JOHANNES KOOLE                              2ND APPLICANT








PAUL JACOBUS VAN DYK                       6TH APPLICANT






MZUZI AUBREY MNGADI                        9TH APPLICANT







The applicants apply for various acts in an operation where Mr Jameson Ngoloyi Mngomezulu was abducted from his home in Swaziland, seriously ill-treated, eventually killed and his body disposed of through an explosion at Sodwana Bay.

First Applicant (De Kock) testified that sometime during 1986 or 1987 he received a call from the Fifth Applicant Schoon requesting him to assist in the abduction of Mngomezulu from his home (kraal) in Swaziland for the purpose of interrogation with regard to Mngomezulu's involvement in the infiltration of ANC into the Northern Natal platteland, the caching of arms and planned attacks.  De Kock, as head of Vlakplaas at the time, had knowledge of these activities from security reports emanating from Northern Natal and Eastern Transvaal and had already on 3 or 4 occasions been at the kraal of Mngomezulu.  No action, however,  had been taken because at the time of the request by Schoon, Mngomezulu had not yet been a target.

The Security Branch was, however, generally concerned about the increase of rural terror and there had been skirmishes with the police in which one policeman was killed and another wounded.  De Kock cleared the request with Brigadier Willem Schoon, also because the Brigadier was a brother of Schoon (the Fifth Applicant).

De Kock subsequently instructed the Sixth Applicant (Van Dyk) to abduct Mngomezulu and deliver him to Schoon.  This was to take place during one of the normal deployments of Vlakplaas members.  He remembers the involvement of the so-called "heavy weight Askaris", namely the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Applicants and remembers also the names of the 9th and 10th Applicants also being involved in the operation.

After the return of Vlakplaas members at the end of their 3 weeks term of deployment, Van Dyk reported to  him that Mngomezulu had been killed and his body disposed of on the missile grounds near Sodwana.  He, in turn, reported to Brigadier Schoon that "the Person does not exist any more".  At no state was he present during the operation.  He was, however, aware that the person would be killed if not recruited as an Askari.

Pursuant to De Kock's instructions, Van Dyk proceeded, with the assistance of Moses Nzimandi (deceased) and the second (Koole), fourth (Mbelo), ninth (Mngadi) and tenth (Nofemela) Applicants, to abduct Mngomezulu.  They entered Swaziland at the Golela border post.  An informer accompanied the group, who went in two vehicles, to point out Mngomezulu's home.  Mngomezulu, resisting, was kidnapped and severely assaulted.  While the drivers of the vehicles passed through the border gate, the rest of the party crossed on foot with Mngomezulu and boarded the vehicles on the South African side.  The Applicants differ in their accounts as to where Mngomezulu was then taken.  The majority seems to recall that he was first taken to Moolman near Piet Retief and later (some say that same night and others say the next day) to a deserted farmhouse near the Josini dam.  Others insist that they went directly to the farmhouse in the Josini area.

The fact that Moolman venue is probably more than 150 kilometres further from the point of abduction than the Josini farmhouse and the fact that Josini was within the area of jurisdiction of Schoon, whereas the Moolman venue falls under the area of jurisdiction of Pienaar, (the Seventh Applicant), favour the likelihood that Mngomezulu was taken directly to Josini.  It is certainly highly unlikely that they would have done a detour of in excess of 300 kilometres if indeed they did eventually proceed to Josini on the same night of the abduction.  Nothing much turns on this and can be ascribed to poor memory due to the lapse of at least 14 years of time.

It is common cause that Mngomezulu was severely assaulted from the beginning by virtually everyone of the Applicants present there.  This continued for a period of 2 to 3 days.  It seems further to be common cause that if any, no information of value could be extracted from Mngomezulu.  He seemed to be, if not unconscious at times, not in a state of full consciousness for most of the time.  From the evidence of the Applicants, it is clear that he was continuously subjected to sever assault, at times without so much as an effort to interrogate him.

At some state all the black members at Josini were ordered to leave and to go to Moolman.  This included the second, third, fourth, ninth and tenth Applicants.  The fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth Applicants and one Willemse, another Vlakplaas member who did not apply for amnesty, remained behind.  It is from this moment on that the versions, broadly speaking, of the 5th, 6th and 7th Applicants (Schoon, Van Dyk and Pienaar) and the 8th Applicant (Beeslaar) differ in very material respects.

All the Applicants testified before the Committee.  Applicants 2, 3, 4, 9 and 10 could only testify in regard to their involvement up to the moment when they were ordered to leave Josini for Moolman.  There were differences of account in relation to a number of aspects, for example the role of the informer, whether the abduction to Josini/Moolman, the various acts of fellow Applicants at various times, etc.  None of these were in the opinion of the Committee so material as to necessitate any further consideration and can be ascribed to honest but different recollections of an incident (among many) which happened more than 13 years ago.

There is, however, one aspect that required to be dealt with.  Applicants 2 (Koole) and 3 (Mogoai) claimed that the First Applicant (De Kock) was present during the operation arriving a short while after the abduction.  According to Mogoai, De Kock assaulted Mngomezulu and also gave orders for the operation to be moved from Moolman to Josini.  Koole cannot recall ever having abducted Mngomezulu to Moolman but also places De Kock at the scene at Josini.  These 2 Applicants under cross-examination and questioning by the Committee contradicted themselves many times on this issue yet insisted that De Kock was present.  Although concessions were made on other issues, they would not make any concession that they might be mistaken that De Kock had been present at Josini.  Mr Lamey, representing these two Applicants, used hours and hours to cross-examine De Kock and each of the other Applicants on this issue.  It was suggested under cross-examination that the reason for their insistence may be that they are state witnesses and had originally implicated De Kock, hence their insistence.  Secondly, Mogoai, the third Applicants, was described by many as the chief or main interrogator and they ascribed the thrust of the assault on Mngomezulu to him.  He was evasive but conceded that he put most of the questions to Mngomezulu as instructed by the white officers.  He also testified that he did assault Mngomezulu by hitting and kicking him.

Each and every other Applicant denied any involvement by De Kock during the operation.

The question that really arises is whether in view of these inconsistencies a truthful disclosure has been made and further whether De Kock has been falsely implicated in this regard.

After a careful consideration of the matter, we have not been able to find any reason for a wilful false implication on the part of the two Applicants against De Kock and ascribe their testimony in this regard to poor memory or faulty recollection of facts.

The Committee is therefore satisfied that Applicants Two, Three, Four, None and Ten have made a full disclosure as required by the Act.

We now turn to the assessment of the evidence of the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Applicants on the one hand and that of the Eighth Applicant on the other hand.

At the outset it should be mentioned that the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Applicants, when they originally applied for amnesty, were represented by the same lawyer or lawyers, ie either Mrs van der Walt or Mr Prinsloo, or both of them.  Their written applications were drawn dealing with all salient aspects in virtually the same wording.  These aspects include:

*     The absolute minimization of their individual roles.

*     None of the three Applicants make any mention of their participation in the interrogation and assault on Mngomezulu.  All three state that he was interrogated and severely assaulted by Vlakplaas members.

*     Mngomezulu appeared to have suffered a lot of punishment and that he was not thinking clearly.

*     They jointly decided that it would serve no purpose to interrogate Mngomezulu any further and therefore decided to take him back to Macks Pass on the Swaziland border.

*     They loaded Mngomezulu in a vehicle for the purpose of returning him to the Swaziland Border, covered him with a canvas and left for Swaziland.  At that time he was still alive.

*     They instructed Beeslaar (the 8th Applicant) and another member (according to Beeslaar one Willemse, who did not apply for amnesty) who travelled in another vehicle, to wait for them at the turn off at the dam wall, while they went to the house of Schoon to check if there were any messages for him.

*     When they arrived at Schoon's home, they lifted the canvas and saw that Mngomezulu was dead.

*     The three of them decided to get rid of the body and travelled in a Southerly direction along the coast of Sodwana.

*     At a certain point Beeslaar and the other member (Willemse) were left behind and the three of them drove a few kilometres further where Schoon destroyed the corpse with explosives.

Applicants 5, 6 and 7 all gave oral testimony at the hearing.

The 6th Applicant (Van Dyk) confirmed the first Applicant's (De Kock) evidence as it related to him.  They went down to Piet Retief for work in a scheduled deployment.  One night during this period they abducted Mngomezulu and took him to Piet Retief where he (Van Dyk) and all the black members interrogated Mngomezulu.  He later contacted Pienaar to assist in the interrogation because Pienaar was in possession of more information that would facilitate the interrogation.

They remained there that night and the following day.  He is not sure whether he contacted Schoon on the same night or the following day.  They proceeded to a farm Leeuwspoor in the Josini area where Mngomezulu was further interrogated.  He (Van Dyk) slapped Mngomezulu but did not maltreat him.  He left at some stage to attend to other matters in Middelburg and on his return observed that Mngomezulu had been seriously assaulted.  He had lacerations on his face and body.  They nevertheless proceeded with the interrogation.

Schoon tried to recruit Mngomezulu as a source but was unsuccessful.  They then loaded him onto a vehicle and departed for Josini where they would decide what to do with him.  On the way they discussed the matter and decided to return him to the Swaziland border in the Ingwavuma district.  En route they went past Schoon's office to check for urgent message.  On arrival there, the three of them checked on Mngomezulu and it appeared that Mngomezulu had died.  Schoon had explosives.  They decided to destroy the body so as not to leave any evidence pointing back to them.

They met with Beeslaar and another (Willemse) at the turnoff.  They did not tell them anything.  At some point at Sodwana they left them behind so as not to involve them in the further developments.  The three of them disposed of the body on the beach.  It was low tide.  The next morning they went back to the scene.  It again was low tide.  Nothing could be seen that would have left any traces.

Under cross-examination by Mr Hatting on behalf of De Kock, Van Dyk told the Committee that fists, feet, a stick and a wet bag was used during the assault.  When he returned from Middelburg he found Mngomezulu fully conscious and he could still move freely.  Only the next day did he lose consciousness.  It could be due to the interrogation and lack of sleep.  He (Van Dyk) conceded that he did participate in the assault.  He hit Mngomezulu with wood or rubber on his head.  They did not tell Beeslaar about the disposal of the body.  The period from abduction to disposal of the body was three days.

Under cross-examination by Mr Lamey on behalf of the 2nd and 3rd Applicants, Van Dyk said that the black members did not know that they were to get rid of Mngomezulu's body.  There was no need to discuss it with them.  They had done their part.

Responding to questions put by the panel, Van Dyk said:

*     The reasons why they wanted to stop at Josini was to again try to persuade Mngomezulu to become a source for them.

*     In relation to obtaining information, the operation was not successful.

*     That De Kock's instruction indeed was to deliver Mngomezulu to Schoon.

*     That Mngomezulu was always blindfolded and that there was no risk of recognising any one of them.

*     The idea to again try to recruit Mngomezulu at Josini was never discussed with Beeslaar.

Pienaar (7th Applicant) then gave his oral testimony.  He had no prior knowledge of the abduction.  He was requested to get involved in the interrogation only on the morning after the abduction.  He had some information about activities in the Northern Natal region where Mngomezulu was active in the Ingwavuma district, which fell under Security Branch Josini, although his own responsibility was in the Eastern Transvaal.

He, together with two other members of Vlakplaas, interrogated Mngomezulu and assaulted him by kicking and slapping him.  Mngomezulu would not speak.  He did not disclose any information.  He believes that this was due to the fact that Mngomezulu was of the old guard and his pride would not allow him to respond to the young men of his own race interrogating him.  (This he confirmed again when cross-examined by Mr Kgasi on behalf of the family of Mngomezulu).

They moved Mngomezulu to Josini where he was further interrogated and assaulted, also by Schoon.

Asked by his attorney to respond to Van Dyk's version that Mngomezulu  was to be released, he stated that he did not agree with Schoon's view.  It would make not sense to return to him to the border because of his injuries.

There were talks about recruiting Mngomezulu as an informer.  This, too, he did not agree with.  It simply would not have been achieved at all.

At the Security Branch offices he lifted the canvas.  Mngomezulu had died.  They then decided to get rid of the body.  They met up with Beeslaar and Willemse who waited for them at the dam wall.  After disposal they slept on the beach, went to the place of the explosion the next morning and finding no traces, left.

Under cross-examination by Mr du Plessis for Beeslaar, Pienaar said that when Mngomezulu was loaded onto the bakkie, he was in a coma.  The canvas was lifted at Josini in order to allow Mngomezulu some fresh air.   They saw that he had died.  They could see that he was dead and did not feel his pulse to confirm their observation.  It was evident that he was dead.  He could not remember any patrols in the area before Mngomezulu's death but could not contest it.  He cannot dispute Beeslaar's statement that he (Beeslaar) knew Mngomezulu would be eliminated.  He disputes, however, Beeslaar's version that when they had reached the beach, Mngomezulu walked with them.  Although there was never any decision to eliminate Mngomezulu, he never agreed to his release.  To do so would have been fatal.  it was Schoon's suggestion.  Likewise he did not support Schoon's suggestion to use him as an informer.  As far as he was concerned the only way with Mngomezulu was to kill him.  Van Dyk shared his view.

Asked under cross-examination by Mrs van der Walt for Van Dyk whether Beeslaar was sober, Pienaar said he was drunk.  The statement that Van Dyk shared his view about killing Mngomezulu was not challenged.

In cross-examination by Mr Kgasi for the victim's family, Pienaar said that he cannot recall that Mngomezulu was ever blindfolded.  He did not agree with the suggestion to release Mngomezulu because he had been seriously assaulted, he would have continued his activities and it would have created an international incident, members of the Police having abducted him from Swaziland, interrogated and tortured him.

Asked by members of the Committee as to how they intended to release Mngomezulu, Pienaar replied that he never ever entertained that possibility, nor that of recruiting him as an informer.  The suggestion was made by Schoon in the vehicle on the way to Josini.  Both he and Van Dyk disagreed.

Schoon then gave his testimony.  The Committee was referred to his written application.  Mr Prinsloo, Schoon's lawyer, referred him to De Kock's evidence in regard to the request he had received from Schoon to have Mngomezulu abducted.  His reply was that he could not remember that De Kock had phoned him.  Prinsloo asked how, to his recollection, the request was made.  He believed that the request to De Kock was made to him in person.

He knew Mngomezulu only on paper, that is from file material.  Mngomezulu was the most important link in ANC infiltration into the RSA.  He (Schoon) was involved in a number of investigations.  He probably did make contact and discussed the matter with De Kock.

He received a call from Van Dyk who requested him to meet him at Leeuwspoor.  He asked no questions.  The farmhouse was regularly used for operations.  When he arrived, the others were already there.  This happened on an evening.

Van Dyk ordered him to conduct an interrogation of Mngomezulu.  He did so, did not get any information except a few names of people that he did not know.  He never assaulted Mngomezulu.  He decided that continued interrogation would serve no purpose and that he had to be returned to Swaziland.  Of the two options, that is, either to kill Mngomezulu or to release him, the latter was the more acceptable.  That is why he tried to recruit him as informer.  He was not successful because Mngomezulu died before finality was reached.  He could not be coerced by the others to kill Mngomezulu.  He knew the chances were close to zero that any information would come his way after releasing Mngomezulu but it was more acceptable than killing him.

He was asked whether he had considered the consequences of release and he said he had.  Only a report to the Swazi Police would have resulted.  Even if they had investigated, the Swazi Police would not have been able to prove anything against the South African Police.

When he was at his home in Josini to check for messages, he, Van Dyk and Pienaar lifted the canvas and realized that Mngomezulu was dead.  He proposed the destruction of the body with explosives.  He fetched a 25 kg box of plastics, a reel of electric cable and a case of detonators.  Beeslaar and Willemse were waiting for them at the turnoff to Sodwana on the other side of the Josini dam on the road from Josini to the Ingwavuma/Swaziland border.  They met them, proceeded to Sodwana and travelled South along the coast for approximately 30 kilometres where they left Beeslaar and Willemse.  He believes Van Dyk instructed Beeslaar and Willemse to warn them of any arrival of others.  They then drove another two kilometres where the body was disposed of.  They stayed the night and scouted the area the following morning.

He denies any patrols as suggested by Beeslaar's testimony.  Beeslaar was a passenger and was drunk.  He (Schoon) had been a policeman for 20 years and he can see when a person is drunk.

In cross-examination by Mr du Plessis on behalf of Beeslaar, Schoon said that he, Van Dyk and Pienaar travelled in the bakkie while Beeslaar and Willemse travelled in Van Dyk's car.  He only saw that Beeslaar was drunk after the explosion.  The reason why Beeslaar and Willemse accompanied them was to provide transport back for Van Dyk and Pienaar.  He cannot remember that Mngomezulu was at any stage blindfolded.  He took the decision to release him.  The other members did not agree with him.  He intended to turn Mngomezulu as an askari at Josini (at his home) when they left Leeuwspoor for Swaziland, although he had realized that that possibility was remote.

On questions by the Committee, Schoon insisted that by looking at a person he could establish whether a person was in a coma or dead.  He could not explain why Beeslaar and Willemse had to drive to the turnoff if he was still intent on turning Mngomezulu as an Askari at Josini.  He could only say that it was because the decision to release him had already been taken.  Surprisingly on the way to Josini they were still arguing about whether to release or eliminate Mngomezulu, although he had already decided to release him.

Beeslaar gave the following version in his written application.  He was part of the administrative staff at C10.  His tasks included the registration of rehabilitated members of ANC or PAC.  He assumes that he was sent to attend to such an attestation by De Kock.  He arrived at the base in Piet Retief on a Saturday afternoon.  Mngomezulu was brought to them where he was interrogated and assaulted, yet not seriously so.  A day or two later Mngomezulu was taken to an old house next to the Josini dam.  He went on patrol with other (white) members inter alia also in the area where the defence force tested missiles and to which access was prohibited to the public. 

Two or three days after they had arrived at Josini, Mngomezulu was loaded onto Schoon's bakkie.  He, Pienaar, Willemse, Van Dyk and Schoon left in two vehicles.  He then already knew that Mngomezulu would be eliminated.  They left for Sodwana and travelled south.  They stopped.  He recalls himself staying in Van Dyk's car with Willemse while the others left with Mngomezulu, the latter walking with them.  He does not know what they took along but did know that Mngomezulu was to be eliminated.  They returned after an hour.  He cannot remember having heard an explosion but knew that Mngomezulu had been killed.  They slept there overnight and went walking on the beach the next morning.  At a point they stopped.  From the discussion he deduced that it was where Mngomezulu had been killed.  No signs or traces were found.  He does not know how he was killed but he was told that Mngomezulu was blown up with explosives.  He returned to Vlakplaas before the operational team.  He was under the command of Van Dyk.

Beeslaar also gave oral testimony.  He explained that the objective of the patrols was to observe the area.  He had then already heard Schoon, Van Dyk and Pienaar talking about the use of explosives and they had to make sure that there were no people in the area that might hear the explosion.  On the way to Sodwana he drove Van Dyk's vehicles, Willemse accompanying him, while the other three travelled in Schoon's bakkie.  At some stage Schoon turned off the main road and they waited ahead.

In cross-examination by Advocate Prinsloo on behalf of Schoon and Pienaar, he said that he had remained in Schoon's carat the place where the vehicles were parked, while the other three had walked on foot with Mngomezulu.  He could not remember seeing them carrying the explosives.  It was fairly dark.  He did not know how Mngomezulu was killed.  He was probably shot first.  He did however not resist when they walked from the cars.  He (Beeslaar) had not asked any questions.  He associated himself with the fact that Mngomezulu was to be killed.

Responding to other questions, Beeslaar remembered the incident to have lasted from the late Saturday afternoon to the following Thursday.

The Committee is unable to reconcile the evidence of the 8th Applicant (Beeslaar) with that of the 5th, 6th and 7th Applicants (Schoon, Van Dyk and Pienaar) in various respects.  Cardinal to these differences are the versions relating to the way in which Mngomezulu came to his death.

Central to the issue, is the requirement of full disclosure.

On Beeslaar's version, Mngomezulu was killed on the beach at Sodwana Bay, either before or by destroying his body with explosives, by Schoon, Van Dyk and Pienaar, the killing and destruction of the body having been preplanned.  On the version of Schoon, Van Dyk and Pienaar, Mngomezulu died, probably as a result of the assaults, on the way to Piet Retief, the possibility of which they had foreseen when he was abducted.

Clearly, the conflicting versions are not of the nature of a bona fide interpretation of facts.  They are of the essence of fact.  They cannot both reasonably be true.

On having weighed all the evidence before the Committee, the Committee has come to the conclusion that the probabilities strongly favour the version as presented by Beeslaar.  Although there were some inconsistencies in the evidence of Beeslaar, they were not related to material aspects surrounding the incident.  The Beeslaar version, related to the events themselves, holds no clear improbabilities.

The Schoon, Van Dyk, Pienaar version on the other hand is full of improbabilities such as:-

*     Schoon's insistence that Mngomezulu was to be released at the border post, him having taken that decision;  placing the decision en route to Josini and Pienaar disagreeing (maintaining that Van Dyk shared his view and not Schoon's), the risk of exposure of individuals, the risk to the Security Branch in general and the probable international repercussions, confirmed by Pienaar, renders this Schoon/Van Dyk version improbable.

*     Schoon's written application alleges his involvement only to the extent of his assistance to Van Dyk in the interrogation and his oral testimony conceding De Kock's version of his (Schoon's) original request, does not measure up to his strong stance vis-a-vis Van Dyk and Pienaar on the release of Mngomezulu.  (In the written application of Schoon, he alleged that Van Dyk took the decision to release Mngomezulu).

*     It is highly improbable that all the black members would have been sent away from the Josini farmhouse to Moolman if the intention was to release Mngomezulu, they in the first instance having done the abduction.  It is more probable that this was done in what appears to have been the usual pattern, after a decision to kill and/or dispose of a body, not involving black members or Askaris, had already been taken at Leeuwspoor.

*     It is improbable that Beeslaar (and Willemse) would have been instructed to wait at the turnoff to Sodwana Bay if the intention was to proceed further northwards to the Ingwauma/Swaziland border.  It is improbable that that would have been done if the intention was to first further question Mngomezulu on a final endeavour to recruit him, as an askari, given his state of consciousness and considering the duration of time that Beeslaar and Willemse would have had to wait for them.  It is even more improbable that none of Schoon, Van Dyk and Pienaar, would have said anything to Beeslaar and Willemse about Mngomezulu having died or about a change of plans from release to disposal of Mngomezulu's body, if the release was indeed the purpose of the journey and if no prior decision to kill Mngomezulu had been taken.  It is likewise extremely improbable that the purpose of going to Piet Retief was to check for messages, given the sensitive nature of the operation.  It is most probable that the purpose of the detour was simply to obtain the necessary explosives, the fate of Mngomezulu having had already been decided.

The probabilities therefore are that it was decided at Leeuwspoor to kill Mngomezulu, that the black members and Askaris were ordered to return to the base at Moolman, that explosives were collected at Schoon's office in Josini and that Mngomezulu was subsequently killed somewhere on the beach at Sodwana and his body disposed of by explosives.

The Committee is satisfied that the incidents in respect of which amnesty is sought fall within the ambit of the Act insofar as they occurred within the context of the political conflict of the past and (on all the versions) would have been perpetrated with a political objective as envisaged in the Act.

The Committee therefore finds that Beeslaar, although not clear on detail, made an honest, truthful and full disclosure and he is therefore GRANTED amnesty.

Schoon and Van Dyk chose to stay within the joint version of the written application.  That version having been rejected by the Committee, they are found not to have made full disclosure and their applications (5th and 6th Applicants) are therefore REFUSED.

Pienaar (7th Applicant) in his evidence, while making it clear that in his own mind Mngomezulu would never have been released, still tried to reconcile his own version in oral evidence with the written application and the evidence of Schoon and Van Dyk by introducing the discussion about a release having taken place only at the time when they were on the way to Josini.  This of course begs the question again as to why Mngomezulu was removed from Leeuwspoor at all.  And the answer, as the Committee has found, is clearly that a decision had already been taken at Leeuwspoor to kill Mngomezulu.  This clearly was Pienaar's understanding at Leeuwspoor.  Had it not been so, questions would have been asked there already.  Mngomezulu's (timely) death allegedly on the way to Josini, established merely by glancing at the victims when arriving at Josini, is to be contrasted with Beeslaar's version.  It is impossible to reconcile Pienaar's version with that of Beeslaar as far as the circumstances of Mngomezulu's death is concerned.  Since the Committee regards this as material for disclosure, a choice had to be made between the two versions.  For all the reasons relating to the inconsistencies between Pienaars written application and his oral evidence as well as the improbabilities mentioned above, the Committee cannot other than find that Pienaar did not make a full and truthful disclosure and his application, too, is therefore REFUSED.

De Kock (1st Applicant), Koole (2nd Applicant), Mogai (3rd Applicant), Mbelo (4th Applicant) Mngadi (9th Applicant) and Nofemela (10th Applicant) made a full and truthful disclosure and they are all GRANTED amnesty.

To summarize, amnesty is GRANTED to the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Applicants and REFUSED to the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Applicants.

The Committee is further of the opinion that Jameson Ngoloyi Mngomezulu is a victim as defined in the Act and his name and particulars of his next-of-kin are being referred to the Committee on Reparation and Rehabilitation for consideration.

DATED AT CAPE TOWN THIS    DAY OF                  2001.

                                         JUDGE S KHAMPEPE

                                         JUDGE N J MOTATA

                                         MR W MALAN