Amnesty Hearings — Ermelo — 1998-09-14

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Patel, would it be convenient if we just took a short adjournment.  I think the interpreters need a break, and I'd also appreciate it if we could just see the legal representatives shortly in our room next door here.  But we'll just take an adjournment for ten (10) minutes.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

ISRAEL NYONI HLONGWANE: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: When we adjourned I said we'd only be adjourning for ten (10) minutes, but that hasn't occurred, and during the adjournment there have been discussions between the legal representatives together with the clients they represent, and I've been requested at this stage, and I see it's already ten to four, so it's not too early, to adjourn this matter to allow them to continue with their discussions in the hope that these will in the long run shorten these proceedings.  So, in the circumstances we are now going to adjourn for the day, but we'll be starting tomorrow morning at half past eight again at this hall.  So at this stage then we'll adjourn until tomorrow morning at half past eight.  Thank you.
PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED TO 17 SEPTEMBER 1998
PROCEEDINGS RESUMED ON 17 SEPTEMBER 1998 - DAY 4

CHAIRPERSON: Yesterday when we adjourned, Mr Patel was still busy questioning the witness, Mr Hlongwane.  Mr Patel, are you in a position to proceed?

MR PATEL: Mr Chairman, if I may just explain my position at present.  As the Committee is aware, there was a meeting yesterday between the people I represent, and the applicant.  Some of the applicants are still considering their position and have not made a final stance.  In the circumstances, we would ask the indulgence that my cross-examination be postponed and we can continue with the rest of the legal representatives, who represent other people, and come back to me when that is finished, so that we don't waste time.
	In the interim, my people can consider their position and let me know what their final stance will be.

MR WILLS: I have no objection to that Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Patel, you say that some of the applicants are reconsidering.  Is that - the victims at least, is it a vast number of them or which ones?

MR PATEL: Without tipping my hand too much, it appears that the majority are in favour of pulling away their opposition, or taking it away.  The minority, the people who are considering, are still in the minority.

UNKNOWN: Mr Patel, you indicated yesterday that you were not opposing all the incidents for which amnesty is being sought by Mr Hlongwane.

MR PATEL: Yes, that is correct, not all of the incidents.

UNKNOWN: Are you in a position now to indicate which incidents you still have to take instructions from your clients?  I am very reluctant, speaking for myself, to grant you the request that you have requested, because it is really going to make a haphazard fashion of our record.

MR PATEL: I don't think that I am in a position at present, to advise the Committee with any certainty.  I wouldn't like to put my head on a block as to who has said yes and who has said no and who is no longer interested, etc.
	What I want the Committee to bear in mind is that at present I represent 18 people.  Together with them, are other members of their families and there is discussions and negotiations and for that reason, I am unable to lay my head on a block with regard to certainty.
	I think you will also appreciate Madam, that I came into the matter very late.  We have been working around the clock in order to keep the proceedings flowing.  My suggestion to do matters in the way that I have suggested, is simply in order to ensure that we don't waste any more time.
	I understand your problem, I certainly appreciate that it is a haphazard manner of doing things, but in the circumstances I believe it is the most fruitful way of dealing with the situation as it now exists and further than that, I cannot help.

UNKNOWN: Yes Mr Patel, if I may come in here.  Whilst you talk about the 18 victims that you represent, would it be possible to assist the Committee by providing a list of those victims to facilitate in the considering of the evidence later on.  Will it be possible to have it today?

MR PATEL: That will be very possible, I believe a list has already been compiled and is in the possession of the Evidence Leader.

CHAIRPERSON: I think it will be necessary not only to have their names, but also their addresses as well.

MR PATEL: Their full details have been furnished, names, addresses, telephone numbers and the people in respect of whom they are victims, their names have been furnished as well.

CHAIRPERSON: Does anyone have objections to interposing into the cross-examination of this witness with their cross-examination?

MR HEWITT: No Mr Chairman, not as such, but our approach at this stage is obviously based upon a part-heard cross-examination so to speak.  Up until this stage, we would not wish to put any questions, but simply to place on record that Mr M.Z. Khumalo, whom we represent, denies the evidence of the applicant to the effect that he personally furnished him or gave him a firearm.
	But I can't say that we may not wish to cross-examine later on, if my learned friend Mr Patel, elicits more matter which concerns the persons that we represent.  So at this stage, we do not wish to put any questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mpshe, were you wishing to say something?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairman, but not by way of objecting to Mr Patel's request.  I don't know whether it is possible for Mr Patel to indicate as to whether his continuation of cross-examination, is it determined by the fact whether the victims or not opposing?  If we can get that one clear, because it would seem if they don't oppose, he does not continue.  If they do oppose, he does continue.  I am not quite clear on that one.  The basis of this request.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Patel?

MR PATEL: The answer to that is not a clear cut, it is not yes or no, because as I understand from the people I represent, some of them might just want elaboration and clarification on certain events.
	It is not an opposition in the sense that we don't want amnesty to be granted.  It might well be that they just want clarification on what happened, why it happened and who was involved.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: May I make a follow up then on that one Mr Chairman, if permissible.  Mr Chairman, if that is the stance of my learned friend, then I really don't see why he should postpone his cross-examination.  He may as well continue and finish up, in as far as the clarification as to who did what and how it happened, the applicant has testified, if there are things that his clients feel that they are not satisfied about, it is for him to put them to the applicant, for the applicant to respond.
	That is my feeling.

UNKNOWN: That is what I thought Mr Patel was saying initially, that he had not yet taken instructions on who amongst the people he is representing, still wants to oppose and which incidents those people want to oppose.
	I didn't think that he wanted clarification because that wouldn't be the basis of his cross-examination.  Evidence has been given in respect of what happened, when that thing happened and how it happened.