebody able to produce that for us or how do we deal with that practically?
ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, the standard document, the normal set of documents which would normally be prepared for the Committee, would be faxed now from Cape Town and will be prepared in Cape Town just now. All the information has been sent through to them now.
That will be sent back to me, and after your inspection, we can immediately issue the decision of the Committee to the Prison Authorities. My suggestion is that they have to take this document, or at least the sworn copy of it, back to the prison so that the prisoner can be released immediately.
The only difficulty is that will mean that we don't go through the normal Head Office of Correctional Services, because they are closing down at half past three, but the documentation then will be accompanying the prisoner to the prison itself.
Other wise it will mean he can only be released by Monday, which I think is a bit concerning, but the documentation will be prepared in Cape Town and will be faxed to me just now. Thank you Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Have you noted the offences in respect of which the amnesty was granted?
ADV STEENKAMP: Yes Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: So you will now relay that information to our office in Cape Town.
ADV STEENKAMP: I have already done so Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Keep an eye on that, and if it is necessary for us to do anything further, immediately you will notify us.
ADV STEENKAMP: I am sorry for the interruption Mr Chairman, but I just want to make sure that we don't waste unnecessary time for the release of the prisoner.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. All right, what we are going to do is take the arguments, but please do interrupt in the course of the afternoon, if there is anything that we need to produce as a panel.
ADV STEENKAMP: It is actually my suggestion Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: All right.
ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you sir.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay.
ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you sir.
