DECISION
Mphithizeli Nelson Ngo, born on the 18th June 1964 applied for amnesty under application No. 2422/96. Initially the application was made in respect of the murder of one Mr Venter, the robbery connected therewith and the illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition. The application was amplified and amended before the final cut off date to include a number of other offences. At the conclusion of the hearing the Committee was asked to decide on the following incidents which will be referred to in more detail in the conclusion:
1. The murder of a certain Mr Venter.
2. The assault on Mr White Mohapi.
3. The murder of a man known as "JJ" or Papie.
4. The burning of a clinic and the house of Mrs Winnie Mandela.
5. The assault and torture of a Group of 19 at Bloemfontein.
6. The torture of comrades at Botshabelo.
7. The unlawful use of gangsters.
8. The murder of Papi Steyn.
9. The planning to kill a certain Mr Kotoyi.
10. The attack on the house of Mr Max Makhubalo (or Citi Mzuzwana?)
11. The burning of a Cortina of ms Janie Mohapi.
12. The attack on a Minibus belonging to Mr Elia Mohapi.
The above matters refer to incidents that allegedly took place in Bloemfontein. Mr Mohonaetse Stephen Motsamai also applied for amnesty in respect of matters No. 4, 5, 10 and 11 under Application No. 4031/96. Mr Ngo also applied for amnesty in respect of incidents that took place in Pretoria. They relate to petrol bombing of houses and attempted murder which will be dealt with under the following headings and numbers:
13. The burning of the house of Sandra Mathabatha. This application was later withdrawn because the applicant admitted that it related to a personal vendetta about his girlfriend.
14. The petrol bombing of the house of Louise Mbongo.
15. The petrol bombing of the house of Nono girl and her death probably as a result of a heart attack.
16. The burning of the house of Rebecca Mothokoane.
17. The attempted murder of an unknown fidelity guard.
During 1983 Mr Ngo was a student at the Lereko High School and a member of the council of the local branch of COSAS. He was approached by Mr Erasmus, a member of the Security Police in Bloemfontein and became an informer. Mr Erasmus was his handler.
The COSAS leaders became suspicious that Ngo might be working with the police. They later exposed him as an informer and he was severely assaulted. Round about that time he became acquainted with Mr Venter and either regularly visited him or stayed with him. It is alleged by Mr Venter's sister that Mr Venter contributed to the expenses of Ngo's education and that Ngo even used his car on occasions and had it in his possession for several weeks during 1988.
In April 1984 White Mohapi, then a local leader of COSAS was arrested and detained under security legislation. He was released on the 27th April 1984 and assaulted on the same evening soon after his release.
After his assault, Ngo was transferred during 1985 to Ladysmith to complete his matric. In the mean time Mr White Mohapi and others were charged for assaulting and attempting to murder Ngo. They were acquitted. Nogo successfully completed his matric at the end of 1985 and enrolled as a student constable on either 10 February 1986 or 11 March 1986. He took up duties at Ladybrand on the 19th June 1986 and entered the Police Training College at Hammanskraal on 4th July 1986 and on completing his training on 4th December 1986 joined the Riot Squad of Unit 19 and became stationed at Mamelodi where he performed duties in the Barracks. He last reported at the barracks for duty on 20th July 1988 and was on that day involved in a motor car accident while driving Mr Venter's car which he had borrowed a month or two earlier and failed to return it to Mr Venter. After the accident he received medical treatment at the Pelonomi Hospital during July 1988.
On the 21st October 1988 he underwent surgery in the same hospital and was discharged on 3rd November 1988.
He was suspended from police duties on the 3rd January 1989.
He was again admitted to Pelomoni Hospital on 5th January 1989, received minor surgery on 6th January and was discharged on 7th January 1989.
On the 24th January 1989 he concluded an agreement of lease with Mr Joseph Getse in respect of a house in Botshabelo.
Mr Venter was murdered on the 3rd February 1989, Ngo was arrested on the 9th February 1989, charged together with his brothers Arrie Ngo and John Ngo with the murder of Venter and sentenced on the 26th February 1989.
The applicant was found guilty and sentenced as follows:
1 For the murder of Pieter David Venter at Bloemfontein on 3rd February 1989 to 15 years imprisonment.
2. For the robbery with aggravating circumstances of the said Venter of inter alia furniture, TV set, radio, cassette player, a carpet, Rotary watch, clothing and a Toyota Cressida car as well as Santam Bank cards to 20 years imprisonment.
3. For the illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition on the aforementioned date to eighteen months imprisonment.
The aforesaid sentences had to run concurrently in such a way to the extent that the applicant had to serve an effective period of 25 years imprisonment. Mr Arrie Ngo was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment for the murder and 15 years for the robbery and had to serve effectively a term of 20 years imprisonment. He applied for amnesty under application No. 6322/97 and the Committee's decision is reflected in that file. Mr John Ngo was also found guilty but because of his youth was not sentenced at the same time and he did not apply for amnesty.
The applicant testified that he was summoned from Pretoria and instructed by Coetzee and Erasmus, both senior members of the Security Police in Bloemfontein at the time, to murder Venter. He also implicates other members of the security police in the planning and commission of the crimes and now states that he only involved his brother when he had to bury the corpse. During the trial, however, he accused his brothers of murdering Mr Venter and distanced himself from the killing. It is common cause that his brothers were involved in the process to get rid of the corpse. They were at no time members of the security police and it remains a mystery why the applicant called for their assistance if the murder was ordered by the Security Police. It is also inexplicable why the other members of the Security Police whom he implicated as being involved in the murder, did not assist him with the removal and burial of the body. The deceased's property which had been removed from the house was also found in the house which the applicant was renting at the time.
On the evidence it is clear that the applicant and Venter had a good relationship at one time, that Venter assisted him in his education, that he at one stage stayed on Venter's premises and borrowed Venter's car. He drove the car to Pretoria but did not return it in time causing Venter to travel to Pretoria to make enquiries about the applicant and his car. Venter did not manage to get hold of the applicant but it is common cause that the applicant was soon thereafter involved in an accident with the deceased's car. This might have been a factor leading to the break up of the friendship. It is also not clear why the Security Police would want to kill Venter. The applicant advanced as reason for the instructions to kill, the fact that Venter was previously an informer and did not want to give further information about the trade union of which he was a member. That still does not explain the removal of the furniture and the involvement of the applicant's brothers in the murder. Another difficulty is that the applicant was, during the trial, well aware that a death sentence could be imposed on his own brother; yet he persisted in implicating him and protected the police.
This is a serious improbability inherent in his version; it is inconceivable that he would protect the police at the expense of his own brothers.
The Committee is not satisfied that the applicant in murdering Venter committed an offence associated with a political objective and that he acted under the orders of any police officer in doing so. The removal of the furniture to the rented house also indicates that the offences were committed for personal gain. For the sake of the record it should be stated that all the implicated persons denied their involvement. It is however, not necessary to deal with their evidence because the applicant, on his own version has not satisfied the Committee that the offence falls within the ambit of the Act.
Amnesty is therefore
REFUSED: in respect of the murder of Venter at Bloemfontein on 3rd February 1989 and the robbery of the deceased on the same date, as well as the illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition.
2. THE ASSAULT OF WHITE MOHAPI
The applicant and Mr White Mohapi were both members of the executive committee of the local branch of Cosas. Mr Mohapi was the executive secretary of the branch. The applicant applies for amnesty for the kidnapping and assault of Mr Mohapi during 1986. In his application the applicant indicated that security policeman Erasmus and Shaw phoned Hilton Police Station where Mohapi was imprisoned and instructed them to delay his release. Shaw then instructed Tsoametsi and Mamone to go to the Hilton Police Station and kidnap Mohapi after his release. According to the applicant, after the kidnapping the applicant, Motsamai and Ntyala were called on radio by Tsoametsi and Mamone and informed that the kidnapping had been carried out. The applicant and his company then followed Motsamai and Ntyala to an open veld between Bloemfontein and Shanon where Mohapi was taken out of the vehicle. He was severely assaulted with hammers and iron bars; the assailants' faces were covered by balaclavas. After the beating he was left in the veld.
In evidence before the Committee the applicant testified that the abduction was on instructions of Colonel Coetzee, Erasmus and Shaw, which had been given at a parade. The reason advanced for the abduction and the assault was that Mohapi had repeatedly been arrested on politically related charges but acquitted, to the annoyance of the police. The applicant further testified that during the assault, Cronje, a senior police officer, was present although he remained inside the car.
(They were informed on radio by Tsoametsi and Mamone that the kidnapping has been carried out and that he and Ntyala, accompanied by Cronje, then followed them to a place called Cellar where they assaulted him with hammers and crowbars while Cronje remained at the cars.)
The applicant also filed a typed annexure to his application. In this document he states:
"During this incident which occurred during the 1986 students uprising, I was accompanied by W/O Tsoametsi, Sgt. Mamone, Const. Mtyala and Motsamai".
The applicant in his evidence in chief did not mention that Motsamai was present or took part in the assault. Motsamai himself did not apply for amnesty in this regard and in his evidence before the committee denied that he took part in this incident. When confronted with the omission of Motsamai's name in his evidence, the applicant reverted to his previous statement implicating Motsamai and further explained that he omitted Cronje's name because Cronje did not take any active part.
Mr Mohapi, the victim, also gave evidence. He broadly corroborated the version that he was abducted after his release at the Bayswater Police station and that he was later assaulted. The applicant became a police informer in 1983 while still at school. Mohapi became suspicious of him, and exposed him as a police informer. The applicant was thereafter assaulted and Mohapi was charged with attempted murder but acquitted early in 1984 when Mohapi became suspicious of Ngo and exposed him as an informer.
It later transpired that the probable date on which Mohapi was assaulted might well be 27 April 1984 and not during the student uprising in 1986. According to Police Docket Bayswater CR28/5/84 and the facts later agreed to between the legal representatives of the implicated persons and the victims, the incident took place in April 1984. Mohapi was arrested on 13 April 1984 and released on 27 April 1984. At the time of his release he had R60,00 in cash on his person and not R160,00 as testified. According to an affidavit filed by Mohapi at the time he was assaulted by persons unknown to him and the parties agreed that the version which he gave to the Amnesty Committee is materially at variance with a report made by him to a policeman after the attack. The allegations by the applicant that the attack was carried out on instructions of his seniors, were denied by all implicated parties. Within the limited time at the disposal of all concerned with the amnesty process, it is difficult to test the credibility through vigorous cross examination. The committee is in doubt as to whether the applicant did or did not act out of personal malice when he assaulted Mohapi having regard to the following facts which are common cause:
1. The applicant and Mr Mohapi found themselves in opposing political camps, the one as an employee of the State, the other as a member of Cosas.
2. Mohapi exposed the applicant as an informer and as a result thereof Ngo was severely assaulted.
3. Mr Mohapi was arrested on 13 April 1984 and released during the evening of 27 April 1984.
4. On the same evening he was assaulted by unknown persons.
5. The applicant claims that he was one of persons taking part in the assault.
6. The applicant implicated other members of the security force who denied their involvement. Among the members implicated, is Mr Motsamai, a co-applicant for amnesty in respect of other incidents but who also denied any involvement in this particular incident.
It remains to be considered whether there is any other basis to justify a finding that the act was associated with a political objective. The applicant's own motive does not assist us because it became clear that the applicant and the victim were not on good terms towards each other. Their personal feelings towards each other emanated from their political roles - the one working for the police in order to gain information about the political activities of the other. The offence was committed within the context of the then rather volatile political situation or in reaction thereto and it was directed against a political opponent.
The committee therefore comes to the conclusion that it cannot be ruled out that the applicant committed the offence as a police informer attached to the security forces against a supporter of a publicly known political organisation in an attempt to counter or resist the political struggle. The offence, although not found to be committed in the execution of an order, still falls within the ambit of an act or offence associated with a political objective and amnesty is
GRANTED: to the applicant in respect of the abduction of an assault on White Mohapi on the 27th April 1984 at or near Bloemspruit in the district of Bloemfontein. Although there is no evidence of a specific order it is well known that the security police were in general acting against political activists.
3. THE MURDER OF A MAN KNOWN AS J.J. OR PAPIE
The applicant stated in his application that this incident occurred during 1986 and that Killian, Mamone, Motsamai and the applicant himself were involved. According to his evidence the deceased was first assaulted, lost his consciousness, and thereafter taken into the veld where he was shot. It is not clear what role the applicant himself played during the event. His evidence in this regard is vague and he switched his evidence about the participation of Motsamai. In the course of his evidence he also implicated one Mtyhala. Mr Motsamai denied any participation in this event. The other implicated persons, namely Mtyhala and Mamone, also contradicted the applicant. The only fact that was common cause in the hearing was that at some stage during the 1980's the body of a deceased person wearing a UDF T-shirt was discovered. Bearing in mind that the applicant admitted during the hearing that he wrongly implicated Mr Motsamai, who was a co-applicant and who was represented by the same legal representatives who represented the applicant, the committee is not satisfied that they can make a finding in favour of the applicant. The applicant in many respects was not a satisfactory and reliable witness. Despite his claim, we are not satisfied that the applicant witnessed such an incident or that he committed it.
Amnesty is therefore
REFUSED: to the applicant in respect of the death of a man known as JJ or Papie near Bloemfontein during 1986.
4. THE BURNING OF WINNIE MANDELA'S HOUSE AND CLINIC
It is common cause that Mrs Mandela's house in Winburg was burnt on 31st August 1985 and her clinic a few days later. During that time Ngo was still a scholar and in all probability at Ladybrand to complete his matric. He testified about being involved in the burning of the clinic. His co-applicant, Mr Motsamai, applied for amnesty in regard to attacks on the house as well as the clinic.
Mr Ngo implicated Coetzee, Ramosoeu and Bester as the persons being involved in the operation to damage the clinic. Coetzee is implicated only as far as the instructions are concerned. Bester and Ramosoeu carried out the throwing of some kind of explosive, while he (Mr Ngo) remained at the car. During cross examination he for the first time involved Mamone and Tsoametsi. He never implicated Motsamai who, inquificously, had applied for amnesty in regard to both the house and the clinic but who does not mention Mr Ngo as a co-perpetrator.
The Committee accepts that there was a politically motivated attack on the house and clinic of Mrs Mandela.
The Committee does not make any finding as to who might gave orders in this connection or who participated. It is clear that the applicant himself made mistakes about the identity of people who might have been involved. The context and nature of the offence convinced the committee that it was associated with a political objective and amnesty is
GRANTED: to the applicant in respect of the burning of the clinic of Mrs Winnie Mandela during August/September 1985 in so far as he was involved in this incident. The applicant did not apply for amnesty with regard to any attack on the house of Mrs Winnie Mandela and even in his evidence before the committee he did not refer to it, or amend his application to cover it.
5. THE ASSAULT AND TORTURE OF THE GROUP OF 19 AT BLOEMFONTEIN
On or about 6 April 1986 a group of 19 people were arrested near Ladybrand while they were leaving the republic to join one or some of the liberation movements outside the country. After considering the evidence the committee concludes that the applicant in the bona fide believe that he was furthering the cause of the government and in an attempt to obtain information from the members of the group assaulted and tortured some of them. The committee is not in a position to make a finding on the evidence as to whether he acted on instructions and if so by whom. The information sought related to the political activities of the group and the assaults were associated with a political objective. That these assaults in fact took place was confirmed by some of the victims who testified before the committee.
Amnesty is
GRANTED: to the applicant in respect of the assault and torture at Bloemfontein of members of a group of 19 people arrested at or near Ladybrand on 6th April 1986 and transferred to Bloemfontein on or about 6th or 7th April 1986.
6. THE TORTURING OF COMRADES AT BOTSHABELO
The Committee is not satisfied that the applicants version is indeed the truth. It is contradicted by every other witness who testified before the committee. The applicant even mentioned the name of one of the victims allegedly assaulted. When approached the so called victim denied that she was assaulted. Notwithstanding media coverage in Bloemfontein of the amnesty hearing over weeks, not a single victim came forward to substantiate the applicant's allegations.
Amnesty is therefore
REFUSED: in regard to any alleged assault on comrades during 1986 at the Botshabelo Police station, as described by the applicant.
7.
THE UNLAWFUL USE OF GANGSTERS
No specific evidence about an offence in which the applicant might have been involved in was placed before the Committee. The applicant testified that the security police created gangs and influenced others to act against their opponents. The evidence did not involve the applicant himself in any specific illegal act and general amnesty
CANNOT BE GRANTED: .
8.
THE MURDER OF PAPI STEYN
One Samuel Mokalake and his son Alfred were charged with the murder of Papi Steyn. Samuel was convicted of culpable homicide and Alfred was acquitted. The applicant himself did not testify that he was in any manner involved in the killing. Amnesty
CANNOT BE GIVEN: to the applicant in this regard.
9.
THE PLANNING TO KILL KOTOYI
The applicant mentioned this incident but did not apply for amnesty or give evidence that he was involved in any way. Evidence was tendered that a certain Mofokeng was convicted of culpable homicide in connection with the death of one Kotoyi. No decision concerning the involvement of the applicant can be arrived at and amnesty
CANNOT BE GRANTED: to him in this respect.
The Committee will now deal with incidents No. 10, 11 and 12. The applicant as well as Mr Motsamai applied for amnesty in this regard.
10. THE ATTACK ON THE HOUSE OF MR MAX MAKHUBALO (OR CITI MZUZWANA?)
Applicant Motsamai (Application No. 4031/96) was applying for amnesty for the burning of the house of Citi Mzuzwna and mentioned Ngo as a co-perpetrator. Ngo was applying for amnesty for the attack on the house of Max Khumalo and implicated Motsamai as a co-perpetrator. At the hearing Ngo asked for an amendment to bring his application in line with that of Motsamai. He explained that he had made a mistake about the description of the house and was corrected by Motsamai. The two applicants in their evidence before the Committee contradicted each other when it came to details to such an extent that the Committee is not satisfied that a full disclosure of all the material facts relating to the incident or incidents in respect of which amnesty is sought, was made and therefore amnesty is REFUSED.
11.
THE BURNING OF THE CORTINA OF JANI MOHAPI
Ngo and Motsamai applied for amnesty in regard to the burning or damaging of the car of Jani Mohapi. Although there are contradictions in their evidence before the Committee, they do not relate to material aspects. The Committee accepts that some members of the Mahapi family were political opponents of the then government and it is not improbable that the applicants acted against Jani Mohapi with a political objective. In reaching this conclusion the Committee didn't lose sight of the fact that Ngo might also have had a personal axe to grind with some members of the family. It is however clear that he played a minor role in this incident. He accompanied Motsamai but stayed at the parked car a distance away from the actual scene where the car was damaged. Although the Committee concluded that this offence probably had been committed with a political objective, the Committee cannot on the evidence arrive at a conclusion as to who might have ordered the commission of the offence. It may even be that the applicants decided on their own to act against Jani Mohapi because they considered that something had to be done to harass him for his political activities.
Amnesty is
GRANTED: for the unlawful damage of the Ford Cortina of Jani Mohapi by the applicants Ngo and Motsamai near Bloemfontein during 1986/1987.
12.
THE ATTACK ON THE MINIBUS OF ELIAH MOHAPI
This incident occurred during the same period and under the same circumstances prevailing as mentioned under the previous paragraph. It also didn't constitute a gross violation of human rights as defined in Act 34 of 1995 as amended. For the reasons stated in the previous paragraph relating to incident 11, amnesty is also
GRANTED: in respect of this incident.
All the incidents dealt with before related to offences committed in or near Bloemfontein. As pointed out previously Mr Ngo was a student constable at the Police Training College from 4th July 1986 to 4th December 1986 and thereafter stationed at Mamelodi, Pretoria as a member of Unit 19 of the Riot Squad and performed duties at the Barracks in mamelodi up to 20th July 1988. We will now deal with the incidents which occurred in Mamelodi, Pretoria.
13.
THE BURNING OF THE HOUSE OF SANDRA MATHABATHA
It would be appropriate to deal with the burning of the house of Sandra Mathabatha first. The applicant withdrew his request for amnesty in this regard because the burning was not politically related. It resulted from a quarrel between Sandra and the applicant's girlfriend. The deed was clearly committed out of malice. In his application, however, the applicant had alleged that this was ordered by Captain Loots.
14.
THE PETROL BOMBING OF THE HOUSE OF LOUISA MBONGO
15.
THE PETROL BOMBING OF THE HOUSE OF THE NONO GIRL
16.
THE BURNING OF THE HOUSE OF REBECCA MOTHOKOANE
The applicant testified that he was accompanied by Danny Selahia and Hendrick Bokabo on instructions of Captain Loots. They petrol bombed the house, which was burnt down. Loots denies that he gave instructions and Bokaba says he did not take part in the burning of Louisa's house. It may be convenient to deal with the burning of the houses of the Nono girl and Rebecca too before a decision is made.
The applicant testified that after the burning of the house of Louisa Mbonga, who was allegedly involved in the Mamelodi Youth Organisation (MYO), her neighbours planned a protest. The applicant, Danny Selahia and Hendrick Bokaba were again ordered to burn their houses because they organised such a protest.
Loots and Bokaba denied giving such orders or being involved. Danny Selahia did not testify but filed an affidavit denying any involvement. He also denied that the applicant was involved in any security police operations in which he, the witness had participated. He met the applicant at the Police Barracks in Mamelodi, where he was staying. Hendrick Bokaba also stayed at the barracks (there were about 500 people staying there). Bokaba and the applicant knew each other. Selahia and Bokaba were members of the security police but they never worked with the applicant, who was employed at the barracks. Captain Khoja testified that he was in charge of the police barracks and that Ngo worked as his assistant. he produced the occurrence book of the Mamelodi barracks and Ngo's pocket book which substantiated the facts.
It may be appropriate at this stage to comment on the fact that Ngo testified on a number of incidents in which it is common cause that the security police were involved. The question immediately arises how could he have known about it if he was not involved? No doubt as an informer of the police and being trusted by them he obtained some information. It is, however, significant that once it comes to details his evidence materially differs from for instance Mr Motsamai's evidence. The latter is a co-applicant and has no reason to discredit Mr Ngo. An example: Mr Ngo describes how explosives were obtained, transported and used to blow up Mrs Mandela's clinic. Mr Motsamai describes how he used petrol. It is also significant that on several occasions he wrongly implicated Mr Motsamai or other members of the security police. This often creates the impression that he has merely heard about an occurrence, does not know the details thereof but puts himself on the scene. The reason may be that he thought it would assist him in getting amnesty for the murder of Venter and the burning of the house of Sandra Mathabata. It is also significant that the effected persons did not submit any evidence about damaged suffered by them.
On the evidence presented, the Committee cannot come to the conclusion that the applicant acted on instructions of his seniors when he allegedly burnt the houses mentioned in incidents 14, 15 and 16 and the applicant himself did not testify that he had any motive associated with a political objective. He therefore did not meet any of the requirements set out in Section 20(3) of Act 34 of 1995 and amnesty is
REFUSED: .
17.
THE ATTEMPTED MURDER ON AN UNKNOWN FIDELITY GUARD
This incident also occurred in Mamelodi. According to the applicant he was driving with Hendrick Bokaba when they saw a person dressed in a uniform of a fidelity guard. Bokaba stopped and ordered the applicant to arrest the man so that they could question him. The man started running an the applicant as well as Bokaba fired shots at him. He ran towards a shopping centre and the applicant saw him stumbling and falling. They then decided not to follow and arrest him. The following day they enquired at the hospital and was informed that a wounded man was taken in as a patient and was being treated at the hospital. They did not make a follow up and never arrested the man nor interrogated him.
The Committee is not satisfied that the shooting of the man was associated with a political objective and that the requirements of the Act have been met. Amnesty is therefore
REFUSED: .
To summarise:
1. (a) Amnesty is
REFUSED: to Mr Ngo in respect of the murder of Mr Venter at Bloemfontein on 3 February 1989.
(b) Amnesty is
REFUSED: for the robbery with aggravating circumstances of the said Venter of inter alia furniture, T.V. set, radio, cassette player, a carpet, Rotary watch, clothing and a Toyota Cressida car as well as Santam Bank cards on 3 February 1989 at Bloemfontein.
(c) Amnesty is
REFUSED: for the illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition on the aforementioned date.
2. Amnesty is
GRANTED: to the applicant in respect of the abduction and assault on White Mohapi on 27 April 1984 near Bloemspruit in the district of Bloemfontein.
3. Amnesty is
REFUSED: to the applicant for his involvement in the death of a man known as JJ or Papie near Bloemfontein during 1986.
4. Amnesty is
GRANTED: in respect of the burning of the clinic of Mrs Winnie Mandela during August/September 1985 at Brandfort.
5. Amnesty is
GRANTED: to the applicant for the assault on and torture of a member or members of a group of 19 people at Bloemfontein on or about 6 April 1986.
6. Amnesty is
REFUSED: in regard to any alleged assault during 1986 at Botshabelo Police Station as described by the applicant.
7. Amnesty is
REFUSED: to the applicant in respect of any offence in which he personally might have been involved as far as the using of gangsters against political opponents might be concerned.
8. As no involvement in the death of one Papi Steyn by the applicant has been proved, amnesty
CANNOT BE GRANTED: .
9. There being no evidence of the involvement of the applicant in the killing of one Kotoyi, amnesty
CANNOT BE GRANTED: .
10. Amnesty is
REFUSED: to the applicant in respect of the damaging of the house of Max Makhubalo or the house of Citi Mzuzwana during 1986/1987.
11. Amnesty is
GRANTED: to the applicant in respect of the damaging of the car of Jani Mohapi near Bloemfontein during 1986/1987.
12. Amnesty is
GRANTED: to the applicant in respect of the damaging of the minibus of Eliah Mohapi near Bloemfontein during 1986/1987.
13. Amnesty is
REFUSED: in respect of the damaging of the following houses during 1987/1988 at Mamelodi
The houses of Sandra Mathabatha, Louisa Mbongo, the Nono girl and Rebecca Mothokoane.
14. Amnesty is
REFUSED: in respect of the attempted murder of an unknown fidelity guard near a shopping centre in mamelodi during 1987/1988.
(Signed)
JUDGE A WILSON
JUDGE B NGOEPE
ADV C DE JAGER
