The applicants are currently serving long terms of imprisonment in respect of the following offences:
The murder of Alistair Weakly.
The attempted murder of Keith Rumble.
The attempted murder of Thomas O'Keefe; and
The attempted murder of Brett Rumble.
They have now applied for amnesty for the aforementioned offences in terms of Act 34 of 1995 as amended (the Act).
This matter arises out of an incident which occurred at Port St Johns in the region of the Transkei on 13 April 1993, when the applicants launched an attack on the aforesaid victims. Their evidence can be summarised as follows:
All the applicants were members of the African National Congress (ANC) and of a Self Defence Unit (SDU) when the events referred to herein occurred. They say the attack on the victims, who were holiday makers in the area, was carried out in retaliation for the murder of Chris Hani, aprominent member of the ANC and Umkhonto weSizwe, the ANC military wing.
On 10 April 1993, Hani was assassinated at his house by Janus Walus, a member of the right wing movement which was opposed to the then negotiations between the erstwhile National Party Government and the ANC. The assassination sparked off violence in may parts of the country. President Nelson Mandela made a public appeal to all members and supporters of his organisation, the ANC, to refrain from taking any steps in retaliation to the murder of Hani. The applicants testified that they were not aware of this appeal until after they had already carried out the attack. They say it was their intention to carry out a spate of attacks on white people in the Transkei area to induce pressure on the De Klerk administration to expedite negotiations with their leaders. They say they also wanted to send a message to white people that if their leaders were assassinated white people would also be killed.
They further testified that when they heard of the appeal by Mandela they decided to heed to the request and abandoned the idea of further attacks. There is no evidence as to which particular victims were going to be attacked next, but generally the attacks were all going to be executed against white people.
The applications are being opposed by the survivors of the victims on the basis that the applicants had no order from the ANC when they carried out the attack and that it was never the policy of the ANC to ambush and attack unidentified civilians.
It has also been submitted that the attack was racially motivated, and thus constituted a breach of the ANC policy of non-racialism. It is the applicants' response to the charge that at the time it was their duty to protect their leaders from both actual and possible future attacks. In their view, at the time these included acts of retaliation and pre-emptive attacks. They accept that it was not the policy of the ANC to attack white people indiscriminately. They say this was a very emotional decision, which they took in the heat of the moment. They were angry with Janus and white people in general for what had been done to Hani. They say they feared that unless they acted, more ANC leaders like Hani, would be killed. At the time of the attack they honestly believed that their action would prevent further attacks on ANC leaders.
The Committee also had to deal with one troubling aspect of the evidence of the applicants which can be summarised as follows:
At the time of the assassination of Hani, they were already investigating the presence of "suspicious" white people in the nearby holiday resort, whom they say they suspected of being part of the right wing organisations. According to them they based their suspicion on information received from party members from the area. On being questioned they could not remember the name of any member who provided such information. There was also a suspicion that one or more of the local white businessmen co-operated with these unwelcome guests in the area. It was feared that the latter were going to assassinate ANC supporters of the local community ANC. When Hani was assassinated they proceeded to attack the victims without confirming the suspicions they had about the presence of these white people in the area.
On their arrival at the holiday resort on the day in question they were met by a black domestic servant and a young white girl from whom they could have gained information about the political involvement or otherwise of the victims. The victims were not there at the time and had gone out fishing. The applicants way-layed their victims who were on their way back to the bungalow where they had camped. When they saw them coming in a 4x4 motor-vehicle they opened fire on them, using machine guns. They left them there in the 4x4 vehicle, which had overturned on the side of the road. The two Weakly brothers died instantly and the other occupants of the vehicle including a young child had a narrow escape. The applicants say that although they had an opportunity to ensure that all the victims were dead and if necessary killed survivors in the vehicle, they did not do so as the aim of the attack was only to make a political statement.
Not withstanding the criticisms of their evidence, the overriding fact remains that the killings were bona fide politically based. The applicants have not exaggerated their case and it is clear that the victims were at the wrong place at the wrong time. It could have been anyone else. Clearly the reason for the actions was related to the assassination of Chris Hani and consequently, through the passage of their reasoning as set out above, politically motivated. All the relevant facts related to these crimes have been disclosed.
It is clear that their actions were associated with the political objective of the furtherance of a political struggle of which they were part. There is no evidence that they acted for personal gain or out of malice.
We are satisfied that the applicants have complied with the requirements of the Act. Amnesty accordingly GRANTED to all the applicants for all the offences as set out above.
In the premises, the dependants of the deceased and those who were injured in the attack are declared victims in terms of the Act and their matters are referred to the Reparation and Rehabilitation Committee for attention.
HEARING : SDU hearing - East London
DATE OF HEARING : 20, 21 and 22 April 1998
VENUE : Catholic Church Hall, Cambridge, East London
PANEL : R. Pillay J, Adv. C. De Jager, Adv. N. Sandi
FOR THE APPLICANTS : Adv P H S Zilwa
FOR THE VICTIMS : Adv Izak Smuts
Instructed by - Grahamstown Legal Resources Centre