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 Applicant who is presently serving long term of imprisonment is seeking amnesty for the murder of Ziphathe Mzizi. The offence was committed in Umzimkulu, Transkei, on 1 April 1990. At the time of the occurrence of the incident the Applicant was resident at Standerton and was a supporter of the United Democratic Front ("the UDF"). The Applicant states that the deceased was killed because he was an informer and that he supported the Matanzima regime which he claims was harassing UDF supporters in the former homeland. He further testified that the deceased worked very closely with the police and that he was an obstacle to the attainment of liberation by the oppressed people in South Africa (including Transkei). At the hearing the Applicant testified at length to motivate his application. He was subjected to prolonged and rigorous cross-examination to test the veracity of his testimony. In support of his application he also called one Sipho Heir Manzogesi Mtshana Ngwenya. The evidence of the latter does not assist the Committee and we do not think it is necessary to deal with it. However, it is our view that the credibility of Ngwenya left so much to be desired that it was clear that he was not being truthful. The application is being opposed by Madlomo Mzizi, the widow of the deceased, on the ground that the Applicant was hired to kill the deceased following a private dispute which occurred between the deceased and one Ngoboyi Joko Bhuqa (also referred to as Mjoli). It is apparent from the bundle of documents that were placed before the Committee for the purposes of the hearing that Mjoli was a co-accused of the Applicant in the criminal trial. Mjoli was convicted on the basis that he hired the Applicant to kill the deceased and was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment. The Applicant was initially sentenced to death which sanction was later commuted to life imprisonment. No evidence was adduced by the opposition to strengthen their ground of objection to the application, viz that the Applicant had no political objective for shooting the deceased. It is our view that in the circumstances it is not necessary to deal with the suggestion of the opposition. There is no adequate evidential basis before the Committee to do so. We also say this by reason of the fact that the evidence of the Applicant very loudly speaks for itself. It can be summarised as follows:
Whilst the Applicant was employed at Eskom in Standerton he came to know Mjoli very well. So much so that they were both involved in the activities of a trade union, the National Union of Mine Workers ("NUM"). They both supported the UDF and its campaigns and objective to end the white majority rule. The Applicant states that Mjoli had hailed from Umzimkulu where he had a family and was allegedly a supporter of the UDF.
On a certain day the Applicant was told by Mjoli that there was a certain man in Umzimkulu who was causing UDF supporters serious problems. At that stage the name of the man was never mentioned and the Applicant was only told that he was a business man who opposed all initiatives by the UDF to develop the area and the circumstances of its residents. The man in question was said to be objecting to people buying from other businesses. he wanted people to buy solely from his shop. He was also informing the police about the activities of UDF comrades. The Applicant also claims that on a certain day in or about 1990 he and other UDF comrades were travelling to Umzimkulu to deliver firearms to UDF supporters. At the border post he saw the deceased. This was well before the latter was pointed out to him in Umzimkulu by Pakamile Mjoli, a brother to Ngoboyi Joko Bhuqa, so he could kill him. He claims that when he was pointed out he was unable to recall the deceased as the person he had previously observed at the border post point them out to the police. The Applicant claims that after the accused had pointed them out to the police at the border post, the police came to search their cars but fortunately for them they had already taken the firearms out of their vehicle and they hid them in the bushes some distance away. In our view this is a fabrication by the Applicant in an attempt to bolster his allegations that the deceased was a political enemy of the liberation struggle. Worse still, he was contradicted on this score by Ngwenya. According to Ngwenya, who was in the company of the Applicant when they ferried firearms to Umzimkulu, there was never any mention amongst themselves of a suspicious looking man (the deceased) who was seen by the Applicant talking to the police at the border post.
There are so many unsettling aspects in the evidence of the Applicant that we have no hesitation but to refuse the application. The evidence of both the Applicant and Ngwenya is so riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies that the Applicant cannot be said to have made a full disclosure. We accept that at the time of the occurrence of the incident he was a supporter of the UDF ut there is no credible evidence that when he shot the deceased he was acting on behalf of the UDF and in furtherance of its struggle against the apartheid system. In this regard we do not even think it is necessary to deal with the fact that by 1990 none of the Matanzima brothers was still in power in Transkei. It is a well known fact that the then Premier Stella Sigcau and George Matanzima were overthrown in a military coup which took place in December 1987. They never returned to power and henceforth the homeland was ruled by a Military Council under the leadership of General Bantu Holomisa. When this fact was brought to the attention of the Applicant he sought to amplify his version and said that although under Holomisa, Transkei was a semi-liberated zone for Liberation Movements, there were still certain elements of the population who opposed the UDF. We find this explanation quite implausible in the light of the general lack of credibility on the part of the Applicant. In our view he has failed to satisfy the Committee that the offence he committed is an "act associated with a political objective" as required by the Act.
In the result the application is REFUSED.
No victim recommendation is being made because the offence committed is not an act associated with a political objective as required by the Act.
DATED AT CAPE TOWN THIS DAY OF 2001.
_____________________
Acting Judge D Potgieter
_____________________
Adv. N Sandi
_____________________
Mr I Lax
??
/...
2
/...
