TRC Final Report

Volume 6

Section 6

Part CEO_Report

Subsection 4

CHALLENGES TO THE COMMISSION

11. During its existence, the Commission was faced with numerous challenges, some substantial and others less so. Some of these are discussed briefly here.

Perceptions about the Commission

12. Although the Commission was established as a result of negotiations between the major political role players and owed its existence and functions to an Act passed by a democratically elected parliament, it still came in for a fair share of criticism. There were those who saw the Commission as the instrument of an ANC-led government and a witch-hunt. Others perceived it as perpetrator-friendly, insensitive to the plight of victims and biased towards the former regime and security forces, and some simply saw it as ‘a waste of taxpayers’ money’. Notwithstanding these negative perceptions, the Commission stuck to its mandate and its commitment to give effect to the letter of the Act and the needs of the majority of our nation.

13. The most difficult aspect to deal with was the granting of amnesty. Everything related to the concept was controversial even before the Act was promulgated or the Amnesty Committee established. Giving the Amnesty Committee the power to grant amnesty meant that a visible body was established that could now be blamed for setting perpetrators free. Throughout its existence, the Commission and its entire staff had to cope and deal with this negative sentiment. The work of the Amnesty Committee also seemed to contradict that of the other Committees of the Commission. The HRVC devoted its time and energy to acknowledging the painful experiences of victims of gross violations of human rights and to identifying those who had perpetrated these gross human rights violations. The Amnesty Committee, on the other hand, set many of these perpetrators of gross human rights violations free from prosecution and from prison on the grounds that they had acted with a political objective and had made full disclosure. In addition, in giving effect to the provisions of the Act, the Amnesty Committee had powers of implementation, whilst the RRC could only make recommendations. Some perpetrators were granted immediate freedom. Victims, however, were required to wait until parliament had accepted or rejected the recommendations of the Commission.

14. The Commission was constantly accused of being perpetrator-friendly and of being insensitive to the plight of victims. Looking back across the whole process now, it is clear that, on the physical side especially, more was done for victims than for perpetrators. Hundreds of thousands of rands and hours were spent on locating victims, transporting them to hearings and providing them with food and accommodation. The hours that were spent on foot trying to locate victims or hiring bulldozers to enable victims in flood-stricken areas to attend amnesty hearings can certainly not be regarded as an insensitive attitude. The Commission is of the strong opinion that the total amount of time and resources spent on victims during the amnesty process was substantially more than that spent on amnesty applicants.

15. On more than one occasion, the Amnesty Committee subjected to severe criticism by individuals and the media, not because it had not done its work p operly, but because it had applied the provisions of the Act and granted certain individuals amnesty. The Committee was also accused of being biased, sometimes in favour of the perpetrators, sometimes in favour of the victims; at times in favour of the liberation movements and at times in favour of the former security forces.

16. The Amnesty Committee tried its utmost to be as objective as humanly possible. Listening to evidence of horrendous acts of gross violations of human rights and to evidence of immense human suffering and inhumane treatment over a period of more than five years certainly did not make it easy. Notwithstanding this, the Amnesty Committee was always aware of the fact that it had to apply the provisions of the Act and that it had a role to play in unearthing the truth. It made it its responsibility to do exactly that. The Amnesty Committee was also very aware of the plight of victims, and everything possible was done to ease their suffering and to give them the recognition they deserved.

17. As has already been mentioned, the RRC was not an implementing body. Its responsibility was to identify those victims who were eligible for reparation and/or rehabilitation and to make recommendations in this regard. Despite this, the RRC was perceived as being responsible not only for identifying the interventions that were needed for reparation and rehabilitation, but also for their implementation. Notwithstanding this, the RRC and its staff never shirked their moral responsibility. They continued to listen to victims and tried their utmost to assist them in the absence of the acknowledgement and implementation of the recommendations made by the Commission in October 1998.

18. In many instances, however, negative perceptions about the Commission and its work arose out of ignorance about its objectives and mandate. At the same time, it was encouraging to experience the high re gard in which the Commission was held in the international community. Not only did international delegations and visitors show a keen interest in and appreciation of the work of the Commission, but members of the Commission were also frequently invited to address international conferences on the work and experiences of the Commission.