DECISION
These two applicants seek amnesty in respect of ten counts of attempted murder and two counts each in respect of the illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. The first applicant was convicted on the ten counts of attempted murder on 22 July 1992 and a count of contravening Section 32(1)(a) and 32(1)(c) of the Arms and Ammunition Act.
The second applicant was convicted of the same ten counts of attempted murder and of contravening Section 2 of the Arms and Ammunition Act in respect of a Mossberg shotgun and three rounds of ammunition all on the same day.
The second applicant gave evidence before us first and read from a prepared statement. He was a member of the African National Congress (ANC) and a member of a Self Defence Unit (SDU) established by the ANC. He explained that the ANC had endeavoured to bring an end to the local authorities by persuading the town councillors, who were described as puppets, to resign from office. The policy of the ANC's was carried out throughout the country and in many placed, led to strife between the local bodies and the representatives of the government. We have heard numerous applications in this regard.
The applicant, in his evidence, said that the government had decided to make use of members of the Internal Stability Unit (ISU) to protect the municipalities and the councillors and that these Units patrolled the townships day and night. The purpose of these patrols was to destroy the attempts by the residents to bring about an end to the then local authorities. They did so by visiting the houses of leaders of SANCO and other such people in the middle of the night. They woke up people in an improper manner, threatened and terrified small children and searched houses without making any mention of what they were looking for.
He submitted that it was clear that their intention was to threaten local leaders so that they would retreat from their position. SANCO in retaliation decided to form strong SDU to protect the community. As the enemy the ISU were well armed and the SDU's were forced to arm themselves. This decision was strengthened by information received that Mr Hernus Kriel had called for Koevoet to come to Cape Town to help destroy the SDU's. Later in his evidence he informed us that they had been told that the Koevoet gang would be dressed as other members of the ISU so that they would not be able to distinguish them.
By July 1992 they had news that the Koevoet gang had arrived in Cape Town and were already being used in the townships where the attack rate on SDU houses by unknown persons escalated. During the course of these attacks, many members of the SDU and of SANCO were injured and houses were burnt. He in fact heard that he was on the top list of SDU members to be attacked.
On the night of 22 July 1992, while they were patrolling amongst the houses, they noticed police of the ISU in the area. There were four of them at the time. He, the applicant, was armed with a .303 rifle. The first applicant was armed with an AK47 and had certain explosive devices. One of the other two had an R4 and the fourth had a firearm and further explosive devices. They tried not to be spotted by the ISU as they felt that they were at a risk of being killed by them, there were apparently more than 12 of them, and they moved very carefully and sought shelter in a shack which was used by hawkers during the day time. They noticed the ISU police approaching the shack and decided it would be dangerous to leave and decided to attack the approaching ISU from the shack. When the Unit was within 25 to 50 metres of them, they commenced shooting and making use of their explosives. He also shot. When they realised they had no more bullets, they decided to run away in different directions. He had by that time been shot in the hand and he ran and later took a taxi to a hospital where he was arrested and subsequently charged. He later learnt that certain of the policemen had been injured in the course of the fight.
He submitted that it was a political fight and it appears to us it falls within the provisions of both Sections 20(1)(b) in that it was an act associated with a political objective committed in the course of the conflicts of the past, Section 20(2)(d), and that the applicant has accordingly met the requirements of Section 20 of the Act, that is the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act.
The first applicant, who had also prepared a written statement, then gave evidence. He attested to the fact that the statement he had prepared was similar to the evidence delivered by the second applicant and he confirmed the correctness of what had been said.
In our view, the two applicants have both made out a case for the granting of amnesty and we accordingly
GRANT BOTH OF THEM AMNESTY: in respect of the counts on which they were convicted as set out above.
SIGNED IN CAPE TOWN ON 20th DAY OF MAY 1997.
MALL, J
WILSON, J
MS S. KHAMPEPE.
