decisions AMNESTY DECISIONS WASHINGTON SENTI THAGE AC/99/0261 AM 3125/96 REFUSED https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/hearing.php?id=58938&t=&tab=hearings https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/originals/decisions/1999/ac990261.htm DECISION _________________________________________________________ The applicant, who was the only witness to testify in this case, is seeking amnesty for the murder of Abinaar Ramphomane Mongwala, which crime he committed in collaboration with others at Musenville, Krugersdorp, on the 15th November 1991. The murder occurred in the context of a violent conflict between members of the African National Congress ("ANC") and the Pan African Congress of Azania ("PAC") at Musenville. The Applicant and his co-perpetrators were members of the African National Congress Youth League ("ANCYL") an affiliate of the ANC. The deceased was a member of the PAC. The applicant is currently serving a long term of imprisonment for the crime in respect of which he was convicted and sentenced on the 26 March 1993. It would appear that in the course of the said conflict there were attacks and counter attacks from both sides. In one of the incidents one Joseph Kulu, an ANC supporter was killed by PAC members on the 6 January 1991. The applicant says on that day, houses of the ANC supporters were petrol-bombed by PAC supporters. In reaction to the situation of political violence and strife in the area which had been raging since 1990, PAC supporters were "expelled" from the community of Musenville. They went to take up residence at Wilgerspruit. The applicant says it is from that they planned and carried out further attacks on ANC activists. Evidence has also been led that the leadership of the ANC and the PAC had tried to convene meetings to resolve the matter, but in the initial stages all attempts were in vain. Then on the 14 November 1991 a meeting was held in a community hall by the members of both organisations. Attending the meeting were leaders of the ANC and the PAC from both Regional and Provincial levels, who wanted to settle the matter and, at last, secure peace for the community of Musenville and the warring factions. The applicant and the other members of the ANCYL also attended. The applicant and his faction within the ANC group, were insisting that before the PAC supporters could be allowed to return to the community, they should follow a certain procedure. They had to go to their parents who would then take them to a meeting of the residents of Musenville. At the meeting they would have to make a public undertaking not again to attack and harass ANC supporters. The PAC supporters rejected the prescribed method of returning to the community. They insisted that they would unconditionally return to their homes. Then the applicant and his sub-group, we deliberately say "sub-group" because this was not the attitude of all ANC supporters, walked out of the meeting. They were leaving behind their leaders and other supporters of the ANC and the PAC, desperately trying to find a solution. Under cross-examination, the applicant admitted that in so doing they were defying the instructions of the ANC leadership, his own leaders, that they stay and continue participating in the meeting and the discussions. The applicant says their leaders had the advantage of the protection of bodyguards and were not directly affected by the violence in the community. It further appears, from the information that has been supplied to the Committee, that after the applicant and his comrades had left, the meeting continued and it was decided that the PAC supporters could return to their homes. They were to desist from carrying out attacks on ANC supporters or harming any member of the community. The method and the procedure suggested by the applicant and others was not adopted. The applicant and his faction made no attempts to ascertain what resolution were taken after they left. They were determined that PAC supporters were not going to be allowed to return to their homes. He says this was a decision of the "community" and that they had gone to the meeting to convey the viewpoint and condition laid down by the Musenville community. The applicant says when they became aware that the deceased and the other PAC supporters had come back without complying with the stipulated procedure, they started arming themselves with knives and an assortment of dangerous weapons with the view to attack them. At approximately 12h00 noon on the 15th idem, and whilst the applicant, Johles, Fanie, Sam and another ANCYL member were in the process of calling a community meeting to discuss the "intrusion" of the PAC supporters, they saw the deceased and other PAC comrades alighting from a taxi. The applicant and his comrades started following them. He learnt from his comrades that there were other PAC members who had been moving around. There were no reports that they had attacked or threatened to attack any person, but the applicant says they suspected that they were armed with guns, because they could never have returned without arms. He says he immediately recognised the deceased as the person who had delivered a blow to him with an iron rod on the 26 December 1990, during the fight between ANC and PAC activists. They chased after them until they found the deceased near a shop. They stabbed him several times all over his body with knives. The PAC group fired with guns but were repelled by the applicant's group which had increased to approximately 100 members in strength. At that stage both sides were using guns to confront each other. When the applicant's group returned to the scene where the deceased had fallen, his body was set alight with petrol. His home and other PAC members' homesteads were searched for arms and no weapons were found. The applicant repeatedly says the deceased was killed because he did not comply with the stipulated procedure. He also says it was because he was avenging the killing of his comrades, Joseph Kulu. Not only had the incident occurred more than (10) months ago but there is also no indication that the deceased and his comrades were planning to attack the applicant and his group. They did not even threaten to do so. They were simply returning to their homes, as it had been agreed at the meeting between the ANC and PAC representatives that they could do so. Above all, the applicant and his cohorts had no orders from the ANC which we know from the newspapers cuttings condemned the killing of the deceased as an act of criminal elements who bent on perpetuating the violence between the two organisations. The application is accordingly REFUSED. Signed at Cape Town on this the .............................. day of ............................... 1999. .......................................... JUDGE A. WILSON ............................................ ADV. N. SANDI ......................................... DR. W.TSOTSI