Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1999-04-13

MR TRENGOVE: Can I perhaps just make that quite clear.  What we were told is that the Advocate withdrew without explanation either to the client or to the Attorney.  What I am saying is that I find it very difficult to believe that an Advocate would act in that way.
	But of course, I know nothing of the facts, so whether he gave an explanation or didn't give an explanation, is not something on which I can comment one way or the other.  What I am saying is that if he didn't offer any explanation, that would have been very improper and very hard for me to believe that an Advocate would act in that way.
	He might have done so.  And let me also tell you that I also had a telephone conversation with Mr Du Plessis, like Mr Wagener, I think it would be quite improper to say anything of it here, so that nothing that I say should be understood as saying expressly or by implication, anything about that conversation.
	I don't want you to be surprised later to hear that I was making these submissions whilst having had a conversation with Adv Du Plessis and not telling you anything about it.  I don't tell you about it, because it would not be proper for me to do so.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well it is close to the luncheon adjournment.  There have been some useful suggestions that have been made.  We need to consider the matter, so we will stand down at this stage for the luncheon adjournment, and we will reconvene at two o'clock.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: The matter stood down for a while after lunch in order to give an opportunity to Adv Du Plessis who had previously represented the applicant, Mr Bellingan in these proceedings, to come to the venue and to deal with the question of his withdrawal from the matter.
	Mr Du Plessis is present at this stage and he has had a discussion with the Panel in chambers.  We have explained to him the gist of the proceedings this morning which has left some unanswered questions around his withdrawal from the proceedings.   He has indicated that he would wish to take the opportunity to actually deal with it and to formally withdraw from the matter.  Mr Du Plessis?

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.  May I just for purposes of this hearing, for purposes of the record and perhaps for purposes of the public perception, explain the situation which I find myself in under the circumstances.
	I want to say, make the submission first of all that there exists between myself and my client, a privilege, namely a legal professional privilege.  That means that I am in a position as you will well know, where I cannot from a legal point of view, disclose to you the exact reasons and the facts which have given rise to the fact that I withdrew as Mr Bellingan's counsel.
	I want to mention that there were certain happenings which occurred since the previous hearing, which gave rise to the fact that I had decided to withdraw from the matter.  After those facts arose, I discussed the situation with my Instructing Attorney, Mr Britz of the firm Strydom Britz.  I discussed my position with him and he thereupon terminated my mandate.
	The facts which Mr Britz and I discussed pertaining to the reasons for the termination of my mandate, and the fact that I felt that there may have been reasons to withdraw from the matter, were not disclosed to Mr Nolte, who is sitting here on my right hand side.
	After Mr Britz and I decided under the circumstances, that we will not disclose those facts to Mr Nolte.  I had to make a decision last week, we had to make a decision last week if Mr Britz was going to terminate my mandate or not, and we had to make the decision as quickly as possible so as to enable somebody else to take over the matter, who would be in a position from an ethical point of view, to carry on with the matter.
	I believe it was I think Wednesday, last week, when I phoned Judge Potgieter's clerk after I had spoken to Mr Trengove to obtain his permission to speak to Judge Potgieter, to discuss the matter with him, and to find out from him if there would be any problem for me to arrange my withdrawal from the matter without it being necessary for me to appear this morning to do it formally.
	His Secretary came back to me and indicated that that shouldn't be a problem.  After my discussion with Mr Trengove just before that discussion with Judge Potgieter's Secretary, he also gave to me an indication that that wouldn't be a problem, and I also subsequently discussed my position with Mr Wagener.
	Although I may say that the specific facts pertaining to my position, I did not disclose in any sort of detail to either Mr Wagener or Mr Trengove.
	I may mention one further thing which gave rise to my position and that is the nature of these proceedings and the position one finds yourself in as a legal representative in these proceedings.
	I may also mention and I wish to mention this, Mr Chairman, that the facts which gave rise to the situation, I want to give you the assurance here and now, are not in any way whatsoever attributable to Mr Bellingan in the sense that it relates to anything that he did to cause the situation.
	Mr Bellingan has at all relevant times insisted on having his amnesty application heard as soon as possible, and there were times during last year when he phoned me about twice a week and my Attorney too, to pressurise us to get the matter on the role and get the matter finalised.
	I may also mention without going into any sort of detail that the situation which arose last week, were caused by other parties apart from Mr Bellingan.  However, it placed me in a position that I had no alternative than to take the matter up with Mr Britz, whereupon my mandate was terminated.
	I hope you understand that under the circumstances with reference to the legal professional privilege existing between myself and my client, Mr Bellingan, that I cannot disclose the facts which gave rise to my position and obviously although contrary view may be taken by my learned friends opposite this room, and in so far as I am allowed, I wish to make the submission that this should not be held against Mr Bellingan in any way whatsoever and that no deduction should be made because of this situation.
	I don't know if there are any questions from you Mr Chairman, pertaining to this.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no thank you very much Mr Du Plessis.  After the turn of events this morning, when the question surrounding your withdrawal from these proceedings was unclear and not fully explained, we deemed it proper that we should create an opportunity for you to appear and to formally deal with the withdrawal, which when indication was given to us last week that you will not be proceeding and that a substitute counsel had been briefed to appear and when the impression that was left in our minds was that the matter would be able to proceed without any interruption, we decided that we would spare you the trouble of having to come and just formally withdraw from the record, but as I have indicated, in view of the situation this morning, it appeared to be more appropriate that you actually do what you have just done.
	We thank you very much - explain the situation from your perspective.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.  May I just say that I am indebted to you for the opportunity to explain this because one obviously does not want a wrong impression to be sent into the world.  Secondly I want to say that I have tried in so far as I am in a position to do so, to assist my learned friend, Mr Hattingh with everything that he has to do without placing him in a compromising situation.
	I am available to do that still, so if - I just want to place that on record that he can approach me in respect of anything.  I haven't disclosed the facts pertaining to my situation to him, so he is not in a difficult, he is not in the position that I am in, thank you.