Applicants apply for amnesty in respect of the following:
1. Armed robbery of Johan Klaassen committed at Kirkwood on the 28 November 1988 in the district of Port Elizabeth.
2 The first applicant further applies for armed robbery of Mr Robert Chapman Moss committed at Grahamstown on the 20 December 1985.
3. The second applicant applies for possession of an illegal firearm and ammunition and escape from prison. He was arrested on the 15 October 1989. Applicants are serving prison sentences of thirteen (13) years and twenty four (24) years and six (6) months respectively.
Both applicants gave evidence and stated that they were members of the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC). The first applicant joined the PAC during 1976 whilst the second applicant only joined the PAC during the 1980's. After joining the PAC they underwent instant military training in the then Transkei.
They contended that the armed robberies were committed in furtherance of the polices of the PAC and their objective was to acquire arms to prosecute their organisation's struggle.
In respect of the robbery at the Klaassen's farm, both applicants were given instructions by one Jabu Mdunge and the proceeds derived there from were handed over to him. There is however, no unanimity from the applicants on this point. Of note is the first applicant's testimony who in his application avers that such proceeds were to be utilised by their unit in order to enable it to continue to pursue their struggle; however, in his viva voce evidence, his version is that not all the money was handed over to Mdunge, that some of it was retained by the unit. The first applicant's evidence on this point is contradictory and is accordingly not accepted by this Committee.
The first applicant also testified that even in the case of the Mossland robbery which was committed during 1985, the instructions for its commission were also given by Jabu Mdunge.
Both applicants testified that when the Kirkwood robbery was committed in 1988, they belonged to the Assault Unit.
During cross-examination, both applicants were unable to support their contentions that their offences were in pursuance of the PAC's policies nor how their acts could alleviate the "oppressive" situation in South Africa.
The applicants also did not give the same code names of the unit members under cross-examination.
From the evidence adduced herein, the Committee finds it improbable that the offences were committed by the applicants in the furtherance of the PAC policies. Having regard to the evidence already led before the Amnesty Committee on how the Assault Unit of the PAC operated, it is quite clear that the evidence given by the applicants on how their alleged Assault Unit operated is in complete discord with that already led before the Amnesty Committee. In the premises their evidence that they committed the offences as members of the Assault Unit of the PAC is rejected.
We are therefore not satisfied that the applicants have complied with the requirements of Section 20(1) of the Act and their applications are accordingly