Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-08-05

ADV PRIOR: Ladies and gentlemen please rise.  We move onto the other matter which is the Johannesburg Magistrate's Court Bombing.  Today is the 5th of August and the Committee is as formally constituted in the other matter.  Maybe for the transcriber's sake again we identify the members of the Committee and the representatives.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps we should first identify the application.  This is the application of Joseph Kgoele, Solly Zacharia Shoke, William Mabele and Dick Joseph Hlongwane.  The Committee consists of myself Andrew Wilson, Chairman, Dr Tsotsi, Mr Sandi, for the Amnesty Committee Evidence Leader Adv P. Prior, for the Applicants Adv A.P. Landman, instructed by Nicholls Cambanis.  Mr Chairman I'm Jan Wagner and I'm appearing on behalf of two victims in this incident, the one being Mrs M.S. Wilkens whose son was fatally injured and the other one is Captain C.F. Esterhuizen of the South African Police Services who was at the scene, who was injured and you will find the statement by him in - I'm not sure whether we're referring to the bundles as volume 1 or 2 but ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Let's optimistically call it the bundle at the present time.  At page?

MR WAGNER: It is the volume, not the one containing the applications, it's the other volume, so I assume it's volume 2 then, on page 28 thereof.

CHAIRPERSON: I haven't got a volume 2.

MR LANDMAN: Mr Chairman I have a second volume it contains supplementary documentation, the first one is a statement by William Khutwane (?).

CHAIRPERSON: Well I'm sorry Mr Wagner, in light of the information you have just given us, just call the one volume volume 1 and the second one volume 2.  We were not aware of the existence of a volume 2.

MR WAGNER: Thank you judge.

ADV PRIOR: May I simply say that I also have one volume, I - when the volumes were prepared and sent to the committee members - I'm at a loss to explain it, however it seems that the legal representatives received other volumes.  I'll make the necessary enquiry and see what ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know where they came from?

MR WAGNER: Mr Chairman I requested the relevant documents and I was sent those documents from your Committee in Cape Town.

CHAIRPERSON: You probably need your client's statement more than we do at the moment.  I don't want to deprive you of the - what page is it, you said 28?  Are there any other documents in this volume 2 which the applicant or the victims think we are going to be referring to today?

MR WAGNER: Mr Chairman I doubt very much.  You will see that volume contains a number of statements by policemen who were at the scene of the explosion and there's also a number of photo's and plans and so forth and nothing more than that Mr Chairman, so I think at this stage we should be able to proceed with volume 1 only.

CHAIRPERSON: Shall we just get pages 28 to 30 - 28 and 29.  Is there any difference between the typed and the hand-written ... (inaudible)?

MR WAGNER: No.

MR LANDMAN: Mr Chairman if I can intervene and just add this, that the photographs are of some significance because ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: We can circulate the photographs amongst ourselves till we get further copies but if we try to photostat the photographs we will not get anything worth looking at I don't think, that has been my experience so let us just rather do this and Mr Prior will be making enquiries with a view to finding out what has happened to the others.

MR SANDI: Can I ask something Mr (indistinct), what is the position about other victims, are they being represented?

ADV PRIOR: I wanted to place all that on record.  I have all the correspondence and notices to all the injured persons that were captured in the course of the investigation, there were many.  Of all the persons' statements in volume 2 and to the victims, that is the families of the deceased, note, proper notice was sent out in terms of Section 19 of the Act.  I have copies of those notices with me.  The only response has been via Mr Wagner's two respective clients, his victims and a Mr Erasmus who had his vehicle utterly destroyed.  Mr Erasmus responded to the notice sent out to him by the Amnesty Committee.  Furthermore there's been no other response.
	In addition to the notices sent out as required, a notice was also put in the local media or via the media advertising the fact of the hearing today and inviting any persons who had not received formal notice to come forward and contact myself or the Evidence Analyst in Cape Town whose name was supplied. 
	Mr Chairman there's another matter, number four, applicant four on the, as it appears on the bundle, Dick Joseph Hlongwane, we will not be proceeding with that application today.  He had referred to the Ellis Park Stadium, the tennis stadium and that was confused with the Ellis Park matter to some degree, I don't know, but it appears in the Jo'burg Magistrate's bundle.  However, he's not an applicant in this matter, as I understand it.

CHAIRPERSON: I take it someone will be making contact with him to clarify what the position is.  Are you representing him?

MR LANDMAN: Mr Chairman ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Nicholls Cambanis (?) representing him.   ... (Inaudible) take what steps are necessary to clarify the position.

MR LANDMAN: Mr Chairman the position is that I was to represent him at this hearing.  We consulted with him and it became clear that he is not an applicant in regard to a gross human right violation and that his application could well be dealt with in chambers and therefore we withdraw his application as part of this particular hearing.  He is however ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: So his application for amnesty remains but it is not to form part of this public hearing?

MR LANDMAN: That is so Mr Chairman.  Mr Chairman can I then also place on record that an implicated person, General Nyanda, has instructed Nicholls Cambanis to appear on his behalf at these proceedings.  General Nyanda is present and we then do represent his interests as well.  He is here as an implicated person and not as an applicant.  Mr Chairman you'll recall the incident in which amnesty was afforded to 37 high ranking ANC members which amnesty was later set aside.  General Nyanda falls within that category of 37 applicants and his application, as we understand it, is going to be dealt with on some basis to be agreed upon between his representatives at that stage, or the representatives of the 37 members and the Amnesty Committee, so he is here as an implicated person but not as an applicant.  Mr Chairman before we proceed with the leading of evidence in this application itself, Mr Chairman would it be appropriate at this stage for Mr Wagner to point out the basis on which his opposing the application as that might give the applicant some idea as to what aspect of the application needs to be covered in particular detail.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any objection to that Mr Wagner?

MR WAGNER: Mr Chairman at present my clients are provisionally opposing these applications on the basis of whether a full disclosure has been made or not, that is Section 20 Sub 1 Sub a of your Act and in the second instance whether the applicants comply with the definition of an act associated with a political motive, as defined in Section 20 Sub 2.  Of course Mr Chairman at the end of this hearing, once we've heard the evidence of the applicants, my clients will then decide whether they would proceed with their opposition or whether the applicants have at that stage, whether they can be seen as having complied with these sub sections of the Act.