TRC Final Report

Volume 6

Section 4

Chapter 1

Subsection 3

CHARACTERISTICS OF DISAPPEARANCES

18. Generally a disappearance is not referred to as such if the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared are known, if a body is found, or if it becomes known that the victim is dead. The Commission has, for the most part, followed this policy in its classification of cases.

19. Generally, two types of disappearances may be distinguished. The first is a ‘temporary disappearance’ – an unacknowledged, long-term incommunicado type of imprisonment. The second type of disappearance – and the one that the Commission dealt with in most instances – is where the disappeared person has been killed or has died in unknown circumstances without being traced.

20. In most disappearance cases, the perpetrators remain unknown. The disappearance is carried out secretly and usually illegally. The perpetrators do all they can to avoid being found out, identified or held responsible. The rationale for their conduct is that, as long as the disappeared or the body is not found, there can be no violation and therefore no perpetrator. This is characteristic of the disappearances carried out by state agents in the South African situation.

21. Another important characteristic of disappearances is that, once a state has chosen to embark on this road to criminality, policy decisions in this respect tend to be taken centrally – although the process of execution is usually decentralised. Disappearances are usually planned by small secret groups within the armed forces, where orders for implementation are delegated through various channels that are often difficult to trace. Depending on the nature of the particular situation, disappearances are usually carried out by military groups, paramilitary groups, the police or death squads operating within either police or military structures. Governments usually permit these groups a great deal of latitude to carry out these deeds, and usually disavow all knowledge of the disappearances.

22. Secrecy is another important facet of disappearances. In the South African situation, a number of units within the police and military became secretly involved in disappearances and killings. These units enjoyed a large degree of autonomy and had access to the funds necessary to take people into custody, make them disappear and kill them. The existence of these units and the secrecy with which they operated made it possible for the former state to deny any involvement in such activities. In addition, once their activities became known, the political authorities of the former state continued to insist that they had no knowledge of the actions o f these structures, and that the latter had been acting without authorisation.

23. However, the high rank of the state personnel involved, their easy access to funds and resources, and evidence emerging from amnesty applications by former security force personnel negate this argument. One cannot but draw the conclusion that the former state was centrally involved, not only in sanctioning this tactic, but also in planning and providing funds and resources.

24. When governments are addressed on this issue – either by the international community or by human rights groups – they often reply that the person has fled the country and gone into exile. In a number of cases in South Africa, the former state sought to blame the liberation movements for a disappearance. When laying complaints or seeking answers from the police, families were frequently advised that the disappeared had probably gone into exile. The state encouraged families to believe this and, in some instances, staged elaborate hoaxes to hide the fact that it was responsible for the disappearance. The cases of Mr Stanza Bopape, Ms Portia Ndwande and Mr Moss Morudu are just a few examples.

25. Where the state did acknowledge the disappearance, it often lied about the circumstances in which it took place, alleging that the disappeared had ‘committed suicide’, had ‘been turned’ and become an ‘informer’ or had been shot while ‘attempting to escape’ the authorities. This became a common response of the former state as it became increasingly more adept and sophisticated at concealing the real facts of a disappearance.

26. A common feature of disappearances in South Africa was for the state to declare its opponents ‘the enemy’, thus ensuring that their disappearance or killing generated little interest. In this respect, the silence of those who were the beneficiaries of the former state must be noted. Had they questioned more , been less acquiescent and less willing to accept the propaganda of the former government, the former state might not have been able to get away with such criminal conduct. Had the judiciary been more vigilant when these matters came before them – more willing to engage with the issues and less willing to believe the versions of the security forces and the police – state forces would have been less likely to resort to such excesses. There is no doubt that, beyond the political figures within government, the judiciary and civil society had a large role to play in allowing disappearances and killings to continue.

WHY DISAPPEARANCES HAPPEN

27. The main raison d’être for disappearances is that states want to get rid of those who trouble them – without having to use the law as an instrument. Disappearances are one of the most effective ways of removing people the state considers a threat. Mr Mathew Goniwe was a case in point. Regarded as an opponent of the state, he was abducted and killed, as were his fellow activists Fort Calata, Sparrow Mkhonto and Sicelo Mhlawuli. Many others endured a similar fate.

28. Disappearances are usually a very effective way of avoiding international opprobrium. There is no doubt that a large number of troubling inquests – such as the inquest into the death of Mr Neil Aggett – led to government setting up new mechanisms to deal with opponents. The policy on disappearances saved the former state the cost and publicity of trials and inquests, and the acknowledgement of both imprisonment and torture. The state was spared from having to account for its actions in any way.

29. Disappearances also have the effect of causing confusion and sowing discord. Governments can claim that those responsible are groups beyond its control or persons wishing to discredit the state.

30. Disappearances can be used to intimidate political opponents. Families are often told that, if they don’t stop asking questions, bothering the authorities or raising a storm in the press, they too will disappear. They are also told that, if they don’t keep quiet, they will endanger the life of a loved one. This was confirmed by the testimony of many of the victims who came to the Commission.

31. Disappearances are also an effective way of avoiding international pressure. Although the international community frequently takes issue with governments about the fate of political prisoners and those who are indefinitely detained and tortured, they very rarely address the issue of the disappeared.