The applicant makes an application in terms of Act 34 of 1995 as amended. He makes an application for the murder of Maria De Freitas, the murder of Karel Engelbrecht, robbery of a firearm from Karl Engelbrecht, the unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition and escaping from custody.

The applicant was at the material times hereto a member of the Azanian Youth League (AYL) in Duduza and attached to the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC). He says that he was taught through the teachings of the PAC that white people were the cause of black people's misery and had taken the land. Furthermore, members of the police supported this system and were therefore regarded as the enemy as well. He learnt this at the numerous PAC meetings and at many gatherings such as political funerals. According to the applicant, the PAC developed a policy of killing white people and policemen.

He testifies that on or about 5 November 1993, Nkosana "Major" Mahlangu, the AYL organiser in the district instructed him to accompany three others to J.F. Supermarket. The applicant took three persons of his choice. They were told to go there at a certain time and rob the owner of the firearms which were reported to be kept in a particular room at the premises of the supermarket. Thereafter they were to kill the victim of the robbery. They went there and were confronted by the owner Maria De Freitas who produced a firearm. The applicant shot her as a result of which she died. He then took her loaded firearm and ran away to the near suburb.

On his way there, the applicant encountered a policeman, Karl Engelbrecht who was sitting in a motor vehicle, with the door ajar.

The applicant testified that he went up to the policeman and shot him as a result of which the latter died. He said that he did so in line with the PAC policy of killing the police, who were the enemy. He shot him without saying a word to him neither did the policeman say anything to him. However in his written application at 9(a)(iv) he stated that since he was in possession of the unlicensed weapon and since the police were regarded as the enemy anyway, the applicant shot him. In a statement to the Committee's investigator, the applicant is alleged to have said that he shot the policeman because he knew that he would be arrested and the fire-arm(s) would be found in his possession.

Nkosana Godfrey Mahlangu testified and denied that he had ever given the applicant instructions to commit any offence as the applicant alleged. His duty as an organiser of the Duduza Branch of the ALY was to arrange workshops and conferences on behalf of the AYL in the district.

He further denied that he denies giving the instruction because he, Mahlangu, was late in applying for amnesty, and that he wanted the applicant to be imprisoned for a longer period.

The applicant did not make a good impression when testifying. He was confronted by a number of contradictions between his verbal testimony on the one hand and his written application and a statement made to the commission's investigator on the other. The contradictions themselves cast a dark cloud on his evidence. But his lack of properly explaining them further detracts from his credibility. In particular his reasons for not explaining a political motive to the criminal court when he pleaded guilty to the murder of the policeman emphasises this. What makes it worse is the fact that he knew at that time of his criminal trial the prospects of applying for amnesty.

The act provides that amnesty shall be granted if the offence(s) for which amnesty is sought, that all the relevant facts related to the committing of the offence(s) and that all the formalities have been complied with, are fulfilled.

For the above reasons the Committee is not satisfied for the above reasons, that full disclosure has been made and nor is the Committee satisfied that the offence(s) were in fact committed for political reasons.

In the result, the application for amnesty is REFUSED.

DATED AT ON THIS DAY OF 2000.

JUDGE R PILLAY

ACTING JUDGE N J MOTATA

ADV S SIGODI