This year marks the 30^th anniversary of the first hearings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa.  To mark this, the University of Cape Town, the Foundation for Human Rights and the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation hosted a three-day event which brought together organisations from around the country and the continent.  While the event was to mark the 30^th year of the TRC, it was also an opportunity to critique the efficacy of the TRC, and to look at what has happened across the continent.

As South Africa marks 30 years since TRC started its work is an important moment for us to reflect on the legacy of the TRC and the work that still needs to be done.  This anniversary is both a reminder and a time for reflection—highlighting the successes as well as the gaps in justice, reparations, accountability, and social healing that continue into the present. For the IJR, this anniversary reaffirms its mandate to deepen reconciliation by addressing structural inequality, strengthening the rule of law, and fostering inclusive dialogue, particularly for generations who continue to live with the unresolved consequences of the past.

The conference gave IJR an opportunity to participate in a discussion on “Reconciliation for whom?” Dr Fanie du Toit, IJR’s Interim Executive Director, reflected on the way in which the TRC was a disruption from the past: it effectively created a disjuncture from the narrative of the apartheid state and laid bare what it had long tried to bury.  The Khulumani Galela Campaign, represented by Nomarussia Bonase, noted that reconciliation is still a pipe-dream for many of the survivors, victims and their families who have not received reparations.

The event highlighted the way in which the TRC created a shared, indisputable history: 82% of South Africans believe that apartheid was a crime against humanity, which includes 65% of white people who acknowledge this (SA Reconciliation Barometer, 2025).  This is significant as for there to be reconciliation, there has to be acknowledgement of the harm that was done.  The picture painted by the TRC was able to disrupt the apartheid narratives propagated by the State.

One of the important defining features of the TRC was the way in which it centred victims.  In the preamble to the TRC Act, it states that the purpose of the act is to afford “victims an opportunity to relate the violations they suffered; the taking of measures aimed at the granting of reparation to, and the rehabilitation and the restoration of the human and civil dignity of, victims of violations of human rights; reporting to the Nation about such violations and victims; the making of recommendations aimed at the prevention of the commission of gross violations of human rights”. The stated intention of the Act and the TRC process was to centre the experience of victims and to humanize them through giving them the opportunity to share their stories, which had been (violently) silenced in the past.  The process also gave an opportunity for the families of victims to find out what had happened to their loved ones who were disappeared and murdered.

The TRC also broke with the past in creating institutional transparency, naming names of perpetrators thereby dismantling the culture of secrecy and denial which had characterized the apartheid regime.

The event also recognised the way in which the TRC in South Africa has been used as the model for many transitional justice processes in post-conflict countries.  To this end, it invited participants from Kenya, the Gambia, Colombia, Uganda, South Sudan, Mali, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Tunisia, Taiwan and South Korea.

The convening highlighted some of the shortcomings of the lack of implementation and follow-up on the TRC and its processes.  The failure to prosecute those who were denied amnesty is one of the most glaring examples.  More than that, the political interference which actively aimed at preventing prosecution – which is the subject of the Khampepe Commission of Inquiry – has had serious consequences.  First and foremost, it has delayed justice for the families of the victims of apartheid.  Secondly, it has damaged our national pursuit of the rule of law and accountability which has led to a culture of impunity, which goes beyond this issue into the larger arena of state capture.

While the TRC was limited to political acts, criticism has been laid that a glaring gap in our transitional justice process has been the lack of accountability for economic apartheid and the larger crimes associated with colonialism.  Issues of economic accountability and the land question remain unresolved.  According to SARB 2025, the majority of South Africans believe that inequality is the greatest obstacle to reconciliation, indicating the necessity for these issues to be addressed and resolved.

The focus on individual acts has led to a blind-spot in terms of the structural violence metered out by apartheid.  The institutional nature of the system which was ubiquitous and imbedded in every aspect of society has yet to be properly examined.  This, it can be argued, is one of the reasons for the persistent racism which still remains.

The conference examined the issue of gender.  One of the critiques of the process has been that it failed to recognise the unique and gendered nature of the experience of women.  In many instances, the women who appeared before the committee were doing so to tell the stories of their fathers, uncles, brothers, husbands and sons. Not enough attention was paid to the particular experience of women under apartheid, especially as it related to sexual violence – which was seen as beyond the scope of the TRC.

One of the greatest failures of the last 30 years has been the failure to implement the recommendations of the TRC on the issue of reparations.  The government’s alarming decision not to follow the recommendations regarding compensation and limiting reparations to only those who appeared before the TRC is a blight on our democracy.  That the President’s Fund is sitting with R2 billion, while survives continue to live (and die) in poverty, is inexcusable.

The picture that emerges of the TRC and its legacy is mixed: there are two competing legacies which co-exist at once.  There is the positive legacy which has laid the foundations for the values and principles of the Constitution to be lived out, while simultaneously the failures have led to the persistent problems we experience today.  As we go forward, we would do well to remember the words of the Final Report: “Reconciliation is a long haul and depends not on a commission for its achievement but on all of us making our contribution.”