by Rhoda Njanana
“There are no criminals in my government, if there are any, I am not aware of them,” President F.W. De Klerk of South Africa was recently quoted as saying.
This prompted one political observer to ask why, if indeed there were no criminals in his government, he was so determined to force his controversial Amnesty Bill through parliament.
The blanket amnesty, came amidst revelations of the police and military’s role in the violence that has engulfed the country, and the government’s dirty tricks against the African National Congress (ANC).
Richard Molomo of the ANC says the amnesty is meant not so much to secure the release of political prisoners but to protect “criminals” within de Klerk’s security force.
What is even more sinister about this Bill is the fact that those accused will be tried in camera and details of the proceedings will not be published. Yet, returning political exiles had to state crimes they committed before leaving the country.
Why are the government’s security men an exception? What is it that de Klerk and his co-horts are scared of! These are questions being asked by many observers of the South African political process.
The government argues that the Bill aims to promote reconciliation and peaceful solutions by providing a mechanism to broaden indemnity or to free prisoners jailed for “political crimes.” However, the ANC declared in a statement, “We are opposed to the government’s amnesty on the grounds that it is akin to a criminal pardoning his crimes.”
The ANC went further to say that national reconciliation can only be possible if the truth of what occurred is made public. That truth, it said, must cover the nature and extent of violations, how they were planned and executed, the fate of the victims and the identities of those who gave the orders and those who carried them out.
Above all, the ANC says, the truth has to be officially proclaimed and publicly exposed.
To prove that what they have been preaching is not just rhetoric, the ANC recently released results of an inquiry into charges of torture in its camps during the armed struggle. The report, which the government has welcomed, appeared in major newspapers inside and outside South Africa. It listed, among other things, the names and the nature of offences committed not only by its cadres but also by some members of its national executive.
After failing to get endorsement of the Bill from the three houses of parliament, De Klerk went to the National Party-dominated President’s Council (PC) for what would effectively be a rubber-stamp approval.
Not surprisingly, the PC endorsed the Bill by 38 votes, against the 14 votes of the Conservative Party, Democratic Party, Solidarity and Labour Party. The National People’s Party was not represented.
The PC is a permanent body which advice the State President on matters of public interest. Since its inception in 1984, it has vetoed only one of the 15 draft Jaws referred to it for a decision – hence it is dubbed a “rubber stamp” body.
Ironically, Russel Crystal, a member of the PC and executive director of the right-wing international Freedom Foundation (IFF) which has been preparing a court action against the ANC for alleged abuses in its detention camps, is devastated by the approval of the Bill.
Western intelligence sources say the IFF, known to be extremely hostile to the ANC, is acting on behalf of former ANC detainees and had hoped to break the organization financially by claiming several millions of rands as compensation for its client. The endorsement of the bill, however, means this may no longer be an easy task to achieve.
Political observers claim that the haste with which de Klerk pushed his controversial bill through was due to pressure from his security forces who fear that more embarrassing disclosures are about to be made.
The government is also worried that if former members of the Civil Co-operation Bureau (CCB) are charged in a criminal court they could defend themselves by incriminating senior officials.
It is believed that Joe Verster, former head of the CCB, is in possession of important documents which vanished during the sittings of the Harms Commission of Inquiry into the activities of the unit. The documents contain very damaging evidence against the government and it is speculated that Verster hopes to use them as a means to secure attractive severance packages for his men.
During a press briefing in June, Verster told journalists that the government had taken a decision to disown the CCB and blame it for most of the crimes committed by the security forces. He also said the generals who issued orders were now being looked after by the state.
General Eddie Webb, Verster’s commander, has been given a comfortable retirement package and has applied for indemnity against prosecution for political crimes under the new legislation.
Two other judicial processes threatening the credibility of the government and its security force are the inquest into the murder of David Webster, and the investigation of a top secret signal message linked to the 1985 murder of trade unionist, Matthew Goniwe and his three colleagues. It is alleged that the message came from the chief of intelligence, General CP “Joffel” van der Westhuizen.
According to western intelligence sources, Foreign Affairs Minister Pile Botha, Justice Minister Kobie Coetsee and Water Affairs Minister Magnus Malan served on the State Security Council at the time it handled the signal message.
Meanwhile, the ANC has warned that, as a possible future government, it will nullify the Bill and that indemnities granted under it would not be honoured.
Commenting on the Bill, Richard Steyn, chairman of the Conference of Editors, said its secrecy clause was a serious invasion of the public’s right to be informed and ran “counter to the government’s expressed intention of removing legislative barriers to the free flow of information.”
In a twist of events, National Party members of the PC supported a call by opposition parties that the name and the crime committed by any person to whom indemnity is granted should be made known to the public.
“Nobody can benefit in secret. The name and action must be made known and published in the Government Gazette,” the members declared. (SARDC)
