Issued by: Truth and Reconciliation Commission
October 7, 1997
STATEMENT BY RICHARD LYSTER, CONVENOR OF THE DURBAN OFFICE OF THE TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION
The Inkatha Freedom Party's statement tonight on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission contains fundamental mis-statements of fact about the TRC's work.
Among them are:
- The suggestion we have deliberately singled out the IFP to seize party records:
We subpoenaed Mr Walter Felgate to appear at an investigative inquiry. The subpoena contained a standard clause contained in all TRC subpoenas - including those issued to people across the political spectrum - requiring him to bring relevant records. He informed us he had lodged his records at a library of the University of Natal, so we took temporary custody of Mr Felgate's documents. They are not IFP documents. (Incidentally Dr Ben Ngubane suggests that the TRC has not subpoenaed other party documents or archives. In fact we have thousands of pages of documents from structures of the former government.)
- The allegation that we have failed to investigate the killing of IFP leaders and supporters in KwaZulu-Natal:
We have been investigating the killings of IFP leaders for six months, in response to the IFP's submission of a list of leaders when it appeared before the TRC in Cape Town last year. The investigation is complicated by the IFP's refusal to give any assistance or co-operation, but it is nevertheless continuing. The party's repeated claim that we are not investigating is fundamentally wrong.
- The allegation that we have failed to investigate ANC hit squad activities in the Midlands, as well as the violence in Richmond:
These matters have been part of our investigations since 1996, and a number of people have come forward and made statements to us. Again, the IFP's claim is fundamentally wrong.
- The suggestion that we have unlawfully and improperly prejudiced Mr Phumlani Mshengu:
Mr Mshengu is one of 114 people who received notices before our Caprivi hearings, saying we had received information which might have implicated him detrimentally. He was notified of this to allow him to exercise his right to be represented at the hearing. He chose not to be personally represented but a lawyer representing the IFP made a blanket statement saying that all allegations were denied.
We are happy to co-operate fully with the Public Protector but we believe the IFP's interests would be much better served by co-operating with the TRC. IFP members have suffered grievously in the conflict of the past and their party's co-operation would make it much easier to help the victims and survivors of violence. We deny that we have acted in a biased or partisan manner - our activities are carried out in accordance with our statutory objectives and obligations.
Inquiries: John Allen, 082- 452-7859