Ackerman under pressure as contradictions and tampering claims dominate TRC Inquiry

Allegations of political interference in apartheid-era prosecutions, contradictions in testimony, and possible document tampering have taken centre stage at the TRC cases inquiry, as former Priority Crimes Litigation Unit head, Anton Ackerman, faces intense cross-examination.

Ackerman returned to the stand on Thursday following explosive testimony last month, during which he accused authorities of failing victims of apartheid-era crimes by prioritising reconciliation over justice. His latest appearance has seen multiple lines of questioning from legal representatives probing the consistency and credibility of his claims.

– Contradictions over political interference –

SAPS representative Advocate, Motlalepula Rantho, challenged Ackerman on inconsistencies between his current testimony and previous affidavits regarding when political interference in apartheid-era cases began.

Under cross-examination, Ackerman revised his earlier position, stating that interference began in 2003 when police allegedly refused to investigate TRC cases. This differs from his 2015 affidavit, in which he indicated that interference started in 2004, when investigations were suspended.

Rantho suggested Ackerman was changing his version, but Ackerman maintained that reviewing earlier documents had refreshed his memory.

The inquiry also examined discrepancies surrounding a 2006 letter linked to SAPS, with Ackerman conceding that his understanding of events evolved after revisiting additional documentation.

– Chikane case delays under scrutiny –

The inquiry also focused on delays in prosecuting cases linked to, Reverend Frank Chikane, an anti-apartheid activist who survived detention, torture, and a 1989 chemical poisoning attempt.

Rantho questioned whether delays were due to internal processes, such as awaiting legal opinions and approvals, rather than political interference.

Ackerman, however, insisted that political pressure played a role, alleging that a minister instructed him to halt proceedings just before accused individuals were due to appear in court in November 2004.

It also emerged that Ackerman omitted key details from his official report, including the alleged ministerial intervention, raising concerns about the completeness of his account. Rantho further disputed claims that the Chikane matter dominated internal discussions, citing records that suggested otherwise.

– Document tampering allegations emerge –

In a new development, the inquiry has begun probing claims of document tampering linked to Ackerman’s work.

Ackerman testified that several documents reflected identical amended dates, raising concerns about the integrity of records used in decision-making.

Under questioning by victims’ lawyer, Howard Varney, Ackerman revealed that a 2003 file note appeared to have been altered on his computer, with its date changed to 2006.

Further inconsistencies were flagged, including references to a typist who had already left the unit years before the documents were allegedly created.

Ackerman also confirmed that a 2006 audit into potential prosecutions was only a summary of highlights, rather than a comprehensive report, fueling concerns that critical information may have been omitted.

Proceedings are set to continue on Friday, with SAPS, the NPA, and the Department of Justice expected to further test Ackerman’s claims. The inquiry is ultimately tasked with determining whether delays in prosecuting apartheid-era crimes were the result of administrative failures or deliberate political interference.

Written by: Lebohang Ndashe