Amnesty Hearings — East London — 2000-02-03

MR VAN BREDA: There was also a Mr Skeen at our firm but he left the firm, in fact went into another business, that was now during last year November month and he's now involved in Bisho Express, the courier services and he decided he had enough of law.

CHAIRPERSON: Just that leave just the two of you as the professional people in the firm?

MR VAN BREDA: That is correct, we have a new articled clerk.  Of course she does not know anything, we have to train her right from the beginning and unfortunately my partner, this is not the kind of work he is familiar to or anything, he will not be able to deal with it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  What are the prospects of finishing with this trial today that you're busy with?

MR VAN BREDA: If we started at 2 o'clock I think we'll most probably be finished tomorrow.  The chances are not good that we will finalise it today.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that so?  So are you saying in effect that there is no basis upon which you would be able to attend to this particular application between today and tomorrow?  Those are the times that it's set down for?

MR VAN BREDA: That is correct, Mr Chairperson, I have to be honest.  If I say I have time tomorrow I know it's just going to backfire again and the same will happen today that the Committee will sit here and wait, that's what I'm scared of.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  So if the matter were to proceed you will not be able to assist the applicant?

MR VAN BREDA: No Mr Chairperson, I'm not in a position to proceed today, not at all.

CHAIRPERSON: Well even tomorrow, I mean you can't - you say you can't commit yourself for tomorrow either?

MR VAN BREDA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So if this, if the application proceeds today and tomorrow here, you wouldn't be able to represent the applicant?

MR VAN BREDA: Unfortunately not Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr van Breda.  Mr Mapoma, have you got any submissions on the application of Mr van Breda?

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chairperson.  Chairperson, we are opposed to the application for postponement of this matter and I would like, Chairperson, to outline the background and the circumstances under which you have been operating all along with the applicant's side regarding this matter.
	This matter, Chairperson, you will remember was initially set down for some day in November last year 1999 and we had been in constant touch with Mr Skeen of the firm of Mr van Breda.  He outlined the problems that he was having in getting in touch with the applicant to such an extent, Chairperson, at some point he withdrew and we took it upon ourselves to investigate the whereabouts of Mr Gonya with the view to notifying him and arranging for his legal representation if he could be found and if Mr van Breda's firm could not represent him.  That was all in vain, Chairperson, and necessitated that this matter get postponed and I must mention, Chairperson, that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission incurred insurmountable expenses as a result of that postponement.  We went out of our way to investigate his whereabouts throughout until on the 18th January 2000.  We ended up issuing media notices, media announcements through the Umshlobelele Radio and through radio Ciskei, notifying about this hearing and in particular asking Mr Gonya to contact the TRC should he get this announcement.  I am informed by our media liaison officer that those announcements were in fact at on the radio and in fact in the Daily Despatch press release did appear calling upon Mr Gonya to contact the TRC.  All that was done and Mr Gonya did not contact the TRC.  I'm informed by the evidence analyst here in this matter, Mr Camagu, that he received a call from Mr van Breda's law firm from Mr Hendrick who told him that Mr Gonya had since phoned them and they would not be able to attend to this matter because of their schedule.  I told Mr Camagu to tell them that the matter will be proceeding today.  If they can't afford to appear for him, we are prepared to arrange for an alternative legal representation in respect of Mr Gonya.  	Chairperson, I pause at this stage to outline - I mean to mention in particular that all this was done because we wanted to avert the further expenses in this matter through postponement.   I've taken note of the communication that Mr van Breda's firm did have with our officers in Cape Town but I want to stress, Chairperson, that the person that was communicated with regarding this matter is our evidence analyst Mr Camagu and I have all along been impressing upon him to inform Mr van Breda's firm that the hearing is going on at Bisho on the 4th and the 5th, on the 31st up to 2nd will be in Umtata and I've been advised by him that that has been done accordingly. 
	In the circumstances, Chairperson, I am taking a point that it looks like Mr van Breda or his firm are not in a position to proceed with this matter today and I ask this Committee in the circumstances that we proceed with the matter and arrange for an alternative legal representation for Mr Gonya.  It is my submission, Chairperson, that it will not be unreasonable to get a legal representation for Mr Gonya at this point, to go ahead with the matter and I submit further that it will not be in the prejudice of Mr Gonya if that happens.  In fact, Chairperson, it will be in the benefit of the taxpayer that the matter proceed today and I may further mention, Chairperson, that the instructions for Mr Gonya to appear are instructions which are received from the Government and the Government pays the legal representative for those instructions.  So it is not a question of Mr Gonya specifically as such instructing a particular firm but it is the Government instructing the legal representative to represent a person who appears before the Amnesty Committee.  Instructions through the Department of Defence.  So all in all, Chairperson, and it is my submission, that the balance of convenience is in favour of us proceeding with the matter today.  All that was reasonable was done by the Commission to notify Mr Gonya and in fact Mr Gonya did in fact receive that notice through the media because the legal representatives for Mr Gonya told us that he said to them that he received through the media that the matter is going ahead today.  Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mapoma.  There are present here a number of interested parties in these proceedings.  Can you just give us an idea as to roughly how many there are and perhaps just an idea as to where they hail from, where they come from?

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, we have notified about in fact more than 150 victims to come and appear to listen to the application.  A large number of them are here, I have not taken the roll call but quite contingently responded likewise and we have got legal representation to represent them on the instructions of the Amnesty Committee.  We have as well representation for the African National Congress, from Mr Koopedi who has flown from Johannesburg to come to this hearing today.  We have Mr du Plessis for the other applicant to come to proceed with the matter today.  He is on instructions from the Department of Defence as well.  Whether the matter proceeds or not today, at the end of the day the taxpayer will pay for him.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, isn't Mr du Plessis coming from Pretoria?

MR DU PLESSIS: ...(inaudible)

ADV SANDI: And your client Mr Mkosana, is he based in Pretoria?

MR DU PLESSIS: He's not based in Pretoria, Mr Chairperson, as far as I can recall he is locally but I can get instructions on that as well.