Amnesty Hearings — Phokeng — 1996-05-20

MR CURRIN: To the extent that the Committee believes that allegations which are contained in this document, which allegations are the consequence of lengthy and in-depth research, we will be able to substantiate.  If it is necessary for us to call 20 witnesses to substantiate the allegations contained in this document, we will do that.

JUDGE MGOEPE: If it turns out that they are not able to substantiate that?

MR CURRIN: We have no doubt.  This document is a document of thorough professional research.  This document contains the result of that research. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind and I stand by the content of this document and witnesses will be called, if necessary, to substantiate the content of this document.

JUDGE MGOEPE: I have a lot of respect for those authorities that you are referring to, and I have a lot of respect for your conviction that you will be able to substantiate these allegations.  What if they are not, some of them or a number of them are not substantiated. Are we going to strike them off the record or what are we going to do with those allegations, which would not have been substantiated?

MR CURRIN: Sir, I believe it is common practice in many
PHOKENG HEARING	AMNESTY/GAUTENG
8
instances, to make a submission at the outset, as part of an opening statement.  This submission is a submission which I am making, which is putting this application in a context 
which I believe, with respect, is absolutely critical to the application, because the offences that were committed, were not committed in a vacuum.  They were committed in ... (intervention).

JUDGE MGOEPE: You may continue, Mr Currin, sorry to interrupt.  You may continue to do that, but speaking for myself, this goes far beyond an opening address.  It contains substantial allegations of a direct nature.

MR CURRIN: It certainly does.

JUDGE MGOEPE: And I don't think that allegations should be levelled on a platform other than a platform from which people who make those allegations, should be cross-examined.

MR CURRIN: There is no difficulty at all.  Should the Committee decide that we must call particular witnesses to substantiate allegations in this document, to be cross-examined, we will not hesitate in doing that.  May I just mention that the reason why we prepared this particular document. Being the first application, we were not sure and having been given four days in which to prove our case, we were not sure, the nature and extent of the evidence, that we were expected to lead, in establishing our clients' case.  What we did was, we communicated with the Committee to try and get some guidelines, and we were told that we should deal with the application as we deem fit, but - and in terms of the guidelines, we should ensure that we could curtail evidence as far as is practically possible, and that is really the intention of the document.
	As you know, the Act does provide very particularly, 
PHOKENG HEARING	AMNESTY/GAUTENG
9
that the Committee needs to have reference to the context in which the crime was committed.  The context is something which is elaborate, it is complex, it has far-reaching
implications.  There are many, many people that have written about Bophuthatswana, many, many people who have researched and published about Bophuthatswana.  We can call all of those people if we need to, but we are trying ... (intervention).

JUDGE MGOEPE: Mr Currin, you have already started reading.  I said to you to go on.  We are prepared to suffer the balance of your document.

MR CURRIN: Thank you.

HASSAN MALL: On the understanding again, that what you are going to read is not regarded as evidence.  So this is an outline of what you are proposing to, the evidence you are proposing to place before us.

MR CURRIN: Yes, and what we are also saying, we are saying that we believe that this background which is being submitted, is a correct - we believe that it is a correct reflection.  We will prove it if we have to.  We believe that it is important to place it on the record so that the Committee members have that background, an extended background, if necessary, when they consider the applications and the other details relating to the specific event, offence which gave rise to this application.
	I recommence at the top of page 5.
"Resistance, both organised and spontaneous to the formation and continued existence of the homelands, has long been a feature of South African politics.  In Bophuthatswana itself,
PHOKENG HEARING	AMNESTY/GAUTENG
11
political struggles were waged by rural communities and political organisations against issues of forced incorporation
into Bophuthatswana, that is in respect of Braklaagte, Machakaneng, Hartebeesfontein and Leeufontein.   
"The Bophuthatswana Government's intervention into tribal authorities and regency, for example in Taung, in Phokeng and also citizenship issues, with the eviction and prosecution of non-Tswanas, starting as early as 1978.  That was in Winterveld, Onverwacht and of course against the high level of repression visited upon residents of this homeland."
	Mr Chairman, should you require an adjournment in order to read this entire document before I proceed with it, I have no - obviously no difficult with that at all.  If that would make you feel more comfortable, then I would certainly suggest that we adjourn for that purpose.

HASSAN MALL: We have commenced.  We have agreed to allow you to address us.

MR CURRIN: Thank you.

HASSAN MALL: And I would like you to exercise your professional skills in addressing us in all matters which you think are relevant.