DECISION
1. This is an application for Amnesty brought be the Applicants on relation to the killing of 8 people and that attempted murder of 5 people during the evening of 7 March 1992 at Ndlovu's Kraal in Kwa Ndeni Reserve Mpumalanga where a traditional feast was in progress.
2. The names of the deceased are:
i. Kati Ndlovu
ii. Zinhle Hlengwa
iii. Noiyazisa Gumede
iv. Gijeni Ndlovu
v. Mandlakapheli Richard Tinga
vi. Michael Gwala
vii. Mboshwa Haim Mlaba
viii. Jabulani Richard Msibila
The victims of the attempted murder were:
i. Mhlakwepi Luthuli
ii. Roman Selembe
iii. Msimuzi John Ngcobo
iv. Sifiso Ndlovu
v. Hamilton Jabulani Ndlovu
3. The Applicants was convicted on all the counts of murder and on one of the counts of attempted murder in the Natal Provincial Division and sentenced to an affective term of 20 years imprisonment. The court found that he acted in concert with others in the furtherance of a common purpose, yet none of the others were charged or, it seems, even identified.
4. The judgment indicates that there may have been a political motive behind the attack at Ndlovu's Kraal. In his application form, the Applicant stated under oath that the offence had been committed in furtherance of the objectives of the IFP, of which he was an ordinary member.
5. Surprisingly in his evidence before the Committee, the Applicant stated that he was present at the feast and witnessed the attack by unknown gunmen, but denied any involvement or prior knowledge of the attack.
6. When his attention was drawn to the fact that he had admitted his application form that he had committed the crimes, the Applicant explained that he was innocent, but had been advised that should he deny guilt, his application would have been reused in chambers in terms of the provisions of the Act without him having had an opportunity to appear in person before the Committee where he once again, as in the trial court, wanted to protest his innocence and he requested the Committee to find the people who committed the crimes, while he, innocently, was serving a prison sentence.
7. This is one of those cases where, had the Applicant acknowledged a role in the crime, it might have assisted him. Denying involvement in any way in the incident, the Applicant can not satisfy the Committee that he has made a full disclosure of his involvement in a politically motivated crime as required by the Act.
8. The application for amnesty if therefore
REFUSED: .
9. The Committee is of the opinion that all the victims of the incident may well qualify as victims in terms of the act and their names are being forwarded to the Human Rights Violations Committee for their consideration.
SIGNED ON THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 1998.
JUDGE H MALL
MR WC MALAN
ADV. J MOTATA
