decisions AMNESTY DECISIONS BUTATA ALMOND NOFEMELA,EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK,WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE,IZAK DANIEL BOSCH,JOHANNES VELDE VAN DER MERWE,NICHOLAAS JOHANNES VERMEULEN,WILLEM FREDERICK SCHOON AM0064/96,AM0066/96,AM3764/96,AM3765/96,AM4157/96,AM4358/96,AM4396/96 REFUSED https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/hearing.php?id=59513&t=&tab=hearings https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/originals/decisions/2001/ac21231.htm DECISION The applicants make application for amnesty in terms of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act No 34 of 1995 as amended (the Act) and in respect of various offences flowing from an incursion into Lesotho on or about the 19th December 1985. The African National Congress (ANC) was the largest anti-apartheid group opposing the system on various fronts and in many ways by the early 1960's it included an armed struggle through its military wing, uMkhonto weSizwe (MK), a variety of anti-apartheid propaganda which took different forms and other means of opposing the said system. This group came to be known as the "Meyer group". Armed with this information, 5th applicant gave instructions to Brigadier Schoon to investigate the feasibility of the Security Police acting against the group in Lesotho and to report back as a matter or urgency. These guidelines are to be found on page 5 of the minute under the heading "Lesotho" and under cover of the letterhead of the secretariat of the SSC and referred and approved of as decided in the minute of the SSC meeting of the 21st October 1985. After all the necessary preparations, the aforementioned group went into Lesotho with the intention of eliminating the Leon Meyer Group who it was believed was on the verge of entering South Africa to commit the crimes as referred to already. All the members of the 2nd applicant's group then left with Macaskill and proceeded to South Africa. At the beginning of the hearing, the Committee was informed that Adamson had since passed away and that Butana Almond Nofemela, a listed applicant, had already testified before another panel in this regard and such application would be dealt with by that panel. One of the slants of 5th applicant's evidence is that having informed the CIC and because there was no objection from it, he assumed that he was entitled to proceed with approval, tacit as it might be. In the circumstances it cannot be found that 5th applicant has made a full disclosure as to the act related to this incident insofar as it affects him. The Committee is therefore not satisfied that the 5th applicant has complied with all the requirements of the Act and his application for amnesty falls to be REFUSED. The next-of-kin of the aforementioned deceased persons in 1(a) above, as well as those of Nomkhosi Mary Mnisi and Jacqueline Quinn, are in the opinion of the Committee victims as envisaged by the Act and are referred to the Reparation and Rehabilitation Committee for attention. JUDGE R PILLAY JUDGE S KHAMPEPE ?? /... 2 /... 2 __ 21