Special Report Transcript Episode 22, Section 4, Time 28:39

Is there a problem from the side of perpetrators, former members of the security forces that they want to have a guarantee of amnesty before they come? // Yes. // And can that be resolved? // No it is a problem and many of them have asked that and we’ve had to say to them there can be no guarantee. We have to go according to the Act and certain conditions are laid down. We can’t predetermine that. It’s like court of law, you can’t say we’re going to not find you guilty, or we’re going to find you guilty. We are going to have to weigh up the evidence. And the Amnesty Committee, and I remind you there are three judges on that Amnesty Committee, apart from two lawyers, and they are accustomed to assessing evidence and weighing it up and trying to get the probability of truth and to get corroboration. So we’ve had to say to the generals, we’ve had to say to individuals who have contacted us, there is no guarantee whatsoever. All we can say is that you have a choice, you have a choice to come to the Amnesty Committee with the possibility of amnesty or the courts. Now you make up your mind, what you want to do. // Do you think the Act is flawed, that it should have been more generous? // It’s a very difficult question that. You know, if you are more generous then you’re almost in the area of impunity, you’re almost saying, you can do what you bloody well like and you’re going to get forgiven and you are going to walk free. That’s hardly fair on the victims. There are too many victims in South Africa who are just totally disregarded, whether it would be ordinary crime or whether it’d be politically motivated crimes. I think the Act comes down pretty well. I think the amnesty is generous in anybody’s terms. I think what we might have to weigh up is whether we change the cut-off date or whether to extend the time in which they can apply. That’s something only the Commission can decide by way of recommendation to the politicians. // Former members of the security forces that I have spoken to say, there’s a carrot but they don’t believe the stick. They don’t believe that if they don’t come forward that they will ever be caught. Is that a problem for the Truth Commission; that the investigators are not efficient enough or there are not a sufficient number of them? // I think they are struggling in order to get to the nitty-gritty. And I think it is very understandable when you think that for many, many years the criminal justice hasn’t been able to bring these people to book, they haven’t put them on trial, they haven’t found sufficient evidence; they haven’t found enough people who’ve decided to come clean. So I think it’s almost an impossible task. But I think I would want to warn perpetrators that they are being extremely foolish if they imagine that they are not going to be found out. Already, their own colleagues are beginning to come to us and beginning to tell the truth and they’re naming names. Already De Kock has named so many names and there are others who are beginning to want to do the same. I mean De Kock’s going to come to the Commission. He says he’s going to tell even more at the Commission. I mean, this stuff is now no longer just a little dribble it’s becoming a river. And I would say to perpetrators, take your chance with the Commission now before it’s too late. // Let’s talk about De Kock, I know we can’t talk in detail, but let’s talk in principle. People out there want to know. Would it be possible in principle for De Kock to get amnesty from the Truth Commission? // There are certain acts for which he’s found guilty, namely fraud, gun running, currency problems, all sorts of areas which are quite outside of the Commission’s terms of reference. So, he has already indicated, publicly, that he’s not going to apply for amnesty for everything. But he’s going to bring certain matters. Even there, the Act is quite tough, in a sense of proportionality. And that’s a word that I know a lot of people don’t understand, but it’s very simply that if you make some action which is totally out of proportion with what is required. For example, if you disagree with somebody else’s political views you can debate with that person, you can write him a letter, you can criticize him in the press; you don’t have to kill him. It’s out of proportion. Now if you look at the history, and this is not surmising, I mean this is stuff that’s been found in court and he’s been found guilty of, then it’s going to be very, very tough for any Amnesty Committee to grant amnesty. But having said that, it’s not my job to predetermine what an Amnesty Committee does. The fact that he’s coming to the Amnesty Committee, I think is good and healthy. And if we receive more information it may well mean that the Amnesty Committee is more sympathetic than an ordinary court of law, because by definition they are two very different things.

Notes: Max du Preez; Dr Alex Boraine

References: there are no references for this transcript