Special Hearings — Legal Hearings — 1997-10-27

MR LANGENHOVEN: If I may answer that question, you must please recollect that when this all happened I was still at University so it's a long time ago, but when I had a look at our minutes of the particular meeting, it seemed to me as if the Law Society had acted upon the request of a policeman who advised them of the fact that the President had been convicted in terms of the suppression of Communism Act and had been sentenced to eight months imprisonment, suspended for two years.
 From the rest of the minutes it seems to me as if at that stage the Transvaal Law Society, although they were composed of very eminent lawyers, lost their sense of independence and acted as a result of this request.
 I think if there's any lesson to be learned from that, it must be that the judiciary and its components must at all times be fiercely independent.
 I'm happy to say that no such an application was ever made again by the Law Society and I cannot think of any instance and I must say this also, I had hoped that it would have been told to you in the initial address, I went through or I had our administration go through all our minutes in that particular time and we made an extract and we tried to sort of categorise those in certain - under certain headings and in date order. To give you an idea, or if anyone wanted, I have a few copies here if anyone wanted to see it, to give an idea of how the matter went. It is strange that it followed the same route as is set out in the ALS submission, that there is in a certain sense compliance of the Government in the sixties, a certain sense of resistance creeping up in the seventies, but not so much that you could talk about it, but in the eighties it seems to have hardened into real resistance in the sense that from the Transvaal Law Society commissions trooped to the Ministers, reported what they thought had to be reported on, all the minutes when reports were made to the Law Society on what had happened there started off with the words they were received very friendly. It ended with the words that the Minister was very sympathetic and then like our erstwhile Councillor Sian Mashidi would have - also he'd want to say: "Die saak geniet aandag."
 But I reiterate what was said by the Law Society. That's where the matter rested. I have also looked through the minutes to see whether individual members, because that will be a great concern to me, to see whether individual members approached us for assistance and we did not give it.
I heard Priscilla Jana this morning. When I look through the minutes I only saw that we were approached by Ismael Ayob on behalf of a few members once or twice and Ismael Ayob when we discussed today's hearing at our last Council meeting told me that he wanted his protest register to the affect that the assistance he got was not worth to talk of or it was non-existent. If that is so, I think the Transvaal Law Society owes an unqualified apology to members who they refused to assist in that time of need.

YASMINE SOOKA: Thank you, Mr Langenhoven. Hanif?

MR VALLY: Thank you, Madam Chair. In terms of what you just said now, the perception is that the Law Society in fact harassed lawyers who actively assisted people in political trials in the period which is in terms of our mandate. Would you say that's true or not?

MR LANGENHOVEN: If it is true it would be a very sad thing to have to say, but I have not come across such evidence, not in what I had tried to research, no. But if that is true, it would be a very sad thing.

MR VALLY: The question now, you've detailed very clearly to us and we're grateful for that, the assistance you're giving to articled clerks and the training schools and I think that's quite important for the country, the question is ...
...(tape ends)
... your report to educate your constituency, your membership on the issue of human rights and the importance of upholding them?

MR LANGENHOVEN: Offhand I cannot say that there has been any action taken to educate members of the constituency other than to attend to the fact that things have changed and that we should change with it as far as our organisations are concerned and as far as our attitude are concerned, but I cannot recollect that we - perhaps Mr Trikamjee can do much more to answer that since he is on the human rights committee, but in the Transvaal Law Society offhand I cannot tell you.

MR VALLY: I've got a number of notes regarding people who have been struck off by applications from the Law Society one of whom is Mr Bululani Nqcuka. I assume he's the Chairperson of the select committee in the National Council of Provinces it's called now. He's Deputy Chairperson. Deputy Chairperson, thanks.
 The question I want to ask you is that in view of the track record which has been generously conceded by you, what is the Law Society doing to right these wrongs?

UNKNOWN: Madam Chair, the question related to Mr Nqcuka I dealt with it within my submission, Mr Nqcuka was not struck off the roll, an attempt was made by the Natal Law Society to do so, it's at page six of the annexure ... (intervention).

YASMINE SOOKA: Sorry, may I ask you to ... (intervention).

UNKNOWN: He was re-admitted, sorry, he wasn't struck off so he wasn't re-admitted.

MR VALLY: Thank you, yes ... (intervention).

YASMINE SOOKA: Sorry, can I intervene here?

MR VALLY: No, you can't.

YASMINE SOOKA: Sorry, Ms (microphone not on)

UNKNOWN: He was not struck off, because he took the matter to court and it was the court - it was only because the court (indistinct) that he could not be struck off.

UNKNOWN: Madam Chair, with respect, in every matter nobody is struck off by the Law Society the court strikes them off. I don't want to hide behind that. We've dealt with it in the submission that it is a decision that the Society took for which we apologise.

YASMINE SOOKA: Thank you. Mr Vally are ... (intervention).

MR VALLY: The question is and I accept what you're saying and I accept what Mrs Jana has said and you do set it out quite clearly in page seven of you submission, you brought an application and you lost your application, but the question is what are you doing to right such applications that were brought for overtly political reasons?
 What is the Association of Law Societies doing about past injustices which it was instrumental in committing?

ASHFORD TRIKAMJEE: I think the Natal Law Society has already done what it - what wrong it had done by undoing the wrong. They made two applications recently. You've heard of the Roly Arenstein application. The other one was the Kagard Hashen application where the Law Society on its own brought application to reinstate those members as members of the Society.
 So there has been a positive attempt to start to put right what was done - what was wrong in the past.

YASMINE SOOKA: Mr Trikamjee is that being echoed out in, you know, at the levels of the Law Societies?

UNKNOWN: I'd like to just deal with the Cape Law Society that I also represent. I have tried to make some enquiries. We know of no such application of the Upington 26, who was refused. Each matter - for each application for articles is clearly dealt on its merits and clearly one of the questions is do you have any criminal convictions. But I think I could say on behalf of the Council without even consulting them, that anybody who was convicted of so-called political offences would not be viewed in the same light as somebody who has an ordinary criminal conviction. Certainly not by the Cape Law Society, which incidentally to our knowledge never struck anybody for political offences, nor harassed anybody who defended political offenders during that time.

YASMINE SOOKA: Thank you.

MR VALLY: Madam Chair, I just want to get two quick ones in, which is questions that have been handed ... (intervention).

YASMINE SOOKA: Very quick, because we're running ... (intervention).