DECISION
____________________ : The applicant applies for amnesty in terms of Section 18 of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, No 34 of 1995 (the Act), in respect of a number of offences committed during the period June to November 1991. These offences are set out in the body of this judgment. The applicant stood trial in the Supreme Court, Transvaal Provincial Division, and was convicted and duly sentenced. The applicant's application, together with that of his erstwhile co-accused, were heard by the Amnesty Committee during the week of 15 to 19 July 1996 in Pretoria. Evidence was led both in support of and in opposition of the applications.
At the commencement of the hearing Advocate De Jager SC, a member of the Amnesty Committee, recused himself as he had previously rendered legal assistance to the applicant.
1. The applicant belonged to an organisation or movement which he said was known as the Nasionale Sosialistiese Partisane (NSP). The organisation consisted of only four people. A question which immediately arises is whether NSP is or was a "publicly known political organisation or liberation movement", as required by Section 20(2) (a) and (d) of the Act; (see also (b) which of course, does not apply to the applicant). The NSP was a group of only four people and, on the evidence before us was neither a publicly known political organisation or liberation movement. Newspaper cuttings were handed in as exhibits, in an attempt to show that this group was a publicly known political organisation or liberation movement. Far from showing this, the newspapers paint a picture of religious fanatics under the influence of the Church of the Creator apparently bent on purging the country of "inferior" races.
It was submitted on behalf of the applicant that the applicant was a "supporter of the rightwing movement as a whole" which included certain organisations such as the "Boerestaatparty" (BSP), "Blanke Bevrydingsbeweging" (BBB). It was urged that the applicant created the NSP as an underground military movement to act on behalf of the "rightwing movement as a whole", which rightwing was seen as a "movement". This argument cannot stand. Firstly, the applicant's evidence is that when he committed the acts, he did so specifically in his capacity as a member of the NSP, which he regarded as a liberation movement. The fact that the objectives of his hardly known liberation movement happen to be the same as those of other political organisations or liberation movements which are publicly known, cannot avail the applicant; for example, those other organisations or liberation movements may not believe in the same strategies as the NSP, like the killing of innocent civilians. Secondly, it surely cannot be enough to belong, or be a supporter to, a rightwing movement as a "whole" as contended. The legislature requires membership of/or support to a definite and identifiable political organisation or liberation movement, and not a mere political trend or school of thought.
In the light of the aforegoing, the applicant has not been able to show that when he committed the offences in question, he did so as one of the people described in Section 20(2) of the Act. For this reason alone, his application fails in respect of all the offences.
2. With regard to some of the offences, there are additional reasons why the application should fail. It is therefore necessary to deal with these offences individually.
3. Regarding the theft of motor vehicle Volkswagen Golf GTS, registration BGV275T (owner Michael van Leeuwen) in September 1991, Pretoria (count 1 of the indictment).
3.1 They stole the vehicle (i) so as to be able to move around, (ii) to steal or rob people or institutions of weapons on a small scale and later, using these ill-gotten weapons (iii) attack bigger depots for more weapons and then (iv) arm as many people as they would have in the meantime recruited and (v) eventually overthrow the government by force.
It is clear from the above possible chain of events, as envisaged and planned by the applicant and his colleagues, that the relationship between the act in question (theft of a motor car) is too remote from the ultimate political objective; see Section 20(3)(f) of the Act. The act in respect of which the amnesty is sought, cannot therefore be described as an "act associated with a political objective", as defined in the Act.
3.2 For the reasons set out in paragraphs 1 and 3.1 above, the applicant's application for amnesty in respect of the theft of motor vehicle Volkswagen Golf GTS, registration BGV275T (owner Michael van Leeuwen) in September 1991, Pretoria is
REFUSED: .
4. Regarding the following incidents of robbery (counts 8 and 9 of the indictment).
(a) Robbing Jeremiah Sono of an R4 automatic machine gun on or about 3 November 1991 at or near Wahlmansthal Military Base (count 8 in the indictment).
(b) Robbing Johannes Lebese of an R4 automatic machine gun on or about 3 November 1991 at or near Wahlmansthal Military Base (count 9 of the indictment).
The two attacks were directed at members of the South African Defence Force and the weapons in question were the property of the Force. The objective, immediate and long term was clearly political, namely, undermining State authority. the application for amnesty
FAILS: , however, for the reasons set out in paragraph 1 above.
5. Regarding the following incidents of housebreaking (counts 7 and 10 of the indictment)
(a) Breaking into the storeroom of the South African Defence Force at Oudtshoorn near or at the Infantry School on or about 25 - 28 October 1991 and attempt to steal (count 7 of the indictment).
(b) Breaking into a weapon storeroom of the South African Defence Force at or near 10 Artillery Brigade in Potchefstroom on or about 1 - 7 November 1991, and theft of certain weapons (count 10 of the indictment).
Here again, the two attacks were directed at the South African Defence Force. The acts were immediately directed at State authority and were in line with the political objective pursued by the applicant. However, the application for amnesty in respect of these two acts is
REFUSED: for the reasons set out in paragraph 1 above.
6. Regarding the following offences relating to illegal possession of weapons (counts 6 and 11 of the indictment)
(a) Illegal possession of firearms in contravention of Section 2, read with Sections 1, 39 and 40 of Act 75 of 1969 during the period June to November 1991 at or near Pretoria, Louis Trichard, Oudtshoorn, Wahlmansthal and/or Potchefstroom (count 6 of the indictment).
(b) Illegal possession or custody of weapons in contravention of Section 32(1), read with Sections 1, 39(1) and 40 of Act 75 of 1969 during the period June to November 1991 and at or near Pretoria and/or Louis Trichard and/or Wahlmansthal and/or Potchefstroom and/or Oudtshoorn (count 11 of the indictment.
The possession or custody of these weapons have been in line with the applicant's stated political objective. However, for the reasons set out in paragraph 1 above, the application for amnesty in respect of these acts are refused.
In conclusion, for the reasons set out above, the applicant's application for
AMNESTY IS REFUSED: in respect of all the acts for which he sought amnesty.
DATED AT CAPE TOWN ON THIS THE 6th DAY OF DECEMBER 1996
(Signed)
MALL J
WILSON J
NGOEPE J
MS S. KHAMPEPE
