DECISION
The applicants apply for amnesty in terms of Section 18 of the Act in respect of the following offences:
Murder of Mrs Sandra Swanepoel
Attempted Murder of Mr Johannes Swanepoel
Attempted robbery
Unlawful possession of explosives and firearms and
Unlawful possession of ammunition.
The applicants were members of the PAC as well as its military wing the Azanian People’s Liberation Army. They were all trained as APLA’s operatives outside the country and were during March 1993 deployed inside the country from Zimbabwe in order to intensify the struggle waged by APLA under operation Great Storm whose strategy was to inter alia target white farmers in order to put pressure on the National Party led government for and end to its apartheid policy.
During March 1993 the applicants’ unit which consisted of the 1st to the 3rd applicants as well as Thekwani Baloyi and the late Fannel Madau was ordered by Letlape Mphahlele, who was APLA’s National Director of Operations and a member of APLA’s High Command, to go to Tzaneen in order to carry out operations in Tzaneen under the instructions and directions of one Piet Nokere who was APLA’s Regional Commander in the Tzaneen area.
On arrival in Tzaneen, the said Nokere identified a certain chicken farm for attack as part of the operation Great Storm and further advised the applicants that the white owner was an AWB member who disliked black people. A reconnaissance was conducted pursuant to the identification of the target by the said Nokere.
On or about the 27th May at approximately 5 hours the applicants together with the late Mudau and Baloyi went to the said farm with the intention of killing the farmer and his family. The first applicant was armed with an AK 47 whilst the late Madau was armed with a pistol. Upon approaching the farm the dogs started barking and a short while later the farmer, Mr Swanepoel, came out carrying what the first applicant thought was a camera and a pistol. Once he was outside, the first applicant and Mudau showed up and ordered him to stop. They pointed firearms at him. At that moment, the first applicant realised that Mrs Swanepoel was in the house and appeared to be using a telephone. The first applicant and the late Mudau thought she was telephoning the police or some other person for assistance. The first applicant allegedly ordered Mr Swanepoel inside the house and once inside the house ordered him to go into one of the rooms. He contended that it was not the same room where Mrs Swanepoel was shot at by the late Mudau. The said Mudau shot Mrs Swanepoel and attempted to shoot Mr Swanepoel as well. Mr Swanepoel ran into another room and they decided to abort the mission because they thought that the police or some kind of help was on the way as they had seen Mrs Swanepoel speaking on the telephone. They ran away and returned to their hideout being a house provided by Piet Nokere.
A short while later the police came and surrounded the place. A shoot-out occurred during which Mudau was killed by the police. The first applicant was during the shoot-out in possession of a Chinese stick grenade which he did not use because in the premises of their hideout there were children who would have been seriously injured by the explosion of the grenade. He was subsequently arrested whilst Baloyi managed to escape.
The applicants contended that it was the policy of APLA to target and kill farmers and their families as part of operation Great Storm. They also contended that as their unit was an offensive rather than a repossession unit, their function was to kill and not to take any weapons belonging to the identified target.
General Fihla, director of intelligence in the APLA’s High Command at all material times relevant here to, gave evidence in support of the applicants’ applications. We do not propose to deal with his viva voce evidence in detail; suffice to say that he confirmed that the applicants were members of APLA at the time in question. He further confirmed that pursuant to the commission of the incident in question he had been briefed by Mphahlele of this incident and his inquiry had established that the operation was an authorised one.
R Swanepoel opposed the application on the basis that he firmly believed that the operation was purely criminal and not political because it common knowledge that as a chicken farmer he had cash in his house from the sale of chicken. His version of the incident in question largely corresponds with that of the first applicant save for the fact that he stated that he came out of the house carrying medication to administer to the chickens and had no firearm nor a camera, that the first applicant commanded him to take him to a room with a safe and more importantly that he was shot at by the applicant in the same room as his wife whilst the first applicant contends that it was not the same room. He further refuted the evidence that he was at any time a member of the AWB or was ever visited by its members. The Committee does not regard the latter issue as material to the application and it does not make any finding in this regard.
Whilst there has indeed been a discrepancy with regard to where an attempt to shoot Mr Swanepoel was made by the first applicant and the late Mudau. When the applicant was questioned about this discrepancy he conceded that he could not deny the version given by Mr Swanepoel because the events happened so swiftly that his recollection could be incorrect in this regard. He was also frightened. He further conceded that he could have been wrong in his observation that Mr Swanepoel came out of the house with a firearm and an object that looked like a camera.
After considering the nature of the discrepancy and the inherent possibility of mistakes because of faulty though honest recollection we aree was also frightened. He further conceded that he could have been wrong in his observation that Mr Swanepoel came out of the house with a firearm and an object that looked like a camera. of the view that the apparent differences are not material and could be as a result of a faulty but honest recollection by the applicant. Moreover his version has not sought to underplay his role in the commission of the incident at all.
The ground of Mr Swanepoel’s opposition that the applicants intended to rob him of his cash is based on speculation. Having regard to all the evidence given viva voce by the applicants and by General Fihla as well as the letter from Mr Mphahlele that the applicants were acting as members of APLA on instructions from the Director of Operations to go to Tzaneen to carry out the operation relating to the killing of farmers in the area and that they were acting on the direct orders of Mr Piet Nokere who was APLA’s Regional Commander in Tzaneen and as such identified the target. We are satisfied that the acts for which they seek amnesty are acts associated with a political objective.
Furthermore the weapons which were in the possession of the applicants, like the Chinese stick grenade were weapons not easily available to persons who were outside the lop of the Liberation Movements like APLA or MK and as the applicants have averred, were weapons that belonged to APLA.
Having considered all the evidence tendered before us we are satisfied that:
The applicants have complied with the requirements of Sections 20(1)(a) and (c) of the Act.
The applicants’ acts of killing Mrs Sandra Swanepoel and attempting to kill Mr Johannes Swanepoel and of having been in unlawful possession of explosives and firearms and as well as ammunition were acts associated with a political objective as defined in the Act and amnesty is accordingly GRANTED to them in respect thereof.
We are of the opinion that Mr Swanepoel and surviving son are victims as defined in the Act and hereby recommend that he be referred to the Committee on Reparation and Rehabilitation for consideration in terms of Section of the Act.
We are further of the view the Mr Swanepoel needs to be immediately assisted by the Reparation and Rehabilitation committee to obtain urgent psychological counselling as he exhibited serious traumatic behaviour that needs to be attended to without delay as a result of the loss of his wife and the subsequent suicide committed by his son resultant to these acts.
Signed on the 16 day of September 1999.
: JUDGE S MILLER
: JUDGE S KHAMPEPE
