It is a spectacular turnaround in the scandal surrounding the allegations of abuse against the KwaSizabantu Mission. Almost four years after the CRL Commission began so-called “investigations” into the incidents, these have proven to be superfluous: As it now turns out, the commission had no legal authority for such investigations at all.
The news portal News24, which publicised the human rights violations of the KwaSizabantu Mission with an extensive series of reports, reports that the legal department of the CRL Rights Commission warned even before the investigations began that the institution was not authorised to deal with the abuses. It is a fiasco for the CRL.
So a constitutional institution of the state of South Africa opened a pseudo-trial in the middle of a nationwide wave of outrage over cases of abuse at the KwaSizabantu Mission, even though the issue was none of its business. She held hearings for which she was not authorised, promised to clear up cases of abuse for which she has no legal right, basked in the light of TV spotlights and then kept the public and victims of abuse waiting endlessly for a final report that was not worth the paper it was written on. And all this against the recommendation of her own legal department. Unbelievable!
You might have guessed it. The name of the institution is: “Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities” (CRL Rights Commission). The “rights of religious communities” – not the rights of the people abused by them – are the remit of the CRL Commission. It has only pretended to have an interest in the victims of KwaSizabantu. Why did it expose the victims of KwaSizabantu to public hearings when it was not authorised to do so?
For years, the commission members around CRL boss David Mosama have made themselves the centre of the affair – even though they knew that this was not their thing at all. Seen in this light, the final paper of the “investigations” looks even more like a deliberate deception of the public in order to whitewash the KwaSizabantu mission from the serious allegations. For example, what do the hymns of praise for KwaSizabantu by former Home Affairs Minister Buthelezi have to do with the final document? The “investigations” were a fake, Mosama and his people led everyone around by the nose.
Perhaps even in conjunction with the controversial mission? The new findings could certainly justify such speculations. Because questions such as these remain: Why did the CRL Commission hear victims of the mission in public in Durban – but the representatives of KwaSizabantu on theirremises behind closed doors? Is it perhaps even conceivable that a super-rich mission, which has already driven tens of millions of rands around the country in plastic bags and delivered to dubious recipients in the dark, has also distributed a few smaller plastic bags so that its badly tarnished image is not further tarnished by answering any critical questions from the Commission? We don’t know, but the disastrous overall picture presented by the CRL Commission in the KwaSizabantu affair leaves room for speculation.
For the KwaSizabantu Mission, the situation is now even more unpleasant than before the CRL Commission’s unauthorised intervention in the abuse affair. This is because the commission no longer has any say in the KSB case and its final report on the “investigations” is a waste of paper. The mission now faces the threat of a class action lawsuit by numerous KSB victims for compensation and one or two libel suits against individual KSB representatives. For now, however, it remains to be seen what the High Court of Gauteng will decide in the CRL final report case – and who will have to bear the not inconsiderable costs of the proceedings.
For now, however, it remains to be seen what the High Court of Gauteng will decide in the CRL final report case – and who will have to bear the not inconsiderable costs of the proceedings. Some of the witnesses against KwaSizabantu – Bishop Martin Frische, Erika Bornman, Koos Greeff, Peet Botha and Gert van der Walt – had already approached the Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg months ago to have the findings of the commission’s report reviewed and set aside.
As published by the news portal News24 am, the CEO of the CRL, Tshimangadzo Mafadza, reported in an affidavit that the members of the CRL Commission had already been informed almost four years ago that they had no mandate to investigate the cases of abuse at the KwaSizabantu mission. This had happened after the publication of the Exodus series by News24, and after CRL chairman David Mosoma had pledged in television interviews with strong words to bring justice to the victims.
Three years later, after endless delays, a wishy-washy report was released recommending that KwaSizabantu apologize to its former members for the “harm” caused by its practices. The commission stated in the report that the doctrines, principles and rules of the mission fall within the realm of religious freedom and finally, surprisingly, acknowledged that its mandate is limited to the protection and promotion of cultural, religious and linguistic community rights.
According to News24, CRL executive director Mafadza stated in his court papers that the commission had not followed standard procedures in its investigation of KwaSizabantu. After the CRL’s legal department pointed out that the matter did not fall within the panel’s remit, Mosoma and his commissioners argued that it might, and decided to proceed with the scheduled hearings. Mafadza further explains, according to News24, that the statements made by the investigative committee that they were in a position to deal with the allegations against the mission were merely “comments or own opinions” of the members.
One of the witnesses against KwaSizabantu, Bishop Martin Frische, described the hearings as an “obvious face-saving exercise”, according to News24. The witnesses’ right to integrity had been unnecessarily violated by the hearings, in Frische’s view a “gross, deliberate and willful disregard” of the former missionaries. “They participated in good faith and at the invitation of the Commission in what can only be described as cynical… The members of the Commission knew that the victims’ allegations would be disputed by the Mission and that the Commission would never decisively address the atrocities that were witnessed.”
Nevertheless, the CRL Rights Commission had embarked on the investigation and invited the victims to testify in the presence of KSB representatives and the media, to relive the horrors and suffering they had experienced and to face the pain and emotional upheaval in the hope of finding redress, closure and solace in an appropriate resolution. “They had no idea that the Commission was not in a position to make a decision on a contentious issue,” said Frische.
The witnesses against KwaSizabantu now want to refer the matter to the relevant authorities, file a criminal complaint with the South African Police Service and engage the Minister of Traditional Affairs, under whose political supervision the Commission falls. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Accounts is also to be involved. Furthermore, personal claims for damages are to be filed against the defendants and the individual commission members
The CRL Commission declined to comment to News24 on the new situation as “the matter is still under judicial review”. When asked about the cost of the lawsuit, CRL spokesperson MPiyakhe Mkholo told News24 that the commission was currently unable to provide “an analysis of the rands and cents spent”.