TRC Final Report

Volume 6

Section 3

Chapter 3

Subsection 3

ISSUES IMPACTING ON THE AMNESTY PROCESS

21. At the inception of the Commission, the IFP announced that it would not urge its members or IFP victims of gross human rights violations to participate in i t s processes. In spite of written representations and personal requests by senior members of the Commission, the IFP did not depart from this position until approximately one month before the cut-off date for the submission of victim statements. At this stage, the party called on its members to apply for reparations. Such a shift of position did not, however, occur with respect to the amnesty process.

22. In his submission to the Commission, Dr Buthelezi stated that IFP officials or members who had carried out illegal activities had been acting without instructions and on their own initiative, and had been responding to the violent conflict raging at the time. It is therefore unlikely that potential IFP amnesty applicants, whether or not they were in gaol, had been briefed about the amnesty process by their political leadership. With little hope that the party leadership would assist them, potential applicants faced the risk of having their political bona fides questioned by the Amnesty Committee.

23. Poor literacy amongst some potential applicants also seems likely to have been a factor in the low level of applications. This became clear when, on the eve of the cut-off date, officials of the Department of Correctional Services approached the Commission on behalf of imprisoned IFP members who had requested assistance in making amnesty applications. At the amnesty hearing of Mr Zakhele Amos Zulu [AC/2000/075; AM2099/96], it emerged that his co-accused was also in prison for the same offence^{1 7 3} but had not applied for amnesty because he was illiterate and had been unable to fill out the necessary form.

24. The extent to which potential applicants were intimidated into not applying for amnesty is difficult to establish. This cannot be discounted, however, given the continuation of political violence during the life of the Commission, particularly in some areas of KwaZulu-Natal. IFP applicants who made allegations of intimidation w e re found to be in genuine danger and were placed in witness protection programmes.

25. Mr Mbuzeni Nsindane [AM4071/96, AM 3689/96 and AM 4071/96] alleged that a certain Captain Hlengwa had visited prisoners and told them that they should not implicate leaders in the killing of ANC member Mr Thabani Mghobozi at Amahlongwa reserve in Umzinto in 1990. Mr Nsindane told the Amnesty Committee that he feared that disclosing this information would endanger the lives of his family members:

MR WILLS: So I notice in both your application forms that you make no mention of one, the leadership who knew what you were doing, and second, the other persons, other than your brother, who were involved in the attack. They’re not mentioned in your application form, can you explain that? MR NSINDANE: Yes, it is the truth. MR WILLS: But now why didn’t you mention these people’s names in your application form ? MR NSINDANE: I was afraid that they may actually attack my family. MR WILLS: Did any of the parties that saw you from the IFP, influence you in regard to the omission of these names? MR NSINDANE: Yes, it is like that. MR WILLS: Well tell us, who? MR NSINDANE: Mr Captain Hlengwa. He said we shouldn’t include people’s names. (Pietermaritzburg Hearing, 2 February 1999.)

26. Many of the applicants were motivated to apply for amnesty because they were serving long prison sentences. Others had become disillusioned in some way with the part they played in the violent conflict. Mr Daluxolo Luthuli said in a statement attached to his amnesty application:

During the period that I was a hit squad operative I was proud to be a brave soldier fighting for the Zulu nation against communism. I felt my activities were justified and that it was incumbent on me to assist in the fight on the side of the IFP against the ANC. On many occasions, senior IFP officials who respected me for my total commitment to the Zulu cause congratulated me. I had the reputation of being one of the most loyal and effective operatives.

Since my arrest, however, I have had time to contemplate my past in circum stances where I am removed from the extreme political influences to which I was previously subjected. I have come to realise the horror of my past and deeply regret the extensive pain and suffering that I have caused my victims and their relatives … Whilst I cannot change the past I took a decision during 1994 to assist in whatever way possible to bring an end to the conflict that still rages in KwaZulu-Natal. (D W Luthuli, Statement)

27. Many applicants wished to dispel the notion that they were merely criminals acting in a personal capacity. Mr Gcina Mkhize [AM4599/96], a Caprivi trainee and leader of the Esikhawini hit squad, told the Amnesty Committee:

MR MKHIZE: I will like to respond to the Chairperson first, before I get to the question. Chairperson, can I please say that the details that I am mentioning here, I do that because in this Commission and in the general public, I appear as a criminal. I appear as a person who because of his criminality just wiped out the entire community. Statements made by the IFP, B B Ndlovu that are broadcast on the media implicate me as a criminal. I would like to make it clear to the Commission and the public that the criminality that they are according me today, started at that time before the training, during the training, and after the training, when I started killing people. That is when the criminality started. That they taught me.

CHAIR P E R S O N: You can proceed. I don’t want to hinder you in your evidence, I am just saying we don’t have to get the very fine detail as to the exact training that you received, but those points that you feel that you wish to stress, be free to do so.

MR MKHIZE: I would also like to say that coming to this Commission, is not just to seek amnesty. What is more important is to clear my name and explain to the public what happened. It is there fore important that I mention all the details so that everybody will know what happened. (Durban Hearing, August 1997)