DECISION
The applicant applied for amnesty in respect of the following offences:
1. The murder in Melk Street, Bochabela.
2. The burning of the house and the burning of the clinic of Winnie Mandela.
3. The petrol bombing of the house of Bobby Sebotsa.
4. The petrol bombing of the house of Nicos.
5. The burning of the motor vehicle of Jani Mohapi.
6. The petrol bombing of the parental house of City Mzuzwana.
7. The organising of an attack on Zwelinyama Mzuzwana.
8. The petrol bombing of the house of City Mzuzwana's house.
9. The petrol bombing of the motor vehicle of the teacher, Thabang.
10. The petrol bombing of the house of the teacher, Bolosha.
11. The petrol bombing of the houses of Khuze and Sekgopi Malebo.
12. The petrol bombing of the parish house in Botshabelo.
13. The assault and torturing of detainees at the Security Police in Fountain Street, Bloemfontein.
14. The attempted murder of Oupa Makhabalo.
The applicant was a constable and later a sergeant in the Security Police stationed in Bloemfontein. He stated in his application that the political objective that he sought to achieve was to resist the struggle of the liberation movements and to keep the government in power. He further alleged that he acted on the instructions of his superiors.
The Committee will now deal with the different incidents. The incidents appearing under numbers 1, 7, 13 and 14 relate to gross human rights violations as described in Act 34 of 1995 as amended. The other incidents relate to damage of property.
1. THE MELK STREET MURDER
The applicant testified that he was ordered by Coetzee and Shaw, his superiors at the Security Police, to accompany Sergeant Mamome to a house in Melk Street, Botshabelo where they were to murder an old man, George Musi, because the latter had assisted people in skipping the country. After killing the old man they should burn his house. A firearm, of which the number had been filed away, was given to Mamome to carry out the murder. According to the applicant they proceeded to Mzuzi's house after dark. They were informed that a certain Oliphant was also staying at the house and although it is not clear, it seems as though they were also instructed to kill Oliphant and any other person who may be in the house.
The applicant and Mamome (after leaving the car a few blocks away) approached the house on foot and knocked on the door. The old man Musi allowed them in. According to the applicant Mamome attempted to drag the old man to the outside, but couldn't succeed and the old man started screaming whereupon the applicant pulled the firearm from Mamome's left side pocket and shot the deceased. Thereafter they sprinkled petrol all over the body and the house and set it alight. Coetzee, Shaw and Mamome gave evidence denying all knowledge of this incident.
The applicant further testified that on leaving the premises he saw a person standing in the neighbouring yard looking in his direction but this person did not do anything. At the inquest into the death of Musi, a neighbour Moses Thito gave evidence. Mr Thito testified at the inquest that he was playing with his top in the neighbouring yard when he heard people arguing next door and soon thereafter he heard two gun shots. He then saw an unknown person running away and jumping over the fence. On looking back he saw flames through the window of the house. He only saw one person running away. Oliphant (also known as China) later gave evidence and said that the people in the vicinity later blamed him for Musi's death, who was his grandfather. As already stated, the implicated police officers denied any knowledge of this incident. They also denied that they had a file on Musi or that they regarded him as an activist. Mr Oliphant, in his evidence, he did not mention that his grandfather was involved in any political activities. Apart from further conflicting evidence about the transfer of a firearm (allegedly the firearm used in the killing) some months later to a man known as Yster, no further evidence was offered to assist the Committee in coming to a decision. Mr Jeff Mabilo, who was allegedly present when the firearm was handed to Yster also did not support the version of the applicant.
The Committee is satisfied that Mr Musi was murdered on the 8th April 1986. The applicant testified that he committed the murder. If it wasn't for the evidence of Mr Thito and the fact that neither Mr Oliphant nor Mr Jeff Mabilo, supported the version of the applicant, the Committee might have been persuaded by the applicant's evidence should be accepted as sufficient to satisfy the Committee that the murder was committed with a political objective, notwithstanding the denial of Mamome, Coetzee and Shaw. The latter three, it could be argued, were not witnesses sympathetic to the applicant but even that shouldn't have prevented them from saying that the police regarded the deceased as an activist. The fact that neither Mabilo nor Oliphant gave evidence to support any involvement of the deceased in politics leave the Committee in a position where it cannot come to a conclusion that this murder was associated with a political objective. Amnesty is therefore
NOT GRANTED: .
As far as incidents No's 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11 and 12 are concerned, they relate to offences which did not involve gross violation of human rights and although the Committee is not in a position to make a finding on who might have given the instructions in each case, the Committee is satisfied that they were acts associated with a political objective, that they were related to the conflicts of the past and that they fall within one or more of the categories referred to in Section 20 (3) of Act 34 of 1995.
Amnesty is therefore
GRANTED: in respect of these incidents.
Incident No. 5, the burning of the vehicle of Jani Mohapi has been dealt with more fully in the application of Mr Ngo (No. 2422/96) under incident 11 and in the present application, amnesty is also
GRANTED: in respect thereof for the reasons set out in Ngo's application.
Incident No. 7, the attack on Mathew Mzuzwana on 18 April 1985:
The victim in this incident, Mathew Mzuzwana instituted an action for damages against the SAP. It was common cause at the trial that a policeman by the name of Ramolefe had shot Mathew with a stopper gun. The applicant alleged that he was instructed by Mamome, acting on instructions from Coetzee that he should inform members of the riot squad to shoot Mathew Mzuzwana whilst the latter was taking part in a mass action protest. Coetzee and Mamome have evidence before the Committee and denied giving such instructions. Their denials were not challenged in cross-examination. The applicant himself was not involved in the incident and the court found that the person responsible for the incident was one Ramolefe. There is no evidence that Ramolefe acted as a result of any action by the applicant. It is therefore impossible on the evidence before us to find that the applicant committed any offence vis a vis the victim, Mr Mathew Mzuzwana and amnesty
CANNOT BE GRANTED: .
Amnesty in respect of Incident No. 8, the burning of City Mzuzwana's house is refused for the reasons set out in the decision in Ngo's application under incident No. 10.
Incident 13: The assault of torturing of a member or members of a group of 19 people arrested at Ladybrand on 6 April 1986. The applicant testified that he assaulted members of the above group after they were detained at Fountains Police Station at Bloemfontein. The Committee is satisfied that he committed the offence and that it was associated with a political objective. Amnesty is
GRANTED: in respect of the alleged assaults.
Incident 14: The attempted murder of Oupa Makhubalo:
This incident relates to the arrest of Oupa Makhubalo during late 1986 or early 1987. It is common cause that the applicant's informer, a certain Gozi, was murdered. Information was obtained that a suspect, Oupa Makhubalo, was at a certain house.
The version of the applicant about what happened vastly differs from the version given by Mamome, Monakile, Mtyhala and Lesate. The applicant initially testified that Momome told them to go out and shoot Makhubalo. Thereafter he testified that they had instructions from Shaw to arrest him and if he resisted arrest, to shoot him. When they arrived at the scene and saw the suspect, according to the applicant Mamome got out of the Combi and started shooting at him. The others testified that Momome was driving the Combi and when he stopped the Combi upon seeing the suspect, it was the applicant himself who jumped out and started firing shots.
It is, however, common cause that the suspect ran away and was pursued by the police. According to the applicant, Momome on reaching the suspect, tripped him and thereafter arrested him. Clearly if Mamome had the intention of murdering the suspect, he had ample opportunity to do so. On these facts which are common cause, Mamome did nothing illegal, neither did the other policemen present, except perhaps the applicant, who, according to them, unnecessarily fired shots in the direction of the suspect. The applicant denies that he fired any shots and accuses Mamome of having done so. As stated above it is clear that on the facts Mamome had no intention to murder Mr Makhubalo and didn't attempt to do so notwithstanding the fact that he had ample opportunity to do so. On the applicant's own version he made no attempt to murder the suspect and he cannot get amnesty for an offence he says he never committed. Amnesty is therefore
REFUSED: .
(Signed)
JUDGE A WILSON
JUDGE B NGOEPE
ADV C DE JAGER
