DECISION
_____________________
This is the application for amnesty in terms of the provision of Section 18 of Act No. 34 of 1995 ("the Act") by Percy Mdluli Mhlongo.
The application related to two incidents:
The killing on 1 September 1991 of Jeremia Assa
Mkhwanazi.
The killing on 18 October 1991 of Mr Job Mokgathi,
a policeman.
The salient features testified to by the applicant are as follows:
The applicant was in Standard 9 during 1991. He irregularly attended school and joined the African National Congress (ANC) established Self Defence Unit (SDU) because he felt obliged to protect the community. The community was being harassed by a gang referred to as the Jackrollers, of which the victim Mkhwanazi (first deceased) was allegedly a member. One David "Slovo" Diutlwilong was the Commander of the SDU, which consisted of approximately 12 members.
In some instances the applicant acted with two others and Slovo who always gave the instructions. All three of them have since died.
In the first incident of the killing of deceased Mkhwanazi, the four of them went to the house of a Mr Tshabalala armed with firearms on the first of September 1991. They stopped their car at the house and the applicant was sent to scout for the presence of the first deceased and report back to those waiting in the car. The applicant there upon entered the house and found the first deceased there and shot him as a result of which he later died. Skhumbuzo Philip Mkhwanazi, the brother of the victim gave evidence, as he did at the criminal trial. He said that he and his brothers were drinking at a shebeen when a certain person entered the room saying:-
"There is death here today." A short while later this shooting incident took place. The witness Mkhwanazi does not know the reason for the shooting. According to him, the deceased was, at the time gainfully employed at Lonehill Hardware. He was the breadwinner, a family man and a gentle man. He was not a member of the Jackrollers which he had heard of and certainly did not keep company with criminals such as gangsters. The Jackrollers were in any event not from Zone 5 where the deceased resided.
The applicant did not make a good impression on the committee. He was evasive and clearly had selective memory lapses. It is improbable that he would have embarked on this venture in the manner he testified to because it would be too much of a risk to his person.
Even on his own version, his instruction was to see if the first deceased was there and to report back, not to shoot him. Such actions do not disclose any political benefit to advance the position of the organisation he supported. The Committee is therefore not satisfied that he has told the truth nor is it satisfied that the first deceased’s death was politically motivated as required and envisaged by the Act.
The applicant testified that it was decided to rob policemen of their guns. This lead to the second incident. The decision was not to kill policemen. The same group of four members planned the operation. The applicant was to confront the policemen while his comrades were to approach from behind and take the guns. Two policemen were held up and one ran away. The other allegedly went for his gun upon which the applicant shot him and as a result of which the policeman died. He testified that he shot the policeman in self-defence. He ran away with his comrades and nobody took the gun which was found on the body of the policeman.
The Act stipulates that amnesty shall be granted provided the formalities of the act and the requirements of full disclosure and showing that the act(s) for which amnesty is applied are politically motivated as envisaged by the act have been complied with.
In this instance, acting in self defence is not an act based on a political motive as envisaged by the Act. It served to enhance self-interest and was almost involuntary. It is clear that this was not a killing with political motive as envisaged by the Act.
The Committee is not satisfied that the applicant has complied with the requirements of the Act.
The application is consequently REFUSED and the Committee does not find anyone to be a victim as defined in the Act.
Dated at......................this.......... day of ........................1999.
_______________________
JUDGE R. PILLAY
_______________________
ADV. S. SIGODI
_______________________
MR W. MALAN
