The applicant applies for amnesty in respect of the following incidents.

The applicant made his application by filing the prescribed application with an affidavit annexed to it and by submitting a further supplementary affidavit which was dated 18 May 2000. He also gave oral evidence at the hearing.

He testified that during July/August 1981, he was recruited by the South African Police from the South African Defence Force. He completed his training at the Police College in 1981.

In 1984 a Riot Unit was established and he was later transferred to the Riot Unit. The functions of the Riot Unit were focused in the Lamontville area and later in the Chesterville area. During the period 1985 he worked under the direct command of Warrant Officer Johan Kruger in the Riot Unit.

During this time i.e. between 1985 - 1989 the political violence escalated to such an extent that there was an actual civil war.

The applicant was seconded to the Security Branch of the South African Police in the period 1987 - 1988. His duties entailed following up on enquiries with regard to suspected members of the Liberation Movements who had left the Republic to undergo training outside the country.

The applicant testified that it was during this period 1985 - 1989, whilst he served as a member of The Riot Unit, that he was involved in numerous unlawful acts, where individuals were unlawfully interrogated and assaulted by applying electric shocks to them and various other methods. These unlawful acts were done regularly and on some occasions between three to four times per week. Due to the frequency of such acts, he testified that he was unable to recall the specific events, or where they took place. As a result the applicant could not furnish the Committee with any details of victims who were interrogated, nor the dates, times and places of such interrogation.

Various statements were obtained by the Amnesty Committee from people who alleged that they had been interrogated and or harassed by the applicant from Chesterville location. The applicant could not recall any of the names of the people who had alleged that he had assaulted and or harassed them. he could also not recall their addresses. He however alleged that the incidents which they alleged may well have occurred and he was not in a position to dispute them. Some of the events accorded with the nature of events that transpired at that time. He however could not be specific and could not supply the Committee with any facts relating to any specific individual.

The second incident took place during the period 1985 - 1989. The applicant testified that he was requested by his Commanding Officer Warrant Officer Kruger to accompany him to a house in Road 24, Chesterville.

An envelope intended for a particular person, was delivered to a female at this person's place of residence. Warrant Officer Kruger informed the applicant that there was a sum of money in the envelope which he thinks was R500.00 and that the intention was to frame this person as an informer.

The applicant did not see whether there was any money in the envelope nor was he acquainted with the person who was supposed to receive the same.

A few days later the applicant heard about the death of a person who had been necklaced near Road 18. Warrant Officer Kruger then informed him that the deceased person was in fact the same person to whom the envelope was delivered. A statement from a doctor Sandile Gwale was obtained from the victims. The deponent to this statement related an incident where one Bongani was attacked by a group of people. The people took Bongani out of his car saying that he was an informer. This Bongani was eventually burned in Road 18. He however denied any knowledge about an envelope containing R500.00. His mother who is now deceased, never mentioned having received any money.

The applicant could not remember the name of the person who had been necklaced, nor the date when this incident took place. He merely assumed that the person referred to as Bongani in Doctor Sandile Gwale's statement must be the person whom they intended to frame.

The applicant testified that during the period 1991 - 1992 whilst he was a member of the Security Branch of the South African Police, he took part in an operation which resulted in the death of a person believed to be a member of the Pan Africanist Congress in Inanda.

On a date he could not recall, he was called to attend a meeting of the Reaction Unit at the Riot Unit, Durban. He arrived with a certain Sean Fourie who was also a member of the Security Branch. When they arrived, the meeting had just ended and had been attended by Warrant Officer Fivaz, Chris de Jager and Tony Fernandez. He was informed by Fivaz that an operation had been planned to eliminate a member of the Pan Africanist Congress. The reason why this person would have to be killed, was because he would be able to identify the "Askari" who had furnished Fivaz with information. According to the applicant the plans involved members of the Reaction Unit who would penetrate the building and who would shoot the occupant and make the scene appear as if he had endeavoured to resist arrest. The applicant's role was to supply a dud handgrenade which would be planted on the scene. He testified that Fernandez was aware that he had in his possession two handgrenades with no detonators or explosives in them which he had kept as mementos. Fernandez then requested him to be in attendance close to the scene with one of these handgrenades.

At the scene, Fernandez and chris de Jager entered the house and thereafter shots were fired. The applicant who was waiting some distance from the house then handed Fernandez the grenade when Fernandez came to collect it from him. Later he noticed a handgrenade which he assumes was the one he had supplied, placed on the floor next to the victim who had been fatally shot. He was not aware of what happened to the handgrenade thereafter. He could however not recall the details of the deceased nor could he remember the exact address of the premises where this incident took place.

Two of the implicated persons testified. The first person to testify was Mr Fivaz. He denied having been a member of the Security Branch. he was only there as an investigator. He was in charge of the desk which investigated the activities of the Pan Africanist Congress. He denied that he ever worked with the applicant. he denied that he was ever part of a plot to kill the PAC man. In fact, he wanted to have the man arrested as he wanted to obtain some information from him. he denied that Fernandez was present at the meeting where the arrest of this PAC man was planned. He could not recall seeing the applicant and Sean Fourie before or after the meeting. He also denied having ever requested the applicant to come to the meeting, or informed him of a conspiracy as alleged. He did not respect the applicant and infact had filed reports on a number of occasions about applicant's activities he disapproved of. He further testified that he believed that the PAC man was shot because he wanted to defend himself with a handgrenade. He was infact upset when he learned of the development and death of this individual.

The second implicated person to be called was Mr Fernandez. His testimony was that at the time he was a member of the Bomb squad which was also part of the Security Branch. He denied that he was ever part of a meeting where it was discussed that the PAC man ought to be arrested. He also denied that he ever requested the applicant to supply a dummy handgrenade. He said that this was completely absurd. He as the demolition expert, had access to the safe where all the exhibits as well as the explosives were kept.

Further he referred the Committee to photographs which were taken at the scene. He testified that the handgrenade which was shown in the photograph was a "live" one and not a dummy one as stated by the applicant because the detonator was still intact.

In order to be granted amnesty, the applicant must satisfy the Committee that:

With regard to the first and second incidents, the applicant has failed to provide the Committee with sufficient detail in order to be able to come to a conclusion. The applicant has thus failed to make a full disclosure of all the relevant facts pertaining to these incidents, as is required by the Act.

As regards the third incident, the version of the implicated persons is more probable. It is highly unlikely that a person who has access to explosives would ask someone to provide a "dummy" handgrenade. The implicated persons, and especially Fivaz, were good witnesses. The applicant was not. It is also ironical that as regards the first (set of) incidents where the applicant was the main perpetrator, he could not positively tender any information, where as with regard to the second and third incidents, where he had virtually no role except as claimed on the fringes, he had quite a clear recollection of all events.

Having considered the evidence before us, we are not satisfied that the applicant has made a full and truthful disclosure pertaining to any of these three incidents.

Accordingly amnesty is REFUSED for all incidents the applicant applied for.

SIGNED ON THIS THE DAY OF 2000.

JUDGE A WILSON

ADV. S. SIGODI

MR W. MALAN