Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1996-05-13

ADV THABETHA: Not the transcript of Ngo and other matters, the transcript of Nkgwedi.  The following day I got the transcript, I couriered it to Mr McLachlan, I called him, left messages with him to respond, he never responded.  I faxed the Section 19.4 via Mr McLachlan to Mrs Naude, I also didn't get any response.  Even before coming to Bloemfontein I left another message on his cell, he never responded to me. The person I've been talking to over the telephone more often is Margaret Pentstone, the deceased's daughter, she gave me a letter, she said she couldn't come to the hearings, she didn't want to come to the hearings, but she gave me a letter to present at the hearings.

MR DE JAGER: You've handed me a letter from Margaret Pentstone yesterday afternoon, actually after we've adjourned, I don't know whether you've given a copy to the applicant's representative.

ADV THABETHA: We have.

MR DE JAGER: What's his attitude about the letter? Can it be handed in as evidence or what's the position?

ADV MTHEMBU: Briefly yesterday I showed that letter to the applicants as they were leaving to take instructions on its contents and it would appear, certain issues that are in that letter are being disputed by the applicants.  I don't know how the Committee will deal with that issue.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Well that is just a letter and not an affidavit.  It has not evidential value, maybe we shouldn't create problems out of nothing really.  If the instructions or the purpose why this person handed over the letter was just that the letter should be read to register their views, the letter can be read.  But that does not mean that we are going to accept the contents thereof as the truth necessarily because it's not an affidavit, and you should see it in that light, because I hear that you say that, you talk of instructions from your clients , what their attitude will be to the contents and the like, but please remember that this is not an affidavit, it's just a letter and if the author of the letter's intention was that that letter should just be read and her views be registered, it can be done.  We don't have to, I suppose you don't for a moment think of calling the applicants again and putting the contents of the letter to them again and all that sort of thing. It's not an affidavit, it's just a letter, and that's what it is.

JUDGE WILSON: As I understand, the purpose of the letter, it was because she had learned of certain evidence or information that has been given which tended to put her father in a bad light and it is the natural reaction of a child to want to clarify things of that nature but I don't think it is relevant towards the enquiry we are hearing.  It has not been suggested for example, that he didn't pay wages or that he didn't provide accommodation for his staff or that he wasn't a good farmer. I understand that is really what she wanted to put before us and that is not an issue, is it Mr Mthembu?

ADV MTHEMBU: Chair, for as long as it has not been of any evidential value, I have no problem if it is read.

JUDGE WILSON: I think it is more the reaction of a hurt child who thinks 'my father was a father was a far better man than that', and quite naturally, just understandably wants to clarify what she thinks is a misconception, but it is not as brother as said, it is clearly not evidence before us.

MR DE JAGER: Don't you only enquire from Mr Nkgwedi whether his father was still living on the farm on the day of the when Mr Fourie was killed?

ADV MTHEMBU: We'll do so Sir, I will do so.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: This is a, Ms Thabetha, can you just go back to where you want to run these matters, because if you want to, you see Chairperson has suggested that we use this day to deal with the other matters here and there is Counsel representing Menera I think and also representing Mr Ngo and who is here, who will has been here since yesterday anyway. Now I would have thought that the best way to deal with these things would be just to take today and devote it to Menera and possibly also to Ngo and then just deal with the policeman tomorrow.  Because you see, if we start with Menera and Ngo now, 2 o'clock we stop, then we go back to Nkgwedi and others, having started at 2 o'clock, in all probability we won't finish in two hours time, at 4 o'clock, then we are going to adjourn that same matter and then proceed with it again tomorrow morning and possibly finish in the morning and then in the course of the middle of the morning come back to the matters which we shall have adjourned at 1 o'clock, we'll really be working in a terrible disjointed fashion and it causes Counsel some problems.
	Can't we just proceed with today's matters until 4 o'clock and then start first thing tomorrow morning with Nkgwedi's matter?

ADV THABETHA: Member of the Chair, the only concern I have is that  Menera and Ngo were set for tomorrow but I highlighted in their letters that they must kindly come today so that if we don't finish with today's matters can proceed with their matters, Nkgwedi, Magoda, May and Leeuw were on hold for today but because we finished earlier than early yesterday, we proceeded with them.  I don't see
Mr Phelane and his Lawyer with us right now and I would have to find out when they are coming, that is the ...(intervention).

ADV MTHEMBU: I see, you are referring to the victims' legal representative, the victims have their legal representative, the legal representatives as far as this is concerned?  The matter is coming tomorrow?

ADV THABETHA: As far as he's concerned the matter is coming tomorrow but I did specify that they should come the day before so that if we finish early with the matter that is set for today, we can proceed to their matters, so they are supposed to be here but what I'm thinking is that they are under the impression that the matter that is on hold for today will start and then if it finishes early we can proceed with their matter.

ADV MTHEMBU: Only thereafter.

ADV THABETHA: Ja.

ADV MTHEMBU: So what you propose as that we start with Ngo?

ADV THABETHA: Also Ngo, Ngo was enrolled for tomorrow, Menera and Ngo were enrolled for tomorrow.

ADV MTHEMBU: What are you going to do now until 2 o'clock?

JUDGE WILSON: Nothing.  So there's nothing we can go on with now, is that what you're telling us?

ADV THABETHA: I would like the members of the committee to give me an  opportunity maybe to get in touch with the victims and find out when they are actually coming today.

ADV MTHEMBU: Ja if you did tell them that they should make themselves available today, then they must make themselves available.

ADV THABETHA: That is the applicants you told?  But you didn't tell the victims that?

ADV THABETHA: I did tell the victims that.

JUDGE WILSON: That they might have to be here today?

ADV THABETHA: Yes.

ADV MTHEMBU: Well phone and tell them that they must be here.

ADV THABETHA: I will do so.

JUDGE WILSON: We will adjourn for a few minutes and you can try to clarify the position for us. And from Correctional Services here, I understand that there's a little confusion, probably brought by me this morning about whether we were going to go on with the other four or not and if they were brought here, and I would like to apologise for having caused the confusion and also thank Correctional Services for having reacted so promptly to what they thought was our request.  Thank you very much indeed and I'm sorry you've been put to that trouble.  We will be dealing with those four again tomorrow though won't we.

ADV THABETHA: Yes we will be dealing with them.

JUDGE WILSON: So we will require them and this time I hope we'll get on with it tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock.  Thanks.
 
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS