Amnesty Hearings — Kimberley — 1997-10-29

ADV DE JAGER: Professor, paragraph 14 for instance
"Questions to be asked to somebody"
That can't be an affidavit relating to the facts of the matter, that could be suggestions and you've represented her, so I take it those questions you've asked, so that can't be part of an affidavit because an affidavit would relate to the facts that should be considered.

PROF DE KOKER: Quite correct, Commission de Jager, this affidavit and submission jointly was drawn up in August before the second round of hearings and at that stage we were not sure whether we were going to be allowed an opportunity to put questions, so by way of a submission we wanted to bring certain questions to the attention of the Committee.  Those questions from paragraph 14 to paragraph 17 have traversed during the past two and a half days, we regard them therefore as being answered.

ADV DE JAGER: So could you kindly then tell us - go through perhaps paragraph by paragraph and say: "Well I want the Commission to attend to the facts in this paragraph" because you're also opposing the applications of the two people in jail,  you're referring to them and they're not before us at this stage in any event.  ...[inaudible] insofar as we should pay attention to this, which paragraphs do you want to be evidence in this case.

PROF DE KOKER: In particular, paragraphs 1 to 10 including 10, paragraph 11.2 till paragraph 13 including paragraph 13 and then paragraph 18, that is the very last paragraph ...[intervention]

SISI KHAMPEPE: Professor, are you including paragraph 13 which actually requires answers?

PROF DE KOKER: Quite correct, it's till paragraph 12 including 12, leaving 13 and the other paragraphs dealing with the questions that were put and answered.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bode, did you want to say something?

MR BODE: No, Mr Chairperson, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: The paragraphs that have been mentioned by Professor de Koker, paragraphs of your affidavit, those are the paragraphs that you want us to have regard to, is that correct?

MRS DE KOKER-NEL: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And there is also another affidavit I believe or another document, yes indeed, another affidavit which is an annexure to the main affidavit and  you also want us to have regard to that?

MRS DE KOKER-NEL: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Are there any specific points that you want to elaborate on or elucidate in your affidavit?

MRS DE KOKER-NEL: I would particularly - well put some more light on my injuries sustained as a result of the explosion.

ADV DE JAGER: Now, your injuries are actually - should be set out in documents to the - that should come before the Rehabilitation Commission.  We have only the authority to refer them that we are of the opinion that you're a victim of violations of human rights.  I believe they've got a form that should be completed, I don't know whether some our staff members have got this affidavit and form available, if not then I think it should be requested and you should complete that affidavit in order to be declared a victim by the H&R or the Human Rights Violations Commission.  We're only making a recommendation and I think I'm speaking subject to my colleagues here but I think that as far as we're concerned, all the people that's been injured in this incident would be recommended as being victims and the same would apply to Mr Bode's clients.

MRS DE KOKER-NEL: Mr Chairperson, that was the aim of me testifying, it to finally request the Committee to refer myself and the other victims of the incident to the Reparation and Rehabilitation Committee to be considered as victims.

CHAIRPERSON: Any other thing that you wanted to say?

MRS DE KOKER-NEL: That was all Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Professor de Koker, do you want her to put questions in connection with anything else?

PROF DE KOKER: To enable the Committee to consider referring the request in terms of the Act, I'd like to have an indication from you Mr Chairman whether it would be necessary to lead evidence as to the injuries.  We can do so but I would not like to prolong the session if ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: We will just have regard to the annexure to her affidavit and I think for our purposes that it would be sufficient.

PROF DE KOKER: Then I simply would like to ask my client whether there is anything else that she would like to add in respect of her injuries.

MRS DE KOKER-NEL: Mr Chair, in paragraph 10 of my affidavit I drew up the affidavit focusing on the facts and I did - particularly in the affidavit but did not in detail set out my injuries.  That which is there is a general statement, it does not say - well, it does not deal particularly with my injuries, that is actually a very general way of saying I was injured.
	What I have experienced is, I spent some time in the ICU, I suffered balance problems and because of that I had to learn to walk again, I had to learn to speak again.  I spent seven months - the rest of 1993, at my parents home to recuperate and I returned to Bloemfontein in 1994.  I wasn't able to work again until 1995.  I lost use of the left part of my body, full uses of which I have not regained and which I probably will never regain.  
	I had a number of operations, some of which included reconstructive surgery.  I still have a shunt in my brain which regulates the pressure in my brain because the fact that there's shrapnel in my brain blocking parts of my brain, so I need pipes in my body to make my brain and the pressure function properly.  I suffer severe pain every day of my life, I can't sleep at night because the nerve ends in my brain were affected to such an extent that it's painful to rest my head against the pillow.  	
	I can't go back to the work I'd done prior to the accident, I had to make a complete career change and even where I work now, it's a struggle.  That is not part of the affidavit but I felt it may be necessary to say that.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

PROF DE KOKER: Mr Chairman, I have no further questions to put to my client, I simply request you to receive this affidavit which was handed to you provisionally as an exhibit in evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: It will be Exhibit B.  May I have that original please?
	Mr Bode, do you have any questions to the witness?

MR BODE: None Mr Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Tsholanku?

MR TSHOLANKU: None Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mpshe?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: None Mr Chairperson, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mrs Nel.
WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Does that conclude all the evidence we were supposed to hear in this case?
	Do you have witnesses Mr Mpshe?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: No, Mr Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Well then, that concludes the evidence and when can we expect to receive ...[intervention]

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman, we had a consultation during lunch time, we've all agreed on next week Wednesday being the 5th of November, they said submission will be forwarded to Cape Town office - that is next week Wednesday the 5th of November.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, that concludes our proceedings in respect of the applications of Smiles and Mbatha.  What about the other applications Mr Mpshe, are we ready to commence or is the legal representative not here?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman, members of the Committee, the legal representatives are not here, we are not in a position to commence with them today but we will be able to commence with them tomorrow - they have not come back to me.

ADV DE JAGER: What time tomorrow?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: I thought perhaps the time 9H30 or 9H00 will be suitable, the time that the Committee may direct.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: I will be able to contact him, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn until tomorrow 9 o'clock.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS