TRC Final Report

Volume 5

Chapter 3

Subsection 1

■ ESTABLISHING AN INFRASTRUCTURE

8 The Committee was faced with similar logistical problems as those experienced by the rest of the Commission. It had to set up offices and establish an infrastructure out of nothing. The Committee was initially allocated one whole floor in the building occupied by the Commission. This was converted into offices as well as a hearings room. Given the rapid expansion of the Committee, further accommodation was subsequently taken on another floor in the Commission offices.

9 The Committee also had to engage in the process of recruiting the requisite staff. The Act provides only for the office of an executive secretary for the Committee. In the absence of any specific guidelines, the Committee decided that, in order properly to perform its functions, it would be necessary to appoint a complement of suitably qualified lawyers and a complement of appropriate administrative staff. The professional services personnel were referred to as leaders of evidence, a term that reflects one of their principal functions – namely the leading of evidence at public hearings of the Committee. The Committee initially appointed a core staff consisting, inter alia, of an administrative secretary and two leaders of evidence, one of whom doubled as the executive secretary of the Committee, significantly increasing the workload of the chief leader of evidence who was called upon to perform these functions as well. Both the professional staff complement as well as the administrative staff complement was gradually expanded as the workload of the Committee increased. In view of the novelty of the process, considerable time had to be invested in the training of staff on an ongoing basis.

10 One of the other urgent tasks of the Committee was to formulate and publish an application form for the purpose of amnesty applications. Logistical delays were experienced in formulating the amnesty application form and having it considered, approved and printed by the government. This led to additional pressure on the amnesty process in that there was a twelve-month period calculated from 15 December 1995 within which amnesty applications had to be submitted. It was, of course, not possible to apply for amnesty until the prescribed application form became available.

11 In view of the time limitations for the submission of applications, as well as their confidential nature, it was necessary to exercise strict control over all applications received and to keep accurate records thereof. Some logistical problems were occasioned by the fact that applications were received in a decentralised fashion in that it was open to applicants to submit their applications at the various regional offices of the Commission. This was in fact done on a significant scale. It was an important aspect of making the process of the Commission in general and the Committee specifically, accessible to the public. In practice, however, this resulted in duplication and an added workload on the Commission in that records of applications submitted at the regional offices were kept at the relevant regional office, and again registered in the central register at the head office of the Committee. A more detailed exposition of the process followed in registering and processing applications, in both narrative and diagrammatic form, is contained in the administrative report of the Amnesty Committee in Volume One.

12 One of the early problems resulting from the absence of a full staff complement was that members of the Committee had to engage in analysing and processing applications for amnesty, in addition to their principal duty of considering and deciding on the applications.