The applicant applies for amnesty in respect of the following offences:
Conspiracy to murder Jerry Thibedi;
Attempted murder of Jerry Thibedi;
Contravention of Section w, 28, 29, 32,36 and 39 of the Arms and Ammunition Act 75 of 1969;
Contravention of Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 27 of the Explosives Act 26 of 1956; and
All other offences relating to the attack on Jerry Thibedi and/or his house during 1986 or 1987 in Bophuthatswana.
The applicant testified that Thibedi was regarded as a high profile activist by the Security Police. He was a high ranking member of Cosatu in both Mamelodi and Soshanguve Townships and as such played a prominent role in stayaways, consumer and school boycotts and other related activities launched by Cosatu in order to undermine the government. Consequently he qualified for elimination in accordance the general instruction given to the applicant by Brigadier Cronje.
The applicant acting under the general instructions given to him by Brigadier Cronje (which are discussed in full in our decision of Cronje dated 17 February 1999) took a decision to kill Thibedi.
He instructed Captain Hechter, W/O Van Vuuren and Mamasela to devise a plan on how to execute his decision to eliminate Thibedi. It was decided that the elimination would be carried out by throwing a bomb into a "safe house" occupied by Thibedi in Soshanguve. There is a discrepancy with regard to how the Security Police came to know that Thibedi stayed in a "safe house" and the address thereof. W/O Van Vuuren in his application for amnesty in respect of this incident testified that this information was given to them by the applicant whilst the applicant in these proceedings has contended that this information was furnished to him by Captain Hechter who in turn had obtained it from Mamasela. We do not regard this discrepancy to be material and shall therefor not deal with it further than simply noting it.
Furthermore, Mr Thibedi gave evidence in the applications of Captain Hechter and W/O Van Vuuren and stated that the house that was attacked was not a "safe house" but was a house occupied by himself, his wife and children. He was present at the hearing of this application but advised the Committee that he did not oppose the applicant’s application for amnesty.
The applicant contended that he targeted the house on the basis of the information that it was a "safe house" used by Thibedi and that he had no reason to doubt the information furnished by Mamasela whom they as Security Policemen in high ranks trusted implicitly but admitted that with hindsight he should not have done so. He, however, at the time bona fide believed that information to be correct and had acted upon it.
The bomb which was manufactured by the applicant, Hechter and Van Vuuren, was thrown into the house by Hechter, Van Vuuren and Mamasela. The subsequent explosion thereof completely destroyed the house but miraculously Thibedi and his family escaped unhurt physically but suffered emotional and psychological scars resultant thereto.
Having considered all the evidence led before us in relation to this incident we are satisfied that the applicant has satisfied the requirements of the act and that the offences for which he seeks amnesty are acts associated with a political objective.
Amnesty is hereby GRANTED to the applicant for the following offences:
Conspiracy to murder Jerry Thibedi;
Attempted murder of Jerry Thibedi;
Contravention of Sections 2, 28, 29, 36 and 39 of the Arms and Ammunition Act 75 of 1969;
Contravention of Sections 3, 4, 5,6, 9 and 27 of the Explosive Act 26 and 1956; and
All other offences relating to the attack on Jerry Thibedi and/or his house during 1986 or 1987 in Bophuthatswana.
The decision must be read with the decision pronounced by the Amnesty Committee in respect of the same incident on the 17th February 1999 in the Amnesty Committee applications of Captain Hechter and W/O van Vuuren. The political objective to be achieved by the intended elimination has already been considered in those applications of Hechter and Van Vuuren and is incorporated herein mutatis mutandis.
This Committee is of the opinion that Mr Thibedi and those members of his family present and affected by the explosion are victims in terms of Section 26 of the Act and recommends that they be referred to the Committee on Reparation and Rehabilitation for consideration.