Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-08-05

MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Chairman the first that I knew of these particular applications was when I made contact with Mr Landman early on Monday morning.  I subsequently have ascertained that Mr Landman made contact with two other attorneys in our office during the course of Sunday afternoon and I had indicated to Mr Prior on Monday that I was not available and that my clients had not been advised of these particular hearings.
	I came here yesterday morning with the stated intention of simply advising the Committee that I had been unable to contact my clients and that I was not in a position to represent their interests.  It transpired that Mr Dumakude, the present applicant before this Committee, was in fact here.  He had heard about the applications, he had seen it on the television news and had decided that he ought to be here for purposes of giving evidence.  I consulted with him on this matter for the first time yesterday morning and I had insight into one of the bundles which I think contains photocopies of the photographs and the statements of the Amnesty Applications of the other two applicants.  I did not have insight into the other bundles and I must say that I was not aware that there were additional bundles.  I had asked Mr Prior this morning if there was any evidence relating to where people were at the time that the device was detonated, were the injuries inside our or outside etc, etc.  I have now been given these two volumes and there are, as you rightly point out, material contradictions on which I do not have instructions.  I am now in the invidious position where I have led an applicant and we do not have full instructions, he's not been afforded an opportunity to instruct me properly in respect of these contradictions.

CHAIRPERSON: Well we trust he has been telling the truth to us and that his version wouldn't have been any different.

MR VAN DEN BERG: We do indeed trust so.

CHAIRPERSON: As I indicated, I hope, we fully ... (indistinct) there is no suggestion that you have not done all you could to take instructions from your client.  Your client obviously has not told you about the facts arising from this information that has been put before us and you have not had an opportunity of consulting him on it.  That I think is abundantly clear.

MR VAN DEN BERG: That is correct Mr Chairman and I'm not sure how we deal with this practically.  He stands at a point where he's given evidence in chief, where he's been cross examined at some length and the matter had stood down for purposes of re-examination.  Thinking off the top of my head perhaps I ought to make an application for the matter to stand down so that we may supplement his evidence and that I have an opportunity to consult fully on the contents of these documents and that the hearing reconvene at a later stage.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think anyone could oppose that except there might be different opinions to what a later stage is.  Could I indicate to you and you can comment on that to, from what I have been told by the optimistic Mr Landman and Mr Prior, the other matter we have to deal with might be concluded by tomorrow or Thursday which would mean that there is a vacant day Friday where arrangements have been made for a hearing.  Is there any possibility do you think of your being ready on Friday?

MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Chairman the position with all of the persons that we represent in this process is that instructions and applications were prepared by the offices of Mr Curren and we had an arrangement, that is Bell, Dewer and Hall had an arrangement with Mr Curren in terms of which he would handle some of the applications and we would handle some of the others.  	The difficulty is that Mr Curren, as you may be aware, is in Ireland involved in a process there.  The other attorney who is also involved in these matters is presently an acting judge in the labour court and that leaves myself and my assistant as the only persons holding the ball.  I have been brief or I have instructions to appear in an Amnesty Application which is set down for Thursday and Friday in Mabupane, I don't know how that will, how long that application will last, it's a relatively simple matter.  I'm hoping that we will be able to finish it in a day but you can never tell in the nature of these things, we've had applications set down for two weeks which have lasted six weeks and we've had applications set down for three weeks which have lasted a week.

CHAIRPERSON: We may have to take a chance on that.  I should perhaps indicate to you on this that although the bundle is thick, the versions of person after person is ... (inaudible) after the whistle we went out of the stadium, we went down, we walked across the road there was suddenly a loud explosion and I was knocked over, that - it's not a question of you having to get 30 different versions, it is basically just that there were these people, there were these school boys so that shouldn't take you long but I sympathise with you in the other difficulty, but I don't know if Mr Prior will comment on that.
	It seems to me we are going to be here, certainly till tomorrow.  The hall has been booked, everything else has been made so I think we should inconvenience ourselves to say we will hold ourselves available till Friday, if you are available we will hear you, if you are not available we will adjourn the matter to a date to be arranged, but we certainly - you have made other arrangements and at this very short notice we don't expect you to try and re-organise that.  Would that suit you?

MR VAN DEN BERG: That would suit me thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Landman have you any comment?

MR LANDMAN: Mr Chairman I have a few brief comments.  Mr Chairman in the first place it's now become quite obvious that there is a fundamental contradiction between the versions put up by the first two applicants and Mr Dumakude about the position of Mr Dumakude and Mr Matshididi when the explosion actually occurred.  Now Mr Chairman although this is not a trial, I would submit that it may well be necessary for me to put Mr Matshididi's version as to where they were at the time that the explosion occurred, although it was mentioned during the Committee's questioning of Mr Dumakude yesterday.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes but equally well it may be only right that Mr Van den Berg should be entitled to question on that precise matter, so I agree with you that it probably would be desirable that they should also be available on Friday, that that specific matter, we're not going to have a re-opening of all the evidence, but to deal with that they - my recollection is they both gave identical evidence on this point or, when I say identical, very similar and that they could deal with very briefly and Mr Van den Berg could then have an opportunity of putting ... (inaudible) does appear at the present time to be a completely conflicting version.

MR LANDMAN: Mr Chairman then the second aspect is that it is correct, I have Mr Van den Berg the only volume I had.  Apparently other volumes had been given to my predecessor but they have disappeared into the ether.  However, in the light of the further volumes which I have seen, which contain information about when the bomb occurred and who was present at the time, it would be our submission at the end of this matter that there are certain probabilities favouring Mr Matshididi's version over Mr Dumakude's version and it may even be necessary to put some of those improbabilities to Mr Dumakude so we'd certainly, from our side, need some time as well to prepare ourselves to put certain questions to Mr Dumakude.  Thank you.