Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1998-10-13

CHAIRPERSON: I want to say at the outset that during the history of our country there have been many gruesome acts.  Aside from the black and white divide that we've experienced and clearly created and caused by apartheid, there was also the differences between us black people.  This was also in one way or the other caused by the existence of apartheid.  This has given rise to many struggles and attempts to eradicate apartheid.  Certain tactics were employed which resulted in what has been described as tragic.  There are many differences and different views on the morals of the results of the political activities, for example the killings, armed combats and so forth.  That this madness could possibly continue is too disastrous to contemplate. 		It is to be hoped that the people of this country will embark on the road to live as nation as we should have done in the first place.  I cannot decide for Mr August to forgive and forget but perhaps one can philosophically accept that what has gone by is done and approach life from now on as best we can with a view of contributing towards our country as a person in a uniform nation.
		The applicant makes application for amnesty in terms of Act 34 of 1995 in respect of an assault on Mr Lucky August at Fort Beaufort on or about the 20th of February 1993.  The applicant testified that political tension developed at the Nebiba High School, a local secondary school at which the applicant was a student at some stage.  Briefly it seems that the matter of  admissions to that school took on quasi political proportions and consequently the differences between the Congress of South African Students and the Pan African Student Organisation was underscored by the problems related to admission to the school.  
		The applicant was indeed a member of the Pan African Student's Organisation.  Mr Lucky August was not a student at the school during the material time.  However the school problems with it's political flavour flowed over to the community.  It appears that a dispute developed into a political confrontation between essentially the African National Congress aligned grouping and a similar Pan African Congress aligned grouping.  	
		During the confrontation and as a result thereof a series of attacks on persons and property occurred.  Mr Lucky who seemed to be a member of the grouping aligned to the African National Congress was one such person who was attacked.  
		The applicant testified that he and some of his colleagues received information that Mr August intended to attack the home of one Luyanda Zote who aligned himself with the applicant's grouping.  By design he applicant and some of his colleagues lay in wait for Mr August at a position in front of that house and near a hedge.  
He says it was during the night though at times he indicated that there was sufficient light to see certain things.  I will refer to the lighting presently.  The applicant said that he was armed with a pick handle at the time, his colleagues were also armed with pick handles and one of whom also had a firearm.  The plan was that the one armed with a firearm was to have shot at Mr August and ensure his death.  It seems that Mr August appeared in the street along which the applicant and his group lay.  Mr August was thought to be coming directly towards the applicants group.  
		It seems according to the applicant, that one of his colleagues who was armed with a firearm got cold feet and did not proceed with shooting at Mr August.  As a result of touching his waist as if to produce something, Mr August may have given the impression that he was producing some type of arm.  The applicant immediately jumped up when Mr August was near him and attacked Mr August by hitting him twice in the face with the pick handle that he had; as a result thereof he fell.  The applicant says he then disarmed Mr August of a .38 firearm which he found in the vicinity of his waist.  Thereafter the applicant hit Mr August twice more on the head while he was still lying on the ground and they all left.  
		Perhaps it is necessary to indicate that it seems that the applicant's two colleagues were on flight before the applicant himself decided to run away.  He testified that he does not know what happened to Mr August thereafter.  It seems also that Mr August was hospitalised as a result of the attack and it is common cause that Mr August has lost the benefit of his sight as a result of the attack.
		The medical evidence indicates that Mr August was stabbed in the eyes and as a result lost his sight.  The applicant does not have any knowledge thereof he says and he denies that it occurred at all.  He accepts that Mr August lost his sight when he was assaulted as he described.  He specifically denies knowledge or participation in the stabbing out of Mr August's eyes.
Section 20 of the Act prescribes that amnesty shall be granted provided the deed for which application is made was committed for political reasons and the applicant must have made full disclosure of the actions, and I include motive for it, leading to the acts for which the application is made.  
		There is some difficulty regarding the reasons for the applicant's actions, at times he stated that it was a cause of defending himself and/or his organisation.  On the other hand he suggested that it was for political reasons.  Whatever the case may be we have decided to give him the benefit of such doubt and to find that the attack was committed with essentially political undertones.  Our difficulty lies though with the compliance with the requirement that full disclosure ought to be made.  The independent medical evidence for which there is no basis to dispute, clearly relates to eye injuries caused by sharp instruments and as a result of which Mr August lost his sight.  We find in the circumstances that Mr August did in fact lose his sight as described by the doctor coupled with the fact that it is accepted and agreed that he lost his sight during this attack.  We therefore find that he in fact lost his sight by being stabbed during this attack on him.
		Furthermore the applicant changed his evidence on many occasions as it suited his version when checked against other factors.  Example the lighting of the area during the incident, the reasons for the attack and so forth.  He was evasive on crucial issues and did not answer questions at the time.  He was never direct.  He did not or could not tell us all the material aspects related to the assault and therefore we are not able to really say what exactly happened.  He was not able to quote one instance of Mr August participating in any of the offending activities against the Pan African Congress and its members which lay the foundation for the applicant's actions against Mr August.

INTERPRETER: Could the speaker please go a bit slower?

CHAIRPERSON: This also again raises the matter of Section 23 subsection 3 in respect of proportionality. Even a most generous interpretation ...(indistinct) it is in our view one which is quite unproportionate to the offending membership of the ANC by Mr August which may have been the reason for the applicant's displeasure.

INTERPRETER: We request that the speaker please put on his earphones because when the interpreter's left behind we then indicate.

CHAIRPERSON: Another important aspect which we need to consider is the actual stabbing out of Mr August's eyes. Even if he was destined to die and such a plan failed, it is quite gruesome and unacceptable to find any positive moral in having to stab someone's eyes out. The stabbing of his eyes was a malicious act which we find was sustained during the attack.  This malice also does not comply with the requirements of the Act. Consequently we are not satisfied that the applicant has made full disclosure as envisaged by the Act of the events for which he applies for amnesty.

<UNKNOWN>: .