Truth and Reconciliation Commission

• Author: V. Reddy
• Published date: 01 January 1997
• DOI: 10.10520/EJC34820
• Date: 01 January 1997
• Pages: 267-298

267

11

Truth and Reconciliation

Commission

Vasu Reddy *

Introduction

‘Let the healing waters flow,’ was the crux of Archbishop Tutu’s text when he

officially handed over the Truth and Reconciliation (TRC) Report to President

Mandela in 1998. This message, by a man chosen to lead a commission that

would attempt to unravel the mirky history of a country polarized by

apartheid, continues to be a refrain in the politics of South Africa. In an

attempt to offer some form of closure on a turbulent past, the unfinished

business of understanding the truth about institutionalised oppression was

one of the fundamental challenges of the commission. Many lives were lost

by those resisting the apartheid system, and some lost in protecting the

system. In most instances the circumstances surrounding the loss of lives

were the result of gross human rights violations. As a way of making meaning

about the apartheid past so that what happened would never repeat itself

again, the commission was established to help South Africans on a path

toward national reconciliation.

The TRC has been visible largely through the public presentation of

hearings and the media investment in the many stories generated by the

commission. It has been controversial to the extent that the ‘truth’ of the

human riots violations, and the reconciliation intended to be a spin-off in the

process, are not logical outcomes of a legislated commission given the painful

history of South Africa. There are many reasons that could be given for this.

While the majority of South Africans had an idea that state-sanctioned

violence against the liberation movement was a fact, many who lost family and

friends in that violence, were often unaware as to the factual circumstances

surrounding their deaths. In effect, the ‘truth’ that the commission was tasked

* Vasu Reddy, BA(Hons) HDE (Natal), MA(Wits) is lecturer in the Human Sciences

Faculty, University of Natal ,Durban.

Vasu Reddy

268

to recover was the factual evidence that was required to corroborate, or verify

the suspicions or claims that were made against the system and individuals.

Having said this, the task of the other side, the apartheid state that is, was to

explain and perhaps also motivate, their role against the liberation movement.

However, it was also envisaged that all who contributed to ‘violence’ had to

account for their actions, and at times, this has been the major source of

controversy and ethical debate.

Established in 1995, the commission’s task was to facilitate, initiate, and

co-ordinate where necessary, inquiries into the nature, cause and extent of

human rights violations in South Africa, spanning the period March 1960 (the

commencement of the Sharpeville massacre) to May 1994 (the month in which

Mandela was inaugurated as president).This body had the ubiquitous task of

unearthing the ‘hidden histories’ of massacres, tortures, murders, rapes,

abductions and forced removals to name a few. These hearings began on

April 15, 1996, when the TRC sat for the first time in East London (province of

the Eastern Cape), South Africa.

The phenomenon of a commission like the TRC was unprecedented in

South African history. Given the turbulent history of this country, in which

the dominant white government excluded the majority of its citizens from the

political process, and the violent confrontation this resulted in, the

commission’s underlying task was to contribute to peace and reconciliation

that would take South Africans into a ‘peaceful’ political order. The deep-

seated polarization in South African society is corroborated by Chief Justice

DP Mahomed in a judgement:

“For decades South African history has been dominated by a deep

conflict between a minority which reserved for itself all control over the

political instruments of the state and a majority who sought to resist that

domination. Fundamental human rights became a major causality of this

conflict ... the legitimacy of the law itself was deeply wounded as the

country haemorrhaged in the face of this tragic conflict”.1

The TRC’s role as a legal and political body that would facilitate a harmonious

and peaceful South Africa has been the subject of much debate. In many

quarters the TRC was seen to be a body defying any clear categorisation.

Since the first hearing commenced in 1996, it would operate in the first

instance as a legal body. Secondly, the hearings were reflective of therapy

sessions with the empathic commissioners taking a keen interest in the stories

that were told. This led people in some communities to dub the TRC “the

1 Truth Commission Report, volume 1, 1998: 24.

Truth and Reconciliation Commission

269

Kleenex Commission”.2 Thirdly, the unfolding of events as they were

recounted to the commission were characterised, in a number of instances by

emotion because of the dramatic effect stories had on commissioners, victims

and the audience. Whatever the perspectives on the TRC, it operated, at least

to the public, as a body which actively sought to be sensitive to the traumatic

experiences of its participants.

The TRC in Relation to similar Bodies in the World

The TRC has been compared to similar bodies that were established in

Germany, Uruguay, Argentina, Chile, Bosnia and Rwanda. According to Gaye

Davis “of the 17 truth commissions the world has seen since 1974, South

Africa’s is the most ambitious to date”.3 The common purpose of these

tribunals, shared by the TRC, was to uncover instances of gross human riots

violations perpetrated by the State in those countries against civilians, groups

and organisations. However, the major difference between the TRC and similar

bodies in other countries, is that the TRC was not designed to prosecute but

to identify the ‘truth’ leading to human riots violations. Though the TRC had

a legal mandate to collect evidence, initiate hearings and make public

disclosures, it had no legal recourse to prosecute. The Chilean truth

commission, for example, investigated, recorded and acknowledged human

rights abuses under General Augusto Pinochet, but those responsible -

indemnified by a blanket amnesty- went unidentified and unpunished.4 It

would therefore appear that the TRC had a more organised brief, and clearly

one that is likely to have a major impact on developments both nationally and

internationally.

Mandate: Legislation and Objectives

The mandate for the process that led to the formation of the TRC was

determined by the new democratic government, and spearheaded by Minister

of Justice, Mr Dullah Omar. The Commission was based on the final clause of

the Interim Constitution, which was intended to promote reconciliation,

reconstruction and a ‘future rounded on the recognition of human rights’.5

Bound by the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act No 34 of

1995 (the Act) provided the framework within which the mandate of the TRC

is to be understood. But the idea of understanding and interrogating the

2 Truth Talk, volume 1, number 1, November 1996: 2

3 Siyaya, Issue 3, Spring 1998: 6

4 Note 3

5 Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 200 of 1993.