DECISION
The applicants apply for amnesty in terms of Section 18 of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, No 34 of 1995 (the Act).
The above applications were heard jointly. The applicants are being referred to herein as first, second and third applicants respectively, being the order in which they testified.
At the commencement of the hearing, the first and third applicants applied for an amendment to paragraphs 9(a)(i) in their respective applications to identify the offence for which amnesty was sought as being attempted murder. The applications were granted; the result is therefore that the said applicants now apply for amnesty in respect of an attempt on the life of one Plaatjie. Plaatjie was, after his assault by the two applicants, shot dead by the second applicant. The first and third applicants were convicted and sentenced on a charge of attempted murder, and the second applicant convicted and sentenced on a charge of murder.
Regarding the first and third applicants
Both applicants have a long history of involvement in the political struggle. Third applicant's involvement dates back to his student days in 1980 when he joined a student organisation. In 1983 he joined the United Democratic Front (UDF). He was detained several times. He received military training in several countries outside the country. In fact, when he was arrested in connection with this case, he had just returned to the country. The above remarks apply with equal measure to the first applicant. Their political history reads more or less the same - he also joined the same student movement in 1980, joined the UDF in 1983, he was also detained a few times. In his case though, he was arrested at the border while trying to leave the country for military training abroad.
Both applicants were members of the Self Defence Unit (SDU), which by now, we know that it was an integral part of the African National Congress (ANC), particularly the ANC's Youth League.
The deceased was attacked by, amongst others, the two applicants. That night the applicants together with their other comrades, decided to visit some taverns to, as they put it, disarm people they regarded as enemies of the ANC. Their first victim was the second applicant. The latter was at the time a prison warder. Sometimes he would carry his weapon with him, but usually he did not. That night he did not have it with him when he was found at the tavern. First applicant ordered him to raise his hands, so that he could be searched. He refused, an argument followed and he was assaulted. He ran away. The deceased was also attacked. It was alleged that the deceased was a member of a gang known as the Noxie Gang. We were told that this gang used to terrorise people, particularly members of the ANC, without any intervention by the police. This was in fact also the evidence of the deceased's sister, although in her view the deceased was not a member of that gang. Of course, from her own evidence, she could not vouch for her brother's non-involvement, they were not and could not always be together. First applicant says that they had previously spoken to the police about the Noxie Gang, but to no avail. The applicant and others, following a call from their organisation, formed an SDU in their area to disarm police and members of the Noxie Gang. The assault on the deceased was committed within the context of the first and third applicants' activities as members of the SDU and in the light of the call referred to above. Their act is therefore associated with a political objective.
As already mentioned above, the second applicant ran away during his assault by, inter alia the first and third applicants. Upon his arrival at home, he took his firearm and returned to the scene; he was especially worried about his younger brother whom he had left behind at the scene. He was aware that the other two applicants were political activists, in fact, he regarded the third applicant as a very dangerous person - apparently as a result of his military training abroad. He decided to go for his firearm after the municipal police ridiculed him when he tried to lay a charge with them.
Upon his return to the scene, he saw a number of people around a person. Somebody shouted the name of the third applicant. As a result of the second applicant thought that the person surrounded was the third applicant, and he immediately shot that person. Unfortunately the victim turned out to be the deceased and not the third applicant. Second applicant says that both the first and second applicants were not only politically active, but were against any person working for the government. They wanted to enforce the will of the ANC on such people. He therefore regarded them, especially the third applicant, as legitimate political targets. (His evidence does of course also go a long way towards indicating that the first and third applicants acted with a political objective). The second applicant's act is therefore an act associated with a political objective.
Conclusion
All requirements for amnesty having been met,
AMNESTY IS HEREBY GRANTED: to the first, second and third applicants in respect of the attempted murder and murder of Plaatjie on 1 May 1992 in Tumahole, Parys.
SIGNED ON THIS THE 14th DAY OF AUGUST 1997.
WILSON, J
NGOEPE, J
ADV C. DE JAGER SC
