TRC Final Report

Volume 6

Section 5

Chapter 4

Part Appendix2

Subsection 1

APPENDIX 2

In its interim report the TRC made a number of adverse findings concerning the IFP and its President, Minister Mangosuthu Buthelezi. Both the IFP and Minister Buthelezi have taken issue with these findings. To that end, they instituted legal proceedings with a view to reviewing and setting aside those findings and requiring the TRC to publish appropriate corrections in its final report. The TRC accepts the validity of certain of these criticisms and has accordingly made appropriate corrections in its final report. In order to settle the dispute in respect of the remaining complaints and to enable the TRC to complete its mandate, the parties have agreed that the TRC will publish this appendix to the final report reflecting the viewpoint of the IFP and Minister Buthelezi concerning those findings with which they disagree .

APPENDIX TO THE FINAL TRC REPORT REFLECTING THE VIEWS OF THE INKAT H A FREEDOM PARTY AND MINISTER BUTHELEZI CONCERNING THE FINDINGS MADE IN THE INTERIM TRC REPORT

In the review proceedings the IFP and Prince Buthelezi challenged some 37 findings made by the TRC in its interim report. In relation to some of the findings the TRC has made appropriate corrections in its final report. In respect of other findings which are in issue the views of the IFP and Prince Buthelezi are reflected below.

The findings of the TRC in question are, contrary to the statutory obligation imposed on it by section 4(e) of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act 34 of 1995 (‘the Act’), not based on factual and objective information and evidence received by the TRC. There is no rational connection between the evidence and material before the TRC and the conclusions reached by it in this regard .

The IFP and Prince Buthelezi wish to record in this re gard that:

• The findings implicating the IFP and Prince Buthelezi in gross human rights violations, criminality and conspiracy are without any factual basis.
• The IFP and prince Buthelezi at no stage endorsed policies based on violence, criminal conduct or an armed struggle and they only advocated non-violence, passive resistance and self-defence where legally justified.
• The IFP and Prince Buthelezi have serious reservations regarding the establishment and functioning of the TRC and its ability to make objective and factually correct findings. The TRC was the product of a mutual political accommodation reached between the ANC and the NP to the exclusion of the other participants in the conflicts of the past. The TRC was thus inclined to approach its mandate by focusing on black-on-white and white-on-black conflicts. It was ill-equipped to deal with black-on-black conflict and explore the genesis, dynamics, purposes and strategies of this conflict. The TRC process was conducted at a time very close to the animosity and tensions of the conflicts of the past and without the benefit of a historical perspective. In this context evidence was taken without any effective means of independent or adversarial verification.
• Notwithstanding the reservations which the IFP and Prince Buthelezi had regarding the TRC, they made written and oral representations to the TRC at the appropriate stages. The TRC has no taken account of these re presentations in arriving at its findings.
• In many instances the TRC’s findings are based on unreliable, uncorroborated or hearsay evidence provided by persons who acknowledged that their conduct constituted an offence or delict. These persons sought amnesty in respect of such conduct which could only be granted if a link between their conduct and a political objective was established. This resulted in untruthful, unreliable or generally vague evidence which in some cases reflected adversely on the IFP or Prince Buthelezi. Such evidence should not have been accepted at face value by the TRC.
• The TRC acted contrary to the provisions of section 30 of the Act which required it to act in a procedurally fair manner and give notice of its contemplated findings to persons who might be implicated. The requirement of procedural fairness was aimed not only at protecting those persons who might be adversely affected but also at enabling the TRC to assess the other side of any given story or allegation. Firstly, the TRC failed to give the IFP and Prince Buthelezi notice of most of its contemplated findings. This meant that they were not afforded the opportunity of rebutting such findings and did not allow the TRC to consider their response to any particular allegation. Secondly, in respect of certain contemplated findings the TRC gave notice of such findings but failed to identify the evidence supporting such findings to enable the IFP and Prince Buthelezi to adduce countervailing evidence. Thirdly, in those cases where adequate notice of the contemplated findings was given enabling the IFP and Prince Buthelezi to respond thereto the TRC failed properly to apply its mind to the response submitted. Despite the representations that were made rebutting these findings, the actual findings published in the interim report were in all material respects identical to the contemplated findings.