The latest case Khulumani has joined as amicus ('friend of court') is the case is between Robert McBride and the Citizen newspaper.

1. How did the case come about?
Mr. McBride, a former member of the ANC armed wing, MK, sued the Citizen for publishing a series of articles referring to him as a murderer and a killer. The basis for his defamation claim is that because he was granted amnesty by the TRC for the 1986 bombing in which a number of people were killed and some 69 injured, it is wrong to refer to him as a murderer or killer.

The Supreme Court of Appeal agreed with him and decided that the granting of amnesty wipes away the conviction "for all purposes" and therefore to refer such a person a "killer" and "murderer" is false and is defamatory.

2. Why is Khulumani joining in the case?

• Two points need to be emphasised:
  
  1. Khulumani is not fighting with Mr. McBride and
  2. Khulumani is not questioning the legitimancy or correctness of the ANC's (and other liberation forces) decision to take up arms against the evil system of apartheid, indeed it is Khulumani's position that it is wrong to draw a "moral equivalence"between the actions of the murderous, brutal apartheid regime and the resistance mounted by the liberation movement.
• Khulumani has joined this case because the implication of this case is to completely wipe away Khulumani and its members' identity and struggle.
• Khulumani is a movement of "victims"; the implication of the court's decision - that one can't call those who murdered or tortured our brothers, sisters, parents and children "murderers" or "torturers" simply because they received amnesty - is to say that for those of our members whose perpetrators received amnesty are no longer "victims" because the perpetrators are no longer "perpetrators" (killers, murderers or torturers). This is silly and insulting and is false. A killer is a killer. The fact that they received amnesty does not wipe away the very fact of the act.
• Amnesty simply means that the person's conviction is removed, simply meaning the person does not go to jail, he is forgiven in terms of the law. It does not mean that the act never happened and therefore the person is no longer a killer!
• It was only recently, on 23 February 2010, that the Constitutional Court, through Chief Justice Ngcobo, held that victims have a right to participate in activities that concern them and have a right to the truth about what happened to them and their loved ones. The Chief Justice remarked: "Excluding victims from participation keeps victims and their dependants ignorant about what precisely happened to their loved ones; it leaves their yearning for the truth effectively unassuaged; and perpetuates their legitimate sense of resentment and grief. The results are not conducive to national-building and national reconciliation." Suppressing the right of victims' to articulate what happened to them further impinges on their dignity and "perpetuates their legitimate sense of resentment and grief".
• The TRC was not about amnesia or pretending that gross violation of human rights never happenned. It was about the truth. We are fighting this decision because we fight for our right to continue to tell the truth about what happenned to our loved ones. We are fighting this decision because for our members the past is still very much in the present - they continue to leave with the physical and psychological scars of what happened to them; the "new" dispensation has not led to the betterment of their lives. This decision vindicates Khulumani's belief that "transitional justice" in South Africa was perpetrator-friendly and that victims were used to facilitate an elite transition. Now, not only are perpetrators (and beneficiaries) of apartheid allowed to continue to live a life of luxury, a court is now saying to them that the brutalities they committed never happened and victims are delusional.