Amnesty Hearings — White River — 2000-05-02

MS MTANGA: Chairperson Ms Cambanis did indicate that to me, but I don't have that on record, what I do have on record is that the actual Section 19(iv) notification went out on the 14th of April, but there may have been telephonic conversations or discussions between the analyst and the attorneys.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you accept the 25th of February 2000 as a notification date for the applicants?

MS MTANGA: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.  Yes, I was interrupting you, sorry, where does this leave us now?

MS MTANGA: Chairperson, in the light of the fact that the victims are not here today, the question is whether do we continue with the hearing or not.  I would like to indicate to the Committee that endeavours were made by our office to contact the victims, on the information that the Commission had at its disposal.  It is therefore my view that the hearing should continue because most of the victims who have not been located, we do not have evidence that a further investigation on them will eventually get hold of them, or not and in regard to Mr Rossouw, I will object to the objection raised by Mr Schutte, his attorney, on the grounds that even if we were to accommodate them, the objection was raised too late and actually on the day of the hearing.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think the question is, I mean, is there any justifiable basis for us not hearing at least the applicants?

MS MTANGA: Chairperson, I would say no.

CHAIRPERSON: Because you know, this is obviously just on the face of it, it's a most unsatisfactory situation.  We, as a Committee we are very sensitive about the interest of victims, interested parties, we always endeavour to give them every opportunity to participate in the proceedings, but that is just one leg of the process.  If we had notified the applicants in February that this matter is proceeding and they are here and they're legally represented, then there must be at least on the fact of it, in our view, there must be a very compelling reason not to hear them.  You say that in so far as Mr Rossouw is concerned, your attitude is that this is not a sufficient basis for not proceeding with the application?

MS MTANGA: Yes, Chairperson, that's my argument.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  Is there anything else that you wanted to add?

MS MTANGA: That is all Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Mtanga.  Yes, Mr Berger, I don't know if you have anything that you want to say.

MR BERGER: Well, Chairperson, we're in agreement that the matter should proceed today, that the objection raised on behalf of Sgt Rossouw, with respect, is really far too late and there are no grounds put forward at all in the fax in support of the matter being postponed, other than:  "The writer is unable to attend", that's all he says and that, in our view, is not sufficient at all.  His client was notified and could have been here.  As far as the other victims are concerned, the way I read the Act Chairperson, it requires that victims be notified, but if there's been service and at the last known address and the victim is no longer there and there's no forwarding address, that's sufficient.  It can't, in our view, have been the intention of the Legislature to hold up amnesty hearings for all victims to be located where there are no forwarding addresses.  It's simply a procedure to enable them to be present to hear what has been said and to put their views across, but if steps have been taken to locate them and they are no longer there, with respect, that cannot hold up the hearing.
	We are told that the radio was also used, other attempts were made to locate the victims, that's sufficient and in our view, in our submission Chairperson, not only should the applicants be heard, but the application should be dealt with and they shouldn't be postponed even after the applicants have given evidence, to some later date.  If, after the applicants have testified, there is no further evidence, then we would ask that the matter be argued and completed.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BERGER: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, it also appears to us that it does not necessarily close the door on a victim who has got good cause for not having been able to participate in the actual proceedings.  I should imagine there are always further procedures that could be followed, make submissions in regard to the matter, if you're interested you can obtain a copy of the proceedings and so on and of course, I mean, we're not sure whether any of these people really want to oppose the application.

MR BERGER: That is so, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: If the application were not to proceed today, what would the effect be on your clients?

MR BERGER: Well, Chairperson, because we were notified in February, we've had schedules rearranged, diaries rearranged.  Without wanting to put too much stress on this point, the first applicant is the chief of the South African National Defence Force, the second applicant is also a General in the SANDF, the third applicant is also a high ranking official.  To have the diaries rearranged, is just going to cause problems that, bluntly put, we can do without, Chairperson.  We're dealing with busy people and to get everyone here today hasn't been easy.  It's going to be very difficult to convene us all again.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  Yes thank you, Mr Berger.  Is there anything else that you wanted to say, Ms Mtanga?

MS MTANGA: I have nothing further, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Ms Mtanga, has Mr Schutte given any explanation why this fax was only dispatched to us this morning?

MS MTANGA: Chairperson, he didn't explain that to me, but I have spoken to his secretary.  His intention was that it should reach us by the 20th of April.  However, there was a problem or miscommunication in his office and it was only sent to us today.
R U L I N G

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  We have listened to what has been put before us by Ms Mtanga in regard to the state of the application.  We have had regard to the letter that was faxed to the Cape Town office of the Committee sometime today.  We are as usual working under extreme time constraints, we at this stage, will simply rule that this matter should proceed and if needs be we will furnish reasons for that ruling in due course.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Berger.

MR BERGER: Thank you Chairperson.  Chairperson, I call the first applicant, General Siphiwe Nyanda.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, the General will affirm rather than taking the oath.

CHAIRPERSON: And he'll testify in English, I assume?

MR BERGER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

SIPHIWE NYANDA: (affirmed states)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Berger.

MR BERGER: Thank you Chairperson.  Chairperson, before I lead Gen Nyanda, I just would like to point out that there are a few problems with the bundle.  General Nyanda's amnesty application starts at page 4 of the bundle and then there is a set of Further Particulars starting at page 13, but you will see from the way the bundle has been put together that page 13 is the first page of the Further Particulars and page 14 is the fourth page.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BERGER: Then page 18 is the second page and also in the Further Particulars there are certain annexures that are referred to and those annexures have all been left out, but to be found at other pages, and I'll just point you to them.  The first, Annexure A is the amnesty application and that appears from pages 4 through to 10.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BERGER: Then Annexure B is an extract from the second submission of the ANC to the TRC, that's the submission dated 12 May 1997 and that's to be found at page 143 of the bundle.  Annexure C is to be found at page 145.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Berger, just give me a minutes.  You say that Annexure B in your papers, is page 43?

MR BERGER: is page 143.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry.  Yes, that's right.  Yes, please proceed.