Amnesty Hearings — East London — 2000-02-03

CHAIRPERSON: Good morning.  We want to start the proceedings.  For the formalities, just for the record, today is Thursday 3rd February 2000.  This is a hearing of the Amnesty Committee being held at Bisho.  The Panel is chaired by myself, my name is Denzil Potgieter and I'm assisted by Advocate Sandi and Mr Sibanyoni.  We have on the roll the amnesty applications of V A Mkosana, amnesty reference number AM4458/96 and M T Gonya, amnesty reference AM7882/97.  These two applications relate to what has commonly become known as the Bisho shooting or the Bisho Massacre.  That is the matter we have before us.  Yes, Mr Mapoma, I assume that the applicants are both present?

MR MAPOMA: Yes Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, before we proceed perhaps I should just let the legal representatives put themselves on record formerly.  Let's start with the first applicant, Mr Mkosana.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairperson, my name is Peet du Plessis, I'm from the firm D P du Plessis Attorneys and we represent V A Mkosana.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Du Plessis, and for the second applicant?

MR VAN BREDA: Thank you Mr Chairperson, my name is Henry van Breda from the firm ...(indistinct) from Breda Attorneys in East London and I represent Mr Gonya, the second applicant in this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr van Breda.  For the victims of the incident?

MR SMITH: Thank you Mr Chairperson.  My name is Michael Smith, I'm from the firm Smith, Thabata, Lune and Connelan and I represent the victims of the shooting.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Smith.  And then on behalf of the African National Congress?

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Mr Chairperson, my name is Brian Koopedi, I represent the African National Congress which are the interested party in this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Koopedi, that takes care of those formalities.  Mr van Breda, you have indicated to us that you have some issues that you wanted to raise before we proceed?  You can do that now.

MR VAN BREDA: Thank you Mr Chairperson, first of all I would like to apologise to the Committee and all the legal representatives here for being late and in the whole explanation the reason will come forth.  Mr Chairperson, what has happened in the first place, we had difficulty in tracing the second applicant in this matter.  We eventually have been successful in that and he is present today.  The problem that we experience is the following.  On the 6th December 1999 we received a fax from the Amnesty Committee stating that - and I will read the facts
"We would like to inform you that the Bisho Matter is set from 31 January to 1 February 2000 at a venue to be announced later.  Thank you for your co-operation herein.  Yours faithfully, Zuko Camagu."
	Mr Chairperson, that is the only correspondence I received as far as this matter is concerned.  I didn't receive any notification as far as the venue is concerned.  In fact my secretary phoned on Monday to find out where we should go to because we heard it's either Umtata or King William's Town, were we informed that the amnesty application is proceeding in Umtata on the 31st January and I was actually amazed to find out it will be in Umtata.  I spoke to another person who is also an applicant in that matter and he informed me that it could not be correct because their matter is proceeding on the 31st January and that person's name is Harold Chandla.  So then on the 1st of February I spoke to the people again in Cape Town to make enquiries.  They informed me no, that the date has been changed to the 3rd and the 4th February, they informed me in fact that it is still in Umtata or that the venue is in Umtata and that was Tuesday.   I indicated to them that I will experience difficulties in that due to other commitments and on Wednesday I was in contact with them again and I was advised by the members in Cape Town that I should attend today and just explain to the Committee.  I can just also inform that I was only notified yesterday of the venue which will be of course King William's Town.  The other commitments I'm referring to, Mr Chairperson, I have a matter that we're busy with in East London where the people are from Johannesburg.  Counsel has been briefed, we've started this morning with that matter.  I've explained my position there to the various - or the magistrate and requested them that the matter stand down until 2 o'clock which will enable me to come to this Committee and explain the situation.  The case was yesterday also on the roll, was rolled to today and we're not sure whether it will be finalised today or tomorrow.  We trust tomorrow it will be finalised, but the fact of the matter is, Mr Chairperson, that due to these other commitments I could not have made arrangements in time, I didn't have time to do that as I was only informed of the date on Tuesday 1st February and it is my humble submission and I know the problems as far as these applications are concerned and the logistical problems as well as the finances involved and it's my humble submission that it cannot be regarded as unreasonable for me to apply for remand if I receive notice of the date two days before the time especially due to the fact that the only fax that we received stated the dates being the 31st January and the 1st February. 
	My learned friend sitting next to me also showed me a document which he received now this morning and as far as opposition is concerned, which I have not received, I have not even had a look at it but be that as it may the problem is I have other commitments which will also be a costly affair to try and postpone that and in that case one person is in custody and should we postpone that matter it will mean that he will remain another four or five months in custody before we will be able to proceed with that case.  
	Under the circumstances I'll ask the Committee, or my instructions are to ask for a postponement in this matter due to the problems I've just sketched.  As it pleases this Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Breda, the other matter that you're talking about, you say is in a Magistrate's Court and I gathered from what you said it's a criminal trial?  You say the chap is in -your client is in custody?

MR VAN BREDA: That is indeed correct, it's a Regional Court matter.

CHAIRPERSON: And you have brief counsel in that matter have you?

MR VAN BREDA: There were actually two matters.  The one matter with counsel we finished now just before I came and this other matter is due to proceed now at 2 o'clock again and that is also the matter where people are from Johannesburg.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that also a criminal trial?

MR VAN BREDA: That is indeed correct and that is the case that I'm referring to, where the person is in custody now.

CHAIRPERSON: And that is a matter that's standing down you say?

MR VAN BREDA: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And who will be dealing with that trial?  Who will be handling that trial?

MR VAN BREDA: I'm handling that trial myself, that trial has been going on now for nearly three years.  I must say the accused has not been in custody all the time but the incident occurred in beginning of 1997.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and it's a Regional Court matter?

MR VAN BREDA: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And for when is that set down?

MR VAN BREDA: We started yesterday, we will proceed or the instructions are to proceed today and if we cannot finalise it today we will proceed tomorrow.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, are you in partnership, you've said?

MR VAN BREDA: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.  We are only two partners at the firm.  My other partner is Mr Changford and he does only civil work or civil litigation.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you just two professional members of the firm?

MR VAN BREDA: Pardon Mr Chairperson, I forgot to mention something else?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?