DECISION
The applicant applies for amnesty in terms of Section 18 of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, 34 of 1995 (the Act), in respect of the following offences, committed on or about 15 March 1992 at or near Nomhele Reserve, district Mapumolo:
(a) Three counts of murder;
(b) Two counts of attempted murder.
The applicant was convicted and sentenced in the Supreme Court, kwaZulu Natal.
At all material times hereto, the applicant was a member of the African National Congress (ANC). He testified at length as to how he and other members of the ANC were hounded out and harassed by members or supporters of the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP). On or about 15 March 1992, the house of one Cele, a member of the ANC, was allegedly attacked and set alight by members or supporters of the IFP. The applicant says he and other members of the ANC pursued the attackers to Nqcobo's kraal, where the victims lived. Nqcobo's house was attacked. A 73 year old woman was shot three times; she died. Another victim shot dead, was a 38 year old woman who was shot six times. a two year old boy was also shot to death; he had been shot three times. Two other boys survived, one of them having been shot by the applicant in the arm. It appears from the judgment of the Trial Court, that the applicant's firearm ran out of ammunition or jammed as he tried to shoot one of these boys. All the victims were shot in the house. Peter, one of the boys who survived, told the Trial Court that he was the applicant in the doorway, whereafter the applicant shot the three deceased. At that time Peter and the other boy were hiding under a bed. Peter saw the applicant tried to shoot him, but the firearm jammed. During his trial, the applicant denied entering the house or shooting the deceased, he admitted that he was part of the ANC group which went to the kraal, but says he only stood around there armed with a knife. The Trial Court did not find it safe to convict on the evidence of Peter, who was 10 years old at the time of the incident; it convicted the applicant on his own version on the basis of common purpose. Before us though, the applicant admitted that he was the person who shot at all the deceased, and further that he was the only person who fired shots into the house in which the victims were. But he still denies entering the house as alleged by Peter.
The applicant's version before us is that he never entered the house in question. He says all the shots were fired from outside as he continuously moved from one spot to another,such as from door to window, shooting blindly. He says he never specifically aimed at any of the victims. That each of the deceased was hit more than once, was pure accident. We find this to be highly improbable. It is more likely that the applicant was in the house when he shot these people. Had he come up with this version during his trial, it is more than likely that the Court would have found it as corroboration of Peter's evidence. Also improbable is his version that he met with Peter and the other boy only after they had come out of the house. If indeed the applicant was firing shots from outside the house, the boys would not have left the relative safety of the house to venture outside where the shots would have been coming from. In maintaining that he never entered the house but merely shot blindly from outside, the applicant did not, in our view tell the truth on this material aspect of the case. One must also bear in mind that each victim was shot more than once. In our view the applicant must have entered the house and shot his victims there, as was testified to during his trial. Section 20(1)(c) of the Act requires an applicant to make a full disclosure of all relevant facts. In withholding the truth from us, the applicant has failed to make such a disclosure. There are many other respects in which the applicant contradicted himself in material respects; for example, on the question whether they actually pursued their attackers to Nqcobo's kraal, or whether they subsequently launched an attack after they were told as to who the attacker of Cele's house were. He has contradicted himself so much on this aspect, that it is impossible to know where the truth lies. This indicates that the applicant chose not to be frank, and in the process has failed to make a full disclosure of all relevant facts.
AMNESTY IS THEREFORE REFUSED: .
SIGNED ON THIS THE 14th DAY OF AUGSUT 1997.
MALL, J
WILSON, J
NGOEPE, J
ADV C. DE JAGER, SC
MS S. KHAMPEPE
