TRC Final Report

Volume 1

Chapter 11

Part OtherDepts

Subsection 6

■ DEVELOPING PROCESSES AND PHASES OF WORK

28 To begin with, the Unit was decentralised internally into a national unit and four regional units: one in each of the Commission’s four centres. Regional heads were responsible for the management of the regional units and reported to the national director. The Investigation Unit interacted with other components of the Commission within this framework. An internal communication system was designed in an attempt to ensure the exchange of information and reporting.

29 To facilitate the management function of the Investigation Unit, day-to-day contacts were established with the chief executive officer and the Finance, Human Resources and Research Departments.

30 As seen above, the work undertaken by the Investigation Unit fell into a series of phases, each characterised by shifts in policy and emphasis in the Commission’s work. The Unit underwent constant development as it responded to changing conditions in the Commission. Although structural changes were introduced, the management framework that had been put in place remained largely the same throughout. In terms of this framework, areas of responsibility were assigned to the different components of the Unit, governed by both internal and external lines of communication.

■ FIRST PHASE: GETTING STARTED

31 Mr Dumisa Ntsebeza was named as the commissioner in charge of the Investigation Unit. The national director was appointed in March 1996, marking the beginning of a phase which came to an end in September/October 1996, when the Commission and its senior management conducted a two-day bosberaad to assess and plan the way forward.

32 In the early months, the Unit concentrated on setting up structures and policies to guide its work. In order to achieve this and meet the challenge posed by round after round of public hearings, it was decided to appoint sufficient staff in each regional office to service the immediate needs of the Commission, and then attend to the completion of the staff component.

33 The fact that public hearings were launched in mid-April 1996, before the Investigation Unit was fully established and prior to the formulation of any policy regarding the selection of matters for public hearings, caused some difficulties.

34 Another problem was the fact that investigative tasks were formulated on the basis of statements which would feature at public hearings. In many instances, the process of selecting statements for public hearings, often at the last minute, meant that little or no investigative work could be done prior to hearings. However, investigators and researchers succeeded to some extent in providing background material, tracing witnesses and taking further statements from persons wishing to provide evidence to the Commission. The lack of policy at this stage also made post-hearing investigative work extremely difficult.

35 By May 1996, a basic management framework and a number of internal strategic and operational policies were in place. In terms of these, the Investigation Unit was required to provide an investigative service to the Commission’s committees (principally the Human Rights Violations and Amnesty Committees) and to initiate independent investigations as determined by the Commission.

36 The policy framework sought to ensure that the Unit provided a service to the committees in a regulated and systematic fashion. Although the implementation of this framework was not uniform across regions and was hampered by the slow development of related components in the Commission, it served as a point of reference for the Unit and provided a means of systematising the service it provided.

37 At this stage, the Unit was structured into four regional investigation units, each managed by a regional head, and a staff component based in the national office. It was composed of a head of special investigations, a team of investigators (some of whom were based in different regional offices), a small group of analysts and management and administrative staff.

38 The ‘hearings-driven’ nature of investigative work continued well into the year. It resulted in a backlog in the processing of statements unrelated to hearings.

39 It became apparent that the vast majority of statements received by the Commission would need to be dealt with by the Human Rights Violations Committee outside of public hearings. As a consequence, a distinction was drawn between those statements that would require only a minimum level of investigation to establish the veracity of a claim and those that would require a more thorough investigation of the contents. The former would be dealt with by a process of ‘low level corroboration’, while the latter would form the subject of ‘investigations’.

40 At a strategic planning meeting convened by the Commission in September/ October 1996, it was recognised that more resources needed to be devoted to the process of making findings in respect of all the statements received. It was accepted that public hearings should be more focused and geared towards particular events or institutions. It was also agreed that there was a need to strengthen truth-seeking efforts by utilising the investigative powers of the Commission to encourage persons to apply for amnesty.