Special Hearings — Caprivi Hearings — 1997-08-11

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, you mean when we anticipate a finding?  You said, "Anticipate a hearing".  Yes, ja.  No, that's correct.

MR VISSER: In other words, we're not looking at another hearing, we're now looking at the proper process?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.  While I'm on my feet, as it were, may I state my position?  Mr Chairman, basically, again, it does connect with what my learned friend has just said.  We submit and we will submit in our
 /oral submissions
4A oral submissions that practically what we should deal with is the evidence that was given and not documentary - documents which were placed before you by people such as Mr Varney, from which he attempted to draw various inferences.  So we will confine ourselves to the evidence he actually gave and other witnesses gave.  In that sense, Mr Chairman, we do not anticipate being very long, but what I would say, Mr Chairman, again from a procedural point of view and from a fairness point of view, I would suggest that Mr Stewart and Mr Wills should go first with their submissions, so that we can obviate the necessity of having replies and replies to replies, etcetera, because clearly what we will be dealing with would be issues raised on the evidence by Mr Wills and Mr Stewart, so it seems to me, Mr Chairman.  So I would submit that, in fairness, procedurally it would be correct for them to present their oral submissions, if any, first.  I am sorry, yes, I've just been reminded.  That's obviously after Mr Macadam.  He's obviously the one to lead the way, if he wishes to do so.

MR MACADAM: Mr Chairman, as I understood my position is that representations are made on behalf of persons who are implicated in the evidence to their detriment with the intention to enable them to clear any besmirching which would taken place in their client's name.  I don't represent anybody.  My mandate was simply to attempt in a fair and objective manner to place certain evidence before this panel.  I don't think it would be proper for me to make submissions at this stage, particularly on that basis.  Secondly, because the panel is not going to make a specific finding on what occurred last week and this
 /week and
4A week and that any finding which the panel would make would have to hold over until the total picture has been gathered.

MR VISSER: Yes, that's entirely accepted, Mr Chairman.

MR WILLS: Mr Chairperson, I'm not sure - in fact, I don't necessarily agree with Mr Visser as regards us making submissions prior to them.  I think that it's quite clear that the evidence given by my clients has got serious implications for them and that they are, in a sense, for want of a better phrase, more or less the accused in these matters and they could be prosecuted in other forums, so I am not going to agree that we give submissions first.  I think that, in fairness, we should rather have the submissions of the people representing the Army and the people representing the IFP prior to us making - well, prior to me making submissions.  Obviously Mr Stewart is not in a position to talk on this matter, but as regards myself, I think that would be fair in the circumstances.

CHAIRPERSON: Look, it's not necessarily something that we have to decide right now, but our view is that it would be appropriate for you and Mr Stewart to go first and if absolutely necessary you can have a brief right of reply.

MR WILLS: As you please.

CHAIRPERSON: But what is more important to decide now is when these submissions are going to be heard and I would ask ... (intervention)

MR VISSER: I'm sorry.  That's the one thing I neglected and that I suppose was the only question you posed.  I neglected to reply to it.  Mr Chairman, we are ready at any time.  Whenever you want to slot us in we'll be ready
 /and we won't
4A and we won't be long.

MR DE JAGER: Mr Chairman, speaking for us here at the back, we feel that if the evidence is to be concluded tomorrow it would be nice if we have an open day.  You must appreciate one thing.  We don't have our offices and infrastructures available and if one does go through the trouble of making a submission one might as well put some effort into it.  So, for that reason I suggest that we carry on on Thursday.  I have spoken with most of my colleagues, but I cannot speak on behalf of every one of them.  As far as Mr Maritz, Mr Penzhorn and myself are concerned, and so Mr Lasich, we feel that Thursday would be a good day.  If you, however, make a different ruling we will abide by that.  But we think that is practical and we think it's fair to all people concerned.  Thank you.  Mr Maritz just wants to address you.

MR MARITZ: I'm not going to announce my name.  It's only because we're the peanut gallery.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Maritz.  No, we also believe that Thursday will be a fair and appropriate date on which to proceed.  Will that give people enough time then?  Thursday and Friday or Thursday alone?

MR MARITZ: We are happy in the peanut gallery, Mr Chairman.

MR COETZEE: Well, hopefully we will be available Thursday or at the very latest Friday.

MR MACADAM: Possibly, Mr Chairperson, if we can - I'm just concerned that perhaps if it stands over completely till Thursday, Friday, somebody who would want to make a submission might miss out that there's not enough time on Friday.  So may I suggest if - I anticipate Dlamini will
 /not be very
4A not be very long tomorrow.  If there is a person who is ready and who has a short submission that those be heard tomorrow so that then counsel who wish to make their submissions on Thursday will have heard those submissions and been able to decide whether it's necessary to deal with anything arising there.  In that way everybody has an opportunity to state their say.  That would be counsel who are ready, who feel that they will not prejudice their clients at all if they state whatever they have to say tomorrow and then the other counsel then to continue on Thursday, using Wednesday for preparation time.
MR   (?)   : Mr Chairman, sorry, just for clarification, I think on the suggestion that Mr Macadam has made, we would just like to know, if there are going to be submissions, if you could just ascertain whether there are, in fact, going to be submissions today - tomorrow.  Just to plan our logistics.

CHAIRPERSON: I think unless it was something that was very short, for example counsel who has just left, Mr Grobler, he indicated that his would take no more than five minutes.  But I wouldn't want there to be a lengthy submission made tomorrow, because the point of breaking early tomorrow would be to give counsel an opportunity to return to - or to make proper preparation for submissions on Thursday.  So unless there was something which took place in a very short space of time tomorrow then we'd leave it all over until Thursday.  Unless, as I say, there's something very short and that counsel wishes to make that submission and then go back to Pretoria and then not bother to come back.

MR DE JAGER: Mr Chairman, can we make one practical
 /arrangement?
4A arrangement?  If somebody wishes to give such a short submission tomorrow and some of us are not here let's just make the ruling that such submission to be given in writing also, because then we will talk about a page or two.  If it's tomorrow then us who are not here may perhaps look at it and then reply to it.  I see Mr Visser is making a ruling against me, but perhaps you can make a different one.  Thank you.