Human Rights Violation Hearings — Moutse — 1996-12-02

ROELF MEYER: Yes, that remains a very difficult question, Chairperson.  Maybe one should go back and think more about it and come back to the Commission with a proper answer.  Let me immediately say I welcome this interaction because I think the Commission is correct in asking these questions and maybe it is good for us who, at least, have voted for these policies in the past to try and come to terms with ourselves in terms of how now, with hindsight, one looks at it.  So, I think it is very appropriate that we deal with these kinds of questions and even if we cannot find the answers this afternoon, then there might be good reason to go further with it.
 Let me reflect a little bit as it would come up in my mind now, as we sit here, this pertinent question that was put by the Commissioner.  I think part of the problem that started to emerge, especially after 1976, and 1976 seems to me to have been a very important watershed, almost, in the way in which the whole approach was dealt with.  Maybe there were other critical dates as well, but in my mind it seems to me that 1976 was the start, actually, of much of the change, no not the change, much of the emphasis that was put on this issue later on.  Now the kind of emphasis that I think was given to the matter was, on the one side, the
MOUTSE HEARING TRC/MPUMALANGA
17 R MEYER
dream and, on the other side, the idea that there must be law and order, so to speak.  In other words to deal with uprising against the implementation of the dream in a manner that would ensure order come what may and that that was a dominant factor in the whole approach.  
 I am trying to find out, we had recent newspaper reports about certain Cabinet minutes of 1976.  When I read those newspaper reports and had to respond to them I asked myself, but what was at the back of the mind of those that took those decisions and of the person that made that recommendation to Cabinet.  It seems to me part of the thinking was, at least, with hindsight again, wrong, but at least part of the thinking was that we must establish law and order.  We must put this reactionary or the revolts into place and we have to do it, if necessary, through security measures of an extraordinary nature.  I think that was the kind of thinking that existed behind this and that, probably, explains some of it that you are referring to.

RUSSELL ALLY: Thank you.  Just a final comment, because that question was actually asked against a background of having spoken to some of the police people and security people who were involved in Moutse, KwaNdebele at the time.  You may recall the Brigadier Hertzog Lerm who was Commissioner of Police here after August 1986, a Captain, now Superintendent de Jager who was a Commander of a police station and then was in the office of the Commissioner of Police.  They are implicated by many witnesses, many possible victims in gross human rights violations and when we put some questions to them their response was do not blame us, the politicians gave us a job to do.  They said this is the policy and you make sure that this is implemented come what may and,
MOUTSE HEARING TRC/MPUMALANGA
18 R MEYER
therefore, if we did take extraordinary measures, that is not our responsibility.  That rests directly with the politicians because that was the policy which they had decided upon.  So that was the context in which I was asking you these questions, but thanks for your response.

ROELF MEYER: It seems to me my answer then fits into the further reference that the honourable Commissioner made, Chairperson, I guess to respond to those remarks.  I guess, at least, Lerm would have understood his position to be responsible to take or to keep law and order and to ensure that, by all means, it prevails in the area.

CHAIRPERSON: Tom, I think we have to, I mean, it is nearly six o' clock and the people, everybody has been.  Just one tiny point I wanted to ask and, I mean, it is not, I mean, you would not be the one who thought of the policy or its implementation, but it seems very odd when you were saying as the, even the moral basis for what you were doing, was to give people the right in their own areas a control over their affairs, but it did not seem to occur to anyone that you wanted to consult the people for whom you were thinking, I mean, that this particular policy would be of benefit to.  It seems a very critical contradiction why if you thought this thing was good, you did not believe that its persuasive powers were so strong that if you brought it to the people they were going to accept.  I mean did you know what their mindset was that did not seem to see this fundamental contradiction?

ROELF MEYER: I am afraid to say, Chairperson, I think that was part of the mistake of the past.  That, unfortunately, people were not consulted on their views and it was the kind of authoritarian style of the past which, unfortunately, led
MOUTSE HEARING TRC/MPUMALANGA
19 R MEYER
to many mistakes, I guess.  Although the intentions, and that is why I quoted Verwoerd on this.  The intentions in his own mind might have been very good.  I guess he was even seen as a liberal at the time because he argued very strongly that he wanted to get away from the concept of "baasskap" by allowing people to govern themselves and that the white person, the white man should not govern over others, but in the process that concept was, apparently, not further consulted through.
 Can I say, in a lighter vane, Chairperson, that the whole idea, the notion of consultation is something that, fortunately, we also learnt through the process of negotiations over the last number of years.  Now people are saying, well, in the old South Africa there was no consultation, only decisions.  Now it is only consultation and no decisions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Roelf Meyer, thank you very much.  We will take you up on your offer of expanding on some of the points that have been raised, but we are grateful that you should have taken the trouble and to do it in a pleasant manner.  I mean we are talking about things that are very painful, but in the new country that you and others have helped to be negotiated into, we hope that a healing is going to happen, that we will see this truth, we will see the ghastly mistakes that were made to come to accept that it was not just even mistakes, I mean, that policies were wrong, were evil even and that having acknowledged that we should be able by our, also, saying we are sorry for what has happened for the pain that was caused.  That we can, together, move into this new South Africa with the determination that things of this kind, we will not allow to happen again.
MOUTSE HEARING TRC/MPUMALANGA
20 R MEYER
Yes.  Wynand.

MR MALAN: I will not put a question.  I did warn that I had a question, but if I could just put a request, then, to the Minister or to the ex-Minister.  In some of the investigations we did, Section 29 hearings and so on, we had quite a lot of feed about the Joint Management Centres and you were, at a stage, responsible for that and I think Leon Wessels as your successor.  We were given or what we are finding is that the police did not operate as the police.  It operated as sort of the uniform branch and the security police and that was also reflected in the JMCs.  Not to pursue this at the level of questions, would you not do something to give us a memo on that as well and especially in the time that you were responsible.

CHAIRPERSON: I am sorry.  Well it is just that, I mean, as  you know I am an old man now and there are some things that I forget.  Sometimes conveniently, sometimes not so conveniently, but let us just say thank you very, very much for a very useful contribution and I want to thank all of those who participated because the level of contributions has been very high.  We also thank Alban.  Just when I am getting, I mean, I really am sort of getting into my stride.