TRC Final Report

Volume 6

Section 3

Chapter 3

Subsection 4

SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF AMNESTY APPLICATIONS

Total number received

28. The Amnesty Committee received 109 amnesty applications from persons aligned to the IFP for offences committed between 1983 to 1994 in KwaZulu-Natal and the former Transvaal. In addition, four police officers and three right-wing applicants submitted applications, purporting to be acting on behalf of the I F P. These were not categorised as IFP applicants.

29. The Committee granted amnesty to sixty applicants (57 %) and refused amnesty to forty (38 %). Two applicants were granted amnesty for some incidents but were refused amnesty for others for reasons of motive and proportionality.

30. Most matters were dealt with in a hearing convened by the Amnesty Committee. A total of twelve matters were dealt with in chambers.¹⁷⁴ All applications except one were successful.

31. Three applicants withdrew their applications because they did not meet the legal criteria governing the amnesty process. One application was struck off the roll because the applicant did not attend the proceedings. By far the largest number of applicants had been convicted of their offences before making application to the Amnesty Committee. Some applicants gave testimony about incidents for which they had not been charged. Others were in gaol for offences committed after the Commission’s cut-off date in April 1994.

32. The applicants who claimed allegiance to the aims and objectives of the IFP can be divided into the following categories:

a Caprivi trainees;

b Esikhawini hit squad;

c Self - protection unit members;

d Civilian IFP supporters;

e Political leadership of the IFP;

f KwaZulu Police;

g South African Riot Unit (including Special Constables);

h South African Police;

i The right wing, and

j IFP-linked vigilantes.

33. Many of the IFP applicants applying for amnesty testified that their activities w e re sponsored by the apartheid government and/ or the homeland government and/ or their political leadership. The Commission was required to investigate these allegations insofar as they shed light on the lines of command, motives and political context in which the IFP applicants were operating. This was particularly necessary in the light of the fact that the leadership of the IFP, unlike other groupings testifying before the Commission, gave no details of human rights violations committed by their members.

Those who did not apply

34. The Amnesty Committee did not receive amnesty applications from any high-ranking members of the national or provincial political leadership of the IFP, nor did it receive applications from senior officials of the KwaZulu Police. Several key members of these groups were implicated by the operational commander of the Caprivi trainees, Mr Daluxolo Luthuli, whose claims were corroborated by ten members of the paramilitary units under his command. The Amnesty Committee relied on these first-hand accounts as well as upon documentary evidence presented to it in order to make certain findings against the above individuals in their personal capacity or as functionaries of the then KwaZulu Government.

35. Similarly, Mr Luthuli and other applicants implicated several regional and local political leaders of the IFP, claiming that they had provided instructions in target selection and logistical support. None of the leadership figures implicated applied for amnesty.

36. The Amnesty Committee was thus presented with evidence from the ‘military’ operatives of the IFP but received no significant admissions from its political leadership. The Committee found that the eleven Caprivi trainees had made a full disclosure of facts and were acting in accordance with a political objective, thereby acknowledging that there was sufficient viva voce and documentary evidence to support the veracity of their claims.