De Klerk replies
2005-12-09 09:58
Johannesburg - The FW de Klerk Foundation on Thursday night responded to specific questions by Beeld:
On the large-scale destruction of official documents: As far as Mr De Klerk and his cabinet are concerned, documentation was disposed of in terms of the Archives Act.
During his presidential term of office orders were given for departements to destroy surplus copies of official and classified documents received from other departements. The originating department of a document had to keep the original, as required by law. Any attempt to ignore or circumvent the law would have been an offence.
On ivory smuggling by top defence force officers: It would be appropriate to investigate alleged offences provided that prima facie evidence exists. One wonders, however, whether the public prosecutor's time would not be better spent investigating allegations of current corruption.
On whether the assets of cabinet members of the time should be investigated: Only if prima facie reasons exist for believing that they were guilty of an offence. If not, their constitutional right to privacy would be infringed.
On a comprehensive investigation into corruption in the years 1976 to 1994: Mr De Klerk believes that previous governments would easily withstand an impartial investigation into the way they handled corruption.
There was no systematic corruption while they were in power. The question is whether this would be the best way of spending the state's limited resources while South Africa was currently confronted with serious corruption.