Human Rights Violation Hearings — Durban — 1996-05-09

WITNESS:   Mr Dlamini, may I please intervene on a matter of clarification and correction, please, through the Chairperson.  There was a document that I had submitted, which was circulated to everybody.  After discussions this morning with the president of the organization that I belong to - that's the National Association of Democratic Lawyers - there were certain minor changes that were made to the document.  I have prepared the corrected document and I have handed as many copies as I could make in the short time that I had, to members, I hope, of the Commission.  Some may be amongst

MR DLAMINI: /other members

MR DLAMINI: 14B/3 other members not directly seated in front.  I would like to appeal, through the Chairperson, to everybody to please take the corrected version, in that the original version in one or two words here and there might have come across a bit harshly and I've tried to moderate it a little bit.  Thank you.

MR DLAMINI: Mr Chairman, can I confirm that we have received an amended copy.  Unfortunately the copies were not enough for every member of the Commission, but we will make sure that everybody gets an amended copy for own records.

CHAIRPERSON: Unless they get too upset.  They don't look too awful.  You will get your copies subsequently.

MR DLAMINI: Especially the two gentlemen next to you, Mr Chairman.  Mr Govender, thank you very much.  We went through the statement that you presented earlier on and we have taken note of your request that we should ignore that one and stick to the amended copy, and I just want to thank you, although the Chairperson will do that afterwards, and the effort that you took to put together the scenario, which situates the human rights violations that we have heard for the past three days, and I think that would be useful.  Can I ask you to perhaps, rather than reading the statement, which is well-prepared and documented, but to just pull out the scenes from your statement and talk to the statement and also include your expectations from the Commission as a result of your presentation.  Thank you.

WITNESS:   Thank you very much, Mr Dlamini.  Mr Chairperson, I think we've heard and we will continue to hear so many serious violations and humiliations that people have suffered and their testimony has already spoken loudly and will continue to do so, but  /I think

MR DLAMINI: 14B/6 I think what has disturbed me over the past few weeks is that our country may be a little unaware that, in my opinion I think that the perpetrators who have been named or even identified broadly have come across as mainly the foot soldiers, in my opinion, who have carried out orders of their superiors and masters and there are many others that have been unnamed and I would like to say that the whole purpose of this document is to try to contextualise, to place in a broader perspective the activities and the operations of those people who have committed these horrific crimes against the people of this country, and one needs to, in my view, question whether these people who were behind these soldiers and operatives, whether they should escape scrutiny and whether they should go unchallenged and unquestioned and whether, in the final analysis, they should examine their consciences and, if necessary, be called upon or even asked themselves to come forward and maybe absolve themselves or attempt to at least clear their consciences before this Commission, in whatever form it may take.  And I want to say that I am aware that many of us have debated in many legal forums and elsewhere the options of Nuremburg and these things had to be dispelled - these ideas had to be dispelled, in view of the transformation that took place in this country, and the whole concept of truth and reconciliation had come across in our organization as well - that's the National Association of Democratic Lawyers.  We were amongst the first, trying to work through the process of encouraging a reconciliation process, in view of the turn that our history had to take, in order to facilitate our democratic transformation.  Now, in the South African

MR DLAMINI: /context,

MR DLAMINI: 14B/8 context, I would submit that the so-called security forces were very broadly based and they were located within the whole machinery of the State under the command, ultimately, in the broader sense of the Broederbond and I say that this was the brains trust - or the brains trust belonging to this particular shadowy group who chose political leaders and determined in many ways the events that happened in this country, and I say that the Broederbond designed and controlled the Government policy and directed the strategies and tactics to maintain these policies.  They exerted such a control that it was almost all-embracing, in that all aspects of our lives were touched or in some way controlled by them, in that they influenced aspects of politics, religion, education, information, media, law, sport, culture, economics, health, housing and everything.  But for the purpose of this document, I want to focus on the role of the legal and judicial processes and how they would have exerted some of that control in some way.  At the highest level of the Judiciary and the legal system were a relatively select group of judges, who were responsible for most of the judicial executions or murders of political activists, freedom fighters or terrorists, as they were called by the agents of apartheid and the ignorant.  This same group of judges dealt with most of the political trials that led to the conviction and incarceration of many political activists.  In many of these cases these judges allowed evidence that was extracted under conditions of extreme torture and routine torture to facilitate a conviction for the apartheid state.  Their trust and support and loyalty for their cruelly-efficient security police in rounding up  /the so-called

MR DLAMINI: 14B/11 the so-called terrorists was displayed when they refused to accept the evidence of victims of torture.  These judges condoned the barbaric practices of the security police and they gave the savagery of the infamous section 6 of the Terrorism Act and the following section 29 of the Internal Security Act their blessing and the veneer of legitimacy.  Now, whether the evidence was concocted, false or tailored to secure a conviction didn't matter much, but these judges - specific judges - played a very powerful role in legitimising an illegitimate and evil system of government.  One may ask, "What were their motives?"   I am sure I have many answers, but I would hope that they would or some of them would probably come to this Commission and say what their motives were themselves.  I want to highlight one case which I think we have heard about already, and that's of Andrew Zondo - a very young person, who was found guilty of the bomb blast at Amanzimtoti and was sentenced to death.  There were extenuating circumstances in his case and in many other cases, but the one extenuating circumstance that stands out was the factor of his youth.  He was a very young man, and I think evidence has already been led before the Commission about his background.  This factor of his youth alone would have spared him his life in any other civilised court of the world, but this did not happen.  His particular case and the manner in which it was conducted was very distinct from - in the way it was, as I would put it - steamrolled.  It went very fast from the time of his arrest, to trial, to conviction, to appeal, petition, and his very swift execution.  Before even the normal progressive groupings in the country could gather

MR DLAMINI: /themselves