If you look at the hearings envisaged in terms of the provisions of the commission, I believe that we are coming up with a scenario where we are having proceedings of too much of a formal nature. I believe that when you are dealing with issues of mediation, issues of trying to bring about national healing, we need to have a process which is as informal as possible. If you look at what happened in Rwanda where they had their local courts called Gacaca courts and I believe that this is something which we must be envisaging, a scenario where you do not have formal hearings taking place so that the provisions in the Bill make it clear that what we are having is a situation where we are going to have issues of negotiation, mediation which are done in as informal a manner as possible which will allow members of the public, people who have been victimized to come forward without fear so that they can say what they have gone through. Hopefully, the commission will then be able to make the appropriate recommendations. It is for these reasons that I believe that the concept is good but what it entails is for us to have a full commitment which unfortunately and which very sadly is lacking on the part of the Executive. I would like to implore the Executive to at least take into account the spirit of the Constitution which led to the establishment of the Commission. Thank you.
See also
The first bill that was rejected
National Peace & Reconciliation Commission Bill
Parliamentary Legal Committee's adverse report on the first bill
PLC Adverse Report – National Peace and Reconciliation Bill
The new bill under debate
National_Peace__Reconciliation_Bill_2017
(315 VIEWS)
