Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-10-03

CHAIRPERSON: The Super A-G's been consulted.

MR RHEEDE: The reason I asked is because the Act specifically refers to the A-G having jurisdiction and I believe that ....

CHAIRPERSON: Well then perhaps you may have a point and the letter of the Act should be stuck to, but it does - and we have dealt with similar situations, it just relates basically to consultation with that.  So it can be done.  I think it would probably be wise at this stage to adjourn until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning and then in the meantime this afternoon, if you could ...(intervention)

MR MARTINI: Sorry Chairperson, it's four-thirty, I don't think you'll get the opportunity this afternoon.

CHAIRPERSON: Well maybe - well we can try, endeavour to try to consult.  I agree with what has been put, we should consult with the authority referred to in the Act, even though the other authority that you have referred to might be senior to that person, but we should stick to it.

MR RHEEDE: Chairperson, there is just one other point which has been brought, the sequence of evidence.  It is my submission that the witnesses for the Commission are called last of all.  This will influence whether or not we will begin tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock with this witness, or whether there are other witnesses who would object to our commencing tomorrow morning at nine.

CHAIRPERSON: From the Panel's point of view, we have no problems with the order in which witnesses are called.  If I may ask Mr Kahanovitz and Mr Williams and Mr Hockey, if there's any intention of calling witnesses and what their views are as to when they should be called, before or after Mr Hardien?

MR WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.  We have considered the issue, as to whether we should call witnesses or not.  Mr Chairperson, my view is that much will depend on the evidence which emanates from Mr Hardien's testimony.  If he makes the necessary concessions, it might not be necessary to call witnesses from our side.  So it would make sense and it would also be less time consuming to have testimony first.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kahanovitz?

MR KAHANOVITZ: I don't have a definitive answer to that at the moment, I'm waiting to see what happens.

CHAIRPERSON: But you don't feel strongly, the order in which any witnesses should be called?

MR KAHANOVITZ: No, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hockey?

MR HOCKEY: I feel the same way as Mr Williams, I'm certainly under the impression that the Commission has litus contestatio and that the Commission can decide in which order to call witnesses.

CHAIRPERSON: There's no fixed practice or procedure in this regard.

MR HOCKEY: I agree with Mr Williams that it might be more time consuming to hear Mr Hardien first and we'll certainly make an assessment after that, whether to call witnesses or not.

MR LAX: You mean timesaving.

MR HOCKEY: Sorry yes, timesaving.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  Mr Rheede, I think it would probably be best to call Mr Hardien next.  I think we'll adjourn now.  Let's adjourn until half-past nine, that will give Ms Coleridge a little bit of breathing space in case the Attorney-General's office has closed its doors at half-past four and no-one's there, that will give you a little bit of extra time.

MR RHEEDE: Chairperson, just to answer the last question that you put regarding who will lead Mr Hardien, it is my knowledge and my instruction that Ms Coleridge will lead him and I will assist him in the delivery of his evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes I think that would be the best way to go about it.  Thank you.
	We'll adjourn until half-past nine tomorrow morning at the same venue.  Thank you.

MS COLERIDGE: All rise.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS