David Beresford
One of the former stars of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s investigative team, Piers Pigou, this week delivered a savage critique of the inquiry, charging it with having failed lamentably in its task of uncovering the “truth” about human rights violations during the apartheid era.
Pigou, who will long be remembered for his tough questioning of Winnie Madikizela-Mandela before the commission , told a seminar assessing the effectiveness of the inquiry he felt “deep- seated distress that not nearly enough has been done to uncover the past”. He said the commission had “only begun to scratch the surface of past violations”.
He blamed the ineffectiveness of the inquiry largely on a lack of resources, pointing out, for example, that the investigative unit in Johannesburg has only 12 members to look into human rights violations in four provinces over a 34-year period.
But he also blamed a lack of direction: “Plagued by organisational, managerial and bureaucratic problems, enormous efforts were inevitably wasted in attempts to get the investigative unit to operate as a unit and in a focused manner.”
He complained about the difficulties of getting access to classified documents.
“Controlled access to especially national intelligence and military intelligence by these very bodies is, I believe, unacceptable and has undermined the independence of the commission, especially as neither of these two agencies has been forthcoming about their involvement and responsibility for past abuses.”
He was savage in his criticism of National Party leaders for their lack of co-operation with the commission, accusing them of having “acted in a despicable and cowardly manner, attempting at all costs to distance themselves from their criminal governance”.
Pigou was particularly critical of the amnesty process.
Pointing out that the amnesty committee does not have its own investigative component, he said: “The vast majority of amnesty applications have not been subjected to an investigative process of any sort and most of the decisions, which have been made in chambers by the amnesty committee, have resulted in rejection, on the basis that they did not meet the criteria set out in the Act.
“As far as I am aware, most amnesty applicants were not informed of their right to legal representation and often applicants, who were not equipped to tackle the complex task of applying for amnesty within the context of the amnesty criteria were not in a position to adequately articulate a position which would merit further investigation and attention by the commission.”
He also expressed concern that the commission had done little to uncover miscarriages of justice.
Evidence of torture and perjury by police – as well as testimony from attorneys general about how they were lied to by police investigators – made it probable that there were large numbers of innocent people who had been wrongfully imprisoned.
“The commission has laid an important foundation stone in the process of uncovering the truth,” he said, “but thousands of questions remain unanswered and I would guess thousands of perpetrators remain unchallenged.”
The seminar was organised by the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation.