Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1998-04-28

MR HOLE: Sir there are two reasons for this. The first reason being that from my understanding it was not strictly necessary for them to make a further statement in addition to the affidavit, form one, that they have made.
	And the second reason Sir which contributed very largely to this was that the two applicants reside in rural villages in Alice. That is somewhere in the border area of the Eastern Cape province. That is some hundred kilometres from where I practice. And there are no telephones there. People have to drive from East London and look for the applicants. And when they have consulted with them, go back to East London, type out affidavits and make arrangements to go back to Alice again. And this involves time and this involves travelling as well. That is the reason.

CHAIRPERSON: And so is that an explanation as to why the affidavit only came to hand yesterday?

MR HOLE: Sir I might mention that during the course of this when I was trying to make contact with the applicants I did speak to one of the people responsible in the TRC and also the leader of the evidence regarding this, And it was discussed amongst us and it was raised. Certainly I also raised this that I am not aware that these applicants are compelled to make this affidavit and at that time I had problems getting hold of them in that event. So this is not because there was wanton disregard for the TRC. Rather that it was problems of communicating with them. There I might advise the committee Sir that we do not have strict addresses for instance. This is a rural village where you have to look for a house by the clan name. You have to ask and say: "I want the house where so and so, whose clan name is such and such stays." And in that process you manage to find the people that you want.

CHAIRPERSON: When did you take instructions?

MR HOLE: Do you want the particular date Sir?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR HOLE: If Mr Chairman will bear with me?

ADV POTGIETER: While you are doing that Mr Mapoma did we serve the notices of set down on the applicants?

MR MAPOMA: No Sir we did not serve, in fact we did serve on them but through their attorneys. Because they agreed that they are going to accept service on their behalf. So what we did we served to them by fax direct to their attorneys' offices.

ADV POTGIETER: On the 26th of March.

MR MAPOMA: Can I just confirm Sir? Yes Sir on the 26th of March.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hole when did you first take instructions?

MR HOLE: Yes thank you Sir. I see a note here Sir by my partner, Mr Manjezi that on the 17th he spoke to a Mr David, 17th of April he spoke to a Mr David. He does not give the surname unfortunately. Who is a member of the ANC in Alice and he asked him to try and assist him in locating these applicants. And I see another note on the 22nd of April there was conversation with a Mr Landu, also of the ANC who promised to arrange for the applicants to attend on the 23rd of April. This Sir I must mention was after Mr Manjezi, my partner had been to Alice about two or three times looking for the applicants.

CHAIRPERSON: Never mind all that. The contents of that affidavit that you submitted yesterday when did you get that information?

MR HOLE: If Mr Chairman will bear with me please? Sir I will not unfortunately be able to advise you of the exact date but this was the weekend before last. On a Saturday.

CHAIRPERSON: So why couldn't these affidavits have been submitted earlier?

MR HOLE: Sir as I have tried to explain I consulted with these people in Alice, then having collated all the information I had to fly back to East London, draw the affidavits, get corrections done on them and then go back to Alice again to try and get these people to sign. The one person when I got to Alice I was informed was actually in East London where he was schooling at the time when I wanted him to sign the affidavit. And I might mention that I could not get access to them until yesterday morning when they were here in Port Elizabeth. Apparently they travelled early in order to be here.

CHAIRPERSON: So you are saying that you had difficulty contacting them?

MR HOLE: Absolutely.

CHAIRPERSON: And communicating with them?

MR HOLE: With them yes and at times we had to use contacts on whom we relied to go to them, to get them and later come back to us.

CHAIRPERSON: Now would you agree that the rules relating to the procedures of the TRC have not been complied with?

MR HOLE: Might I ask Sir, in particular which rule?

CHAIRPERSON: If you want to submit affidavits then it must be in, in good time, not so?

MR HOLE: Sir that is the reason why in the statements, if Mr Chairman will observe they are not in the form of affidavits but rather statements.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you want us to have regard for what you have submitted yesterday?

MR HOLE: Yes I would ask in the interest of the applicants yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And therefore the rules relating to the TRC procedure should have been observed, not so?

MR HOLE: I would say so yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And they were not observed, not so?

MR HOLE: Sir I might be wrong in this, I would concede that Mr Chairman would in all probability be more conscious of the rules than I am but having appeared at committees of this nature before I certainly was not required to submit affidavits in the manner that it appears now in that I am.

CHAIRPERSON: You not answering the question Mr Hole. The rules relating to the procedures of the TRC have not been observed in this case.

MR HOLE: Sir the way I understand it Mr Chairman is that if these applicants were to implicate anybody in their statements then they must give such notice or hand such affidavits within a certain time to the evidence leader to enable other people who might be implicated in their statements to have notice of that and to make the necessary arrangements. And this was discussed between myself and the evidence leader. And I informed him that these applicants are not implicating anybody. And it was on that basis that it was agreed that whenever the statements are ready I could have him have sight of the same.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hole you were contacted by various officials of the TRC in respect of this state, not so?

MR HOLE: Certainly yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And I am given to understand that on each occasion you promised to let them have it?

MR HOLE: Yes that is so.

CHAIRPERSON: That did not take place?

MR HOLE: Certainly not Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: And they told you that they need these statements to put it in a file or a bundle so that at least the members of the panel could have sight of it and prepare themselves for the hearing, not so?

MR HOLE: Sir not as Mr Chairman puts it. What I was told Sir was that they needed to prepare a bundle. And (...intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Ja.

MR HOLE: Yes but not what Mr Chairman adds onto that, namely for the members of the committee to have sight of this.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright so we needed a bundle. What do you think we needed a bundle for? To prepare for the hearing, not so?

MR HOLE: Sir I would not know. I would not know strictly being honest, I would not know what the bundle was for. I did not know whether these would be given to the committee members beforehand. What I do know that is that he needed to prepare a bundle.

CHAIRPERSON: You say you have appeared before these committees on a number of occasions before?

MR HOLE: Not on a number of occasions but I have appeared once in East London. It was in 1997 Sir and at that instance the statement that was prepared was prepared at my own initiative and without being asked to do so and without ever being asked to produce the said statement at a certain time. And that statement was handed from the bar in the morning of the hearing.

CHAIRPERSON: I am not concerned about what other panels did.

MR HOLE: Yes.