Both Applicants apply for amnesty in relation to their participation in a car-bomb incident at the Standard Bank Sports Arena in 1987. The original application referred to the Ellis Park Stadium but this was later corrected at a hearing to refer to the Standard Bank Sports Arena which was situated at Ellis Park. The second Applicant (Hlongwane) applies for amnesty in respect of the part he played in the robbery of a motor vehicle from the occupants of House 2772, Zone 2, Meadowlands.
The first Applicant was a member of the African National Congress and a commander in Umkhonto weSizwe. The second Applicant was also a member of the African National Congress and describes himself as a soldier in Umkhonto weSizwe and fell under the command of the first Applicant whom he describes as "Spaceman".
The first incident involved setting off a limpet mine underneath a car parked outside the arena whilst a boxing match was taking place there. No persons were killed or injured as a result of the explosion. The first Applicant stated:
"In order to achieve our liberation a number of methods were used. Sporting boycott was one of them. Therefore this bomb that damaged vehicles outside the Standard Bank Sport Arena was intended to scare foreigners/sporting personnel coming to South Africa."
"The intention of the bomb at the Ellis Park Sports Arena was to stop the boxing that took place. This had involved a foreign boxer and a South African. I was enforcing the boycott of any sporting link with South Africa. Therefore the foreign boxer was breaking the boycott."
We are satisfied that the act was one committed on behalf of a liberation movement and was an acct associated with a political objective committed in the course of the conflicts of the past and that the Applicants have met the requirements of the Act; they are accordingly entitled to amnesty in respect of any offences or delicts arising from this explosion outside the Standard Bank Sports Arena in 1987.
The second Applicant's second application arises out of his assisting the first Applicant, his commander, to steal a motor vehicle so that he could escape from the country. The second Applicant kept guard whilst the first Applicant entered the house to force the occupants to give him the car keys. The first Applicant who was given amnesty in respect of this incident on 18th September 2000, testified that the second Applicant was with him at the time but was left at the scene.
We are satisfied that the second Applicant, who was assisting his commander and who made no personal profit from the incident, is also entitled to amnesty in respect of his participation in the robbery.