Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-10-12

MR RICHARD REPLIES: Thank you Chair.  May I make a reply?  It seems to be forgotten that Ms Burton is indeed herself a victim of a gross human rights violation, the death of her sister.  While it might be that reference to post 1986 events did not take the matter further, they must seen in the context.  She asks the question has he done anything further to earn reconciliation and amnesty.  The matter that we debate today is one particular event.  A bombing of The Parade Hotel on the Durban beach front.  As a result of this morning's interchanges and indeed I'm sure I'll be asked the same questions again later, I had been approached to answer the questions, is it not the right of some and I certainly stress the word "some", not all victims, to make the submission that they see this particular event and I leave reference to other events out of my address now, as a bombing which was firstly a terrorist attack, which was secondly on civilians, thirdly possibly racist in nature, committed with a purpose and intent of spreading terror amongst the civilian population with the object of destroying their morale.
	The Committee has referred to Section 11 of the Act creating the Commission and I would point out that the Act specifically provides that victims shall be treated with compassion and respect for their dignity, shall be treated equally without discrimination of any kind, including race, colour, gender, etc. and then particularly the Commission and this Committee is enjoined to ensure that victims have the right to have their views and submissions presented and considered at appropriate stages of the enquiry and in this regard I specifically refer to a Section 11(d)(ii).  It is my submission that Ms Burton did nothing more than what was her rights and that the reaction that we have been subjected to since she made her statement has been utilised for mere propaganda purposes.  Thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Berger do you wish to say something?  I would just like to say that when I made the reference to the making of unsworn statements please don't interpret it as being the ruling requested for by Mr Ismail in his statement, I was merely saying that in our view the reception of unsworn statements is allowed.

MR BERGER: Thank you, Chairperson.  Might I just respond very briefly, I never understood that this was going to be an opportunity for my learned friend to argue before the Panel.  I thought that we were going to save argument until all the evidence has been led.  I will reserve most of my comments then for argument but I wish to point out to my learned friend that not once did he put to a single applicant that the attack on the Why Not bar was a terrorist attack or that it was a racist attack.  He never put that to a single witness and it's not open for him to argue that now or at any point in the future.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes well we can deal with these questions in argument and also the question of the ruling asked for, I think we can also deal with in the argument.

MR DEHAL: Sorry Mr Chairperson, lest it be said that Mr McBride's silence caused him to align himself to one or the other side, I align myself totally to what my colleague, Mr Berger, has said and may I just add that in the time that was given us for which I am thankful, for which we are all thankful, Mr Richard, I, Mr Prior and all the attorneys had lengthy discussions about the proposed statements.  Never once were we alerted, forewarned about the possibility that Mr Richard was going to adopt this line. I did not prepare argument.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes we can deal with it later.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, before we proceed and I'm mindful of the Committee's ruling about being able to receive unsworn statements, I take it that we're all and perhaps just for clarity purposes, we're all ad idem that those statements have no evidential value whatsoever.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes with regard to the unsworn statements given by victims, not only in this matter in any hearing, as I've said we consider that to be one of the rights of the victim or indeed an implicated person if such a person would desire to put in an unsworn statement.  However, such statements do not carry evidentiary value for the simple reason that they are unsworn and the maker of the statement is not subjected to cross-examination or any other form of testing and that is in accordance with the general principles of the law of evidence and certainly it's no exception in these proceedings and also it must be made abundantly clear that the Commission cannot tell any victim or implicated person what to say as pointed out in Section 11 the Act provides that a victim can come forward and express his or her views.  Those views obviously will not be agreed with by everybody who hears them and maybe controversial and we also know that sometimes there's a lot of anger and there might be a controversy in the views expressed but however it must be made clear as well that when such statements are made it is expected that the statements be confined to matters relevant to the subject matter or the incidents of the hearing and also that the statements made in such a fashion also taking into the account the rights of others and are within the confines of the law.  We as a Committee approach these hearings in a completely and utterly unbiased fashion.  We know we are implored by the Act to treat the victims with compassion and respect which we do and are fully aware of that.  We also are fully aware of the rights of applicants.  We come into these hearings cold as it were, receive evidence, listen to the evidence, listen to the arguments and submissions of legal representatives and apply the evidence that is relevant to the criteria in the Act and  then arrive at a decision.  That is our function, that is why it's sometimes quite distressing when we get conflict in these hearings because we are of the view that these hearings should be carried out with dignity and decorum and I'm not saying that there hasn't been, that this has been undignified and with no decorum but that is what we aspire to.  We will now proceed with the rest of the matters.  Is it Ms of Mrs Welgemoed?

MR RICHARD: At this stage Chair, with your permission, I would like to change the order of my witnesses for the reason that I think the other alternative witness that I can call now will take us further quicker.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Prior, did you want to say anything or not?

ADV PRIOR: Mr Chairperson, save to say that time spent this morning up until the resumption was fruitfully spent.  All parties concerned were negotiating with each other and all problems that seem to be there have been properly addressed and have been addressed properly and are acceptable in the circumstances.  May I just make one point, that it seems to -it's encouraging to state that by dialogue and by communicating parties with divergent interests may come closer together.

CHAIRPERSON: I appreciate the efforts made by all concerned for smoothing things over and doing their best to smooth things over.
	Ms Welgemoed, you did take the oath but we will as indicated by Mr Richard perhaps hear you later.  He wishes to change the order.

MR RICHARD: Thank you Chairperson.  I call Mr Jeffers, he is prepared to be sworn.

JONATHAN JOSEPH JEFFERS: (sworn states)

MR RICHARD: Mr Jeffers, where did you live in 1986?

JONATHAN JOSEPH JEFFERS: I was staying in Queen Mary Avenue at the time.

MR RICHARD: In which City is that?

JONATHAN JOSEPH JEFFERS: Durban.

MR RICHARD: And for how long had you been resident in Durban before that?

JONATHAN JOSEPH JEFFERS: From 1980.

MR RICHARD: Now is it correct that you knew the Parade Hotel?

JONATHAN JOSEPH JEFFERS: Yes that is correct.

MR RICHARD: And how often did you visit the Parade Hotel?

JONATHAN JOSEPH JEFFERS: In around 14th June over the past I'd say six months to a year at least once a week.