Amnesty Hearings — Ermelo — 1998-07-27

CHAIRPERSON: I am happy to do that and even if you come back after 45 minutes with a view that you want to persist in your application for an adjournment, well, then do so.
	I want to point out to you that now that you mention it, you want to find out exactly what the clients are unhappy about and why they want you to bring the application.  I want to point out to you it is not what they feel that is important, it is the legal principles involved, what the factual issues are and what the legal contentions are.
	Such applications are not brought because a dissatisfied person feels that he stands a better chance with somebody else, it must be based on legal issues.  I would appreciate it, and I can guess because a lot of people showed displeasure here when I refused you the permission to put a question related to a matter that is not pertinent to this application.  Any Attorney or lawyer who is trained and worth his salt, should know what the legal position is about such questions.
	If that is the problem, then I would thank you to explain it to your clients.  This is not a criminal investigation, neither is it a civil matter, it is not a judicial enquiry, it is an unusual forum where it is intended to get people together rather than carrying on the differences as is very apparent in this area.
	You say you need 45 minutes?

MR HATTINGH: Yes Mr Chairman, then obviously if we are not yet finished by then, if we can then ask for further time, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you indicate also how many applicants are seeking to make this application and who they are?  I don't intent and I will be very displeased if I get into a political wrangle here.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman for your indulgence, I have now taken further instructions, speaking to the clients, the families of the victims themselves.
	In that regard I may just place on record that I spoke to - I obtained instructions from Elias Zwane and Eli Zwane on behalf of the deceased Jwi Zwane;  Boy Ngwenya on behalf of Chris Ngwenya, the deceased, Chris Ngwenya;  Olga Sibeya on behalf of the deceased Advice Gwala;  Sonto Gertrude Nkosi on behalf ...

CHAIRPERSON: You say Sibeya who?

MR HATTINGH: Olga Sibeya on behalf of Advice Gwala, that is the mother of the deceased Gwala.  Sonto Gertrude Nkosi on behalf of Obed Nhlabathi, the deceased Obed Nhlabathi; Ntombi Lydia Malinga on behalf of Boy Malinga;  and then as well Tandi Mirriam Mthetwa, on behalf of George Twala, deceased.  George Twala.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that deceased one of the deceased in any of these applications?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, no the last mentioned one is the incident I referred to on Friday, that is a deceased which death, or the circumstances surrounding his death do not form part of the present amnesty hearing.

CHAIRPERSON: So on what basis are you appearing then?

MR HATTINGH: The basis on which I am appearing is that I am mentioning the name of a relative and the name of a victim, not on instructions as such about this investigation of this hearing, but being part of the greater picture at the time in this area.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr - if you can just give me a couple of minutes, I just want to get this (indistinct) onto the floor.
	Mr Hattingh, what was the name of that deceased, George?

MR HATTINGH: George Twala.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, on what basis, I still don't follow, on what basis do you appear at this hearing to ask questions or to relate to the killing or murder or whatever, of George Twala because George Twala is not a deceased that is involved in any of the enquiries in this hearing?
	He may or may not be involved in another hearing.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, from the outset it appeared that this amnesty hearing, this public hearing in Ermelo, concerns the events of a certain period in this area.

CHAIRPERSON: That may be so but Mr Hattingh, this hearing concerns the applications of certain people who say they committed certain crimes, not so?
	It follows then that if there are victims, or families of victims who have now died as a result of what the applicants say they did, certain rights are required by those victims or their families.  
	In the event of a public hearing being conducted, how relevant is the death of someone who is not involved in any of the incidents referred to in the application, how can it be relevant?  This we must remember, is an Amnesty Committee.
	Such an incident may have been relevant in another Committee of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, hence I ask how you can appear on behalf of a victim or that victim's family when the incident in which the victim was injured, or killed, is not being discussed in this hearing?
	That victim or his family are not then an interested party in the hearing?    Can you explain that?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, the way I would submit this can be accommodated ...

CHAIRPERSON: Let me stop you before you talk about accommodation.  Is it proper, nevermind whether we can slip it in or not?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, the Act makes provision for any witness before either the Commission or any of its Committees, to be compelled to testify even if such an answer may incriminate him.

CHAIRPERSON: Where is it?

MR HATTINGH: Section 31.

CHAIRPERSON: Before we get to Section 31, how does Mirriam Mthetwa become an interested party here, because the death of George Twala is not the subject matter of any of the applications?
	Just provide the linkage for me first before we proceed any further?  I want to know how you are able to appear to protect the interests of George Twala when his death is not a matter for this hearing?  It may be a matter for another hearing, I am not too sure.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, perhaps it could be best explained by saying that I am not appearing on behalf of this person with a view of defending the rights of this person with regard to the death of her son, but what I would submit is that this person would be an appropriate witness to tell the Committee that one of the applicants is in fact not making full disclosure, is not telling the full truth.

CHAIRPERSON: Then she is a witness, not so?  Now we will get to that attitude that you are instructed to adopt, the adversary attitude.  Let's leave that for a moment, we leave that for a moment.
	If she is a witness, how do you appear for her in the capacity as a victim or an interested party in this matter?  There is either a definition or a status issue here, problem.
	If she is a witness, by what right can she make the application?  I am not posing hurdles to you, I need to understand this to properly assess the application.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, the best way of getting this hurdle out of the way, I respectfully would submit is that to understand that although this person on the face of it, has no locus standi as interested party.  She nevertheless represents one of the people from this particular side of the spectrum.
	What we are dealing here with is truth and reconciliation.

CHAIRPERSON: We are dealing with amnesty, with a view to reconciliation.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, it is for that very reason, with a view to reconciliation that whenever the local community of which she forms part, if her experience at this hearing, whatever her locus standi is or is not, her experience devolves into the community from which she comes from.