Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — UNKNOWN

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Of course you are wrong.  The Act does not say "prior to the proceeding".  That is your view.  The Act does not say prior to the proceedings.   If it says so it does not (indistinct) proceedings.  The Act is formulated in such a way that it accommodates even a situation where unexpectedly a person is implicated when nobody ever thought that such a person would be implicated.  In such a situation proper steps are taken to accommodate such a
23.1 - 1A	person/...
273
person.  But what I am trying to say to you is, the Act does not say in every case a person must be notified prior to the proceedings, because it would have been a very impossible situation.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you are required to be notified of the place where the hearing takes place and when and where that is possible that should be done.  To that extent I think that you were right.  But as my brother here has pointed out, contingencies arise where during proceedings names are mentioned which cannot be anticipated and it can't be said that because notice was not given prior to the hearing it nullifies or in any way diminishes the value of the work done by the Committee.

MR WAGNER: Sir, may I respond to judge Ngoepe's remarks.  Of course he is perfectly correct.  If it is a situation where someone's name comes up unexpectedly during the procedures.  But with due respect the way I read this section, if the names are in the papers filed before the procedures.  The way I read this subsection the officials of this Committee should comply therewith before the start of the procedures.  But also, Sir, I merely say in my last remark, I think it raises a serious question mark.  I don't take the matter further than that.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand.   Mr Mpshe, is there anything you wish to say at this stage in connection with these submissions?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman, there is nothing I want to say.

JUDGE WILSON: These names do appear, don't they, Viktor, Coetzee and Krause, in the application papers?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: They do appear.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Mr Wagner, there is something I want some
23.1 - 1A	clarity/...
274
clarity from you.  I read a letter that you wrote to us and you make the same point, and this point emerges again in the document that you have been reading on page 1:
"To prove this Mr Coetzee will once again have to be cross-examined on each and every incident and allegation.  In view of the many occasions where he has testified in the past and all the different versions given by him up to date, proper examination in this regard would last for a couple of weeks.  This the Committee has indicated to me is quite impossible, inter alia, in view of the time constraints applicable to this forum".
Now, I am not so sure I understand what you are conveying, but let me tell you the impression - one of the possible impressions which may be conveyed by this what you have said which causes me problems.  An impression may be gotten from what I have just read that you are saying that the Committee has told you that you would not be allowed to cross-examine Mr Coetzee, and if that is what you are saying I would be happy to know why you say that because as far as I know, people who so wish and people who have got interest in proceedings can have legal representation which entails that if they want to put questions to witnesses they are allowed to do so.  But of course, like in all other tribunals, be it a court of law or not, cross-examination must know some limits.  The Committee allows cross-examination, but like all other proceedings, no cross-examination can be limitless, but the point I am making to you is that the Committee has never barred anybody from cross-examining. Bearing in mind of course the fact that cross-examination must know limits
23.1 - 1A	in/...
275
in all proceedings.   We have never barred anybody from cross-examining witnesses.  Neither did we, to the best of my recollection, and I want to make that point because you have been reading this thing into the record, you have raised it in the previous letter, let it be known that we did not bar anybody from cross-examining witnesses nor shall we do so.  In fact, we have drawn some guidelines.  This Committee has drawn some guidelines which advises practitioners and other interested parties as to how we intended to conduct our proceedings and it was in those guidelines that we indicated that people would be allowed to put questions.  That included legal representatives of people in your client's position.  We have circulated copies of those guidelines and I am sure Mr Mpshe would have given you a copy thereof.  So to the extent therefore that you are conveying or giving the impression that your client has been denied the right to cross-examine Mr Coetzee, I must tell you that that has not been the attitude of the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Just to add to that.  The Act makes reference to the limited rights of cross-examination.  If you have had an opportunity of looking through the Act.  Subject to what the Act says nobody has ever been refused the right to cross-examine witnesses and in fact in a number of proceedings that has taken place.  Witnesses have been cross-examined.  Maybe you are not aware of that.  What we are against is unlimited cross-examination.  I mean the activities of your client span some years and the number of activities in which he was involved are multifarious perhaps.  And cross-examination would be within limits in respect of what he is implicated in and nothing prevents him from coming forward if he is not allowed to cross-examine, nothing prevents him
23.1 - 1A	from/...
276
from coming forward and saying well, I'd like to put the record straight;  this is my version.  He may yet do so at any time.

MR WAGNER: May I respond, Sir?
	The reason why this is said in my notes as well as in the letter of last Friday was simply this.  When I and my client perused the application, we realised that Mr Coetzee, according to us, is not telling the truth in many incidents.  So we had to decide how do we prove that.  And I realised that the only sensible way would be proper cross-examination to attack this person's credibility.  But I wasn't sure to what extent cross-examination will be allowed.  Therefore I took the liberty of phoning you personally to discuss this matter with you, namely what would be our rights and you, I agree Sir, said there would be a limited right of rebuttal.  Although I wasn't sure exactly what would mean in practice.
	I also tried to phone your other brothers, I couldn't get hold of them, I tried on Friday, but I did get hold of Mr De Jager and I also raised the same problem with him, as to how are we going to deal with this evidence of Mr Coetzee.  Because it seemed to me that it is either a full cross-examination or nothing.  Because by merely putting a few simple questions to him would really amount to nothing.

CHAIRPERSON: If there were documents controverting what he said you will be in a position to put those documents ....

MR WAGNER: Sir, our problem is merely that the allegations are made that in just about all these incidents that Brig Schoon gave instructions.   Brig Schoon denies that.  He has got no documents to prove that.  He merely says he denies that.  Therefore I raised this issue with Mr De Jager and the suggestion was made that well, then we rather come here
23.1 - 1A	today/...
MR WAGNER	277
today and put the denials on record.  And that is why I say in my notes before you that it seemed as if a largely limited cross-examination in regard to Mr Coetzee will serve no constructive purpose and that is why we approached you on this basis.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand your client's attitude in this matter.  I will just repeat that it is open for your client to make submissions to this Committee and put forward his version, he'd be at liberty to do so.