Amnesty Hearings — Pretoria — 1997-02-25

<UNKNOWN>: find an annexure attached to the document which I present to you right now, that contains the names of 
those people whom we represent in their amnesty applications.
	May I by way of short introduction Mr Chairman say that we act if you look at the annexure 
containing the names if they were numbered, you would have seen that they number 81 on the list as they 
stand at present.  So presently we act for 81 applicants, Mr Chairman.
	Mr Chairman, what this really is about is the issue of how the Committee is going to deal in future 
with evidence of applicants before you which implicate other individuals.  more in particular, those for 
whom I appear.  It appears to us Mr Chairman, and we have stated that at page 2, that in regard to the 
Section 19(4) notices, there appears to us to be two permutations mainly and that is that our clients might 
deny their involvement or alternatively they might 
admit their involvement.  Now ...(intervention)

HASSAN MALL: Or there is another alternative - might ignore it.

MR VISSER: Well, we can assure you we are not going to ignore it.  So as far as we are concerned that 
is not a permutation.  What we wish to say just at this stage very shortly Mr Chairman, is that insofar as our 
clients either admit or deny being implied by other applicants, we, as we stated to you yesterday in your 
chambers, if we know of an incident which is going to be brought before you on a particular date, we will 
see to it that we are here and that we inform you of the exact position of that particular implicated client of 
ours.
	Broadly speaking ins far as, we don't want to go through this every time for 81 people, and that is 
why we've PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

MR VISSER: 91

<UNKNOWN>: handed in this little document, simply to say that where we admit being involved, it does not necessarily 
mean that we agree with the evidence tendered by an applicant before you or with his particular motivation, 
it goes without saying, Mr Chairman.
	The reason why we make this point right now is that it does not occur to us to be the time or the 
place to place in issue all the evidence placed before you by the present applicants, where we should 
disagree with them.  We would be in your hands as to how you want to deal with those disputes, all that we 
will do at this stage, and we undertake to do, is to draw your attention to any disputes which may exist.
	What we want to make absolutely clear is that we are not objecting on behalf of any of our clients 
to any of the applications now before you.  If it should happen Mr
Chairman, that on the evidence as disputed perhaps by any of our clients in future, it becomes necessary for 
you to make credibility findings, well then we will have to be led by you at that stage, presently we are 
assuming that there may not be such material disputes as will disenable you to make a finding on their 
application.  We are hoping that that is going to be the situation that prevails.
	I will finish Mr Chairman, this is really a build up to the question of the Section 19(4) notices.  
We are in this position for example, this morning we heard evidence which affect Victor and Schoon for 
whom we appear and we had no notice that this was going to happen.
	Now quite clearly from an administrative point of view, it occurs to us that the Committee is in an 
invidious position.   My attorney and myself discussed yesterday the 
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

MR VISSER: 91

<UNKNOWN>: practical situation that acting for these people, we know in which incidents they are involved, but Mr 
Mpshe does not, for the simple reason that an applicant may not have mentioned the name and he informs 
us that he hasn't read through all the amnesty applications, so he is completely in the dark.
	What we wish to suggest by way of assisting if we can, is that my attorney should draw up a list 
of incidents of all the incidents in which our applicants are involved, for example the Nietverdiend incident 
and the Zero incident and whatever and then give a list of names of our clients who are involved in those 
incidents to Mr Mpshe, so as to make it possible for him to give us 19(4) notices.  
	May I just, while we are on the issue of 19(4) issues, make our position clear.  We have in fact, 
my attorney has in fact told Mr Mpshe it is not necessary to give us the
notices and then we reconsidered.  The problem with that Mr Chairman, is that it is one thing to know that 
you are implicated, but it is another thing to know on what evidence.	We had to retract that offer and 
you will see that in the letter which we've handed up to you which you ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Wasn't it perhaps accepted before you retracted it?

MR VISSER: Well, my learned friend Mr Mpshe did not take that point against us, Mr Chairman and I'm 
hoping that we don't have to go into the law of contract on that issue. But the point is that it does seem 
necessary to know beforehand Mr Chairman what the other person who implicates our clients, is going to 
say.  I think it is a matter of logic, so it is not as if we wish to make more work for Mr Mpshe, 
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

MR VISSER: 92

<UNKNOWN>: but it occurs to us to be necessary and I just wanted to explain that.  
	So Mr Chairman, thank you for listening to me for so long, but what we suggest then is that we 
should give you that list and that that would enable Mr Mpshe to give us due notice of when a particular 
incident will be heard and at that stage we will then come and if we may, by way of a short affidavit on 
behalf of that client of ours, simply state very briefly what is in dispute and what is not in dispute.	That 
is the best we can think of offering our assistance at this point in time, but we will obviously be led by 
whatever you decide, how you wish to do it.

HASSAN MALL: Speaking for myself, I think that it will be very very helpful to carry out the suggestion 
which you have made about giving us a list of your clients setting out how,
briefly or rather in respect of which matters, they were implicated.
	I am glad that you appreciate the difficulty we have in carrying out Section 19(4) notices, simply 
because as evidence unfolds names are mentioned, we hear them for the first time and it seems that the 
only way in which that can be done, would be at the end of each day to draw up a list of people whose 
names are mentioned, who may be implicated.  Not people whose names are merely mentioned, but who 
may be implicated and at the end of each day take steps to notify people.
	But I see that all your clients whose names appear here have themselves applied for amnesty and, 
it may very well be that they will have ample opportunity at that stage to give their version as fully as they 
would like to and the Committee, I can assure you, will give full consideration to PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/