TRC Final Report

Volume 1

Chapter 8

Subsection 2

14 Given the complexity and extent of the former state, however, adequate coverage even of all state structures and records systems proved impossible. It was therefore decided to limit the investigation to the records of government structures that were governed by national archival legislation². This excluded parastatals, statutory bodies that had not voluntarily submitted to the operation of the Archives Act, ‘privatised’ bodies and ‘homeland’ structures.

15 Homelands were responsible for the management of their own records, sometimes governed by their own archival legislation. While some state documentation originating in the homelands has been incorporated in the record systems of the post-apartheid state, the Commission could not reasonably undertake a systematic enquiry into record keeping or destruction of documents by the homelands.

16 There was one exception to the decision to focus on state records. The Commission decided to investigate the destruction of huge volumes of non-public records confiscated by the state from individuals and organisations opposed to the system.

17 It is, of course, true that the state destroyed many other non-public records in the course of its raids and bombings of the structures and premises of liberation movements both inside and outside the country. This, however, is a story that remains to be told elsewhere. Also of significance was the impact of apartheid on the record-keeping practices of anti-apartheid organisations, many of which were reluctant to commit certain kinds of information to paper. Many also destroyed records rather than allow them to fall into the hands of state operatives.

18 During the conceptualisation of the investigation, the possibility of addressing the record-keeping practices of the liberation movements was considered. However, given the dispersal of these movements across many countries, and the distortions imposed on their record keeping (alluded to above), this task was clearly beyond the capacity of the Commission. Its inclusion would also have severely undermined the investigation’s rationale as outlined in the preceding paragraphs - not least because these holdings were not subject to national archival legislation. In the light of this decision, the records of other political groupings and parties were also not investigated.

19 In the initial stages of the investigation, Commission researchers studied relevant legislation, state record-keeping procedures, professional literature and media reports. They also engaged intensively with the State Archives Service (SAS) – the body responsible for the proper management of state records, including the authorisation for their destruction and the investigation of unauthorised destruction. Numerous meetings were held with SAS officials, and SAS documentation of the destruction processes was carefully studied.

20 Through this process, researchers were able to identify ‘hot spots’: that is, structures that had attracted a number of allegations that they had destroyed records without authorisation from the SAS. These ‘hot spots’, all within the security establishment, were thoroughly researched and subjected to the scrutiny of joint investigative teams, composed of representatives of the structure under investigation, the Commission, the Human Rights Commission and the National Archives³. The destruction of records by the following bodies was investigated:

a the Security Branch of the South African Police (SAP);

b government civilian intelligence bodies (including the internal and external divisions of the National Intelligence Service (NIS), intelligence services of the former homelands governments, the State Security Council, and other structures of the National Security Management System under the control of the NIS);

c the South African Defence Force (SADF), particularly Military Intelligence;

d the Department of Prison Services;

e the Security Legislation Directorate of the Department of Justice.

21 Even within the parameters defined for the investigation, and despite using all the investigative procedures provided for in sections 29 and 32 of the Act, it remained beyond the capacity of the Commission to gain more than a broad outline of the process of state records management. Some of the general investigations, however, resulted in more detailed case studies.

22 Owing to constraints of time and resources, all possible deceptions relating to records-management could not be explored. The joint investigative teams simply had to rely on the integrity of those appointed by the management structures of the SAPS, the SANDF, the Department of Correctional Services, the civilian intelligence services and the Department of Justice to guide and assist them in their work. At the same time, the teams did all they could to verify the information and insights provided by those appointed to assist them.

23 This chapter begins with the legal framework and its manipulation by those who were intent on destroying state records. This is followed by an account of specific investigations into the various structures of the security establishment, conclusions and the findings of the Commission on the destruction of state records. The chapter ends with recommendations on how a democratic South Africa can, on the one hand, guard against the sanitising of official memory in the future and, on the other, redress the imbalances imposed on that memory by the actions that have been recounted.