Special Hearings — Political Party Hearings — 1996-08-20

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.  We are enormously grateful to all of you for the observations that you have made and the contribution.
 As I have indicated, we will be passing this submission to our Research Department who will scrutinise it very carefully and will then provide us with perhaps a list of questions that will make us look intelligent and we might then recall you for further explanations.
 But I am going to ask my colleagues if they have questions that they want to ask relating to points of clarification.  Dr Boraine?

DR BORAINE: Thank you Chairperson.  May I just add my own thanks for the submission.  I think that the quality of the submission is indicative of the rightness of your decision to come before this Commission, and I personally am very grateful for what you have given to us and the information that is going to assist us as we do our work.
 Just a couple of very small comments that I want to make.  First, because of the time factor, you did not read every part of the submission and I understand it, and I think we appreciate it because the time is limited.  But I think it is a pity in one way that you omitted reading directly from the bottom of pages 11 and 12.
 I am certainly not going to read it now, you know it better than I do but just for the record, you have listed the many very hurtful pieces of legislation and draconian which is a much over-used word, certainly applies there, but you have also gone on to say that it can in no way begin to describe the hurt, the indignity, the humiliation and most importantly the deaths of people who were affected and then you give some examples.
 Why I mention that is this, that what you have presented in large measures today before the Commission, what we haven't got from anyone else incidentally, so far, is a formal list of legislation which disempowered and much worse.
 What we have heard from individuals though, in an informal way, is the effect of that legislation.  And this is a graphic illustration what you have summarised on the bottom of page 11 and 12.  You cannot measure the hurt, the indignity, the waste, the death and the destruction which a lot of these laws have brought about and I am very grateful to you for that.
 The other point I wanted to make equally briefly is the comment that you make on page 15, page 15 and 16 actually, which is the reference to the National Security Management System.  I think here too, this is an extremely useful reference and you actually suggest that the Commission investigates the structure and the actions which flowed from it in some detail.
 For myself, let me say, I think that is exactly what the Commission ought to do.  We have an Investigative arm, we have a Research Department, we have already requested that the minutes of the State Security Council should be made available to the Commission and we have been ensured that this will be done.
 This obviously leads automatically into a very careful consideration of the National Security Management System, so I agree with the conclusions that you have reached here.  
 The other point that you refer to on page 18, is that a number of organisations that were involved with your party in more extra-Parliamentary work, if I could use that term for a moment, like the Human Rights Trust, and so on, what we want to make very clear publicly again today, is that whilst we are hearing evidence from political parties, we have specifically requested that it should not be limited to political parties, but there are a number of organisations that have information which we would like to hear of.  
 Some of the organisations like UMAC, Human Rights Trust, Lawyers for Human Rights, there are so many of them, we believe that it is critical that the Commission hears from civil society, as distinct from Parliamentary parties as well, and we are grateful for the suggestion that you make there.
 Two final points, all of these are very brief, because we would like to digest what you have said, and that is on page 26 I think.  Somebody suggested, in fact it was General Viljoen yesterday, and I just ask in case you want to make a comment about it, that because the democracy is so fragile and because the divisions have gone so deep, that despite the fact that there are many Commissions and many structures being set up, there should be one more.
 And he suggests an ombudsman for reconciliation and that every - here in Parliament this specific question regarding reconciliation, what it means and the distance we still have to go, I think that is what he was implying.  The Chairperson was quite impressed by that and said so publicly.  I think all of us were, but he spoke on behalf of all and you may or may not wish to comment on that today or some other time.
 Finally, as you know I am particularly grateful for the recommendation you have made regarding the future because I think this is exactly one of the responsibilities of the Commission.  Not the Commission alone, we are charged to make these recommendations and we are already working on that, whether it be legislation or new structures or institutions, or whatever, but there is one area that you haven't dealt with and I would be grateful if you would give some through to this as to the possibility of giving us some written word later on, and that is your own view, which some of your members have expressed already in the debate in Parliament when the Act was being looked at, and that is the question of reparation and rehabilitation.
 This is a very, very important part of the Commission's work, but the Commission is fairly limited in what it can do.  What it has to do is to recommend to the President, and the President to Parliament a policy of reparation and rehabilitation.  Now if the hurt which you have described and with which we concur and which we've heard first hand from so many people, is so great, then obviously reparation and rehabilitation must form part of this.
 If in the next month or so you could give some thought to this, we would be very glad and grateful to receive that.  Again, thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: Dumisa Ntsebeza?

ADV NTSEBEZA: Thank you Chairperson.  I just want to clarify my own mind about certain of the speculations that were given by the media before you came here.
 One of the speculations that were made was that you were going to as a party or I think the suggestion was that you were as a party going to tell the TRC what your position was with regards to cross-border raids and I don't know whether on page 8, that is the full treatment of what you would like to give to that particular aspect, if the speculation was correct.  The second paragraph on page 8 and whether you would like to expand on that?

MR LEON: Thank you Mr Chairperson and to Commissioner Ntsebeza.  We have dealt with it there, we expressed regret at the stance which we took in the light of the information which we had at the time, which was proven subsequently to be false.  I don't know if - there were also just to clarify  another point for Mr Eglin, who was in Parliament with Mrs Suzman at the time, he will be able to elaborate on it, the Progressive Federal Party's support for cross-border raids was on a very limited basis.  It was not that the party supported every cross-border incursion, which is how it is being represented in the popular press and particularly in certain political quarters, but yes, there was support on a limited basis, for certain of them.   And the matter that we deal with on page 8, but Mr Eglin might wish to elaborate on that.