Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1998-04-28

MR HOLE: Well Sir perhaps I should explain that. This was after my partner had looked for him in Alice and I had gone to the ANC office in Alice and could make contact with him. And I drove to his home in Alice where an explanation was made to him that he is in fact in East London. Then I drove to East London and tried to find that school which was only opened this year, for record purposes. It was only then that I managed to get contact with him. So it is not entirely accurate to say there was no problem with communication.

ADV POTGIETER: Yes but I was only speaking about the notice of set down. It seems as if that was a fairly effective way of communicating through the ANC because the applicant, Mr Makapela received that soon after it was sent to you. But the point is you - and by the way where is your office?

MR HOLE: Our office is in Mdantsane in East London.

ADV POTGIETER: In East London?

MR HOLE: Yes.

ADV POTGIETER: And you saw Mr Makapela in East London as well?

MR HOLE: Yes certainly after having looked for him in Alice.

ADV POTGIETER: Yes so you knew when you saw him last Thursday that he was there in East London?

MR HOLE: Yes certainly.

ADV POTGIETER: So why did you have to come here yesterday morning to have the affidavit signed and only hand it to us yesterday morning?

MR HOLE: Sir I do not want to burden the committee with all the difficulties that we had. Not only did we have to contend with putting together an affidavit in this limited time we also had to battle with the payment of fees for this applicant. As I mentioned earlier we tried to make appointments with the Legal Aid people. This I had to do myself.

CHAIRPERSON: What has that got to do with the late submission?

MR HOLE: Sir what I am trying to do is to answer the honourable committee member's question.

CHAIRPERSON: The question is why when you knew he was available in East London was the statement only made available to us yesterday?

MR HOLE: Yes I will try again Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: The explanation you raised is that you were having all types of problems about fees. All I want to know is what does the question of fees got to do with the delay of submitting the affidavit?

MR HOLE: Yes Sir I was trying to answer this question if Mr Chairman will allow me please Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Please.

MR HOLE: Sir this applicant, I could only sit down with him and work on the affidavit on Thursday, that is last week. Today is Tuesday and if I am not mistaken we had the long weekend after that. And this affidavit would need to be written out, to be typed by the typist - and later to be signed by this person. And within that time as I was trying to explain Mr Chairman, Sir we had to make sure that these applicants get legal aid which they still incidently still do not have. Within that time I had to ask the ANC and make arrangements with them to give these people money to come to Port Elizabeth. And none of those people could be found anywhere. In that time I had to arrange for transport for these applicants to come to Port Elizabeth. Incidentally this hearing is in Port Elizabeth and they stay far away in East London. And I had to arrange for accommodation for them as well. It appears Sir that you may perhaps be looking at this as armchair critics.

ADV POTGIETER: No, no with respect Mr Hole all of the members of this panel have been practising law for some time.

MR HOLE: Yes I appreciate that Mr Chairman.

ADV POTGIETER: Ja please so do not even be concerned about that.

MR HOLE: Yes.

ADV POTGIETER: You know there is certainly no question of armchair critics.

MR HOLE: Yes certainly as long as Sir (...intervention)

ADV POTGIETER: No, no listen to me first. So would you just try and respond to this difficulty.

MR HOLE: Yes I will.

ADV POTGIETER: You could communicate the fact that this matter is going to be heard quite effectively through the ANC to the applicant. Why could you not make the same arrangements for the purposes of preparing and submitting the affidavit which the rules require in good time so as not to put unnecessary pressure and burdens on the commission's staff and on the people who must hear your client's application?

MR HOLE: Yes I will try and answer this question again Sir. The applicant has said it himself. I could only make contact with him last week Thursday.

ADV POTGIETER: Now I do not understand that. You could effectively communicate about three weeks ago the fact that the matter is going to be heard. Why couldn't you communicate the fact that there must be an affidavit prepared and why couldn't you make the arrangements for all of that on the same basis?

MR HOLE: Sir I could effectively communicate to the ANC that please I need to see these people, here is a notice of set down, this matter is to be heard on such and such a date. Whether or not the ANC got hold of the applicant I was not advised. And I could only having been to the ANC offices I could only see this applicant on Thursday last week, not the week before. Only on Thursday last week when I drove from my office to Alice and back again to East London and search for his school. So this thing about why this could not be done within a certain time I had only Thursday to look for this man and find him and Friday to prepare that affidavit and prepare other things as well. It is perhaps not fair to assume Sir that I had all the time in the world to do this when I could only meet this man and try to consult with him on the merits of this matter on Thursday last week only when the matter was scheduled to be heard on Tuesday.

ADV POTGIETER: You see Mr Hole it is important for legal practitioners who wish to assist this Committee in its work to understand that this Committee does not operate under the same situation as one normally finds in courts. The Committee has a tremendous workload that has to be done in an impossibly short period of time. And unless all of those people who must assist the process is acutely aware of that there is just no way that it is going to happen, that we ever going to be able to fulfil the mandate that we have. And that is why it is important. It is not, I do not want you to think that you know there is unnecessary pressure on you but that is why it is important that practitioners would understand that.

MR HOLE: I can appreciate Sir as long as that is not meant to impute that there was negligence on anybody's part.

ADV POTGIETER: Well that is something that we must decide. I mean the Chairperson had told you that you should address us on whether the cost of yesterday should be allowed. I think that should be extended and put to you that you should also persuade us why the cost in regard to the affidavits have to be allowed.

MR HOLE: Yes certainly, certainly. May I argue that now Sir? Yes thank you. Sir the facts are all before yourselves. Fortunately it comes from the evidence of this applicant the difficulties that we had. Perhaps the committee should not because of the discomfort that they suffer by reason of these affidavits being filed only yesterday (...intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, no we are not talking about any discomfort on our part. We are talking about respect for the procedures of the committee.

MR HOLE: Yes thank you Sir. Unless this committee Sir disbelieves this applicant in the replies that he has given to the questions asked by the committee then I would argue that this matter rests there. It has been put, the explanation has been made by the applicant, namely that there was this difficulty. And, may I proceed Sir? And his attorneys could only speak to him only on Thursday about this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's assume we accept that it was only Thursday that it can be done, why did you not tell him to come Friday to sign the affidavit?

MR HOLE: Sir the practicalities of this. A question could be asked why I did not ask him to come the same day to sign the affidavit.