decisions AMNESTY DECISIONS JON HENDRICK ROELOFSE AM 7955/97 REFUSED https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/hearing.php?id=59187&t=&tab=hearings https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/originals/decisions/2000/ac200206.htm DECISION This is an application in terms of Section 19 of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act No 34 of 1995. The Applicant is currently serving a long term of imprisonment for the murder of the late Victor Zakhele Mlotshwa ("the deceased"). The incident occurred at Stilfontein in the district of Klerksdorp on 21 March 1993 when the Applicant shot and killed the deceased with a firearm. Following the incident the Applicant is now seeking amnesty for the said murder as well as the unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition. At the hearing the Applicant was the only witness to testify in support of his application for amnesty. The widow of the deceased, Paulina Kedibone Mlotshwa, was in attendance at the hearing and advised the Committee though her legal representative that she was not opposing the application. She was accordingly leaving he matter in the hands of the tribunal. The Applicant also subscribed to these suspicions and, in fact, firmly believed that whites were under a threat from blacks. He says at the time, in concert with the view and belief of all the supporters of the Afrikaner Weerstand Beweging ("the AWB"), he believed that on the day of the forthcoming general elections there was going to be chaos and anarchy in the country. All whites were going to be killed. He took a decision :to make a contribution" to counter the perceived threat. Although he knew some of the AWB leaders and its supporters, he did not discuss his decision and plan with anyone of them, namely to avenge the death of his Eikenhof white kith-and-kin by killing any black person he saw in the street that day. Neither did he disclose his intention to his wife who was present at home for a greater part of that day. The Applicant spent the day at home consuming a considerable quantity of liquor. He also took some tablets which were prescribed medication for his psychiatric problems. He denies that his subsequent conduct on that day had anything to do with his consumption of liquor,. He says although he had partaken of the same he was not so drunk that he did not know what he was doing. (We intend to revert to this aspect later.) At all times, he claims, he knew and appreciated what he was doing. In the evening whilst he was on his way to work he saw the deceased and called him. When the latter came towards him he shot him. He died instantly and without putting up any resistance. It is clear that the deceased was very much taken by surprise. The application is therefore REFUSED. In the circumstances it is not necessary to declare the dependants of the deceased victims in terms of the Act since the murder of the deceased in the circumstances cannot be regarded as an act associated with the political conflicts of the past. It is quite clear from the evidence that the Applicant was merely on a drunken frolic of his own. DATED AT CAPE TOWN this 16th day of November 2000 ________________________ D POTGIETER A J ________________________ J MOTATA A J ________________ ADV N SANDI