Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-08-05

MR WAGNER: Mr Chairman may I raise an issue.  I was requested by a gentleman here in the audience, although I don't formally represent him, to raise a quick aspect with you.  If you look at Volume 2 Mr Chairman, page 43, there's a list of vehicles damaged.  Actually the list starts at page 41.  Now this gentleman he's number 27 on page 43, Mr Erasmus and he is here and if I may refer you to page 57 as well Mr Chairman, the top photograph apparently that is his vehicle directly in front of the vehicle with the bomb, that is immediately to the right-hand side of the gentleman standing there.  His vehicle was extensively damaged and he's here to, he doesn't really know what he should do.   I said to him I'll raise this point on his behalf if he want to give evidence to you to tell the damages he suffered he's here.  I only said to him I'll raise the issue.

ADV PRIOR: Mr Erasmus did speak to me and I indicated that because he had sustained damage that would be highlighted before the Committee.  His vehicle was a write-off.  Apparently it was under HP and he had to pay, for some or other reason the insurance never paid and he sustained loss of approximately
R20 000,00.  I understand that's virtually common cause and ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I doubt that the extent of the damage can be common cause.  The fact that many vehicles were damaged I think is.

MR LANDMAN: Mr Chairman we don't contest that evidence.

ADV PRIOR: If that can be conveyed, obviously Mr Erasmus is within earshot and is listening.  I don't believe that unless, that's it's necessary to lead viva voce regarding this aspect, it's common cause as I've suggested.

CHAIRPERSON: Well because Mr Erasmus is present that he indicated that his vehicle had been damaged, as is shown in the photographs, and that it was not contested on the part of the applicant that the damage could have been in the region of       R20 000,00.

ADV PRIOR: I'm indebted to the Chair.

MR WAGNER: Mr Chairman ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Any of your other victims wish to say anything or ...

MR WAGNER: Mr Chairman no, my clients they don't intend giving evidence here so I've got no witnesses to lead or evidence to tender.

ADV PRIOR: Mr Chairman I have no further evidence to place before the Committee.  As I indicated earlier, except for Mr Erasmus, no other victim or witness has come forward in this matter so I ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Not even the Chief Magistrate of Johannesburg?

MR LANDMAN: Mr Chairman can I possibly just enquire via the Chair as to Mr Wagner's position at this stage.  I don't know whether at this stage he's reached any conclusions as to whether he continues to oppose the application?

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know if Mr Wagner's in a position to tell us that now or whether he wants to talk to his clients?

MR WAGNER: Mr Chairman one aspect remains.  I was told by Mr Landman that he also represents General Nyanda.  Now to me that is the only outstanding issue and I'm not sure how we should go about this, but if General Nyanda for instance disputes the evidence given here today it may influence the matter even to the extent that we may request him to come and testify but if he is not in dispute, I would like via you to request my learned friend whether it can be put on record because that may have a very relevant bearing on the outcome of this hearing.  That's my personal view.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know if you're in a position to?

MR LANDMAN: Mr Chairman we in fact are in a position to comment on that.  We appear for General Nyanda as an implicated person.  He is aware of the evidence, he's been present and has listened to the evidence and he does not contest the evidence which has been led about his role and about the rest of the incident.

CHAIRPERSON: He is obviously, if represented by your instructing attorney, fully aware of his rights and that is that as an implicated party he can choose, if he so desires, to give evidence, to make representations, which through you he has indicated to us he does not do so and he does not wish to dispute the evidence that has been led here.

MR LANDMAN: That is so Mr Chairman, as we've indicated earlier on, he has an application which still has to be dealt with and certainly it is correct he doesn't dispute what has been said today.

CHAIRPERSON: I think that meets your problem Mr Wagner.

MR WAGNER: In that instance Mr Chairman if Mr Landman will bear with me, I will in fact just have to take instructions on the question of opposition and I will revert to him and Mr Prior.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I'm going to suggest further that much as the thought of spending a day away from here attracts me, would it not be possible in this matter for us to hear addresses tomorrow morning and to dispose of this matter at least without the necessity of written arguments later?

MR LANDMAN: Mr Chairman we don't have any objection to that at all.  Would it be possible to start a bit later than 9 o'clock?

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly because I don't think any of you are going to be very long in your addresses, I hope I'm not being unduly optimistic, but we could certainly start later.  What time would you suggest,  11?

MR WAGNER: Mr Chairman if I would obtain instructions to the effect of not opposing the application, would you still require me?

CHAIRPERSON: No certainly if you notify Mr Prior he can notify us on your behalf.  It's only if you wish to oppose that you should have to be here.

MR WAGNER: Thank you.

MR LANDMAN: Mr Chairman would half past eleven be (indistinct)?

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly.

MR LANDMAN: Mr Chairman the other aspect which my attorney has raised, is that certain of the other Chairpersons of the Amnesty Committee have, before their addresses, indicated what areas the representatives ought to concentrate in particular, areas that might bother them.  Now I don't know whether the committee wants to make any comments in that regard.

CHAIRPERSON: I think this ... (inaudible).

MR LANDMAN: Certainly Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: It is not a matter whether ... (inaudible).

MR LANDMAN: That is so yes.

ADV PRIOR: ... (Inaudible) well to the extent that we reconvene tomorrow, it seems from the nature of these proceedings that the arguments are certainly not going to take up any length of time at all.

CHAIRPERSON: No let us ... (inaudible) some other day?

ADV PRIOR: No not at all, just whether we needed to actually reconvene as a body?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prior what we're seeking to avoid is further written argument which we have in hearing after hearing after hearing, which we get weeks after the hearing when we've all forgotten what it was all about.  Here we want to dispose of the hearing that's it's over and I think Mr Wagner has a great deal of experience with that and I see him nodding and I think Mr Landman would also like to be able to say at the end of this well that's over.

MR LANDMAN: I certainly would Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: If we go on with the other matter on Friday we don't want to delay that do we, because we could perhaps say we'll start this one for argument at nine o'clock on Friday morning and start the other one at ten, but if we start the other one at ten will we finish it?

ADV PRIOR: Mr Chairman it might be more convenient in fact.

CHAIRPERSON: It might be for everybody here ... (inaudible).

MR LANDMAN: Mr Chairman there is another variable fact and that is whether Mr Van den Berg's going to come back and say that he's ready to proceed.  On the basis that he does proceed I think it's a very limited area where he'd have to lead his clients and there had be some cross examination.  I would imagine within 2 hours that could be disposed of.

CHAIRPERSON: (Inaudible).  We will not adjourn until tomorrow, we will now adjourn till 9 o'clock on Friday morning.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS