CHAIRPERSON: Gentlemen and Lady, I regret the delay which has been caused by the result of us awaiting the return from Mr Rossouw, who you will remember informed us yesterday that he had another engagement this morning and would not be here till the very earliest half past ten. We told him to carry on. The problem that has arisen is that my colleagues and I have had an opportunity to discuss the proceedings so far and you will recollect that in the bundle of papers supplied to all of us were two affidavits forming part of what was alleged to be an application for amnesty made by Mr Potgieter. Certain of the applicants who gave evidence were cross-examined about what Mr Potgieter's version was, it was put to them, I am not precisely certain whether everything which was put came from the affidavits or whether Mr Rossouw in fact put information which he had, but it appears clear to us that there may well be substantial conflicts between Mr Potgieter's version and Mr de Kock's version and we have before us, as I say, the information available in the form of the two affidavits, but it seems to us it would be grossly unfair to attempt to arrive at a decision accepting the affidavits at face value while the other applicants have been subjected to cross-examination and in some cases somewhat searching cross-examination.
It accordingly seems to us it is desirable in the interests of arriving at a fair decision that Mr Potgieter should be called as a witness so his evidence can also be, his version can be tested and we can then come to a decision on it. Is Mr Potgieter available?
MR ROSSOUW: Not at this moment Mr Chairman, we didn't anticipate this. He was here on Monday.
CHAIRPERSON: He was here, yes.
MR ROSSOUW: I can try and get hold of him to take instructions. May I just - I've taken note of the Committee's indication in this regard, may I just indicate to the Committee the instructions that I have as far as the version of Mr Potgieter is concerned? My instructions are that when it came to argument this morning what we've prepared for, was to inform the Committee that as far as Mr Potgieter is concerned we're not going to argue simply because this is not the forum to make a finding on the credibility of Mr Potgieter, or whether his version is reasonably possibly true ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: This is the forum to make a finding on the credibility of Mr de Kock.
MR ROSSOUW: Indeed Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: And Mr Potgieter's evidence will materially affect that.
MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, in that regard I know as far as that aspect is concerned, our argument would basically have been that there are two possible interpretations as to what happened in the discussion between them and that Mr Potgieter is not opposing the application by Mr de Kock, he is merely saying that if that was your inference from what was said, I'll accept that but it doesn't necessarily mean that I had the same intention.
CHAIRPERSON: But if one reads his affidavit it is; that is not what I said, and that is the important matter. What we are seeking to do is to avoid having to adjourn this whole hearing to serve a subpoena on Mr Potgieter and perhaps come back in two or three weeks time. We hoped that you would be able to arrange that he will agree to come as a witness at the request of the Committee, not on his own account, this afternoon or tomorrow morning possibly?
MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, I'll take instructions in that regard.
CHAIRPERSON: As you know we can compel him to give evidence, it will just delay things unnecessarily.
MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, may I then ask that we adjourn now so that I can take instructions, try and get hold of Mr Potgieter and take instructions on how to proceed?
CHAIRPERSON: Certainly. I don't think that his evidence would take more than the afternoon. I look to my right now.
MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I have grave doubts about the correctness of that supposition of yours, Mr Chairman. If Mr Potgieter is going to come and give evidence, I will have to cross-examine him at ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Well we might have to sit a little later or sit till tomorrow and we can sort something out. We don't want to inconvenience him too much. Otherwise we'll perhaps call him tomorrow morning?
MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, maybe just so that I can fully explain to him what has happened, maybe can I request the Committee to give an indication whether they are going to limit his evidence and what they will seek from him and cross-examination to a specific aspect, because this can open a Pandora's box, Mr Chairman, for which I am not prepared at this stage and I don't know how far this is going to go.
CHAIRPERSON: Well we I think, would limit the evidence we wish from him to that relating to his dealings with Mr Mabotha and with Mr de Kock, in connection therewith. We do not intend to have him here to be cross-examined over his career as a policeman, it is over this particular incident.
MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, I'm not sure about this, I'm just enquiring. Mr Potgieter was subpoenaed to testify on this aspect before the TRC, and this was done at the Section 29 hearing of Mrs Mandela. He did testify fully there. If this Committee has also got the power to call him again to repeat that, Mr Chairman, then I'll accept that, but it was done, he did receive a subpoena and he did testify.
CHAIRPERSON: We certainly have the power to call him because we wish to make sure, to allow him to be subjected to cross-examination before we accept his version. You must agree, I think, that it would be unfair that other people have been cross-examined, to have one witness whose evidence is accepted not having been subjected to any testing where it conflicts with the evidence of a witness. You cross-examined Mr de Kock at some length.
MR ROSSOUW: Indeed Mr Chairman, indeed. Mr Chairman, can we adjourn so that I can take instructions?
CHAIRPERSON: Right.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION: CHAIRPERSON: Right, we'll revert to the question of continuing and hearing the evidence of Mr Potgieter and it has been agreed by all the relevant parties that the matter should stand over till Monday the 21st, when Mr Potgieter - so Mr Rossouw has assured us, will be available here to give evidence, and we trust that by then we will have had transcripts of the evidence Mr de Kock has given so far, which will then be made available to the parties during the course of next week and we will then continue with the hearing of the Mabotha incident. This means, unfortunately, that we will have to crowd out the matters set down for that week and a fresh date will have to be arranged. I trust all the relevant parties will be notified as soon as possible and I also have been told that the Section 29 proceedings will be available at the beginning of next week.
Are there any other matters that we should - oh yes, I've also indicated in chambers that we do not require the presence on the 21st, of those parties who will not be involved by Mr Potgieter's evidence. I'm thinking of people like Mr Vermeulen and Mr Snyman. I think Mr Klopper fits into that too, doesn't he?
MR LAMEY: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: So their physical presence will not be required here. Obviously if something does arise, their legal advisors can make arrangements with them, I just don't want to inconvenience them by making them come back here.
MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman.
MS PATEL: Honourable Chairperson, sorry, before Mr Lamey is excused in that regard, I wish to place on record that I was called by Francois van der Merwe this morning, who represents Mr Bellingan, and he has requested that I place on record that Mr Bellingan denies his involvement in the assault of Mr Mabotha as stated by Mr Klopper in his evidence.
MR LAMEY: I'll take note for what it may be worth, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: I thank you all.
MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, I'm not involved in next week's hearing, can we perhaps just determine a time on Monday the 21st, to be here?
CHAIRPERSON: Time on Monday for what?
MR ROSSOUW: To start on Monday the 21st, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh, usually Monday, 10 o'clock. This coming Monday at 10 o'clock.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
