1 Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, No. 34, 1995, 3(1). The cutoff date was originally 6 December 1993 and was later extended to 10 May 1994.
2.
2 These dates were chosen as they roughly coincided with the Sharpeville Massacre (21 March 1960) and the ANC’s declaration of the armed struggle (16 December 1961), and the formal signing of the peace settlement in South Africa in December 1993. The latter date was later extended to 10 May 1994 (the inauguration of President Mandela) largely at the request of the Freedom Front and Pan-African Congress so that some acts that took place immediately prior to the election in April could be considered for amnesty. The extension angered the human rights community significantly.
3.
D. Tutu , No Future without Forgiveness (London, Rider, 1999).
4.
4 B. Hamber, ‘Repairing the irreparable: dealing with the double-binds of making reparations for crimes of the past’, Ethnicity and Health (Vol. 5, nos. 3/4, 2000), pp. 215-226.
5.
5 Piers Pigou, former TRC investigator, personal communication (25 January 2002).
6.
6 The figure finally dropped to an average of about 510,000 viewers after the programme was finally moved to the 6 p.m. slot on SABC1 at the end of 1997. (G. Theissen, ‘Common past, divided truth: the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South African public opinion’, Paper presented at the ‘Commissioning the Past’ conference, hosted by the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation and the Wits History Workshop, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, 11-14 June 1999.) The number of white viewers also dropped over the later years and months of the TRC.
7.
7 B. Hamber, D. Nageng, and G. O’Malley, ‘Telling it like it is...: understanding the Truth and Reconciliation Commission from the perspective of survivors’, Psychology in Society (No. 26, 2000), pp. 18-42.
8.
8 P. B. Hayner, Unspeakable Truths: confronting state terror and atrocity (New York, Routledge, 2001).
9.
9 Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), Final Report, volume 5, chapter 6, para. 77.
10.
10 Ibid., paras 74-5.
11.
11 Piers Pigou, op. cit.
12.
12 Hamber, Nageng and O’Malley, op. cit.
13.
13 See B. Hamber and R. Wilson, ‘Symbolic closure through memory, reparation and revenge in post-conflict societies’, Journal of Human Rights (Vol. 1, no. 1, 2002), pp. 1-19.
14.
14 B. Hamber and H. van der Merwe, ‘What is this thing called reconciliation?’ Paper presented at the Goedgedacht forum, ‘After the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’, Goedgedacht farm, Cape Town, 28 March 1998. See <http://www.csvr.org.za/articles/artrcb&h.htm>.
15.
15 TRC, Final Report, volume 5, chapter 9, paras 143-52.
16.
16 TRC press statement (16 December 1995).
17.
17 R. Wilson, The Politics of Truth and Reconciliation in South Africa: legitimising the post-apartheid state (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2001).
18.
18 Initially statement-takers were trained by the author and Thulani Grenville-Grey, TRC mental health expert. I undertook the training as part of my work as coordinator of the truth commission programme at the independent non-governmental organisation, the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation (CSVR) in Johannesburg. The CSVR ran a truth commission programme throughout the TRC process. In the initial stages of the TRC, the CSVR programme attempted to offer direct support to the TRC and its operations. However, over the life of the process, CSVR turned the bulk of its attention to those testifying before the TRC and developed into a primary support arm to the Khulumani Victim Support Group. Khulumani (Zulu for ‘speaking out’) was set up in early 1995 to assist those testifying before the TRC in preparing for the hearings. Khulumani is still in operation and has become a powerful support mechanism and advocacy organisation, lobbying for ongoing reparations and justice for survivors of apartheid violence. See the piece by Cahal McLaughlin in this issue.
19.
19 Personal interview, 9 November 1998, cited in Wilson, op. cit., p. 45.
20.
20 Wilson, op. cit., p. 48.
21.
See also M. Mamdani, ‘A diminished truth’, in W. James and L. Van de Vijver (eds), After the TRC: reflections on truth and reconciliation in South Africa (Cape Town, David Philip, 2000).
22.
22 C. Bundy, ‘The beast of the past: history and the TRC’, in James and Van de Vijver, op. cit.
23.
23 TRC, Final Report, volume 1, chapter 1, para. 63.
24.
24 Ibid., para. 156.
25.
25 Ibid., para. 152.
26.
26 Ibid., chapter 4, para. 27.
27.
27 For an exploration of the limits and potentials of the TRC to contribute to healing, see B. Hamber, ‘Does the truth heal? A psychological perspective on the political strategies for dealing with the legacy of political violence’, in N. Biggar (ed.), Burying the Past: making peace and doing justice after civil conflict (Washington, Georgetown University Press, 2001).
28.
28 A. Rigby, Justice and Reconciliation: after the violence (London, Lynne Rienner, 2001).
29.
29 H. Marais, South Africa Limits to Change: the political economy of transformation (London, Zed Books and Cape Town, University of Cape Town Press, 2000), p. 95.
30.
30 TRC Final Report, volume 1, chapter 4, para. 26.
31.
31 The equivalent of about US$1,500 at the time.
32.
32 TRC, Final Report, volume 1, chapter 7, para. 116.
33.
33 Piers Pigou, op. cit.
34.
34 TRC, Final Report, volume 5, chapter 6, para. 55.
35.
35 Hamber, Nageng and O’Malley, op. cit.
36.
D.W. Shuman and A. McCall Smith, Justice and the Prosecution of Old Crimes: balancing legal, psychological and moral concerns (Washington, DC, American Psychological Association, 2000).
37.
37 D. Orentlicher, ‘Settling accounts: the duty to prosecute human rights violations of a prior regime’, Yale Law Journal (Vol. 100, 1991), pp. 2539-2615.
38.
38 Wilson, op. cit.
39.
39 The Azanian People’s Organisation (AZAPO) and the survivors’ families of highprofile murder cases (Biko, Mxenge and Ribeiro) challenged section 20(7) of the National Unity and Reconciliation Act which permitted the TRC to grant amnesty according to certain criteria laid down in the Act denying victims access to justice (Azanian Peoples Organisation (AZAPO) and Others v the President of the Republic of South Africa CCT 17/96, Constitutional Court, 25 July 1996). This constitutional challenge was dismissed. In sum, the judgment largely argues that amnesty was a pragmatic necessity to ensure democracy in South Africa, and that hopes for large-scale prosecutions were not viable given the inefficiencies of the court system. It argues that the TRC offered at least potentially some truth and reparations to a greater number of survivors than the courts could have, while also ensuring peace.
40.
40 Cited in M. Meredith, and T. Rosenberg, Coming to Terms: South Africa’s search for truth (New York, Public Affairs, 1999), p. 316.
41.
41 TRC, Final Report, volume 5, chapter 8, para. 19.
42.
42 TRC Final Report, volume 5, chapter 8, para. 114.
43.
43 A. Krog, Country of my Skull (London, Vintage, 1999), p. 449.
