appeasement
“The only defence that can be offered is that the issue was intensely debated by the commission, which ultimately succumbed to the fears of those who argued that Buthelezi’s appearance would give him a platform from which to oppose the commission and would stoke the flames of violence in KwaZulu-Natal, as indeed he himself promised. In retrospect, it was probably an incorrect decision.” – Final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission on its failure to call Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi
It is so rare to meet with a confession of cowardice from a public body, and such was the service rendered by this particular entity, that the inclination must be to forgive the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) for its lapse. But the expression of regret from the TRC does encapsulate the enormity of the decision now facing the authorities: who, if anyone, should be prosecuted for the sins of the apartheid era?
The Minister of Justice, Dullah Omar, has insisted there are no plans for a general amnesty. But the suspicion still exists that some sort of deal is on the cards by which prosecutions of prominent figures held accountable by the TRC for gross abuses of human rights will be avoided. The objections to a general amnesty are to some extent self-evident and, we would have thought, insurmountable.
There is the sheer idiocy of turning the amnesty process, which has already taken place, into a charade. There is the point strongly made by the TRC itself in its final report that “in order to avoid a culture of impunity and to entrench the rule of law, the granting of [general] amnesty in whatever guise should be resisted”.
And there are our obligations under international law, specifically the covenants on civil and political rights and against torture which we have signed and the spirit of which we can be said to have already breached by our limited amnesties. But perhaps the strongest argument against amnesty lies with a need to show respect for the victims.
The families of such as Chris Hani, Matthew Goniwe, Ruth First and Steve Biko have bitterly fought the granting of amnesty. But the killers in those cases gave at least some satisfaction to their victims, by way of confession, and suffered at least a degree of punishment, through public humiliation.
Can we now pardon the killers and torturers who have shown such contempt for the political settlement? Have we any moral basis for forgiving them? Can we prejudice the rights of survivors and the families of those killed to compensation by civil litigation? If a general amnesty is out of the question, so must be a provincial amnesty for KwaZulu-Natal, because all the objections that can be voiced against the national must apply to the regional with the added impediment of the constitutional demand that there be equality before the law.
Which would seem to leave the authorities with only one option; a de facto, as opposed to a de jure amnesty effected by way of selective prosecutions. The recent appointment of a national attorney general comes conveniently if this is the strategy. And, although one would like to see a more comprehensive pursuit of these criminals, such a course does make some sense for a legal system labouring with limited resources. But if it is to be selective it must also be representative. So who should be investigated with a view to prosecution?
PW Botha towers above the pack, even if the case should fail at the point of a psychiatric examination to assess his fitness to stand trial. The opening of dockets against General Magnus Malan, Adriaan Vlok (whose limited confession to the TRC was just too limited to be countenanced) and a handful of former generals in the security forces will also make it clear where prime responsibility for the horrors of apartheid lies.
Then the myriad cases against Winnie Madikizela-Mandela need to be opened, or reopened, to demonstrate that the African National Congress is even-handed in its commitment to the rule of law (if the attorney general chooses to toss a couple of veterans from Quatro into the pot as well, the point will be even more impressively made).
A clutch of so-called “foot soldiers” would round off the mix, to demonstrate that the excuse of “acting under orders” will not be tolerated in the new South Africa. (Members of the Civil Co-operation Bureau and those involved in the chemical and biological weapons programmes should be priority candidates, as both areas of covert operations clearly require further public illumination.)
And, finally, there is Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi. The name, in the context of prosecution, is enough to make anyone with knowledge of South Africa wince. The one person among all those held accountable by the TRC to still hold real political power in the country, there is little doubt that his prosecution “would stoke the flames of violence in KwaZulu-Natal, as indeed he himself promised”. The challenge is clear and unambiguous. The demand is for appeasement. Do we have the courage of our beliefs?
The question could linger over our society long after his praise singers have forgotten his songs.