TRC Final Report

Volume 6

Section 3

Chapter 3

Subsection 11

THE AMNESTY ARENA

Full disclosure

86. Some applicants approached the Amnesty Committee in the erroneous belief that it would offer them a hearing on what they believed to be false charges against them and for which they had been wrongfully imprisoned.

87. Mr Baba Langelihle Khomo [AM 4036/97], an ordinary member of the IFP, was convicted and sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment for the murder of eight people and the attempted murder of five people at a traditional function at Ndlovu’s kraal in KwaNdeni Reserve in Mpumalanga near Durban on 7 March 1992. The trial court found that the applicant had acted in ‘common purpose’ in killing Mr Kati Ndlovu and others. The applicant testified that, although he had witnessed the attack, he had not taken part in it. He had admitted his involvement in his application with a view to protesting his innocence before the Commission. His application for amnesty was refused on the grounds that he had not disclosed any involvement in a politically motivated offence.

Furtherance of political objectives

88. Most IFP applicants were granted amnesty after testifying that their motivation for committing offences was linked to the general conflict and in the reasonable belief that a particular act was in furtherance of a political objective.

89. The Amnesty Committee frequently had to face the difficult question of making a finding in attacks that could be regarded as ‘random’ or ‘indiscriminate’ and where the applicant/s did not know for certain whether the victims were UDF or ANC supporters. In some such cases, attacks were launched upon people perceived to be UDF and ANC supporters in an effort to drive the UDF or ANC out of an area.

90. Acting for Mr Gcina Mkhize [AM4599/96] and other Caprivi trainees and KZP members, Mr John Wills testified before the Committee:

I t ’s a unique feature of the Natal violence, in my submission, that the conflict relates so directly to territory, and the whole of the conflict was about dominance of particular geographical areas, to the extent, as I say in my heads, that one could more or less rely on the fact of if one lived in a particular area than one would be a member of the political party that was dominant in that are a . This aspect of the conflict I submit is important particularly when one looks at what might, had it not been for that characteristic, be considered indiscriminate attacks. (Pinetown hearing, 8 March 1999.)

91. Other applicants testified that the aim of such attacks was to create terror in ANC-dominated areas, thereby making political organisation difficult and dangerous and making people afraid to live in the areas concerned. More over, such attacks amounted to a show of strength for Inkatha (the IFP) and a demonstration that the UDF (and later the ANC) was unable to defend its people in a particular are a .

92. Some of the applicants had mixed political and personal motives, such as revenge for earlier incidents in which they or their relatives had been attacked.

93. Mr Vusi Thokozani Manqele [AM4037/96; AC1999/0016] killed ANC chairperson Mr E Bhengu in a spontaneous attack in KwaMakhutha during July 1991. The attack took place after Manqele’s home had been attacked and his relatives killed by the deceased. The Amnesty Committee accepted that, although there was an element of revenge in the attack, there was sufficient political motivation to justify the granting of amnesty.

94 . IFP member Mr Vusi Linda Hlengwa [AM 4687/97] was convicted of the murders of Mr Mahluleli Makhanya and Mr Bheki Zwane and the attempted murder of Mr Simiso Msomi of the UDF after unknown persons in KwaMakhutha attacked his home during April 1990. Mr Zwane was allegedly with the applicant at the time of the attack and was shot and killed by Hlengwa a week later.

95. The Amnesty Committee found that Makhanya’s killing and Msomi’s injury were motivated by revenge and did not disclose a political objective. The applicant withdrew his request for amnesty for the murder of Zwane after contradicting his application by indicating that the latter was killed accidentally.

96. Mr W Harrington [AM0173/96] and Mr F Erasmus [AM0174/96], both constables in the SAP Riot Unit, and Mr N Madlala [AM3432/96], recruited from the ranks of the IFP and employed as a Special Constable, applied for amnesty for the killing of Mr Mbongeni Jama in Elandskop near Pietermaritzburg on 24 February 1991. The applicants had captured, assaulted and killed Jama after an ANC rally in Noshesi and had been convicted of the offence. Counsel for the applicants argued that they had been indoctrinated to see the ANC as the enemy and that they had found a pocket book on the deceased revealing that he had been involved in attacks on IFP members. The Amnesty Committee concluded that the evidence suggested that the applicants had beaten Jama so severely that they had decided to destroy the evidence of their illegal conduct as they would not have been able to justify this to their superiors. For this reason, the Amnesty committee found that the act did not disclose a political objective.

97. The Amnesty Committee, relying on the testimony of applicants and witnesses and on background information on the area in question, refused amnesty to some applicants where it appeared that political violence was not rife in the area. Mr Nimrod Mbewu Mthembu [AM6683/97] and Mr Mshengu Ngobese [AM6344/97], card-carrying members of the IFP, applied for amnesty for the killing of Mr Siya Enack Cele and Ms Elizabeth Zondime Khumalo and the attempted killing of Mr Mdikivani Mkhize on 24 August 1991 in the Mapumulo a rea, an IFP stronghold.

98. The applicants were on their way home from a traditional celebration held to celebrate a man’s gratitude to his daughter for good behaviour. On their way home, they passed Mr Cele and Mr Mkhize who apparently insulted them, calling them ‘Ukova’, a derogatory name for IFP members.

99. The applicants stabbed Mr Cele, but Mr Mkhize managed to escape. They then went to the home of Ms E Khumalo, who they believed to be opposed to the IFP because she had protested against a tax levied on dogs. They shot her with a homemade weapon and then stabbed her.

100. The Amnesty Committee noted that there was no turmoil in the area at the time. They found that the applicants had not acted with a political objective since their acts were not directed at clear political opponents nor were executed in furtherance of the aims and objectives of a political organisation. They also noted that alcohol might have played a significant role in the incidents and denied amnesty to the applicants [AC1998/0009].

101. A factor mentioned in many incidents was the use of traditional medicine or ‘muti’ while preparing to perpetrate human rights violations. For example, Mr Phumlani Derrick Mweli, told the Committee:

MR MWELI: The traditional healer will come. We did not know that person. We’ve never seen him or her before. Sometimes we will get Mr Themba Tjale and the traditional healer would arrive there, every after six months they will go and revive them. MR SAMUEL: Why were you given muti by these people? What was the purpose? MR MWELI: The purpose was to give us that crave to kill and give us that braveness to kill others but be protected at the same time from being shot and killed. MR SAMUEL: So were you told that if you have this muti on you the opposition ’s bullets won’t strike you? MR MWELI: Yes, sometimes that happened. I’m one example, it has happened to me. I was never shot. There were places I could not receive, or bullets would not hit me. (Pietermaritzburg hearing, 11 February 1999.)