Amnesty Hearings — Ermelo — 1998-07-27

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman, as I have already indicated shortly before the proceedings today, that was in Chambers with you together with the legal representatives for the applicants, I have received instructions from my Instructing Attorney and clients, to make application in this Committee for a recusal.
	I have already indicated that I would, due to the constraints of time and logistics, it was not possible once again to go back to clients while this whole thing developed over the weekend.  I had to discuss the matter with both clients and my Attorney and get the full instruction and then prepare it preferably on paper, such an application ...

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, I am not questioning your integrity, but I am given to understand on Friday night there was some television snippets precisely about this.
	Can you perhaps answer why preparations were not made since then, why preparations were not commenced with since on Friday afternoon then?  I would imagine that the idea was sprouted at the latest 11 am on Friday?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, as far as I am personally concerned, I did receive the final instruction late yesterday, that is as far as I am personally concerned.  I am advised by my Instructing Attorney that although this issue did come up on Friday as it appeared on television, what in fact happened was obviously advice was sought and obtained from other people, that was on the part of my Instructing Attorney and the decision to in fact proceed with such an application was only made yesterday and I was then advised.
	The whole logistics of the whole matter, it then comes down to coming back to the clients themselves in Ermelo, get their instructions and then prepare the necessary affidavits to support such an application.

CHAIRPERSON: That brings us to the other aspect, why do you require affidavits for the application?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I think in particular where I will be bringing the application based not on what I say or my personal opinion, but based on the perceptions of the clients, the victims or the families of the victims.
	I have had a look at the ...

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, do you believe it is a meritous application?  Do you believe as a professional trained person in law, who is in a practice, that there could be merit in the application?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, this very question, I being very fresh with the Bar, I discussed this morning with a senior Bar member, whether I should this question do come my way, how should I respond to it and should I be compelled to give a response and what I am about to say is that this is based on senior advice that I got from my Bar in Pretoria, is that I do not have to respond to this question, because it is not on my own opinion that I am basing this application, but in fact on the perceptions of the victims, and for that very reason, I would rather not commit myself to saying yes, I support it or I have my doubts, or I believe it is a good application or not.
	What I can say is that on my studying of the law, of the case law, I do have adequate support to place it within the ambit of an application for recusal.

CHAIRPERSON: The case law in terms of ordinary civil litigation or criminal litigation, not so?

MR HATTINGH: As well as Constitutional Court judgements, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: About the application as it would be considered in one of those courts, not so?

MR HATTINGH: To some extent, but obviously the case law would be reported Supreme Court cases, but they do - they are about kwazi judicial and administrative forums and disciplinary enquiries and things like that, so although we say that it is a normal, civil, criminal case law, they had their birth somewhere not in a proper court of law, but in another kind of forum, some of them.

CHAIRPERSON: Why can't you bring the application from the Bar as it were, right now and depending on the merits, we can call it a day or carry on?  Is it not a fair request?
	The merits of the application is not going to change as to whether you put it on paper or make it orally?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I agree with you.  I just thought and once again, I obtained advice earlier today from senior members of the Bar, because this is not the kind of thing that I ever wish I would ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I appreciate the fact that you are not au fait with it and that you have taken the trouble of seeking advice from senior members of the Bar.
	Fortunately I don't have to take their advice to heart, even to a lesser extent they know the time pressures under which this Committee has to work.
	In the event of a successful application, this matter would have to be re-run as it were, from the beginning.
	There is a lot of logistics involved.  In the event of an unsuccessful application, then we just carry on.  As you all know, we are scheduled to finish this stint on Friday.  I still harbour hopes of finishing all the evidence by Friday.  The more time we loose, the less are the prospects of that happening and I am sure, most of you not all of you, are wanting to get shot of this.  There are other matters that are waiting.
	This, if you look at the Act, the Act compels the Committee to give preference to those people who are presently serving prison services, and I think this is the case here.  Most of the applicants are still in jail.  Is there any reason why you can't bring that application now?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, to respond to that, my application at this moment would be for a postponement to enable me to prepare the papers the way I want to submit it to this Committee.  That is my application.
	However, the second reason would be that having spent some time in Pretoria this morning on this matter, I only arrived very, only 20 minutes before one o'clock, leaving me not much time to - while my Attorney was here and discussed the matter with the clients, it didn't leave me much time to discuss it with the clients and to get the instructions.
	If you are not prepared to grant me the opportunity of preparing the documents on paper, the statements ...

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, I don't want to curtail your rights.  All I am saying is or asking is why can't, is there any particular reason why you can't make the application verbally or from the Bar?
	Why does it have to be an application based on affidavits?  As I remember the law, it is going to be legal issues discussed?  We all know the facts, we all know what occurred here.  I am hardly likely to deny the (indistinct), whatever you complain of.  I can never deny in front of all this august audience here, let's face it.  I would like to think my integrity is still intact and that I wouldn't deny anything that is true.
	It is just that I, like I have explained to you, I want to get shot of this.  We are not like an ordinary court where we've got millions of years to carry on.  Can you not see your way clear in making the submissions from the Bar?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, should we do that and if I do see my way clear to make my submissions from the Bar, I would nevertheless then just ask for a short adjournment, let's make it 45 minutes to enable me to get those instructions from my clients, and make sure that when I make a submission, that the perception of a client, I at least need to tell this Committee, which client and what his perceptions were.  I can't just say along the line I got the message that people were dissatisfied.
	I need to give specific details of the person and the gripes that he's got.  That is what ...