Issued by: Truth and Reconciliation Commission
September 10, 1997
STATEMENT BY DR ALEX BORAINE, ACTING CHAIRPERSON OF THE TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission is to approach the relevant Attorney-General to establish whether Mr Katiza Cebekhulu can return to South Africa for his amnesty hearing without facing arrest.
This step is being taken by the Commission as part of its efforts to ensure that the allegations surrounding the activities of the so-called Mandela United Football Club are investigated as soon as possible. We are acutely aware of the enormous amount of speculation around these allegations and want to proceed with a minimum of delay to resolve the whole matter.
The Commission's interest in the activities of the Football Club dates back to June last year, soon after our hearings began, when the parents of missing youths appeared at a TRC human rights viola- tions hearing in Soweto to ask us to investigate the disappearances.
The Commission is handling the matter through two separate processes laid down in the act governing our operations, and a third process is possible:
1. Mr Cebekhulu has applied for amnesty and will thus appear at a public hearing to argue his case. Others involved in the Football Club have either applied for amnesty or can still apply - until the deadline for amnesty applications of September 30. If Mrs Madikizela-Mandela, or anyone else, is implicated in amnesty applications, they will be notified in advance and can appear in public at the hearings to respond to allegations made against them. In the case of Mr Cebekhulu's application, Baroness Nicholson has asked for the hearing to be expedited. We have also had discussions with her on where the hearing will take place, but we have not yet resolved this issue.
2. Quite separately from the amnesty hearing, Mrs Madikizela- Mandela has been subpoenaed to appear at an investigative inquiry of the Commission on September 25 and 26. By law, such an inquiry is closed. No one other than the person being questioned and his or her legal representatives is permitted to attend. The law allows us no discretion whatsoever to open such an inquiry to others. The reason it is not open to the public is the same reason the police do not allow the media or the public to attend their interviews of witnesses - it could prejudice ongoing investigations. The TRC also has another reason for having to hold a closed inquiry - should, for example, the person being questioned implicate, during question- ing, other people whose names we have had no advance notice of, such people are legally entitled to advance notice before they are publicly identified. This obligation was forced on the Commission by a judgment of the Appeal Court last year. However, the evidence gathered during the investigative inquiry can be released after- wards; it can also be introduced in an amnesty or other public hearing.
3. A third possible process which the Commission can follow is to hold a hearing of the Human Rights Violations Committee once it has gathered all the evidence it needs, including the evidence gained in the questioning of Mrs Madikizela-Mandela at the inves- tigative inquiry. This would enable us to hold a public hearings involving a range of witnesses - unlike the investigative inquiry. The Commission will give consideration to such a hearing, but would need to examine whether the same purpose would not be served by amnesty hearings.
Whatever course the Commission decides to follow, Mrs Madikizela- Mandela will get the chance to state her position publicly in front of a hearing of the TRC.
Finally, the Commission needs to stress that its primary concern in this whole process is the rights of victims of gross violations of human rights - - their right to be treated with sensitivity and care, and their right to the truth. And our work is aimed at uncovering the truth, not engaging in witchhunts or prosecutions.