Justice for victims of apartheid?
Maybe not when the programme manager is a former employee of NATO...
One of the most glaring failures of the post-apartheid democratic era in South Africa has been the failure to to provide justice and compensation to families of anti-apartheid activists who were killed by the apartheid government or its operatives.
Last week, a series of headlines announced a new lawsuit aimed at remedying this failure. A group of families, convened by the Foundation for Human Rights (FHR) has lodged a court application against the government for failing to take action. In particular, they are seeking ‘constitutional damages’ amounting to R167million.
It was also widely reported in major international media outlets:
On the face of it, this looks like a long overdue initiative. But, if there’s one key principle that informs my analysis these days it’s: “don’t take anything important at face value”…
The devils in the detail?
When I analyse developments like this one, I usually start with similar questions: who are the key actors? what is the organisation’s history? who are its funders? These are basic questions but they can get you a long way.
In this case, the credibility of the lawsuit is enhanced by the fact that one of the plaintiffs is Lukhanyo Calata, son of murdered anti-apartheid activist Fort Calata and a journalist in his own right. Lukhanyo Calata was the only journalist who made any serious attempt at asking critical, probing questions when the murderer of Chris Hani, Janusz Walus, was released and deported to Poland.1 He has also been doggedly pursuing his father’s case for at least a decade.
Incidentally, after the Constitutional Court ordered that Walus be released on parole he went back to Poland to receive a hero’s welcome from right-wing Neo-Nazi groups (as had been predicted) and in an interview screened recently he said that he is not remorseful. His case shows how the judiciary themselves have contributed negatively to the quest for justice in the post-apartheid era - though the media prefer to focus solely on blaming the ANC (which certainly has blame to shoulder, but not all or even most of it).
But Calata is only one of the actors in the lawsuit and not the most important. And good people can be co-opted by others with complex motives and sophisticated cover stories without realising it. They can also, in some instances, decide to put some principles and concerns aside in order to pursue what they believe is a more serious issue.
Who is actually running the campaign? The FHR, represented by the pro bono unit of the law firm Webber Wentzel. The Webber Wentzel representative, Odette Geldenhuys, has a very credible-looking CV but small aspects of her early life don’t quite chime with her subsequent career. She admits that she first became interested in human rights law because it was ‘sexy’ rather than because of an actual commitment to redressing injustice. That was in the 1980s after decades of apartheid atrocities… She also mentions in passing her father’s financial difficulties due to extending credit to poor (Black) people who were unable to repay him and that as a child she resented that. In my experience, even seemingly small things like this can be very significant.
Webber Wentzel is a law firm that was heavily used by a senior person in civil society who I once interacted with quite extensively - and later concluded was compromised. One member of the FHR supervisory board appears to have little interest or expertise in human rights but does have a degree from Georgetown University. [It seems there’s usually at least one connection to Georgetown in these matters - in my last article about the NPA that was Hermione Cronje]
Another suggestive fact is that one of the funders of the FHR is the Constitutionalism Fund. One of the three major funders of the Constitutionalism Fund is the Open Society Foundation.2 (Who regular readers will notice just keep popping up…)
Based on past experience, these apparently small concerns often indicate a bigger problem. I was therefore not surprised when I dug into the background of who was leading this case from within the FHR and what their background is…
It turns out that this person is a Polish national who previously worked for NATO, including a period working for the NATO Allied Command in Virginia, United States, which of course is also the base of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The CIA itself has been implicated in apartheid crimes, the most well-known of which - but almost certainly not the worst - may be its role in the capture of Nelson Mandela by apartheid security forces. Other NATO country intelligence agencies may also have been involved, directly or indirectly, in apartheid atrocities.
Others may be more cautious in reaching a conclusion based on these facts, but I am have learned over the years not to resist the obvious inference. The above facts suggest that a former employee of an organisation that historically could have been involved in the same crimes that the lawsuit seeks to find justice for is running the programme. At best, that seems inappropriate and ill-advised. And I doubt there is any shortage of competent South Africans who could play this role. At worst, it could mean the content of the lawsuit has been steered in some directions rather than others, or compromised in other ways.3 And this in turn may explain the widespread publicity and praise for the lawsuit from media outlets that, along with many of their readers, are traditionally hostile to redressing apartheid injustices and crimes (such as News24).
As always, beware of taking such things at face value. I hope some of these families will find justice, but even if they do obtain some: how will we know what may have been concealed or omitted through a compromised process?
As I noted elsewhere, the absence of the Minister of Correctional Services, Pieter Groenewald, was striking given the presence of four other government ministers. Groenewald was an apartheid supporter and politician who may well have celebrated Hani’s assassination when it happened. His inclusion in the ‘GNU’ cabinet is one of of a number of indicators of where power really lies and whose interests it is likely to serve.
Because FHR does not appear to publish annual reports, it is not possible to determine what proportion of its funding comes from that source.
I do have some thoughts already on what this would look like, but I will leave those for another time.