DECISION
The applicant makes application for amnesty in terms of Act 34 of 1995 as amended (The Act) and in respect of murder and robbery.
He testified that he resided at Thakane which was an area also plagued by the political conflict between the membership of the African National Congress (ANC) and that of the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP).
He said he was a member of the ANC and as a result joined the local Self Defence Unit (SDU) in order to protect the community. The SDU, he said, needed firearms to equip themselves in order to defend the community against IFP attacks.
On the alleged orders of persons whose names he was unable to give immediately (he also did not name them in his written application) he went with others on the 10th September 1993, to a predetermined location where they robbed two people of three firearms and ammunition. He said that he was in a bedroom obtaining the firearms with one of the victims.
When he returned to the kitchen again he found the other victim stabbed. He tried to assist the victim in some way, but unfortunately the person died. In addition a television set and a pair of binoculars were also taken. The applicant said he did not approve of the killing and the theft of the items other than the firearms and ammunition because the purposes was to find firearms and ammunition only.
It the reasons were, as the applicant alleges, to obtain the firearms and ammunition, then the murder was clearly unnecessary as it did not facilitate the theft. It was certainly not justifiable in the circumstances nor proportional to the commission of theft offences and the alleged objective sought to be achieved. It is significant none of the persons who allegedly gave orders were ever charged.
Though he denied that the firearms were sold, it seems that the firearms were in fact not given to those who allegedly gave the orders for distribution amongst the community to defend themselves but instead they were sold. It seems also that at least five of them had shared the proceeds from the sale of firearms.
The manner in which the offences were committed and the aforementioned factors, makes the applicants version improbable.
The Act provides that amnesty shall be granted if the act for which amnesty is sought was committed with a political motive in order to enhance the position of the political party and on whose behalf the act was committed and in addition the evidence on behalf of the applicant had to amount to a full disclosure of the facts in relation to the offence for which amnesty is sought.
For the reasons set out above, we are unable to accept that the applicant was responding to an order to rob. It follows, in these circumstances, that none of the offences were politically motivated.
We are also not persuaded that the true facts have been disclosed.
We are not satisfied that the applicant has complied with the requirements of the Act and the application falls to be rejected.
In the result, the application for amnesty is
REFUSED: .
SIGNED ON THE 1ST JUNE 1999.
