Amnesty Hearings — Sebokeng — 1998-07-06

CHAIRPERSON: The legal representatives of the victims have indicated to us that they have not had time, sufficient enough, to consult with their clients so as to be in a position to represent them properly at these hearings and what we propose doing is to adjourn these proceedings at this stage until tomorrow morning to enable the legal representatives of the victims to take instructions from their client and come and put such questions as they may be instructed to put to the applicant.  Do you understand that, Mr Mthembu?

VICTOR MTHANDENI MTHEMBU: Yes, I understand.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, these proceedings are therefore adjourned until tomorrow morning at 9.30.
WITNESS EXCUSED
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
 
ON RESUMPTION: 7TH JULY 1998 - DAY 2

CHAIRPERSON: Good morning ladies and gentlemen.  It has come to the attention of the Committee that some of the victims of the massacre are not legally represented.  They have the right to be legally represented so the legal representatives who are at present representing some of the victims have kindly agreed to see whether they can also represent the remaining victims and if necessary then consult with them.  As a result of that we cannot proceed immediately with this hearing.  We will give the legal representatives some time to consult with the victims and to sort out the question of their representation.  Thereafter, they will report back to the Committee as to the progress that's being made in that regard.  In order to do that, we will stand these proceedings down until 11.30 by which time, we hope then, we will be able to have sorted out the question of representation of all the victims.  I would therefore request the victims to please remain behind so that they can discuss the matter with the legal representatives.  Thank you very much for your patience.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Berger?

MR BERGER: Thank you Chairperson.  Chairperson, on behalf of the victims I represent 20 families at the moment and Ms Cambanis represents another 20 families.  There are in addition another 26 families who need legal assistance, need to be represented in these hearings and we are attempting to secure representation for them.  Given that, people have only been given representation at a very late stage.  We require some more time in which to consult with them and to prepare properly for their cases.  There is also the question of the docket which we have discovered is in Pretoria and we have made arrangements for the docket to be inspected.  That will take place tomorrow morning and all the legal representatives are invited to go through to Pretoria tomorrow morning to inspect the docket.  We would ask then, Chairperson, that the matter stand down until Thursday morning when we hope then to be in a position to begin the cross-examination of Mr Mthembu.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  Ms Cambanis, do you have anything to say?

MS CAMBANIS: Nothing to add except to associate with the comments and ask that the matter be held over till Thursday.

CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Pretorius, do you have any objection to the application by Mr Berger?

MS PRETORIUS: At this state I have no objection, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Strydom?

MR STRYDOM: We have no objection, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink, do you have any objection to the application?

MR BRINK: No, I have no objection with regrets, I'm just sorry the matter can't proceed at this stage but nonetheless let it be.

CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Pretorius, I gather that some of your clients are in prison?

MS PRETORIUS: Victor Mthembu's applicant is in prison.  He's in Pretoria, he's being held in Pretoria, they are driving through every day, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Strydom what about yours?

MR STRYDOM: Five of the people I appear for are in prisons.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.  What are the names of those who are in prison?

MR STRYDOM: Tebogo Magubane, Timothy Stals Mazibuko, Jack Mbele, Sonny Michael Mkwanazi and in fact the other person is Thomas Lukhozi and I've already placed on record that we don't appear on his behalf any more.  So it's actually just the four.  These four people are kept in the Vereeniging Prison.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, otherwise the others, are they not in custody?

MR STRYDOM: Not in custody?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, for a while?

MR STRYDOM: But I must also the people, the names I've given are in custody in other matters.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.  Is Thomas Lukhozi here?

MR STRYDOM: He's not here today.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink, do you know what's to become of his application?

MR BRINK: I'll endeavour to make enquiries, I do know that he apparently terminated the mandate of the attorneys acting for him, he wanted counsel in the person, Mr Burger, I'm not sure what his initials are.  Mr Burger apparently is not available for the rest of this year.  Another Mr Burger, B-u-r-g-e-r.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, would you endeavour to find out what his position is so that we can know what is to become of his application?

MR BRINK: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So that when we next resume we'll know what's to become of the application?

MR BRINK: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well.  It is with regret that...[intervention]

MR BRINK: Sorry, sorry, Mr Chairman, before you announce the adjournment, I wonder if I could just place a couple of matters on record for housekeeping purposes.  You will remember that yesterday afternoon a meeting was held in a form of a sort of pre-hearing meeting and the following was agreed.  The first item is now academic and that related to obtaining the original incomplete applications from the Cape Town office, alternatively for Mr Strydom to obtain them, those have now been got, the Committee has seen them which indicates that the applications in their incomplete form were in fact received by the Amnesty Committee in Cape Town on the 10th May.  That is, as I understand it, will still not effect Mr Berger's attitude in regard to his submission as it will be that those applications in any event are - can't be heard because they were not completed but I place that on record.
	Secondly, I understand that Mr Berger will be opposing the applications on a so-called blanket basis, in other words, he will contend that there can be no political objective within the meaning of the act and that refers to proportionality as well and that there will have been no full disclosure.  I understand that will be his attack on the hearing as a whole in the event that all the applications are heard.  If I'm not correct, no doubt Mr Berger will put me right.
	Thirdly, if during the course of cross-examination by Mr Berger or Ms Cambanis, if during the course of cross-examination of any particular applicant who says he does not remember a specific incident, Mr Berger will then approach the applicants' legal representatives and say "I propose, if necessary, calling evidence to prove what your client hasn't remembered" it may then well be that that evidence wont be necessary because Advocates Pretorius and Strydom will concede that that may well have been the case, that this is how things did happen on the basis the applicant didn't remember.  So that might shorten things in any event.  
	Those were the matters discussed yesterday which I set them out now.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Advocate Pretorius, do you confirm that?

MS PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Strydom?

MR STRYDOM: I confirm that?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  Advocate Berger?