Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1998-08-21

CHAIRPERSON: Well, thank you.
	In the light of the attitude adopted, very correctly by the Evidence Leader, it appears to us that this is an application that should be granted.  
	The applicants seek amnesty in respect of the robbery of a shop, the Pep Store in Botshabelo on the 17th of February 1992.  It is clear from the information placed before us that although one of the persons were armed, no violence was used against the people in the store and they requested money, the safe was opened and the money was handed over.  Thereafter the alarm was raised, the robbers fled.  There were three of them.  One of them was arrested by the police, the other went off on his own and thereafter the third robber who happened to be the one with the weapon was involved in a shoot-out with the police.  
	Although both the present applicants were charged with that, they were found not guilty at the trial.  Not surprisingly in the fact that one of them was already under arrest at the time and there is no evidence that they anticipated that the police would be present.  The evidence appears to have indicated that it was quite by chance that a vehicle in which there were policemen happened to be passing the vicinity at the time. 
	It is regretted that the shooting took place and as a result two policemen I think it was, two policemen died and the robber involved also died.  It was a proper shoot-out.  However that does not affect the present application which relates only to the robbery.
	The evidence that the robbery was committed for the purpose of obtaining funds for the unit and APLA to continue their struggle has not been challenged, and on the evidence led at the criminal trial it appears that it could not be challenged.  This is one of the few cases where a political defence was raised at the trial and the Trial Judge accepted on the evidence before him, that they had been instructed to carry out this operation as members of APLA.  It was also commented on by the Trial Judge, that the evidence of the investigating officer was that the second accused, the first applicant, had co-operated with the police and he very fairly confirmed that to us today, that there had been co-operation.  And in those circumstances there appears to be no doubt whatsoever that the act was committed during the course of the political struggle of the past, that the objective was to assist the political organisation of which they were members, that there was no motive of private gain on their part.  The money was to be used by the unit, it was to be held by the unit commander.  
	We are also satisfied, and it has not been challenged in any way, that they have made a full and frank disclosure to us.  They have been truthful.  And in those circumstances they have complied with all the relevant provisions of the Act and are entitled to amnesty.  That is amnesty in respect of the: Robbery of the Pep Store in Botshabelo on the 17th of February 1992.
APPLICANTS ENTITLED TO AMNESTY IN RESPECT OF
ROBBERY OF PEP STORES IN BOTSHABELO ON THE 17TH OF FEBRUARY 1992

MR STEENKAMP: As you wish Mr Chairman.  I will see to it that the proper authorities be informed about the decision.

CHAIRPERSON: We're much obliged to you.
	We now turn to the matter that was adjourned to today.  I take it you have not been able to obtain the assistance of any senior member of the PAC to come and confirm the instructions?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman, that is the position.  I couldn't get a person for today Mr Chairman, to come and confirm Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: It appears to us that it would be proper to give you a further extension and that is to grant you leave to file an affidavit within two weeks.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman, I would request three weeks.

CHAIRPERSON: Three weeks then from today's date.  Within three weeks of today's date from such a person, any person of stature and rank in the party who can confirm the necessary averments.  Once we have received that affidavit and once the Leader of Evidence has received it, we can consider the weight to be attached to it.
	If it is not challenged and if we are satisfied that proper weight can be attached to it, we will arrive at a decision on the basis of that.  We will take that affidavit into consideration in arriving at a decision. If however there is any reason to doubt the validity of the averments in that affidavit, we will notify you and the person making the affidavit can then be called to testify.
	This means that we will require written argument from you in this matter.  It is a matter I think which does require written argument in the light of the complexity of some of the averments that emerged during the course of the evidence.
	We will get the affidavit within three weeks, we will notify you as to whether the contents are acceptable to us or whether we're going to hear evidence and we would then require written argument within two weeks of you receiving notification from us.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: That means that you can of course start preparing your written argument at this stage, subject to that additional evidence.
	There is one other point which I would like to raise with which I and my colleagues feel we should have inquired into more fully during the course of evidence and we did not, and that is as to what happened to the money that was taken and whether there was any, was any direct evidence as to what was done with the money and as to whether there is any confirmation if it was handed to a divisional commander or any other person, whether there can be confirmation from that person, that the money was handed to him for the benefits of the party.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman, I wouldn't like to go deeper.  I think where we missed it was where Khotle was giving evidence but Bhani indicated that they handed the money to him during his evidence, that it was given ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: What happened to it then is what we would like to know.  And you could perhaps make further enquiries and perhaps also deal with that by way of affidavit.
	Have you got any objection Mr Steenkamp?

MR STEENKAMP: No, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: So that matter is now concluded and we will consider the other matter, that is the:  Wesselsbron/Thaba'Nchu Police Attack, and give our reasons later.

MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, Honourable Members, that will be the roll for the week.
	I would just like to take this opportunity to thank you and the Honourable Members and my learned colleague here, on behalf of the victims for the manner this was conducted, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: We would like to thank both of you for the co-operation we've had and for being able to get through our work as we have been able to.  We appreciate the difficulties that one or other of you may have had at different times.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you for that Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, thank you all for your patience here and for all those who have done so much to make these sittings ...[tape ends]
HEARING ADJOURNS