What exactly was the purpose of Desmond Tutu's Truth and Reconciliation Commission?

[Thread]

The Promotion of National Unity & Reconciliation Act 34 of 1995 was signed into law and gave rise to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The aim was to investigate Apartheid, make recommendations on reparations to victims & to grant amnesty to perpetrators

The task to grant amnesty to apartheid criminals was given to the Committee on Amnesty which had the powers to grant amnesty to a person who had killed, tortured, abducted or severely harmed another person between 1 March 1960 and 10 May 1994

Once a perpetrator was granted amnesty, all his criminal & civil liability would be extinguished. Furthermore, the Committee absolved the state from pursuing its responsibility to take any action against the now indemnified perpetrator, leaving victims without any legal recourse

In May 1996, the Azanian People's Organisation, along with Nontsikelelo Biko, widow of Steve Biko; Mhleli Mxenge, brother to murdered activist Griffiths and Chris Ribeiro, son to murdered activist Fabian Ribeiro, challenged the constitutionality of the amnesty provisions...

in July 1996, the Constitutional Court rejected the application saying the amnesty provisions were in accordance with the provisional constitution (the one adopted in 1993 before the current one). the Court held that this was the spirit the drafters of the constitution were after

The ConCourt held that in order to have true reconciliation, the responsibility of the state to pursue justice against apartheid perpetrators and for their victims had to be "extinguished" so the government could develop a "more comprehensive reparations policy"

Even though the government had promised to adopt a reparations policy, it rejected the vast majority of recommendations put by the TRC when it concluded. One of the recommendations rejected by the ANC/NP Government of National Unity was this one https://twitter.com/SizweLo/status/1285511900730667008?s=20

Interestingly, since the TRC made recommendations, there has been an ongoing civil and criminal pursuit of mainly multinational companies who were complicit in propping up apartheid in other countries, but not in South Africa, precisely due to the existence of the TRC

Back to the TRC and its Amnesty Committee. From the start, the TRC was set up with 2 main objectives: amnesty for perpetrators if they complied & offered "full disclosure", & reparations for victims. However, only the terms of and what amnesty meant were set out unambiguously...

All those seeking amnesty needed to do was give testimony, and if the Commission felt what they said sounded plausible, they got amnesty. There was never any need to prove their claims beyond any reasonable doubt

On the other hand, for victims, what "reparations" meant, and how it would be carried out was simply left obscure and open-ended. Moreover, victims had to prove that the violations they endured were "gross". Many were turned away because no one died or was disabled

Also, even in cases where a victim's case was admitted on the basis of "gross violation", it did not mean they would receive reparations. The Commission would forward a recommendation to the President, and he would, at discretion approve it. As noted above, many were rejected

What the TRC was saying was effectively that if a perpetrator can say something that sounds true to the Commission, then he gets amnesty, guaranteed. While if a victim tells his story and the TRC thinks it's serious enough and there are resources available, he might get something

The TRC's purpose, in its own words, was "to facilitate, and initiate or coordinate the receiving of evidence from any person". The main aim of the Truth Commission was to collect information that could be used to give amnesty to perpetrators.

What the TRC meant for victims was that they could go to the commission, prove they were grossly violated and get a recommendation for reparations which would need to come at the discretion of parliament and the President...

In the end, they may not get any relief and their right to pursue the matter in court had been extinguished. Only the perpetrators were guaranteed success if they managed to clear the low bar set for them

To re-emphasise, a perpetrator could be granted amnesty for grossly violating his victim, yet the victim was not guaranteed reparations, and after amnesty was granted, that's it, the victim cannot take the evidence to court to open a case

Getting amnesty was made straight forward, while victims were made to jump through hoops for reparations. According to Nthabiseng Mogale of the Department of Justice, "victims were made to feel guilty for asking for reparations"

Mogale continues: "The debate about whether the money would heal their deep was always raised as justification for victims to accept truth as their only entitlement in the process. Feelings of anger were tacitly discouraged

"The fact that the Archbishop wore his cassock to the hearings was in itself added pressure for the mood to be sombre and reverent despite what the victims may have felt at that time

"Africans are generally Go-fearing people. A Priest, especially one in formal regalia, is seen as a servant of God on duty, doing God's work. The anger of the victims was muzzled, rather than allowed to manifest and be dealt with"

These issues are further compounded, as per Mogale, by the Nelson Mandela's insistence on acknowledging 'white fears' and his constant pleading with Africans to be "understanding and sensitive to this"

Like many commissions before and after it, the Truth Commission seems to have been set up with a predetermined goal and outcome in mind and was conducted in a detrimental manner to the whole nation, for the sole purpose of achieving its nefarious purpose.

Source: Law, Memory and the Legacy of Apartheid: Ten Years After AZAPO v President of South Africa

https://www.pulp.up.ac.za/monographs/law-memory-and-the-legacy-of-apartheid-ten-years-after-azapo-v-president-of-south-africa