Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1999-04-13

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Du Plessis.  Thank you very much for the assistance that you had given the Panel up to this point.  Thank you.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, may I be excused?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you are excused.
	Is there anything else that any of the parties want to add to their submissions before we rule on the application for a postponement in view of anything that Mr Du Plessis had put on record?

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, our point of view is that despite the motivation that has been given and the explanation that has been given by Mr Du Plessis, one thing that has not been explained is the timing thereof, the fact that this happened a week, or a couple of days, before this hearing and without any explanation in that regard, because on the one hand we heard about the ethical considerations which is said, I've got an ethical problem, but because of the privilege, I am not telling you what the problem is, the applicant himself also and we know that that privilege is the applicant's privilege, also does not come and give an explanation for that.
	We are basically sitting in the situation that as far as the problem that has arisen, and I accept that if he so, when an Attorney terminates the mandate of counsel, one's got to accept that that is something that has happened, our concern is that there was no explanation to you to say why it happened at such a late stage.  If there was an ethical problem, that problem should have existed at the time of the previous hearing or shortly thereafter, at best, for the applicant.
	In those circumstances we say that there is still no proper basis to postpone these proceedings and should you, Mr Chairman, allow a postponement in a sense, it should be a short postponement so that we can, it should be a matter of a day or two and nothing more than that, because if you allow more than that, we certainly, and I am sure other parties here certainly, will be prejudiced.  Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Rautenbach.  Is there any other party who wants to add anything further?  Thank you.
R U L I N G
	This is an application for this matter to be postponed until Thursday, the 15th of April 1999, in order to allow the new counsel, Adv Hattingh, who has been briefed to appear on behalf of the applicant, Mr Bellingan in these proceedings, further opportunity to finalise his preparations of the matter.
	The application is opposed by all of the interested parties.  Adv Hattingh has indicated that he was approached to appear in these proceedings last Wednesday, that is the 7th of April 1999, that he had accepted the instruction, that he had ascertained that he was available for the two week time period reserved for this matter and that he had initially calculated that by this morning, Monday the 12th of April, he would be ready and able to proceed to deal with the matter, to effectively take over the matter from Adv Du Plessis, who has previously represented the applicant.
	Adv Hattingh however, indicated in submitting the application for the postponement to us, that he had miscalculated the time required in order to properly prepare himself in order to represent the applicant, that he had been confronted with amongst other things a bulky set of documentation running into some 6 000 or 7 000 pages which he had to have regard to in order to prepare.
	He indicated that he was in no position to properly represent the interest of the applicant this morning, and hence the application for the matter to be postponed until Thursday in order to allow him further opportunity to prepare and to be able to proceed, to deal with the matter.
	After some questions were raised concerning the withdrawal of Adv Du Plessis from the matter, this being one of the factors relied upon, the absence of a clear explanation, relied upon by the parties opposing the application, it appeared to be proper to arrange for Adv Du Plessis to personally appear at these proceedings, and to properly deal with the question of his withdrawal.
	Adv Du Plessis in fact had appeared this afternoon and had explained that due to circumstances which had arisen, as we understand it, in the course of last week, it was necessary to take a decision whether or not he ought to be proceeding with the matter on behalf of the applicant.
	He indicated that once it became clear that he was in no position to be able to properly continue in representing the applicant, his mandate was terminated by his Instructing Attorneys and at that stage, which appears to be approximately Wednesday last week, steps were taken to obtain the services of alternative counsel to deal with the matter.
	It appears to us that there is no fault that could be attributed to the applicant concerning the circumstances giving rise to the withdrawal of Adv Du Plessis, from the matter.  Adv Du Plessis has expressly indicated that much to us when he did appear.  
	The application is being opposed on the basis that the interested parties would be prejudiced should the matter not proceed immediately and be finalised without delay.  There are some difficulties surrounding the availability of counsel which resulted from an understanding that this matter is expected to last for no more than about a week and that moreover there is a real likelihood should the matter be delayed at this stage, of it not being completed in the time which has been reserved for the matter to be finalised.
	We have considered all of the arguments which were addressed to us.  In our view it is in the interest of justice for this matter not to proceed today and for a further opportunity to be afforded to applicant's legal representatives, particularly Adv Hattingh, to prepare to represent his interest.
	It is however also in our view in the interest of justice, for the matter not to be delayed unduly and for it to in fact be concluded within the time period which has been set aside for doing so.
	In all the circumstances we have decided to grant the application for a postponement.  However, in our view there is merit in the submission of Mr Rautenbach in this regard that a postponement should be a limited one, taking into account the interest of the other parties who might be negatively affected by an unduly lengthy postponement of the matter.
	We have accordingly come to the conclusion that it would leave sufficient time for further preparation should this matter be postponed until Wednesday, the 14th of April 1999, that is coming Wednesday and the matter is therefore accordingly postponed to Wednesday, 14 April 1999 to this venue for the cross-examination of the applicant to proceed at nine o'clock in the morning.
	The matter is accordingly postponed until Wednesday.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS