Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1998-10-14

CHAIRPERSON: Before I proceed to give the decision, I wish to make mention that we are extremely thankful to all those who arranged this session during which a number of hearings occurred, including those responsible for the wholesome meals and those responsible for logistical matters.
	We're extremely thankful also to the interpreters and technicians who do a good service so that the public are able to understand proceedings.
	We are also thankful to those prison officials and members of the South African Police Services for their assistance.  Perhaps one day in history we all will appreciate what it means to us.
	We're also thankful to all the representatives who appeared at the various hearings and applications, for their assistance.  We are particularly thankful to the public who took an interest in the matters that were heard.  
	A special thanks to the media who publicise what occurs in such hearings and perhaps in their case also the value of their work will only realised with time.  While it cannot be thought that those who have sustained losses of life and limb and property are able to easily forget and forgive what has occurred to them, it must be remembered that this country has a long history of atrocities on both sides of the divide, colour line and otherwise.  One can only hope that through the passage of time the paid that they had to endure will be eased and that it would diminish as that time proceeds.
	We must remember, and that is all of us need to contribute in whatever way and however small towards a sustenance of a country as one nation, irrespective of the differences that we have had to put up with and irrespective of natural differences because those don't count and to live in this country like we should have from the very beginning.
F I N D I N G
	The applicant applies for amnesty for the murder of Nomutile Gangqa and the attempted murders of Champion Gangqa and Nozinzo Gangqa.
	During the period prior to this incident there was general unrest in the area where the applicant and the victims reside.  This was particularly so for the applicant who was appointed the headman under the Gozo government of the time.  It is not necessary for us to detail and discuss the moral and political implications of such a system.  It is clear that many people did not support and respect the system of chieftainship and consequently headmanship and many people saw the headmen as lackeys of the Gozo regime.
	As a result it seems that the applicants sustained, as did the other headmen, losses in the form of burnt houses and attempts to his life and losses in the form of his livestock.
	This understandably gave rise to extreme frustration for the applicant and he thought that the political opponents and apposition parties such as the African National Congress, were responsible for the factors which led to such frustration.
	Ironically the applicant was despite being appointed as headman by Gozo, a member of the Pan Africanist Congress.  Nonetheless he sustained, and we accept that he has sustained all these losses.
	On or about the 24th of March 1993 he went to the house of Champion Gangqa who appears to have been the applicant's mentor in some way.  He stated that the reason for going to the house was to ask Champion if he knew who could be responsible for the aforementioned losses.
	He was accompanied by a friend and was armed with a firearm at the time.  He was denied entrance into the house by Nomutile Gangqa, the deceased.  He became extremely angry and shot her and at others inside the house. 
	It is noteworthy that he says that when he shot Nomutile she dropped the lantern or light-producing device and as a result of this the inside of the house was in complete darkness.  He nonetheless continued to discharge the firearm.
	He says that he heard from other sources including the police, that Champion and Nozinzo had been injured as a result of him firing in the house.   As a result of his actions, Nomutile died and both Champion and Nozinzo were injured.  
	Section 20 of Act 34 of 1995 makes the granting of amnesty obligatory if the applicant has made a full disclosure as to the commission of the offences for which he applies for amnesty and that it was done for political reasons in order to attain some political objective.
	We have no reason to doubt that the applicants has substantially made full disclosure as to how these offences were committed.  
	The applicant relies on the general unrest in the area at the time, in particular he regards his status as a headman as the attraction for political opposition to his political status.  To some degree he argued that it is in this context that he acted and committed the crimes for which he now seeks amnesty, but it must be remembered that clearly he was angry because he was being prohibited entry into the house and it is this that resulted in the shooting and consequent death and injuries.  
	These people were innocent people whom he had approached.  He had no reason at the time to think they were a threat to his life or political status.  It was he who approached them.  There was no prospect of achieving any political objective by his actions.  	We are therefore not satisfied that the act has been complied with in this application. IN THE RESULT THE APPLICATION IS REFUSED.
	Furthermore, MR CHAMPION GANGQA AND NOZINZO GANGQA ARE BOTH DECLARED VICTIMS as envisaged by the Act, and it is recommended that they be treated as such in terms of the Act.   
	I declare this session closed.
HEARING ADJOURNS