Amnesty Hearings — Nelspruit — 1997-06-11

ADV DE JAGER: Well if he said he is here on the 10th, or whatever, on the 11th and on the 13th he will be available, the trouble is we are being informed that the matters would proceed on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday and now we as a Committee is faced with the fact that nobody is available tomorrow.
	And that makes it very difficult for us, we've arranged hearings, the previous time we had trouble in hearings here in Nelspruit and now the same thing happens again.  And we are wasting money and time of people.
	Mr Black, what was the arrangements actually?

MR BLACK: Mr Commissioner, what happened with Mr Patel, he indicated that he was having to attend a matter in Bloemfontein on the 10th and then he wanted to have the matter heard on the 13th.  Then I indicated to him that that was not possible, it wouldn't be in the interests of the applicants, all three applicants.
	Because the Nkuna application had to be concluded and it was taking too great a risk to leave it to Friday.  He then told me that he would make himself available on the 11th and as far as the 12th was concerned, he didn't know what his position would be at that stage.  
	And I addressed a letter to him on the 2nd of June, confirming that.  I did indicate in the letter that if he was not available on the 12th, arrangements must be made for the interest of the victims to be attended to and my understanding of the arrangements for sitting late today, was that Mr Patel would be leaving early, but that his Attorney would be available.
	At no stage did Mr Patel indicate to myself or I am not sure if Mr Tee, I think was present, that his Attorney would not be available tomorrow.  This is the first time that I've heard of it.

ADV DE JAGER: You are representing the victims.  What is their position, do they want you to be here tomorrow (indistinct)

ADV MOJAPELO: Well, according to what I gathered from Mr Patel, he said written representations would be submitted to the Commission so the way he explained it was like there will be no need that we shall appear tomorrow, the way he explained everything to me.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying that on your assessment of the situation so far, you don't see the need to be here tomorrow?

ADV MOJAPELO: Mr Chairman, I am not suggesting that I see no need to be here, it is because of the arrangement that was made and I am booked for the court as I've just explained, but arrangements can be made that somebody can come and represent me here, because I am on record on a part-heard matter at the Regional court which I am supposed to be there.

CHAIRPERSON: Maybe I expressed myself badly, but what I wanted to find out from you is that having so far listened to the cross-examination, is there anything that you thought you wanted to ask us to grant you leave to put questions to the witness or do you still feel that there is no need to put any more questions.
	I know Mr Patel has had the opportunity already to put questions to the witness, I know that, but I just wanted to find out from you, that having sat there because I don't assume that you are sitting there just for the sake of sitting there, you are certainly listening to the evidence.
	Now having listened to the evidence so far, do you feel the need to be given further leave to put questions to the witness or don't you?

ADV MOJAPELO: No, we have no further questions, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Before it becomes just too late, Mr Mojapelo, you will clear up the matter with your client as to somebody perhaps coming into your place tomorrow and we will adjourn the matter until tomorrow morning.
	We will deal with the situation as it presents itself tomorrow morning.  There are two possibilities, we may just proceed until Mr Tee finishes his cross-examination and the other extreme possibility is that we will proceed on Friday then.  These are the only two possible scenarios, but the matters must be finalised in this week in any way.
	Some of my colleagues feel that this is a case we would prefer to have oral argument, but that will be sorted out later.  Do I understand that Mr Patel is not even here on Friday?

MR BLACK: Mr Chairman, my clear understanding is that he is available on Friday, just as my understanding was that his Attorney would be available tomorrow.  So I can try and communicate with him.  If his Attorney says that he is available ... (tape ends) ...  from cross-examination.
	So all I can say is that my every indication is that on Friday he is available.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Can the Attorney confirm that Mr Black, because in the event that the Committee should request that oral submissions be presented on Friday, we would like to know whether Mr Patel would be available to do so because as up to the time when he left, he assumed that he would be able to submit written submissions.

MR BLACK: Mr Black, Mr Patel also indicated that he is not apposing the applications, not one of the applications.  His only concern would be whether there is full disclosure.  So he is not taking a stance in saying we are opposing or we are supporting.
	So I don't know even if he is coming, what would his address be, because he is not opposing or supporting, he is only saying we should decide whether there was full disclosure.

MR BLACK: That is so Mr Commissioner, and he has had the benefit of hearing the evidence in chief which has been presented by all three of the applicants.  I cannot envisage that any new revelations are going to emerge from cross-examination in the sense that the cross-examination I assume, is being aimed at challenging the veracity of the version given by the current applicant.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Maybe I think Mr Ngobe can clarify the situation for us.  I did not understand Mr Patel to be saying that he did not intend ultimately to oppose the application.  I understood him to say that he would not oppose the application if his clients were satisfied that full disclosure had been complied with by the applicant and he seemed to give an indication or to suggest that the clients were not satisfied that full disclosure had been complied with and on the basis of that, they wanted to submit written representation.

MR BLACK: My I possibly dispute that as a reply to that.  As far as the present applicant is concerned, Mr Patel had the opportunity as Mr Chairman has indicated to cross-examine and challenge what the present applicant has said.
	Mr Patel has also had the opportunity to challenge what the other two applicants both Mr Nkuna's have said.  He hasn't given me an indication of course as to whether or not he was satisfied with the Nkuna evidence, but I would assume that his indication of his cross-examination and limited extent of his cross-examination of Mr Skosana, he didn't seem to challenge it at any great lengths, so I don't anticipate, I could undertake to contact Mr Patel tonight and find out what his position is.

CHAIRPERSON: Except that we must be careful of that because my recollection is that we put Mr Patel under the impression that he could submit written argument and we cannot go back on that.  So let's leave it there.
	I think the only real problem remaining would be for Mr Mojapelo to take instructions from his client.   Either him or Mr Mojapelo personally would be here tomorrow morning or somebody else and then we will hear from, if you are not here, we will hear from that person what the position is.

ADV MOJAPELO: Mr Chairman, I may indicate, throughout this proceedings, I have always been here with my assistant who had been involved in drawing the papers.  We do not intend to cause you a postponement, it might just be at the argument stage, my role might be needed, but my assistant had been here throughout.

CHAIRPERSON: During the hearing?

ADV MOJAPELO: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, well, we didn't know that.  That is what had been causing us some concern.  If that is the case, we have no problem about releasing you tomorrow.