allegations of criminality in the South African National Defence Force
(SANDF)
16 February 2007
Recent media reports have alleged acts of killing, torture and assault of
the people the SANDF is supposed to protect, resulting in taxpayers potentially
being held liable for the payment of civil claims against the Department of
Defence amounting to R978 miilion. This has been noted with grave concern.
As the department entrusted with the ultimate security of all South
Africans, the department considers the matter to deserve the highest attention,
with allegations of torture and killing being accorded special priority. Even
one such occurrence is one too many, even one such occurrence undermines the
value system of a military in a Constitutional Democracy, compromising the
integrity of the government and the country, both domestically and in the
international arena.
Accordingly, the department has explored the veracity of the allegations and
the potential implications thereof. It is readily apparent that the manner in
which the alleged incidents have been reported, obscures the truth.
Our history as South Africans is reflective of past eras where the abuse of
human rights was common and where certain sections of our population came to
know oppression and alienation of the worst sort. It is this history, which has
made us as South Africans extremely sensitive to any action which seeks to
alienate, oppress or compromise the rights of the collective. The SANDF has
never, and will never, authorise acts of torture, murder and assault. Such acts
exceed the realm of any professional military organisation and are prohibited
in all democracies. Allegations of torture are therefore extremely injurious to
the image of the Department of Defence, to the government and to the morale of
our people.
Vigorous attempts to verify such allegations of torture have been fruitless,
with no such case having been found. While the media has an obligation to
observe and question potential deviations, this must always be done in a
responsible manner. The intentions of the journalist are considered sound;
however, her interpretations thereof appear somewhat unsound. The publication
of such unsubstantiated allegations in reputable media is therefore
disappointing.
Regarding the allegations of killings levelled against members of the SANDF,
it is contended that terminology such as killing and torture, while having
considerable sensationalist value, contradicts the principle of responsible
reporting. The act of defence carries with it an inherent risk of mortal
casualty, but such acts cannot and should not be equated with random acts of
banditry and hooliganism. In the instance of such acts occurring, it is
re-iterated that such acts are viewed with utmost gravity and the due process
of the law is stringently exercised and upheld in accordance with the
democratic principles of the constitution.
Regarding the issue of contingent liabilities, analysis of data reflects
that civil claims emanating from alleged criminal acts are negligible in
comparison to claims emanating from alleged non-criminal civil actions.
Suggestions that tax payers might have to fork out almost a billion rand in
civil claims arising from killing, torturing and assaulting the people they are
supposed to protect, is not only spurious, but irresponsible.
It is important to differentiate between events occurring prior to 1994 and
the establishment of the SANDF and those happening thereafter. Amplification is
provided by the massacre in Kwa-Makhutha on the south coast of KwaZulu-Natal,
associated with Operation Marion. This occurred in 1987, with the subsequent
claim only being filed in the financial year of 2002.
While it is correct that the financial statements depicting contingent
liabilities arising from civil claims reflect an amount of R978 million, it is
important that the figure is read within the correct context. The contingent
liability amount reflected in the financial statement denotes a possible
cumulative financial obligation to the department from 1999 to March 2005. Some
of these claims are either before the courts or have been registered by the
Department of Defence based on the receipt of letters of demand and therefore,
no final determination or settlement has been made as to the liability of the
department.
Whereas the amount is reflected in the annual Financial Statements, this is
aimed at complying with the disclosure requirements of the Public Financial
Management Act and the Treasury Regulations that require government departments
to make visible their possible financial risks. Clearly, on conclusion of the
judicial process, a substantially reduced figure is anticipated.
In conclusion, the SANDF remains a professional, disciplined, voluntary
force, which seeks to defend the people of South Africa and to uphold the
constitution and the Code of Conduct. Any member of the SANDF, who seeks to
contravene these principles, will be decisively dealt with in accordance with
the due process of the law. I urge all members of the Department of Defence to
continue their good work of vigorously supporting the governmentâs imperatives
to help promote growth and development, as well as to support external
Government Diplomatic Initiatives through effective participation in Peace
Support Operations and post-conflict reconstruction.
I thank you
Issued by: Department of Defence
16 February 2007
