decisions AMNESTY DECISIONS 2001-05-21 CAPE TOWN ZAMA THUTHA,LUVUYO KULMAN AM2883/96,AM1638/96 GRANTED/REFUSED https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/hearing.php?id=59465&t=&tab=hearings https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/originals/decisions/2001/ac21183.htm DECISION The two Applicants in this matter were convicted of the following offences which were committed on the 27th August 1993: Having quoted an extract from the judgment of Shearer J cited in S v MacBride 1988(4) SA 10 (A.D.) the judge said: It is clear from the above passages that no mention was made at their trial of the alleged instructions to kidnap Meyers or of his alleged membership or connection with the AWB. It appears fro the judgment that the version put forward by or on behalf of the Applicants was that their leader had himself committed the offences of which they had een convicted. In setting out his political objectives he said that all these operations were conducted so as to make government to stop being hard on oppressed Africans and to ease oppression. All that he did, he did in order to liberate African people from the atrocities and oppression of the whites. As the previous government was very cruel to blacks killing their defenceless people during riots and in detention, they believed that the only language government would understand would be to kill the whites. He further stated these operations were undertaken through the approval of and the orders of his organisation. In describing his political objectives he said that as it was well known that Africans were being oppressed in their motherland (Azania) they were trying to attract the focus of the State so as to see that the people were tired and angry of being oppressed by the settlers in their own country. He said he was ordered to carry out the operation by his commander whom he only knew by his code name Thanduxolo. A final factor to comment on is his attempt to explain that he knew the father could not leave the daughter behind alone in the car when there was no way he could have known that Donne Meyers was the daughter or would be in the car because she was only there on this occasion as a result of injury to his foot her father had suffered. His attorney confirmed that he had gone through the application with him. We are of the view that the Applicants have not complied with the provisions of Section 20(1)(c) and on that ground the applications should be refused. SIGNED AT CAPE TOWN ON THIS 21ST DAY OF MAY 2001 JUDGE A WILSON ADV N SANDI MR I LAX ?? 2 /... /...