TRC Final Report

Volume 4

Chapter 10

Volume FOUR Chapter TEN

Special Hearing: Women

■ HOW THE GENDER HEARINGS CAME ABOUT

1 In March 1996, as the Commission commenced its hearings, the Centre for Applied Legal Studies (CALS) at the University of the Witwatersrand hosted a workshop entitled ‘Gender and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’. Participants included psychologists, lawyers, people from non-governmental organisations (NGOs), members of the Gauteng Legislature and representatives from each of the four regions of the Commission. The workshop resulted in an in-depth submission that discussed ways in which the Commission might be missing some of the truth through a lack of sensitivity to gender issues. The submission, as well as relying on discussion at the workshop, used material from in-depth interviews with women leaders who had suffered gross human rights violations.

2 The term ‘gender’ encompasses both women and men, and the social relations between them. The CALS submission unashamedly focused on women in the belief that it is the voices of women that more often go unheard. Further, while much of their discussion dealt with gross human rights violations as defined by the Commission, the submission also devoted some time to questioning the way gross human rights violations were understood, thereby masking the types of violations more commonly suffered by women.

3 Ms Cheryl de la Rey, addressing the Cape Town special hearings, noted that “(t)oo often when we do not undertake specific actions to draw attention to the issues that affect women, what happens is that men and the experiences of men become the yardstick by which judgements are made”. The argument that apparently gender-neutral approaches are often discriminatory because they unwittingly assume a male outlook is in accordance with the conception of equality found in the South African Constitution. This conception is one of substantive, rather than merely formal, equality. It recognises indirect as well as direct discrimination, implicit as well as explicit and intentional bias.

4 The Commission took up the challenge of the CALS submission. It organised two workshops to which it invited representatives of women’s organisations and the media. Participants discussed how they could attempt to bring more women into the Commission process. The Commission also agreed to the proposal for special women’s hearings. Three women’s hearings were subsequently held – in Cape Town, Durban and Johannesburg. It should be noted that the absence of a special hearing in the Eastern Cape could, in itself, distort the picture as the Eastern Cape is known as an area in which treatment in prison was particularly brutal. The testimony of Ms Zubeida Jaffer (referred to below) about her torture while held in Eastern Cape prisons is illustrative.

5 The Commission also attempted to amend its procedures in ways that would encourage women to speak. By April 1997, the form used by the Commission to record statements had been refined (Version 5) and included the following cautionary note:

IMPORTANT: Some women testify about violations of human rights that happened to family members or friends, but they have also suffered abuses. Don’t forget to tell us what happened to you yourself if you were the victim of a gross human rights abuse.

6 This chapter of the report focuses primarily on what was revealed during the special women’s hearings. Women were by no means absent from other hearings of the Commission. Indeed, the CALS submission acknowledged that they were alerted to gender bias when they noticed that over half of those who spoke were women, but that the roles and capacities in which women and men spoke differed. They saw that, while the overwhelming majority of women spoke as relatives and dependants of those (mainly males) who had directly suffered human rights violations, most of the men spoke as direct victims. The figures below confirm that this pattern persisted over the full period of the hearings.

7 Over the life of the Commission, commissioners distinguished less and less between what were originally perceived as ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ victims. They acknowledged the difficulty of distinguishing between, or weighting, the physical and psychological pain suffered by the direct victim and the psychological pain of those to whom this person was precious. The CALS submission elaborated on other types of pain and suffering, such as when a family loses a breadwinner and the loss of status of a woman who is widowed when her husband is killed. It quotes Ms Seipati Mlangeni, widow of Mr Bheki Mlangeni, widowed two months after her marriage: “I am an outcast in my own society”¹ .

8 During the special women’s hearings, the testimony of Ms Agnes Gounden emphasised how easy it was for a ‘secondary’ victim to become a direct target. Ms Gounden was resting at home, medicated, trying to get over the death of her only sister a few days earlier at the hands of the police, when the police arrived to demand a statement.

They said to my mother, that if this child is drunk like this again tomorrow, you'll see what we will do to you. So can you imagine the fear that we felt.

9 Most of those who spoke at the special hearings spoke of their experience as direct victims. This chapter, in focusing on their stories, underlines the fact that there were many women who suffered from the full range of abuses which fell within the Commission’s understanding of its ambit. It also, however, points out the particular ways in which these women might have experienced abuses. At the level of biology, it points to sexual abuses and threats. At a broader level, it looks at how gendered roles affected the experience and its aftermath.

10 This short chapter cannot hope to do justice to the testimonies heard. It can do no more than give a flavour of what was said. It will, however, attempt to give an idea of the range of roles in which women were revealed, and in particular, the ways in which their experiences might have differed from those of men.

11 The chapter commences by presenting gender-disaggregated statistics culled from the database of the Commission. It follows with general discussion as to how the outlook of the Commission might have affected what was heard, given the gendered roles and socialisation within the society. It looks at the nature of possible ‘silences’. Against this background, the chapter then presents some of the stories related in the special hearings or recorded in the submissions. These provide some idea of the range of sexual, physical and psychological abuses experienced by women. While most of the stories focused on experiences while in detention, one section looks specifically at abuses suffered by women outside of prison. The penultimate section looks at relationships, a theme that emerged strongly when women discussed all forms of abuse. The final section looks at women as perpetrators.