This is an application for amnesty in terms of the provisions of Section 18 of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, No. 34 of 1995 ("the Act").

The application relates to a number of incidents which occurred during the period 1989 – 1990 pursuant to an industrial dispute involving members of the National Union of Metal Workers of South African ("Numsa") and the management of Haggie Rand Limited at its Jupiter factory in Cleveland, Johannesburg. Pursuant to these incidents the Applicant and five co-accused were arraigned on a number of charges in the Witwatersrand Local Division of the then Supreme Court. Applicant was convicted of the following offences and was sentenced to an effective 27 year term of imprisonment which he is presently serving:

Applicant has testified in support of the application. Although one of his former co-accused, Richard Ngobeni, was present at the proceedings he was not called to testify in view of the fact that his version, which is contained in an affidavit forming part of the papers in this matter, is common cause. All of the victims or their next-of-kin who were identifiable and had been located were duly notified of the application, but none of them attended the proceedings. The application is accordingly unopposed. We proceed to briefly set out the relevant factual background.

During 1989 all of the labour unions affiliated to the Congress of South African Trade Unions ("Cosatu") engaged in a ban on overtime work in protest, inter alia, against the amended provisions of the Labour Relations Act No. 28 of 1956.

Numsa is a Cosatu affiliated labour union which was active at the Haggie Rand factory. A dispute had arisen between Numsa and management at the factory concerning overtime work. This eventually resulted in a strike at the factory on 23 October 1989. Pursuant to the strike approximately 250 Numsa members were dismissed and temporary workers, also referred to as scab labour, were employed by the management. Those workers who were not dismissed continued working at the factory. According to newspaper reports which form part of the papers before us, there are indications that the Inkatha Freedom Party aligned United Workers Union of South Africa also maintained a presence at the Haggie Rand factory. This situation set the scene for a violent conflict resulting from the Numsa industrial action.

The striking Numsa workers were led by a committee of 10 under the leadership of Richard Ngobeni and some of Applicant’s other former co-accused. The committee convened regular meetings in regard to the situation at the factory. These meetings were held in Commissioner Street, Johannesburg in the late afternoon outside of normal working hours. Applicant and a number of other Cosatu aligned persons who were not employed at the Haggie Rand factory, attended these meetings. Applicant was at all material times an ordinary member of the African National Congress and he supported the cause of the striking Numsa members. Members of the committee of 10 took the initiative at these meetings and initiated any action which had to be taken. In the course of these meetings a number of persons were identified who undermined the cause of the Numsa members and who informed the factory management about the activities and decisions of the strikers. A decision was taken that these persons had to be attacked and eliminated. Firearms were supplied for this purpose by the committee of 10. After Applicant was shown how to handle a firearm he joined the group assembled to launch attacks on a number of persons identified in the meetings. In all of these attacks Applicant was armed and in most instances fired shots at the victims. The victims were not personally known to Applicant and were identified by other members of the group of attackers. In the course of these attacks Applicant committed the offences listed above of which he was eventually convicted.

All of Applicant’s former co-accused were granted indemnity for the relevant offences and were released from prison. Applicant himself unsuccessfully applied for indemnity. Applicant indicated that he was unaware of the reason for the refusal of his indemnity application and found himself unable to respond to a suggestion that the indemnity was refused on the basis that the Applicant was hired as an assassin by the striking Numsa members. There is no indication on the papers before us why the indemnity application was refused. The papers indicate that the committee charged with considering indemnity applications made a recommendation to the relevant authorities that the application should be refused. The reason for such recommendation is not apparent from the papers. The suggestion that Applicant was paid for the attacks was apparently also made at the criminal trial. Applicant denied in his evidence that he was paid for the attacks and this evidence is corroborated by the undisputed contents of the affidavit of Mr Ngobeni. We have no reason not to accept Applicant’s version.

Having carefully considered all of the circumstances of the matter as well as the evidence presented to us, we are satisfied that all of the actions undertaken by the Applicant constitute acts associated with a political objective as defined in terms of the Act. We are satisfied that these acts related to the broader political objectives espoused by Cosatu who is one of the alliance partner of the ANC. Applicant testified that all of the problems being experienced by workers were caused by apartheid and that he intended to fight the government of the day. We are, moreover, satisfied that there is no basis for rejecting Applicant’s version and we accordingly accept that Applicant did not act for personal gain. In our view Applicant has also made a full disclosure of all relevant facts as required by the Act.

In the circumstances, amnesty is hereby GRANTED to the Applicant in respect of all the counts on which he was convicted as more fully set out above.

In our opinion the persons injured in these incidents as well as the next-of-kin of the deceased, are victims in relation to the respective acts for which amnesty is hereby granted and they are accordingly referred for consideration in terms of the provisions of Section 22 of the Act.

DATED at .........................this................. day of .........................1999.

JUDGE DENZIL POTGIETER

_________________________

ADV. CHRIS DE JAGER

________________________

ADV. FRANCIS BOSMAN