TRC Final Report

Volume 6

Section 2

Chapter 8

Subsection 2

Assessing applications and the President’s Fund Process

17. Once the forms were completed, they were forwarded to the relevant regional office where they were checked for completeness and then forwarded to the national office in Cape Town. On receipt they entered a systematic information flow involving numerous checks to avoid duplication, clarify discrepancies and rectify any omissions. After this, each form was assessed and individual recommendations were made on the basis of the responses made by each applicant. Prior to the suspension of the Commission, the assessment of applications was the responsibility of RRC members. Subsequently, it became the responsibility chiefly of the chairperson of the RRC.

18. The assessment established what harm and suffering had taken place, who the beneficiaries were, how many dependents were involved and who they were , and the consequences of the violation in terms of housing situation, emotional state, medical state, educational situation and other aspects.

19. The assessor then made a broad recommendation for (a) service intervention(s), categorising evident needs and monetary grants according to the schedule set out in the Final Report.^{7 9}

20. This assessment, together with the application form, was then forwarded to the President’s Fund.

The RRC’s relationship to the President’s Fund and Department of Justice

21. The RRC enjoyed an interdependent relationship with the President’s Fund. The mandate of the Act, as well as the regulations governing interim reparations , clearly demarcated each body’s responsibilities .⁸⁰

22. The RRC was responsible for making individualised recommendations, both for a required service and a monetary grant, and the President’s Fund was responsible for implementing those recommendations – that is, making the payments and informing recipients of the RRC’s recommendations and of the name of the government official in their province who would act as a conduit through which they would gain access to services in the relevant department or departments.

False perceptions about the role of the RRC

23. Both victims and the public developed a perception that reparation matters (administration a n d implementation) began and ended within the domain of the Commission. As far as they were concerned, if the other two Committees of the Commission dealt with their affairs, so too did the RRC. This perception led inevitably to the belief that the RRC had reparation funds under its direct control , leading to many direct approaches for assistance.

24. This misperception was further perpetuated by inaccurate media reportage. Media campaigns were directed at the Commission, charging it to speed up the delivery of reparation awards.

25. This ongoing misperception left the RRC and the President’s Fund with the responsibility of correcting and responding to the many complaints and enquiries it received from victims. In the face of extremely scarce human resources, this made working conditions extremely difficult. From the outset, the Fund employed three people, including the Director. Given the administrative responsibilities of processing all forthcoming applications and preparing them for payment, in addition to fielding the many enquiries that came in, a considerable burden was placed on already severely strained resources. Complicated enquiries were referred back to the RRC’s offices, which employed two enquiry secretaries to deal with problems of this kind.