: DECISION
: The Applicants apply for amnesty in respect of armed robbery, murder and attempted murder, which offences were committed by them on 7th October 1991 at Illovo, Johannesburg.
It is evidence from the documentation before us that during the evening of 7th October 1991 Mr and Mrs Liquorish were entertaining two guests, namely Mr Dunkley and Miss Saint-Clair, at her house at Illovo, Johannesburg. They were sitting at the dinning table when five armed robbers, including the Applicants, entered the premises. The robbers then tormented the said four people and stole a number of items including a .44 revolver, a box of .38 ammunition, a camera, a video cassette recorder, watches, rings and jewellery, the total value of which was estimated to be R40 200. During the process of the robbery the alarm was activated and a security guard arrived at the house. Shots were fired and the five robbers fled from the house. Nobody was injured in the shooting that took place at the house. The police were summoned and Sergeant Jacobs and Constable Oosthuizen arrived in a police vehicle shortly thereafter. A shootout took place between some of the robbers and the said policemen. Constable Oosthuizen was fatally shot and Sergeant Jacobs was seriously injured. An R5 rifle was stolen from the police vehicle by the robbers before they fled from the scene. The Applicants were arrested during 1993. They were tried, convicted and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment.
The Applicants testified that they were all supporters of the African National Congress (the ANC), that they all lived in Alexandra Township and that they were members of a Self Defence Unit (SDU). They stated that at that stage their SDU was not assisted by a member of MK and also that it had no structure or hierarchy. The SDU, they state, was formed to protect their community from attacks from supporters of the Inkatha Freedom Party (the IFP). Their SDU had a shortage of firearms and they, the Applicants, decided to take it upon themselves to acquire firearms for the SDU. Jacob Moleka Maponyane (the 2nd Applicant) informed them that he knew of a house in Illovo where they could get firearms. The Applicants together with one Johnny and one Elvis then, on 7th October 1991, went to the house in Illovo, which house was the house of Mr and Mrs Liquorish. Mfanafuthi Kenneth Ngwenya (the 1st Applicant) and Muzi Patrick Kubheka (the 3rd Applicant) were armed with firearms and the other three were armed with knives.
The Applicants testified as to the events which took place in the house. They all denied that they witnessed any items other than firearms and ammunition being stolen. They stated that it was their sole intention to only take firearms and ammunition and they only learnt the next day that Johnny had taken the jewellery. All three Applicants testified that they were present at the shootout with the police after they had left the house. Both the 2nd and 3rd Applicants admit that they fired shots at the police and the 1st Applicant stated that he removed the R5 rifle from the vehicle.
All of the Applicants emphatically denied in written statements which they submitted to the Commission prior to the hearing of this matter that they were involved in the shootout with the police. It was only at the hearing of this matter that they admitted being involved. They explained this discrepancy between their statements and testimony by saying that they thought they must tell the Commission what was said at their trial as they thought the Commission was linked to the courts. These similar discrepancies between their prior written statements and their evidence at the hearing of this matter reveal that the Applicants collaborated with each other in submitting untruths to the Commission. Their evidence is therefore approached with caution.
The testimony of the Applicants that they were unaware that watches, jewellery, a camera and other items besides firearms and ammunition were stolen is unconvincing and rejected as being false. They had scant knowledge of the then structures of the ANC in Alexandra and their evidence that they endeavoured to raise funds from the community in order to purchase firearms for the SDU is also unconvincing. The evidence of the 2nd Applicant that he had approximately six months before the robbery burgled the Liquorish's house and stole a firearm, which firearm he sold undermines his claim that the objective of the robbery on 7th October 1991 was to acquire firearms for the SDU.
The evidence that their SDU was without structure, the fact that robbing civilians in their home was contrary to ANC policy, the lack of corroboration that the Applicants were members of an SDU and the nature of the items stolen by the Applicants lead us to believe that the Applicants were acting for their own personal gain rather than as members of an SDU when they committed the robbery.
We, after considering the evidence and documentation before us, are not satisfied that the Applicants have made a full and truthful disclosure of all relevant facts pertaining to the offences for which they apply for amnesty. We are also not satisfied that the offences were acts committed with a political objective as envisaged by the provisions of Section 20 of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, No 34 of 1995.
In the result, the applications for amnesty of all the Applicants are REFUSED.
SIGNED AT CAPE TOWN THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2000
JUDGE S MILLER
JUDGE NJ MOTATA
ADV N SANDI
