Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1996-05-13

JUDGE WILSON: ...matter, but before we proceed with it I have certain problems which I wanted to raise.  Firstly, made available to me for the first time, a copy of the transcript of the previous hearings and towards the end of the record, the question of the affidavits that we dealt with yesterday arises when I drew attention to the applicant's attorney that two affidavits had been handed in which have been prepared for the purpose of the trial.  I'm not sure if it should be trial or inquiries, these I think were affidavits by the police officer De la Rey and attached thereto was an affidavit from the deceased's common law wife Mishek May.
	Mr Mthembu had not seen those affidavits at that stage and we discussed it with him and it is obvious that he had to take instructions from his client and the matter stood down and he was informed that after he has taken instructions it might be necessary for us to call the people who made the affidavits.  We then dealt with the question of Mrs May and whether she had been given notice of the proceedings and whether her address had been obtained and I suggested that it could be obtained from the President Steyn mine where her late husband had worked. 
	I was reminded by Mr Mthembu that after he had had an opportunity of discussing the matter, that is the contents of De la Rey's affidavit with his client, the matter having been adjourned to enable him to do this, the hearing was informed that notice had been received from relatives of the victim that they wished to oppose the granting of amnesty and the matter was accordingly adjourned to enable that question to be dealt with, but Mr Mthembu never intended to, nor did he ever give the impression that he was admitting he correctness of the contents of Mr de la Rey's affidavit.  In those circumstances, quite obviously, Mr de la Rey should have been called to confirm what is set out on the affidavit and to enable Mr Mthembu to cross-examine him.  This unfortunately was not done, we merely proceeded with the rebuttal evidence before we heard the main evidence and in the light of the very really conflicts of fact that apparently arise, as to where goods were found, when things happened, it seems to me essential that Mr de la Rey should be called to give evidence and Mr Mthembu should be given an opportunity to examine him and thereafter, if he feels it necessary, to recall the applicants to rebut any further matters that may have arisen. But equally well if Mr De la Rey is to be recalled on this issue and there is, as I have indicated a conflict of fact, he should be notified so that he has an opportunity to find his own records, his pocket book and matters of that nature to support his evidence and also to contact and have available any other police officers who may have been with him at the time that the incidents he attested to in his affidavit took place.  And I don't want us to have him here and then have him saying, oh well, constable so and so or sergeant so and so  was there and he did this and he did that ,and then we have to adjourn the whole matter again. So I would like arrangements to be made, I understand Mr de la Rey is in Bloemfontein and accordingly be available, that he was a potential witness in the magistrate's court case today and tomorrow that is going to be adjourned. He should be informed that we wished him to come and give evidence in support of the affidavit he has made, that he must obtain what check-up in anything he wishes to and have those documents available so we don't have further adjournments and that if he intends to name other persons as having been present and that they are potential witnesses, they should also be present.
	Now how quickly can this be done?

ADV THABETHA: Unfortunately Mr Chair, I wasn't aware that Mr De la Rey needed to be notified, but Penny told me and I have called Mr De la Rey. I was speaking to him when you came in, hence I went behind the curtain.  He says that he can come.  He has asked us to fax him the statement so that he can refresh his memory.  So I would suggest that when he comes maybe I consult with him and find out if there were any other officers involved and whether he would be willing to testify on his statement.

JUDGE WILSON: So is he coming now or when is he coming?

ADV THABETHA: He asked me when is he supposed to come here  I said as soon as possible.  He said he would try to be here as soon as possible.

JUDGE WILSON: Because rather than have him come here and say he has to go back to his office and get papers and things, I think you should explain to him what I had just said, that if he has documentary evidence such as a pocket book or anything, he should get them.  I am aware of the fact that police officers usually hand in their pocket books after six months, they are then supposed to be stored in a safe place, but one is extremely lucky if one can ever recover them from where they have been stored but he may have other documentary evidence that he wishes to produce. so if you could tell him that and tell him if he's got any others because I gather that Mr Mthembu would be available tomorrow and I also think that the applicants must be present.  They should hear the evidence if they are then going to be called rebut it.  And if it's not desirable they should be told from a note someone's made, I think they should be here, so we will not be able to proceed immediately.  If Mr De la Rey comes here we will have to make arrangements for the four applicants to be brought here again and I think it might be better to make those arrangements tomorrow so we can excuse Mr Mthembu now to go about his other business rather than have him sit here for most of the morning waiting for things to happen.  I don't know what his attitude is towards that.

ADV MTHEMBU: I would like to be excused Mr Chair.

JUDGE WILSON: So you agree that it would be more realistic to aim at hearing this tomorrow morning?

ADV MTHEMBU: I agree Mr Chair.

JUDGE WILSON: Very well agreed.  Do you have anything further to say on that?

ADV THABETHA: If Mr Mthembu wants to be excused today, well I have nothing further to say but what I wanted to say is can't it be arranged that we do all of that in the afternoon, pending Mr  De la Rey.

JUDGE WILSON: Well id Mr De la Rey is available and if the, I'm speaking from my experience yesterday, can we be sure we'll have the applicants here by this afternoon?  How long did it take to get them here yesterday?

ADV THABETHA: I can ask Mr Tsuo(?).

JUDGE WILSON: Is he here?

ADV THABETHA: He's here.

JUDGE WILSON: Very well, if somebody is here that we can deal with direct, that's alright.  What do you say about this afternoon then?  That should give Mr De la Rey enough time, will it give you? So you can be excused now and come back at 2 o'clock.

ADV MTHEMBU: I have no problem with that.

JUDGE WILSON: Very well, there's on other matter though that we wish to raise, and that is the possible intervention of family of the deceased and I would ask Mr de Jager to deal with this.

MR DE JAGER: At the last hearing we received a letter from attorneys, Conradie from Worcester, saying that they're representing the relatives of the deceased and that they've got certain representations to be made.  Have you been in touch with them, what arrangement has been made. what in fact happened since the last hearing?

ADV THABETHA: Since the last hearing I called Mr McLachlan who is the lawyer who I dealt with personally concerning this matter. He represents Mrs Naude who is Mr Fourie's or the deceased's sister.  I arranged for a transcript to be typed, I sent it to him, that was early April, if not end of March, I can't remember the exact date, 9th of April.

MR DE JAGER: (? - speaker's microphone not on)..so you requested the transcript...(indistinct)?