Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-08-03

MR DORFLING: Thank you Mr Chairman, as it would appear from the index of the list of witnesses to possibly give evidence on behalf of the objectors, on whose behalf I appear, I would like at this point in time to indicate as far witnesses no 3, 5 and 6 are concerned, that we do not intend calling these witnesses.  Mr Chairman may I just with regard to the motivation thereof, on the 24th of June we were requested to motivate the reason for witnesses being subpoenaed by the Committee, and in response thereto on the 25th of June we replied inter alia in paragraph 7 of the letter
"Although we requested a number of witnesses to be subpoenaed, we must stress that they all give a specific interpretation of what transpired.  They furthermore give a perspective from different vantage points and different stages of the incident.  We do not intend to duplicate any of the evidence and therefore anticipate that we would only call as many witnesses as would contribute to a considered decision by the Amnesty Committee."
	That is the position with regard to those three witnesses, hence us having decided not to call witnesses no 3, 5 and 6.  That leaves only two witnesses remaining on the list Mr Chair.  As far as Mr Ralph von Eggedy is concerned, we've been trying desperately to locate him, we've even asked Ms Patel to assist us, we've asked the Attorney-General's staff, the Investigating Officer of the Shell House inquest matter to assist us.  Up to this stage we are not able to locate Mr von Eggedy.  As you would no doubt see from the judgment of Mr Justice Nugent, it is an important witness.  We were trying to get hold of him, we tried all avenues but without success at this point in time.  He's therefore at this point in time not available as yet.  The last ...(intervention)

JUDGE NGCOBO: Wasn't there some kind of an agreement in regard to his evidence?

MR DORFLING: With regard to the present proceedings Mr Justice Ngcobo?

JUDGE NGCOBO: Yes.

MR DORFLING: I'm not sure that there was any specific agreement which - I'm not sure.

CHAIRPERSON: It's not some kind of an understanding that his evidence at the inquest would go in by consent?

GEORGE BIZOS: ...(inaudible) argument in which the evidence of Mr von Eggedy was praised and we said we accept that and second it, and Mr von Eggedy's evidence stands as whatever it says it says.

JUDGE NGCOBO: That leaves us with the last one, Mhlaba.

MR DORFLING: Indeed so, at the adjournment of the last proceedings I already indicated that this witness will be called.  I had by agreement on that date agreed with the witness to come and consult with me last week, he didn't arrive.  Somebody's trying to locate him, he's supposed to be residing at Room 7E Mansfield Hostel.  We haven't been able to locate him, I can't advance any reason for his non-attendance of the meeting last week.  I haven't been able to get in touch with him.  I've got two gentlemen actually trying to locate Mr Mhlaba.  His statement is contained in pages 37 and 38 of Exhibit E.  I would therefore request some indulgence to try and locate this witness.  He is indeed one of the marchers, Mr Chair, I've insisted on the gentlemen looking for him, to try and have Mr Mhlaba available tomorrow morning.  I cannot give any assurances, it is difficult to locate him, there's no way of contacting him but in person, and we're having difficulty to locate him.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Is he still residing at the address you just mentioned Mr Dorfling, to your knowledge?

MR DORFLING: That was the indication I had from the witness the last time when we adjourned here.

MR TIPP: Mr Chairman may we just raise the position of now Inspector van Reenen, Sergeant Gollach and Sergeant van Greenen.  Now obviously we've never consulted with any of those gentlemen.  Their evidence falls into a different category from that of Mr von Eggedy because there are matters in dispute in respect of their evidence, which is not the position of Mr von Eggedy.  Now it's not our wish to make work for the Committee or to delay the proceedings, all of those persons are present here Mr Chairman.  We don't want to call them as our witnesses, if they had to come we'd prefer to cross-examine them obviously, but if there is agreement between ourselves and our learned friends that one may have - make reference to what they have said and concessions that have been made by them for the purpose of argument before the Committee, then we would have no difficulty in leaving the position as it is.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) that are here.

MR TIPP: No Mr Chairman, sorry, I didn't make myself clear, in the course of their examination in the inquest, because again, they were fully examined by all sides.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR TIPP: So really on the same - in the equivalent of that of Mr von Eggedy, but with the understanding that unlike Mr von Eggedy, there are matters in dispute in respect of what they've said.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DORFLING: Mr Chair, if I may just indicate, there are definitely certain points in dispute as between the applicants and the objectors with regard to that evidence, there has been certain findings made in this regard by Mr Justice Newgent and you've rightly indicated, we're not re-visiting the Shell House inquest, so only in as far as the aspects are common cause, can this be regarded by this Committee.  Without this Committee having seen these witnesses and having had regard to the points in dispute, I think what we would be doing is to re-visit the Shell House inquest judgement instead of having our own decision or this Committee's own decision on it.

CHAIRPERSON: Well a great deal of our time has been taken up in visiting the inquest proceedings, isn't it.  Lengthy cross-examination of witnesses from both sides relating to what they said during the
inquest and why their evidence in the inquest differed from what they're saying now and so on.  That's been carrying on on a substantial scale up to now.

JUDGE NGCOBO: ...(inaudible) that these witnesses may have given evidence at the inquest, and also to the extent that that court may have made certain findings often concerning their evidence and then as witnesses, what are we to do about that?

CHAIRPERSON: We're not concerned with the findings of the inquest court, but by consent, their evidence as it stands may form part of the record.  I think that's the suggestion that is being made.

MR TIPP: That is correct Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGCOBO: But what about the findings of the inquest court, are we - in regard to that?

MR TIPP: No, without regard to the findings that that is simply embodied as part of the record of these proceedings, upon which we will then mount argument Mr Chairman.

MR DORFLING: But Mr Chair, I've got a difficulty with that proposition, it means we accept evidence without it being placed in the perspective of the totality of the evidence at the inquest court.  There's been a ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, hold on.

JUDGE NGCOBO: How are we to evaluate that evidence?

MR TIPP: Mr Chairman I appreciate that, it's really my learned friend's list that we're talking about, if he's not happy to do on the basis that the record is placed before the Committee.  If the Committee in turn is not happy to look at untested evidence, then we would with respect suggest that they be called as witnesses.  We understand ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: The Committee does not know what evidence these people are going to give ...

MR TIPP: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You know, and for us to say we will call them at this stage might not be a particularly judicious decision, without know what it is all about.

GEORGE BIZOS: May I come in here Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.