Truth Commission Special Report Decision - 58900 Type: AMNESTY DECISIONS Names: PETER MANDYOLI Case Number: AC/99/0222 Matter: AM 0035/96 Decision: REFUSED URL: https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/hearing.php?id=58900&t=&tab=hearings Original File: https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/originals/decisions/1999/ac990222.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DECISION ______________________________________________________ The applicant . Peter Mandyoli, applied for amnesty in respect of the following offences: 1. The murder of Mr Cronje 68 years of age on 25 May 1986 on a farm in the district of Cradock. 2. The attempted murder of Mrs Cronje 63 years of age on the same day at the same farm. 3. Robbery of clothing and TV as well as R1500.00 in cash on the same occasion 4. Housebreaking with the intent to steal and theft of a motor car on the above date and same occasion. The applicant was acquitted on appeal and the conviction and death sentence on the murder and attempted murder charges were set aside. Nonetheless the applicant is now applying for amnesty because he might still be held liable on delict by dependents of the deceased who might be minors. He is serving an effective sentence of 14 years imprisonment for the robbery and 4 years for housebreaking and theft but the two sentences were to be served concurrently. The charge of the robbery related to the attack on the Cringes and the robbery of a TV, clothing and goods to the value of R9500,00 and R1500,00 in cash. The housebreaking and theft charges related to the breaking open of the garage and stealing of a motor car valued at R8000,00. Initially the applicant only applied for amnesty in respect of the murder but asked for an amendment at the hearing. He vaguely referred to the intention to acquire firearms in his application and the amendment was granted. In his original application he stated that he was a member of the ANC. He responded to the question in paragraph 11(a) whether the acts were committed " in the execution of an order of, on behalf of, or with the approval of the organization, institution, body, liberation movement... concerned as follows: "It was of my own free will" "We needed the arms that the farmers were supplied with by the SADF/SAP in order to reinforce our Defence Unit - not intending to murder them in the process." The defence unit referred to was Cradoya. Before dealing with the question as to whether the offences were associated with a political objective the committee will summarise the undisputed facts. The applicant testified that he was a member of Cradoya who at the time was under the leadership of Mr Matthew Goniwe. The applicant in fact often visited Mr Goniwe but was under the direct command of a certain Mr Mhlauli. He testified that the latter ordered the operation. The applicant accompanied by Mongezi, Andile and Luyanda Klaas left Cradock for the Cronje farm which was about 6km from their base and reached the farm at about 20h00 on the 24 May 1986. They found it not opportune to attack that night and returned to Cradock. They decided to return the next day. The applicant then gave the following evidence before the Committee: "We got there at about eight. When we got there I told them to wait outside whilst I looked around what was going on. When I got there I cut the telephone wires. There was a grille at the door on a security gate at the door. Luyanda went in, Mr. Cronje opened the door and asked who we were and what we wanted. We did not say anything, it was dark. He then called his dogs. Mrs Cronje then came out or Mr. Cronje followed the dogs. I then told him to lift his arms. He did not do that, what he did is touched his right side. I shot at him, unfortunately he died. I went inside, inside we found Mrs Cronje. I shot at her in the passage after that I got out. After that I went outside to see if there were neighbours or any noise. There wasn't any so I went inside and I found Andile and Mongezi, they were by the door. Mongesi then took Mrs Cronje and he wanted to stab her. I said he shouldn't. We then searched " They didn't find anything . In particular no weapons were found : not in house or on the body of Mr Cronje. The applicant thereafter broke into the garage and stole the Datsun 1600 motorcar. He found 5 litres of oil and poured it all over the house. He and Andile then took the car and drove back to Cradock where they burned the car. He left Mongezi and Luyanda to burn the house after they've finished searching. Mongezi and Luyanda later turned up in the township with money and some goods. The applicant proposed that they should buy arms with the money. According to him they bought a 756, a .38 special, a 9mm pistol and a 15 shooter. They thereafter dispersed and he and Luyanda went to Port Elizabeth. The applicant concluded his evidence by saying the acts helped the Defence Unit because the applicants used the money to buy weapons and he apologised to the Cronje family. He was asked by the counsel: "And have you now made a full disclosure to this Committee about the events of that particular night?" His answer: "Correct". It is clear from the applicant's own evidence that he in fact played the leading role in the attack on the farm. He was not instructed to kill the farmer or his wife. He shot Mr. Cronje a 68 year old man because he didn't put his hands in the air, but it seemed as if he was reaching for something at his side which transpired to be a torch. Mrs Cronje was shot at on sight without her being threatened at all. The applicant, however, failed to disclose that Mrs Cronje was in fact shot through the right shoulder, hit over the head with a hammer and then raped. Apart from the bakkie and the R1500,00 a TV and clothing were also stolen bringing the total value of stolen goods to 19000,00. The evidence of Mrs Cronje was not challenged by the criminal trial except for the number of shots fired at her and the identification of bed linen. The applicant was represented at the trail and at the Appeal Court by the same Advocate now representing him before the Amnesty Committee. The Committee is not going to deal with the unchallenged evidence of Mrs Cronje at the trial save to say it differs vastly from the evidence now given by the applicant. Questions by the Committee after the applicant confirmed that he'd made a full disclosure; confirmed that Mrs Cronje was raped; and that the rapist wanted to kill her but that the applicant told him to leave her alone as she was already dead. She in fact fell unconscious after the rape and after hearing the aforementioned words. It is admitted by the applicant that he uttered the above words. It is therefore clear that he was present when Mrs Cronje was raped and that even there he fulfilled his leadership roles in ordering his companion not to kill her. He, however, did nothing to prevent the rape or even discourage it. This clearly doesn't accord with a political objective of obtaining weapons to defend his community against the supporters to the then government. His political objective, according to him, was in fact to steal weapons from the Cronjes because they were supporters of the Nationalist Government. His silent condonation of the rape as bystander and his failure even to try and reprimand his companion clearly indicated malice and/or ill-will or spite towards the then helpless victim. The Committee is not satisfied that the murder and offences were associated with a political objective, or that the applicant made a disclosure. The evidence of the applicant was clothed in a political blanket to enhance his chances to obtain amnesty but even if he had a political motive his actions and the actions of his comrades under his control were clearly disproportionate to his political objective of stealing a weapon. It should also be stressed that the ANC, in their representations to the Truth Commission, stressed the fact that it was not their policy and they didn't authorise members to commit robberies. It is also hard to see how the theft of the motor vehicle, the driving thereof to convey two of the perpetrators to their homes 6 kilometres away and then burning the car, could have been to benefit of the political organisation at all. In fact when questioned about it the applicant replied: " I just wanted to escape from the place of scene. I did not want to sell the car or anything like that, I wanted them to find their car burnt." Committee member - " Who to find the car burnt?" Applicant - "The owner" Committee member - "Who you just shot through the head?" It isn't necessary to deal with his further attempts to explain what his political motive in stealing and burning the car was, because it is clear that the car was at least used to carry the stolen goods, including the stolen money and the TV which were brought back to the township by Mongezi and Luyanda Klaas. They were left behind to find their way back home by foot after the applicant and his comrade, Andile, drove back with the empty stolen bakkie, if applicant’s version is true. As far as his political motive to obtain weapons for Cradoya is concerned, we find it strange that after he allegedly bought the weapons with the stolen money, he never handed them to his commander, Mr Mhlauli, or reported back to him. He hid the weapons and moved to Port Elizabeth. This could hardly have been to the benefit of the Cradoya whom we were told needed the weapons to defend themselves. The Committee does not find it necessary to elaborate further on many contradictions. The applicant did not satisfy us that the offences were associated with political objective. As pointed out above he did not make a full disclosure and did not mention anything of the rape which was clearly not an incident divorced from the attempted murder and robbery. It happened on the same occasion and on the same victim. For the reasons mentioned, amnesty is REFUSED in respect of: 1. The murder of Mr Cronje, a male aged 68, on 25 May 1986 on a farm in the district of Cradock. 2. The attempted murder of Mrs. Cronje, then 63 year old female, on 25 May 1986 on a farm in the district of Cradock. 3. Robbery of clothing and TV, valued at R 9500,00, and R1500,00 in cash on the said farm. 4. Housebreaking and theft of a motor car valued at R8000,00 on 25 May 1986 on a farm in the district of Cradock. Signed at..........................on this............day ................ 1999. ............................................... JUDGE A. WILSON .............................................. A/J D. POTGIETER ............................................... ADV. C.DE JAGER SC