decisions AMNESTY DECISIONS PHILA MARTIN DOLO AM 3485/96 GRANTED https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/hearing.php?id=59129&t=&tab=hearings https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/originals/decisions/2000/ac200147.htm DECISION The matter has a long and controversial history which needs to be set out. Pursuant to the incident three members of the African National Congress ("ANC") were arrested. They confessed to the attack whilst in police custody and were eventually convicted in the Transvaal Provincial Division of the then Supreme Court after they unsuccessfully attempted to contest the admissibility of the confessions made by them. The trial Court found that the confessions were freely and voluntarily made and took the contents into account in convincing the accused. Two of the accused were sentenced to death and the remaining accused to long term imprisonment. Given the subsequent turn of events and the merits of the present amnesty application, these death sentences were mercifully never executed. Some time after the abovementioned convictions and sentences, the present applicant submitted an application for amnesty taking responsibility for the Eikenhof incident. This led to the three ANC accused successfully petitioning the Supreme Court of Appeal to re-open their case and to lead further evidence concerning the merits of the Eikenhof incident. We have been informed at the hearing by Mr Mbandazayo, who appeared on behalf of the present Applicant, that the National Director of Public Prosecutions instituted his own investigation into the matter and concluded that there was no basis for continuing with the prosecution of the three ANC accused who were eventually released during or about November 1999. Given the real prospect of further litigation relating to the matter of the three ANC members, we refrain from commenting extensively on the merits of that matter. It is, moreover, not necessary for present purposes to decide any issue relating to the merits of that matter. We merely point out that in view of our decision on the present application for amnesty, it is clear that the three ANC members were not responsible for committing the Eikenhof attack. This view is reinforced by the facts which emanated from the police investigation as reflected in the voluminous documents and records placed before us. It is now necessary to revert to the merits of the matter at hand. The facts of the matter are largely uncontested and appear from the application as well as the testimony of Applicant as corroborated by Brigadier General R.M. Fihla, a former member of the Apla High Command. Although two victims, Norman Mitchley and Craig Lamprecht, appeared at the hearing, they did not strenuously oppose the application. Applicant confirmed that the attack was the first operation carried out by the Gauteng Special Operations structure and that the operatives were members of an Apla unit under his command. He stated unequivocally that no members of the ANC were involved in the operation and that the members of the relevant Apla unit submitted a written report to him on the attack. It is also common cause that the written report submitted by Applicant to the Apla High Command was eventually confiscated by the South African Police in raids upon the PAC offices in 1995 long before Applicant lodged his amnesty application. Having carefully considered the matter, we are satisfied that the application complies with all of the requirements of the Act. Applicant has clearly made a full disclosure of all relevant and material facts. We are, moreover, satisfied that the Eikenhof incident constitutes an act associated with a political objective as envisaged in the Act. In the circumstances, amnesty is hereby GRANTED to the Applicant, in respect of all of the offences and delicts resulting from the Eikenhof incident and in particular 2. The attempted killing of Norman Mitchley and Craig Lamprecht. In our opinion the next-of-kin of the deceased as well as Norman Mitchley and Craig Lamprecht are victims in respect of the incident and they are accordingly referred for consideration in terms of the provisions of Section 22 of the Act. DATED AT CAPE TOWN ON THIS __________ DAY OF ______________ 2000. ___________________ D. POTGIETER, A.J. ___________________ J. MOTATA, A.J. ___________________ ADV. N. SANDI