FREE DAILY EMAIL

Date : 25/02/2004
Source: The Presidency
Title: J Zuma: Answers to questions in the NCOP


QUESTIONS PUT TO DEPUTY PRESIDENT ZUMA FOR ORAL REPLY IN THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY 25 February 2004

QUESTION NUMBER: 1
DATE: 25 FEBRUARY 2004

Ms CC September (ANC) to ask the Deputy President:

(a) What were the reasons for the Government's decision to conduct a ten-year review of the implementation of its programmes and (b) what were the likely lessons learnt from this review?

REPLY

We have had only 10 years in which to begin changing centuries of colonial and apartheid oppression. In order to do so, we have developed many policies and implemented many strategies to amongst others transform our society and redress the imbalances of the past.

It is therefore important that, as Government, we review the work we have done and discuss whether our policy framework remains appropriate for the challenges of the next decade.

The findings of the ten year review will inform our future outlook and, in particular, our vision for the next decade of freedom. In broad terms, the conclusion reached is that our policies are correct, and they have brought about an improved quality of life for the overwhelming majority of South Africans.

More specifically four key Lessons emerged from the Ten Year Review:

Firstly, there is a need to further entrench partnerships with all sectors of society. Labour, communities, business and government should find ways of agreeing on developmental goals and on how to achieve them. This is key to both nation-building and socio-economic development.

Such a framework must build on, for example, the agreements reached at the Growth and Development Summit, but more importantly, take them to new levels.

Secondly, there is a need to considerably improve the performance of the State and all its organs. While government was successful in many of its programmes, we still need to improve the manner in which public servants interact with the public. Therefore, the question of customer care or Batho Pele remains paramount.

Thirdly, there is a need to address the consequences of the social transition. The movement of people from one region to another, the change in the nature of the household or family and the structural change of the economy require more effective responses from government. This would entail more systematic interventions to bridge the gap between first and second economies in our country.

Lastly, within the context of African Renewal, there is a need to intensify the implementation of the New Partnership for Africa's Development. South Africa's envisaged prosperous future depends, in part, on the condition in our neighbourhood and in the rest of Africa. We therefore need to intensify efforts towards peace, economic growth and social development on the African continent.

Our involvement in the affairs of our continent is intertwined with our own domestic policies and goals.

QUESTION NUMBER: 2
DATE: 25 FEBRUARY 2004

Ms R Taljaard (DA) to ask the Deputy President:

(1) Whether, with reference to the article in This Day of 16 February 2004 "No second chance to seek amnesty", the Presidency has made or will make any inputs regarding the membership of the proposed amnesty committee to review some of the amnesty applications dealt with by the truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC); if not, who will make an input regarding committee members; if so, what inputs were made with regard to each proposed committee member;

(2) (a) what are the terms of reference of the review committee and (b) what steps have been taken to ensure that the work of this review committee will not undermine the work of the original TRC amnesty committee;

(3) whether the President and/or (b) any other specified members of the Cabinet will apply to this review committee to reconsider their amnesty applications following the decision of the courts to overturn the TRC findings on their applications for amnesty based on collective responsibility; if not, why not; if so, what the relevant details?

REPLY

Madam Speaker I would like to give some background before answering the questions.

As Honourable members are aware, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and its Amnesty Committee were dissolved in terms of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act once they had completed their work.

Three former security policemen, Ras, Niewoudt and Van Rensburg who had their amnesty applications for the Motherwell car bombing refused, took the decision of the amnesty committee on review to the Cape High Court. The Court rejected the refusal of amnesty, and as the TRC and its Amnesty Committee had dissolved, ordered the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development to establish a committee on amnesty to hear the application again.

To give effect to this court order, this House passed the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Amendment Act last year. The Amendment gave the Minister the power to appoint a subcommittee on amnesty to deal with any matter that had been before the Amnesty Committee and which had to be re-heard as a result of a court order or a court settlement.

Madam Speaker, it is therefore quite clear that the new amnesty sub-committee can only consider matters referred to it as a result of a judicial process and not a political one.

The answer to question 1 is that the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development appoints the subcommittee in terms of the criteria set out in the Act.

The answer to question 2 is that the terms of reference of the subcommittee, as provided for in the Act, are to deal with matters as per a court order or court settlement agreement.

The answer to question 3 is no. The subcommittee cannot be approached directly to conduct a review, but can only act if a court has ordered a review, or if a review has been agreed upon in terms of a court settlement.

QUESTION NUMBER: 3
DATE: 25 FEBRUARY 2004

Mr JH van der Merwe (IFP) to ask the Deputy President:

(4) Whether the Government has paid compensation to all apartheid victims who came before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC); if not, (a) how many victims have yet to be compensated and (b) when will they be compensated; if so, what amount has been paid out;

(5) Whether the amount paid out corresponded to the amount recommended by the TRC; if not, why not;

(6) Whether he will make a statement on the matter?

REPLY

Firstly, Honourable member let me remind you that not all people who experienced human rights abuses from the apartheid regime wanted to be classified as victims. Indeed, many said that they regarded themselves as freedom fighters who were prepared to pay whatever price for the struggle.

The Commission, for example, did not receive a single Human Rights Violation claim from any of the Rivonia trialists.

Accordingly, not all 'victims' who appeared before the TRC had to be paid reparations' grants.

We are told that out of the 15 474 people who had to be paid reparation grants, only 3 739 have yet to receive their grants. Some of the reasons for this backlog are that some people changed their banking details or addresses; others have died which means that a determination of the next of kin who then become entitled to these grants needs to be made; and there are others who are still being traced. The payment process will be completed as soon as possible.

The government did not endorse the TRC's recommendation regarding the amount of money that had to be paid out to 'victims'. Instead, we all agreed - including this House - that we would disburse a once-off grant of R30 000 to each 'victim' who had appeared before the TRC and applied for a reparations grant.

It would be a historic injustice if we implied that 'victims" of apartheid were limited to those who applied for reparations. Similarly, we reasoned that no amount of money can ever appropriately compensate people, in their millions, for all the pain, humiliation and suffering that was visited upon them by apartheid.

Can you put a price on the suffering experienced by one of the Pan African Congress leaders Johnson Mlambo, who whilst serving 20 years on Robben island was beaten up by warders who buried him up to his head in the ground and urinated on his face? In the course of his imprisonment he also lost an eye.

Can you put a price on the experiences of our own colleague, Ebrahim Ebrahim who served 15 years on the Island and after his release was abducted in Swaziland by apartheid police, severely tortured, and sent back to Robben Island for 20 years? Can you put a price on the limbs of Michael Lapsley and Judge Albie Sachs, lost and severe injuries as a result of a parcel and a car bomb?

Our sufferings under apartheid cannot be quantified.

Our freedom and democracy has enabled us to address the socio-economic needs of all our people, including those who appeared before the TRC. Any examination of our policies in education, housing, health, justice, to name a few examples will attest to this historic fact.

There are still unresolved matters, such as those of missing people.

For the affected families, the uncovering of what happened to their loved ones would bring closure, and although it would not take away the pain, it would allow them to begin to make peace with the past and move on.

QUESTION NUMBER: 4
DATE: 25 FEBRUARY 2004

Mr BAD Martins (ANC) to ask the Deputy President:

(7) What steps are being taken by the Government to ensure that the forthcoming elections will be conducted without violence or intimidation;

(8) Whether political parties and civil society can play any role in assisting the Government in this regard; if so, what role?

REPLY

Madam Speaker, Honourable Members, amongst other things, the advent of democracy in 1994 enabled all South Africans to freely elect a government of their choice. The struggle against colonialism and apartheid in essence was about this - so that the people would be governed by those they had freely elected - people they have confidence in - people they trust.

It therefore becomes unacceptable, and intolerable, when some - because they are afraid that the people may not have confidence in them - try to subvert the will of the people by restricting political activity in some areas of our country.

We have finalized preparations regarding the deployment of the security and law enforcement authorities throughout South Africa to protect the rights of the citizens of this country to make their free choice. Appropriate measures will be employed in areas such as KwaZulu Natal where we are witnessing some cases of political intolerance and violence. We want to emphasise that no part of South Africa can be declared a no-go area to any political party for purposes of lawful political activity. To eradicate this sort of behaviour, we would like to urge people to report acts of political intimidation and threats of violence itself to the police. Those who intimidate others are committing crimes and will face the full might of the law.

On Election Day police will be deployed at all voting stations, while the surrounding areas will be policed by reaction forces comprising members of the SAPS Area Crime Combating Units. SANDF members will be on standby to be deployed only if necessary.

Leaders of political parties need to ensure that their members and supporters do not restrict the rights of others to freely decide who they want to vote for. Leaders need to support the Independent Electoral Commission's Code of Conduct in practice and conduct themselves in a manner that is consistent with the Code. If we do so as leaders, our supporters are bound to emulate us.

Similarly, we would like to call on organs of civil society to respond to the call of the IEC and increase the number of local observers. Their role should cover the pre-election period; the election itself; and the post election phase.

We appeal to traditional leaders and authorities to assist us to ensure that there is free political activity in the areas under their control, to allow voters an opportunity to hear different political views and to decide who to vote for.

Issued by: The Presidency
25 February 2004

SPONSORED BY

Advanced