Amnesty Hearings — Kimberley — 1997-10-29

ADV DE JAGER: Mr de Koker, we only accept sworn statements as evidence.  If all the parties accept this as the truth, you can submit these but it has no meaning if the person who made the affidavit is not available to be questioned by the other interested parties.  You can negotiate with the other parties, if you agree that these papers be handed in, then it can be done otherwise it's quite pointless unless they're all going to be prepared to stand and give evidence and cross-questioned.

PROF DE KOKER: My client is available, I'm just thinking of ways of saving time.  I will made the statement available to the other legal representatives and they can all have a look at it.  My personal feeling is that there is nothing fundamental in this and the interest will be purely procedural and my client is prepared to answer any questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Any other witness?

PROF DE KOKER: No other witnesses.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you want to say something Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: May I please Mr Chairman, just to put the record straight, speaking of affidavits, we did also hand in affidavits of the clients for whom we appear and whose names you just read.  I believe that Mr Chairman - for what it's worth, they were handed to my learned friend Mr Mpshe and I think he did inform us that they were before you, so if there's anything you're obviously free to refer to those affidavits if there's anything that arises which we don't expect but I just want to make the point that there are also affidavits from my clients before you, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I haven't come across them, are they in the bundles - somewhere in the bundles?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman, they are not in your bundles but I have them in my possession.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, just hold onto them, we are not so sure whether we need to have them in the light of the evidence so far.
	Professor de Koker, I think that you could do that during lunch time.  Maybe we should adjourn now and I see Mr Bode, you are burning to say something yes?

MR BODE: Thank you Mr Chairperson, on behalf of the other victims, I just wish to put on record that we are not intending to call any witnesses.  Should you or members of your Committee wish to question any of the available victims, they will gladly be willing to do so but just to inform you regarding the further proceedings we are not proceeding with any leading of evidence, than you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: In which case, will we be able to - assuming that there will be no problems about the affidavit Mr de Koker's client, will we be able to listen to argument after lunch?

PROF DE KOKER: I believe in the light of the evidence that's been given the past two and a half days, that would be very difficult for me to do.  If I could have the indulgence of the Committee perhaps to submit argument to them in writing, I would appreciate it.

CHAIRPERSON: So far, we have been in the practice of allowing people to submit written argument except that we've been experiencing a lot of problems, you know submissions not being forthcoming and as result we have a huge backlog with reserved judgements because many legal representatives are just not keeping to the terms but this is not to say that we will insist that people should submit argument but if that's going to be the ruling we are going to request that we keep to the terms.  Shall we adjourn then until 2 o'clock.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Mr de Koker?

PROF DE KOKER: Thank you Mr Chairman, with your indulgence I would like to lead very briefly some evidence by my client mainly pertaining to her injuries.  To that effect I request you to receive provisionally as an Exhibit, copies of her affidavit.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, where is the original?  Yes, we need to have the original.  What was the understanding with regard to what you're supposed to sort out with your colleagues?

MR TSHOLANKU: Mr Chairman, might I point out that I was afforded an opportunity to go through the affidavit.  We don't have a problem with the affidavit being accepted as evidence as the contents thereof is mostly what is common cause what has been traversed by Mr de Koker in cross-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: All right, yes?

INTERPRETER: The mike is unfortunately off.

PROF DE KOKER: Thank you very much Chairman.  We will ensure that the original is handed back to you after the evidence has been led,
in the meantime we'll give you another copy, thank you Mr Chairman.
	Mr Chairman, I ask your indulgence and also your assistance, I'm not sure as to the procedure.  I'm going to lead my client in evidence, what is the procedure as to the administration of ...[indistinct] in this regard?

ADV DE JAGER: Do you want to testify in Afrikaans or English?

MRS DE KOKER-NEL: I'll testify in English.

JEAN EULETTE DE KOKER-NEL: (sworn states)

ADV DE JAGER: Could we have your full names please?

MRS DE KOKER-NEL: Jean Eulette de Koker-Nel.

ADV DE JAGER: This document now being handed to us, is this your signature appearing on it?

MRS DE KOKER-NEL: Yes, it is.

ADV DE JAGER: ...[inaudible]  there are annexures thereto?

MRS DE KOKER-NEL: That is correct, the first part is media statements and then finally there is an affidavit made by Doctor Enrico Branca which he signed but that comes from the medical information which deals with my injuries as a result of the attack.

ADV DE JAGER: The last affidavit only deals with your injuries, it's not an affidavit about the facts actually of this case.

MRS DE KOKER-NEL: No, it's not, it purely deals with my injuries.

CHAIRPERSON: Which one are you now - are we only to take this one which relates to the injuries or the other affidavit as well?   I thought you said you wanted to adduce evidence with regard to your client's injury?

PROF DE KOKER: That is correct Chairman, we got hold of that particular affidavit only this morning and we thought to include it in the statement but it was not formal part of the statement.  I realise this is an informal procedure and I will abide by your ruling in that respect.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Tsholanku, what do you mean that you had no problems with the affidavit, do you mean this whole thing or only with regard to the injuries?

MR TSHOLANKU: Mr Chairman, my understanding is that - when I read the affidavit, if you look at paragraph 9 and 10 of the affidavit, it refers to the nature of the injuries that were sustained and when I looked at the affidavit by Enrico Branca  I also realise that it refers to her injuries.
	Mr Chairman, I can't dispute the nature of her injuries, I don't have a problem with that.  If it causes the Chairman problems, Mr Chairman, I'm inclined to abide by your ruling but as far as her injuries are concerned, I can't argue with that.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Tsholanku, you are here to represent your own clients and we cannot decide that for you. We are looking at a document here - an affidavit, all I wanted to know from you is - you said you had no problems with this affidavit, now are you referring to the whole affidavit from this lengthy one - you have no problems with that one including this other one, that is all we want to know.

MR TSHOLANKU: The whole document Mr Chairman, including the Enrico Branca document as it was handed to me as one package and the other ...

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman, I don't know whether I can also be allowed to say something on this and where I stand again.  I have a problem with the affidavit towards the end, that is from paragraph 14 thereof, if you look at paragraph 14, paragraph 15 and 16, it consists of questions that are asked of certain people, Major Mbatha, Walter Smiles and others as well as the TRC.
	I don't know how are these going to manned because these are questions which need answers.  Should they still form part of the affidavit or should Professor de Koker make use of these paragraphs I've just enumerated in his submissions.