The applicants apply for amnesty in respect of incidents which occurred on a farm known as Gertskraal in the district of Steytlerville on 4 November 1990. The first applicant also applies for amnesty in respect of escaping from prison.
Both applicants were convicted in the Eastern Cape Division of the High Court of the following crimes arising out of the incidents: murder, robbery with aggravating circumstances, two counts of house breaking with intent to steal and theft, unlawful possession of a firearm and unlawful possession of ammunition.
Willy Snoek (hereinafter referred to as "the first applicant") was sentenced to undergo and effective term of thirty four years and six months imprisonment. Arthur Tamsanqa Tshikila (hereinafter referred to as "the second applicant") was sentenced to undergo an effective term of ten years and nine months imprisonment.
The first applicant also applies for amnesty in respect of the offence of escaping from prison. At the time of the incident the first applicant was 28 years old and the second applicant was a 14 year old youth. The first applicant was a member of the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania (PAC) and had undergone a shout spell of basic military training with the Azanian Peoples Liberation Army (APLA) in the Mount Frere district in Transkei. He did not complete his training and for the most part after that was in and out of jail. The only incident of an alleged political nature that he was involved in, is the present one.
The second applicant was a member of the Pan African Student’’ Organisation (PASO) and was a scholar at a secondary school KwaNobuhle. Written confirmation has been received from the PAC that both applicants are still members of that organisation.
The evidence of the applicants was to the following effect:
The second applicant approached the first applicant and requested him to assist him in getting firearms which were needed by him and other members of KwaNobuhle community to defend themselves in the violent political conflict that was being waged there between Ama-Afrika and the UDF, which conflict involved members of the PAC. The first applicant then approached one Mandla Nkonki, who was then the Regional Commissar of the PAC in the Eastern Cape, and informed him of the second applicant’s request. He also informed the said Nkonki that he knew that he could get firearms from a certain farm in Steytlerville district (he had knowledge of the farm as he had previously committed a burglary there).
Nkonki authorised the operation and ordered that the applicants proceed to the farm and obtain firearms. The applicants proceeded to the farm and arrived there in the early hours of the morning of 4 November 1990. They first went to a house at which the occupants were not present. They broke into that house, found the key to a safe and removed a .303 rifle from the safe as well as money. They then went to another house which was occupied by Ms Andriesa Slabbert and Mr Phillipus Sharp, her step son. They tried unsuccessfully to steal a motor vehicle which was parked outside the house and one which was parked in a garage. They then decided to wait for one of the occupants of the house to come out so that they could then accost him or her, get the keys for a motor vehicle and make their getaway in the vehicle.
Some time later, after daybreak, Ms Andriesa Slabbert came out of the house. The first applicant pointed the rifle at her and told her to keep quiet. She screamed. First applicant then took hold of her and forced her to the ground. She screamed again and the first applicant struck her on the head with the butt of the rifle. They bound her ankles together with rope and placed a heavy bag of mealies on the upper part of her body. The first applicant then went into the house. Ms Slabbert was then hit on the head with a spade by the second applicant.
The first applicant confronted Phillipus Sharp inside the house. A struggle between the two of them ensued and the first applicant called the second applicant to assist him. The second applicant entered the house and Sharp was forcibly subdued. The applicants then stole certain items, including ammunition, a watch, a radio, foodstuffs, liquor and bedding. They took the keys of an Isuzu van and drove off in that vehicle. They were later chased by the police. They abandoned the vehicle and managed to escape. They were arrested a few days later.
Mr Mandla Nkosi also testified before the Committee. He confirmed that he instructed the first applicant to proceed to the farm with the second applicant in order to obtain firearms. He stated that farms owned by white persons were legitimate targets in terms of PAC policy. He also stated that operatives were permitted a degree of flexibility and of discretion in the execution of their duties – this would include the taking of items other than firearms.
Ms Slabbert died as a result of the action of the applicants. Mr Sharp survived but received severe bodily injuries. An autopsy was performed on the body of the deceased which revealed that the body had a large number of injuries. The cause of death was however, suffocation, undoubtedly caused by the heavy sack of mealies which covered the face of the deceased.
In considering the question or whether the applicants had committed the offences with a political objective the Committee considered the evidence of Nkonki which basically stood unchallenged in so far as he corroborated the stated objective of the two applicants to go and rob arms. It is rather strange though that no mention was made of Nkonki’s name in the first applicant’s application form. Instead, the name of another PAC official, Mr Dyantyi, was mentioned whom he later at the hearing explained had referred to Nkonki "as he is the person who deals with matters of security".
Nevertheless, even if it should be accepted that both applicants had initially acted with a political motive when they set out to steal the firearms, they clearly exceeded the bounds of their alleged mandate – a mandate initially denied by the first applicant in his first unsigned statement which reads: "I feel that this application should succeed because even though I did not get instructions to rob arms, I always reported to my senior, Mr Waaters Taboti". (page 5 of the bundle). Although Witness Nkonki testified that the applicants, when circumstances demanded, could have acted on their own initiative, the whole manner in which the applicants went about their operation does not accord with what one would have expected of persons who had planned to carry out a particular political mandate.
They were without transport and, their further acts had little or no connection with their alleged initial objective i.e. the acquiring of firearms, with the intention of enriching themselves. The evidence of the first applicant that it was his intention to proceed to the Transkei after the offences had been committed militates against the applicants’ stated objective that they went there to obtain fire arms for the purposes of the conflict in Uitenhage where the second applicant lived.
Likewise, the fact that the applicants did not use their alleged code names and in fact, did not know, each other’s code names does not accord with normal APLA practice as has been explained to the Committee in other matter involving PAC cadres.
The applicants were generally not satisfactory witnesses. There were various inconsistencies and contradictions between their versions. They were also self-contradictory in that in their testimony before the Committee they contradicted themselves. They also contradicted prior statements made by themselves inter alia to an investigator of the TRC. The most significant contradiction relates to the placing of the bag of mealies on the deceased’s face. In a prior statement the first applicant stated that the bag was placed on the face of the deceased whereas in their testimony the applicant stated that the bag was placed on her upper body and not on her face. It was only after prolonged cross-examination that the second applicant admitted to having placed the bag of mealies on her face.
The second applicant tried to support him by suggesting that the deceased’s wriggling may have caused the bag to cover her face. The Committee is of the opinion that all the contradictions in the evidence of the two applicants are a result of them trying to tailor their evidence to suit the issues as they arose. The manner in which a victim was killed is in the opinion of the Committee a material fact which an applicant should be required to disclose freely before he can be said to be entitled to amnesty. Consequently the Committee finds that the applicants did not make a full disclosure of all the material facts.
In the result Willie Litho Snoek and Arthur Tamsanqa are REFUSED amnesty in respect of the murder of Andriesa Slabbert, the house breaking and theft, the robbery and the unlawful possession of a .303 rifle and ammunition.
The application for amnesty by Willie Litho Snoek in respect of escaping form prison is likewise REFUSED on the ground that the offence was not committed with a political objective as required by the Act.