TRC Final Report

Volume 6

Section 3

Chapter 1

Subsection 1

The Former South African Government and its Security Forces

PART ONE: OVERVIEW OF AMNESTY APPLICATIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE SECURITY FORCES: 1 9 6 0 – 1 9 9 4

■ INTRODUCTION

1. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (the Commission) found the state – and in particular its security agencies and affiliated policy and strategy formulation committees and councils – to be the primary perpetrators of gross violations of human rights committed during the thirty-four years it was mandated to investigate. ¹

2. Some 50 per cent of all amnesty applications received from members of the security forces related to incidents that occurred between 1985 and 1989. No applications were received in respect of incidents that occurred in the first decade of the Commission’s mandate and few applications were received for the pre-1985 and post-1990 periods. Despite this, evidence received by the Commission shows that the security forces were responsible for the commission of gross human rights violations during both of these periods.

3. Most of the applications were received from members of the Security Branch, both from Security Branch headquarters and from the nineteen regional Security Branch divisions. These applications and the ensuing amnesty hearings provided new and compelling detail about how the Security Branch understood and participated in the political conflict.

4. On the other hand, despite the fact that the South African Defence Force (SADF) was responsible for numerous violations, especially outside of South Africa, very few SADF members and operatives applied for amnesty. The major SADF applications related to incidents committed inside South Africa that were either already in the public domain or were connected to applications by Security Branch applicants.

5. Inside the country, the SADF was involved in the development and management of national security policy, especially with respect to the National Security Management System (NSMS) and the development of the strategy of counterrevolutionary warfare, which provided the framework in which gross violations of human rights took place.

6. The dearth of applications reflects the general reluctance of SADF members to participate in the amnesty process.

7. The small number of applications for external operations contrasts strikingly with the Commission’s conclusion that the regions beyond South Africa’s borders bore the brunt of the counter- revolutionary warfare waged by the South African security forces, including the police, the defence force and intelligence.²

8. No members of the National Intelligence Service (NIS) applied for amnesty. This was consistent with their stated position that, as members of a non-operational structure, they were not directly involved in the commission of gross violations of human rights.

STATISTICAL OVERVIEW³

9. A total of 293 members of the former government’s security forces applied for amnesty. Of these, 256 (87.4%) applied for offences committed while they were South African Police (SAP) force members; thirty-one (10.6%) applied for offences committed while they were SADF members; two applied for offences committed while they were SAP members and later SADF members; two applied for offences committed while they were in the Department of Prisons; one applicant was the Minister of Law and Order and two applicants’ specific affiliation is not known. The overwhelming majority (229, or 78%) of the SAP members were based in the Security Branch at the time of the violation.

10. Only thirty-one of the amnesty applicants were members of the SADF. Moreover, the greater part of this batch of applications related to violations committed by SADF members inside South Africa. Only five SADF applicants applied for amnesty for external violations, despite the large numbers of violations reported as a result of their activities in neighbouring countries.⁴

11. Two of these applications were from white conscripts. Medic and conscript Sean Mark Callaghan applied for and was refused amnesty for acts of omission regarding his role while attached to a Koevoet unit during 1983, and conscript Kevin Hall was granted amnesty for his role in killings committed as part of a unit on patrol during the mid-1970s.⁵