Special Hearings — Armed Forces Hearings — 1997-10-10

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: I think that the reality as against the policy must be assessed by the Commission by the objectives for which you are set up, and this relates then to the amnesty objectives.  It is to try and close a very sordid chapter in our history so that we create the maximum conditions for reconciliation to develop even deeper.  Cadres, individuals, may have acted with the best of intentions.  In particular instances the community organisations which were conceptually to give the political leadership did not give it.
Sometimes the community organisation leadership was destroyed by the regime.  At other times particular units began to operate as if they had the right to take the decisions and the link between political guidance of the community leadership and their own decisions would become weaker and weaker.  
 But the reality against which you have to assess those applications is that there was a massacre going on, and in that massacre the regime certainly played an important role, and that there was a major effort at disinformation from the regime's forces side.  Many operations were portrayed as ANC when they were not.  And in that condition members of the SDU's may have done things where they began to translate that the target became the IFP. 
 Similarly individuals in the IFP may have done so.  Those put in leading positions, whether they were Caprivi trainees etc, if they understood it the way they have been giving evidence before the Commission in certain court cases, that the ANC, the UDF, Cosatu were legitimate targets, then what message would they have been giving to the cadres that they were training and organising under the name of the IFP. 
 So we are asking for that approach to be taken and we will help you to ensure saying was, to arrive at that decision, was this person bona fide acting in that belief.  That is the only approach that I can advocate in the interests of reconciliation and unity.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Mr Maharaj what concerns us, and I am sure concerns you and concerns the whole country, is that the violence continues in KwaZulu Natal with the terrible loss of life.  This Commission has no mandate for contemporary violence, but it certainly does have until 1994, and the perception amongst many people in KwaZulu Natal and outside of KwaZulu Natal is, that there is a major struggle for turf, for political influence going on, and that the major parties in that struggle and in that political fight with the ANC on the one hand and the IFP on the other.  There is no doubt that many people who had IFP membership have been killed.  There is no doubt that many people with ANC allegiance have been killed.
 In order to help us to try and assist even the contemporary situation because we are concerned, as you know, for reconciliation, for unity, for the end of violence and so on, there are being many allegations, and let's put it out on the table, that the TRC is in itself biased and prejudiced because it hasn't taken enough action against allegations that many IFP leaders and members, and I talk leaders now, local leadership not major positions of leadership, have been killed, whereas we have taken action on the other hand.  Our dilemma is that we can only act on people who come to us and give evidence, and cooperate with us.  We can't force people unless it's through subpoena as you well know.  How is it possible that so 
many people died and are dying without some lack of leadership or direct orders in starting, maintaining and fostering, not merely a political struggle but a struggle which is translated into enormous loss of life and damage, only this week, we all know about, and I know that the people killed in this last week have been all ANC people, but that begs the point.  So I think what we would like is some help in trying to understand how it was that the IFP was never a target and yet the IFP claim that many hundreds of people have been killed now if the ANC or their cadres or their units weren't responsible, who is doing the killing and who did the killing?

CHAIRPERSON: Chairperson I think this is a matter that ...(intervention)

MR NTSEBEZA: Can I piggy-back a question on that particular one, perhaps because I think you might assist us.  I think one of, for me in exactly the context that Dr Boraine has raised the question, one of the complicating factors is the fact that before he was unmasked Siphiso Nkabinda was an ANC person, and was characterised, certainly by the media, if by no-one else, as a warlord, an ANC warlord, sometimes associated with the late Harry Gwala.  Now what I think one wants to establish is, what leadership role was Siphiso holding at the time and at the height of these conflicts, certainly within the period falling within our mandate, if he had any leadership role at all?
 And whilst I accept that you know we haven't sent him notice if anything might be said to his prejudice what you are going to say by giving us a reply, I can indicate that there has been a request for us to test the validity of your claims that he was an informer, but then that's beside the point quite apart from the fact that it's not our mandate, but what I am saying is there is also that complicating factor and I don't know if you think that you can in your composite and comprehensive reply also deal with that aspect of things.