CHAIRPERSON: Good morning Ladies and Gentlemen. Today we are supposed to proceed with the application of the following persons: Mr Mosiane, Mr Rosley, Mr Prinsloo, Mr Vermeulen, Mr Ras, Mr de Kock and Mr Mathebula. We have already heard evidence from all the applicants, save for Mr Mosiane.
We adjourned last week at a time when Mr Mathebula was under cross-examination by Ms van der Walt. The reason for the adjournment was to enable Mr Mathebula to be properly represented by counsel, since Mr Lamey who was representing him, withdrew his representation for professional reasons, as stated on the record. We are now told that Mr Mathebula is going to be represented by Adv Joubert and that Mr Mosiane is going to be represented by Adv Greyling. Is that so, Mr Joubert?
MR JOUBERT: Indeed, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Greyling?
MR GREYLING: Indeed.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Are we in a position to proceed, Mr Joubert, with Mr Mathebula's examination?
MR JOUBERT: Madam Chair, yes, as indicated in chambers, we are in a position that we can let Mr Mathebula continue with his cross-examination. I have not had the opportunity to peruse the whole record, so I will not be in a position to afford him the necessary protection against any unreasonable cross-examination, but I will request the Committee to lend the necessary assistance in this regard.
The other problem that will arise is, I will not be in a position to re-examine on a proper basis, I will need to prepare. So at that stage I will possibly then request a further postponement. But the proceedings can continue for a little while. I understand that there are some of my colleagues who also are not in the position to continue, and we have discussed a possible date for the matter to be heard.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Greyling, are you in a position to commence with Mr Mosiane's application, which will necessarily require you to be in a position to cross-examine Mr Mathebula?
MR GREYLING: Madam Chair, as I've indicated in chambers, I only received the record yesterday afternoon at 2 o'clock. I did endeavour to go through the record, but I couldn't go through it properly in detail, through the whole record due to the fact that I still have to cross-examine Mr Mathebula on Mr Mosiane's version and still lead Mr Mosiane's evidence. There is indeed no - we cannot continue today. On that basis we request that the matter be postponed. I also spoke to some of the other representatives and we had agreed on a date for a postponement.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, I am now told that Mr Greyling has had an opportunity to speak to you, amongst the people that he refers to by other legal representatives, what is your attitude with regard to having the matter postponed again to another date?
MR HATTINGH: We have no objection, Chairperson, and the date has been agreed.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen?
MR JANSEN: Similarly so, thank you Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt?
MS VAN DER WALT: We've got no objection.
MR WAGENER: Chairperson, it is somewhat disappointing, but apparently that's the way things must go.
MR CORNELIUS: I have been skipped. I have no objections to the ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Oh sorry, Mr Cornelius.
MR CORNELIUS: The date has been arranged and it suits me as well, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr van Heerden?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you, Madam Chair. In principle there's no objection. I spoke to the family of the deceased, they are greatly inconvenienced by this for specific reasons and that is that they had to take time off from work, but in the circumstances there is nothing that can be done. Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Well having regard to the reasons advanced by both Mr Joubert and Mr Greyling for seeking a postponement in this matter, we have to state that we are extremely unhappy that we have again to postpone this matter. We have already lost three days in relation to this incident. We however cannot go against the reasons advanced, particularly by Mr Greyling, we have to accept that he is not properly prepared. It is our interest to ensure that all applicants are properly and fairly represented. And to that extent, we reluctantly agree to a postponement of this matter. I am told that there has been an agreed date. Is that so, Mr Steenkamp?
ADV STEENKAMP: Indeed, Madam Chair. The date that has been set is the 10th of November. If it's possible, may I ask if that date has been agreed upon and if that date has been set, that this hearing be adjourned to that date and to start as early as possible, that specific day. Thank you, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: We will then postpone today's matter to the 10th of November at eight thirty.
ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Will that time be convenient to all counsel?
MR WAGENER: Chairperson, Jan Wagener on record. May I request from all my other colleagues here, whether they agree that one day only should suffice and that we need only have to make arrangements for this one day.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Wagener for mentioning that.
We have been assured in chambers that this matter will only take a day. We are postponing this matter on the understanding that the matter will be capable of being concluded, at least the cross-exam of Mr Mathebula, his re-examination, the leading of evidence of Mr Mosiane, his cross-examination, will definitely conclude before the end of the day on the 10th of November, and we would appreciate if we can be in a position to listen to argument on that day. As you are aware, we already have a very crowded roll. This, I take for granted has been communicated and has been agreed upon by all counsel involved in this incident.
Before we adjourn formally, may I request Correctional Services to ensure that Mr de Kock is brought here by 8 o'clock on the 10th of November. And we again wish to extend our appreciation to Correctional Services for having kept to the agreed times for bringing Mr de Kock. We hope we'll not be let down on the 10th of November.
This hearing is adjourned until the 10th of November. Thank you.
HEARING ADJOURNS UNTIL 10TH NOVEMBER 1999
