The hearing in Pretoria's city hall will decide whether to free the two men who murdered communist leader Chris Hani in 1993, almost derailing South Africa's peaceful transition from apartheid to a multi-racial democracy.
Rightwingers Janusz Walus and Clive Derby-Lewis, who are serving life sentences for Hani's murder, have applied for amnesty with South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission, arguing that they acted out of political motives.
They say that Hani, a commander with Umkontho we Sizwe - the military wing of the African National Congress (ANC) - and a popular figure who many believed could one day become president, was a valid military target.
However, they also have to prove that their act was proportional to their politicial motive which they say was "to plunge the country into a state of chaos which would allow the right to take over".
The commission, set up by President Nelson Mandela in December 1995 to expose apartheid-era crimes committed by all sides, has the power to pardon those responsible for human rights violations if the offenders publicly admit responsibility for their actions.
The commission became a platform where victims of human rights violations or their relatives could publicly air their grief and where perpetrators could tell their side of the story.
Together with trials against former apartheid agents it helped to unearth information about atrocities from the past which would have been more difficult to access otherwise.
But since convicted high-profile killers walked free, such as former apartheid hit-squad leader Dirk Coetzee who ordered the murder of black lawyer Griffiths Mxenge, doubts arose whether the commission can also achieve reconciliation.
Political analysts point at weaknesses in the amnesty act which only demands that perpetrators fully confess, but do not have to admit that what they did was wrong.
"They don't even have to say that they are sorry or that they would not do it again," says political analyst Stephen Friedman, director of the Centre of Policy Studies in Johannesburg.
If reconciliation was to be achieved, it was not enough for people to just listen to what happened, he said.
For society, he argues, it would be better if amnesty applicants had to show repentance and possibly commit themselves to some kind of community service to right the wrongs of the past.
The commission with its amnesty clause is a product of a negotiated settlement to enable South Africa's transition to democracy.
"It is probably an evil compromise, but without it the National Party would not have guaranteed free elections and the ANC would have continued with civil war," says Brandon Hamber from the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation in Johannesburg.
He doubts that the truth commission, whose mandate runs out by the end of the year, can mend the rifts of the past, but thinks it might have contributed to a peaceful coexistence.
Perpetrators who did not apply for amnesty for crimes committed until Mandela's inauguration as president on May 11, 1994, might still have to face court action if enough evidence is found.
While almost 7,000 people have applied for amnesty, among them a fair number of people who were directly involved in state security operations and also former minister of police Adriaan Vlok, some people took chances, banking on the inefficiency of the South African criminal justice system. Almost 2,500 have so far been refused amnesty, while it was granted to 47 people.
High-profile cases such as the trial of formerdefence minister Magnus Malan, acquitted of ordering a massacre due to lack of evidence, have proved how difficult it is to prosecute political crimes.
The commission has also repeatedly been accused of political bias by the National Party, which left the government of national unity in June last year.
It is even taking the commission's chairman Archbishop Desmond Tutu and his deputy Alex Boraine to court, claiming that they violated their mandate, which some analysts consider a political manoeuvre.
Inkatha Freedom Party leader, Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi, recently urged Mandela in a newspaper advert to appoint a judicial commission of inquiry to investigate whether the commission is functioning in terms of the law.
"History will show that it (the commission) did nothing to either reveal the truth or reconcile people. Instead it has sown the seeds of hatred and distrust," wrote Buthelezi.
Cases like the Hani hearing, where emotions are high on both sides, seem to confirm his view. While right-wing Afrikaners argue that Hani's killers should be granted amnesty because of their political motives, the Hani family and the South African Communist Party strictly reject amnesty.
"In this case it is very important that the ruling shows consistency with other amnesty cases," says Brandon Hamber.
The danger was also that those high-profile cases overshadowed the good work of the truth commission which has been trying to be as objective as possible, he said.
And since reparations will only be decided on once the commission's work is over by the end of the year, the majority of victims might feel that they had to give more than the perpetrators, Hamber says.