DECISION
The applicants apply for amnesty for offences arising from the kidnapping and the killing of one Hendrik Jacobus Pyper at or near Mangkweng in the Northern Province on or about 6 February 1994 as well as for offences relating to the killing of Wessel Phillipus Johannes Bouwer and Cornelia Hendrina Bouwer and the attempted murder of their son, Jacobus Marais Bouwer, at or near Roedtan on or about 11 February 1994. The first-mentioned incident also involved the robbery of certain items and a car belonging to the deceased whilst in the second incident, although no items were taken, a robbery of money from the cafe where the incident took place was intended. In both incidents the applicants unlawfully carried arms and ammunition. The relatives of the deceased in the first incident, in a letter to the Amnesty Committee, expressed the view that there was no political objective in the commission of the various offences. They did not, however, wish to oppose the applications formally and left it in the hands of the Committee. The surviving victim in the second incident opposed the granting of amnesty to the applicants on the ground that there was no political objective in the commission of the offences applied for.
Both applicants testified before the Committee. Colonel Xolisa Clifford Poni a former senior official of APLA also testified on their behalf. His evidence did not however specifically relate to the merits of the applications and was of a more general nature. One of the two persons implicated by the applicants, their leader, Moses, had died in a shoot out with the police at the time of their subsequent arrest and the other one, Silo, escaped subsequent to his arrest and was not re-arrested. No evidence was presented on behalf of either the relatives of the deceased or the surviving victim.
The first applicant, Zweli Absolom Mhlongo, testified that he went into exile in 1987 and joined APLA, the armed wing of the PAC. He was trained in Uganda and Tanzania and returned to South Africa in 1993. He went to live in Alexandra Township in Johannesburg where he met up with one Moses, also known as Moss, his former commander. The first and second applicants, one Silo, also known as Lebohang and Moses went to Moses’ house in the Northern Province in the second applicant’s car. Moses told them that they should go and look for targets and that they should capture the whole of the Northern Province. They were not in a hurry and would capture the area "little by little" although it was now only two months before the first democratic election and after the date on which the PAC had suspended the armed struggle. The applicants knew about this but said they did not agree with their leaders.
Their first target was Pypers whom they ambushed near the Ebenhaezer dam. They abducted him, promised not to shoot him if he handed them his bank card and gave them his pin number. Moses allegedly asked him what organisation he belonged to. He responded that he was AWB. They shot him in the head took his shoes and his car and then proceeded to draw money from his banking account, a mere amount of R130,00. They returned to Johannesburg, sold the car for R7 000,00 of which they took R700,00 to enable them to return to Pietersburg. The Committee noted that in his written Application the first applicant stated that they "wanted a car which was to be used for other operations of the organisation."
It appeared from responses in cross-examination and from the written statement of the first applicant that on their way back to Pietersburg they went to the Lebowakgomo complex with the intention of robbing a bank but did not deem it safe in view of their small number and they decided to go back to enlarge their ranks. On the way back they took another route via Roedtan where they noticed a cafe which was still open. Moses sent the second applicant, Ashley, in to buy something and to "check-out" the place. Ashley reported that the situation was conducive for an attack. Moses shot and killed the owner and his wife and the first applicant wounded the young boy who wrestled with Moses. The evidence was that it was their intention to rob the cafe in order to obtain money for petrol.
Their car broke down and they were arrested the following day while they were still planning to hijack another vehicle. This is where Moses was shot and killed by the police and the other three were arrested. During the court proceedings Silo and the first applicant managed to escape but the first applicant was re-arrested, tried and convicted and is still serving the remaining term of his sentence of 32 years of imprisonment.
The second applicant to a large extent confirmed the evidence of the first. He was however not a trained APLA cadre but said that he regarded himself as a member who had joined internally. This is neither here nor there. The Committee accepts that he was at least a supporter of the PAC and APLA.
After having carefully considered all the evidence, the Committee came to the conclusion that although the applicants were political activists, the offences which they had committed and in respect of which they are applying for amnesty were not committed with a political objective as required by section 20 of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act 34 of 1995. The Committee bases its conclusion on the following:
1. There are numerous contradictions in the evidence presented at the hearing and other statements made by the applicants in support of their applications for example the reason why they took the deceased’s (Pypers’) car.
2. Some aspects of the evidence such as that Pypers while under threat would have told them that he is AWB the Committee regards as highly unlikely and reflect badly on the credibility of the applicants who in the opinion of the Committee tried to tailor the evidence to reflect a political objective.
3. Throughout their activities in the Northern Province the modus operandi of the applicants pointed at robbery as the primary objective and their targets such as the intended robbery of the bank in Lebowakgomo were not compatible with their stated objective of waging a campaign against the "Boers" in order to gain control of the Northern Province.
4. The Committee rejects as almost ludicrous the evidence that the applicants, being a small band of four men, intended to take over a large area such as the Northern Province and this within a period of two months before the first democratic elections.
5. The Committee does not accept the evidence of the applicants, who knew that their organisation had suspended the armed struggle, that they committed the offences in the course of a continuation of the struggle because they did not agree with their leaders.
The Committee finds that the actions of the applicants were for personal gain and accordingly the applications of both applicants are REFUSED.
SIGNED AT CAPE TOWN ON THIS THE _______ DAY OF ____________ 2000.
_______________________
JUDGE S MILLER
_______________________
ADV. F.J. BOSMAN
_______________________
MR J.B. SIBANYONI
