The CRL Commission wants to talk, the victims of KSB rather not.
There is an old saying from Roman law that emphasises the unpredictability and uncertainty that people are exposed to both in court proceedings and at sea. It reads: “In court and on the high seas, you are in God’s hands”. Five plaintiffs before the High Court of the Province of Gauteng, who have been at loggerheads with the CRL Commission for years, can now tell us a thing or two about this. After endless back and forth, they had attempted to file a lawsuit to have an investigation report by the commission, in which the allegations of abuse at the mission were to be assessed, reviewed and cancelled. However, the court rejected her application. The judge cited procedural reasons for rejecting the claim: the five witnesses would not have had standing to sue.
One of the co-plaintiffs, Martin Frische, a retired bishop who was involved in convening a group of globally and locally respected Christian leaders over 20 years ago to investigate allegations against KwaSizabantu that had already surfaced at the time, disagreed with the judge. He was eventually called as a witness by the CRL Commission, which. in his view, entitled him to challenge the report. “Several of the plaintiffs were victims of KSB (KwaSizabantu) who testified before the CRL Commission, so they have standing to sue. It is completely incomprehensible to me why this was not taken into account by the court,” said Frische.
A look back: at the beginning of the chaotically conducted investigations, the head of the commission, Prof. Mosoma, announced full-bodied that he would clarify the incidents on the mission, but then he and his people left the victims of the mission, some of whom are still traumatised to this day, out in the cold. The final report was then just an unsorted pile of paper. All it had to do with the incidents on KSB was a request for the mission to apologise to its victims – “for the damage it may have caused through the mission’s practices”. Again: “…that it may have caused” The subjunctive mood! The dramatic statements made by the numerous victims of abuse at the hearings were not echoed at all in the report. The report at the end of the proceedings was a mockery of the abused.
From the point of view of all those who would finally like to know what a serious state categorisation of the sectarian methods of the controversial KwaSizabantu mission, of the numerous cases of severe physical and psychological abuse that have now been witnessed for 25 years, would be like tilting at windmills.
Is it a ray of hope that the new chairperson of the CRL Commission, Thoko Mkhwanazi-Xaluva, has renewed her offer of dialogue with the plaintiffs following their defeat in court? Despite the court ruling, the door is open for dialogue, she said at a press conference. News 24 quoted the chairwoman as saying: “We are not necessarily married to the report. If you (the plaintiffs/witnesses) have a problem with the report, let’s look at what the problems are. We made an offer to find a middle inn terms on the report.” In February, Mkhwanazi-Xaluva had talked about reopening the entire case, which was rejected by witnesses against the mission, citing the emotional strain.
At least there is now an offer of talks! But apparently the commission is not primarily concerned with the fate of KwaSizabantu’s abuse victims, but rather with saving face for itself. The new CRL chairwoman had already criticized her predecessor when she took office, thus confirming that the commission under Prof. Mosoma had worked sloppily, vaingloriously and presented a result that was not to be taken seriously. She distanced herself very clearly from the Commission’s approach under her predecessor Mosoma: “When I say that something happened in 1985, we should focus on what happened then and not on what is happening today. There is a gap that needs to be filled.” And: “We cannot deny that the victims feel hurt because of the way they were treated by the Commission.” In view of such critical words, how can the Commission now strive for a “middle ground”, i.e. a compromise in the assessment of the controversial final report? A “middle ground” could only help the CRL Commission and serve to circumvent or mitigate a substantive condemnation of the scandalously poor work of its predecessors. In addition, scandal mission KwaSizabantu could then continue in peace as if nothing had happened. For the many people abused by the mission, this would be a disaster after the disaster. A ray of hope looks very much different.
The other side is now appealing, i.e. once again setting sail on the high seas, so to speak. The demand is clear: the report must go! News 24 quotes Erika Bornman, one of the witnesses against the KwaSizabantu mission, as saying: “We have told CRL that we are willing to sit down and talk to them, but we cannot do that as long as they hold on to the flawed report. Admit that the report is flawed and say you will withdraw it. Why should you hold on to it?” Will a dialogue between the two parties be possible in the face of such maximum demands?
The entire proceedings will therefore drag on, but a glorious victory for the plaintiffs in court is rather unlikely. Compromise solutions could be found in talks between two opposing parties. But beatings, psychological violence and sexual coercion will remain what they are: serious abuse. A constitutional institution of the Republic of South Africa cannot pretend to want to clarify such offences against human dignity on a mission and then not name them. What good is a compromise to the victims of the KwaSizabantu Mission in view of their horrific experiences? Moreover, with an institution that has added another link to the chain of their suffering?