Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 2000-04-12

MR KHUMALO: Chairperson, I must also take into consideration such matters, so that I'm not involved in some conflict with other inmates, because we are enjoying good relations with the other comrades in prison.  If I am going to testify here today and say everything that happened, whereas they are complaining that they are not in a position to testify because their forms are missing.  I do not want to betray people by testifying here under these circumstances.  For us to stay in jail, I know eventually that some of the people who were harassed and ourselves will benefit, because if we are granted amnesty the people who were victims, it's very important, because we also get bad dreams when we think about the fact that all we did was a mistake, but we are grateful to get a chance to ask for an apology.  I would like you, Chairperson, to bear in mind that it's not my intention not to continue here but I am forced by the situation because some people would be dissatisfied at the end.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.  Mr Harkoo, is there anything that you wanted to add?

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairperson and Members of the Committee, I am representing the Reddy family, being victims of a particular incident.  Whilst I would prefer that the matter goes on, I leave the position as ...(indistinct).  I don't have much of a choice in the matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Harkoo.  Mr Panday.

UNKNOWN: Thank you, Mr Chairman.  Mr Chairman, I confirm that I've also been instructed to represent victims as the result of the acts committed by the applicant.  Mr Chairman, just to ensure that we do not have any other problems in the future, at some stage I was informed by the TRC, that the applicant was a person that only understood Zulu and would have had problems in any legal representation other than that of persons Zulu-speaking.
	Now Mr Chairman, if the applicant can confirm that he accepts Mr Dehal is going to be his attonrey and not on the next occasion we run into some other problem, because my learned friend and I we are well aware that Mr Dehal is an attorney of Indian origin and I hope he's got the necessary staff to cater for the applicant, so that we would not have a similar situation occurring here on the next occasion.  Unfortunately it is as such that the matter will invariably have to be adjourned.  Also for the Committee to take into consideration when setting down this matter, to kindly consult myself and my learned friend, just to ensure that we are also available suitably - well advised suitably, for the day it's going to be heard.  Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no those are factors that are normally taken into account and dealt with by the Commission, even the matter of Mr Dehal's means of communication with his client.  Thank you very much.

MS PATEL: Honourable Chairperson, sorry, before you proceed, would you like me to address the question of the applicant's allegations that his co-accused had sent in amnesty applications to us, at this stage, or would you like me to hold it over for some other stage?

CHAIRPERSON: No, perhaps we shouldn't deal with it now, I think those matters have been brought to the attention of the Committee and there were documents that were presented to us as well in that regard.  So it's something that seems to have been coming on, so I think we will have to deal with it as part of the preparations for the resumed hearing.
	Well we have listened to what the legal representatives and the applicant had said, it appears as if through some logistical problem - and this is not really uncommon, there has been some misunderstanding about the legal representation for the applicant in this matter.  The Committee has engaged the services of Mr Webster, who has been prepared to deal with the matter on fairly short notice.  And that, I must add, is the kind of co-operation that we normally get from the attorneys and the other legal representatives in dealing with the matters that we have to deal with, and without that kind of co-operation we really wouldn't be able to be doing this work.  
	We have a great deal of work to do, there are still a number of remaining applications to be dealt with and everybody, in their own way, contributes to us being able to do that.  But it appears as if the applicant has engaged the services of a legal representative of his choice and as much as postponements and delays in finalising matters cause difficulties for us and for the process, it is one of the fundamental principles that we have to take into consideration in ensuring that the proceedings are fair, that the applicant, like the other interested parties, are satisfied with the arrangements in regard to their legal representation.
	So under those circumstance, we unfortunately will not be able to proceed with this particular matter today, we will have to postpone the matter.  We are unable to allocate a date on which the matter would be heard again.  That is normally arranged administratively by our office in Cape Town, in conjunction with the legal representatives, which will happen again in this particular case.  And the matter will, as I have tried to indicate earlier in discussing it with the applicant, it will have to slot in where there is a place and a space available to hear it next, which by the nature of the things will probably be in a matter of months. 	So under those circumstances we would adjourn the matter for a date to be arranged, when it will be heard.  We must apologise for the normal inconvenience that goes with this sort of situation, but we try to ensure that the matters are dealt with as fairly as possible, and we think it's fair under these circumstances, to postpone and to give an opportunity for the legal representative who has been engaged by the applicant himself, to be availble to deal with the matter.   So under those circumstance, the matter is postponed.  
	Mr Webster, we would excuse you, we thank you for your assistance and your willingness to come into the matter, but for now you'd be excused then.

MR WEBSTER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
	Perhaps before I leave, and following up upon what my colleague, Mr Panday, has referred to, in the course of preparation I picked up some important problems with the translations of the application form for amnesty.  The document that I'm referring to, Chairperson, is the document numbered 1 to 8, I think - it is 1 to 7, being the translation of the signed document 8 to 17, and I believe in the interest of justice I should just place this on record, so that when the matter is heard next time these problems will have been sorted out, because there are inaccuracies in the translations.  
The ones I've picked up, for the record, appear on page 2 of the translation and page 10 of the original Zulu version, paragraph 9(a)(iv).
	-	The next one appears on page 3 of the translation and it is on page 12 of the Zulu application, paragraph 10(a).  
	-	The next one appears on page 4 of the translated document, and paragraph 13 of the Zulu application, of the Zulu form, paragraph 10(b).  
	-	The next one is also on - or perhaps before I go there, just in order to clarify.  On page 4, 10(b), it's the one re: Vusi Maduna(?).  
	-	The next one which also appears on page 4 of the interpreted document and page 14 of the Zulu form, is towards the bottom of the page, dealing with Moses ...(indistinct) Dlamini.  
	-	The next one is on page 5 of the interpreted form, page 14 of the original application form, re: paragraph 10(d).  
	-	The next appears at page 6 of the intrepreted form and page 16 of the original form, re: paragraph 13(a).
	These are very material and need to be attended to when the matter comes up, as the interpretations as they stand can lead to a miscarriage of justice, particularly if the persons who are dealing with the matter do not understand or cannot read Zulu.  Thank you, Mr Chairperson and Members of the Committee.