DECISION
______________________________________________________
The Applicant applies for amnesty in respect of the following offences:
1. Murder in that upon or about 27 August 1991 and at or near Breakfast Hill Farm in the district of Underberg he unlawfully and intentionally killed Paul Bertram Nicholson a 76 year old male.
2. Robbery with aggravating circumstances in that upon or about 27 August 1991 and at or near Breakfast Hill in the district of Underberg he unlawfully assaulted Paul Bertram Nicholson and Anna Margaretha Nicholson, a 73 year old woman and intentionally used force and violence to induce submission by the aforesaid persons to take and steal the sum of approximately R540.00 in cash and to rob them of the said money.
The Applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment on the murder charge and to 6 years imprisonment on the robbery charge.
Apart from the oral evidence lead at the hearing, the Committee was also furnished with two recent affidavits by the Applicant, the one dated 2 February 200 and the other dated 16 February 2000. The indictment, summary of substantial facts and the judgement and sentence at the trial formed part of the record.
The Applicant had made a statement in proceedings under Section 119 of the Criminal Procedure Act stating that on the day in question he had found the deceased walking on his farm and had approached him with a view of obtaining employment from him. The deceased said that he had no work to offer him. According to the statement the Applicant then begged the deceased for money but the deceased did not give him any money. The deceased left him and went to his house. The Applicant followed him, later gained entrance to the house through an open window and positioned him behind the kitchen door. When the deceased entered the kitchen after a while, he surprised the deceased. A struggle ensured and he stabbed the deceased twice with a sharpened iron rod which he picked up at the house of one Mananza who stayed on the deceased's farm. He thereafter proceeded towards the lounge but met the deceased's wife in the passage leading to the kitchen. He threatened her and stabbed at her. She was injured on the hand and in the shoulder. She thereupon, on his demand, handed money to him.
According to his evidence in court he counted the money and Mrs Nicholson tried to get hold of the iron rod while he was counting the money on the bed. he, however, forestalled her and demanded more money. The original amount was R500.00 and she thereupon led him to the office where R10.00 was obtained and to the pantry where she handed a further R30.00 to him.
The Applicant also told the magistrate during the Section 119 proceedings that he worked for Barnett Construction and that the deceased had been instrumental in obtaining a reduction of their salaries.
In his evidence at the trial the Applicant said that this statement was false and that he had made it on advice that it would help him in getting a more lenient sentence.
In evidence before the Committee (and in his recent February 2000 affidavits) the Applicant testified that the deceased was a leader of the AWB in the Underberg area. He stated that:
"The reason why I also had a misunderstanding with him was because he advised on Mr Barnett that he should reduce our wages from R25.00 per day to R5.00 per day."
It later transpired that he worked for Barnett while he was still at school and 14 years old. He only worked for him for about two weeks. It remains unclear how deceased could influence Barnett in 1982 to reduce the salary of a schoolboy from R25.00 per day to R5.00 per day and it is clear that the Applicant had no evidence that this indeed happened. It is also not clear how this vague allegation could be the reason for a murder 9 years later. (It is clear that he based this on speculation). It was later stated by Mbanjwa that it was indeed the deceased's brother Desmond, who advocated a reduction in salaries whilst he (Desmond) would pay his workers more than the other farmers would do in order to draw workers from other farms.
The Applicant further testified that while he worked for one Ronnie he was assaulted by him. On being asked why he didn't attack the said Ronnie instead of the elderly Nicholson, he said that it did pass his mind before he became interested in politics but the said Ronnie was joking and playful. It therefore doesn't seem that this ill-treatment by Ronnie played a role in the attack on the deceased.
The Applicant further testified that it was his intention to kill several farmers. The deceased was the first victim but he intended to kill his brother Desmond Nicholson also. During his evidence it transpired that he once asked the deceased for a lift to a medical clinic. He said the deceased did take him to the clinic but upon being asked why he killed the man that did him a favour, he said that the interpreters must have interpreted wrongly. The deceased did stop next to him but on being asked for a left laughed at him and drove away. It is rather ironic that just before the murder the other intended victim, Desmond Nicholson, also assisted the Applicant by giving him a lift from Underberg to the vicinity of the farm where he committed the murder.
At the present hearing the Applicant started his evidence by explaining why he committed the murder. He said that it was for political reasons because his organisation didn't have money, they need the money.
He then continued to say he chose Nicholson as target because he didn't give Black people any rights. He used to harass, torture and sometimes beat them. He oppressed them. He perceived him to be a member of the AWB. He, however, conceded that he had no personal knowledge of any instance where this happened. He referred to an instance where women were beaten in the streets but on being asked about it, he stated that one Ronnie and Michael were involved and not the deceased. One of his co-workers, Lapiya Mbanjwa, who supported his evidence about ill-treatment by Ronnie, stated that he didn't know or hear that the deceased ill-treated his workers. The deceased even allowed his workers to keep cattle on the farm, something other farmers did not allow. He didn't know to which political party the deceased belonged to but he had heard about the AWB and thought all White farmers belonged to the AWB.
The son of the deceased, Derrick Nicholson, also gave evidence. He testified that his father never supported the AWB. He was a member of the old United Party (later NRP) and believed in shaking hands with Black people and he promoted the idea of Africans in parliament. His father attended farmers' meetings. These meetings were never held on their farm and were not political at all. Neither he nor his parents knew the . He conceded that there might have been ill-treatment of Black people by a farmer or two, but stated categorically that he was not aware of it and that the deceased definitely did not ill-treat his workers.
The first question to be decided is whether these offences were associated with a political objective and whether the Applicant acted as a member or supporter of a political party or liberation movement. The Applicant testified that he acted as a supporter of AZAPO. He had not up to then joined AZAPO because there were no members in the area. He had never met any of the AZAPO leadership. He had on one occasion met a man known as Patrick Mkize whom he believed was an AZAPO member but he could not discuss matters with him because the latter was in a great hurry. He himself kept his support for AZAPO a secret because he feared he might lose his work if it was known. At a stage he discussed his political vies with members of MK but they told him that he should rather join AZAPO. They, however, did not dissuade him to kill farmers. He wanted to move to Pietermaritzburg after the murder where he intended to meet Mr Harry Gwala who he believed would have been able to give him directions as to where he could meet AZAPO leaders and how he could join AZAPO.
It is against this background that the Committee has to decide whether this was a politically motivated act, robbery for personal gain or an act out of revenge. As far as revenge is concerned, it must be borne in mind that the Applicant, on his own version, never worked for deceased and was never assaulted by deceased. His contact with deceased related to an incident where he asked the deceased for a lift and the deceased would not take him to a clinic. The deceased ridiculed him because of his injury - his own evidence on this aspect failed to satisfy us as to what really happened on that occasion. We find it strange that on his evidence at his trial he requested the deceased to employ him the very afternoon before he killed him. He confirmed this at the present hearing and also that the deceased told him that he had no work for him. It seems more probable that he thereafter decided to commit a robbery in order to get money and that he encountered resistance from the deceased which resulted in a confrontation that caused the death of the latter. He thereafter proceeded to carry out his intention to rob.
We accept that there was no love lost between him and the farmers but find it hard to believe that he was politically motivated to commit murder on behalf of or in support of a political organisation with whom he had no previous contact at all.
It is also significant that he wanted to obtain money for AZAPO, an organisation which he did not know, except for its broad political policy. he could not have had any knowledge of its financial affairs and whether they were bankrupt or in need of money.
The Committee is not satisfied that he met the requirements of the Act and amnesty is REFUSED.
SIGNED AT THIS DAY OF 2000.
____________________________
JUDGE C DE JAGER
____________________________
ADV F J BOSMAN
____________________________
ADV S SIGODI
