Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1998-04-28

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hole answer the question why was he not asked to come sign the affidavit on the Friday?

MR HOLE: It was simply not possible because the affidavit had not been finished by Friday.

CHAIRPERSON: And Saturday?

MR HOLE: And Saturday too.

CHAIRPERSON: And Sunday?

MR HOLE: Sunday he was already on his way to East London I was told. And therefore arrangements (...intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You knew on Thursday that the affidavit would not be ready for signature on Saturday?

MR HOLE: Excuse me Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: On Thursday when he left your offices you were already aware that the affidavit would not be ready for signature on Saturday?

MR HOLE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: When did you think the affidavit was going to be ready?

MR HOLE: The affidavit, well I would not say but what I did Sir I arranged for somebody on Monday, that was the Freedom Day I believe, for somebody to do the spell checks on the affidavit and do the final touches and get it done on Monday so that I could bring it here.

CHAIRPERSON: Why didn't you do it yourself the spell checks?

MR HOLE: Unfortunately Mr Chairman Sir I am still computer illiterate. I am trying to acquire those skills but I have not been successful yet. But I assure the committee I have done my best. I have even worked on Freedom Day when everybody else was celebrating.

ADV POTGIETER: Not everybody else.

MR HOLE: I am grateful to you Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: What are your further submissions?

MR HOLE: My further submissions Sir are that although the rules of this committee have on the face of them not been fully complied with, there is an explanation before the committee. It is not an unreasonable explanation. Although the rules have been breached it does appear that the applicants and their legal team have tried at best to mitigate the damage that has been done. And in my submission it would not be fair to rule that the attorneys are not entitled to the fee that they have earned in respect of the work they have done so far.
	I appreciate the difficulties that the committee has been put in by reason of this late filing of the affidavit. But that also Sir is explain by what has gone forth before and in the circumstances I would ask that the committee should find that although there is clearly a breach that the circumstances under which it took place are understandable and condoned.

CHAIRPERSON: Tell me how did the officials of the commission know to fax the notice of the hearing to you?

MR HOLE: Sir I assume it is because they had problems in making contact with the suspects. And they spoke to my partner on the 25th and (...intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: But how did they know that they must contact you or your firm? Did your firm not contact them and said that you are now acting for these applicants?

MR HOLE: Sir I believe we would have, I believe we would have done that or simply the ANC office.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma how did the officials know to contact these attorneys?

MR MAPOMA: Mr Chairman prior to the facts of the 25th of March there was previous communication between the attorneys Hole and Manjezi and they were on record as acting for the applicants.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got a date when the commission was informed that they are acting for the applicants?

MR HOLE: Unfortunately Sir I am not in a position at this moment to get a date to that effect. I am sorry Sir I cannot say (...intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You see Mr Hole it strikes me as odd that any attempt to obtain a statement or affidavit as far as I understand you would only commence once you were told what the day of set down is. It begs the question as to why this affidavit was not signed before that. What is so special about a day of set down? If there was work to be done it could have been down before that, not so?

MR HOLE: Sir I am sorry Mr Chairman. Sir I concede that would be so, that is assuming that a person is aware that a further statement, the statement that was made has to be made. That is assuming that fact. Then one would have had to do this before. But as I have said in the committee that I appeared before I was never required to this. I did it non the same but on my own initiative.

ADV POTGIETER: Yes now that might be so but when were you informed that this affidavit is now required in terms of the rules? Was it part of that letter of set down?

MR HOLE: Well as I have said there were two letters of set down. And the one said they would like to know whether our clients implicated anybody at the hearing and they requested us for that reason to fax them statements or affidavits.

ADV POTGIETER: No I want to know when that is? When were you informed that statements or affidavits are required?

MR HOLE: It was on the 25th of March when they said the hearing would be on the 23rd of March.

ADV POTGIETER: So it was simultaneously with a notice that the matter is going to be heard? Let's call it a notice of set down, not so?

MR HOLE: Sir we are talking about two notices here.

ADV POTGIETER: Yes.

MR HOLE: The first notice was the 23rd one rather the 25th of March one.

ADV POTGIETER: Yes.

MR HOLE: Where they say a hearing would be heard on the 23rd of March.

ADV POTGIETER: Good and the other one when?

MR HOLE: And the other one.

ADV POTGIETER: Were you told about the statement?

MR HOLE: No not.

ADV POTGIETER: Now when were you informed that a statement is required?

MR HOLE: As I have said Sir this was in the letter of the 25th of March.

ADV POTGIETER: Yes that is what I understood, I thought.

MR HOLE: 1998.

ADV POTGIETER: Yes.

MR HOLE: Where they said the hearing will be on the 23rd of March.

ADV POTGIETER: Yes so you knew then also that a statement is required, not so?

MR HOLE: I knew that they asked for a statement.

ADV POTGIETER: Yes so?

MR HOLE: Not that it was required in terms of the rules.

ADV POTGIETER: Alright forget about that but you knew that the TRC now wants a statement so did you communicate that as well to your clients when you communicated via the ANC that this matter was going to be heard?

MR HOLE: Sir what we did was to fax a correct notice of set down after receiving this defective one we asked the TRC to please send us a correct one. And that one was sent to the ANC and we asked the ANC to please arrange for us to see these people. We did not tell them about statements or affidavits. We did not think it was necessary at that time. We thought we would canvas all those aspects when we saw them. They would have indeed have taken this urgently in any event having received communication from us about their application to the TRC for amnesty.

ADV POTGIETER: Yes now the question that arises is according to Mr Makapela about three weeks ago he was informed about the fact that the matter is going to be heard. In other words a set down.

MR HOLE: Yes certainly.

ADV POTGIETER: But there was no communication about a statement. I cannot understand that. I mean I cannot see why this difficulty should have arisen about your seeing him only last Thursday if you had properly communicated the fact that a statement is required together with a notice of set down?

MR HOLE: Sir if I may answer your question please?

ADV POTGIETER: Yes please.

MR HOLE: What is being asked of me is why when we communicated this we did not tell them about the statement.

ADV POTGIETER: Yes.

MR HOLE: Frankly we did not think it was the right way to go about it. We thought the best way to do it is to make arrangements to see our client during which occasion we would obtain a statement from him. The urgency of the meeting was stressed to the ANC and they seemed to understand that. And even the notice of set down was faxed to them. In any event although Mr Makapela says he was advised of this soon after we had advised the ANC, the facts are that we did not see him as a result of this. We saw him as a result of our extra endeavours to trace him in East London.