Amnesty Hearings — East London — 2000-02-03

MR MAPOMA: Yes Chairperson, the victims are from around the border region of the Eastern Cape, some from Grahamstown, some from Northern Ciskei, Mdantsane, around this border region.  We have as well notified other implicated persons.  Some of them are in the Defence Force, they come from Pretoria, to come as implicated and the interested parties.  Thank you Chairperson.

MR SIBANYONI: Maybe it's worthwhile to place on record that also on the Panel we've got members coming from all over the country, as myself coming from the Mpumalanga Province at great cost to the TRC.

MR MAPOMA: Yes Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Has anybody got an idea, as a large number of members of the public present in the hall and I gather that the majority of them would be people who have been notified and who are here, either victims or next-of-kin of deceased victims of this incident but do we have a rough idea as to the number of people who are present here?  Perhaps the staff can give us some idea as to how many people are here?  It seems to me to be quite a big group of people.

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, if this might assist, I've tried to make a head count.  There are more than seventy people seated here.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I will say that would be fairly accurate and I assume that people who are seated, seventy one.  So it's a very good estimate Mr Koopedi.

MR KOOPEDI: It was a head count, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh was it actually a head count?

MR KOOPEDI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, probably missed out on one of the shorter people.  Seventy six, okay.  Yes, no we have the statistic now, there are actually seventy six people present who are interested parties, either victims of the incident themselves, direct victims or next-of-kin of people who died in the shooting and Mr Mapoma you say all of this is at the expense of the TRC or the Commission?

MR MAPOMA: Yes Chairperson.  It's at the expense of the TRC as a Commission and even further that at the expense of the taxpayer Chairperson because the Government departments do pay.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes but just insofar as the victims are concerned, that is for our account?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, yes Chairperson, for transport.

CHAIRPERSON: Finances in terms of organising to get the people to the venue, transport, subsistence, everything that goes with - we know what it entails, getting people present at a hearing like this, that's entirely for the TRC's account?

MR MAPOMA: Yes Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And then in addition to that you refer to the fact that some other Government department's are also funding the presence of the applicants and some other implicated people?

MR MAPOMA: Exactly Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and as you say, eventually it comes to our pockets as taxpayers?

MR MAPOMA: That is my submission, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, have you got any other submissions Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, that is all unless there's a particular issue that the Committee would want me to address them on?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.  Yes while I'm on that side I'm just going to go down the line.  Mr Smith, what is your attitude towards the application?

MR SMITH: Mr Chairperson, the victims cannot really say that they oppose the application.  They would just like the Committee to take into consideration, from a consultation especially with people whose relatives died in the incident, it's now a period of seven years have passed and this is just purely a personal opinion expressed to me, is that people want to have this matter brought to finality.  It's the reopening of old wounds since the incident and the people that I've consulted with in fact questioned me whether it is necessary for them to attend because it's a traumatic experience and they have to go through it again and I think that is just a factor that the commission must weigh also in considering the application for postponement, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Smith.  Mr Koopedi, has your client got any attitude on the application?

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson, Honourable Committee Members.  My submission will be very brief.  My client would be opposed to any further postponement of this matter purely because this matter has been going on for a long time and also again that it comes at a very high cost to my client.  But just to take it a little further, Chairperson, Honourable Committee Members, I'd like to put on record that the process of amnesty is not only about the giving of amnesty to applicants, it is mainly and to a very large extent so intended to enhance reconciliation.  I do not think that by giving any further postponements to this matter we would be doing justice to that part.  I do not see us moving the two people, if one may class them as such, together by furthering postponing this matter.  The Committee will only be helping to disillusion the victims who are here.  The victims who are here I was reliably informed that they come from different areas where public transport is also a problem to them.  Some had to brave the rain this morning to be here and Chairperson, Honourable Committee Members, if indeed it is possible that perhaps another legal representation can be arranged it would be my submission that this application should be refused and that this matter should go on so that all the people interested in this matter can see justice to be done.  For the better part of the morning there has been numerous questions, why aren't we starting, why are we called here and the matter is not proceeding.  It is my submission therefore that it would not be fair to the victims and the interested parties to tell them at this late hour that we will not be proceeding because we are unable to handle the matter.  Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Koopedi.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, Mr van Breda, can I just ask one thing?  At what stage did you become aware that this matter was going to be proceeded with today at this particular venue?

MR VAN BREDA: It was - I've heard about the date on Tuesday and the venue on Wednesday.  Tuesday the 1st February and the venue was given to me on Wednesday, that is now yesterday and as I stated previously, the only correspondence I received from the Amnesty Committee in this regard was a fax that I referred to dated 6th December 1999 given us the dates being 31st January and 1st February.  If that was the case of course that would not have been a problem.

ADV SANDI: Did you get in touch with your colleague, Mr Mapoma the evidence leader, to say that today you had to go to court to have the matter postponed there, adjourned with?

MR VAN BREDA: My secretary made the telephone calls, I only spoke personally to him this morning but from Monday on we've been in telephonic conversation with them every day, that is now with the offices in Cape Town.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma, just before I go to Mr du Plessis, we have reserved two days for this application.  It appears to be something that is largely documented, it's not an unknown incident.  Firstly, I assume that the times that we've allocated to the matter would be sufficient to dispose of it?

MR MAPOMA: Yes Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: If a legal representative who is available has to be arranged for Mr Gonya, what sort of delay would that entail, roughly?  Who would for example would be able to proceed sometime today or early tomorrow morning and if assuming we have to start early tomorrow morning, would we have sufficient time to dispose of the matter?  That calls into question for example - I don't know if you have the answers whether your colleagues intended to call witnesses and that sort of stuff and bearing in mind as I have said it looks as if a lot if not most of this is documented but have you got any idea about that - praticalities?