Amnesty Hearings — Ermelo — 1998-09-14

MR BLACK: If I may reply.  If we talk about changing of poles. My time schedule, initially this matter was - there's the Caprivi Strip matter hearing.  This, I was giving to understand, would be a matter which was going to be slotted in on Thursday.  I then had to reschedule my time to Wednesday and I've made an attempt to be here today.  As I say, the delay I must apologise and I don't want to be - I'm certainly not going to be naming people and colleagues.  The difficulty that I've found myself in is that there is a witness.  I certainly haven't consulted with him.  It's quite correct what Mr Mpshe says, I have consulted with Mr Sambo, the applicant.  The reason why the matter was postponed on the last occasion was simply again that there was no time to hear his application.  As originally scheduled, I'm available tomorrow, I'm available on Thursday and it's simply that, after having discussions with the applicant this morning, and as I've indicated, together with the additional possible witness and his wife, it would, in my respectful submission, not be doing the applicant any justice if we simply proceed with the evidence-in-chief and end up with a part-heard matter or something to that effect.  We all know as lawyers, part-heard matters cause great difficulty in the sense that we've got to get all the parties together again.  I must apologise again for the delay, but I can give the Committee the absolute assurance that it's through no fault of mine and I've attempted to get here.  But as I say, as scheduled, I'm available that Mr Sambo's matter be heard either tomorrow or Thursday, but I also appreciate the fact that there are other matters that have been apparently scheduled now for Wednesday and Thursday.  I have no idea why I'm supposed to have been here today.  I've been attempting to get some explanation as to why at the last minute I had to be here.  So, I would again just apply for a postponement on behalf of Mr Sambo, and it's not just the question of the two page affidavit.  There is a necessity to have a consultation with him.  Thank you.
R U L I N G

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  This matter, as mentioned earlier, was postponed yesterday until 9:30 this morning.  It's now 2:30 and I must say that we as a panel were upset and very much dissatisfied by the fact that not only us, but all the people present in the hall here, the other legal representatives were kept waiting in the dark as it were until just before lunch time.  It seems from what Mr Black has told us, that there was some misunderstanding that this matter would be proceeded with on Wednesday, and where that comes from I don't know, and I'm sure Mr Mpshe doesn't know either, and that misunderstanding or the coming about of that misunderstanding is also most unfortunate.  
	Mr Black has, on behalf of the applicant, applied for a postponement in this matter stating that he would require a further consultation with his client, notwithstanding the fact that he has in the past had consultations with the client.  
	There's also the possibility that a witness or witnesses may be called despite Mr Mpshe's offer that any affidavit would be submitted by such witness on an unopposed basis.  However, our main concern is to ensure that the applicant gets a fair hearing in this matter, and I'm sure if it started today, having a look at the papers before us, and having read the affidavit of the applicant, that the chances would be very great that we wouldn't even conclude the evidence-in-chief of the applicant which would mean a part-heard matter in the middle of the applicant's evidence which is not very desirable.  It's most unfortunate the whole situation surrounding this whole application, particularly today, but we are of the view that after having heard Mr Black's problems relating to the matter, that it would probably be in the interests of the applicant to have the matter not heard today.  We are aware at the same time that this loss of a day constitutes not only a great waste of time, everybody's time that's been here, but also a loss of resources as well.  And although we are loath not to proceed with the matter today, we think that it would probably be in the interests of justice that the matter not be heard today.  I think in the circumstances then, the course to follow would be at this stage just to remove it from the roll and it can be set down at some later stage.  Unfortunately then we will not be proceeding with the matter on the application of the applicant, and we will then stand adjourned until half past nine tomorrow with regard to the other amnesty application, namely the application of the so-called Caprivians.  That application will no doubt take up the whole of today and go into Thursday and might even take up most of Thursday.  
	I, in the circumstances, do not think there would be any purpose in postponing this particular application to either tomorrow or Thursday, because that would more than likely result in people coming again only to be disappointed again.  
	So, therefore in the circumstances, the application of Voice Morris Sambo is removed from the roll and for it to be set down at some later stage, and we will then adjourn until tomorrow at half past nine where I'm informed the matter will be proceeding.  The other matter, the other application will be proceeding.  We will therefore adjourn now.
PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED TO 16 SEPTEMBER 1998
ON RESUMPTION ON 16 SEPTEMBER 1998

CHAIRPERSON: We're proceeding today with the application in particular of Mr Hlongwane.  Mr Wills, are you ready to commence?  Sorry, we put ourselves on record on Monday, but for those persons who weren't present on Monday, I see Mr Black here, I see Mr Patel.  Would you kindly just place yourselves on record?

MR PATEL: As it pleases your, Mr Chairman.  My name is Mohamed Patel, Advocate Patel.  I represent a number of victims.  Ten (10) at present, and the numbers are climbing.  I'm instructed by attorneys Mthembu and Mahomed.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Patel.  Mr Black?

MR BLACK: Thank you, Mr Chairman.  My name is Black.  I'm an advocate in Johannesburg, instructed by Mr Nkosi of Ermelo.  I'm representing an implicated party, Mr Khaba, Bongani Khaba.  My learned friend Mr Mpshe, he said that he could explain the position of Mr Khaba.  We have requisitioned him and I understand that he's on his way from Pretoria.  But we're here to represent him.  We have consulted with him.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Black.  Is that correct, Mr Mpshe?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: That is the position, Mr Chairman, members of the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: So, I think in the circumstances, we can proceed.  His interests are being protected by yourself.  Thank you.  Mr Wills, are you in a position to commence?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman, just before Mr Wills commence.  Just for record purposes, Mr Chairman, there are a total of thirteen (13) victims, not all of them have been notified.  Those who have not been notified are those in some certain incidents wherein the, in the application, names are not mentioned except that these were just rampant killings.  There are about three of them, but the rest have been notified, as well as the implicated.  That is all.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR SWANEPOEL: Mr Chairman, my apologies.  Might I at this stage, for record purposes, just point out to the Committee that the way the notifications in terms of section nineteen (19) of the Act was served was that they were dropped on Maas(?) at one of the implicated persons.  My instructions are that several of the people who are implicated has since been deceased and that two people did not get notice.  Might I read those names, Mr Chairperson, just for the record so that the Committee is aware of those implicated persons that cannot be here or do not have notice?

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.