Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1997-09-11

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, while we had been sidetracked now, may we ask some guidance perhaps.  It seems to us Mr Chairman, that we are now running into 17 civil trials here.  No more and no less, basically trials for compensation with 17 witnesses that are going to come and give evidence.  All of whom will tell you that they are not opposing the application.
	Some of who will contradict the applicants in a matter, some of whom will implicate some of my clients, inter alia.  I am not certain and that is why I say I would like to ask some guidance Mr Chairman, because we find ourselves sitting on two chairs here, we don't act for the government, we are not here to protect the government against claims which are now being established here.
	We don't see how this fits in really in the procedure which is being envisaged in an amnesty application, clearly a victim is entitled to come and tell you his story.  There is clear provision for that.  I think the point about that would be Mr Chairman, to place you in a better position to make a recommendation as to whether A, B or C should be viewed as a victim for purposes of compensation.
	But my question is this, and this is what I would like some guidance on because I would like to give feedback to Pretoria about this Mr Chairman, where we discuss our position in the situation, is it really intended that we should have 17 trials here so to speak?  We have a serious
problem, I wouldn't like to get involved in this, unless I have to.

CHAIRPERSON: But Mr Visser, the Act says that they have to be notified of their right to be present at the hearing and to testify, adduce evidence and submit.  And they are adducing evidence.  The Act gives them the right to do that.  We have to notify them, notify them of where the hearing is going to be so that they can come and to that.
	The question that has arisen now is whether they should also if they are not opposing the application, follow the normal procedures and put their cases to the applicant, but I don't see how you can now say they can't adduce evidence, their own evidence.

MR VISSER: No, no, Mr Chairman, I believe with respect, that I have been misunderstood.  I specifically referred to the provisions of the Act, and that is Section 30 if I remember correctly, it is quite clear they have a right to be here, they have a right to be informed and they have a right to say what they want to say.  I am not arguing about that.
	But what is happening here today seems to me to be something different.  It is going beyond merely coming to tell you that I am a victim and this is the way in which I became a victim and these are the people who attacked me and that is how I became a victim.
	It seems to me Mr Chairman, that we are dealing here literally with a civil claim, so it seems.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Mr Visser, you know, it troubled not only you but some of us, many of us, I can assure you, but you see the only problem is that for example some of your clients it would appear from the questions that you put to Motsamai and Ngo, it appear that some of your clients if not all of them, denied that they assaulted, they took part in the assault.
	In other words they are saying the applicants are lying.  Now, you have the victims who are sitting in here who would have been present and who want to come and say no, Mr Visser's clients are not telling the truth.  They were there.
	And what should we do with that, you see it is going to be very difficult for us to say for example to prevent those victims from coming to confirm that let's say Ramosoeu was there and so on, and then in the end, we disbelieve and applicant and say well, Motsamai you were lying when you said Ramosoeu was not there, when in fact there were people here in the audience who could have come forward and confirmed that Ramosoeu was there.  That is just the problem.

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, if I may give you my personal view.  I heard my learned friend say that we are dealing with civil actions, but this is not the purpose of the evidence we are hearing here today.  I don't even, we have to refer to the Act.
	These assaults have already lapsed.  He was aware of the people, he could have brought civil actions at that stage.  The Police Act at that stage placed a certain limitation on this.  I don't think we are dealing with any civil actions, I don't think that is the case at all.
	I think we are dealing with people who want to come and say what happened and it is on that understanding that I put this evidence before you.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Mr Visser, I think we understand that you didn't really mean - you have been misunderstood.

MR VISSER: Thank you for at least appreciating that Mr Chairman, I am not here to be obstructive, I am here to be of assistance, and I just want to know how best I can be of assistance Mr Chairman, that is why I asked for the guidance, but I understand what Judge Ngoepe has said and what he has said, makes perfectly good sense to me.
	As far as we are concerned, Mr Chairman, we will make our contribution but we will obviously be restricted to only in so far as one of these victims, would implicate one of my people.  The moment it goes beyond that or stops before that, I will obviously not be entitled to cross-examine or ask questions from the witness.  So it seems to me.

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, what is still important and this is what I maybe misunderstood, is that in each event about which the applicants testified, that I had to put the contrary point of view, I have to put this, when I started with my cross-examination of Mr Motsamai I wanted to do it in detail.
	The matter was discussed and guidelines were laid down saying that I had to lay down the basic principles in the form of general statements.  But now if it is expected of me to have made statements in cases where my applicants, my clients differed from the applicants, then I prejudiced my clients because I had not done so.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, you haven't prejudiced your clients, because they weren't seeking any relief, are they?  They are not opposing the application?

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, that is correct, but the problem is that if we have to refer to each of these pieces of evidence, then I personally am being put in a bad light.  I agree that we are not here to claim any compensation, but then it shouldn't have been stated to me like that.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: I think you are generalising, we are dealing with a particular point here.  Your clients' interest is to tell us, to tell us about the assault on them and by whom.
	I think they want to tell us.

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, that is exactly what we are doing.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: I don't think you have ever been asked to compromise on those two aspects, as to who assaulted you, were you assaulted you and who assaulted you.  What else would they come to testify here about if not to come and tell us they were assaulted and assaulted by such and such a person.
	What else would they be telling us about?

MR STANDER: That is correct, Mr Chairman but the problem I have is that statements are being made that whilst such and such a person was testifying, such and such a person had not made this statement.  Fingers are being pointed at me indicating that I haven't done my work properly, and this is not the case at all.