Amnesty Hearings — Ermelo — 1998-07-22

MR HATTINGH: No, I'm not concerned whether it's an admissible statement.  My submission would be that in terms of the Act, we are dealing now and we're attending to these hearings within the limitations of the Act, the way I understand it, and the Act makes provision for an application which is confidential.  The Amnesty Committee can then either send it back, obtain further information from the applicant, further statements, have its own investigations and all the documentation remains confidential until the time that a public hearing is held.  Now, we've reached that time.  The public hearing has commenced now.  All the documentation that was in possession of the TRC, the Amnesty Committee, it's my submission all those documentation and documents and statement now becomes public documents in the sense that it is now made available to anyone who's now opposing the application.

CHAIRPERSON: And your view is that this applicant has attached two annexures to the application form?

MR HATTINGH: No, I was told that there were two separate applications.

MR PATEL: Mr Chairman, may I just come in at this stage.  I'm instructed by Ms Mohammed.  She has advised me, and maybe it was misunderstood by my colleague, there was not a duplication of applications, it's as you correctly point out, there were two annexures prepared by two various attorneys, two sets of attorneys.  The application itself was not duplicated.  As it pleases the Committee.

MR HATTINGH: But in any event, Mr Chairman, those statements were forwarded to the Amnesty Committee.  They were received by the Amnesty Committee.  My submission would be, you can't submit various statements and all of them unsigned and then at some stage say, "Well, I now elected to make use of this statement.  Give me back all the other statements", after the Amnesty Committee have already had sight of these other statements.  And the same goes for all the other documentation and I don't know whether this is an appropriate time to mention it, but it does concern me that Mr Black at some stage of the investigations of the application of Mr Gushu acted on behalf of the Amnesty Committee in investigating this matter, and then at some stage, I don't know when, he changed alliances and became the legal representative for the applicant.  Now, that in a sense may be very obnoxious or doesn't make any difference at all, but it does leave a sense of someone who takes part in this hearing knows more than I do, and someone has at some stage taken part in the investigation, he's received transcripts of the judgments from the Supreme Court which we didn't.  He received various further information which we didn't.  He had sight of the police dockets which we didn't see.

CHAIRPERSON: It seems to be a separate matter.  Let us deal with that separately if it does become a bone of contention.  It does sound serious, if you are correct.  Let us deal with the status of these two statements first.  That's what we were dealing with.  As I understand your point that you want to make, is that you feel that having been provided with both statements, you are entitled t use one of the two in cross-examining the witness who has elected to adopt the other one?

MR HATTINGH: That's correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Is your concern at this stage about the two documents?  That's the reason you raised the point.

MR HATTINGH: Well, perhaps I think it goes further than just the present document.  Mr Black's already indicated that this document should not be placed before this Committee and he's going to object to that.  We are now dealing with the documentation and in particular with this second statement.  I am going to use it.  He is going to object to it and we might as well at this stage already deal with it.  But it goes further than that.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you want a ruling as to whether it's a document that is able to be used in cross-examination or not?

MR HATTINGH: Yes, indeed.

CHAIRPERSON: In other words, whether it is an admissible document which could be used for the purposes of questioning?

MR HATTINGH: Indeed, and I may go further, that as I read the Act, all documentation that was placed before the Amnesty ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, well just, do I understand you correctly?  That's what we want to clarify now.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, I want to clarify a document which ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think it's a good time to clarify it so that everybody knows where we stand.  In that case I'd like both or all interested parties in this document to address us because I'm going to have to make a ruling.

MR HATTINGH: As you please.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.  Mr Mapoma, are you in a position to indicate to us what the actual history of this document is or would you need to contact the Cape Town office to establish exactly what happened?

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, I think I would need an opportunity to contact the Cape Town office.

CHAIRPERSON: That's correct.  Then I'd like you to find out the following, if you could write that down.  The date when the first statement came into the office, when it was submitted and from which office.  The second statement when that came in and from which office.  Whether the first statement was signed or not at that time and whether it is at all signed at this stage.  The second statement the same.  And I would like you and your colleague to make an assessment of the two documents as to whether in terms of incidents these are any different.  Not the facts pertaining to a particular incident, but separate incidents.  And if there is a difference on incidents, find out from the office what the position and status is of that other statement in respect of applications, how far we've gone etcetera.  Lastly, when the second statement arrived.  Whether it just came alone, whether there was some covering letter and if so, if they could fax that letter to us or some kind of communication, be it verbal or writing.  If it was verbal, I'm sure someone would have made a note of it.  How long do you think you would need for this?

MR MAPOMA: I think thirty (30) minutes will do, sir.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm going to give everybody an extra half an hour to prepare then we will come and hear argument.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

MR MAPOMA: Sir, I would just want to go through the points that you wanted to be found out.
	Firstly, you wanted to find out the date when the first statement was handed in to the Committee.  It was handed in on the ninth (9th) of May 1997 together with the actual application form and it was from the firm of attorneys Mthembu and Mohammed.  
	Then the second statement was received per fax on the thirty first (31st) March 1998 from Advocate Rodney Black.  Both the first and the second statement were not signed and the second statement is the one which has been signed today.  These statements relate to a number of incidents for which Mr Gushu has applied for amnesty, but there is one incident which has not been dealt with in the second statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Appears in the first statement?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, sir, it appears in the first statement.  Then that incident does not relate to the Black Cats conflict, the incident which is not mentioned in the second statement or dealt with in the second statement.   And that particular incident is not before this hearing today because it is not ready for hearing.  And then when the second statement was submitted to the Committee, there was no correspondence accompanying it.  It was a telephonic conversation with Mr Tofile next to me from Advocate Rodney Black, where he said he's going to fax the statement which he did.

CHAIRPERSON: No other request accompanying it?

MR MAPOMA: No, sir.  So, that is the position, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Black, have you got any submissions to make on the matter at hand?