TRC Final Report

Volume 6

Section 5

Chapter 4

Part Appendix1

Subsection 7

26. Volume 5, Chapter 6, paragraph 117 – 119, page 232:

1 1 7 The above mentioned incidents represent iconic events over the past twelve years in which IFP office - bearers, members and supporters were involved in acts of serious political violence. They do not purport to be a complete list of such incidents. However, the most devastating indictment of the role of the IFP in political violence during the Commission’s mandate period is to be found in the statistics compiled by the Commission directly from submissions by victims of gross human rights violations. These established the IFP as the foremost perpetrator of g ross human rights violations in KwaZulu and Natal during the 1990-94 period. Indeed, IFP violations constituted almost 50 per cent of all violations reported to the Commission’s Durban office for this period, and over one-third of the total number of gross human rights violations committed during the thirty-four- year period of the Commission’s mandate. The statistics also indicate that IFP members, supporters and offic e - b e a rers in KwaZulu and Natal were responsible for more than 55 per cent of all violations reported to the Commission’s Durban o ffice for the period between July 1993 and May 1994.

1 1 8 Other statistics derived from the Commission’s database show that Inkatha/the IFP was responsible, in the mandate period, for some 3 800 killings in the Natal and KwaZulu area compared with approximately 1 100 attributed to the ANC and some 700 to the SAP. The IFP remains the major perpetrator of killings on a national scale, being allegedly responsible for over 4 500 killings compared to 2 700 attributed to the SAP and 1 300 to the ANC. These statistics suggest that the IFP was responsible for approximately 3.5 killings for on killing attributed to the ANC. A graph included in the Natal regional profile (Volume Three) illustrates that in 1987-88 the IFP exceeded even the SAP in terms of numbers of people killed by a single perpetrator organisation .

1 1 9 It must be noted here that, for much of the period in which the Commission was able to accept human rights violations statements, the IFP discouraged its members and supporters from making submissions to the Commission. The result is that only about 10 per cent of all statements taken in KwaZulu-Natal came fro m people linked to the IFP. The significant point is that the statistics derived fro m the Commission’s database do not diverge from those published by other national and international bodies. All of these are consistent in identifying the IFP as the primary non-state perpetrator of gross human rights abuse in South Africa f rom the latter 1980s through to 1994.

The last sentence in paragraph 118 has been deleted and the paragraphs are amended as follows:

1 1 7 The above incidents re p resent iconic events over the past twelve years in which IFP off i c e - b e a rers, members and supporters were involved in acts of serious political violence. They do not purport to be a complete list of such incidents. H o w ever, the most devastating indictment of the role of members and/ or supporters of the IFP in political violence during the Commission’s mandate period is to be found in the statistics compiled by the Commission directly from submissions by victims of gross human rights violations. These established that members and/ or supporters of the IFP were the foremost perpetrator of gross human rights violations in KwaZulu and Natal during the 1990-94 period. Indeed, such violations constituted almost 50 per cent of all violations reported to the C o m mission ’s Durban office for this period, and over one-third of the total number of gross human rights violations committed during the thirty-four-year period of the Commission’s mandate. The statistics also indicate that IFP members, supporters and off i c e - b e a rers in KwaZulu and Natal were responsible for more than 55 per cent of all violations reported to the Commission’s Durban office for the period between July 1993 and May 1994.

118 Other statistics derived from the Commission’s database show that members and/ or supporters of the IFP were responsible, in the mandate period, for some 3 800 killings in the Natal and KwaZulu area compared with approximately 1 100 attributed to the members and/ or supporters of the ANC and some 700 to the S A P. Members and/ or supporters The IFP remains the major perpetrator of killings on a national scale, being allegedly responsible for over 4 500 killings c o m pared to 2 700 attributed to the SAP and 1 300 to members and/ or supporters of the ANC. These statistics suggest that members and/ or supporters of the IFP was responsible for approximately 3.5 killings for on killing attributed to the members and/ or supporters of the ANC.

1 1 9 It must be noted here that, for much of the period in which the Commission was able to accept human rights violations statements, the IFP discouraged its members and supporters from making submissions to the Commission. The result is that only about 10 per cent of all statements taken in KwaZulu-Natal came fro m people linked to the IFP. The significant point is that the statistics derived fro m the Commission’s database do not diverge from those published by other national and international bodies. All of these are consistent in identifying members and/ or supporters of the IFP as the primary non-state perpetrator of gross human rights abuse in South Africa from the latter 1980s through to 1994. The Commission notes that a complete picture of the IFP-ANC conflict could not be formed due to the failure of by many IFP members and supporters to participate in the Commission and the absence of many countervailing complaints of violations against the IFP.