Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1998-02-05

MS PATEL: : No there aren't any further witnesses from my side.
	There is, however, just one point honourable Chairperson, I'd just like to place on record that the full copy of "The Weaver Trial" has in fact been made available to all the Committee members and there has been a request from Mr Williams my learned friend here that it forms part of the record.  I would support that view given that the Weaver Trial gives us a broad indication of other parties involvement in the scene or at the scene if I'm not sure what the view is of my other learned colleagues on that.

MR BOOYENS: I'm not sure what the status of that is supposed to be Mr Chairman.  Surely if it's going to be argued that the Committee should take evidence given in another hearing into account of people that didn't testify here, then one would of course been entitled to say well, maybe that's what they said but maybe they would have said something different if I cross-examined them.  I'm not sure what sort of status one should, it's always a problem on any controversial issue to do that, I'm not sure what the position in the Act is are far as the proceedings is concerned, I haven't checked that.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm somewhat dubious about making the whole of the record part of the record of these proceedings.  If you were to refer to the judgment, that might be a different matter.  We would then be referring to a judgment that a Court has given.

MR BOOYENS: Yes, I quite agree, my Lord, I'm not aware of any provision in this Act that, because the moment you make a part of the record then, as what, are we then, for example to take into account the, it is then suggested that, I'm not sure, if Mr Benting gave evidence at the so-called Weaver Trial.  What do we do with his evidence?  I didn't, we didn't have an opportunity to cross-examine him.  Or for that matter, the medical evidence.  If that was given, I think it will be safest for the Committee to stick to what it heard.

CHAIRPERSON: My feeling is that it could be if it was intended to call those witnesses.  You could then agree to put the record in without further proof, as the record, and then you could refer them to passages in the record, but merely without any of the witnesses being called, to put the record in as part of the record of these proceedings, I think is going too far.

MR MOSES: My lord, if I could just say that I cannot, I can perhaps understand why my Lord doesn't take a shine to the idea of adding another 700 pages to an already lengthy proceeding, but from a legal point of view I think that at least the evidence of Mr Bellingan himself at a previous proceeding, should perhaps form part of this record because it is testimony that he testified to under oath.

CHAIRPERSON: Well was he asked about it?  Didn't he in fact, wasn't he in fact questioned about it, somebody did and said that was I said there was incorrect version?

MR MOSES: Your Worship, if I remember correctly I think that Mr Bellingan was in fact questioned about his previous evidence in certain respects and some of which he confirmed and some of which he denied.  I speak under correction at this stage but I see no reason why the court should not have sight of previous evidence testified by him under oath as in the affidavit.

CHAIRPERSON: I think it should be put to him.  It wasn't put to him.  To allow a witness to conclude his evidence, not put it to him and then start saying whoa, but look what he said here.  It's grossly unfair to that witness, isn't it?

MR MOSES: I would agree with my lord entirely, but with respect some aspects of his evidence was put to him.

CHAIRPERSON: What was put to him forms part of our record.
	Nobody wishes to call any further evidence due to the unfortunate illness of two members of the Committee, it is not possible to go on to the question of argument now.  I think that that would be stretching things a little for us to hear argument and for them not to.  It seems to me to be desirable, accordingly to ask you to prepare written argument in this matter unless counsel feels strongly that we should meet again for oral argument.  It may be that certain queries arise which will have to be put. But it seems to me that the fairest method of doing it is to put the onus on Mr Kobus Booyens and ask him as applicant to prepare his argument first, to circulate it to the other parties and that they can then reply.

MR BOOYENS: In all fairness, my Lord, why only me, what about Mr Peter Williams?

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, sorry, Mr Williams, can put up, I refer to Mr Booyens' argument and adopt the same.  No, it's the two of you, I'm sorry it was an oversight on my part. It's the two of you, how much time do you need?

MR BOOYENS: My Lord, can we discuss it in chambers, unfortunately I'm busy with several of these matters...

CHAIRPERSON: I'm aware of that.

MR BOOYENS: ..in a row and..

CHAIRPERSON: Well if you will talk to the others take time for yourself and allow them a fair time thereafter to prepare replies.

MR BOOYENS: Will do so my Lord.

CHAIRPERSON: But I don't propose something like three months.

MR BOOYENS: Oh no, neither do I my Lord.

CHAIRPERSON: But if you can, most reasonable time you can for yourself and then you can discuss with them what time they need and let us know.
	We accordingly come to the final adjournment in these proceedings.  I would like to thank all the parties for the assistance they have given us and for enabling us to finally get to the end of the evidence.  Thank you all.
MR. MOSES: My Lord, may I then be excused because..

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we don't expect arguments from you unless of course you feel you wish to contribute.  Yes, Advocate Moses is excused from any further participation in these proceedings.
ADVOCATE MOSES EXCUSED
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS