Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1999-04-28

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it appears as if there are no problems.  Yes, if your clients are happy, we will certainly excuse them at this stage and then simply thank you Ms Wild for your assistance and thank your clients for their presence and for the attitude which they have expressed, which we have noted, and which in  our view is something positive.  Thank you.
We'll stand down for a short while.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
F I N D I N G
	This is the application for amnesty of Ian Ndibulele Ndzamela and Pumzile Mayapi, arising from an incident which occurred at the Wild Coast Casino at Mzamba on the 18th of April 1986.
	We are proceeding to give an immediate decision in this matter, unlike in many other cases where it is necessary for us to take some time to consider the matter and release it at a subsequent stage, in view of the peculiar circumstances of this particular matter and for that reason we are according proceeding to give an immediate decision in the matter.
	During the incident, which formed the subject matter of this application, the applicants caused two limpet mines to explode in one of the toilets, public toilets at the casino complex, which resulted in a number of deaths, injuries and damage to the complex.  	The applicants were eventually tried in the Transkei Supreme Court pursuant to the incident, where they were convicted of two counts of murder and one count of terrorism.  Pursuant to this conviction they were initially sentenced to death, which sentence was subsequently commuted to one of 18 years imprisonment. 
	The applicants were eventually released in terms of the general amnesty for political prisoners which was granted during February of 1990, and they are consequently not presently serving any prison sentence arising from the incident.
	There were three victims of the incident, who participated in these proceedings and who were all legally represented namely, Mrs Margaret Ntakana, who is the mother of the late Bhekinkhozi Ntakana, her 12 year old son who was a visitor to the casino complex and who was killed in the incident, he was an inhabitant of the area surrounding the casino, Jessie and Tanya, the daughters of the late Thomas Hudson, who was likewise killed in the incident and who was at the time a visitor to the hotel, Mrs Lillian Dlamini, the mother of the late Wilfred Dlamini who was a caretaker at the casino complex.  
	According to the applicants they were members of Umkhonto weSizwe, military wing of the African National Congress at the time, and they had committed the deed on the instructions of their then commander, the late Mzizi Makwageza.  The objective which they were pursuing was to demonstrate the ability of Umkhonto weSizwe to retaliate to actions against its members and followers by the South African Security Forces, pursuant to the raid conducted by the South African Security Forces in Lesotho at the beginning of 1986.
	They also indicated that at the time there were orders from the African National Congress to render South Africa ungovernable and to target all institutions which were regarded as extensions of the oppressor.  The casino in question fell into the category.  They indicated that they reconnoitred the casino before the attack and concluded that the toilet in question is the most suitable place to cause the explosion without exposing too many persons to injury.  They however reconciled themselves to the possibility of death or injury resulting from the explosion. They placed the limpet mines in the toilet in question at approximately 19H00, and they set them to detonate three hours later, somewhere between 22 and 23H00 hours.
	According to them the reconnaissance of the casino complex had led them to believe that at this time there would be the least possibility of the toilet being frequented by patrons of the complex.  After having placed the limpet mines they departed before the explosion occurred, and they subsequently read about the explosion in the newspapers.
	None of the victims who participated in the proceedings seriously opposed the applications and we have no reason to doubt the version which was presented to us by the applicants.  In fact both the Hudson family and Mrs Ntakana have indicated during the proceedings, that they accept the apologies which the applicants made, that they are prepared to forgive the applicants for what they had done and that they do not oppose the applications.
	Under those circumstances we are satisfied that the act was committed by the applicants in their capacity as Umkhonto weSizwe operatives, on the instructions of that organisation.  The act is accordingly one associated with a political objective, as envisaged in Section 20 of Act 34 of 1995.  We are also satisfied that the applicants have made a full disclosure as required by the Act.
	In those circumstances the applicants are GRANTED AMNESTY in respect of the offences set out earlier in this decision, that is the two counts of murder and one count of terrorism.
	In conclusion, we wish to point out that in our opinion the persons referred to above, who participated in these proceedings, as well as Martha Johanna Jacomina Boshoff and Wishlo Steven Nowak, are victims in the said act and they are referred for consideration in terms of Section 20.2.1 of the Act. 
	In conclusion, we wish to point out that this incident is a stark reminder of the price that many innocent people paid for the eventual solution of the political problem and conflict experienced in our country.  We regard it as encouraging to have noted the positive attitude adopted by the victims in this matter and the reconciliation which was has been effected through these proceedings.  Although in this context there has been no direct mention of the situation of Mrs Dlamini, we hope that she would find it possible to forgive the applicants and to find some peace of mind, in spite of the tragic loss of her son, who ought, as has been quite correctly indicated, to have been a beneficiary and not a victim of the actions of the applicants.
	That is the Panel's decision in this matter.
	We will now adjourn the proceedings until tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock.  The representatives of Correctional Services appear not be present in the venue anymore at this stage, but can I just ask that it is conveyed to them that we intend to proceed with the previous matter that stood down, at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning and that we would rely on their co-operation to ensure that those applicants are brought timeously to the venue.  We thank you very much.  We are adjourned.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS