The applicant applies for amnesty in respect of the crimes of murder and robbery with aggravating circumstances which were committed on 19 May 1993 at or near Phuthaditjhaba.
The applicant stated that at the time in question he was a member of the African National Congress (ANC) and was also a member of a Self Defence Unit (SDU) which had been established under the auspices of the ANC. The commander of his SDU was only known to him by the name of Justice. Justice had informed the members of the SDU that the police were their enemies and he had issued them a standing instruction that members of the police force should be killed and their weapons taken for use by the SDU.
He stated that on 19 May 1993 a rally organised by the Students Representative Council of the local College of Education was disrupted and forcefully brought to an end by the police. The applicant and two other members of the SDU, namely John Kubheka and Phillip Mosia, then decided themselves to attack policemen and disarm them. They then set out together in search of members of the police force. The applicant was armed with a 9mm pistol and Kubheka was armed with a 7.65 pistol. Mosia was not armed. They saw a policeman who had stopped the vehicle he was driving and had alighted therefrom in order to remove rocks which had been placed on the road and which obstructed his path of travel. Kubheka shot and killed the policemen. A women who was in the policeman's vehicle was taken out and locked in the boot. The dead policeman's gun was taken and they ran away.
The policeman killed in the attack was Sgt. Hadibonoe Peacock Tsosane and the woman who was locked in the boot of the vehicle was Refiloe Anastacia Mandwene. The applicant, who was arrested approximately two weeks after the incident, was charged and convicted in the then Orange Free State Division of the Supreme Court of murder and robbery with aggravating circumstances and was sentenced to an effective term of eighteen years imprisonment. His conviction and sentence were confirmed by the then Appellate Division of the Supreme Court.
The applicant was the only witness to testify before the committee. He was an unsatisfactory witness and we are not satisfied that he was a truthful witness. He, for example, stated in his evidence in chief that he and his companions came across the deceased as he was removing stones from the road which had been placed there by students after their rally had been broken up. It was only after cross-examination and when he was being questioned by members of the committee that he changed his version when the contents of a statement made by himself to a magistrate on 14 June 1993 was drawn to his attention. He then conceded that they had placed stones on the road and waited for a vehicle to come. He also stated that he knew that the vehicle which approached the blockade was a police vehicle because the registration number on its number plate reflected that to be so. Such statement was not truthful as it is clear from the judgment of the Appellate Division that the registration number of the vehicle driven by the deceased was MRY967T, which number does not indicate that it was a police vehicle. He also only stated when being questioned by members of the committee after cross-examination that it was their intention to take the vehicle and kill the woman in the boot as they thought she may also be a member of the police force. They were thwarted in so doing as a car approached and they ran away.
The applicant made no mention in his application form that he was a member of an SDU or that he acted in furtherance of an instruction given by his commander, Justice. His explanation for not mentioning Justice in the form (which specifically asks for the identity of the person who issued the instruction), namely, that he told his co-prisoner who was helping him complete his form is unimpressive.
We, after careful consideration of the evidence given by the applicant and of the documentation placed before us, are not satisfied that the applicant has made full disclosure of all relevant facts and we are also not satisfied that the crimes committed by the applicant were acts associated with a political objective arising out of the conflict of the past. The probabilities are, in our view, that the objective of the applicant and his companions was robbery for personal gain. In the circumstances the applicant's application for amnesty is