DECISION
The applicant makes an application in terms of Act 34 of 1995 as amended (the Act) for amnesty in respect of offences committed just outside the Great Centenary Hall, New Brighton, Port Elizabeth.
On the 2 August 1976, the applicant testified that he attended a boxing tournament at the Centenary Hall, Port Elizabeth. He was outside the hall itself and was being prevented from entering the hall. He was one of many who were in that situation. He had already purchased a ticket and he realised that he would not be refunded.
Just then people started throwing stones at the policemen who were in the immediate vicinity. He stated that he threw stones essentially because he was not going to be refunded. He added that there were other reasons for his actions, which he did not detail, except to say that it would liberate the oppressed people of the time. He did not expand on these latter reasons.
His application forms, which he himself completed, contained answers to questions that contradicted what he testified to. Amongst the crimes that are contradicted are two important matters.
Firstly his political affiliation is quite different. In his application he stated that he was a member of the African National Congress and Umkhonto weSizwe whereas in his evidence he stated that he was a supporter of the Black Consciousness Movement. Secondly he implicates a number of other people in the commission of the offences when answering the questions in the application form. On the other hand he testified that the persons mentioned in his written application were not party to these offences.
He explained these as mistakes caused by his having misunderstood the questions. This did not make sense because the questions are clear and simple and not likely to be misunderstood. This is even more so because his answers were not out of place and quite logical.
We have difficulty in accepting these explanations.
Furthermore he did not make a good impression on the committee. His efforts to persuade us of his explanations for the discrepancies are not convincing.
We have doubt that he has disclosed everything related to the incident. We are also not persuaded that his actions during the incident were politically motivated.
In the circumstances, the committee is not satisfied that the applicant has complied with the requirements of the Act, and the application is DISMISSED.
DATED AT CAPE TOWN THIS _______________ DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2000.
______________________JUDGE R. PILLAY
______________________JUDGE D. POTGIETER
______________________ADV. N. SANDI
