=====================================================================
&#9;TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION
=====================================================================
 &#9;TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION

&#9;AMNESTY HEARING

HELD AT:&#9;&#9;JOHANNESBURG

DATE:&#9;&#9;15.02.99

IN THE MATTER:&#9;ELLIS PARK BOMBING

--------------------------------------------------------------------------TAPE COMMENCES WITH INTERPRETER

MR SHOKE: ....with my former attorney.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: Do I understand from that that you have not had an opportunity of discussing the matter?

MR SHOKE: We discuss it but I don't believe that it was enough.

CHAIRPERSON: Anything further you wish to say? That was Mr Shoke isn't it?

MR SHOKE: I just request that I be given time to consult or to discuss the matter with my former attorney, and if our discussions fail I request time to be able to secure the services of another attorney.

CHAIRPERSON: What is your attitude?

MR SHOKE: I will see if I can secure the services of another attorney.

CHAIRPERSON: You realise all of you don't you that this will entail some considerable delay in proceedings. If you feel that you can continue without the services of an attorney you are entitled to do so. That is a matter for you to decide.

MR DUMAKUDE: Myself Dumakude I will really like to engage a legal representative.

CHAIRPERSON: And you?

MR MASHIDIDI: It is the same with me.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prior have you anything to say?

MR PRIOR Mr Chairman, yes. During the luncheon adjournment I was telephoned by the Chief Executive Officer, Dr Minyuku, from Cape Town. He wanted to know where I was - what I was doing in Johannesburg because I was unable to contact him over the weekend and I indicated that we had a problem with this hearing and that there was a likelihood that we wouldn't proceed if there was a request for an adjournment given the developments this morning and he indicated that I should place on record, or inform the Chair of the considerable cost to the Commission at this delicate stage in the process where we can hardly waste funds. I understand from the logistics officer that just today we have wasted costs in the order of about R7 to R8000. In addition thereto both victims are present - Mrs Erasmus and Klukas who are extremely upset at the developments today. They came here expecting to hear the further evidence and possibly the conclusion of the application.

&#9;But further than that I have no other comment.

CHAIRPERSON: I can well understand that, but it seems, in fairness to the applicants, and in the light of what was said at the end of the proceedings last time, where both their legal advisors, as I understood it, undertook to consult with them about the question of them giving further evidence or explanations in the light of the apparent conflicts between the two versions, that they should be given the opportunity to seek advice and guidance in that regard. And I accordingly feel that it would be grossly unfair to them for us to order them to continue and that the matter will then have to be adjourned.

&#9;I can see no prospects of them getting a lawyer to go through these papers within the next few days. It will have to be adjourned to a date to be arranged. Do you agree?

MR PRIOR Mr Chairman most certainly. I obviously cannot oppose any application for an adjournment. I think in the nature of the circumstances it would be unfair towards the applicants to deny them that further opportunity, so I agree with your views wholeheartedly, and yes, it would occasion an adjournment for a date to be arranged in the near future.

CHAIRPERSON: And I've also made reference to what I consider the desirability of an enquiry about the Law Society. It may well be that once the legal advisors are in the position that they can give an explanation that will not embarrass their clients the whole thing falls away, because I can understand that it puts them in an invidious position if they have some information which would grossly prejudice their client but which has obliged them to act as they did. They certainly could not tell the present Committee about it. But I think that it is a matter that should be enquired into. 

&#9;I will then adjourn the matter to a date to be arranged.

MICROPHONES NOT WORKING

MR RICHARD: Thank you I am indebted to you. What I would like to make ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

MR RICHARD: I beg your pardon. My surname is Richard, initials A J. I represent the Dlomo family in the next matter to be heard before this hearing and that involves the death of their son, Sicelo Dlomo on the 25th of January 1988. At paragraph 6 of an affidavit by Mr John Dube reference is made to a person known as "Tommy" who I believe is Tommy Masinga, who is the same person as Dumakude, the first person who took the stand today. I have asked the leader of evidence to warn him to stay for the next matter. I don't know if it has yet been done, otherwise I would request the witness to be requested to be present at the next hearing.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the position?

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson for the record my name is Zuko Mapoma, the leader of evidence, I will be engaged in the next coming matter. I confirm, Chairperson, that Advocate Richard has requested me to make an arrangement that the person in question be available for the next hearing, but unfortunately Sir, I could not do that, because at that time the then legal representative for the person in question was engaged in some other discussions. I thought, Chairperson, that we are going to discuss that this afternoon, but unfortunately now he is out of the picture. I will have to take the matter up with Mr Dumakude himself after the adjournment, in the circumstances.

CHAIRPERSON: I think he should be told. Mr Dumakude, can you come forward. Are you listening again - alright.

&#9;Do you understand that you are implicated in the next matter and that your presence here is required at the hearing? You had better come forward so we can get your answer.

MR DUMAKUDE: Sorry Judge could you please repeat your question.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you understand that you have been implicated - I take it that you have not been told as yet that you are an implicated person in the next hearing.

MR DUMAKUDE: That is so Judge.

CHAIRPERSON: Well you have been mentioned by one of the applicants in the next hearing - this having been someone to whom you made a report and counsel who is appearing for the families of the victims have requested that you should remain for the next hearing, do you understand that?

MR DUMAKUDE: Yes I do understand, thanks Judge.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you do so?

MR DUMAKUDE: I will do that.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR RICHARD: I am indebted Chairperson.

MR MAPOMA: Excuse me Chairperson, excuse me Sir, just on a point of law the person in question was supposed to have been notified in terms of Section 19(4) as an implicated person, and Chairperson as things are it is up to his choice whether to testify or not, or to be present at the hearing, it is just his right to be present. In the circumstances Chairperson therefor, I was just going to notify him of that right, not necessarily to require him to be present as such.

CHAIRPERSON: That is why I asked him if he was prepared to be present and he said he would.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Do I understand you want an adjournment before we start on the next matter?

MR RICHARD: My learned friend, Mr Kapedi, has requested that we have a pre-hearing meeting. I don't believe it will be longer than about 10, 20 minutes.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

MR RICHARD: Thank you Chairperson.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

