Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1997-03-27

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Yes, I ...

ADV DE JAGER: I don't think we need to discuss that at the moment.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: There has been this agreement that ...

JUDGE WILSON: Yes, what worries me is I see in (c) it said that we will arrange that a transcript of the evidence has to be given, is to be made available to them.

MS THABETHE: May I respond, Mr Chair?

JUDGE WILSON: Yes.

MS TABETHA: I spoke to Mr McClachlan this morning and he informed me that he would like the matter to be postponed, if possible.  I said to him that he must write a letter, indicating all his complaints and I presented the letter to the Committee. I never made any undertakings, because I hadn't even consulted the chief leader of evidence, Mr Mpshe.  So I couldn't make such undertakings, I don't have powers to.

JUDGE WILSON: Well, what are you going to do about a transcription?  It is considerable expense.  This must be considered, and I think as long as no undertakings, I think you should make it clear in your letter of reply, that no undertakings were given and it is not intended to make any, and then decide, as a matter of principle, in future, what you are going to do when someone hasn't been notified.  Are they all entitled to come and say now I want a transcript of the evidence?  It is a very dangerous precedent to establish.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Yes.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Then also, Mr Mpshe, you said in your observation, and I think this should be put right for the
purpose of the record.  You said that Mrs Naude had indeed not been given notice.  I don't think - well, that is what the attorney's letter says, but that is not what a member of the investigative unit is apparently saying.   Who is Mthetu?

MS TABHETA: It is the TRC investigator.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Mr Chairman, did you see what he says at the bottom of page 1 of his letter?  He says
"I am not afraid to say Naude is lying when she says she heard about this on TV for the first time.  What I can understand from her is that this came to her attention very late, as I only got hold of her when there were only about nine days left."
So I think we should be careful about simply saying that, making that kind of judgment, because it seems that we have got two conflicting versions.  I think we need to be very careful before we say that Mrs Naude is right, she was never informed, when we have got a version to the contrary.  Because it may cause problems later.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: If I may respond to it.  If I recall the contents of this letter, mention is made that she was telephonically contacted about the hearing going to take place.  She was actually phoned twice and she was telephoned even on Monday.  That is the contents of her letter and the fact mentioned by Mr Mthetwa that she was not informed. It is correct, she was informed, it is in the letter but she is saying that she knew for the first time that the matter is actually taking place, when she was told by a neighbour, Mr De Wet, who saw it on TV, but she does concede that she was contacted
telephonically.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Yes, but whats the difference about the ...

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: She was told.

JUDGE MGOEPE: ...she was not told, I don't understand the difference.  How can she say I was told the matter was going to be heard and then later complain I was not told that the matter has actually commenced. What is the purpose of telling a person that the matter was going to be heard on such and such a date, is to tell her that the matter is actually going to be heard.  You don't need two sets of notices.  The first notice that the  matter is going to be heard and then later require another notice to say that the matter has now actually commenced. I mean ...

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman, with respect, in that very same letter, mention is made that she was contacted and further that we would, whoever would contact them, would revert back to her.

ADV DE JAGER: But I think the misunderstanding is this way.  She was informed that the matter would start on Thursday.  And then we started with the matter on Tuesday, so they were surprised to see it on TV, because this matter was brought forward from Thursday's roll to Tuesday's roll.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: That would perhaps explain it.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: That is correct.

JUDGE WILSON: Well, shall we adjourn it?  Do you agree we adjourn it?  It will have to be adjourned to a date to be arranged. I would ask that counsel make arrangements for a date which is suitable, to counsel concerned and to all three members of the Committee and not to assume that they
can merely set it down on any specific date, without having made prior enquiries of all the members of the Committee.  I also think it would be desirable if it is possible, I believe it has not been typed as yet, to obtain a copy of the judgment. I am told the record of the judgment is available, and I don't know whether the Attorney-General has been approached and whether he can assist because I think that before cross-examination is launched and before they are recalled, all documentary evidence that is available should be available and be made available to applicant's counsel as well.  As I have said in other cases, does not mean that I am suggesting that you make a free copy available.  You make - either at his request, provide him with a copy or make the document available which he can copy himself.  But do you agree with me, it is desirable to have a copy of the judgment as well as that affidavit?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Thank you very much, I agree with you.

JUDGE WILSON: And I think we could also place on record at the present stage, that you have agreed it would not be necessary to call Mrs May as a witness, that her affidavit merely confirms ownership of property and that will be accepted.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: That is so, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Very well, this matter will now be adjourned to a date to be arranged.  It seems probable it will have to be earlier.  Thank you.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: As the Chair pleases.  May I be excused.
MR MPSHE EXCUSED
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman, may we, with the Chairman's permission revert back to Ngo's matter, Mr Chairman?

JUDGE WILSON: Sorry, I think we should place on record that it has been agreed the whole of the application will not be proceeded with today, and not necessarily before the Committee as presently constituted.  We will merely complete now the application as regards the Venter matter.  As I understand it, his counsel would wish to question the applicant about allegations contained in the affidavits made by the police officers and perhaps question those police officers. It has been agreed that will be done at a later stage.  Is that so?

MR NEMANE: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: So you can confine yourself now to dealing with the matters that have been raised here as regards the Venter matter, but reserving your rights as regards the policemen and the evidence they might give, does that suit you?

MR MEMANE: That is correct.

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: (s.u.o.)

MR MEMANE: Now Mr Ngo, do you have the hospital reference number relating to the time when you escaped from lawful custody or when you were in hospital?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Yes, that matter was reported, it is in the hospital files.  It is still there, if they can refer to that file in the hospital, they should get those details.

MR MEMANE: What is the name of the hospital?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: The Grootvlei Hospital in prison.

MR MEMANE: And do you by any chance have the hospital reference number?

JUDGE WILSON: Is it in fact a prison hospital inside the
walls of the prison?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Yes, it is inside the prison.

MR NEMANE: Mr Chairman, may I make a request that the relevant section of the TRC be requested to make endeavours to trace the file, and if it is found to bring it before the Commission and to my attention?