Special Hearings — Caprivi Hearings — 1997-08-06

MR NTSEBEZA: Thank you, Chairperson.  Before we resume, I think it is proper for me, through you, Chairperson, to make an observation about certain remarks that have been going on since the beginning of these proceedings.
The substance of the remarks, especially today, something I will comment on in a moment, but I think what we need to say is that we must support these proceedings, the sort of decorum that we accord proceedings in a Court of Law.  We have made the point that we are not in a court, that we are not a Court of Law, but the point must be made that the decorum that attaches to these proceedings is the decorum that would fit a Court of Law.
I am particularly perturbed that I should address the remarks to my colleagues, to lawyers.  Since the inception of these proceedings there are many remarks that have been made that are of a destructing(?) nature.
Attorneys and counsel have remarked loudly in some instances, whilst proceedings are going on.  You will recall that in today's proceedings I had the occasion to intervene when a witness had indicated where he was shot.  Now I'm subject to correction, but I think I heard the distinct remark when the witness said he was shot in the foot, that there was a remark coming from my left which is where the lawyers are sitting, that that is where his brains are.  Now I'm subject to correction.  
Now if I've heard that remark, not only is the remark offensive for what it says, but it address what I want to be saying, namely that these loud remarks are of a nature that cause us to be distracted from the business
 /which
2B which we are here gathered about.  Of course, if the remark that I heard is what I think I heard, it is offensive in the extreme.  It does not help the process for which this Commission was set up and given the race of the person who was testifying at the time and generally the race of those who are the legal representatives here, if the remark as I said that I heard is what I think I heard, it's very unfortunate.
I'm not making an issue about it.  I'm simply saying I would expect that in this particular proceedings we should conduct ourselves in a way in which we would conduct ourselves in Courts of Law.  That goes generally for the public, but it goes generally and particularly for my colleagues, lawyers, who should know better.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, what perturbs me is that this matter has now on a very personal basis been directed at me and my colleagues in general with the general stroke of a broad paintbrush as if we are acting unprofessionally or unethically in making remarks from here.
Now what I object to most stringently is the way in which here, in public - I don't know whether it is for purposes of publication or what, this kind of remark is made instead of if there was a problem, the lawyers be called to your chambers and this be discussed, because that would have been the proper procedure and I want to tell you, Mr Chairman, I think it is objectionable that this remark was made by Mr Dumisa Ntsebeza, where we have no way of defending ourselves and where he himself even says that he is not sure that he heard the correct remark.
I object to this kind of situation, Mr Chairman.  We are here to assist you and I think most of us have
 /indicated
2B indicated and have showed it quite clearly that we are here to assist and we've lived up to that intention.  I object to this, Mr Chairman.

MR LYSTER: Thank you, Mr Visser.  You talked about proper procedures and I would suggest that the proper procedure is not to make sotto voce comments of any sort and if people want to make remarks out of frustration or whatever it is, please restrict them to yourselves or to another forum after these proceedings.  I'm not going to let the matter be debated any further.  Thank you.