DECISION
___________________
The applicant, an alleged member of the Self Defence Unit of the ANC Youth League was charged with and convicted of the murder of one Hendrik Grobelaar also known as Thabo by the Maokeng Residents.
The murder was committed on the 30th of October 1992 in Maokeng Township in Kroonstad. The applicant was convicted and sentenced to 14 years imprisonment.
The applicant has applied for amnesty in respect of this offence.
The evidence before this tribunal differs quite substantially from the evidence led at the trial.
We do not however propose to deal in detail with the evidence led at the trial or to deal at length with the evidence given before this tribunal as to what happened on the day in question.
It is common cause that the applicant was a member of the Self Defence Unit which had been established in order to protect the Maokeng Community "against oppression and from the Three Million Gang" that was conducting untold acts of criminal activities in the township and was perceived by the Community as a third force operating to suppress free political party activity by ANC members and supporters.
The gang allegedly targeted ANC members and killed them or harassed them or inflicted injuries to them. The applicant and some of his comrades stayed in Gelukwaarts which was known as the new township of Maokeng. Sometime prior to the 30th of October 1992, the applicant was being sought by white policemen in connection with the killing of a Three Million Gang member in Gelukwaarts. To avoid arrests by the police, the applicant and his two compatriots left for the old location in Maokeng on the 30th of October and shortly after they had alighted from the taxi at the old location, the applicant and his compatriots came across the deceased in the street.
The deceased spoke to the applicant and said "it seems as if you are leader of these people?" The applicant alleges that that statement indicated to him that the deceased was one of the white policemen that were looking for him. He further states that "because he was a white person and we are being sought by the white people, I just saw an enemy by seeing this white person." The applicant then stabbed the deceased three times with a shear's blade.
When questioned by his lawyer about his knowledge of the deceased, the applicant averred that he did not know him but perceived the deceased as a policeman.
He stated that his perception was based on the fact that he was being pursued by white policemen and the deceased was white. He therefore associated the deceased with his enemy, the white police. His perception was further influenced by the fact that he had never seen a white person in the township except white policemen. He admitted that he was the only one who stabbed the deceased, despite the fact that his compatriots attempted to dissuade him doing so. In fact, one of this compatriots, Sidney, gave evidence against the applicant at the trial.
Having regard to the aforegoing, we do not accept the motive given by the applicant for killing the deceased.
We have not been given any evidence why the applicant believed that the deceased was connected with the white policemen who were looking for him for the alleged murder, save for the deceased's utterances or suggestions that the applicant was the leader of the group he was with. These utterances cannot justify the conclusion that the deceased was associated with his known enemy, the white policemen. It would be highly improbable that a white policeman, looking for known members of a Self Defence Unit, who are combatants, would walk in the streets of a township on foot in search of such suspects.
It would be foolhardy to say the least for such a policeman to assume that he could effect an arrest of not only one, but three such people, suspected or murder, on his own, on foot and in a black location.
The deceased was a well known person in the old location of Maokeng as he was the only white person who stayed in the location. We must take judicial notice of the fact that his presence in the whole old location of Maokeng, must have been widely known as it was a rare phenomenon.
Evidence was led before us that the local residents had given the deceased a Sotho name, THABO, thereby acknowledging him as one of them irrespective of his whiteness.
It is therefore quite clear that the deceased was not perceived by the local people as an enemy. Although the applicant contended that he was not living in the old location and it was his first visit to this location, and he had never before this incident, seen a white man in the location, we do not accept that on the evidence before us, that the deceased was a policeman or one of those carrying out the investigation.
Moreover the applicant was not the only one who was being pursued by the white policemen. Sidney and Pula Pusa Mamane were also being sought by the police in respect of the same murder. Sidney however, endeavoured to dissuade the applicant from assaulting the deceased.
There is no evidence before us from the applicant to show that the killing of the deceased was carried out to achieve any political objective. In fact, when the applicant was repeatedly questioned what he had achieved or intended to achieve by killing the deceased, he could not advance any reasons.
We are therefore accordingly satisfied that the applicant has not met the requirements set out in Section 20(2) and (3) respectively and his application for
AMNESTY IS ACCORDINGLY REFUSED: .
DATED AT CAPE TOWN ON THIS THE 6th DAY OF DECEMBER 1996
(Signed)
H MALL J
A WILSON J
B NGOEPE J
ADV. C. DE JAGER SC
MS S. KHAMPEPE
