When then Minister of Justice, Dullah Omar introduced the National Unity and Reconciliation Bill to Parliament on the 17 May 1995, reminded us that the objective of the Bill is "to provide that secure foundation which the Constitution enjoins: for the people to transcend the division and strife of the past". The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) process was to become a legal pathway and a bridge of crossing the ugly chasm of the past and journey towards a future founded on the recognition and respect of the inalienable human dignity of all South Africans irrespective of colour, race, class, creed or sex.

The moral genius of the Act was the manner in which it sought to balance the political interest of amnesty of offenders with the moral demand for reparations to victims. Perpetrators were to be offered an opportunity to be pardoned, and the victims to be assisted to get on the path of restoration of their humanity and dignity. Based on the belief that the telling of the truth about past gross human rights violations will facilitate the realization of both objectives, that is, the acknowledgement of the suffering of victims and free perpetrators from the heavy conscience of the past.

On the eve of the final curtain being closed on this TRC process, a new talk is gaining currency. This is the talk of general amnesty outside the TRC process. The argument used in support of this proposal is that there are many offenders who, either for technical reasons failed to have their application processed, or those who wanted to apply but were bound by positions adopted by their political parties at the time when the window for amnesty application was open, and still those whose application where denied amnesty on technical grounds. The argument then is that, if we as a nation are to pursue the commitment to reconciliation and the reconstruction of society, general amnesty must be explored as an option.

The enduring wisdom of the TRC Act was its awareness of the interrelatedness of the legal act of granting amnesty to the moral necessity of truth telling by the perpetrator, and promise of reparations by the state. We need to be reminded that the offenses we are talking about are not regular criminal offense, but gruesome and gross acts of murder and torture. To promise to pardon such offenders had to come at a dear prize, and that prize was full disclosure. To liberally dispense spoonful doses of amnesty to perpetrators without the simultaneous knowledge that they have to endure the bitter taste of public disclosure of their past is a serious moral monstrosity. Human lives were taken by people who played god, people who took into their hands the power to decided the fate of other human beings, breaking their bodies, minds and souls. Any society that wakes up from this nightmarish past, and whitewashes these crimes by offering general amnesty is trivializing the crimes and insulting the suffering and loss of victims.

Politics may indeed demand that we bite the bullet of general amnesty, and close the chapter of the past for all posterity. We are reminded that the alternative is that we will have endless court cases of civil claims and prosecution. In the case of KwaZulu Natal, there is a strong case for the argument that the TRC process failed a number of perpetrators who would have chosen the moral pathway the TRC offered, but the political hurdles denied them that opportunity.

True as all this may be, we must seriously question whether does the general amnesty route being broached in some circles offer the solution to these predicaments. Are we not committing a fatal moral misdemeanor for the benefit of a quick fix political gains?

The South African Council of Churches has always approached matters of our past with political openness and moral sensitivity. We have argued against the temptation to accord the TRC process the status of absoluteness. We have chosen to view it as a fragile, imperfect, process that nonetheless sought, in the prevailing context, to assist our nation to realize the dream of unity and reconciliation. We have argued that the political compromises at play, such as decision about what types of acts are political, do not fully reflect the manner in which our past was experienced. We know of people who belonged to neither political organization, yet they engaged in political acts for which they were imprisoned. As the SACC we have argued that a higher moral imperative may require that we go beyond the legal confines of the TRC in our search for a lasting reconciliation. We are have cautioned against any fundamentalist approach to these matters, as if there is only one way of effecting reconciliation. We have welcomed creative ways of engaging our nation, using our diverse cultural, traditional and religious resources, in the task of promoting reconciliation. We see the TRC as but one way amongst many. It is for that reason that we have been reserved in recommending the TRC route to other nations.

TRC process is quintessentially South African made, and proudly so. We must handle it with respect, but not with fear and trembling as if it is sacred. It is our thing. We must have the courage to dissect it, interrogate it, and criticize it where necessary. But we cannot afford to render it redundant or trivial. The TRC was a serious moral process, where people who lost very dear possessions opened themselves to it with the hope that through it they will find closure to their violated lives.

Those making suggestions about a free for all amnesty, must be well advised that human lives are involved. General amnesty fails the equation that the TRC held between perpetrator assurances and victims needs. General Amnesty does an injustice to victims. There must be a way out though. This way must still be founded on the national objective to foster reconciliation and build a future founded on human rights respect. We have recommended that the President appoint two standing commission, one to deal with reparations for victims, including those victims whose names are not in the Final TRC Report, those victims who were left out for reasons beyond their control. And another Commission to deal with special future applications for Amnesty, especially those from KwaZulu Natal, but also from other political parties that did not recognize the TRC at the time, as well as those applications which were denied by the TRC for various reasons.

South Africa can once again rise above the limitations of history. In this matter of amnesty, we need to be creative and visionary. But we dare not sacrifice the moral requirement to act justly and respectfully to the victims.

Dr Molefe Tsele
General Secretary
23 March 2003