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

CHAIRPERSON: Yes I think this is a good time to break for tea.  I would suggest that we try to get back here as soon after 11 as possible, and could I say to the delegation before us that if you wouldn't mind using that door and go down to the 7th Floor tea will be provided for you there.  We will adjourn until 11H05.
HEARING ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Right, the session is resumed. Mr Goosen.

MR GOOSEN: Thank you very much Mr Chairperson.  I want to pick up on the point that we had ended off on just before the tea break and focus specifically on KwaZulu Natal.
 In the second submission in response to questioning it was raised at that point, the point was made that at no stage did the leadership of the ANC take a decision or give instructions to conduct an armed struggle against the IFP.  It was also stated that you did not regard the IFP, its members as legitimate military targets and at no stage were any decisions taken to attack the IFP as IFP.
 Then went on to say in response to the questions at that point, that in the period after 1990 when the Defence Units, the SDU's were established, some of those SDU's did indeed act, they did indeed act in the context of on-going conflict then in KwaZulu Natal and Gauteng Province in defence of the people, not against the IFP but against people who were seen as warlords and people who belonged to military groups or groups that were engaged in violence on behalf of the IFP.  
 Now those two statements appear to be contradictory in the sense that no decision to conduct military actions against the IFP, as IFP, but actions against people who were seen as warlords or belonged to military groups, or groups that were engaged in violence on behalf of the IFP, how do those two statements reconcile?

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: Chairperson could Mr Goosen just help me with the page reference number to that one.

MR GOOSEN: I apologise Mr Maharaj, it's on page 7 of the transcript of the proceedings. I think that was made available to you.

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: Just give me a moment please Mr Chairperson I just want to locate that clearly.

CHAIRPERSON: Take your time please.

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: Thank you very much.  Ja.  Chairperson Deputy President Mbeki at the last meeting went into the background of the post-'90 formation of the SDU's, and the SPU's arising from the DF Malan Accord.  Conceptually the idea of those units was that they would be community based, non-partisan from the political side, and that they would be armed with licensed weapons and that they would be guided by the community leadership to defend the communities.  There was a debate about the word 'protection' versus 'defence'. That was the concept.
 In reality things moved somewhat differently.  In reality the violence against the African people continued to escalate.  The need therefore to help defend them became more and more urgent.
 Secondly, the opportunities to provide them with licensed weapons did not materialise.
 Thirdly, they became, in fact, partisan, because the idea of a non-partisan formation did not materialise.
 So on one side we persisted with our objective of ensuring that the SDU's were under the community leadership, not under ANC leadership and MK leadership.   The next thing that arose was the Polla Park case study that we put up to show how, from the regime's side, it was acting different to what was conceptually agreed.  It was in fact infiltrating the SDU's to turn them against the defence of the people but for the destruction of the people's democratic organisation.
 At the same time there is no evidence that I am aware of where the IFP campaigned and assisted in organising them in a non-partisan way.  
 So insofar as the formations that became to be associated with areas where the Mass Democratic Movement was strong we persisted with the path you are for the defence.  
 But on the other side, SPU's in KwaZulu Natal were created and other formations, as it now turns out from more and more evidence, continued to act on the basis that targets were legitimate simply because they were non-IFP.
 So it's in that context that you find that formulation problem.  Our policy position remained and stands firm.  The IFP at no stage was defined as the target, neither the IFP nor simply saying members of the IFP.  In practice the people on the ground in particular areas found that they would be engaged in defending themselves against forces who purported or who were engaged in the name of the IFP.  
 And I advisedly say purported also because I think in the last session Comrade Matthews Phosa gave a resume of all the gangs from the Black Cats to the Asignora(?) in various parts of the country and how they were linked to the regime and recruited in many instances within the prisons.  
 So that's the context in which what looks like an apparent contradiction is explained by the reality that obtained on the ground.  ANC position remains firm, at not stage did we even encourage the idea that the IFP, as IFP was a legitimate target to attack.

MR GOOSEN: What leadership if you like, or direction, did the ANC or MK cadres give on the ground in relation to SDU's in that context to ensure that that policy position remained intact?

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: The leadership that we gave is not only repeated
decisions of the Executive and the provincial structures but also in the very concrete initiatives that we made which are publicly known in trying through dialogue and discussion to bring about peace settlements and to get the communities to work together.  Again they are well documented in extent.

MR GOOSEN: We have received again numerous applications for amnesty purporting to be from SDU's members, ANC members in respect of actions directed specifically at IFP members, resulting in deaths of IFP members.  Now I understand the position that you have articulated previously that we must present to you those specific cases and one can look at those, but from a conceptual point of view how does the Truth Commission deal with the reality of large numbers of those applications seemingly indicating a different approach on the ground to that reflected in the policy from the ANC?