Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1999-04-13

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Trengove.  Have you got any submissions?

MR LENGANE: Thank you Mr Chairman, I align myself with what Adv Trengove has said, and I just might add that whilst we had stood down this hearing, Gregg Nott, on behalf of NUMSA requested me to indicate to you that he was also not available next week, at least for part of next week and on that basis, he requested me to oppose this application.

MR WAGENER: Mr Chairman, my only real concern is that we may not be able to finish this hearing by the end of next week.  I have been told that the applicant intends to call a number of witnesses on his behalf, and apparently there may be a number of other witnesses also to be called upon to testify.
	If I remember correctly, Mr Chairman, you indicated to us that you would prefer oral argument at the end of the testimony, so that would also take up another day or perhaps even more, I am not sure.  So that is my only real concern, Mr Chairman, that we may not be able to finish by the end of next week, and that will cause all sorts of problems for us all.
	That is actually the only point that I would like to raise.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I similarly oppose the application.  I share the view with Mr Chaskalson that we might finish towards the end of this week, subsequently I have been briefed in the matter Duli in East London from Monday.  We are fully prepared for the East London trial, so it is not a matter that I can switch horses as far as that is concerned.  So, I would be only available towards the end of the week.
	We anticipated the possibility of calling my client to testify during this week, which obviously I would suffer severe prejudice if this cannot happen.
	I agree with my learned colleague, Mr Trengove, I cannot see any reason why in the light of Mr Bellingan's instructions, we cannot continue with the cross-examination and re-examination.  His counsel cannot consult him on the merits at this stage, and we can fruitfully use this time today and tomorrow and continue with this case.
	I similarly oppose the application, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Cornelius.  Mr Chaskalson?

MR CHASKALSON: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Mr Chairman, I don't want to canvass issues that have been said by the various legal representatives at the table.
	I would also wish for this matter to proceed and I too have worries about the matter being finalised and would just note that if it isn't finalised within this given time period, we are going to find it very difficult to obtain a spot on the schedule to reconvene and I think that that is an issue that also needs to be borne in mind, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Chaskalson.  Mr Hattingh, is your client in a position to instruct you on the basis for Adv Du Plessis' withdrawal?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I believe and the instructions that I have now also received from my Attorney is that Mr Du Plessis did not speak directly to Mr Bellingan about his withdrawal from the matter.
	I stand to be corrected if I am saying something which is not correct at this stage, but in any event, apparently towards the middle of last week, Mr Bellingan telephoned Mr Nolte the Attorney and he was then advised that Adv Du Plessis was withdrawing from the matter.
	The reason for the withdrawal was never conveyed to Mr Bellingan either by Mr Du Plessis, Adv Du Plessis, himself, or the Attorneys, so as far as Mr Bellingan is concerned, he doesn't know what the reason for the withdrawal is.
	Secondly, the Attorneys apparently are also not in a position to tell this, or give instructions as to what the reasons for Mr Du Plessis' withdrawal were.

CHAIRPERSON: So Mr Du Plessis hasn't indicated to the Attorneys either why he was withdrawing from the application?

MR HATTINGH: That is correct Mr Chairman, apart from the fact that it should be added to that that the decision to withdraw was made at that late stage for reasons unknown to me and my Attorney, and that he did convey his decision to withdraw at the earliest opportunity when that occurred, so that whatever happened to make him withdraw from the matter, was not something that he was aware of weeks or months ago or at the time of the last sitting of this hearing.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you understand from your client that in so far as he is concerned, the reason or the basis for the withdrawal appears to have something to do with Mr Du Plessis personally, but it does not result from a situation, an adverse situation that has developed between himself and Mr Du Plessis?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, apparently not any issue of an adverse situation developing between the two of them, definitely not that.  However, Mr Bellingan tells me that he can only speculate as to the reason why Mr Du Plessis withdrew from the matter.
	He doesn't know why, he can only speculate.  There is on the face of it, nothing that he can put his finger on and say that was the reason or there was any animosity between the two of them.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any submissions on the question whether or not your client has been at fault at all in connection with the basis for Mr Du Plessis withdrawal from his case?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, no, I cannot submit anything in that regard, but to refer back to the fact that he was also surprised by the fact that Adv Du Plessis withdrew as late as last week, the middle of last week, without any reasons being made available to him.
	Whether that was his fault or whether he should now speculate as to whose fault it was, or whether there was any fault on his part causing Adv Du Plessis to withdraw, that would sir, remain mere speculation.  He is really not in a position to give any information in this regard to this Committee.
	I may just want to add to that that I think in the end it is the prejudice or the possible prejudice to the applicant that should be the most important issue at stake.  If anything is not clear, we shouldn't just accept that it was up to the applicant, Mr Bellingan to be in a position to address or to give instructions for address to this Committee as to the reasons why his Advocate withdrew from the matter.
	I would just also like to add the fact that this matter had been put down for two weeks.  The availability of legal counsel for the other interested parties, they knew all along that they should have made arrangements to remain available for the two week period, and not to make arrangements for anything further for the second week, unless they could afford to do so.
	At this stage, if this matter could still be concluded within the two week period that it was set down for, even though it may be required to let the matter stand down for some while, for a while, to enable further preparation to take place, the legal representatives who are not available next week, have only themselves to blame if they are not available to pursue and the finalise this hearing which was set down for the full two weeks.
	I might also just add, I think the words to the effect of something unethical used by Mr Trengove, at this stage the applicant, Mr Bellingan can't really assist this Committee, or can't really be blamed or take the responsibility of clarifying this whole issue of the withdrawal of Mr Du Plessis, whether it has been on any ethical basis or not.  He doesn't know the reasons, he was advised at a very late stage and he can't really assist the Committee to get to the bottom of this.  Thank you Mr Chairman.