Human Rights Violation Hearings — Bisho — 1996-09-10

MICKEY WEBB: Okay, thank you for that clarification.  In that case, Your Grace, Honourable Chairperson, members of the Commission, I was invited to testify by the Right Reverend Bongani Finca before your Commission as to the role played by the then government of Ciskei at the time of the march to Bisho.
 I have explained to the Honourable Commissioner that I was retained by the government of Ciskei at the time in my capacity as an attorney.  As such, I was concerned about professional privilege that exists between attorney and client.  In addition, I further explained that on the fateful day of the tragedy I was attending a meeting in Pretoria and that any knowledge which I might have had about the march would have been hearsay and would lack the credibility of a witness present on the scene.
 The Honourable Commissioner Finca telephoned me in response to my letter and advised that I should nevertheless testify as the Commission sought to understand the perspective of the Ciskei authorities and how the authorities saw the African National Congress at the time.  I accordingly expressed what I understand the Ciskei government's position to have been and I respectfully ask the Commission to note that this was a position at a specific time in history, it was not necessarily my own position, and indeed my advice was not always followed.
 Nevertheless subsequent events such as participation in the multiparty negotiating process, a member of the ten-man planning secretariat, the Transitional Executive Council will have identified some of my personal positions which I do not however, believe to be at issue at this Commission but which I am happy to record, found the support in some ways at the Constitutional Court last week.  The relationship between the African National Congress and the government of Ciskei had appeared to me to be cordial in those months shortly after the expulsion of Mr Lenox Sebe in 1990.
 Regrettably this relationship soured through differences of opinion and management styles and frequent outbursts of a mutually critical nature became the order of the day.  The Ciskei government which I sincerely believed wanted to be a benevolent government, was literally caught on the one hand between the Nationalist Party government  [i.e. the Pretoria regime]  which communicated manipulatively through Foreign Affairs Minister, Pik Botha and who held the purse strings, and on the other hand between the liberation movements determined to destabilise until democracy was achieved.
 Chairperson, Honourable Commissioners, at that time there was so much misinformation being disseminated, what with the National Intelligence from South Africa, South African Military Intelligence, Ciskei Intelligence Services and a plethora of confidential aides employed to sell false information and mislead.  Indeed in retrospect sir, the cross-fertilisation of mystery and intrigue would have done justice to a best selling suspense novel.  At the time however, it was serious business, conveyed with urgency and clandestine calls and covert messages.
 Agents of the various intelligence services, each with a different mission in the total political activity, proliferated Ciskei government with information which could only have ended up in confrontation between the authorities and the African National Congress.  These influences through the wholesale dissemination of misinformation, exacerbated the tension between all the groups.  With the extremely manipulative South African government which became less and less supportive with its devious methods to mischievously undermine the Ciskei government.
 Simultaneously Sir, the liberation movement strategically would keep government busy with demands, strikes, threats, boycotts, stay-aways and the like.  All the while it is my belief that my client sought to achieve the best possible solution for the people.  It made decisions, it provided concessions, it assisted with taxes, it had numerous development programmes, it abolished the death penalty, it produced and passed the first real Bill of Rights in Southern Africa.  It past through consultation and a creative and innovative Labour Relations Dispensation, and generally speaking was focused in trying to create work opportunities for the local people.
 Importantly Commissioners, it participated in every initiative in a lawful and responsible manner to bring about peaceful change.  Chairperson, I trust that I have set the scene.  Undermining, manipulation, misinformation from the Pretoria Regime which was in financial control, and strategic confrontation from the liberation movements desperate for democracy.  
 The march was planned and advertised.  From the Victoria grounds, King Williams Town to Bisho.  The purpose was declared by the marchers and leaders of the march.  As far as I know not legitimate request was sought to obtain from the Ciskei authorities for permission for the march to go ahead on Ciskei soil.  These requirements were consistent with those requirements throughout the greater South Africa and we are not just a Ciskei aberration.  Legal advisors were called in to ascertain the proper legal processes to be followed.
 For the safety of the people, it was considered critical that there be no unauthorised demonstration.  It was not so long ago that the demise of the Sebe error had brought with it a euphoria which manifested itself in wholesale destruction and vandalism.  The Ciskei government was determined to prevent and avoid any hysteria which would overflow into violence and anarchy.  The posters and promises in speeches identified the goal as the removal of the Ciskei government and the destruction of Bisho.  The legal advisors, Chairperson, in order to be proactive, addressed the ANC executive and advised the African National Congress that if it marched into Ciskei without the requisite authority, such march would be illegal and the ANC would then be accountable for the due process of law enforcement.
 Application was made and ultimately the ANC approached the Supreme Court to request the magistrate to rule on the matter.  The irony is that when the magistrate did make his ruling at the behest of the Supreme Court, the very organisation which had obtained the order, failed to observe it.  It is common cause that the march was to be limited to the stadium.  It is my view that the magistrate, under immense pressure and faced with protracted acrimonious debate, made a brave ruling.  The Ciskei government had been made aware publicly and through its sources that the invasion of Bisho, the removal of the Ciskei government and the assumption of power were but three objectives of the march.
 Newspaper reports told of plans to replace government.  Information sources listed the names of the new Head of State and responsible ministers.  Rumour had it that most of the buildings here were to be set alight so that Bisho would be raised to the ground.  Frightening stories were prevalent and the mood of the Ciskei government, which included three high profile seconded ministers, absent here today, was to prevent an invasion, destruction, and insurrection.
 On the morning of the march when I left to go to Pretoria, I felt that we had done everything possible from a legal point of view, to prevent a tragedy.  Indeed it appeared that the magistrate had shown excellent wisdom to direct the marchers to the stadium and back.  In order that the demonstration could proceed but would be contained and peaceful.  The events later that day showed a disregard for the rule of law with tragic consequences.
 In conclusion, Chairperson, Honourable Commissioners, I need to record in trying to sketch a perspective, that in the last few days prior to the march, there were numerous representations made to change the attitude of the Ciskei authorities.  Clergy of national profile, Ministers from the Republic of South Africa, friends, politicians and councillors tried to persuade the authorities.  ... end of Tape 3, side A ... 
 However no one would guarantee that the information about violence and insurrection, that the threats of destruction, that the promise to take control of government would not materialise and that the march would in fact remain peaceful.
 Tragically, history has proved that the Ciskei authority's understanding of the purpose of the march was indeed correct and that the promise of a peaceful, controlled march could not be sustained.  Your Grace, Commissioners, it was on Sunday night during my quiet time that I became aware of the awesome task which you have in the reconciliation process.  This community, and I include myself as one of them, have agonised at the dreadful results of that march.  I pray that what I have said will shed just a little light on the conflicting conditions which prevailed at that time.  
 I ask not for justification but that when you consider your deliberations at the end of this session, you consider the legal implications which prevailed.  There is also my sincere hope that the testimony which I offer today may assist this Commission in its arduous task of establishing the truth and bringing reconciliation to our people.  I thank you.