Hon President, we commend the disclosure of the political affiliation done here today in reply to that question. We also commend the fact that you have invited the victims of persons applying for pardon, as required in terms of the Albutt judgment. We wish, however, to raise a more difficult question of disclosure, and it is an associated question of disclosure.
The political pardon process was presented as the unfinished business of the TRC, but it is being perceived as an unfinished business of political parties. How will the hon President satisfy himself that the convicted criminals recommended by the Presidential Reference Group were indeed politically motivated to commit serial murder, theft, bank robbery and bombing?
When the reference group had its terms of reference changed on 6 February in 2008 to relieve the political parties of any obligation to confirm factual allegations made by the pardon applicants, did the former Director- General of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, in addition, tell the reference group that it was not necessary for applicants to identify those who gave commands? The question is important because political motivation and commands are really the only thing that separates common crime from offences pardonable under this post-TRC process.
Therefore, my question is: How will the hon President satisfy himself and, secondly, will he give reasons in due course in the same spirit of disclosure? Will he give reasons for each decision to pardon, including demonstrable motivation on the part of the applicant, to avoid the arbitrary granting of what otherwise becomes a politically motivated pardon and which then brings justice into disrepute since all of these people are in prison after four judicial processes?