These three applicants were charged with four counts of murder and one count of malicious damage to property, this being the destruction of the car in which the four deceased were travelling. The three applicants were accused numbers 1, 10 and 12 respectively at their trial and the first applicant was convicted on all five counts, the second and the third applicants were convicted on the four counts of murder. They now seek amnesty in respect of these offences.

The Amnesty Committee has already heard an application for amnesty arising out of the same offences. The applicant in that application was accused number 13 at the trial and he was convicted on all five counts. The application, that of Justice Sekgopa, was heard and duly refused and I refer to the reasons given on 13 march 1997. I do not propose to set out the facts again in any detail.

According to the evidence given at the trial, the four deceased were travelling in a Datsun motor vehicle on the evening of 29 September 1990. The Datsun came into a township followed by a pick up van and when it came to a stop, the passengers in the pick up van jumped out and commenced attacking the deceased while they were still in the vehicle.

The first applicant was one of the passengers in the van. They were joined by numerous people in the township and a long and bloody attack was launched on these unfortunate people. The attack on the woman, Ms S.E. Basson was particularly brutal. Her genitals were chopped off as was one of her breasts. Before this was done, she was taken away from the others by several people and returned in a state of undress. The first applicant was one of the people who dragged her away and was one of the people who was seen to attack her with a sharp instrument chopping at her genitals.

The reasons given by the three applicants in their applications for regarding their acts as acts associated with a political objective differ greatly. I set them out hereunder:

P.L.D. Matela, in the application form he was asked:

His reply was:

T. Hlobo, in his application form he was asked:

His reply was:

J.M. Moikabi, in the application form he was asked:

His reply was:

The first applicant said that Mr Menong, the Chairperson of the Odendaalsrus branch of the ANC told them that they must patrol the town; the second applicant said that he gave the orders that the people should be killed because he regarded those whites as enemies; the third applicant denied having been there or having participated in the attack at all.

All three applicants gave evidence before us. The first applicant, after having told of instructions to protect the community, stated that he arrived on the scene to find a large number of comrades beating these people up. He joined in the attack, picked up an iron rod, which was designed to defend themselves. He said he took part in the assault, for a period of two to four minutes. It is, in our view, quite clear that the applicant was untruthful in his evidence as to the part he played and that he has not made a full disclosure of all relevant facts as he is required to do in terms of the Act.

The second applicant said that he was an ANC marshal and could only give instructions when he had been authorised to do so by other officers in the party. He said that he was present at the scene and took part in the assault. He first asked the people in the car what they were looking for and they told him they were looking for a shebeen and for women.

He asked them if they had any guns and they said no. He then gave instructions to the comrades to kill them. He said that he gave this order because the situation was tense at the time and there was danger of an Inkatha attack on the comrades. He took it that these people were coming to attack and decided that they, the comrades, should attack first. When questioned further he said he gave the order that they should be killed although at the time he did not have authority to give such an order, he did it on his own.

It is quite clear from his evidence that he had no reason whatsoever to believe that these people were Inkatha supporters or that they were there to launch an attack on the local residents. There is nothing in the evidence of the first or second applicants to suggest that the act committed by them, was an act associated with a political objective committed in the course of the conflicts of the past as required in terms of the Act.

When faced with a car containing three men and a woman, all unarmed, they could have had no reason to believe that they were carrying out instructions that may have been given to patrol the township to protect the residents.

The third applicant denies that he was present or that he committed any act for which amnesty is required. As has been said in numerous other applications, this Committee does not sit as a Court of Appeal. In his evidence he said that he was away from home at the time, and knew nothing of the killings until he was told of them on his return. He was told at the time by the leader of the ANC, one Mayikiso, that the ANC was not responsible for the killings and was distancing itself from these acts. He further said that as a resident, he was surprised by this, that is the killing, as whites were seen as people coming closer to blacks at that time.

There was absolutely nothing in the evidence before us to suggest that we should come to a different conclusion to that arrived at in Sekgopa's application and that is that this was a case of mob violence which does not fall within the provisions of the Act.

The Committee accordingly finds that the offences were not acts associated with a political objective and the applications are ACCORDINGLY REFUSED.

(Signed)

WILSON J:

NGOEPE, J:

DE JAGER SC:

----------