______________________________________________________DECISION
______________________________________________________
This is an application for amnesty in terms of Section 18 of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act 34 of 1995 ("the Act"). The Applicant is seeking amnesty for acts or omissions committed on 18th February 1993 at the University of the Transkei (UNITRA), in Umtata, including, inter alia, the following:
1. The killing of Mason Mlindeli Mankumba;
2. The shooting of the following persons:
2.1 Wilberforce Sandla Mkizwayo;
2.2 Elliot Michael Pama;
3. The robbery of R500 000.
At the time of the incident, the Applicant was a member of the Pan African Congress (PAC) military wing, the Azanian Peoples Liberation Army (APLA). By way of background, the Applicant left the country in 1986 and received military and ideological training in Tanzania and other front-line states.
In 1989 he was sent back to South Africa by the PAC on operational duties. He was later called back to Tanzania and was instructed to lead a new unit to be based in the Transkei termed the "Repossession Unit", and code named "Beauty Salon". The unit was directed at robbing government institutions, businesses and White farmers to finance APLA operations. APLA had no funds at the time and his superiors in Tanzania decided that robberies were the only means to secure arms and money for its activities. All items of value such as arms, jewellery and money were to be handed over to him to one "Mandla Lenin", now deceased, the Regional Administrator at the PAC/APLA offices in Umtata.
The Applicant was the overall commander of this unit. He assembled sub-units which carried out specific operations and who handed to him all proceeds of such operations. He reported to Letlapa Mphahele, the APLA director of operations and a member of its high command, from whom he also took orders. The Applicant chose the targets on his own and reported after each mission had been carried out.
The Applicant arises out of an incident on 18th February at UNITRA where the Applicant, in concert with other members of APLA, planned and executed a robbery at the University. On that day, the university was busy with the registration of students and a large sum of money had been collected. At the time of the robbery which was late in the afternoon, UNITRA staff members were busy counting the money at the auditorium ("the hall").
Mason Mlindeli Mankuma (Mankumba) and other unnamed person were security guards on duty at the university at the time. Constables Elliot Michael Pama (Pama), Wilberforce Sandla Mkizwayo (Mkizwayo) and Mxokozeli (Mxokozeli) were policemen who had just arrived to assist with security and to relieve a group who had worked earlier in the day. There is some confusion with regard to how many policemen were present and exactly who they were. Mankumba was fatally injured and Pama and Mkizwayo were seriously injured when the robbers opened fire. Others who were present in the hall had firearms pointed at them and were forced to lie down whilst the amount of R500 000 was being taken away.
The Applicant did not play a direct role in the robbery but stood outside the hall whilst his colleagues executed it. The Applicant who is serving a long term of imprisonment in respect of other offences, has never been charged for this incident. None of the participants were arrested for the incident.
At the hearing, he was the only witness to testify in support of his application. Although he has applied for amnesty for a number of other crimes, ranging from murder to robbery which he claims were carried out on behalf of APLA< those were not the subject of this hearing which only dealt with the so-called "UNITRA" incident". Some were, at the time of the hearing of this matter, to be heard by other panels and other matters will be dealt with in chambers, that is, where no gross human rights violations were committed.
We now return to the facts of this incident. Before the robbery was launched, the Applicant gathered the necessary information about the place, using a female APLA cadre, "Nolita". He does not know her full names or present whereabouts. This also applies to other cadres involved. On the day in question he acted with "Jomo" from Mdantsane, "K.G." from Clarkebury, "Skhembe", "Hasper", "D.K.", "Laizer" and "MZI". They divided themselves into three groups, namely the "assault group" which was to penetrate the hall and execute the action, the "support group" which was to ensure a safe withdrawal of the first group and the "cut out group" of which he was a member. This group had to stand outside the hall and prevent any interference with the robbery.
Each group had its own commander and had to give a report to the Applicant on completion of the mission. All the other members of the three different groups were armed with firearms and he was the only one armed with only a knife. He says APLA generally did not have sufficient arms for each cadre. He added that he was not supposed to be there that day. He only participated to give the others moral support. We should state here that the Applicant was thoroughly cross-examined on his reason for not taking an active part in the execution of the mission and as nothing turns on this issue, we shall take it no further.
Whilst he was standing outside he heard gunfire from inside. A policeman came out of the hall and fired at him. He sustained an injury on the right leg and he ran towards the university hostels for help. There he met a woman whom he told that had he been innocently walking past the hall when the shooting started. She dressed his wound. Because the getaway car was parked some distance away, he took a taxi and proceeded to the agreed rendezvous. His comrades did not arrive there.
The next day they came to see him with the stolen money. He did not count the money at that stage. He only did so with Mandla Lenin when he was handing it over to him. He did not see what happened inside the hall and all he knows is what was told to him by the commanders of the other two groups that went inside. They told him that the police started the shooting. It was a standing rule in APLA that if a target draws a firearm, one must shoot immediately and not wait to be killed.
At the hearing, none of the university employees from whom the money was taken testified. It appears from their statements which were made to the police and which were handed in at the hearing, that whilst they were busy counting the money three men came into the room. They pointed firearms at them and ordered that they lie down, which they did. Police and university security guards were guarding them. The robbers took the money away in suitcases.
Pama testified that on the day in question he and two other members of the Transkei Police Force (TPF) were posted at UNITRA to render protection and security whilst money was being counted and carried from the hall. The two others were Mkizwayo and Mxokozeli. When they arrived at the hall, they met two UNITRA security guards, one of whom was Mankumba. They were late in arriving to relieve other TPF members who had been there on duty before they came. There were other people around who appeared to be students and university employees.
One of the outgoing police told them to ask the UNITRA security guards where the money was being counted, which they did and were shown a small room inside the hall. Whilst talking to one of the security guards he saw about three to four men entering the hall. (It later transpired that those were the APLA members who arrived in the company of the Applicant who was standing outside). One of them had a newspaper in his hand and this reinforced his conclusion that they were students who had come to register. They had entered through the same door Pama and his colleagues had used when they came in. They were walking slowly and caused no suspicion to him. Whilst observing these people they were at some stage obscured by a pillar as they went up the stairs inside the hall. Someone appeared next to him and opened fire. Pama says he was shot on the left side of his chest. He fell to the found with his gun falling next to him. He shouted for help but Mkizwayo had also been shot. They were rushed to hospital.
Pama says when he and his colleagues arrived at the hall they were all dressed in civilian clothes and their guns were under their jerseys and jackets. he does not know how they were singled out as policemen. The security guards were in green uniforms and did not have their guns exposed to members of the public as they were carried under their jackets. The attackers gave no indication or warning that they were going to shoot. It all happened very quickly and came as a complete surprise to everyone. The first shot hit Mankumba and the second one him. There were about ten people inside the hall when this happened and a lady who was sitting on the stairs. Pama says it was the first time that he had been posted for duty at UNITRA. he had never been there before. He had a 9mm pistol, a standard police issue Z88 parabellum but he did not use it.
Mkizwayo also testified and his evidence partly corroborated Pama but he added the following. On his arrival at the hall he suggested to one of the security guards that two of the three doors be closed, apparently to ensure tighter security. The suggestion was agreed to and he was told to do it himself. As he was about to do so and was about five paces from the door, he heard gun shots being fired. At that stage he was jumping over a chair on his way towards one of the doors. On turning around to determine where the shots were coming from and also trying to draw his own gun, he felt pains on the waist. He says it was like a "doctor's injection" on his right leg. he had been shot, apparently by a man wearing a khaki cap, a khaki overcoat and a striped pair of trousers. He tried to return fire but as a result of his state of confusion and the shock he was in, he fired in the air. A second shot followed and he became unconscious. On regaining consciousness, he saw Pama and Mankumba who were lying on their backs. They appeared to have been shot. He had not seen any one of his colleagues being shot and neither had he seen any person carrying a firearm before he was shot. He heard no verbal warning or warning shots before he was shot. He did not see any of his colleagues or the security guards firing shots at the attackers. He had taken no particular notice of the attackers amongst the people who were going up and down in the hall.
The Applicant was not inside the hall when the shooting occurred and could not give evidence as to what happened there. What he had been told by others is clearly hearsay. Suffice to say, that the Applicant says he takes full responsibility for the actions of his comrades. He said that UNITRA was targeted and classified as an enemy institution because it was oppressing the African people. He did not say how and he was not asked to explain himself. The assertion has also not been challenged.
UNITRA was a State institution and was part of the then Transkei homeland structure which in turn formed part of the broader apartheid edifice.
There appears to be some differences between the versions of the policemen who testified and the witness statements that were contained in the docket and handed in at the hearing. It is clear to us that such differences are probably the result of the lapse of time since the incident and the shock and confusion that the witnesses suffered at the time. Not much turns on such differences in any event.
After considering all available evidence in this matter, as well as the PAC's submission to the TRC, where it confirmed that robberies were part of its manner of waging the struggle against the previous government, we are of the view that the acts and omissions committed fall within the purview of the Act. At that special hearing a member of the PAC delegation alludes to the names of the Applicant as a person who was charged with the task of commanding the Beauty Salon Unit's operations.
As stated earlier, he was never charged with his incident and has voluntarily exposed his involvement. Although there may be some doubt as to what actually happened in the hall, the Applicant has accepted responsibility for the incident. We are satisfied that in sending in his cadres, armed as they were, to carry out the robbery, he foresaw or must have foreseen the possibility of a shooting taking place. He, in any event, associates himself with the shootings. In the result we are satisfied that the Applicant has made full disclosure of all relevant facts and that his actions were acts associated with a political objective.
Amnesty is accordingly GRANTED for all offences and delicts arising from the robbery on 18th February 1993 at UNITRA, in Umtata.
The Amnesty Committee is of the opinion that the following persons are victims and are accordingly referred to the Committee on Reparation and Rehabilitation for its consideration in terms of Section 26 of the Act:
1. The relatives and dependants of the late Mason Mlindeli Mankumba;
2. Wilberforce Sandla Mkizwayo;
3. Elliot Michael Pama.
DATED at CAPE TOWN this day of 2000
____________________________JUDGE A WILSON
____________________________ADV N SANDI
____________________________ADV L GCABASHE
____________________________MR I LAX
