As a consequence of the appearance of the newspaper's reports, the Commission's Research Department has examined whether the Commission has indeed been given a censored version of the "Skweyiya Report" by the ANC.
The Skweyiya Report provided to the Commission by the ANC was a 25-page document supplied during the course of 1996, some months before the ANC and other parties first appeared at the "political party" hearings of August 1996. The report was signed by Adv. T.L. Skweyiya S.C., Ms B Mabandla and and Adv. G.J. Marcus.
Since the only source of suggestions that there was another, longer "Skweyiya Report" was the reportage in Rapport, the newspaper was asked to supply a copy of its document, which it did.
A cursory examination of the unsigned 41-page document supplied by Rapport did not substantiate, on the face of it, the newspaper's description of the document as "the Skweyiya Commission's report of 1993." This is indicated, inter alia, by the following:
* Pages One and Two of the document comprise a memorandum from Adv. Elna Revelas, who identifies herself as the presenter of evidence before the Skweyiya Commission. Paragraph Three of the memorandum says, inter alia, that "The Commission is anxious to complete its deliberations..." The last paragraph of the memo asks for the "Stuart commission report" to be made available in terms reinforcing the impression that the Skweyiya Commission had not completed its work.
* Page 36 of the document details "Conclusions" which appear on the face of it to be written in the language of political polemic rather than that of lawyers delivering the report of a Commission of Inquiry. Examples of the language:
The TRC's Research Department approached Advocates Revelas, now a Judge of the Labour Court in Johannesburg, and Marcus, now a Senior Counsel at the Johannesburg Bar, to seek further clarification on the status of Rapport's document. --- Judge Revelas, in the reply which is attached, confirmed that the first two pages of the document were a memorandum from her but said she was not the author of pages 3-41, which she had never seen before.
--- Advocate Marcus, whose reply is also attached, said he had never seen the document before and added: "It is not a report of the Skweyiya Commission nor was it placed before the Skweyiya Commission. An examination of the document reveals that it purports to be a personal account by an anonymous individual...." and "I have no idea who compiled the document but I can state categorically that it formed no part of the work of the Skweyiya Commission."
The Research Department has also considered other aspects of this matter, firstly the inference to be drawn from an article in Rapport that Judge Revelas implicitly confirmed the newpaper's document to be the Skweyiya Report. Judge Revelas has stated that when she was interviewed by the newspaper, she mistakenly assumed that the reporter was referring to the document she regards as the Skweyiya report. She has since confirmed verbally to the Director of Research that the Skweyiya Report was indeed the 25-page document.
Secondly, Ms Dene Smuts MP has referred to a report from the "International Society for Human Rights" as saying the Skweyiya Report was a 74-page document. This information still needs to be followed up but even if the information was accurate it would not substantiate Rapport's characterisation of its document.
The Research Department's prima facie view is that:
1. Rapport's document is in fact not the Skweyiya Report;
2. No proof has been offered to us that the ANC has given us a censored Skweyiya Report; and
3. The way in which pages 3 to 41 of the document were added to a memorandum written by the then Adv. Revelas raises serious questions about the motives of whoever produced the document and of those who supplied it to Rapport.
Judge Revelas states that had what she calls "the Anonymous Document" been presented to her, she would have investigated the matters raised in it to the best of her ability. The Commission similarly believes that the information in the document warrants further investigation if it can be properly sourced. We will therefore approach Rapport and invite them to assist us, without asking them to reveal the identity of possibly confidential sources, in identifying persons who can give first-hand testimony as to the accuracy of the information contained in their document.