The Truth and Reconciliation Commission is, as we have observed before, a curious if admirable beast – a combination of attributes which were on display with particular effect this week.
There is something wonderfully satisfying about the sight of the likes of General Johan Coetzee and Craig Williamson being subjected to aggressive questioning on their nefarious activities. At the same time, it leaves a degree of puzzlement as to why they have subjected themselves to the process.
Coetzee, security branch chief and then national commissioner for much of the 1980s, has “confessed” to the bombing of the African National Congress offices in London, as has Williamson, who is also acknowledging responsibility for the Ruth First and Schoon parcel bomb atrocities (the latter of which claimed the lives of Jeanette Schoon and her baby daughter). All these offences are extra-territorial, committed in countries where the commission’s writ seemingly does not run. That, at any rate, is apparently the belief of the commission itself, which declined to hold hearings into the ANC camps scandal on grounds of lack of jurisdiction.
The enabling legislation does not seem to envisage hearings on events outside South Africa’s borders; the only reference it makes to the issue is in its definition of a gross abuse of human rights which it defines as crimes such as murder, torture, abduction or severe ill-treatment committed “within, or outside the Republic”. (Damage to property is not included in the definition, which also raises the question as to why Coetzee is appearing at a public hearing, but that is an aside.)
The legislation bars the use of evidence brought before the commission in future litigation against applicants for amnesty. In that respect, too, the legislation has no extra-territorial effect, which no doubt explains why the Scotland Yard officer who attending this week’s hearings as an “observer” has been scribbling notes on the proceedings with such avidity. We are left with the conclusion that lawyers for the applicants are trusting that amnesty will protect their clients both against extradition proceedings and the use of less familiar bases for jurisdiction, such as the residence of the perpetrator (as opposed to the locus of the offence). If this is the case, we would hope that their calculation proves to be wrong.
For two and a half years now South Africans have been busily forgiving one another (or not, as the case may be) without much thought for those in other countries who also suffered grievously from apartheid. Our internal authorities – whether the courts or the executive – have no business granting “forgiveness” to those in our midst who committed criminal acts on foreign soil.
On the contrary, we should encourage foreign victims to seek satisfaction here and abroad. It would give us even more satisfaction to see Coetzee and his motley crew in the dock of the Old Bailey. Perhaps we could even lend the English authorities the indefatigable George Bizos as counsel for the prosecution.
Saving Dukuduku
It is encouraging to hear that Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry Kader Asmal may consider intervening in the destruction of the Dukuduku state forest in northern KwaZulu-Natal by squatters (Letters, page 26). The pity is his is the lone voice of officialdom expressing concern about what until recently used to be the largest and best-preserved remnant of lowland coastal forest in Southern Africa.
As Asmal points out, management of the forest is a provincial affair – all too often a convenient attitude assumed by national authorities when conservation- related matters get out of hand. The provincial authority concerned, KwaZulu- Natal MEC for Traditional and Environment Affairs Inyanga Ngubane, has yet to acknowledge that a problem exists. He has pulled rangers from the KwaZulu-Natal Nature Conservation Service out of the forest because of the potential for conflict with the squatters, and this week he declared that the squatters are there to stay.
A court of law ruled in 1990 that the occupation of the forest is illegal – after the Department of Forestry instituted legal proceedings – but no one has bothered to enforce the ruling. And through it all, national Minister of Environment Affairs and Tourism Pallo Jordan has maintained a strange silence. Dukuduku would be a key feature in one of Jordan’s pet projects: plans for the Greater St Lucia Wetland Park. Jordan has proposed that this be declared a World Heritage Site, adding great tourism value to the area.
One of the greatest threats to Dukuduku is the use of an old-fashioned charcoal- making method, introduced by Mozambican immigrants living among the squatters. Anyone who has travelled from South Africa’s Komatipoort border post to Maputo recently will be aware of the effects of this process: it involves burning large areas of vegetation to extract low-grade charcoal, leaving behind a wasteland.
Conservation NGOs are optimistic that solutions can be found to the Dukuduku devastation without excluding people who have nowhere else to go. Asmal mentions that his most senior forestry officials have been discussing these with the Wildlife and Environment Society, and that a task team will be proposed to the provincial government. It would not be barking up the wrong tree to say such moves cannot come soon enough.