Truth Commission Special Report Decision - 58896 Type: AMNESTY DECISIONS Names: PRINCE BHEKISISA SHANGASE Case Number: AC/99/0218 Matter: AM 3825/96 Decision: REFUSED URL: https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/hearing.php?id=58896&t=&tab=hearings Original File: https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/originals/decisions/1999/ac990218.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DECISION ______________________________________________________ This is an application for amnesty by Prince Bhekisisa Shangase for the robbery and murder of Victor Lungiswa Zunga at Esikahwini in the region of KwaZulu Natal in 1993. The attack was carried out by the applicant, two IFP members, Nhlakanipho Mattwengu Mathenjwe and Ben Mbambo. The applicant is now serving a long term of imprisonment as a result of his involvement in the attack. He also says he was a member of the South African Police Force (SAP) and the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) at the time of the incident. It is, however, not his case that when he took part in the commission of the said offences he was furthering the aims of the SAP or IFP. Shortly, his evidence can be summarised as follows: On the day in question he met Nhlakanipho and Ben Mbambo at the house of Patrick Dube. They borrowed Dube's car and asked applicant it drive them to the home of Mrs. Mabuyazi. They both carried AK47 rifles. When they arrived at the home of Mabuyazi, they went in while he remained in the vehicle. He did not know what the two had come to see Mabuyazi about. On their way out the two were accompanied by Mabuyazi who greeted applicant and expressed a wish that they go well. She also said that they should look after each other, and wished them a successful operation. The applicant says that he did not know what she was referring to, nor did he ask Nhlakanipho and Ben what the "operation " was going to be about. He just followed the directions as indicated to him by Nhlakanipho and Ben. The first went to the house where the applicant was ordered to stop the vehicle, which he did. Nhlakanipho expressed disappointment that the person they were looking for was not there. He was talking to Ben and the applicant was listening to the conversation between the two. The applicant said that he did not ask who they were looking for at the house and why they were looking for such a person. He did not even know who was staying at that house. He did, however, suspect that they were involved in some operation and were looking for a person whom they were going to attack. It transpired that the house belonged to Zungu who was not there at the time. Applicant was then instructed by his two companions to change directions. When they drove past a vehicle, Nhlakanipho ordered him to make a U-turn and follow it. After following it for some distance he was ordered to flick his lights and signal to the other car to stop. It stopped. Applicant drove his car ahead of it and stopped. Khlakanipho then shot the driver and pulled him out of the car on to the ground. Nhlakanipho got into that car and drove off. Ben got into the applicants’ car, and they returned home. He learnt that the person who had been killed was Zungu. He had not known Zingu and did not know that his companions were going to attack and steal his car. The applicant says he assisted Nhlakanipho to find a place to hide the stolen vehicle. Later he received a message that Mabuyazi wanted to see him. When he saw her she told him that the wrong person has been killed. There is no evidence as to who was supposed to have been killed and why. At the hearing Mabuyazi was represented by Miss Williams, who said that her client did not oppose the application and maintained that she was not involved in the offences committed by Nhlakanipho and Ben Mbambo. Although the applicant said he was an IFP member there was no evidence that the deceased was a member of any political organisation. There was no evidence whatsoever that the applicant participated in the offence with the purpose of achieving any political objective. This was nothing less than an ordinary criminal offence. The application is accordingly REFUSED. The deceased had an eleven year old son whom he supported. Because the applicant for amnesty is refused, the child cannot be declared a victim in the terms of the Act. Dated at ........................... on the ............... day of........................... 1999. ............................................................. JUDGE MALL .............................................................. ADV.F.BOSMAN ............................................................... ADV. N SANDI