The Applicant makes application for amnesty in terms of Act 34 of 1995 as amended ("the Act") in respect of the offence of Armed Robbery.

The Applicant testified that he was a member of the United Democratic Front since 1983. In 1990 he joined the African National Congress ("ANC") and was active in the Chesterville Branch of the ANC.

It is common cause that gang warfare had developed in the area and was rife during the period when this offence was committed.

He testified that he and one Stanley Gumede were ordered by one Saga Gumede to go and steal a motor vehicle in order to transport firearms for the purposes of defending the community against a gang. This occurred in a meeting called by Saga Gumede. He is unable to say if the meeting was called under the auspices of an organisation, or if so, which one. However, in his application he stated that the robbery of the motor vehicle was committed in order to sell it and use the proceeds to purchase firearms. He could not explain why he testified that he was ordered to commit the robbery in order to transport firearms. He made an affidavit in order to correct "mistakes" in his application. He explained that the mistakes were made because of time pressure when completing the application form. Yet in that very affidavit which he said was made to correct mistakes, he clearly stated that he did not act on an order when committing this offence but in terms of an agreement he had entered into with Sipho Nxumalo. He was unable to explain why he had said so if he indeed acted in terms of an order.

It is clear that the factual position in respect of his motive for committing this robbery is something, at best for the Applicant, that still has to be disclosed. His tendency to want to make "corrections" of factual issues which are matters which either occurred or did not occur detracts from the force of the application. These were not incidental crimes but were very material ones that strike at the root of the application.

His inability to explain these matters further fortifies the finding that he has not made a full disclosure of the facts and circumstances relevant to the commission of the offence.

The Committee thus is not satisfied that he has complied with the requirements of the Act and his application is consequently REFUSED.

SIGNED AT CAPE TOWN THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2000

R PILLAY J

D POTGIETER AJ

MR I LAX