amntrans AMNESTY HEARINGS 1999-02-04 NELSPRUIT 4 SOLOMON COLLEN MTAMBO https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/hearing.php?id=53156&t=&tab=hearings https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/originals/amntrans/1999/99020105_nel_990204ne.htm F I N D I N G CHAIRPERSON: Today is the 4th of February and we are ready to pronounce our decision in respect of an amnesty application of Mr Solomon Collen Mtambo which was heard yesterday. Mr Mtambo applied in terms of section 18 of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act 34 of 1995. He applied in respect of his conviction, which was on the 13th of June 1995 at Secunda for the murder of Mshewu Phumalo at Kwadela Darville on the 29th of May 1993. For this offence he was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment which he is currently serving at Barberton Prison. Notices in terms of section 94 of the Act had been served on the deceased's family and Mr Trevor Phumalo, a cousin of the deceased, testified on their behalf. The applicant was represented by Mr D Claassen and he testified in support of his application. He confirmed his applications and the affidavit which forms part of the papers. We do not intend to traverse the evidence of the applicant in detail. Suffice it to say he was not an impressive witness. His testimony was fraught with numerous inconsistencies and contradictions. It also differed in material respects with the allegations or versions contained in his applications and the affidavit referred to above. When asked to explain these numerous inconsistencies, he conceded that he had lied in his applications, in his indemnity application and in the affidavit to the TRC's investigation unit, in court during his trial, in a statement which he made to the police during the investigation of the crime for which he was later convicted. One such instance of this kind of a problem with his evidence is that in his application, he refers to the incident in which he shot the deceased and the reasons why he did so. At page 3 of the papers, paragraph 10(b) he says, and we quote him:- "I wanted my party to be the one who take over the election of the provincial by eliminating some of the members of the opposition party." At page 5 of the papers, paragraph 11, he says, we quote him:- "The motive was that my organisation win the April 1994 elections by killing prominent members of the ANC in my area." At page 8 of the papers, he however says, at paragraph 9(a)(4), we quote him:- "I shot dead Mr Mshewu Phumalo on self defence after he attempted to shoot me." At page 10 of the papers, paragraph 10(b), he however says:- "The deceased was killed due to the political motive that existed at that stage as I knew that if Mr Phumalo can be eliminated, our party will gain recognition as he was the only stumbling block towards achieving our political goals." At page 28 and 29 of the papers, at paragraph 3 therein, he describes a different version of the incident, and in paragraph 5 implies that the reason he killed the deceased was his refusal to end the fight between the IFP and the ANC. However, in his viva voce evidence before us, he stated that he wanted to kill the deceased inter alia so as to intimidate ANC people into joining the IFP, because the deceased was brave and led assaults and attacks on IFP supporters, and also because the deceased had told him he had made a vow to kill him, him being the applicant, and he was scared of him. The applicant testified that he had taken the decision to kill the deceased on his own and that he wanted to hide his own participation in the commission of the crime so as not to bring the IFP into disrepute. How then would he be able to achieve his stated purpose of intimidating ANC supporters to joining the IFP and thereby increasing the IFP's membership if that is so? It is clear to us that this and other instances of non-disclosure are aimed inter alia at establishing a political context to support the applicant's assertion that his acts were associated with a political objective. In the result, we as a committee, are not satisfied that the applicant has complied with section 20.2 of the Act and his application is accordingly REFUSED. That is our decision.