Truth Commission Special Report Decision - 58906 Type: AMNESTY DECISIONS Names: N. R. NKWENKWE AND 16 OTHERS Case Number: AC/99/0228 Matter: AM 3563/96 Decision: GRANTED URL: https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/hearing.php?id=58906&t=&tab=hearings Original File: https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/originals/decisions/1999/ac990228.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DECISION ______________________________________________________ This is an application for amnesty in terms of the provisions of Section 18 of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act no 34 of 1995 ("the Act) by the Applicants who were all members of the former Ciskeian Police. The application relates to certain incidents which occurred in Bisho during the period 22-23 March 1994 arising from a meeting held at the Bisho Police College. All of the Applicants, bar 17th Applicant, appeared and testified at the hearing. The latter has sustained certain injuries which rendered him mentally incapacitated and incapable of appearing and testifying. He was placed on the scene at the above said meeting by the undisputed evidence of 13th Applicant. The application is opposed by a number of former senior members of the Ciskeian Police who were victims of the incidents more fully dealt with below. Some of these victims also testified at the hearing. The following facts were common cause between the parties:- A meeting of all members of the Ciskeian Police of the rank of warrant officer was called for 22 March 1994 at the Bisho police hall for the purpose of discussing the role of the police in South Africa 's first democratic elections on 27 April 1994. This meeting never materialised. Instead the junior members of the Ciskeian Police Force usurped control of the meeting and used the opportunity to forcefully or otherwise secure the attendance of key senior police officers, including the Commissioner General Noqayi, at the meeting. Some of these senior officers were found on the college premises and compelled to attend the meeting which commenced some time during the day on 22 March 1994 and continued until the next morning. Other senior officers were tracked down from time to time throughout this period and in some instances forced to attend the meeting. In the case of the Commissioner, his wife and daughter were removed from their home by a group of junior officers when they failed to find the Commissioner at home. All of these persons were effectively abducted and held hostage at the college hall during the course of the meeting. The material aspects of the version of Applicants were to the following effect. They were members of the Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union ("Popcru") which is an affiliate of the Congress of South African Trade Unions ("Cosatu"). The latter is in turn an alliance partner of the Tripartite Alliance led by the African National Congress ("ANC"). Their actions were supported by Popcru, which actions were actuated by their principal political objective of terminating the rule of Brigadier Oupa Gqozo, the Ciskeian head of state at the time. This objective was shared and supported by a significant section of the inhabitants of Ciskei as well as a number of political organisations including the Tripartite Alliance. The political situation in Ciskei was tense and volatile at the time. Although it was given fact that the first democratic elections would be held in South Africa on 27 April 1994, Brigadier Gqozo was resisting the holding of elections in Ciskei. He had joined forces with other groupings, including the Inkatha Freedom Party, opposed to the coming elections, which situation intensified the conflict between Brigadier Gqozo and those political organisations, including the ANC, that opposed his rule. This conflict became particularly fierce in the wake of the Bisho Massacre during 1990. Applicants supported the opposition to Brigadier Gqozo's regime and were desirous of having him removed from power and for Ciskei it be reincorporated into South Africa. They utilised the meeting arranged for warrant officers to mobilise and unite all junior members of the Ciskeian police force around a number of common grievances and the general dissatisfaction with the rule of Brigadier Gqozo. Their principal aim was to achieve their said political objective. When the Commissioner called at the meeting in the course of the morning, they assumed control of the meeting and confronted him with their grievances, which included uncertainty about the situation concerning the pension monies of the police. The Commissioner was unable to satisfactory deal with these grievances and after some time he was released in order for him to meet with Brigadier Gqozo in regard to the matters raised at the meeting. The Commissioner undertook to return and to address the police on the grievances. Applicants caused a signal to be sent on the police radio for all members of the police to attend the meeting. By afternoon approximately 75% of all the junior members were already present at the meeting and their numbers grew as time went by. The response of senior members was less enthusiastic. While the meeting was awaiting the return of the Commissioner, a number of senior officers were rounded up, some at gunpoint, and compelled to sit on the stage in the college hall. The Commissioner was apprehended by Ciskeian soldiers guarding the Bisho ministerial complex, who supported the police initiative. They handed the Commissioner over to the police. He was also caused to join the rest of the senior officers at the meeting. Those officers seated on the stage were questioned about various matters and confronted with allegations of misconduct including the misappropriation of funds belonging to the junior members. The proceedings were characterised by the singing of freedom songs and the chanting of slogans expressing anti-Gqozo sentiments. It was akin to a political rally. At one stage during the early evening a delegation was sent to secure the attendance of Brigadier Gqozo at the meeting. According to the Applicants their intention was effectively to also hold Brigadier Gqozo once he arrived at the meeting and to compel him to step down as ruler. When the delegation arrived at the office of Brigadier Gqozo they found that the premises were unguarded. They spoke to Brigadier Gqozo who told them that he contacted the South African authorities and informed them that he had resigned. He refused to attend the meeting but requested the delegation to convey his resignation to the meeting. He added that he would be addressing a public meeting at the Bisho stadium the next morning to inform the Ciskeian people of his resignation. The delegation left and reported back to the meeting. There was extreme dissatisfaction with their failure to bring Brigadier Gqozo to the meeting. During the meeting it was rumoured that members of the South African security forces were preparing to intervene in the situation and attack the meeting. It was decided that the police should arm themselves to avert such attack. The senior officer in charge of the police armoury was forced to hand over the keys and the police armed themselves with automatic rifles and other firearms. Armed police officers cordoned off and guarded the college premises. At one stage members of the Interim Administration appointed by South Africa attended the meeting and indicated that Brigadier Gqozo had resigned. They requested the police to disperse. These persons were not trusted and this request was not heeded. The members at the meeting decided to maintain their position. The proceedings at the meeting continued throughout the night until the next morning when the police proceeded to the Bisho stadium but it became clear that he had in fact resigned. Pursuant to the incident Applicants were charged with a number of counts of kidnapping and one count of mutiny in the Zwelitsha Regional Court. They pleaded guilty to the latter count and were each sentenced to 6 months imprisonment fully suspended. Civil claims for damages were instituted against Applicants by various senior officers affected by the incident. The application was opposed by the Commissioner and a number of senior officers, some of whom testified at the hearing. The bodyguard of the Commissioner, one Mr Lwane, also testified. There was little material conflict between their testimony and the version of Applicants. Their evidence focused on the fact that a fair degree of aggression and insubordination were shown towards the senior officers by their juniors during the incident. The conduct of the junior officers was described as unheard of in the ranks of the police. The opposition was mainly based on the submission that Applicants’ actions were not politically motivated and that the whole purpose was to address employment-related grievances, especially the issue of money. The junior officers, moreover, grabbed the opportunity to simply humiliate their seniors. None of this conduct, it was submitted, has any relation to politics. It was argued in the alternative that even if the actions of Applicants were politically motivated, there was no justification to continue after Brigadier Gqozo had indicated in the course of the evening on 22 March 1994, that he had resigned. It was submitted that the fact that the applicants continued to round up senior officers and held them hostage even after receiving this news, indicated that it was never their objective, as alleged, to overthrow Brigadier Gqozo but that they were only concerned about their employment grievances. The Applicants testified that the majority of junior members were opposed to Brigadier Gqozo. The senior officers were perceived to be supportive of Brigadier Gqozo. It was accordingly decided to compel the senior officers to attend the meeting in order to isolate Brigadier Gqozo. This was particularly so in the case of the Commissioner. His presence would furthermore serve as a deterrent to any attack from the South African security forces. This would advance their cause to overthrow the regime of Brigadier Gqozo , which eventually materialised. The wife and daughter of the Commissioner were removed from home and brought to the meeting in order to force the Commissioner to return to the meeting as he earlier promised to do. This was done in accordance with a decision of the meeting that next-of-kin should be removed where officers were absent from their homes. Applicants indicated that while the meeting awaited the return of the Commissioner the discussions shifted to various grievances and other issues raised by those attending the meeting. This led to the questioning of various senior officers alleged to have committed misconduct particularly in regard to the funds of junior members. Some senior officers confessed to having misappropriated such funds and named other senior officers who were involved. Those named who were absent were then fetched and forced to attend and account to the meeting. There were criminal charges pending in some of these cases and some further officers were subsequently charged. They were eventually acquitted. Applicants indicated that this did not detract from their principal objective of overthrowing the Gqozo regime. They indicated that these issues of corruption were closely related to this objective and were part of their reason for wanting to terminate the rule of Brigadier Gqozo. It was similarly so in regard to the police pensions which was also raised and dealt with at the meeting. Applicants testified that they were not prepared to end the meeting and disperse until it was clear that the rule of Brigadier Gqozo had in fact been terminated. In any event, Brigadier Gqozo had indicated to the police delegation that he would address a meeting in the Bisho stadium the next morning in regard to his resignation. Under those circumstances they decided to continue until the next morning. Having carefully considered all of the evidence and material placed before us we are satisfied that Applicants have made a full disclosure of all relevant facts in regard to the incident. It has not been contended that the objective of overthrowing the government of Brigadier Gqozo is political. Such a contention would be unfounded since that objective is clearly political. There can be no doubt that this was indeed the objective of Applicants. Their actions throughout the incident were clearly associated with this objective. The abduction and detention of those persons held at the college hall form an integral part of the overall political objective. The fact that some senior officers were questioned about various grievances and concerns during the period of their detention at the hall is understandable. These matters obviously weighed with those police officers who wanted to terminate the rule of Brigadier Gqozo and would reasonably have been raised in the context of the meeting. We have also considered the argument that the actions of Applicants subsequent to learning that Brigadier Gqozo had resigned, were unjustified. We cannot agree with this argument. In all the circumstances surrounding the incident it was perfectly reasonable on the part of the junior members to maintain and consolidate their position of relative strength until they were fully convinced that Brigadier Gqozo had in fact resigned. They reasonably anticipated that there was a prospect of the senior police officers lending support to Brigadier Gqozo and reversing his isolation and the efforts to have him step down should they be released during the course of the night and before the meeting in the stadium the next morning. We are accordingly satisfied that the conduct of Applicants during the incident on 22-23 March 1994 constitute acts associated with a political objective as set out in the Act. We are also satisfied that none of their actions was actuated by malice, spite or ill-will towards their victims. We are satisfied that the application complies with all the requirements of the Act and Applicants are accordingly GRANTED amnesty in respect of the following: 1. Kidnapping of members and/or seconded members of the Ciskeian police force and their next-of-kin and all other related offences and delicts which resulted from the incidents of 22-23 March 1994 at or near Bisho, Eastern Cape ; 2. Mutiny or any related offences which resulted from the abovementioned incident. In our opinion the persons set out in the annexed list marked "A" are victims in relation to the abovementioned incident and are referred for consideration in terms of the provisions of Section 22 of the Act. Dated at .............................................. on this ............ day of ...................... 1999. ....................................... JUDGE DENZIL POTGIETER ............................................ ADV. F. BOSMAN ............................................ DR. W. TSOTSI