The applicant applies for amnesty for the murder of Kulo John Mbili, for which crime he was sentenced to imprisonment for eight years, on the 31st August 1995.

He admitted that on 9th April 1994, he stabbed Mbili to death at the Margate bus rank. Before dealing with his reasons for doing so, it is appropriate to briefly deal with the background against which the offence was committed.

Applicant had been living in Port Shepstone with his mother and sister. He was a member of the African National Congress and used to assist in organising meetings of the ANC. The deceased was a prominent man in the community. He was actively involved in getting people to join the Inkatha Freedom Party. Applicant says that the deceased used to pressurise people to join the IFP and collected membership fees from them.

Applicant says that the deceased tried on several occasions to get him to join the IFP when he well knew that the applicant was a member of the ANC. The conflict between the IFP and the ANC was increasing in intensity because of the forthcoming general elections and the IFP wanted to destroy the ANC in that area. As Applicant lived in an IFP controlled area and feared that he might be killed by his political enemies, he left Port Shepstone and went to live in Margate. Two weeks later his mother and sister left Port Shepstone and came to live with him in Margate because the deceased had come looking for him. The deceased instructed Applicant's mother that she must bring Applicant back to Port Shepstone.

In Margate, Applicant met a group of comrades who were also from Port Shepstone and who wanted to return to their homes, but were afraid of being attacked by IFP supporters. They decided that Applicant should look for the deceased and negotiate with him so that there could be peace between the two groups.

Applicant says that he met the deceased at the Margate bus rank on 9th April 1994. He tried to talk to the deceased, but he latter insulted the Applicant by calling him a "thug" and became aggressive towards him. Applicant says that the deceased tried to withdraw something from a bag on his shoulder. Fearing that deceased may attack him with some weapon, Applicant withdrew his knife and stabbed the deceased. As it turned out, what the deceased took from his bag was an umbrella. Applicant says that he tried to stab the deceased again, but the latter warded off the blow with his umbrella.

The deceased then ran and got into a stationary taxi. Applicant then threw a stone at the vehicle thus breaking a window. The deceased then got out of the vehicle and ran into a tearoom. Applicant followed the deceased into the shop and there stabbed him several times. Applicant says that other comrades also entered the shop and some of them may have also stabbed the deceased. He did not know their names. Applicant went on to say that he believed that he was the one who killed the deceased.

He denied under cross-examination that anyone else joined him when he struck the first blow. On this aspect of the matter, there was a conflict between him and the widow of the deceased, who said in her evidence, that Applicant was with a number of others who were shouting slogans when Applicant attacked the deceased. She also said that when deceased ran into the shop, he was chased by Applicant and his companions. She said that she did not recognise any of them.

Applicant justified the killing of the deceased because he and his comrades believed that:

The Committee does not accept the evidence of the Applicant that he wanted to "negotiate" with the deceased. There is a strong indication in the evidence that the applicant had decided to eliminate the deceased.

On a consideration of all the evidence, we have come to the conclusion that there was a clear political objective which applicant sought to achieve in killing the deceased.

It was submitted by Mr Matjele who appeared on behalf of the widow of the deceased, that the applicant had not made a full disclosure, because he did not disclose the identity or names of the people who had joined him in the attack on the deceased.

The Applicant did say that he did not know the names of those who attacked the deceased after Applicant had stabbed him. He did say in paragraph 11(a) of his Application Form, that he had committed the offence on the order or on behalf of the community. Moreover, the Applicant did say that he had nothing to gain by not disclosing names of the others who may have taken part in killing the deceased. The reasons why he killed the deceased and the way in which he did it.

We have accordingly come to the conclusion that the applicant has satisfied the requirements of the Act and is accordingly GRANTED amnesty for the murder of Kulo John Mbili.

It is recorded that the dependants of the deceased were his widow, Mrs Midrina and her daughter, Cobongile Purity Mbili.

(Signed)

JUDGE H MALL

ADV C DE JAGER

ADV S SIGODI