m - DISA

which is p-plicltly provided for in the detention
•arrant currently used by security police;
B He would neve been visited by the Inspector of
detainees - which presumably did happen;
e The Commissioner of Police could have allowed e
friend or family member to visit hie for a short
period, under police supervision - and this did
occur during December 1961;
e After 30 deys in detention, the police mould have
had to explein to the Minister why Nell could not
be released. They eight neve said that he had not
answered all questions to their satisfaction; or
that other detainees had Implicated him in some
offense; or Just that they had not yet finished
interrogating him. Prasummbly this did happen et
the end of Omcember. and again at the end of January,
as ssctlon 6(2) of the Terrorism Act makes provision
for these procedures. The Minister did not order
Weil Aagett'3 release then. One doubte that the
Rabie proposals, If Implemented, would have made any
difference;
a Of course, if Hell had lived through 6 months of
detention, the Rebio Commissioners would have wanted
e review board appointed by the Minister to exemine
his came. This board would not have been obliged to
hear evidence from Hell - or even to have seen him.
If the board rsccwmmnded hell's release, the Minister
could have ignored this recommendation,
a If Hell - or any other detainee - lived through
ell of this, and waa charged, the attorney generel
could refuse to ellow bail. This la currently the
case, and is also a Ruble Commission proposal. If,
like most detainees, Neil hed not been charged, the
Rabie proposals would have ellowed his continued
detention as a potential state witness, or as a
'danger to state security*. This, too, can happen to
any detainee In terns of already existing security
legislation.
In the light of the above, there seeme little
room for doubt as to hoe auch difference the Rafale
proposals would have made to Heil Aggett's life -
or death, HOT does there seem eny reason to
believe that the proposed edded 'protection* for *
detelneea would neve prevented Thozemlle Gqwetha or
Sam Kiklne from finding themselves under security
police guard in the psychiatric wards of a hospital.
The Rabie Commission accepted that detention for
the. purposes of interrogation by security police was
a necessary part of security legislation. In ttyeir
summary of flndlnga, the commissioners argued that
information obtained froa persona In detention
is the most Important and, to a large extent, the
only weapon of the Police for enticipetlng and
preventing terroristic end other subversive
activities, and also that information obtained
in this eay may in appropriate cases be used as
evidence in the triel of persona charged....
The Ccmmisalon finds that It is essential to
retain this measure (para 14.5)
In its own terms, the commissioners are correct: in
the summary of their terms of reference, they write
that
To be able to Judge realistically < lf the question
(sic) of the necessity, edequocy, fairness end
efficiency of leglsletlon relating to the
protection of lntemel security, regard should
• ••.be hed in the first instance to society as
It la at present end as it is likely to be in
the forsooable future (perm 14.2).
The Report then goes on to state thet there can
be no doubt as to the need for security legislation -
Including detention provisions - given the nature
of society as it currently is, and is likely to be
in the near future. This le particularly so in
the light of
the terrorism and sabotage committed In the
Republic during the past fee years, the
likelihood thet these activities will continue
to increase In the fnreeeaUls future, the fact
that these ectivities are planned and Committed
by the supporters of organisations whose elm
la to over throe by violence the existing order
in the Republic, the fact that in their
ectivities to echleve this aim thaee orgenlsatlona
receive the support and assistence of communist
countries, and the feet that these ectivities
are carried on from territories bordering the
Republic -, end the Commission believes thet
the measures it recowatends are necessitated
by ths exigencies of the situation in which the
Republic finds itself (para 14.2).
what the Commission declines to consider is
the sort of society South Africa is, end why it
needs the protection of security leglsletlon and
detention In order to survive in Its current form.
Indeed, the Commission explicitly exj^udes this from
the terms of Its investigation end report.
Put In its briefest and simplest form. South
Africa Is a society in which the eajority of the
inhabitants are governed without even the sembfonce
of their consent and participation. The Rabie report
acknowledges thet there is a view* which claims that
the 'non-white sectors of the populetion' heve no*
part in governing the country, end thet this is the
reason for resistance which led to the adoption of
security lews. The Commission admits that msny people
have concluded that there is no hope for peaceful
change In South Africa, and that violence is the
only outlet for frustrated political end economic
aspirations. But this ths Commission sees es being
part of the political arena, while ite mandate
involves a Jurldico-legel viewing of security lawa
in the light of present end likely future events.
Of course, it would be facile to suggest thet
in ell societies which are governed without the
active consent end participation of the majority,
repressive security leglsletlon exists in the form *
proposed by Rabie. Those societies which regard
themselves as capitalist democracies Include both
repressive end ideological aechanlame to ensure the
passive consent of the awfcjorlty of people. There is
ruling class and stete repression in, for example.
North Aaerlca end western Europe - but in those areas
the majority of inhabitants have some limited control
over parts of their lives via trade unions, political
parties, the right to vote in elections from city
level upwards, etc. In e South African context,
even these limited institutions for controlling
conflict between rulers end ruled are largely
absent. *
As such, the Rabie Gomel sal oners are correct ehen
they claim that detention end other security
legialation is necessary to maintain society in its
present form. The real issue, then, is whether
society should be emintained as It is, and If not.
In what directions it should be altered. But these
questions are pieced beyond the scope of Rable's
investigation, which llalts Itself to quostione of
how best to protect those interests which currently
P«0* 2