TRC Final Report

Volume 1

Chapter 7

Subsection 11

Truth and Reconciliation Commission v Coleman and 36 Others¹⁶ and the National Party and Another v the Chairperson, Committee on Amnesty and Others¹⁷

95 On 28 November 1997, the Amnesty Committee considered and granted the amnesty applications by thirty seven members - in some instances high profile leaders of the ANC. The applications were considered in chambers and granted without hearing any evidence. The Committee’s order indicated that amnesty was granted “for all offences associated with a political objective as defined by the Act and which fall within the ambit of the Act, committed or authorised” by the applicants. The applications were largely identical. They were based on the fact that, as members of the leadership at the time, they assumed responsibility for all acts committed by members of the ANC in execution of the policy decisions of the organisation.

96 No specific acts or omissions were specified in the applications. In fact, the applicants indicated that they were not aware what acts had been committed by their followers and said that they had not themselves committed any specific acts.

97 On 13 January 1998, the Commission issued a public statement giving notice of its intention to have the decision of the Amnesty Committee reviewed.

98 Other political parties also indicated an interest in attacking the decision of the Amnesty Committee and, indeed, the NP launched an application a few days before the Commission had issued court papers. The result was that two separate applications were placed before the Court in respect of the same matter.

99 The Commission’s application was launched on 13 March 1998, seeking an order declaring the decision of the Amnesty Committee void. Alternatively, it sought an order reviewing and setting aside the decision and directing the Amnesty Committee to consider the applications for amnesty afresh.

100 In his founding affidavit, the chairperson of the Commission noted that the amnesty decisions were invalid by virtue of at least four irregularities:

a The Amnesty Committee failed to grant amnesty in respect of identified acts, omissions or offences and failed to identify specific offences for which amnesty was granted.

b The Amnesty Committee failed to consider whether each offence for which amnesty was granted was a political offence as required by the Act.

c The Amnesty Committee did not satisfy itself that full disclosure had been made in respect of the acts for which amnesty was granted.

d The Amnesty Committee could not have satisfied itself that there was no need for a hearing, since it did not enquire whether these offences involved gross violations of human rights as specified by the Act.

101 The court granted the application by the Commission and set aside the amnesties. The matter was referred back to the Amnesty Committee for reconsideration.