The applicant, Thomas Ramaila, makes application in terms of Section 18 of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, No. 34 of 1995 as amended ("the Act") for amnesty in respect of the murder of Mr Rudman and robbing him of certain items. He testified that he was a member of the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC) and also a member of its military wing the Azanian Peoples Liberation Army (APLA). He said that he was in a unit commanded by one Patrick Mohale from whom he received instructions and who he has been informed is now deceased.

He said that he was instructed by Mohale to attack and kill farmers in terms of the "kill the farmer, kill the boer" slogan.

At sometime in 1991 he befriended two Mozambicans who were employed at a farm. (They, incidentally, were co-accused of the applicant at the time). They complained to him about being ill-treated by the farmer and having lost the work. He reported this to Mohale who, he said, told him to proceed with the general instruction to kill farmers and to go and fulfil the instruction at the farmhouse of Mr Rudman where these Mozambican people used to work.

This he said he did and killed the farmer. He also robbed the house of the firearms which he found there. He also took other household items from it and transported it in the motor vehicle he also took from there. He took these items in order to have them sold to enable the PAC to purchase firearms with the proceeds thereof. He acted alone.

He drove to Daveyton where he washed and then to the outskirts of Pietersburg. There he waited with family and not where he was to meet with Mohale by arrangement. Before he could proceed to Mohale, he was arrested.

The Act provides that amnesty shall be granted provided that the applicant complies with certain requirements stipulated therein. The act requires that the formalities be complied with, that the act(s) for which amnesty is applied for was committed with political motive and that the applicant make full disclosure of the facts relating to the acts relevant to the application.

The applicant did not make a good impression when he testified. He contradicted himself on a number of occasions. His explanation as to why he waited for Mohale at a place other than arranged was less than convincing. He could not explain why he went to the farmhouse intending to steal from inside the house and yet not making provision for the transport of such large items. As he was confronted with unfavourable sections of the evidence he started to subtly change the import of his evidence. We are not satisfied that he was truthful when he gave evidence. It is therefore not necessary to deal with the question of political motive because the applicant has not satisfied us that he has made full disclosure of the facts pertaining to the events which relate to his application.

Consequently we are not satisfied that he has complied with the Act. In the instance the application is REFUSED.

DATED at ......................... this...........day of

............................. 1999.

_________________

JUDGE R. PILLAY

_________________

ADV. S. SIGODI

_________________

MR W. MALAN