DECISION
The Applicants in this matter were both members of the SADA   Youth Organisation, also known as SAYO, which was an affiliate of the UDF, which   was in turn a front for the African National Congress (ANC) which was banned   at that time (1986).  They had both been convicted of murder, assault with intent   to cause grievous bodily harm and common assault.  The first two counts were   in respect of the killing of Joseph Sebatana by flogging him for several hours   and the third count was in respect of pouring paraffin over Jan Nomkhango Fuzani,   who was Sebatana's wife.  This happened on or about 1-2 January 1986 near Madakeni.
The Applicant, Mjo, who was referred   to by their counsel as the main Applicant and who was the first to give evidence,   said in his application (paragraph 10(a) that the political objective sought   to be achieved was:
      "to achieve a community with one   aim, that is to face the enemy with no fighting amongst us.  The enemy mentioned   here is the apartheid regime.  I regret the death and injury."
He goes on in his application to refer to confiscating guns   and disarming vigilantes and police informers.  Similar reasons are set out   in Maqoko's application.
In the affidavit filed by Mjo he mentions a report received   by the street committee of which he and his co-applicant were members, of an   attempt by one Remamba, a suspected police informer, to shoot his brother.    They lured Remamba to a so-called "dark house" where he was interrogated   and assaulted in order to obtain information about the firearm which was perceived   as a danger to the community.  Remamba initially denied any knowledge of it   but subsequently said the deceased had it.  At that time Mjo did not know the   deceased but was told he was a police informer and a Zulu.  The deceased was   brought to the "dark house" here he and Remamba were severely assaulted   with sjamboks and questioned about the firearms.  Remamba then said it was in   the possession of his brother Mzikayise.  Mzikayise was then fetched and questioned   and said the firearm was at Mpondoland.  The deceased had said he had a pellet   gun.  He was assaulted further when he would not say where it was.  He was subsequently   taken to the river because he was screaming and it was thought this would invite   the attention of the police.  At the river the deceased was assaulted repeatedly   and severely with sjamboks.  He was struck on the body and the head indiscriminately.    The deceased had mentioned, whilst still in the "dark house" that   he had given the gun to Nota who was fetched and assaulted.  He denied all knowledge   of the gun but was not assaulted severely.
At the river the deceased said he had hidden the gun under   his hi-fi set.  It was not found there.  He then said it was buried next to   his toilet.  They all then left the river to go to his house.  The deceased   had by then been seriously injured and had to be carried by Remamba.  The gun   was not found and the group dispersed.  On the following day Mjo heard that   the deceased had died from the injuries inflicted on him.  Mjo approached his   wife and asked her not to tell the police about the assault.  Mjo explained   in his affidavit that the purpose of assaulting the deceased and other vigilantes   was twofold, to dispossess them of lethal weapons believed to have been supplied   by the police and to punish them for aiding the "enemy".  He stated   that it was never their intention to kill the deceased but admitted that they   were reckless as to whether he died or not.  Maqok, in his affidavit, confirmed   the allegations of fact in Mjo's affidavit and admitted that he assaulted the   deceased with a sjambok repeatedly in the "dark house" and near the   river.  He said he intervened to prevent comrades from burning the deceased's   wife alive.
The post-mortem report referred   to in the judgment of the Appellate Division disclosed:
      "that Dr Seyisi, who examined the   body, found linear abrasions on the anterior aspect of the trunk and thighs,   multiple weals on the trunk and on the upper and lower limbs of the body.  There   were also linear abrasions on the anterior aspect of the trunk.  He testified   that the weals were so numerous as to be difficult to count.  The weals criss-crossed   and flowed into each other.  The weals were consistent with blows being struck   by means of a blunt instrument.  He gave as the cause of death stagnant anoxia   resulting from a reduced supply of oxygen in the organs of the body.  The witness   stated that blows inflicted on a body would result in a stagnation of the flow   of the book in the blood vessels at the place where the blows are struck.  Should   the blows struck result in extravasation of blood around the blood vessels,   this, if sufficiently extensive, could cause death."
Mjo's evidence-in-chief- was a confirmation of the affidavit   already referred to.  Under cross-examination he confirmed that the suspicion   that the deceased had a gun emanated from Remamba who was not a member of any   political organisation.  After cross-examination on the point he said that when   the deceased's name was mentioned in the "dark house" on of the comrades   said he is one of the vigilante created by the police.  That is why he claims   he can allege that there was a spark of political connection which led to the   assault of the deceased.  He later said that they did not believe the deceased   when he said he had a pellet gun as they knew the police gave vigilantes or   informers real guns.  However, he went on to say that they went on beating him   because he was a vigilante.  I addition they wanted to see where the pellet   gun was so they could be sure he had a pellet gun rather than a gun.
Maqoko confirmed Mjo's and his own affidavits.  He agreed   he associated with those who assaulted the deceased's wife as he was present   although he then intervened to prevent them burning her alive.  He agreed that   Nota was assaulted because he said he knew nothing about the gun.  He was unable   to supply any political motive for the assault on him or the deceased's wife.    He later said it was not the aim to assault anyone, they just wanted the gun.    That is why the comrades decided to assault Nota and he was part of the decision.
We are satisfied that the Applicants have complied with   the technical requirements and that they did not act for personal gain or out   of personal malice, ill-will or spite.  We are, however, not satisfied that   their acts were associated with a political objective as required in terms of   Section 20(2) or (3) of the Act.  On the evidence of the Applicants and on the   evidence set out in the judgments given at their trial and appeal, the Applicants   embarked on a vicious and prolonged assault on the deceased based on information   subsequently shown to be unreliable or on suspicions that the deceased might   have attempted to mislead them.  They wanted information about a firearm which   the deceased might have had.  They did not intend to kill him because of his   political activities.  The deceased came to their attention as a result of Remamba's   statement that the deceased was in possession of the firearm he had used to   shoot his brother.  They nevertheless embarked on a prolonged, vicious assault   on the deceased, reckless as to whether his death ensued or not.  This does   not, in our view, comply with the requirement of sub-section (2) in that it   was not in support of the ANC or within the course and scope of their duties,   nor could they have believed that this was so.  In addition, the relationship   between their brutal,  prolonged assault and their objective, that is to obtain   information about the possible ownership of a pellet gun or some other gun is   grossly disproportionate.  There was also no justification for the assault on   Nota as a result of the information from the deceased at a time when they were   disbelieving the deceased's version, nor for the assault on the deceased's wife   who was not suspected of any political or illegal acts.
In these circumstances we REFUSE   the Applicant's application for amnesty in respect of all the offences for which   they were convicted.
DATED AT CAPE TOWN THIS    DAY OF                  2001.
____________________________
WILSON J
____________________________
DE JAGER AJ
____________________________
POTGIETER AJ
??
/...
1
/...
2
/...
7