Amnesty Hearings — Mmabatho — 1998-08-03

CHAIRPERSON: Morning everybody, I apologise for the late start in this matter, but there were discussions going on amongst the legal representatives, and also there were delays caused by setting up the venue.
	Could the legal representatives - well let me start off by just introducing the panel.   On my far right, is Advocate Sigodi, she's an advocate from Port Elizabeth, on my immediate right is Advocate Bosman, from the Cape, on my left is Advocate Motata, he's from Johannesburg, and I am Selwyn Miller, a judge from the Transkei.
	Could the legal representatives please place themselves on record?

MR RAMPHELKE: My name is Tshepiso Ramphelke, I am from Lawyers for Human - representing the applicant.

MR HENDRICKS: My name is Advocate Ronnie Hendricks, I'm an advocate of the local bar, representing the applicant.

MR ENGELBRECHT: May it please you, Mr Chairman and the committee, I'm representing the AWB, and Mr Terreblanche, the name is Engelbrecht and I'm from the Pretoria Bar.

MR VAN DEN BERG: As the Court pleases, Chairman, I'm from the Pretoria Bar, my name is Gerhard van den Berg, and I appear on behalf of Mrs Uys.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: J M Mpshe, Mr Chairman, members of the committee, representing the Truth Commission and more particularly the Amnesty Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Engelbrecht, I believe that there are some problems existing with the commencement of this matter?

MR ENGELBRECHT: That is correct, Mr Chairman, the AWB, who is opposing the application for amnesty received the documents on the 31st of July 1998 at 17:45.   I was briefed on Saturday, and due to insufficient time, we were unable to properly prepare, and amongst other things, we tried to get hold a reporter of the Sunday Times, a Peter de Ionno, whom we say is an essential witness in these proceedings.   The offices of the Sunday Times was not prepared to supply us with his home telephone number, he was not on duty at the state, neither would they give us his address, so we were unable, over the weekend to make contact with this witness.  We had a look at a video shown to us this morning by my colleague, Mr Mpshe, and having seen that video, I'm more convinced that it is absolutely necessary that I speak with the gentleman concerned.   He was an eye witness and could supply vital information regarding the conduct of the applicant at the relevant period.   There is also a Ray Hartley of the Sunday Times whom we'd like to speak with.   	So my application is for a postponement to enable me to properly prepare and consult with the necessary witnesses, which was not possible due to the late receiving of the documents concerned.
	I submit it is in the interests of all parties concerned that the proper facts be laid before this committee.   Subject to the chairman's approval, we have arranged a date, which would be the week of the 21st of September to the 25th of September.   We appreciate that there is a public holiday in between, but it is our expectation that we should complete the matter in four days.  If not, we might consider utilising the public holiday, but my application, on behalf of the AWB, is that the matter then be postponed to afford us the opportunity to consult with these witnesses.

CHAIRPERSON: And is it your view, Mr Engelbrecht, that should the applicants testify today, you wouldn't be in a position to properly cross-examine them until you've consulted with those witnesses you've mentioned?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Correct, Mr Chairman, I would not be in a position to effectively cross-examine the applicant until such time as I've had an opportunity to consult with the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hendricks, do you have any submissions?

MR HENDRICKS: Mr Chairman, I don't oppose the application for a postponement, but I would urge this committee not to do this hearing piecemeal, so if a postponement is considered, we can start on the 21st of September.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you're saying that it would be not desirable for the evidence in chief to be led today and then there be that period of approximately six or seven weeks, whatever it is, before cross-examination?

MR HENDRICKS: That is indeed my submission, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Van den Berg?

MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Chairman, we are ready to proceed, but we don't object the request for a postponement.   So if this matter has to be postponed, we will accept it, but we are ready at the moment to proceed with this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.   Mr Mpshe?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Thank you, Mr Chairman.   Mr Chairman, I do not oppose the application for postponement, for one reason, inasfar as it pertains to Mr Engelbrecht's consultation with the journalist only, and not, I disagree inasfar as it goes to receiving of documents and other things.
	I just want to put the record straight.   Mr Chairman, the AW office was served with the notice on the 2nd of June 1998, section 19.4, it was served at the AW offices in Ventersdorp, I've got copies, by registered post.   Mr Chairman, I heard nothing from them, absolutely nothing from them, up till the 29th of July, when Mr Visagie called the Cape Town office on the 29th of July inquiring about the hearing and documentation.   Now, Mr Visagie alleged that he was, the AW was never served, which is not true.   They apparently have two different offices and we only know Ventersdorp office as the AWB offices, and that's where service was.   Now a letter came from Mr Visagie, who is in this hearing now, and this letter indicated that they never received any notice and the one documentation.   Now on the strength of him not having been aware of the notice service at the AW offices, the documents were then sent to them last week Friday, couriered, because, Mr Chairman, we don't serve notice and forward documentation to people who don't know whether they will appear, whether they have interest or not, because the meaning of section 19.4 is very clear, it does not compel a person to be there, he makes his choice, and if they don't make timeous choice or choices, either on the 4th or the 10th or the 20th of June, we cannot just forward documents.  They only contacted us after having made up their mind on the 29th of July, when we served them with a notice on the 2nd of June.   I just wanted to put this one straight, but I'm not opposing the application.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Mpshe.   Mr Engelbrecht, I take it your instructions are to oppose the application?

MR ENGELBRECHT: That is correct, Mr Chairman, we oppose the application for amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: And you've heard what Mr Mpshe says, is there any explanation as to why you were only briefed on Friday late, or Saturday morning when notice was (indistinct) 2nd of June?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Mr Chairman, my instructions are that a fax was sent for a copy of the documentation, a telephone call was made, and that is why the documents, apparently the documents were sent by courier, and somehow along at Kimberley, there was a delay at Kimberley by the courier, and that is why we received the documents so late.
	May I also place on record that the findings of the Tebbutt Commission was only made public on Thursday, which also dealt with this matter as an inquest, and we only heard about that on Friday morning, and having seen and read a certain portion of the findings of the Tebbutt Commission and the finding as to the credibility of a certain witness which testified makes it imperative for me to consult with the two journalists, because it is quite possible that they might give a different version as to what happened, and that's why I'm asking to consult with them and prepare.

ADV MOTATA: Mr Engelbrecht, as regards what Advocate Mpshe has said, that section 19 notices were sent as early in July... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: June.