ADV STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, the next matter generally called the "Boom" matter. There was a request by the legal representatives of Mr Wagener, or the applicants then, to discuss certain issues with yourselves and Honourable Members, in chambers, and there's a request from Mr Wagener and Mr Visser to ask for an adjournment for three to five minutes to discuss certain issues before the matter is scheduled then for public hearing. If that is amenable to yourselves. Thank you, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: We'll take a short adjournment.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon. We were supposed to sit and hear the applications of the following persons, Mr J J Jager, Mr L M Jantjie, Mr C A P Robert Shaw, and Mr D D Tulo.
Mr Louis Visser, instructed by Muller and Wagener, appears on behalf of all the applicants in this application. Mr Malindi is appearing on behalf of the relative of the victim, namely, Mr Sietisi Mokgele. Mr Brian Koopedi appears on behalf of the relatives of the victims, namely, Tobeka Ngono, Maria Sijana Mane, Phyllis Dee Siwe. And Mr Steenkamp is our Evidence Leader.
R U L I N G
We were approached as a Committee, in chambers, wherein the legal representatives who are appearing on behalf of all the parties in this application, were able to articulate their feelings with regard to the continuance or otherwise of this matter. We do not propose to have those feelings repeated during these proceedings, suffice it to say that it has come to our attention that some of the victims, namely, those who are representing the interest of Mr Ngono, Sijana Mane and Mr Mogele, were not properly notified as we as a Committee are enjoined by our Founding Act. In the premises we have decided that it would be prudent to postpone this matter sine die, to enable such notification to be effected properly.
In our quest to balance the interest of the applicants to have their applications disposed of as speedily as possible, we also have to balance the rights of the victims in terms of Section 19(4) of the Act, which provides that they be given reasonable notice. It is unfortunate that we as a Committee, are responsible for the position in which the status of this matter is today.
We would like to extend our apologies to the victims, who have travelled from so far as Port Elizabeth and Bloemfontein, with a view, some of them, of ultimately knowing what had happened to their loved ones, and for others who came in thinking that they're going to be better informed about what measures would be taken to proceed with these applications.
We also want to extend our apologies to the applicants who would like to turn a final page on these applications, by being afforded an opportunity to be heard with a view of enabling the Committee to decide on whether they're going to be granted amnesty or not. It is unfortunate that we have postpone the matter. It is our decision therefore, that in view of the improper notice, the applications will not proceed, and the matter is postponed sine die.
We however hope that we will learn from such a mistake and ensure that proper measures are taken, which are going to achieve better prospects for this process. I thank you.
MR VISSER: Chairperson, if I may, just a question. Bearing in mind the logistical difficulties which it may entail, it just occurred to me that although you're not seized with this matter, in a jurisdictional sense, because you have some background now on this matter, whether it is possible that there could be a note made, or whatever, or advice given to your office in Cape Town, as we would prefer this matter to come before the same Panel again. And I say this subject to the logistical difficulties that I know that you have with the constitution of your Panels, but if it's possible. It would certainly go a long way to establish and reinforce the credibility of the process if this could come before you again, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, I don't think we are in a position to give such a directive, as you yourself have already alluded to the difficulty of reconstituting a Panel at any given stage. It is because of that that we cannot give such a directive. Indeed, I think for pragmatic reasons, it will be easier if the matter was to be heard by the same Panel, because as we were about to be seized with the matter we are already familiar with all the issues that should have been canvassed in this hearing, but we cannot give a directive for the same Panel to be reconstituted with a view of a hearing in the near future.
MR VISSER: Chairperson, lastly, may I just place on record that what we have provided this Committee with - and hopefully, if another Committee takes over from you at the next hearing, these documents will be made available, we have made available the general background to the amnesty applications which you're familiar with, and we have given you statements of each of the applicants, which supplements their application, Chairperson. That's just a matter to be placed on record, so that when we arrive here next time before another Committee, we don't find ourselves in the position that they haven't heard of these documents.
CHAIRPERSON: We'll take note of that. Is there anything that you wish to say, Mr Koopedi or Mr Malindi?
MR KOOPEDI: Nothing from me, thanks Chairperson.
MR MALINDI: Nothing from me, Chairperson. Thank you for your indulgence.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp.
ADV STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, I don't want to have the last word, but I can just give the Committee the assurance that from our side we will endeavour to give this matter all the priority it deserves, to make sure that this matter be enrolled as soon as possible and we're properly prepared. Thank you, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: I may tangentially mention that Mr Koopedi has agreed to accept service of notices on behalf of the victims, which really should go a long way in facilitating the process.
We'll adjourn for the day.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
