DECISION
______________________________________________________
The applicant applies for amnesty in respect of the attempted murder of Jabulani Hadebe on 25th December 1993 at Bhekezulu in the district of Estcourt, the murder of Phumzile Mbongwa on 23rd January 1994 at Bhekezulu, the attempted murders of Emmly Ncedeni Mbongwa, Sifiso Mbongwa, Bongiwe Mbongwa, Muelisi Mbongwa and Khumbulani Mbongwa at Bhekezulu.
At the hearing of this matter the applicant also made application for amnesty in respect of the killing of one Kamanathi Sithole during 1993. Section 18 of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, No.34 of 1995 (the Act), provides that any person who wishes to apply for amnesty in respect of any act of offence shall submit such an application to the Commission in the prescribed form before the cut-off date, which date was 30th September 1997. The applicant made no mention of the killing of Kamanathi Sithole in his original application and the original application does not in any way establish any basis or framework which permits us to consider the question of amnesty in regard to the death of Kamanathi Sithole.
The applicant testified that he was a member of the African National Congress (the ANC) and that he was the Commander of the Self Defence Unit (the SDU) in the Bhekezulu area. At the time in question, political violence was rife in the area and there were regular clashes between supporters of the ANC and supporters of the Inkatha Freedom Party (the IFP).
Jabulani Hadebe was, on 25th December 1993, chased by a group of men including the applicant. He was caught by them and a tyre containing petrol was placed around his neck. He was then forced to drink petrol. The petrol in the tyre was then set alight and he was left for dead. He miraculously survived the ordeal by rolling in a puddle of water and getting to a hospital.
The applicant stated that Mr Hadebe was attacked because he was a prominent member of the IFP. It is evident from the judgment given at the trial of the applicant that Mr Hadebe, who was the councillor of the local chief, had reported the applicant and others to the chief about an incident that occurred at a particular homestead which resulted in the applicant and the others having to appear before the chief. The political motivation for the attack upon Mr Hadebe is therefore questionable.
According to the applicant he was not present when the house of Mrs Emmly Ncedeni Mbongwa was attacked on the night of the 24th January 1994. The applicant's version is that he planned the attack and instructed other young men who were members of the SDU to carry it out. The stated objective of the attack was to shoot and kill the eldest son of Mrs Mbongwa. The applicant stated that six members of the SDU were sent by him to the house. He armed two of them with AK-47 rifles and others were given petrol bombs. He states that he did not go on the mission as he was tired and needed to sleep and also because he had to do patrol duty. None of the persons sent on the mission had received any military training.
The attack was carried out. Shots were fired and petrol bombs were thrown. Phumzile Mbongwa, a young daughter of Mrs Mbongwa, was shot and killed. The house was damaged by fire caused by the petrol bombs.
At the applicant's trial the evidence of Mrs Mbongwa was accepted as being truthful and reliable. She positively identified the applicant as one of the attackers.
The applicant was not a satisfactory witness. He was often hesitant in answering questions put to him and on occasion seemed to be creating a version in order to extricate himself from a difficult situation that he had placed himself in. As, for example, he said that Mrs Mbongwa's eldest son was 24 or 25 years old but when it was pointed out to him that he was only 15 years old he said that he only estimated the age to be 24 or 25 years as he, Mrs Mbongwa's son, had a beard.
There are also a number of contradictions between statements contained in the affidavit deposed to by the applicant approximately a week before the hearing of this matter and hose contained in his statement dated 30th November 1999 (Exhibit "A"). It is clear from both the judgement delivered at the applicant's trial and from Exhibit "A" that applicant played a leading role in the assault upon Mr Hadebe. The statement contained in his affidavit that "My intention was to give him (Mr Hadebe) opportunity to run away, but he was overpowered by the angry mob" is plainly an untruth.
His version that he did not participate in the attack upon Mrs Mbongwa's house is also unconvincing and improbable and is rejected as being untruthful.
We are not satisfied that the applicant has made a full disclosure of all the relevant facts as is required by the Act.
In the circumstances, the applicant for amnesty is REFUSED.
DATED AT THIS DAY OF 2000.
____________________________
JUDGE S M MILLER
____________________________
ADV N SANDI
___________________________
MR W MALAN
