Human Rights Violation Hearings — Rustenburg — 1997-05-07

KEVN P DOWLING: Yes.  I think the reality is that in any humane situation we are not going to have clear cut guidelines, clear cut issues, it is going to be muddied.  It is going to be unclear very often.  My approach was, and as I said already, we had people in my own community, ordinary people who supported President Mangope, as he was then called, who supported him and who disagreed with me, for the stance I took.  I found that very painful.  I found it very painful that I was criticised very often for the stand I took, but I had to make a decision in a very difficult human situation, where you had supporters of both sides.  And all I could - and I addressed, for example, our community in Tlhabane, I went there on a Sunday when the Iswoletu homeless people had been harassed and beaten by the police and they have taken refuge in our church and I appealed to the people and I said, what must I do as a church leader of this community when this kind of thing happens?  Must I keep quiet?  Must I say nothing in order to avoid becoming involved, in order to avoid precisely what you are saying?  I said, I have got to, I have to stand with the suffering, I have to stand with the people who are oppressed and suffering from whatever side.  And so, to answer you there, if in the communities where we served, the violation of human rights was of those people who supported Mr Mangope, then I would say that as a church community, we were equally bound to minister to people who suffered as a result of this whole mess that we were in.  And unfortunately it was a mess.  We were equally bound to minister to people as people.  It does not matter what political grouping or philosophy they followed.  That would be the starting point.
 How you do this without creating some of the problems you referred to is the real thing.  When you are in a situation like that, you have just got to try and do your best and be condemned by both sides, if you take a stand.  I tried, as I said, to proceed from how people were wounded, hurt, oppressed, had their rights abused.  If that happened, whoever they might be, as I told Mr Mangope himself, I would support that.  I would stand with those people and hopefully through dialogue, that was what I was saying, if we could only dialogue perhaps we can come to solve these problems.  But in that messy situation where so much violence was happening, if there was no chance for dialogue, I felt I had to stand with the people who were oppressed and that meant that in that context appearing, I think, to take the side of these political groupings and not take the side of Mr Mangope and his cabinet and Bomifra and so forth.  That impression was definitely created and I was criticised for it, but in the context it was the only thing I could do.  I could not keep quiet about the vast majority of human rights abuses which were happening to those who were opposed to Mr Mangope.

DR RANDERA: Bishop, my last question is similar to the one I posed to Solly who talked before you.  You have mentioned a number of names, even today, and also within your statement.
 One, your appeal to those people as we get close to this deadline, accepting that this is not about vengeance or revenge seeking; and two, the advice to the Commission as to what recommendations we would make, where people have not come forward in the future.

KEVN P DOWLING: That is a real hard one, because my instinct is that if we can all come together around the goal of the TRC, which is to bring reconciliation, now that is going to take, that is the work for the long term, I mean the TRC is just beginning this process.  But what concerns me, I think, is that for many of the victims, even though they are appealed to enter into that process of reconciliation, which means in the end being willing to forgive those who oppressed them or killed their family members.  That is extremely hard for people.
 And besides that there is the other issue, that the people who have been damaged as we have heard and as you have heard more than even myself, there is an issue of justice here.  A clear issue of justice here in the sense that people who have committed real criminal acts against them, I sense from the hearts of many of these people, they are crying out not only to enter into a process of reconciliation, but that sometimes people want justice to be done, perhaps often.  And perhaps they are struggling with this.  How can there be justice and reconciliation and forgiveness?  It is something I am struggling with myself.  On the one hand, if people who are responsible for these human rights violations, who have had this ample opportunity to come forward and apply for amnesty and hopefully then we can continue with the process of reconciliation with the people they have harmed, if they do not take up that, that magnanimous offer that has been extended, if they do not take up that, then what are they saying?  I would love to talk to them to ask what is motivating you in saying that you need not apply for amnesty when you did this?  I would love for them to explain to me how they can stand back and pretend that there is not an issue of justice here.  That they have actually terribly harmed people, how can they just stand back and say I am not applying for amnesty, when they are given this opportunity?  And they are known and they've been named and there is evidence and so forth.  
 It is an issue, I and my colleagues in our Justice and Peace Group, are really struggling with, because on the one hand what that means if you just take without going talking to these people and finding out what is in you heart that is saying, motivating you not to apply for amnesty.  If I do not have that chance to try and understand where this person is coming from, then you are just taking bald facts.  This person has not applied for amnesty, should we just allow the processes of law to continue, that if the family wants to bring a case against them, then they should have the right now, because these people having had the chance, did not apply for amnesty.  I could not go to those people who feel so hurt and that this person has not applied for amnesty., I could not go to those people and say you must not bring a case against them.  I would have to talk to them similarly and say where are you coming from, can I understand you.  And if they say, no, it is a matter of justice for us that this person should be prosecuted you know I would have to say that is your choice.  
 But to make a recommendation to you, I do not know if that is giving you basically what I am feeling.  I am feeling basically that if people do not apply for amnesty when they have got such a chance to do so, and if there are hurting, hurting people who feel that they, their cause has not been responded to, well if they want to bring a case in view of what they feel is a call for justice, I feel they should be given that chance.

DR RANDERA: Thank you very much, Bishop.  I, for one, am very glad that your cricket came in so useful on that particular day.

KEVN P DOWLING: Thank you.