Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-12

MR MARTINI: Well, I suppose Mr Commissioner, I would have to address this.  I thought this issue was long gone but unfortunately it seems to raise its head again.
	I didn't want to get involved in this debate, Mr Commissioner, but however, I think we need to place correct facts before this Commission, particularly since Mr Bizos selectively, and it seems to be the tendency here, to record only certain things.
	I have to address Mr Coleridge because unfortunately there are attacks on myself as a legal representative and my client.  Well, first of all, we don't profess to exert any power.  What we do have, is a Court order.  We followed the justice process and the justice process agreed with my client.  That issue has been decided.
	What we find remarkable, Mr Commissioner, is if you recall these proceedings were adjourned on the 17th of March.  The issue of the venue was an issue, it was an issue that went to the High Court of the Cape Province and an order was granted.  The issue raised its head again at the hearings, and there was a lot of debate at these hearings.  I think unnecessarily so, however, it keeps raising its head.  What then happens,  Mr Commissioner, and unfortunately I will have to read a letter into the record, because Mr Bizos supported by Ms Coleridge, chose to address their letter, read their letter into the record.  
	What we find remarkable is these hearings terminated on the 17th of March, the issue of the venue was an issue.  The first time we ever hear from the Commission was on the 1st of June.  The Commission, represented at this stage of state, through Ms Coleridge, knew the Athlone area was an issue and that issue was fully ventilated in Court papers in the High Court, so I need not  delve in that again.
	But at the late stage as to the 1st of June, no attempts were made to even try and attempt to accommodate my client's concern.  What we get is a letter saying and I put on record, a distorted letter "there is a venue in Athlone", no attempts made to accommodate my client's concern.
	Now it becomes important to read my reply because I think I must also put this on record, there seems to be a personal attack on me as a legal representative, I am here doing a job, protecting my client, and I will do my job to the best of my ability.   I will protect my client's rights where possible.  Now, we have read, and what is going to be significant, Mr Commissioner, is we have never got a reply to this very important letter.
	Ms Coleridge addresses me a letter on the 30th of May, it is dated the 30th of May, it is telefaxed to my office on the 31st of May.  Mr Bizos has read it into the record.  What is important is that we place my reply on behalf of my client, into the record so we get the truth before this Commission.
	I write, acting on behalf of my client -
"... We refer to your telefax, 31st of May, telefaxed at 15H04.  The writer takes exception to your unfounded remarks.  You have had months to address your aforesaid letter to the writer, however, you choose to telefax it on the date and time aforesaid and arrogantly demand a reply by 14H00 on the 1st of June."
	Mr Commissioner, Ms Coleridge had since the 17th of March, she writes a letter on the 31st at approximately four minutes passed three, and demands a reply the next day on a sensitive issue.  I carry on to quote from my letter, Mr Commissioner -
"... The writer will arrange to consult with our client and thereafter revert to you at our earliest opportunity on the issue of the venue.  At this stage our failure to respond fully to you, mustn't be construed as admission.  For the record, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission has already determined the venue, namely 7th floor, Adderley Street."
	That was the venue that was allocated after the Court order.   Be that as it may, the last paragraph - I continue to quote, Mr Commissioner -
"... the last paragraph of your aforesaid letter is certainly not a recordal of the true facts.  The writer was certainly not rude to your Ms Coleridge, as alleged, or at all.   The writer informed your Ms Coleridge, in order to avoid any misunderstandings, that she  should address the writer in writing on the issue of the venue.  The only person who was rude, was your Ms Coleridge, who summarily replaced the received to answer her cellular phone, that was ringing."
	I have to put this on the record, because Ms Coleridge chose to give evidence now.  
"... The writer certainly did not demand that you  refrain from any future telephonic communications with the writer.  Such statement is a blatant distortion of the truth.   The writer reiterates that he advised your Ms Coleridge that she should address the issue of the venue in writing, in order to avoid any misunderstandings.  Since your Ms Coleridge distorts the true content of telephonic discussions, it would now be advisable to liaise with the writer in writing.  We would suggest that your Ms Coleridge refrain from unwarranted and untruthful personal attacks on the writer.  One can however, understand your Ms Coleridge's personal emotions, which can only be ascribed to her past high handed decision - (we refer to her past emotive comments to the press) - which was proved to be incorrect and costly for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and taxpayers of this country.  In this regard we refer you to the High Court order which included an order for costs against the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.  We request that your Ms Coleridge put her emotions aside and act in a reasonable and mature manner, without embarking upon further unwarranted and untruthful personal attacks on the writer.  The venue was not only the Athlone Learning Centre, possibly your Ms Coleridge should read our client's affidavits carefully.  Significantly the recordal of the Honourable Justice Miller's comments is also selective.  We will complete your "selective recordal of such comments" ..."
	Mr Commissioner, I pause here.  This is in relation to Ms Coleridge and relating to the comments Mr Commissioner made at the end of the hearing -
"... people, and there won't be anything done that will catch you by surprise, it will be done by consensus, hopefully with all parties concerned.  Can we leave it at that?"
	Ms Coleridge in her letter selectively chose Mr Commissioner's comments of the last hearing, I just completed it for her.  For the record, this debate only took place at the end of the evidence as a result of a specific request by the Honourable Min Omar, through Adv Bizos.     This was not suggested mero motu by the Commissioner.
	Very important now, Mr Commissioner -
"... We assume that your letter seeks our client's consent to the venue referred in your aforesaid letter.  Before we formally reply to your aforesaid letter, we require the following information ..."
	and significantly Mr Commissioner, it still hasn't been forthcoming -
"... as from which date did the Truth and Reconciliation Commission become aware that the 7th floor, 106 Adderley Street, would be occupied from the 1st of June 2000, by whom is the 7th floor allegedly occupied, is it occupied in terms of Annexure A to your aforesaid letter, if not, please let us have a copy of the relevant document.  When was Annexure A to your aforesaid letter, signed?  Precisely where is the Athlone Technical College situated, is it in Athlone or the city centre?  When was the venue secured by Ms Martin?  Was your Ms Coleridge authorised by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to address and record the content of your aforesaid letter to the writer?"
	I pause there, Mr Commissioner.  To date, I haven't had a reply to that letter, but it will be important to place another letter on record.  
"... Please let us have the aforesaid information as soon as possible, so that we may have such information at hand when we consult with our client, in order to address you fully and issuably on the issue of the venue."
	No reply.   Bearing in mind, my client was given until two o'clock the next day to reply.  
"... Please note that should any decision once again be taken unilaterally, without our client's consensus, our client reserves his rights to approach the High Court for a leave, if necessary."
	Nothing wrong with that.  
"... In the interim, all our rights are reserved."
	What then happens Mr Commissioner, is I believe this letter came to the attention of the Chief Executive Officer of the TRC and they asked Ms Coleridge no longer to deal with me on this issue, and an Adv Prior liaised with me.