and survivors. This has been raised with the authors of such statements. The NPRC is encouraged to distance itself from the ‘let bygones be bygones’ mantra. • On periodisation, it was noted that the most preferred approach is an approach that does not leave any victims out of the process (leave no one behind). NTJWG notes that the Commission has already made pronouncements on this matter and this is welcome. • The Stakeholders encouraged greater publicity about the Commission and its mandate. We note that the majority of the people who attended the consultative meetings were unaware of the Commission’s mandate leading to some misunderstandings. NTJWG has done some work in this area and remains committed to do more. We however encourage that it is better for the Commission to take a lead role as the Constitutional body in charge of the process. • The Conference noted with concern the state of preparedness for the Commission before the outreach meetings. There is only one chance to make a good first impression. The Commission is in an attempt to win the confidence of the people. Rushing into processes without adequate preparation can only make things worse. Four points that summarise what would otherwise be areas of concern regarding preparedness. - Composition of the Commission: The Commission needed to be fully composed in a manner that satisfies the demands of section 251 (1) (a). By now we appreciate that this matter has been resolved but not without consequences. - Regulations: The Commission needs to have regulations in place before outreach as the regulations are critical even for laying down the principles for public engagement. They give legal force to the day to day running of the Commission. - Secretariat: Stakeholders really took concern with the realisation that the Commission seemed to be pushed to get into the field without competent Secretariat which is an essential component according to the Minimum Standards. As a result, there seemed to be some make-shift arrangement where other stakeholders would act as Secretariat here and there. This creates legal and logistical challenges, and may worsen the crisis of confidence. - Infrastructure: Stakeholders took note that the Commission does not even have offices and equipment to undertake its work. This is made worse by the fact that there is not transparency about the allocation of finances to the commission by the executive. Some stakeholders approached NTJWG requesting for direction to the offices of the Commission. With all due respect, it was difficult for NTJWG to direct victims to the President’s Office to meet the Commission. • The three outstanding points are critical and need to be addressed to ensure that the Commission is ready for the great task ahead. We know the Commission is not solely responsible for some of these and we have already registered these concerns with the relevant offices. The Adequacy of the Legal Framework • In general, the Conference noted that while there has been some progress in the law, there are many gaps. The NPRC Act must define the transitional justice agenda and explicitly ensure that the process is victim-centred by offering safeguards for the protection and healing of victims. Healing is not only an outcome of the process but part of the process. • Stakeholders noted they were still unhappy with the law as it is because it still gives the executive a lot of space to interfere with the operational independence of the Commission. We wish to alert you that we will soon commence an advocacy programme to reform some aspects of the Act so that greater independence is given to the Commission. • Stakeholders noted of the need for a transitional justice policy which goes beyond the NPRC Act and incorporates all Government departments. This will provide an inclusive and far-reaching transitional justice intervention strategy. This is necessary at least to ensure that THE NPRC BRIEF – 15 MARCH 2018