TRC Final Report

Volume 5

Chapter 3

Subsection 2

■ COMMUNICATION AND ACCESSIBILITY

13 In conjunction with the rest of the Commission, it was necessary to engage in a co-ordinated process of communicating the nature of amnesty and the process for submitting applications. The purpose was not only to publicise the process, but also to ensure that that proper applications were submitted, obviating the need for the Committee to spend time ensuring that applicants complied with the procedural requirements. The Commissioners on the Committee assumed the responsibility of communicating the process and, in particular, the procedural requirements to the public. This entailed visiting various centres, including several prisons, and engaging in public talks. Particular emphasis was placed on issues such as who qualified for amnesty, how application forms should be completed and where assistance could be obtained in completing application forms. In general, this contributed towards the enhanced formal quality of applications received, although a large percentage of applications fell short of the formal requirements.

14 A further aspect of rendering the amnesty process more accessible was to design the application form in an easily understandable and user friendly format and to ensure that it was available in all of the official languages, in considerable supplies at accessible points. All of the Commission offices were in a position to respond adequately to any request for application forms.

15 In addition and as part of the communication campaign, an appropriate interpretation service was provided both to members of the public and to the parties participating in public hearings of the Committee. Steps were also taken to ensure that members of the media were given full access to hearings and were positioned so they could report fully on the proceedings. The Committee initially had some reservations concerning the presence of television cameras at the public hearings. It was feared that this might have an inhibiting effect on the proceedings and on the willingness of applicants to come forward and submit applications for amnesty. It was, however, accepted that it would amount to unfair treatment of the electronic media – and indeed an inconsistency in the process – if only the print media and radio had access. It was also accepted that there was an overriding necessity to communicate the process to everyone through every conceivable means. The original fears proved unfounded and television coverage became and remains a standard feature of all of the Committee’s public hearings.

16 The issue of amnesty turned out to beavery controversial one in most of the public discussions concerning the Committee and the Commission in general.

The immunity from criminal or civil proceedings that results from the granting of amnesty was one of the main reasons or grounds for opposition raised by direct victims of politically-motivated acts or their next of kin. One of the early legal challenges to the Commission was an attack upon the constitutionality of the amnesty provisions by the Azanian Peoples Organisations (AZAPO) and some prominent families who had suffered human rights violations at the hands of the security forces under apartheid. The Constitutional Court eventually decided this matter against the applicants, upholding the constitutionality of amnesty. This case is more fully discussed in the chapter on Legal Challenges in Volume One.

17 Most South Africans have, over time, come to accept the necessity of amnesty for the overall objective of national unity and reconciliation in the country.

■ PRIORITISING APPLICATIONS

18 The Act enjoins the Committee, wherever possible, to give priority to the applications of people in custody and to prescribe procedures to give effect thereto. This was a further source of the initial delays that resulted from difficulties in formulating and publishing appropriate regulations in this regard. By far the majority of applications, particularly the initial ones, were received from prisoners. This category also constitutes the majority of applications rejected for falling outside of the mandate of the Committee.

19 It was, however, also important to deal with applications that gave a broader and more balanced perspective of the past political conflict – which is indeed the subject matter of the work of the Commission. There were initially very few applications from persons falling into this latter category. It was considered important to encourage as many of the important role players in the conflict as possible to come forward and apply for amnesty. To serve this objective, at an early stage the Committee heard an important application from a group of security police members.6

20 For the above reasons, the Committee endeavoured as far as possible to maintain a balance between considering applications from those in custody and those who are not. important role players in the conflict. This in turn assisted the Commission in pursuing its objectives of, inter alia, establishing the broadest possible picture of the past conflict and formulating recommendations to avoid such a situation from developing in future.

21 The above-mentioned approach of focussing on representative or window cases resulted in the receipt of a significant volume of amnesty applications from

22 It is also important to point out that the Committee has been in contact and discussion with various leadership figures of the main political groupings and that considerable assistance was given to the Committee in this regard. This has been an ongoing process and the Committee has endeavoured to identify and respond to difficulties experienced by various groupings in order to facilitate their participation in the amnesty process. The Committee obtained valuable assistance and co-operation from the various submissions of political parties to the Commission and from individual leaders.