Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1999-04-13

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Hattingh, may I just ask you, if the Committee acceded to the request that the cross-examination continue today, how would that effect the time needed for you to fully prepare yourself?
	Let's assume there would be no prejudice for your client if the cross-examination continued today, how would that as it were, effect your budgeting for time needed to prepare yourself?  Did you bank on having the rest of the day for preparation or not?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, naturally I think on behalf of the applicant, being his legal representative, I do have a role to play during the course of cross-examination.  It may be a minor part to play, but I have a role to play and that role I can only play if I am au fait with the contents of the documentation and the facts of this matter.
	My suggestion, my submission would be that these proceedings cannot continue, even though it may only be the cross-examination or the finalisation or the completion of the cross-examination of the applicant, if I am not fully prepared and it would be to the prejudice of the applicant.
	Having said that however, at this stage of my preparation, I would not be in a position to assist the client at all during the course of the cross-examination.  I might as well not be here and I might as well go home and start preparing for the matter and to be ready by Thursday.
	I think if, to answer the question then, I think should we then, if it is decided that we should pursue with the cross-examination today and if this day is taken up in that regard, then I would need a further day to enable myself to prepare for this matter.  It would not help me, I would not be in a position to spend time on the documents if we are involved in a hearing and pursuance of the hearing today.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

MR TRENGOVE: Mr Chairman, may I with your leave make one or two submissions on the explanation or the non-explanation, because it wasn't before us when I last spoke.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we will hear you on that Mr Trengove.  I just wanted to clarify some other thing.
	Mr Hattingh, have you got any indication as to the number of witnesses, if any, that your client contemplates calling?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, yes.  I think that obviously depends on my understanding of the papers, and my further discussions with both my Instruction Attorney and the applicant once he has finished with his cross-examination and he is available to me once again.  From my discussions with my Attorney and with Adv Du Plessis as well, it would appear that there are approximately three or four witnesses that we would like to call, although it may be that they, that it would not take very long and that it would be very brief.
	I was just advised by my Attorney that I should rather say two witnesses to be called.  But that is also something that is not really finalised, and we don't know at this stage.  I am not in a position to give any confirmation in that regard.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there anything else that you wanted to add in response before I go back to Mr Trengove?

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have nothing else to add.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Mr Trengove?

MR TRENGOVE: Mr Chairman, the explanation if one might call it that for the withdrawal of Mr Du Plessis amounts to this, an Advocate who had been involved in this matter for months, on the eve of a scheduled hearing, planned months before the hearing itself, withdraws from the case without offering any explanation, either to the client or to the Attorney.  That is what we are told, happened.
	Now, I for one, would be very slow to accept that Adv Du Plessis acted in such irresponsible and indeed improper manner.  It would be quite improper for an Advocate engaged in this case for so long, in whom the client has made so much investment, to withdraw from the case without explanation two or three days before the resumed hearing.
	But we need not dissolve the issue.  If Adv Du Plessis acted in the way that they said he did, it would have been highly improper for him to act, to withdraw without any explanation and then seemingly without justification.
	So there are two possibilities.  Either we have been given the real explanation of what happened, in which event Mr Bellingan's case before you is simply my Advocate withdrew, apparently without any reason at all and now you have to give me a postponement because he withdraw without any justification at all.
	But sometimes clients must suffer the prejudice of their own legal representatives' conduct and if his legal representative acted in the irresponsible and improper way that they suggest, then this is such a case.
	The other possibility of course is that indeed there was an explanation given, but that Mr Bellingan simply doesn't want to tell us what it is.
	In either event, you are left without any reasonable justification for their inability to go on.  They don't deserve any sympathy.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, is there anything else that any of the other parties want to add on the issue of the explanation?

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Chairman, one aspect.  There are very serious reflections being made towards Adv Du Plessis, who has been involved in very many TRC trials.
	I think he should be offered, or he should be contacted and communicated with and advised of these type of reflections being made for him to answer.  It would be easy to telephone him between one and two o'clock on his cellphone if necessary and if he wants to offer, and formally withdraw in front of this Committee, I think he would do so.
	I just think we should allow him some input and that he should be notified of this set of circumstances at present, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Cornelius.

MR WAGENER: Mr Chairman, I am in the very difficult position, I saw Mr Du Plessis last Friday and he in fact told me why he withdrew ... (tape ends) ...  as these discussions go, I am not really prepared to tell this hearing now, what he told me.  It may cause prejudice to the proceedings as such.
	Therefore, may I suggest Mr Chairman, that I see it is quarter to one, that we perhaps take the lunch adjournment now, that you or Mr Chaskalson or whoever, phone Mr Du Plessis, I think I've got his cell number available, they should adjourn in Pretoria at one o'clock at the hearing he is involved with, there, and that he be asked why he withdrew, and I think his response should assist you to come to the correct decision, whether you should grant this present request by the applicant or not.

CHAIRPERSON: Are there any other submissions?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, just one thing that I received an instruction on, from my Instructing Attorney.  The suggestion made by Mr Trengove is that it would be a lie if Mr Nolte says that there was not an explanation given to him.
	Mr Nolte takes exception to this and his request is that he, together with Mr Trengove see the Committee in chambers in this regard.  I am merely conveying the request from Mr Nolte in this regard.
	I am not adding anything further to my submissions with regard to the request for the postponement.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well.