TRC Final Report

Volume 1

Chapter 8

Part Appendix

Subsection 2

4 Problem

4.1 Inadequate procedural provisions have the result that a significant number of documents may be destroyed because they have become irrelevant and redundant.

Destruction of documents in order to get rid of the information contained therein, also arises. If a responsible person is currently in possession of documents, the publication of which could endanger human lives, sour international relationships and derail the negotiation and transition process, he cannot be expected to speculate about the identity and responsibility of future co-rulers. The interests that are endangered, are far too weighty.

4.2 The injudicious destruction of documentation can harm relations in a transitional government. Gaps in records will raise questions that will be based on negative deductions. These suspicions etc. can be more prejudicial than the documentation destroyed in the destruction process.

4.3 It must be accepted that copies of some of the documentation, the destruction of which is now being contemplated, already exist and are kept in private ownership with ulterior motives. The destruction of this documentation can, in the case of malicious publication of copies, lend a sinister hue to something that can be explained reasonably. An original document would also be necessary to expose a falsification thereof.

4.4 Special care must be taken not to destroy documentation that can be used to allay untrue allegations/charges.

4.5 Apart from the above, it is possible that original documentation may be necessary to enforce contractual obligations in some instances.

4.6 The rationalising of tasks and departments in the broader state set-up has resulted in the dividing up of relevant documentation as well. It is difficult, if not impossible, to provide a full record of such documentation. Regard is had specifically to the disbanding of the Department of Development Assistance.

4.7 The Department of Administration (House of Assembly) has already handed a portion of its documentation over to the central archive and the SADF has transferred a large portion of its documentation to its own archives.

4.8 With the disbanding of the Special Services Divisions in state departments, many of the officials are no longer in service of the relevant departments either. This results in certain people who may not have the necessary background and knowledge, handling the expertise about the handling and disposal of certain documents and information.

5. Recommendations

5.1 Subject to any central directives there may be, each head of department is in the best position to dispose of documentation (specifically state sensitive documentation) in his department. The head of department may obviously ask his political head for a political decision.

5.2 The Sub-committee for Information Security of the Co-ordinating Intelligence Committee can advise heads of department on matters such as the applicability of the Archives Act and the considerations mentioned in par 5.7.

5.3 The following state sensitive documents may not be destroyed under any circumstances, but must be held in safekeeping by the Cabinet Secretariat:

-The signed minutes of cabinet meetings and meetings of cabinet and ministers’ committees (except SSC and CCSS);

-one set of agendas and memoranda that were tabled at the aforementioned meetings.

5.4 State President’s minutes and actions and accompanying memoranda must obviously not be destroyed and are currently dealt with in accordance with the Archives Act anyway.

5.5 The Secretariat of the SSC and the WVVS (Security Secretariat) must keep one copy of agendas and minutes of the SSC, CCVS and the WVVS and obtain proof of destruction from all other institutions that were in possession of copies of those documents.

5.6 Where documentation was obtained from another department or state institution, it should, after oral consultation, be returned or satisfactory proof of destruction should be provided to that department. Such consultation must be formulated briefly for later reference.

5.7 In considering the question whether state sensitive documentation should be destroyed for the sake of protection of information, the head of department must consider weighty factors such as the following:

-the protection of human lives;

-the protection of legitimate individual, corporate and state interests (including inter-state interests);

-the proper course of the normal legal process; and -the need for continuing good government.