DECISION
The applicant makes application for amnesty in terms of Act 34 of 1995 as amended (the Act).
The applicant testified that in 1985 he became interested in the politics of the day. As a result, he attended meetings of an organisation in KwaMashu where he lived, where raising funds to buy firearms and ammunition and other matters were discussed. he was also taught briefly how to use a firearm. These meetings carried on for about (6) six years and in the late 1990, the applicant's leader, one Mandla, called him aside after one of these meetings, and told him that he had to go and rob a bank, to obtain the funds to buy arms. He was told to obtain the assistance of two others because Mandla did not trust anyone else in the meeting.
The applicant testified that he obtained the assistance of two common criminals and a driver. he said they left from Mandla's home to the bank. There was a confrontation outside the bank after the robbery was completed. A gun-battle ensued between the applicant and his friends and the local protection unit. Some people were injured as a result and one person was killed. He was subsequently charged with murder together with a number of other offences. He was convicted of these and sentenced accordingly.
The applicant was an unimpressive witness. He tended to misunderstand simple questions especially when placed in an awkward situation.
He did not explain the situation to his accomplices, common criminals, who would participate only for the love of money, that the reason for the robbery was for the benefit of his organisation. He also did not prepare a strategy as to how he would deal with them when they realised the money would not be shared. This is very improbable.
Furthermore he stated that there was no intention to kill anyone and did not foresee it. Yet, they all went to the bank heavily armed. It is improbable that he did not at least foresee that somebody could be shot and killed.
It is uncertain as to whether these offences were committed for political reasons. Furthermore, the committee is not satisfied that the applicant has told us everything there is to be said of this incident. He has therefore not made full disclosure of all the facts related to this incident.
Consequently, the applicant has not complied with the requirements of the Act. In the result, his application of amnesty in respect of all the offences flowing from the incident is REFUSED.
SIGNED THIS THE
: DAY OF
: 2000.
R PILLAY, J
D POTGIETER, A.J.
MR I. LAX
