TRC Final Report

Volume 1

Chapter 7

Subsection 8

<H5> Gideon Nieuwoudt v the Truth and Reconciliation Commission: second application H5>

65 On 22 May 1996, the applicant brought contempt of court proceedings against the Commission in terms of the order obtained on 20 May 1996.¹⁰

66 Nieuwoudt alleged that, at the human rights violations hearing held in New Brighton on 21 May, the Commission had allowed evidence to be given by Mr Mlandile Quntu, who alleged that Nieuwoudt had harassed and intimidated him in 1984. He also alleged that, in giving evidence, a Mr Dennis Neer had mentioned Nieuwoudt’s name and had implied that Nieuwoudt had threatened to kill him.

67 The matter was settled and the settlement was made an order of court.

<H5> Gideon Nieuwoudt v the Truth and Reconciliation Commission: third application H5>

68 On 6 June 1996, Nieuwoudt brought a further application alleging contempt of court against the Commission, the chairperson of the Commission, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the vice-chairperson Dr Alex Boraine, the Reverend Bongani Finca and three others¹¹ .

69 Nieuwoudt argued that, whilst witnesses were told not to mention his name, they were allowed to refer to him as “the man whose name they shouldn’t mention” or “Mr X”, making it clear to all that he was the person being referred to. He also stated that this received wide media coverage and constituted a violation of paragraphs 2(i-iii) of the order of 22 May 1996.

70 Nieuwoudt alleged that he had been given no notice of such evidence being led and that the Commission had failed to comply with its undertaking to prevent the giving of evidence which clearly affected, implicated and caused prejudice to him.

71 The following settlement was reached between the two parties and made an order of the court:

a Nieuwoudt would have the opportunity to submit representations or give evidence, either immediately or at a mutually convenient time.

b The Commission would take all reasonable steps in good faith to furnish Nieuwoudt with any witness statement in its possession which might implicate him in the violation of human rights prior to any such evidence being led, together with information about when and where such evidence was to be heard.

c The Commission undertook to pay Nieuwoudt’s costs in respect of the application.

72 This agreement substituted the agreement of 22 May 1996.

10 Case No 1152/96 South Eastern Cape Local Division 11 Case 1253/96