Having considered the application and relevant documentation the Amnesty Committee REFUSES the applicant amnesty, the reason being that the applicant still denies that he stole the motor vehicles, or that he had any knowledge that the motor vehicles were stolen. He denies involvement or knowledge that the motor vehicles were stolen. He does not admit any facts that can found a conviction. He says he is guilty of not telling the police the true identity of the person from whom he got the motor vehicles, but hastens to deny involvement or any knowledge that the vehicles were stolen.

Although he might have used the vehicles for a political purpose, the persistent denial os a problem. We are not a Court of Appeal. Obviously the Magistrate disbelieved him, hence the conviction. We have turned down many such applications in the past, otherwise we would have opened the door for people to deny guilt, while at the same time receiving amnesty.

The Applicant's request for amnesty in respect of the theft of two motor vehicles stolen on or about 30th June 1993 and 15th July 1993 at Pretoria, North Natal (Newcastle) and Vryheid is therefore REFUSED.

Re: Application for Amnesty: Theft of Motor Vehicles on 30 June 1993 and 15 July 1993

I have been requested to supply my reasons for dissenting from the decision to refuse the applicant application for amnesty. These are my reasons.

I am of the view that the Magistrate erred in finding the applicant guilty of the theft. It is clear from the record of the trial proceedings that there was no evidence that the applicant actually stole the vehicles in question and the Magistrate's reasoning that the applicant is guilty of theft because he was in possession of the vehicles which he knew to be stole and because theft is a continuing offence is, to my mind, flawed. The applicant at best should have been found guilty of being in possession of stolen goods.

The applicant applies for amnesty in respect of theft of the vehicles rather than for being in unlawful possession of the vehicles for the obvious reason that he has been convicted of theft. In the circumstances, his denial that he stole the vehicles should not tell against him. It is, however, apparent that the applicant has not made full disclosure to this Committee as his averment that his possession of the vehicles was entirely innocent is clearly false.

In my opinion this non-disclosure should not be fatal to the application, notwithstanding, the provisions of Section 20(1)(c) of the Act, as it does not relate to the offence which is the subject of the application, namely, theft.

A further complicating factor is the affidavit of Juliette van Schalkwyk in which she states that the vehicle allegedly stolen from Karin Kemper was "stolen" with her (Karen Kemper's) approval and consent. If there is any truth in this allegation there can be no question of the applicant being in possession of stolen goods insofar as that vehicle is concerned and it may accordingly be said that the applicant, albeit unwittingly, has made full disclosure in respect of that vehicle.

Taking the above into account and also the fact that there is no dispute that the applicant's possession of the vehicle was an act associated with a political objective committed in the course of the course of the conflicts of the past, I believe that the applicant's application should not have been refused on the papers, but that a hearing should have been held before a final decision was arrived at.