Amnesty Hearings — Boksburg — 1998-03-02

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.  So all the applicants, other than that applicant, are present?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.  Mr Madasa, are you ready to proceed?

MR MADASA: Yes Mr Chair, but for the purpose of the record Mr Chair, I want to raise this, the one concern that I have.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes,

MR MADASA: That is the absence of Mr Michael Alnga, Mr Michael Armoed, the first on the list of applicants.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MADASA: For the purpose of the record I would like to register my dissatisfaction about the fact that he is not here, because it is his right to listen to the case and to hear what his co-applicants are saying about the case ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Is this the applicant who is in prison?

MR MADASA: Johannesburg prison.

CHAIRPERSON: Johannesburg prison yes.

MR MADASA: But nonetheless I'm ready to proceed.

CHAIRPERSON: Well Mr Madasa, what are we to make of your protest?  Do you want these proceedings to stand over until that applicant is here?  What are you saying?

MR MADASA: Mr Chair, I do not want to delay the proceedings, I'm ready to proceed.   Mr Chair, earlier on it's intimated to me that it's not necessary for all these people to be here and we could commence.
	I'm saying that I agree with that and I'm ready to commence but I was just stating this protest for the purpose of the record, that it is known that I'm not entirely happy about his absence.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you want us to do about that?  Do you want these proceedings to stand down to allow that applicant to be present so that he can hear what the others have to say?

MR MADASA: I would have preferred so Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: So you are making an application that these proceedings stand over until the first applicant arrives?

MR MADASA: Thank you Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that what you're - is that the application you're moving?

MR MADASA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  Mr Mapoma, what do you say?

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, I am apposed to that application.  One of the reasons Chairperson is that these applicants have applied for amnesty as individuals and they've got their own individual applications before us and such applications Chairperson, will be dealt with applicant by applicant individually.
	So in a way Chairperson, I do not think - I submit Chairperson that absence of one applicant who in any event will be here in an hour's time should not be allowed to hold the hearing unless Chairperson, the applicants, all the applicants that are here are unnecessarily going to implicate the applicant, I mean the applicant who is not here then I will ...[indistinct] to the Committee.  
	I would suggest Chairperson that the matter proceed and if anything is there to implicate the applicant, then that portion may be stood over to allow that applicant to hear.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[microphones switched off]

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chairperson.  Just one question to Mr Madasa.
	I see Mr Armoed is applicant number one, it doesn't mean necessarily that you were going to start with his application.  And the second question is, are you saying that perhaps each application depends on other applicants with other applications?

MR MADASA: Thank you Mr Chair.  I'm not going to start with the person who is absent, who is number one on the list and my concern is not only in regard to whether an applicant will be implicated or not, it's purely a matter of an applicant who is part of this group, having a right to be present and hear the case.
	Whether he is implicated or not, I submit it's not important, what is important is that he has to hear the case, hear what the others are saying because he is a member of the same unit, same group, same structure.
...[Microphones switched off]

CHAIRPERSON: What prejudice if any, do you foresee if the hearing continues in the absence of the applicant, having regard to the fact that none of the other applicants have implicated him?

MR MADASA: Mr Chair, if I may reiterate what I've already said, in my view this is not only a matter of implication, it's a matter of a person being present when his co-applicants' hearing is being held.

CHAIRPERSON: Assuming there's a separation of trials, what happens?

MR MADASA: Then that would be a different matter Mr Chair.  If they are separated then I cannot take the matter any further.

CHAIRPERSON: What I'm trying to do is - what is it that we can do to avoid having to waste time unnecessarily?  You see, because unless there is something that you can point out which would be highly prejudicial to the first applicant it these proceedings commence in his absence because if there is anyone at any stage in his absence who implicates him, we will be prepared to have the matter stand over so that he can deal with that matter as and when he comes here.

MR MOTATA: And just to add to the Chairman's voice, when we had the adjournment earlier your concern was that you hadn't consulted with everybody but you needed only 30 minutes and you as well intimated that you wouldn't start with the absent applicant and we say, taking your word, reconvened after the time that you have assured us you would be ready.
	Now you raise a concern or a protest as regards the absence of the first applicant and as the Judge correctly points out, unless you tell us what prejudice the first applicant would suffer if the proceedings commence in his absence then we don't see any reason why we shouldn't start, unless you show us that prejudice.

MR MADASA: Mr Chair, I'm not reneging from what I've already said, indeed I am ready.  All I am saying is this is group application and because it's a group application, the members of the group are entitled to be present at their hearing because it is their hearing.
	It is a group application, everyone of them is entitled to hear what others are saying, not necessarily to implicate him but ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Why are you are saying ...[intervention]

MR MADASA: ... to be present at the case.

CHAIRPERSON: Why are you saying that it is their application?  Didn't these people, each one of them, make an individual application?  Does the Act make provision for group applications?

MR MADASA: Mr Chair, I cannot take this matter any further, I have no further no further submissions.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well.  Mr Madasa who is appearing on behalf of all the applicants has registered what he has termed a protest because one of the applicants, the first applicant, Michael Armoed who is presently detained at the Johannesburg prison, has not yet arrived.
	I gather from the Evidence Leader that the matter is presently being taken up by Advocate Mpshe in order to ensure that that applicant is here as soon as it is practical to do so.  
	Prior to the adjournment, Mr Madasa indicated to the Committee all he wanted was to consult with the applicants and to that extent he required approximately 30 minutes, we gave him more than that. 
	He indicated to us that he did not intend starting with the first applicant, at that stage his concern was that he had not had time.  
	We have considered the protest registered by Mr Madasa and we are satisfied that there is no prejudice to the applicant is these proceedings were to commence in his absence.  In any event Mr Madasa is here and if there is anything that implicates that applicant these proceedings will stand until that applicant arrives at which stage the matter will then proceed but until such  time that he is implicated we are satisfied that the matter, in the interest of time, ought to proceed.
	Yes Mr Madasa?

MR MADASA: Thank you Mr Chair, I call the third applicant, Oscar Mohale Motlokwa.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Motlokwa, what language to you want to speak, English, Zulu or Sotho?

MOHALE OSCAR MOTLOKWA: ...[inaudible]

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

MOHALE OSCAR MOTLOKWA: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Madasa?