[ Home ] [ Speeches & statements ]

Following the press statement by Dr. Mangosuthu Buthelezi the TRC appreciates the opportunity to put the real purpose of the meeting on 7 March 2001 in perspective and would like to state as follows:

Prior to the release of its Report in October 1998, the IFP and Dr. Buthelezi were given notice in terms of Section 30(2) of Act 34 of 1995 of the contemplated findings of the Commission which it intended making and publishing in the TRC Report.

The IFP objected to the process on the basis that it required all the documentation relied upon by the Commission to arrive at its findings.

This was during the latter part of 1998. The Commission refused to comply maintaining on counsel's opinion that it was not required to do so.

The legal representatives of the IFP suggested that they could peruse the documentation at the TRC in Cape Town. This was also turned down.

The IFP lodged a complaint to the office of the Public Protector. After receiving the TRC's submissions the Public Protector closed the file during the early part of 2000, due to lack of further interest of the IFP.

However, during December 1998, the IFP brought an application based on the provisions of Section 32(1)(a) of the Constitution to compel the TRC to provide access to all the documentary material it had acquired and used in support of its findings against it.

The Commission defended this matter and was successful when on December 1999, Davis J. in the Cape Town High Court, dismissed the application with costs. The IFP had failed to prove that the information was required for the protection of any of their rights.

The IFP however succeeded in bringing an application for leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court, which was finally set down for hearing on 9 November 2000.

During this time, the Commission took notice of the proposed Promotion of Access to Information Act No. 2 of 2000, which was to be promulgated on 15 September 2000.

After perusing this legislation and having had discussions with the National Archive, the State Attorney and counsel, it appeared that the IFP would be entitled to the information, save for the information relating to HRV victims and Section 29 proceedings which would remain confidential.

On advice from counsel, without abandoning the judgement of Davis J. or disagreeing, it was finally resolved by the TRC that the matter should be settled on the basis set out below.

The logical basis of the settlement was to tender access to the documentation relied upon by the Commission, subject to the confidentiality of certain classes of information already mentioned.

Shortly thereafter, on 20 October 2000, the IFP instituted review proceedings in terms of Rule 53(1) of the Rules of the Court, which sought to review and set aside the TRC's findings as set out in the TRC Report.

In terms of this rule, the TRC as Respondent is obliged to provide a record for the review proceedings, which comprises of all the information that was relied upon by the TRC to come to the findings it did against the IFP and Dr. MG Buthelezi.

The Legal Department has since November 2000 been involved in preparing the "Review Record" which is a vast amount of documentation which is estimated at 300 000 pages of documentation excluding CD-ROM, audio visual and video material. The HRV files total some 5 078. The amnesty applications number approximately 373.

In light of the above, it was suggested to the legal representatives of the applicant that the applicant and his legal representative inspect the documentation. As a result of this proposal this meeting was arranged to allow the applicant to get an idea of what documentation the TRC has at its disposal and what documentation they may need for the purposes of proceeding with the review procedure.

In conclusion, it should be emphasised that the purpose, as far as the TRC is concerned, this visit is to find ways to facilitate and expedite the completion of the review proceedings.

Whilst the remarks pertaining to criticism of the TRC are regretted and deemed as unfortunate, the TRC on its part shall refrain from responding thereto, as the TRC is fully committed to the process of the pending review proceedings before the High Court.

Contact: Adv. Martin Coetzee on 021 424 5161

Issued by: Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), 7 March 2001