decisions AMNESTY DECISIONS 1999-04-22 S.F.MANQELE AC/99/0178 AM 4236/96 REFUSED https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/hearing.php?id=58786&t=&tab=hearings https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/originals/decisions/1999/990422_sigudu mvelase manqele.html DECISION The three applicants apply for amnesty in respect of: (a) the murder of Mrs Govender; (b) attempted murder; (c) robbery with aggravating circumstances; (d) unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition, and in terms of Act 34 of 1995 as amended ("the Act"). All three allege that they were members of the Inkatha Freedom Party ("IFP") during December 1993. They explained that because of the political conflict between the IFP and the African National Congress ("ANC"), the members of the IFP needed to arm themselves with firearms in order to defend themselves in particular, the IFP members residing at the Dube Hostel, where the applicants also stayed. They testified that one Wiseman Khanyile, whom they said was highly ranked in the IFP, instructed them to commit a robbery to obtain money in order to purchase these firearms. Five of them planned the commission of the robbery a few days before and the target was Mrs Govender (the deceased) who was known to carry large sums of money from the bank. It seemed that Wiseman worked at the concern at which the deceased was also employed and therefore knew that she carried the money. On the 3rd December 1993 the applicants were amongst those who embarked on this robbery. Wiseman was not amongst them. In the course of the execution of the robbery, Sampson Manqele shot the deceased and as a result of which she died. Most of her attackers were armed with firearms. All of the applicants had extreme difficulty in explaining how and why the deceased was killed. All of them were evasive in their testimony. None of them were prepared to admit that they intended, in a legal sense, to kill the deceased. All say that it was an accident that she was shot. None of them knew what would happen if the victim had resisted the attack, nor did they know why all these firearms were taken with them on the venture except to say that it was intended to instil fear in the victim so that she would easily hand over the money. They all maintain that their actions were for the furtherance of the aims and objectives of the IFP policy. None of them could explain what these were. In their favour we will assume that the aims in this case was to defend the IFP membership. The Act provides that amnesty shall be granted if the act(s) for which amnesty is sought was committed for political reasons and provided the applicant made full disclosure as to the commission of the offence. Representatives of the IFP structures submitted written information indicating that upon investigation, in particular at the Dube Hostel, it was found that the Applicants and Wiseman Khanyile were not known especially in the context of IFP membership. It follows then that the motive for their activities in this context, must be called into question and raises serious doubt as to whether it was done with any political motive at all. Clearly, in our view, none of them were prepared to tell everything that was required to be said in order to comply with the Act. We have difficulty in accepting their evidence either alone, together or as a whole in respect of any of the offences for which they apply for amnesty. We wish to mention that the killing of the deceased was, according to them, an accident. In the circumstances therefore the death was not committed to further any political agenda. Furthermore, in our view, killing the deceased does not seem to have been the appropriate and proportionate avenue to have been taken in the circumstances of these applications. We are not satisfied that the Applicants have complied with the Act. The applications are therefore REFUSED . SIGNED ON THE 22nd APRIL 1999.