MR PRIOR: Today is the 15th of July 1999. The Ellis Park matter was adjourned to today for argument. However, as I have indicated to you in Chambers and I also indicated to my learned colleagues representing the applicants and the victims, there was a development which will affect the further conduct, possible further conduct of this hearing. Mr Chairman, may I just briefly place on record that I received a call yesterday afternoon, fairly late in the afternoon, from a potential witness. I do not deem it necessary to disclose identities or the content of the information that she gave to me, suffice to say that these allegations need to be investigated in the interests of justice. They may come to nothing, they may be substantiated. I have discussed the matter with my learned friends. They are in agreement that in the interests of justice, the matter should be investigated and that I report back to the Committee and to them in due course. That being the case, they did not object to and adjournment and I ask that then the matter be adjourned until further notice. Possibly if there is not further evidence to be led in this matter, we can require written heads, which would obviate the constituting of the Hearing again. I am indebted to the Chair and I do apologise. However, I was, I am in a dilemma, I'm in a difficult position having a duty to present all information of whatever nature, to the Committee, which is, or may be relevant to these proceedings. Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: One further fact Mr Prior which I understand from what you told me, I may have misunderstood you, is that the person concerned had earlier made an effort to disclose this information to others and there'd been no result. That is a further matter that you can enquire into and verify. I would also and I express the views of the Committee, ask that you yourself make every endeavour to make these inquiries as soon as possible. I am aware of the problems that fact members of the staff as to travel, but you are in this area now. I would be very grateful if you could undertake the responsibility of personally interviewing this person, getting what information you can, assessing so far as you can, the reliability of such information and also in the time you may wish to enquire into other matters that have arisen and I think we'll all be grateful if you could prepare a brief report which will be submitted not only to the Committee but to the legal advisers, disclosing the conclusions you have arrived at and whether you think it is necessary for a further hearing. But if it is not necessary for a further hearing, I think that we have to have regard to time and to cost, I think it would be desirable that we then have written heads.

MR PRIOR: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, thank you, yes I'm of a mind to in fact travel to Kroonstad today to follow the matter up and I will keep my learned colleagues informed of the developments. Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. I am sorry for those who have sat here throughout the hearings, who have been here time and again, when nothing has happened, it's happened once again and I wonder whether the legal advisers would agree with me that copies of the heads could be made available to the victims who have been present so that they can follow up what is happening. They have, as you all know, spent a great deal of time listening and I think if we can ensure that they get to know what happens hereafter, we will do so.

MS CAMBANIS: Chairperson, notwithstanding the adjournment, I have prepared heads of argument which I would ask to be handed in at this stage. I do have extra copies which I can hand to the families this morning and I would prefer to do that at this stage and if necessary supplement, depending.

CHAIRPERSON: Fine. Thank you. We're very grateful to you for that, thank you.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Chairperson, I'm in the same position, I have prepared written heads. I will hand those up and make a copy available to the families. In so far as the allegations that have been made to Mr Prior are concerned, the person who is implicated is a client of mine. This incident is not contained in his amnesty application. His amnesty application is one of the more detailed amnesty applications which has been ventilated before another Panel and I can make copies of that available to the Panel if it would assist.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand, one of the members of my Committee who was on that other Panel, thinks there may have been mention made of this at that hearing and a denial, so if you could, have you got the record?

MR VAN DEN BERG: I've got the record, we're busy preparing for the next round of those particular hearings.

CHAIRPERSON: So if you have a look and if it is anything relevant there ...

MR VAN DEN BERG: I will extract that and make that available.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Yes, I am indebted to Dr Tsotsi.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you also, I don't want to interfere, I'm not part of the investigation, but if it's possible, I know it's asking an awful lot of anyone to say where were you eleven years ago, but if maybe, in the light of the incident and the publicity it got, that you client may be aware of where he was on that occasion and it may be somewhere far away. If that is the position, you can perhaps tell Mr Prior.

MR VAN DEN BERG: I will take an instruction, thank you Mr Chairperson.

MS CAMBANIS: May I just mention that at the commencement of this hearing, I think it was put on record that this hearing was supposed to follow directly after the Rashid hearing and it was in that context that Ellis Park was brought up because it was supposed to be a part-heard. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Nothing else from anybody?

MR RICHARD: Chairperson, I would like with the Committee's permission, to address the Committee on a letter that was handed in by the ANC yesterday. It is my submission that it is of very little, if not of no evidential value at all, but it does implicate the ANC. It is by argument that it might, in view of the development, be appropriate for the ANC to be requested to make representations in terms of Section 32(b) of the Act, which provides that if the Commission contemplates making a decision which may be to the detriment of a person, the person should be afforded an opportunity to submit representations within a specified time. One of the many issues in this matter is whether this particular event fell within the framework of the policy. The letter refers to the ANC's written submission. In the second paragraph of the letter, the letter states, in the written submission we only stated that the details of this operation would be contained in the amnesty application of the applicants who are now before you. The written submissions, with respect are somewhat more terse. There they say, "With regard to the Ellis Park Car Bomb in 1988 about which the TRC has asked a number of questions, the information required is contained in an amnesty application." Now I believe that in view of the nature and particular factual character of this bomb, it might be appropriate and I would urge the Committee to request the ANC to make a written submission as to whether this particular incident did or did not fall within its policy and framework. This letter doesn't answer that question at all.

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't the question simply, does the ANC accept responsibility? The purpose of that section as I understand it, is where there is a possibility of a finding being made and the people concerned do not want such a finding, they can make representations. If the purpose of the letter is to accept liability, then it is not a question of making representations to avoid a finding, is it?

MR RICHARD: I would suggest that the ANC now has an opportunity to be given an opportunity to add further comment if they should.

CHAIRPERSON: I have no objection to merely telling the ANC that the letter itself does not contain a great deal of information, it is not evidence as such. If they wish to, and I think this is a matter that I would rather than anything being done by the Committee as such, that Mr Prior as the Leader of Evidence, make contact with them, inform them of the relevant sections, inform them of the position that has been reached and explain the position to them and you can perhaps do that after you have spoken to them, Mr Prior, you can set down what has happened in writing and that could also be submitted. Do you agree?

MR RICHARD: I believe that is appropriate Chairperson.

MR KOOPEDI: I also agree but perhaps one should mention that the section that my learned friend is referring to is a section that relates to investigation and not necessarily amnesty hearings.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, the investigation continues throughout the hearing, doesn't it, which is why we're adjourning the matter today. I would like to thank all of you for your assistance during this hearing. I had hoped very much that we would have reached the conclusion today but we haven't and if you can give us your heads before we leave. Thank you very much. We now adjourn.