1. This is an application for amnesty brought by the applicants in relation to the killing of Siya Enack Cele and Elizabeth Zondime Khumalo, and the attempted killing of Mdikivani Mkhize, all of which took place on the 24th August 1991.
2. Both applicants disclosed in their applications that they were supporters of the IFP and in evidence that were card carrying members of the IFP.
3. The victims and their families were not represented, but the committee was informed by its evidence leader Mr Robin Brink, that they were apposed to the granting of amnesty to the applicants.
4. The background events that led to the incidents may be summarized as follows:
The Applicants attended a traditional celebration in Mopumulo area. It was a traditional feast "when a man gives gratitude to his daughter for behaving well...". "The celebration involves the carrying of stocks, people are happy, celebrating, dancing;
it is a happy occasion." The second applicant was wearing an IFP T.shirt. One amongst the guests said "Ukova", which is a word the applicants do not know the meaning of, but they assumed to be derogatory of IFP supporters. As it was not directed at anybody in particular, the applicants did not take much notice of it. Drinks were provided (Emirjovjo) which the applicants also shared in. After those drinks they walked home. It was dusk. The applicants walking with others were "in high spirits, making a lot of noise". they met up with people who swore at them and used the word "Ukova".
The second applicant and another stabbed two of the people who they assumed to be those because they used these words. One was killed, the other rand away. On their was home they suddenly decided to go and kill one Elizabeth Zandime Khumalo, whom they knew her to be in opposition to the IFP because she opposed a tax levied on dogs, and because she was also apposed to the wearing of IFP T-shirts. They killed Elizabeth Zandime Khumalo in her house that night, the first applicant shooting her with a home-made gum and the second applicant stabbing her. The area was quiet at the time. There was no turmoil. It was controlled by the IFP.
5. They admitted that they were not ordered by their superiors to commit those offences. Although testifying that they were given drinks and that one of them partly had to be taken home because he was intoxicated, both in further examination testified that they had no alcohol at the feast.
6. Having regard to the motive for the killings and the attempted killing, it is difficult to accept that alcohol did not play a major role. No evidence exists that any of the victims was in fact a member of the ANC. On their own version the applicants acted in reaction to swearwords in the first incident and in the second incident to a suspicion based on opposition of the victim to a dog tax and the wearing of T-shirts. The acts of killing and attempted killing was not directed at a clear political opponent, nor was it executed on behalf of or in the furtherance of the objective of a political organisation. We are satisfied that the killing of the two deceased, and the attempted killing were not acts that the killing of the two deceased, and the attempted killing were not acts associated with a political objective as contemplated in the Act.
7. Accordingly both applicants are not entitled to the amnesty and, therefore, the applications by both applicants are