[ Home ] [ Speeches & statements ]

Although the TRC technically speaking will only finally dissolve at the end of March 2002, today sees the administrative closure of the Commission after being in existence for 6 years and 16 days. The TRC will continue to exist only for purposes of finalising the last two volumes of its report for hand over to the President. The Commission will no longer perform any other functions and responsibilities in terms of its founding Act.

Without pre-empting either any statements that the Commission may want to make upon its dissolution or the report to the President, it is deemed expedient to reflect on the operational activities of the Commission over the last few years as experienced by the Chief Executive Officer.

In terms of the amendment of section 43 of the Act, the activities of the Commission were suspended on 28 October 1998. Notwithstanding this suspension the Committee on Amnesty had to continue with its functions in terms of the Act until a date determined by the President by proclamation. In addition the Committee on Amnesty had to perform the duties and functions of the Committee on Human Rights Violations as well as the Committee on Reparation and Rehabilitation in respect of responses to matters not finalised before 31 July 1998 by the said Committees, excluding, enquiries and hearings, and matters emanating from the amnesty process.

Simply looking at the amendment in question might have left one with the impression that the task ahead should have been a simple one and not as involved as the tasks of the Commission before it went into suspension. In reality the contrary is true, as a matter of fact the opinion is held that the 39 months after the suspension of the Commission were as challenging and in certain instances were even more difficult and strenuous than the 32 months prior to the suspension. Not only was the Amnesty Committee, who in practice became the Commission, faced with drastic cuts as far as finances and human resources were concerned and continuous pressure to finalise the outstanding work in the shortest period of time possible, but it was also expected to deliver a product that could serve as a solution to national problems, especially with regard to the victims of gross human rights violations. Statistics should show that more correspondence, telephonic enquiries and personal interviews with or in connection with victims have been attended to during the period after 1998 than before that time. At times one had the impression that the Commission and its staff were the only available and willing entity for victims to communicate with.

MANAGING THE COMMISSION

Managing an unconventional institution borne out of controversy and some political compromise, tasked to find a common ground upon which to promote national unity and reconciliation in South Africa, was never going to be easy. Doing it together with dedicated Commissioners and Committee members and a corps of loyal managers and employees whose commitment and dedication were exceptional, certainly made it a lot more bearable.

Managing the Commission during this period, apart from day-to-day management responsibilities, included-

* Having to deal with continuous public scrutiny and, at times, unreasonable and unsubstantiated criticism. As an institution of national and international significance, the Commission had to sustain constant, and sometimes unrealistic, public pressure to deliver quality outputs within the shortest period of time. To sustain its impact the Commission, during its entire existence, had to be transparent and accountable to the public.

* Striving towards addressing the needs of those persons who had a constitutional right to be acknowledged for the pain and suffering they had to endure as a result of the apartheid-era, and the desire of those persons who sought to receive amnesty for committing human rights violations.

* Striving towards establishing and maintaining bi-lateral co-operation between the Commission and various government departments.

* Constantly assessing and analysing the Commission's objectives and to approach and solve managerial challenges from an integral standpoint. It was essential to confront and address problems at the same time, as the process was being studied or implemented.

* Continuously evaluating the various processes of the Commission, attending to factors delaying these processes and developing, implementing and maintaining mechanisms aimed at expediting the finalisation of these processes.

* Motivating staff who for a period of almost six years, on a daily basis, had to deal with the atrocities of the past and who dedicated all their time and energy in giving effect to the objectives and provisions of the Act, and who had no prospect of any incentive scheme, bonus, gratuity or future employment opportunities following the termination of their contracts.

* Providing a proverbial shoulder to cry on and serving as a punching bag for those deprived and frustrated victims of gross human rights violations, because of the non-existence of a final and clear policy on the issue of reparation and rehabilitation.

* Seeking a compromise between expectations and reality.

* Striving towards delivering a product, which the nation can be proud of, in the shortest period of time possible and operating within severe budgetary constraints.

* Sharing joy and sharing sorrow.

* Being proud and being humbled at the same time that one has had the honour and privilege to serve our country and to contribute towards understanding our past history and in making contemporary history.

CHALLENGES TO THE COMMISSION

During the existence of the Commission it was faced with numerous challenges, some substantial and others temporary. The opinion is held that the mere establishment and the existence of the Commission was the biggest challenge. Some of these challenges will be briefly discussed. The purpose is not to analyse the Commission, which certainly will be done by, amongst others, researchers, academics and historians, but to reflect on some of those factors that made it difficult for the Commission to do its work.

PERCEPTIONS ABOUT THE COMMISSION

Although the Commission was established as a result of negotiations between the major political role players and derived its existence and functions from an Act of a democratically elected Parliament, criticism was aimed at the Commission for giving effect to the above. It is a fact that some individuals perceived the Commission as only another instrument of an ANC led government, a witch hunt, perpetrator friendly, insensitive towards the plight of victims, biased towards the former regime and security forces and others perceived it as "simply a waste of taxpayers' money". Notwithstanding these incongruent negative perceptions, which, in most instances, were without any substance and unfortunately motivated by ignorance, the Commission stuck to its mandate and its commitment to give effect to the letter of the Act and the needs of the majority of our nation.

Everything about the concept of granting amnesty was controversial even before the TRC Act was promulgated or the Amnesty Committee established. Giving the Amnesty Committee the power to grant amnesty meant that a visible body was established who could now be blamed for setting perpetrators free. Throughout its entire existence the Commission and its entire staff had to cope and deal with this negative sentiment. The work of the Amnesty Committee also seemed to contradict that of the other committees of the Commission. The Human Rights Violations Committee devoted its time and energy to acknowledging the painful experiences of victims of gross violations of human rights and to identify those that had perpetrated these gross human rights violations, the Amnesty Committee, on the other hand, set many of these perpetrators of gross human rights violations free from prosecution and from prison on the basis that they have acted with a political objective and gave a full disclosure. The Amnesty Committee in giving effect to the provisions of the Act had the powers of implementation, whilst the Reparation and Rehabilitation Committee could only make recommendations. Some perpetrators were granted immediate freedom. Victims were, however, required to wait until Parliament had accepted or rejected the recommendations of the Commission.

The Commission was constantly accused of being perpetrator friendly and that it was insensitive towards the plight of victims. Looking at the whole process after it was completed it is evident that, on the physical side especially, more was done for victims than for perpetrators. Hundreds of thousands of rands and hours were spent on locating victims and transporting them to the hearings and providing them with food and accommodation. Spending hours, sometimes on foot in rural areas, trying to locate victims or hiring bulldozers to enable victims in flood stricken areas to attend amnesty hearings can certainly not be regarded as an insensitive attitude. The opinion is held that a calculation of the total amount spent on victims during the amnesty process will be substantially more than that spent on applicants.

On more than one occasion the Amnesty Committee was the subject of severe criticism by individuals and the media, strangely enough, not for not doing its work properly, but because it had applied the provisions of the Act and granted certain individuals amnesty. The Committee was also accused of being biased, sometimes in favour of the perpetrators, sometimes in favour of the victims, other times in favour of the liberation movements and then at times in favour of the former security forces. On the contrary the Amnesty Committee tried its utmost to be as objective as humanly possible. Listening to evidence of horrendous acts of gross violations of human rights and to evidence of immense human suffering and inhumane treatment over a period of more than five years certainly did not make it easy. Notwithstanding all this, the Amnesty Committee was always aware of the fact that it had to apply the provisions of the Act and had a role to play in unearthing the truth and endeavoured to do exactly that. The Amnesty Committee was also very aware of the plight of victims and everything possible was done to ease their suffering and to give them the recognition that they deserved.

The Reparation and Rehabilitation Committee as mentioned before was not an implementing body, its task was only to identify those victims who were eligible for reparation and/or rehabilitation and to make recommendations in this regard. This it did. However, this Committee was perceived as being responsible not only for identifying those interventions that were needed for reparation and rehabilitation, but also to implement those interventions. Notwithstanding this, the Committee and its staff never shirked their moral responsibility of always listening to victims and trying their utmost to assist them in the absence of the acknowledgement and implementation of the recommendations made by the Commission in October 1998.

In many instances it was clear that complete ignorance gave rise to these negative perceptions. In the majority of cases where criticism was levelled at the Commission and its Committees, it was not based on proven facts, but on subjective opinions formulated as a result of not being familiar with the objectives or operational activities or requirements of the Commission. Ultimately the finalisation of the work of the Commission was heavily dependent upon the co-operation of not only applicants in any of the processes, but also that of political leaders and parties, government departments and institutions, non-governmental organisations and the public in general.

Contrary to the above it was always wonderful to experience the high regard in which the Commission is held by the international community. Not only did international delegations and visitors who showed a keen interest in and appreciation of the work of the Commission frequently visit the Commission, but also members of the Commission were much sought after to go and address international conferences on the work and experiences of the Commission.

Finally, the joy and satisfaction of eventually locating a victim who, because of the political conflict in KwaZulu-Natal, was living on the streets and the only address he could furnish at the time of completing his form for reparation was that of a shop were he did some casual work, surpassed the effect of any negative perceptions and criticisms!

OPERATIONAL CHALLENGES

These challenges had the most profound impact on the process as far as it related to the urgency imposed on the Commission to finish a huge amount of work within the shortest period of time. The following were some of these challenges-

* Staff. In any institution staff constitute one of the most valuable assets. The Commission was certainly no exception and would, without the commitment and dedication of its entire staff complement, not be in a position to meet its objectives. Unfortunately staffs in general were not always acknowledged for the invaluable role they had played. Commissioners, Committee members and management were the public face of the Commission whilst staffs were maintaining the machine room.

Due to the initial expectancy that the Commission would only have a limited lifespan, all staff was employed on a contractual basis in a temporary capacity. In reality the Commission functioned for almost six years and contracts were on no less than six occasions further extended. In hindsight this proved to be a very unsatisfactory situation. Because of the non-existence of employment security and uncertainty of exactly when the process will end, staffs understandably were constantly on the lookout for permanent employment. Apart from their basic salary no incentive, such as a service bonus, existed. This caused the Commission on a regular basis to lose experienced staff. It became increasingly difficult to fill vacancies, simply because it was difficult to find an experienced and skilled person who would be willing to enter into a contract for a limited period.

Keeping staff motivated also proved to be very challenging. In the end the opinion is held that in the absence of any job security, uncertainty as to when their contracts will be finally terminated, the non-existence of any incentives, the constant criticism against the Commission that eventually filtered through to staff and the fact that, notwithstanding six years of dedicated work, Government was silent on future employment prospects, the only factor that kept staff going was their commitment towards those objectives the Commission sought to achieve.

* Budgetary constraints: Not having had the luxury of any proven precedents and uncertainties as to what all the financial implications of the activities of the Commission would be, made it very difficult at all times to properly budget. For example, in certain instances the public hearing into an amnesty application could last less than a day, in other instances it could take weeks and sometimes months to complete such hearing. Sometimes it would only take a telephone call to reach a victim, at other times it could involve hiring a four-by-four vehicle to reach a victim in the rural areas.

The requirement to do more with less resource at the best of times proved to be very frustrating and even counter productive. The opinion is held that the process could have been finished much earlier if the Commission was put in the position to employ more personnel to attend to the professional and administrative aspects of its functions. It was in a way disappointing acknowledge that whilst the Commission regarded itself as a project of national significance, it was only one amongst many national priorities to be financially resourced.

The Government's unrealistic prescriptions, amongst others, the disapproval of the payment of a severance package to deserving staff, in respect of the conditions of service for the Commission's staff, left management with neither an incentive nor with room to manoeuvre to enable it to bargain with and keep its best performers in line with the required roll out and closing down programs. To these extents, the committed staff's efforts and needs remained grossly incongruent with what the Commission and country could afford and could be construed as the non-acknowledgement of the valuable contribution made by staff to this process.

* Co-operation with the Commission. The Commission was an institution of national significance and from the outset it was clear that its failure or success would to a large extent depend on the co-operation it would receive from those who had an interest in the Commission's functions and those that could facilitate the activities of the Commission. The Commission therefore heavily relied on the assistance and co-operation of, amongst others, governmental departments, political parties, victims, witnesses, legal representatives and non-governmental institutions and organisations.

Generally speaking the Commission did enjoy the co-operation of many of the aforementioned. Unfortunately there were also those instances where some of these deliberately or through the lack of commitment delayed the processes of the Commission. In certain cases it was clear that an uninformed perception about the Commission played a role, in other cases resistance against or non-acceptance of transformation and a new democratic dispensation played a role. In addition to this the objectives of the Commission was not in line with certain party political objectives and co-operation was deliberately withheld. Finally some individuals saw the processes of the Commission as opportunities to further their own careers or to improve their financial capacity. The Commission and its staff consequently had to put in a lot of energy and efforts to overcome these obstacles, not for its own purposes, but for the benefit of victims, amnesty applicants and the Country as a whole.

The above are but some of the challenges the Commission was faced with. Fortunately none of them were insurmountable and the Commission eventually was able to complete its mandate.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

In preparing this statement and reflecting on almost six years of serving this extraordinary Commission, it was ironic that all the negative experiences were completely surpassed and overshadowed by the positive experiences to such an extent that one is left with a feeling of fulfilment, satisfaction and achievement that can only be experienced and shared by those who also had the opportunity to serve in the same way.

It was a humbling experience having had the opportunity to serve and to be led by a truly remarkable Chairperson assisted by a group of Commissioners and Committee Members whose integrity, commitment and dedication is unrivalled.

Tribute is paid to those persons who decided to forsake their constitutional rights for judicial remedies in the interests of finding the truth and to strive towards unity and reconciliation.

Those persons are acknowledged who for reasons of national unity and reconciliation came forward, despite the embarrassment and humiliation, and was sincere in truthfully admitting to horrendous acts of human rights violations.

Finally tribute is paid to all the staff members, interpreters, transcribers, technicians, lawyers and all those who came into touch with the Commission, who, through their commitment and dedication and notwithstanding the huge demands that were made on their personal and family lives, played an integral part in bringing this process to a conclusion and for contributing towards the making of history.

Issued by Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC)

20 December 2001