Amnesty Hearings — Boksburg — 1998-06-25

CHAIRPERSON: (Microphone not switched on) what he is going to say.

MS CAMBANIS: Mr Chairman, before, I don't know when it is anticipated that will happen, but I would, I am sure, we would like some indication of what he is going to say in order for us to prepare adequately for these witnesses.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know if I can help you there, maybe you ought to make a request to the representative.

MS CAMBANIS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: But you say three people at this stage?

MS CAMBANIS: That is correct, yes sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kriel?

ANDRIES STEPHANUS KRIEL: Mr Chairman, I have indicated in chambers that I intend handing up two affidavits.

CHAIRPERSON: Merely for the purposes of referring to the reparation?

ANDRIES STEPHANUS KRIEL: That is so Mr Chairman, they will be short affidavits.  I don't intend calling them as witnesses.

MR JORDI: Can I just put something on record, or let me first tell you about my witnesses, I have one on affidavit, I will have one brief victim/witness who just want to ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: The one on affidavit, is that merely for the purposes of reparation?

MR JORDI: Correct, and just to express the personal views, it is a typical victim statement if you like.
	Mr Chairman, I just want to say something about the further conduct of this hearing.

CHAIRPERSON: But if the other witness will be testifying?

MR JORDI: Yes, but it is a sort of five, ten minute witness.

CHAIRPERSON: That is what you hope?

MR JORDI: I will try and keep it under limits.  Mr Chairman, what I want to say is about the intention to call Mr Prinsloo and there are two things that follow from that.
	First of all you will know that it has to be questions relevant to the subject matter of this hearing, and I think this hearing has got to a point of knowing where we are going, and as you say, to start 21 years ago, it doesn't help.
	There was a point where this war went from defence to offence and I think that should be, and if Mr Prinsloo is going to come and take responsibility for that, then there are two things that I want to add.  
	First of all, I want to put on record now for the purposes of these applicants, that I will submit in argument that they are now getting witnesses here to talk about the principles of the AWB and it is up to them now to make their minds up.
	It seems to me that the other people who should be subpoenaed or whatever, and they haven't asked for them.  Prinsloo comes here and just gives vague stuff about being a man in the middle, and we are still no further to the principle, then I am going to ask for inferences to be drawn, so they must make up their minds now.
	The other thing is that the first thing that will happen to Mr Prinsloo, if he takes any responsibility here, he is going to get a summons from me for reparation, and he's got R15 million on the back of him.  What I want to say ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Let's not get to the threats yet.

MR JORDI: No it is not a threat.  I am saying it for a very real purpose, because Section 34(4) of the Act says a person shall be informed timeously of his or her right to be represented by a legal representative.
	I want Mr Prinsloo to know that and to come here on whatever day with a legal representative, if he wants to, not to get, when I start asking questions say, no I want my lawyer here.
	That is the other thing I want to say.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I hope Ms Van der Walt takes note of that too.

MR JORDI: And the same goes for Mr Smit whoever he may be.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR JORDI: Thank you.

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, there are three victims throughout the last couple of days, that have been represented by the Evidence Leader.
	This morning I received a fax from Cape Town that three more victims had responded and they haven't turned up as yet, but apparently indicated to the Analyst Ms Hoskins that they were going to come through.

CHAIRPERSON: To Boksburg?

MR PRIOR: To Boksburg, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: When?

MR PRIOR: It is unclear, but they have responded to the notices, albeit late, but indicated that they were interested.  I will follow that up.
	The indication by Ms Cambanis was one of the victims had brought the employer along and the employer with the victim, Mr Matsekane was interested in whether they could get, because they had actually applied for Legal Aid, nothing had happened.  After discussion with the employer, I indicated to the representatives of the other victims, that the witness seemed to want representation outside of the Committee.
	The indication was that the Wits Law Clinic may come to the assistance of that.  Mr Patel was supposed to have come through, but that hasn't materialised.  Those victims will be here tomorrow, so nothing really has taken place.
	They are still being represented by the Amnesty Committee, the Evidence Leader.  Obviously I never took full instructions from them, the reasons why they wanted an independent Attorney, but that was the indication that they felt they could probably be better represented, it is their choice.
	And the indication also, they were very concerned about reparation and so from that side, I think they wanted to engage their own Attorney.  But it is not an insurmountable problem from my side.  
	There are three, whether they are led by Mr Landman or myself, they will be led, also five to ten minutes, certainly no longer than that.  And then possibly three others, but they haven't turned up yet.

CHAIRPERSON: We've got about 12 witnesses that we are talking about, one of which is a longish one?  Is anyone ready to testify this afternoon?
	I am loathe not to sit this afternoon and tomorrow morning.

MR PRIOR: I understand there is one of the witnesses who wants to address the Committee.  A lady in red, she is pointing to herself.

COMMITTEE DISCUSSING: .

CHAIRPERSON: I understand that there are a few witnesses whose evidence we can dispose of this afternoon and I intend to do so.
	Mr Bracher, you have indicated that one of your, two of your witnesses are interested in making statements?

MR BRACHER: Yes Mr Chairman, I will lead the one witness, my colleague, Mr Sinjatsi will lead the other evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Let me just get something clear.  Is it the making of a statement or testifying which carries with it cross-examination implications?

MR BRACHER: No, they will be testifying.

CHAIRPERSON: Testifying.  Who are you calling?

MR BRACHER: The first witness will be Mr Sydney Lesley Ontong.

CHAIRPERSON: You can call him.

SYDNEY LESLEY ONTONG: (sworn states)

MR BRACHER: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Mr Ontong, you were the father of Paul Ontong, who was killed in the Germiston bomb blast?

SYDNEY LESLEY ONTONG: That is correct.

MR BRACHER: Can you tell us first of all about your son, and then about the circumstances, where he was at the time of his murder?

SYDNEY LESLEY ONTONG: Paul was a young man of 19 years old, very happy go lucky chap.  He was the one in the family who always brought joy to the family.
	We had five kids, well Paul was the fifth one, and he always seemed to bring the happiness and the joy to the whole family.  If there was some problem in the family, he was the one to break that down.
	The day he was killed with the bomb blast, he was in the shop opposite to where the trailer was parked.  He was approximately 10 to 15 metres away from that bomb blast and we thank God that he died instantaneously.

MR BRACHER: Mr Ontong, how did this event effect your personally?

SYDNEY LESLEY ONTONG: Personally my health took a dip.  For these four years since he died, I have been into hospital, I have been to see Doctors, my health has really taken a dip.
	My wife's health has deteriorated as well and my family as a whole, they have all suffered, the other four kids that is.

MR BRACHER: Just explain something, what it has done to your family as a unit?