SOUTH AFRICA should take an honest and painful look at human rights abuses in the country during the past 50 years if it wants to enhance its chances of transforming itself into a united, democratic and non-racial country with justice and security for all citizens.
If it decides that crimes of apartheid should go unacknowledged and unpunished, then the result will be that crimes will continue to be committed and will not be forgotten or forgiven.
This is the stark message to South African President, F.W de Klerk, from the New York based human Right Watch organization. The Organisation’s executive director, Aryeh Neir, in an open letter to President de Klerk says: “We do not believe that an amnesty law which allows those who have committed serious crimes in the name of apartheid to receive complete immunity from the consequences of their actions, with no condition other than a review by a secret commission and publication of a list of names, can make any good contribution to the process of transition in South Africa.”
Following unrest in the apartheid-ruled country which resulted in the deaths of thousands of blacks, and the subsequent breakdown in the Codesa talks, de Klerk decided to declare a general amnesty on all political prisoners.
A bill to empower him to forgive any politically motivated crime with the sole condition of review in a government appointed commission was introduced in parliament on October 16. The bill was, however, turned down by the Indian house in the tricameral parliament but de Klerk said he would refer it to the President’s Council, a rubber-stamping body with powers to override parliament.
“We urge you to accept the verdict of parliament, which rejected your proposed legislation, and not to pass the measure through the mechanism of President’s Council”, Human Rights Watch said. “We believe that no decision can be made to forgive crimes before the truth of those crimes are known”
The organisation said an amnesty for those who committed the most serious abuses was invalid under international law. If South Africa was therefore to move forward to a future of reconciliation and nation building it had to face more honestly the question of accountability for past human rights abuses.
“If a country is to come to terms with its past and successfully turn its attention to the future, it is essential that the truth of the past be officially established. It is impossible to expect reconciliation if part of the population refuses to accept that anything was ever wrong, and the other part has never received acknowledgement of the suffering it has undergone or of the ultimate responsibility for that suffering” the organisation said.
“In South Africa it is particularly illusory to expect that a transition to a new multiracial society will be achieved without acknowledgement by those who supported and benefitted from government policies –overwhelmingly white – of the atrocities that were committed in the name of apartheid; or without the opportunity being given to those who were victims of the atrocities – overwhelmingly black – to testify about their experience before a body that is impartial and authoritative, and to see human rights violations comprehensively investigated and officially condemned.”
Human Rights Watch said this process of acknowledgment was of primary importance in achieving accountability.
Those guilty of crimes should be prosecuted. While this could be very difficult, the organization said it could be done if the political will was there.
“The very process of subjecting previously all-powerful figures to the full scrutiny of a court of law is a dramatic step towards reestablishing in the eyes of the whole population the credibility of the legal system, the independence of the judiciary and the ability of a new government to deal with abuses of power without the need for extra-judicial action” the organisation said.
It said general amnesties for members of the security forces were universally unpopular and widely regarded as illegitimate. Far from promoting reconciliation, they were divisive.
“Even when it may be possible to justify – in the interests of reconciliation or political expediency – immunity from prosecution for those who committed the least serious abuses, Human Rights Watch hold that it is contrary to international law for a state to grant immunity for the most serious abuses of rights,” the organisation said.
“In these cases, truth is not sufficient and justice at all levels of responsibility is demanded. Obedience to orders is no defense for those who carried out genocide, summary executions, disappearances, torture, or prolonged arbitrary derivation of liberty.
“Moreover, although the government may legitimately forgive its enemies, it has no moral standing to forgive crimes of its own servants, which may have been committed pursuant to its own policies. Human Rights Watch mantains that an amnesty of whatever nature is not valid if promulgated by the perpetrators themselves. It is for the victims to forgive when they have full knowledge of facts”.
(1 VIEWS)
