Questions are being asked about Thabo Mbeki’s deal with the police commissioners over the truth commission, reports Stefaans BrUmmer
Truth commission investigators have been left frustrated by an “intervention” of Deputy President Thabo Mbeki and Safety and Security Minister Sydney Mufamadi which they say gave former police generals a strategic breather before they face tough questioning on apartheid crimes.
The truth commission is also under fire from within its own ranks for having acceded to the political intervention, which some say could create an impression the commission is not as autonomous as it should be.
But Mbeki this week said the initiative had originated with the commission itself, while the generals put the blame on the truth body — saying it had caused the delay as it has not yet responded to a plea for certain assurances before all can be told.
The Mail & Guardian learnt this week that four of apartheid South Africa’s police commissioners have handed a written submission to the truth body. The submission was voluntary, which was one of the terms of a deal in which the body dropped its plans to subpoena them and other senior officers.
But truth commissioner Dumisa Ntsebeza, who heads the commission’s investigative unit, this week slammed the generals’ submission as a “philosophical” treatise which did not live up to the commission’s expectations to be given at least some particulars on specific instances of serious human rights abuse. “I certainly did not get the feeling we got what we wanted,” he said.
The submission is under embargo and the contents are to become public only when the generals appear in person. No date has been set.
The commission’s original plan last month was to subpoena seven senior police officers, including former commissioners Johan Coetzee, Hennie de Witt, Mike Geldenhuys and Johan van der Merwe, to answer questions about apartheid crimes.
Ntsebeza said the strategy had been to hear at least some of the generals’ testimony concurrently with that of former Vlakplaas commander Eugene de Kock, who took the stand in mitigation of his own sentence in the Pretoria Supreme Court this week.
The investigative unit believed the threat of De Kock telling all in court about his former masters would have encouraged them to give detailed and truthful answers to the commission. Had they given less than the full truth — De Kock’s evidence could have given useful tips on that — they might have prejudiced their chances of successful amnesty applications later.
The deal Mbeki helped broker after a request by Mufamadi gave the generals a breather to prepare their submission on their own terms — and pass the crucial time frame of De Kock’s evidence. Said Ntsebeza: “The generals did not want to be put on the spot; they first wanted to hear what De Kock said. Then they could trim their sails to suit the wind.”
Ntsebeza hinted at unhappiness within the commission that political intervention had been allowed. “There is something to be said about the correctness of a criticism that may be levelled at the commission that it may … appear to have been influenced, however well-meaning [the intervention] may have been.
Another commission official said Mbeki’s intervention had been “extraordinary”.
On September 29 Mbeki met the commission’s head, Desmond Tutu, and national director of investigations, Glen Goosen. The view was forwarded that a non- confrontational approach would be more likely to succeed, as the generals’ co-operation was necessary to encourage lower-ranking security force personnel to apply for amnesty.
Two days later generals Van der Merwe, Geldenhuys and Coetzee met Tutu, his deputy Alex Boraine, Ntsebeza and Goosen. At a media conference afterwards, Tutu said it had been agreed the subpoenas would not be issued.
He said the thrust of Mufa-madi and Mbeki’s intervention had been “that these former commissioners and other high-ranking police officers were ready to co-operate with the commission and [they] thought the use of subpoenas would be counter-productive …
“They were saying — and we have agreed — that they would want to voluntarily make an … omnibus submission … Then there would be a supplementary list … in which they would list certain incidents – — they spoke about, at this stage, 50 or so incidents where they would be able to speak in general terms initially.”
Tutu warned that while it would be mostly “generalised”, if there was nothing more specific, “we will obviously not be satisfied”.
Mbeki’s spokesman, Ricky Naidoo, this week said Mbeki’s intervention was only another step in a process initiated by the truth body itself. It had earlier approached the government, through Mufamadi and Defence Minister Joe Modise, to encourage former security force members to appear voluntarily before the commission.
“Consequently, the ministers met [the generals] to put forward the commission’s request. At these meetings they agreed to appear, voluntarily, before the commission. These ministers then requested Mbeki to meet Tutu … It was agreed at the meeting … that the issuing of subpoenas was entirely the prerogative of the commission.”
A top officer close to the former police commissioners this week said it was not true that their approach through Mbeki had been merely in reaction to the subpoenas. There had been a series of meetings long before the subpoenas were mooted, laying the groundwork for the generals to encourage their former subordinates to make their own approaches to the commission.
He said it had been proposed that a broadly philosophical document be submitted by the generals to the commission, contextualising the apart-heid struggle from the old South African Police point of view.
The officer charged the truth body itself was holding up the signal that the generals would give their subordinates to confess, as it had not yet replied to a request that legal obstacles be dealt with first. One concern was that operatives who confessed to involvement in cross-border operations would not be safe from prosecution in their countries.
He said the generals also needed assurances that security force members would not lose their right to state legal representation, should a matter come to trial in ordinary courts, when a confession is made to the commission. At present security force members only qualify for state legal representation when they plead not guilty, which they cannot do if they have already confessed to the truth body.
The officer confirmed the generals had mooted the possibility of helping the commission get closer to the truth in an estimated 50 cases, and was ready to put out a signal to former subordinates to confess. But he said that could only be done once the assurances had been given.
“We want to act as a catalyst, but we have to be convinced first … We don’t have the military authority anymore that we can say [to former subordinates], ‘Left, right, left, right, you go there.'”