DECISION
This is an application for amnesty in terms of Section 18 of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, No.34 of 1995.
The applicant is seeking amnesty for the robbery and murder of Guerrino Ettore Zilio, which offence was committed in Pretoria on or about 16 October 1985. He is presently serving a long term of years' imprisonment for the said crimes. At the hearing the applicant's testimony was unopposed and can briefly be stated as follows:
At the relevant time he was a member of the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania ("the PAC") which he supported under the leadership of Joshua Khatle at Tembisa, Gauteng when it had a local branch. On Wednesday 16 October 1985 Khatle came to see the applicant, Solomon Dlamini and Philemon Tebele at Mabopane in Pretoria. He told them that they should "go to a certain house in Pretoria to take money from a white male." It later transpired that this was the person who is now being referred to as the deceased herein. He told them to speak very politely with the person, grab him and demand that he open the safe which allegedly contained money. He gave them a car to transport them for the destination. Philemon was the driver. They were not given arms to execute the robbery nor a weapon of any kind to defend themselves. When they came to the house they found the white male alone. They spoke with him and surprisingly they grabbed hold of him before he could realise what was happening. The victim fell to the ground. Then Solomon took a piece of wood and struck in on the head. He was demanding that he open the safe. It later transpired that he had taken a fit. When the applicant and Solomon could not get the keys for the safe they left. But before departing Solomon took a watch which he found in the kitchen. They proceeded to Joshua to return his vehicle. During the time the applicant and Solomon were attacking the deceased Philemon was waiting outside in the car.
A few days later the applicant and his companions, were all arrested (with the exception of Joshua). They were charged and convicted of robbery and culpable homicide. The applicant was sentenced to twenty five (25) years imprisonment and Solomon received a death sentence. He was executed in 1988. The applicant states that it was not the first time that Joshua had sent them on a robbery mission. later he changed his evidence and said the aim was not to rob but to kill the deceased and that the vehicle did not belong to Joshua but to Philemon.
There are many aspects in respect of which the applicant later changed his evidence and we do not deem it necessary to deal with them all. But by way of example: Until 1985 when he was introduced to Joshua by Solomon he did not know anything about the PAC and what it stood for and when he was given political education by Joshua, he expressed a desire to join the PAC. He was asked to furnish Joshua with a passport size photograph of himself for a membership card. Joshua said he was going to take his picture at Tembisa. He did not tell him where exactly the PAC was situated there. He never received the card and meanwhile he was asked to be involved in this mission to show his support for the PAC. The applicant's legal representative asked the applicant if he was aware at the time that the PAC was a banned organisation and that it could quite be dangerous to have (for him) its membership card. He replied in the affirmative. At this stage we deliberately refrain from making comments on the implications of this part of the evidence. The applicant also revealed for the first time under cross-examination that he also took part in striking the deceased on the head with what he called "a block of wood". Nothing else was taken from the premises except the wristwatch which Solomon gave to Philemon as payment for providing him with transport. The applicant states that the latter was not a supporter of the PAC and did not even know the real reason why they were visiting the home of the deceased. They had said to him that they were going there to fetch their money. We prefer not to tabulate all the improbabilities as they are far too numerous to detail.
After carefully considering the matter we are not satisfied that the acts committed by the applicant are offences associated with a political objective in terms of the Act. There is simply not a shred of evidence that at the relevant time the applicant was a member of the PAC and that he acted on its behalf. His claim that he had a political objective for attacking and killing the deceased cannot be accepted. Our view is fortified by the fact that at the hearing he showed a very poor understanding of the PAC and its policies and tactics during the conflict of the past. There were far too many basic things the applicant did not know about the PAC. Even if we could be generous to the applicant and accept that at the relevant time he was a member or supporter of the PAC, there is no evidence that the attack was carried out on behalf of the PAC.
In the result amnesty is REFUSED for both offences and for any crime or delict flowing from the incident. In the circumstances and for the stated reasons we are also unable to recommend that the next-of-kin of the deceased be declared victims in terms of the Act.
SIGNED AT CAPE TOWN ON THIS DAY OF 2001
D POTGIETER, AJ
J MOTATA, JUDGE
ADV N SANDI
??
4
/...
/...
