The applicant applied for amnesty in respect of the following:

The application was opposed by the family of the deceased and the victims in the attempted murders. It was conceded by the applicant, the victims and interested parties that Mr Sheabane Zuma, who was the Chairperson of the IFP in the region at the time would not be implicated in the events before the Committee and after being assured of that fact, his legal representative was excused from the hearing.

The only witness to testify before the Committee was the applicant. The Committee had great difficulties in following the applicant's version. At a stage it was suspected that the applicant and the interpreter had problems in understanding each other. It, however, became clear that the applicant had a problem in clearly expressing himself. He was educated up to Standard 3, has never worked and did not gain any experience in communicating with the outside world. This may also be the reason for the incoherent affidavits drawn up in prison on his behalf.

At the end of the day the Committee and the legal representatives were satisfied that the facts conveyed to the Committee (and which seemed to be common cause) could be summarised as follows:

During the late 1980's and 1990's, a war situation existed in the area. Violence, however, subsided during 1991 in the sense that battles in which two groups, the IFP vs the ANC, faced and killed each other, no longer occurred. Individual attacks and murders, however, still occurred. The Slangfontein, or Slenger area was divided into two distinct sections by a road running through the built up area. The ANC supporters predominantly stayed on one side of the road and the IFP supporters on the other. It was not safe for members of one party to enter the area of the other party.

The applicant and seven or eight of his friends visited a shebeen on 20 October 1991. The applicant was aggrieved and in his own words "tortured" by the fact that three of his brothers had been killed. Two of them, on the information he had, were killed by ANC supporters. The third was killed by a policeman who he believed also supported the ANC. Whether this was in fact so, cannot be concluded on the evidence. The fact, however, remains that he believed that to be the position. The applicant harboured the grief for a long time and resolved to avenge the death of his brothers. He was a supporter of the IFP and held all ANC supporters responsible for the death of his brothers. It was not a matter of revenge in the sense of tracing the murderers of his brothers and calling them to book, but political revenge in the sense of holding the ANC collectively responsible for the death of his brothers and killing any of its members in response to what had been done to him. The legal implications of this motive for killing will be dealt with later.

The applicants and his friends continued drinking during the day and in fact dried the shebeen. When no further liquor was available, some of them decided to go to a nearby hostel to continue drinking there. The applicant called on all who were not so drunk that they couldn't participate in an attack on the ANC to join him and to cross the street into the ANC area to launch an attack on them. It transpired that two accompanied him, namely Themba and Mkize. The latter, according to the applicant, was sent back by him halfway across the street because he was too heavily under the influence to participate in the operation.

The applicant carried a gun which he claims was his own and not Themba's, as reflected in one of the affidavits prepared in prison. He was adamant about this and stated that the prison warder must have misunderstood him or misinterpreted him when assisting him to give particulars about the event.

The applicant crossed the road followed by Themba Dladla who carried a knife. They arrived at a shop, entered and the applicant shot the deceased who had tried to grab him, he then started shooting at random. He emptied the magazine which carried 16 rounds and in the result one person died and three were wounded.

The victims did not contest the above version. They opposed the application on the grounds that the attack was not politically motivated but was committed out or personal revenge and that he did not act on orders or with the approval of the IFP. Another factor to be considered was whether this was not spontaneous drunken behaviour by young men under the influence and not at all politically related.

The fact that the killings were to revenge the killing of the applicant's brothers should be seen against the background of the Kwa-Zulu Natal war situation. It could be argued that each and every killing in the area, except the very first one, was in revenge. The fact is that the first killing brought about a chain reaction and it would be impossible to distinguish which were offensive and which were defensive attacks. Later, attacks were all considered by the attackers to be justified as they were regarded as acts of retaliation. The fact that that applicant acted to revenge the death of his three brothers wouldn't make it per se out of personal malice. If it is justifiable to revenge your co-party member's death or your leader's death why should it be held against you if that co-party member of leader happens to be your brother?

Was this not only drunken behaviour? Liquor might have played a role but the undisputed fact that at least two of the applicant's brothers were killed by political opponents, must have haunted the applicant. It may be that the alcohol brought his grievances to the fore and that he gained Dutch courage to do what he did but that wouldn't neutralise the political hatred and render it an act not associated with a political objective.

A further major obstacle for the applicant to obtain amnesty is the fact that he did not obtain the approval of his party. He testified that he did not seek the approval of Mr Zuma, the IFP Chairman, because he knew it would not be given. This causes serious problems. The Committee is aware of the fact that the IFP constantly denied and still denies, that they ordered or approved any attacks on the ANC. They deny that it was at any stage part of their policy to engage in warfare or attacks on a political enemy. If amnesty should be refused on this ground then no IFP member would be granted amnesty in respect of attacks on ANC members. The same would apply to members of other parties who up to the present deny that they approved or condoned the deeds done by their members, and even to employees of the government in view of the government's denial of any knowledge of offences committed by them.

The Committee is not aware of any disciplinary steps having been taken against IFP members who in retaliation or otherwise killed or injured members of the ANC. The only conclusion to be drawn is that there was implied condonation.

In the result amnesty is GRANTED to the applicant in respect of the following offences:

The Committee is of the opinion that the next of kin of Bongani Wellington Majozi should be considered to be victims in terms of Section 26 of Act 34 of 1995, as well as Ndundu Absolom Cebekhulu, Michael Hadebe and Dumisane Welcome Makhathini.

SIGNED AT CAPE TOWN ON THIS DAY OF 2000

JUDGE A WILSON

ACTING JUDGE C DE JAGER

MR J B SIBANYONI