Rev Chikane defends decision not to oppose apartheid-era pardons

Story audio is generated using AI

Rev Frank Chikane has defended his decision not to join efforts to oppose the pardons of five people convicted for the 1989 attempt on his life.

He told the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) cases inquiry that his decision was informed by the trauma of repeatedly revisiting the attack.

Chikane was led through his evidence by advocate Vas Soni in Johannesburg on Thursday, following allegations by former TRC commissioner Yasmin Sooka that his refusal to take a public stance on the pardon applications undermined his stated commitment to truth-seeking.

Sooka told the inquiry that Chikane had refused to join an initiative opposing the pardons when she and another person approached him in 2012.

Chikane said he had made a conscious decision not to participate because he did not want to relive the experience again.

“My principal reason for not participating in their initiative or process was that, first, as I explained when I gave evidence before this commission, the attempt to murder me by poisoning me, having regard to the totality of the circumstances, has been highly painful and traumatic for me.”

He said he had already been required to revisit the incident during investigations, court proceedings and the plea and sentencing process.

“At the time I was approached by Ms Sooka and Mr Van der Velde, which was some five years after the then-accused persons were sentenced, my state of mind was that I did not want to have to relive the trauma yet again,” he said.

Chikane said he was therefore “deeply, deeply saddened” that Sooka had challenged his integrity over the decision.

“With each formal recall of that traumatic experience, the pain and trauma increase,” he said.

During his evidence, Chikane also recalled the seriousness of the 1989 poisoning, saying he had lost consciousness and only regained consciousness at about 2am.

“Nobody talks about that. Everybody’s debating about their interest around my pain,” he said.

He also rejected the suggestion that his decision meant he had abandoned the pursuit of truth.

Chikane stood by his previous description of former apartheid police commissioner Johan van der Merwe and former law and order minister Adriaan Vlok as having “come out of the woodwork” and “taken off their masks” when they began disclosing information about the poisoning.

He said his strategy had been to get one person to disclose information, which could then lead investigators to those higher up the apartheid security establishment.

“Our strategy was to do exactly that, get one person to admit and have them implicate others until we get to the ultimate,” he said.

“All the statements I read, all of them end up with the language ‘higher authority’.”

Chikane said he had recently reviewed documents related to the pardon process and discovered information he had not previously known.

“I felt this morning as I went through these files and the witness that I was a subject of discussion everywhere, within government at places where I wasn’t, including the security establishment, planning how to kill me,” he said.

“It tells you I’m lucky to be alive, to be here.”

Soni concluded his questioning by asking Chikane whether he knew the outcome of the pardon applications.

Chikane said he did not, explaining that he had left government in 2009 and had not followed the process.

After Soni’s questioning, lawyers also made submissions over whether Chikane should be cross-examined.

Advocate Howard Varney, representing the Calata group, argued that the application for cross-examination appeared to seek further clarification of Chikane’s evidence rather than challenge it.

Advocate Kgomotso Moroka, for the department of justice, disagreed, arguing that cross-examination could be used to challenge evidence, place another version before a witness and elicit evidence favourable to the party conducting the questioning.

She said the proceedings were a “truth-seeking exercise”.

Chairperson Sisi Khampepe said the submissions against the cross-examination did not point to any breach of the commission’s rules, adding that the commission could find none.

“In the result, the cross-examination is permitted to continue as granted,” the chairperson ruled.