TRC Final Report

Volume 6

Section 5

Chapter 4

Part Appendix2

Subsection 3

In various findings made by the TRC against the IFP it sought to create links between a variety of violent activities taking place within community dynamics and individual crimes on the one hand and Inkatha on the other hand. At no stage did Inkatha advocate a policy of violence. In fact, the public and private pronouncements of I n katha ’s leader, Prince Buthelezi, indicate that he constantly urged members and supporters to refrain from violence. The TRC has ignored this body of evidence and has sought to rely on a statement by Prince Buthelezi reiterating the recognised principle that people are entitled to self defence and a statement in the KwaZulu Legislative Assembly in which he reaffirmed his legal responsibility to protect public officials and government assets against acts of violence.

The TRC has tried to make the findings against the IFP mirror the findings made against the South African Government and the ANC. Through the chain of command within the armed struggle the ANC had control of and was responsible for the violence and gross human rights violations committed by its members and supporters, who were acting in accordance with ANC stated policies. The same applies in respect of the covert operations of the South African Government and the illegal activities of the SAP and the SADF, which were conducted within the parameters of an existing structure accountable to certain leaders. In the IFP there was no chain of command or integrated structure which can in any way link community and individual violence to Inkatha or its Leader. In making its findings the TRC had ignored the absence of any causal link and has incorrectly adopted an extended notion of accountability.

Prince Buthelezi served simultaneously as President of the IFP and the Chief minister of the KwaZulu government and during the period 1982-1994 was the Minister of Police in the KwaZulu Government. The TRC sought to hold Prince Buthelezi politically accountable for the commission of gross human rights violations allegedly perpetrated by the entities by virtue of the positions which he held. As appears from this appendix prince Buthelezi does not accept that he can be held accountable, politically or otherwise, in his representative capacity for the commission of any gross human rights violations.

The TRC sought even to connect the IFP to the activities of the groups known as the ‘Black Cats’ and the ‘Toaster Gang’ as well as the activities of other groups which perpetrated violence within community level conflicts. Within this context the TRC adopted the expression ‘hit squads’ to refer to any group of people involved in community violence, suggesting that such people were structurally organized for such nefarious purposes and constantly involved in their pursuance. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of violence by Inkatha’s members and supporters was the produce of occasional activities of unstructured groups without any underlying plan. On the contrary, the evidence submitted to the Goldstone Commission demonstrates that the violence targeted against Inkatha followed systematic and well strategized patterns and was the product of an underlying political campaign.