Title:

‘Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes’

Who shall Guard the Guardians?

Address: Ronnie Kasrils, MP, Minister for Intelligence Services

Inauguration Ceremony for the new Archives Building

Musanda

27 September 2005

In expressing her pride in this important occasion the Manager of Information Management, in a letter to my office, summed up the attitude of some to the notion of archives. She said – and I trust that she will not mind when I quote her - that ‘records management is taken so lightly by many because they think of archives as a ‘dead end’, whereas in reality it is a vital, living and very progressive development’.

Well, I whole-heartedly agree with her perspective. Let me explain why:

Archives: Our nation’s heritage

On Saturday we commemorated a most important occasion – a day which we have dedicated to the celebration and recognition of the heritage of the people of our country. This inauguration ceremony is therefore very timely as archives form a critical element of what constitutes the collective heritage of nations.

This is because countries preserve their heritage in many ways – through permanent collections of varying kinds like archives as well as through the restoration of sites which have religious, political, cultural, scientific, archaeological or environmental significance. In doing so, they declare what has value for them and what they seek to preserve as evidence of their own development and achievement.

In this way archives constitute the memory of nations and societies. By providing evidence of human actions and transactions they assist in shaping national identities and seek to preserve the memory of what a governmental body, an organisation or an individual did, as well as the circumstances and context connected with the activity.

They help us uncover who we are, where we come from and in doing so enable us to better appreciate the present. Indeed, they provide the very basis for a proper understanding of the past that is important in our country to inform the development of a new democratic society.

It is precisely for this reason that recently - while we watched in horror at the devastation and loss of life which ensued as a result of hurricane Katrina - the International Committee of the Blue Shield, which boasts as its affiliate the International Council on Archives, in pledging its solidarity with the people of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama expressed their ‘profound concern for the fate of the heritage in the affected states’.

It further called on the American Government to urgently draw up plans to ensure the survival and restoration of amongst others the documents contained in the archives of these states as they reflect the history, identity of these communities as well as provide the link between its past, present and future. They went on to add that ‘a community cannot function effectively in the larger societal context if deprived of its identity through the loss of this heritage’.

Indeed, while the possible destruction of records in this instance is as a result of a natural disaster, history has and continues to show us countless of examples of how ruthless leaders have callously ordered the destruction of records, the desecration of places of worship and monuments as a way of subjugating vanquished communities and nations. Even in democracies, for example they have embarked on Watergate style cover-ups, subverting truth and justice for their own corrupt agendas.

As Africans, we know how colonialism attempted to rob us of our heritage. We know all to well how it attempted to portray us as a Continent, with no history before the ‘white man’ arrived on our shores, which produced little of value for humanity. We know how it refused to acknowledge our role as the creators of knowledge and original cultures that flowered and survived over the centuries. Similarly, as South Africans, we know how Afrikaner nationalism and apartheid brought with it the visible absence of black people and the silence of their voices from the heritage landscape.

This perspective is reflected in the archives which we inherited from the previous Government in 1994, which paid scant attention to the importance of the preservation of documentation in general but also more specifically those which reflect the true history and experience of black South Africans under apartheid. It is for this reason that our Government has paid special attention to addressing the huge gaps in our archives as part of building our collective memory and national identity as a fledgling democracy.

And we need to be on guard today, never to be driven by complacency into assuming that in a democracy such as ours there is no corruption, cover-ups or abuse of power. The old Roman maxim which arises from a question posed by Juvenal - ‘Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?’ Who will guard the guardians? Who will police the police? Who will supervise the spies? remains a universal challenge.

Archives: Ensuring democracy, accountability and good governance

As I indicated earlier the preservation of our heritage is as concerned with the present as it is with the past. In particular archives, by guaranteeing citizen’s rights of access to official information, are fundamental to democracy, accountability, transparency and good governance. The sanctity of the archive, the paper trail in governance, is a guarantor of legality and a guardian against malpractice. It is one way of guarding the guardians.

In our country, transparent and accountable government is the very cornerstone of our democracy. And the right of individuals to access government information is not only reflected in legislation through the Promotion of Access to Information Act but is also enshrined in our Constitution. This right is not an end in itself but is part of a broader constitutional imperative of promoting a culture of human rights and preventing an abuse of power. This places a large responsibility on our archival institutions – they are required to ensure the effective management of records – so as to enable our people to exercise these fundamental rights.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission

This is particularly important in the case of our security institutions, where as reflected in the findings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), the former Government embarked on a large scale effort to destroy documentation, which provided crucial documentary evidence of their human rights abuses and state sanction in the perpetration of these pernicious deeds, so as to avoid accountability for their actions.

As a result, the new Government placed a blanket moratorium on the destruction of public records. And while this moratorium was lifted for other Government Departments in 1998, given the importance of ensuring the recovery of pre-1994 documents to support the TRC and related court cases, this was not the case for our security institutions.

Indeed, the importance of the documentary and archival evidence, which was not destroyed, played an extremely valuable role in aiding the work of the TRC in uncovering these abuses. For example, the minutes of the former State Security Council from the 1980’s were littered with references which refer to neutralising, eliminating, destroying and taking out so-called enemies of the state. While many of apartheid leaders sought to have the public believe that this language was nothing more sinister than to detain or ban these individuals, those who carried out these orders understood them to mean kill, murder and assassinate!

Secrecy vs Transparency

Prior to the establishment of the democratic dispensation, the security agencies were not compelled to comply with archives legislation. They argued that due to the sensitive nature of their work, they should be exempt. In effect they invoked the notion of secrecy as a cloak to mask their abuses.

This is, however, no longer the case. Our Intelligence Services are subject to the same constitutional and legislative framework, governing access to information, which other governmental bodies are, except in cases where the disclosure of the information is prejudicial to the defence, security and international relations of the state.

Indeed, we prize the development of a more open intelligence community as we believe it will go along way in demystifying and building trust with the very people of our country which we are expected to serve. We know that public debate is only meaningful if it is informed. We are aware that issues of intelligence are important for public scrutiny and that ensuring the proper use of state resources is in the public interest.

However, in as much as openness is the oxygen of democracy, secrecy – particularly with respect to sources, methods and names of members - is the lifeblood of intelligence. Secrecy, where appropriate, is a necessary requirement for a democracy so as to safeguard it against any threats. It is for this reason that the right of the public to access such information is limited in these instances.

However, the accountability and transparency of the Intelligence Services is not. It is institutionalised by the extensive range of oversight bodies at various levels, which our Constitution and legislative framework enjoins us to establish.

These bodies help serve the public interest and ensure that the Services comply with the provisions of the Constitution and intelligence legislation. In this way the tensions between secrecy and transparency, which are essential for the maintenance and defence of national interest, are managed through the presence of these institutions. 

These rights will also be further strengthened by the implementation of the recommendations, flowing from the Ministerial Review Committee on Classification and Declassification, to assist the Intelligence Services in developing clear guidelines as to what should be held secret and for how long. I am pleased to announce today that I have requested the Co-ordinator of NICOC, Mr Barry Gilder, to lead a legislative task team established for this purpose.

Our responsibilities: Five key undertakings

Given that records are a potent bulwark against unlawful actions, those responsible for their care exercise enormous power in safeguarding and maintaining the democratic gains that so many of our people fought and died for. They, together with the membership of the Intelligence Services, carry a sacred burden of trust, which has been granted to them by the people of our country.

The records contained in this new archives building must not only be properly managed and preserved, but they must act as a constant reminder to us of the horrors of our past, so that we dare not repeat it. They must remind us of the values underscoring the declaration of allegiance, which all took on joining the Services as well as the code of conduct for intelligence officers, which all have sworn to abide by. In this respect all members of our intelligence community need to abide by five key undertakings:

1.         We must accept the fundamental principle of legality. We do not stand above the law. We are not exempt from the law. We are unequivocally and emphatically bound by the law and the Bill of Rights. All our operations must be conducted within the parameters of the Constitution and relevant legislation. The founders of our democracy took this issue so seriously that they enshrined in our Constitution the requirement that members of the security services should disobey a manifestly illegal order.

2.         We must accept the fundamental principle that we are subordinate and accountable to the elected and duly appointed civilian authority. The establishment and maintenance of democracy is not possible if we do not accept this principle.

3.         We must accept the fundamental principle of political non-partisanship. We may not further, in a partisan manner, any interest of a political party and we may not prejudice a political party interest that is legitimate in terms of the Constitution. We must refrain from involvement in party politics. How you vote is your preference outside the workplace. Conversely, government and opposition groups should not misuse the Intelligence Services for partisan political ends.

4.         We must accept that our Services owe no loyalty to any political party or faction, or statutory or non-statutory security service of the past era. We owe our loyalty to the Constitution, to the citizens of our country, to the state, to the intelligence structure in which we are employed, and to each other. Any kind of partisan conflict within our ranks is unprofessional and unacceptable and cannot be tolerated.

5.         We must strive to maintain high standards of technical proficiency in the performance of our functions, enhance our skills and knowledge, safeguard the property and other assets of the state, and undertake our activities in an efficient and effective manner.

It is only in this way that we can leave a lasting heritage, which our people and indeed future generations can be proud of. It is an honour to inaugurate our new Archival Building here today. Its very presence and its mission carry a sacred burden of trust granted by our Constitution and our people. Indeed, it is a crucial element of guarding the guardians.