TRC Final Report

Volume 5

Chapter 9

Subsection 19

59 At the business sector hearing in Johannesburg, the following was said:

Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut (Afrikaans Chamber of Commerce) (AHI):

What cannot be denied … is that apartheid disadvantaged black business. Many whites owned land and they accumulated capital by realising profits on the selling of this land. Until fairly recently, blacks were denied that opportunity and, in this way, one of the most important ways of building capital was denied them.

Even though the Land Act in the period under review … had the net result of increasing the total area of land held by blacks, the tribal system, which was maintained as part of the policy of separate development, sterilised land as a source of wealth for the individual who is the mainstay in market-driven economy.

Restrictions on trading and commercial activities also prevented blacks from establishing and operating business when they saw opportunities to do so. Latent entrepreneurship, potential skills and hidden talents: none of these assets in the black community could be used.

The practice of job reservation denied the black community access to skills and progress and thus prevented fair competition in the job market. It is also a fact that the mobilisation of the savings of the white [inaudible] produced remarkable results in terms of economic growth empowerment of the white Afrikaans-speaking community.

If we look at [the section in our submission on] … omissions and commissions, it is clear from the submission, if we look back with the benefit of hindsight, that the AHI committed major mistakes.

Firstly, we deal with support for separate development. As explained before, the AHI supported separate development in the belief that it would bring about acceptable results for all in the country. This it didn’t do. Separate development in the end meant social engineering with brutal human costs and enormous wastage of resources.

As a business organisation, we should have appreciated much earlier that moral and economic realities militate conclusively against even the loftiest interpretation of separate development. This failure was without doubt one of the worst mistakes the AHI made.

Then we look at the lack of critical evaluation of policies – another major mistake that was committed and that was one of omissions. No moral and economic objections to apartheid were lodged for many years. At the time, there was sufficient appreciation for the hardship and suffering caused by the policy. Whether those hardships were shacks being demolished in the wet and cold of the Cape winter, or of people being shot whilst protesting or the consequences of bombs which killed civilians in Church Street in Pretoria as part of the struggle against apartheid – all of which was seen on our TV screens – the AHI could not have escaped the impact of these policies.

[Point] 5.3 [of the submission] deals with insensitivity into issues involving human rights, although there were frequent references at AHI conferences to the importance of good labour relations, training, proper wages and productivity.

There was for many years an acceptance of the absence of a proper labour relations law that makes provision for workers’ rights for all and of the lack of training and other discriminatory measures. This is also regrettable. There was support for the later developments under Professor Nic Wiehahn. A similar omission occurred in regard to discrimination against women. The AHI should have helped to remove the barriers for women much earlier.

For its part in these omissions and commissions, the AHI firstly accepts moral responsibility. Secondly, admits that fellow South Africans were gravely wronged by these actions or inaction. Thirdly, we wish to express our sincere regret for these failings and, lastly, we apologise to all of those affected as a consequence hereof.

In doing so, the AHI earnestly wishes to contribute to reconciliation in our country and the building of a South Africa in which we all can grow and prosper.

60 A number of amnesty applicants also expressed remorse, even though this was not required by the Act. This was, indeed, a controversial feature of the legislation, and some argued strongly that contrition should have been another precondition for amnesty. Others, however, said that this saved the process from lies and faked apologies.

61 At the amnesty hearing of the ‘Pebco Three’, Mr Kimpani Peter Mogoai, a former askari was questioned:

Advocate Lamey: Mr Mogoai, at this hearing you are aware that the – let me just say this – at this hearing you are aware that the family members of Mr Hashe, Godolozi and Galela are present. Is there anything that you would like to convey to them?

Mr Mogoai: … I know that they are present, but I don’t know them well… These are the words which I want to say. I have written them down. They come from my heart, which I wanted to address them before this Commission, before the members of the deceased and then before the audience and those who are not present here. I have written them in English, Mr Chairperson.

Advocate Lamey: You can proceed.

Mr Mogoai: I have taken this opportunity to speak the truth and to express my torturing regrets about wasted years and my shame about a mean and petty past.

As I regard myself today as a disgrace to my mother, my family and my relatives. My friends and the families of the Pebco Three and the nation as such, it is with my deepest remorse that I ask for forgiveness and hopefully wish to be reconciled with everybody once more and be part of a better and brighter future of South Africa.

I say it now here today, as I could not have done so in the earlier days of this realisation for obvious reasons. I thank you.