: DECISION
The Applicant here is Alex Bhekane Hlongwane. On the 5th October 1994 he and two (2) others, Andries Bhekinkosi Mtshali and Bonginkosi Elvis Zulu, were found guilty and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment for the following offences:
1. Robbery;
2. Attempted murder; and
3. Unlawful possession of an unlicensed firearm and ammunition.
It is in respect of these offences, and including malicious damage to property, that Hlongwane is now seeking amnesty. His compatriots have not applied for amnesty. At the hearing they all testified and there was no evidence tendered on behalf of the victims in the incident, namely Niresh Shrinund and William Rhysdorf. A faxed letter from Shrinund was received.
He states that he believes that the Applicant and his group could never have acted for any political objective when they carried out the robbery. Very little weight can be attached to the said communication, in view of the fact that it is not evidence under oath. Rhysdorf now lives in Graaf Reinet in the Eastern Cape. The application arises out of an incident which occurred at the Natal Luggage Factory (Ladysmith) when the Applicant and his two (2) colleagues were arrested after they had robbed the victims of an amount of R27 532.32 in cash. At the time of the arrest they were trying to escape with the money. It is necessary to detail the evidence of the three witnesses and we commence with the Applicant.
Hlongwane says he was a member of the African National Congress ("ANC") at the time of the commission of the offence and, further, that he acted "to assist the community". In 1991 in his area, as in all other parts of KwaZulu Natal, there was a conflict between ANC and IFP supporters. The police did not help to end the conflict and, instead, took sides with the IFP. The most conflict-ridden part of Ladysmith was Section "A" of Zakele Township, a historically black residential area. He says the money was required to buy weapons to arm and defend ANC supporters. The order came from one Mshishi Nzimande, a local commander in charge of Self-Defence Units. He had supplied him with two firearms and a knife. He had no previous training in the use of firearms. Nzimande also gave him the authority to get two (2) other comrades to assist him to carry out the mission. Nzimande had identified the target. When he approached his accomplices they looked a bit "surprised" as they were concerned about the dangers and risks of the operation. He also raised with them the possibility of attacking the local police station but this would be a difficult one, and in the end they settled for the original target.
When they left both himself and Mtshali were armed with the firearms and Zulu had a knife. He says their aim was to frighten the targets and not to shoot them. He says the targets opened fire on them and they also returned fire. This they did not expect as they believed that the targets were unarmed. They were however able to repel the targets from whom they robbed the money in a leather bag.
Mtshali did not apply for amnesty for the particular incident but only for murder committed in another case, which application was refused on the ground that there was no political objective. He says the reason he did not do so was because the prison authorities did not explain to prisoners what amnesty was about. He thought the whole process was only for one to be forgiven of his sins. This is a very flimsy excuse as it is clear that at the time he applied for amnesty in respect of the murder, he knew that in order to succeed, he had to show a political objective. In a sworn statement to Mkhanyiselwa Gerald Mbatha, the TRC Investigative Unit member, he says he was not a member of the SDUs. He says nothing about the targets being the first to shoot at them. He also denies having been a member of a political organisation at the time of the incident. He goes even further and says he was told by Hlongwane that there was money to be robbed but he did not know that it was for purchasing arms for SDUs. He only heard of the purpose of the robbery when he was arrested. This directly contradicts Hlongwane who says both Mtshali and Zulu were ANC supporters. When he was asked about these contradictions he said he had lied to the TRC officer, because he was sceptical and did not trust him. He had also not spoken to Hlongwane at that stage and so did not want to get him into trouble. He was unable to say what kind of trouble he had in mind as at that stage Hlongwane was serving his punishment (prison sentence) for his crimes.
At the end of his questioning it became clear that he was an unmitigated liar. On many occasions he would give the impression that he misunderstood simple questions, and rambled on about his aim to undergo a spiritual transformation and redeem himself of all his previous sins. Zulu was present when both Hlongwane and Mtshali testified and was quite aware of the inherent flaws in their testimonies. He says he knew the late Nzimande who recruited him to be a member of the SDUs because of the violence between ANC and IFP. He says he did not apply for amnesty because he was never advised of his right to do so. He was also being held at Ncome Prison when the opportunity to apply first came. We reject his evidence as improbable. He must have known that there was nothing political about this incident and that is why he did not apply.
Having regard to all the evidence it is improbable that the robbery was a politically motivated operation. The Committee has also considered the contents of the affidavit deposed to by one Mayiboys Vincent Madlala. It does not take the matter any further.
In the result we are not satisfied that the application complies with the requirements of the Act and amnesty is accordingly REFUSED.
SIGNED AT CAPE TOWN ON THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2001
ACTING JUDGE D POTGIETER
ADV F BOSMAN
ADV N SANDI
