amntrans AMNESTY HEARINGS 1999-10-08 DURBAN 9 MARCEL TREVOR ANDREWS https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/hearing.php?id=53745&t=&tab=hearings https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/originals/amntrans/1999/9909271013_dbn_991008db.htm MS KOOVERJEE Thank you, Mr Chairperson, I'll call the next applicant, Mr Marcel Trevor Andrews. Sir, may I have leave to hand over the statement that I've prepared for Mr Andrews. CHAIRPERSON Yes, certainly, Ms Kooverjee, that will be Exhibit R. MARCEL TREVOR ANDREWS (sworn states) CHAIRPERSON Thank you. We've received a statement now, which we will call Exhibit R. Yes, Ms Kooverjee. EXAMINATION BY MS KOOVERJEE Thank you, Mr Chairperson. Mr Andrews, I refer you to bundle A1, page 190 to 194, is that you application for amnesty? MR ANDREWS Yes, it is. MS KOOVERJEE Have you been assisted in the completion of this application? MR ANDREWS Yes. MS KOOVERJEE Okay. You have a statement before you, would you please read it to the Committee. MR ANDREWS "My name is Marcel Trevor Andrews. I was born in Wentworth on the 3rd of February 1970. I spent most of my life in the working class township of Wentworth. I completed matric at Fairvale Secondary in 1988, and that school at a stage was in a dilapidated condition. Immediately after I left school I was employed by Sasol at Secunda in the Eastern Transvaal. I encountered serious problems with white employees as they were forever wanting to oppress me. I observed how oppression and apartheid dominated my life. I got involved in the Congress of South African Students, together Gasta(?) Sharpley at the beginning of 1984. At that time COSAS was an affiliate of the United Democratic Front. We went around the Wentworth area to try and politicise the students to join the Congress of South African Students. During January/February 1985 (that should read '86) ..." CHAIRPERSON You say that should be 1986? MR ANDREWS Yes. CHAIRPERSON So that's "During January/February 1986" MR ANDREWS "... I was recruited by comrade Vincent James to become an active member of the African National Congress, within a unit under Commander Robert McBride. At that stage we assisted in politicising the students in the area. I received ANC material, which I read. I often listened to Radio Freedom and participated in political discussions at the Allan Taylor residence. I refer to my amnesty application. I have applied for amnesty in respect of Item 13, referred to in bundle A1, page 8, referred to as "Grenade Attack on School Principal Leaf's House", which occurred on the 8th of April 1986. I was arrested for this incident and was to have been a State witness. However, since both Vincent James and Kevin Curtis pleaded guilty, no evidence was taken from me. I have not been indemnified for this act, nor have I as yet been charged for it. A day or two before the 8th of April 1986, Vincent trained me in the use of handgrenades. This was theoretical training. On the day in question and ...(indistinct) 9.30pm, Vincent James, Kevin Curtis and I left the Allan Taylor residence to go to Mr Leaf's house. I knew Mr Leaf as a member of the Labour Party and also as a police reservist. Two handgrenades were used. I carried one and Vincent James carried the other. We approached Mr Leaf's house from the back and threw the handgrenades to the front of the house. There were no injuries and minimal damage to his property. I confirm comrade Robert's submissions on this operation. We were at that stage concerned the Labour Party supported a State of emergency and cross-border raids. We understood Mr Leaf as a legitimate target." Thank you. MS KOOVERJEE Thank you, Sir, that is the evidence. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS KOOVERJEE CHAIRPERSON Thank you. Mr Berger, do you have any questions you'd like to put? MR BERGER No questions, Chairperson. NO QUESTIONS BY MR BERGER CHAIRPERSON Mr Dehal? CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DEHAL Thank you, Chairperson, just to clarify one aspect. Mr Andrews, Mr McBride tells me that the general understanding amongst the comrades in Wentworth and in political circles around Wentworth was that in human rights trials, political trials like the one you were involved in when you became a state witness against your comrades, it was generally done not freely and voluntarily, but under pressure at the hands of the Security Police. MR ANDREWS That's correct. MR DEHAL Is that how you elected - well elected would be the incorrect word, is that how you came to be the State witness in this matter against Vincent James and the other? MR ANDREWS Well there wasn't like any physical pressure, but I can just maybe explain the circumstances. MR DEHAL Briefly. MR ANDREWS Okay. I was held alone at Brighton Beach Police Station, in single cells and not being able to communicate with other people and this constantly playing on my mind. That's exactly the circumstances under which I agreed to lead evidence for the State. JUDGE PILLAY Do I understand you correctly that in return for becoming a State witness you would be relieved of the burden of doing solitary confinement? Was the promise made to you? MR ANDREWS Yes, and subsequently being released. JUDGE PILLAY And that you would be released from any incarceration? CHAIRPERSON Prosecutions. MR ANDREWS Yes. JUDGE PILLAY And you would not be held under the specific law under which you were being held at the time? MR ANDREWS Yes, that's correct. MR DEHAL Thank you, Judge. Just briefly again, how old were you at the time? MR ANDREWS At the time of the Leaf incident I was 16 years old. MR DEHAL And when you were in detention you were just slightly over 16? MR ANDREWS That's correct, Sir. MR DEHAL And how long were you in detention for? MR ANDREWS I was held in Brighton Beach for over, a little bit over three months. CHAIRPERSON In solitary confinement you say. MR ANDREWS Yes. MR DEHAL And was it also widely understood and accepted amongst the comrades that when you participated at the level that you did, openly being seen to be a Security Police witness or a State witness at the behest of the Security Police, that when you are released from custody and you get back to the township you are ostracised, you are rejected by your own people? And indeed, the accused when they come off, like Mr McBride and his family would have rejected you? MR ANDREWS Yes. MR DEHAL Yes. And that you also feared for your life because when you get back to the township, in those volatile days, death would have appeared to you to have been inevitable, perhaps at the hands of the comrades as well. MR ANDREWS Yes, I did consider that. MR DEHAL And was it not understood that the Security Police were playing this political game where witnesses or comrades are put one against the other and when they are finally released they are killed by each other? MR ANDREWS Yes. If I could just state something further on that. MR DEHAL Yes. JUDGE PILLAY Mr Dehal, what's the relevance of all this? MR DEHAL Simply to indicate ...(intervention) JUDGE PILLAY What the South African Security Police used to get up to? MR DEHAL Sorry, two reasons, Judge. The first is that when Matthew Lecordier comes in there will be much to be said about his involvement as a State witness in the McBride trial and I was just setting this as a background record to show there's some level of corroboration in that regard. And whilst the opportunity was here I thought I'll use it. JUDGE PILLAY Carry on. For what it's worth, carry on. MR DEHAL Sorry, you were saying something. MR ANDREWS This is what I had thought at the time, that at the end of trial I did not lead evidence. The Security Police had some difficulty in letting me, in releasing me at the end of the trial. So as a result, when I got back to the community I was not really ostracised by all the comrades and if I could say, I was accepted and embraced by some of them. MR DEHAL And lastly, the McBride family, especially Robert McBride and you, have reconciled, you have been forgiven and you are all friends again? MR ANDREWS Yes, that's true. MR DEHAL Thank you, very much. Thank you. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DEHAL CHAIRPERSON Thank you, Mr Dehal. Mr Richard, do you have any questions you'd like to put? CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD Yes, Chairperson, a few. At paragraph 1 or section 1, in the second paragraph, you say you attended discussions at the Allan Taylor residence. My question is, at the age of 16, how did you come to attend those meetings? MR ANDREWS Well I was an active member of the Congress of South African Students, I was also an active supporter of the Unit Committee of Concern and the United Democratic Front and as a result we often held meetings at the Allan Taylor residence. MR RICHARD During the period late '85, early '86, were you at meetings there then? MR ANDREWS Yes, that's correct. MR RICHARD Now what was discussed at those meetings? MR ANDREWS Well I was involved in a number of organisations at that time and we attended meetings there frequently, almost on a daily basis, so I can't really ... MR RICHARD Do you recall discussions concerning targets, potential targets? MR ANDREWS No, we did not discuss anything of that sort. MR RICHARD Did you ever discuss places where there might be concentrations of Security personnel? MR ANDREWS No, we did not. MR RICHARD Now you say you joined a unit under the command of Mr McBride, did he give you any training? MR ANDREWS Mr McBride did not give me any training. MR RICHARD Now when it comes to training, what training did you receive with regard to weapons? MR ANDREWS I only received theoretical training from my comrade, Vincent James. MR RICHARD And what did he ... MR ANDREWS In the use of handgrenades. MR RICHARD Any other weapons? MR ANDREWS No. MR RICHARD Did you ever discuss with him or get taught by him as to what sort of targets you might throw handgrenades at? MR ANDREWS We discussed it, yes. MR RICHARD What was the discussion? MR ANDREWS Well we discussed that we should attack Labour Party members or police reservists, or any other possible target of which we just discussed. MR RICHARD Within the context of those discussions, would a person who had been a police reservist but no longer be active, be considered as a legitimate target? MR ANDREWS I don't know if I understand you correctly. A person who was no longer active in the police reservists? MR RICHARD Someone who had been for a while a police reservist but had stopped being active, would such a person be still considered a legitimate target? MR ANDREWS I would have considered that person a legitimate target. MR RICHARD Now if someone's involvement with the Labour Party at the time had insisted on putting up posters during 1983 and been associated with Labour Party members, what would you consider that person to be? MR ANDREWS I would have also considered that person to be a collaborator. MR RICHARD And the family of such a person, would they also be considered collaborators? MR ANDREWS Had they supported the Labour Party and their policies, yes, I should think that they should also be collaborators. MR RICHARD And if all they had to connect them with the Labour Party was the fact that they were married to somebody who was perceived to be a supporter of the Labour Party, would that be enough to make you consider them to be a collaborator? MR ANDREWS Is that now being based purely on the fact that the person was married to a member, or ...(intervention MR RICHARD That's the only factor that you've got. MR ANDREWS I'm not sure. MR RICHARD Now when you threw the handgrenade at the Leaf house, did you know who was inside the house? MR ANDREWS No, I did not. MR RICHARD Did you know the Klein family? MR ANDREWS Yes, I knew the Klein family, I was a personal friend of the son of Mr Klein, we grew up together. MR RICHARD You grew up with Mr Klein's son, is the import of your answer? MR ANDREWS Yes. MR RICHARD Yes. Now does that mean you were often at their house? MR ANDREWS Yes, I visited their house. MR RICHARD Now during which period was it that you visited the Klein house as a friend of their son's? MR ANDREWS From childhood as I should say. MR RICHARD Until when? MR ANDREWS I should think that at the time I became politicised and realised, Mr Klein being a member of the Labour Party and a police reservist and his role in the community, I stopped. MR RICHARD When was that? MR ANDREWS At about late '83, beginning '84, when I became politicised and joined the Congress of South African Students. MR RICHARD Would you have been aware that inasmuch as Mr Klein was a police reservist, he stopped participating in whatever activity sometime around 1984? MR ANDREWS I was not aware of that. MR RICHARD Now prior to 1984, what sort of reservist duties did he undertake? Do you know? MR ANDREWS I'm not sure. MR RICHARD Now what did Mr Klein do, to your knowledge, to support the Labour Party? MR ANDREWS All I know is that Mr Klein was an active member of the Labour Party. MR RICHARD Would the act of putting up posters to assist the Labour Party in their campaign in 1983 be considered in your mind, to make him an active participant, member? MR ANDREWS I didn't see Mr Klein putting up posters or anything like that, but I knew that he was a member, an active member. MR RICHARD Do you know what he did in and about the Labour Party's activities? MR ANDREWS No, I do not know. MR RICHARD Now when you were trained, were you given any criteria as to how to select a target? MR ANDREWS Well we just discussed it, myself and Vincent and Kevin. As I said earlier on we discussed amongst ourselves. MR RICHARD Was the topic of what civilian or other injuries that you could cause by going on an attack, discussed? MR ANDREWS Yes, we did discuss that. MR RICHARD And what was the content of the discussion? MR ANDREWS Well we discussed as to whether we would want to severely injure someone who could have been at the target and we decided no, we did not want to do that because had we wanted to do that we most probably would have went up to the house and threw a grenade right into, through a window or something like that. MR RICHARD So am I correct in deciding that when you threw the grenade you deliberately didn't throw it through a window so as not to cause personal injuries? MR ANDREWS That's correct. MR RICHARD And that was in line with and consistent with what you had discussed with Mr James? MR ANDREWS That's correct, Sir. MR RICHARD Now when it comes to Mr McBride, was he ever party to those discussions? MR ANDREWS No, he was not. MR RICHARD Now before you went on that attack, did you discuss the plan of the attack with anyone else besides Mr James? MR ANDREWS No, it was only discussed amongst ourselves. MR RICHARD And "ourselves" means? MR ANDREWS Myself, Mr James and Mr Curtis. MR RICHARD Are you aware whether they discussed it with anyone else? MR ANDREWS No, they would not have discussed it with anyone. MR RICHARD Who obtained the handgrenades? MR ANDREWS Mr James obtained the handgrenades. MR RICHARD No further questions. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RICHARD CHAIRPERSON Thank you, Mr Richard. Mr Prior? ADV PRIOR I have no questions, thank you. NO QUESTIONS BY ADV PRIOR CHAIRPERSON Mr Kooverjee, do you have any re-examination? MS KOOVERJEE None, thank you, Sir. CHAIRPERSON Adv Sigodi, do you have any questions? ADV SIGODI No questions, Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON Judge Pillay? JUDGE PILLAY What are your academic qualifications? MR ANDREWS Well I matriculated at Fairvale, I studied electronics at Durban Technical College. JUDGE PILLAY And at the time of the offence? MR ANDREWS At the time of the offence I was in standard nine and the Fairvale Secondary School. JUDGE PILLAY When that handgrenade was thrown, what did you think you wanted to do? What did you want to attain? Or why did you throw it there, what were your intentions? MR ANDREWS At that stage the Labour Party was ...(intervention) JUDGE PILLAY I can understand the political motive. MR ANDREWS Okay. JUDGE PILLAY Did you throw just to burn the door, did you want to kill somebody or? What offence did you intend? Because it's not clear from your documents. MR ANDREWS Okay. We wanted to show, I wanted to show the Labour Party that their participation in the tricameral system was unacceptable to the people. JUDGE PILLAY Thank I can understand. MR ANDREWS Okay, we wanted to frighten them and to ...(intervention) JUDGE PILLAY You were unaware whether there were any occupants in the house? MR ANDREWS No, I did not know if there was anybody in the house. JUDGE PILLAY You nonetheless threw the handgrenade. MR ANDREWS Yes. JUDGE PILLAY Did it matter whether there was somebody in the house at the time, who would possibly be hurt or killed? Or would you still in any event have thrown the handgrenade? MR ANDREWS We would have thrown it in any event, yes. JUDGE PILLAY Now something of - I just want to know, you and Mr Pearce testified that your attacks would be directed, amongst other people, the Security personnel etc., and members of the Labour Party. Was your attacked confined to the Labour Party? - when we're talking about collaborators. MR ANDREWS Well being in Wentworth we could have, anybody who belongs to any other political organisation that supported the tricameral system ...(intervention) JUDGE PILLAY Would be a target? MR ANDREWS Yes, I should think so. JUDGE PILLAY Yes, thank you. CHAIRPERSON Mr Andrews, when you threw that grenade, where did you throw it, did you throw it against a wall or on the roof or in the garden, down the driveway? Where exactly did you aim the grenade that you threw? MR ANDREWS We threw in the direction of the front, to the front of the house. CHAIRPERSON What, in the garden, to land on the yard? MR ANDREWS Ja, most probably in the yard. CHAIRPERSON You said at the time that you were 16 years of age, still very young, was Mr James and Curtis of the same age as you at the time? MR ANDREWS There was a year apart between us. Mr Curtis was 17 and Mr James was, I think, 18. CHAIRPERSON And who chose the target, who suggested that Mr Leaf's house become the target? MR ANDREWS We decided collectively that, Mr Chairman, that Mr Leaf's house should be the target because of where his house was situated. That was one of the deciding factors. CHAIRPERSON Yes, thank you. Are there any questions arising out of questions that have been put by Members of the Panel? MS KOOVERJEE None, thank you, Sir. NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MS KOOVERJEE CHAIRPERSON No questions. Thank you, Mr Andrews, that concludes your testimony, you may stand down. MR ANDREWS Thanks. WITNESS EXCUSED MS KOOVERJEE Thank you, Mr Chairperson, I believe Mr Dehal will now address you with regard to further applicants. MR DEHAL ADDRESSES Mr Chairperson, you will notice from the list of witnesses and applicants that Ms Kooverjee and I represent, that what has happened today is I have decided to represent Mr Lecordier and the reason is simply that he falls within the purvee(purview) of the broader spectrum of acts which covers Mr McBride and Ms Apelgren. Ms Kooverjee has therefore represented Mr Allan Pearce. Now insofar as the remaining persons we represent are concerned, Janet Apelgren who Ms Kooverjee represents, is in Australia. You heard from Ms Narkedien that she's not here. Then we've got Derek McBride, who has handed us a statement which Ms Kooverjee intends to read. We were hoping to do that at the end so that it facilitates the terminal end. Mr Lecordier is here, unfortunately as we all know, he's been in custody. We've had some difficulties in finalising, I've had difficulties in finalising his statement, principally because we have difficulties in accessing him at prison. When I got there on various occasions we met with him briefly, but the prison authorities have given us lots of problems, too numerous to mention. I'm hoping that I'd have this weekend to finalise his statement. We have a broad statement, it's multi-paged but I would like to sit with him properly and canvass that so that we don't have any problems when I lead him. That's really the last witness, apart from everybody else. And on Antonio du Preez, Ms Kooverjee has a statement to read out, like with Derek McBride, but that would be very brief. With Gordon Webster, I will address you later at the end, but I'm making certain endeavours to contact him again. He's been in touch with me, but unfortunately he's got no funds to be here. His friends have been phoning me from time to time. He would have liked to have been here, but I'm now out of touch with him. I've tried to raise him, I failed to. I don't know where he is anymore, but I'm hoping that I can raise him this weekend, I've sent messages to him. And that's where we stand. CHAIRPERSON So are you saying that, with regard to getting in touch with Mr Webster, you may or may not call him as a witness? MR DEHAL Sorry, correct. CHAIRPERSON Yes, so basically what you're saying is you want an adjournment now until Monday morning. MR DEHAL Insofar as Matthew Lecordier is concerned, yes, otherwise we could round up the rest of the witnesses. Sorry, with Matthew Lecordier, I would like to consult with him in prison this weekend, settle his statement and then start on Monday morning and I'm pretty sure we'd be over with him by Monday. CHAIRPERSON So what would you propose to do today then? MR DEHAL For present we cannot take the matter any further insofar as Ms Kooverjee and I are concerned. I would be not be objectionable to any witnesses testifying at this stage, if the rest of the Panel Members and the parties are agreeable. CHAIRPERSON Witnesses not called by yourself? MR DEHAL None by myself, yes. But insofar as I am concerned, yes it would be correct that if any witnesses or other persons are not called, I will seek an adjournment till Monday morning, thank you. CHAIRPERSON Yes. Mr Berger? MR BERGER Chairperson, we would have no problem if some of the victims wanted to testify now and perhaps we could save some time, instead of adjourning early. CHAIRPERSON But you don't intend calling any further witnesses yourself? MR BERGER No, we have no further witnesses. CHAIRPERSON Ms Kooverjee, do you just associate yourself with what Mr Dehal has said, or is there anything further you'd like to add? MS KOOVERJEE Nothing further, thank you Mr Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON Mr Richard? MR RICHARD I've no problem with what's been said, but my clients have always indicated that they would like to give evidence at the end. CHAIRPERSON Yes, well we're not going to force anybody to give evidence when they don't want to give evidence and it's usual that they give evidence at the end, although if they want to give evidence now that would also be acceptable. MR RICHARD I will canvass their point of view, Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON Mr Prior? ADV PRIOR Mr Chairman, I don't at this stage have any specific witness in mind. There are a few loose ends dealing with statistics and other information that if there's no agreement thereto, I might have to lead some evidence. In principle I have no objection to the proposal of Mr Dehal, save to possible say while Mr Lecordier is here, he could properly use the ...(intervention) CHAIRPERSON Use the time here rather than battling with, as you said you have in the past, the prison authorities in prison. MR DEHAL I'm indebted to you. In fact we managed to get five minutes yesterday afternoon and then the prison authorities vehicle arrived and they were husked away. I presume if we adjourn at about this time or shortly hereafter, I'd be able to get the time. Remember it's a Friday and ...(intervention) JUDGE PILLAY Well perhaps you can have longer because 4 o'clock seems to be significant to prisons. MR DEHAL I agree. Except today is Friday and I think the prisons have something about Friday and closing early as well. CHAIRPERSON In any event, I'm sure an arrangement can be made because we are in the middle of the hearing and we don't need their red tape or bureaucracy or whatever to interrupt it, there must be a little bit of flexibility. ADV PRIOR Then I'd propose that if the Panel made a ruling in a sense, that Mr Lecordier be available for the rest of today until whatever time to consult. CHAIRPERSON Certainly, I'd go along with that, I think that would be the most convenient. Because I presume Mr Dehal, you've reserved the day for this matter. Mr Lecordier is here, it's probably a better situation, better circumstances to consult in in this environment rather than in prison. I would therefore direct that you be given an opportunity to consult with Mr Lecordier at least up until 4 o'clock in the afternoon. MR DEHAL I'm indebted, Mr Chairperson. ADV PRIOR Mr Chairman, sorry, there's one other matter. Whilst in the past we've allowed statements to be read out, it's also proper I think that copies of those statements be circulated, particularly through the Evidence Leader, that we can assess the information in that statement before it's actually just read out onto the record without any particular warning. CHAIRPERSON What do you mean "to assess"? ADV PRIOR ...(inaudible) to know whether that information is going to assist the hearing or contribute to the applications serving before you. CHAIRPERSON What do you mean, statements from applicants? ADV PRIOR It was indicated that Mr Derek McBride's statement was going to be read out, we don't know what it says ...(intervention) CHAIRPERSON Oh sorry, I thought you meant like Exhibits P, Q and R, which is basically the evidence that they're leading. ADV PRIOR No, I'm referring to persons not appearing before the Committee and wish to have statements read out to them. I'm simply asking Mr Dehal that we have sight of those before that stage, or ample sight so that we can also consider what information they seek to place before the Committee. MR DEHAL I have no difficulty with that, Mr Chairperson. My only difficulty is, I'm waiting for it to be finalised and properly signed etc. CHAIRPERSON Thank you, Mr Dehal. What I'd suggest now is perhaps we can take an adjournment, I see it's nearly tea time. Mr Richard, you can speak with your clients, find out if anyone wishes to give any evidence now or make a statement, they may do so. If they prefer to do so later, after the evidence has been led by all the applicants, then that is quite acceptable. You can also indicate to them that the victims have a choice, they can either decide to give evidence, take the oath, in which event the other legal representatives will be given an opportunity to put questions if they want, or else to just come and make a statement as such, in which event they'll just make their statement without being subjected to questioning. MR RICHARD I will convey they have the options of giving evidence under oath and being questioned, or making an ...(intervention) CHAIRPERSON A statement or whatever. MR RICHARD What I was going to add on, and it's for the benefit of the victims as well, there is a process going on and I would like the opportunity right now to discuss with them the further continuation of what is afoot. CHAIRPERSON Yes, thank you very much, Mr Richard. So at this stage we'll take the an adjournment and then if you can just let us know what's going to happen, then we'll come in very briefly. If nothing further is going to happen, if there's not going to be any statements or evidence, then I will formally postpone the matter to Monday, but we'll come in and do that here or else we'll come back to hear evidence or a statement, whatever the situation. Thank you. We'll now take the tea adjournment. COMMITTEE ADJOURNS ON RESUMPTION ADV PRIOR Mr Richard has asked to be excused. He's with the victims at the moment. What's been decided is simply we're going to adjourn now, just the adjournment, and he's asked to be excused. I said I would convey anything that arose here. CHAIRPERSON Yes, thank you, Mr Prior. So then is it agreed we'll adjourn until Monday when we expect the evidence of Mr Lecordier to be proceeded with. MR DEHAL Correct. CHAIRPERSON Thank you. MR VAN DEN BERG Mr Chairperson, before you proceed. Mr Berger and I had raised with you in chambers yesterday whether we might be excused. The arrangement I have with Mr Prior is that this matter will be argued on Wednesday and we ask that we might be excused until then. CHAIRPERSON Yes. MR VAN DEN BERG ...(inaudible - no microphone) CHAIRPERSON Yes, I don't know how long it's going to take, but if it's going to be Wednesday, that would be fine. JUDGE PILLAY Perhaps you'd better prepare for Tuesday also. I don't see Mr Lecordier being longer than the day. CHAIRPERSON But we don't know whether or not there's going to be any witnesses or victims. What happens if Mr Lecordier's finished, let's say by lunchtime or whatever, you know if evidence is finished early? ADV PRIOR Mr Chairman, my sense of it is that Mr Lecordier plus whoever might give evidence after, will take a day, which leaves us basically a day, Tuesday, to consider all the evidence, prepare Heads of Argument and argue the matter. Obviously I'm open, if the Committee says we do it on - I'm just thinking of the preparation time, that one's not rushed. CHAIRPERSON Mr Prior, there's no other witness besides any victims that might be giving a statement or evidence? ADV PRIOR I'm not anticipating it at this stage. Well, as I indicated we're still getting the list and that information, but I'm sure we can, between the parties, come to some arrangement as to background information. No, so from the Commission's side I don't intend calling anybody, it's just the victims who are presently engaged with ... I understand from Mr Richard, and I was with them at the adjournment, that several of them wanted to address the Committee and give evidence. CHAIRPERSON Yes. Mr van den Berg, would it be possible that if there was some sort of communication with you on Monday, that you could be here Tuesday afternoon sort of thing? MR VAN DEN BERG Yes certainly, Mr Chairperson, we would be ready to argue as soon as whatever statements and evidence has been adduced on behalf of the victims, be that Monday afternoon or Tuesday morning. We're in your hands. CHAIRPERSON Yes. No well I think if we can do it on that basis because it might well be Wednesday, depending on how long we take and also there might be a bit of time required to finish off the preparations for argument or whatever. But then on the other hand, if it does occur a bit earlier, if Mr Prior could communicate with you and give you of course reasonable notification of when we'll proceed. But from what it sounds like it will in all probability be Wednesday. Thank you. So at this stage then, Ladies and Gentlemen, because we're not in a position to receive any further evidence now - as you heard Mr Dehal has to finalise his consultations with the next applicant who's giving evidence, namely Mr Lecordier, he's asked for an adjournment until Monday, everybody's in agreement with that adjournment, so we will then adjourn until Monday morning at this venue at 10 o'clock. Thank you. COMMITTEE ADJOURNS