MR MARTINI
Thank you Mr Chairman.  I think I should respond because that's directed directly and squarely to my client.  I share the same sentiments as my colleague.  I think it's highly improper for that statement to be, not an affidavit, I understood it to be a statement, to be read to the Commission and it's with regret that Minister Omar should adopt such a stance.  We would have thought, this is a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, but what is important Mr Chairman, is that a Judge of the High Court of South Africa, of which - who fell within the jurisdiction in years before Mr Dullah Omar, interdicted the proceedings from taking place in Athlone.
	Mr Chairperson, unfortunately Dullah Omar, Minister Omar was not there, the Judge did remark that the whole process in selecting the venue was unfair to the applicant and the order was granted and this is very important and I want to put something on record, since there is transparency, Mr Chairman.  At the outset, as soon as the venue was known, objections were made by myself, representing Mr van Zyl, as to the venue as being insensitive, impartial and irresponsible.  Those objections were not taken heed of.  On the contrary, and I'm sure all my learned colleagues appearing here with me today, will support what I have to state now, Mr Chairman.   A pre-trial conference was held.  The notice is available.  The Commission placed as an agenda on the notice and I quote paragraph 3 thereof, "The venue for the said hearing."
That venue, the issue of the venue was to be debated.  When we got to the pre-trial conference on, I think it was the 2nd of March 2000, the Commission adopted the stance  through Ms Coleridge who is here to say, the Commission was not negotiable on the relocation of the venue.  This, Mr Chairman, necessitated unfortunately and regrettably, an urgent application being launched by M van Zyl, interdicting these proceedings from taking place today at the original venue, namely the Early Learning Centre, pending the relocation of the venue and a sad state of events transpired from then, Mr Chairman.  	Mr van Zyl continuously requested that the venue be altered, in fact it was suggested that the venue be altered to the TRC building.  This was met with strong opposition.  To quote, Mr Chairman, there were reports to the press and this is what I also find regrettable, after all, this is the Truth and Reconciliation Commission we're appearing before.  In the Cape Times, March the 8th edition:  Ms Lynn Coleridge reports, and it's quoted:  
"The TRC Amnesty Committee stands vehemently opposed to this application ..."
and she goes on:
"... because we have a duty in terms of the promotion of national unity and reconciliation to make amnesty process accessible to victims."
Now, it's with regret that such emotive words as "vehemently opposes" and representing this very Committee.  Notwithstanding that, Mr Chairman, an application is then launched by my client, Mr van Zyl, where no order for costs is being sought against the Commission.  This was done in the belief that the Commission is to be impartial and that's my understanding of the whole Act, thinking that the Commission would abide a decision of the High Court.  With regret, the Commission carried out what it had publicly stated and vehemently opposed the application. 	Notwithstanding that no order for costs was being sought against the Commission, one would have expected the Commission to have taken a stance to abide by the decision.  Affidavits were filed by members, we assume, of the Commission and I stress here, Mr Chairman, that nowhere in the affidavit was it ever alleged that the deponents were authorised or acting on behalf of the Commission, so I do want to be fair, I do not want to suggest that it was done with the Commission's knowledge or approval, because there is no such statement.  We can only assume it was and it's with regret that in those affidavits a logistics officer of the Commission states under oath that the manner in which the Commission determines a venue is by establishing the victims, where the events took place and once she has that information, she states and I'm summarising, but the affidavits can be available, she then sets out to obtain a venue and Ms Cloete says that she did this on the 31st of January 2000.  In other words that she was given the information so that she could proceed to locate a venue.  	Surprisingly and unfortunately, Mr Chairman, the Commission had addressed a letter to my office on the 25th of January 2000, stating that the venue was the Early Learning Centre.  Now, that belies the very statement that only on the 31st was the Commission setting out to establish a venue.  The answer given in court, but never corrected on affidavit by Mr van Rooyen from the Bar was:  "Sorry, it was a mistake", but unfortunately it's a mistake that's under oath and it's never been rectified.  
	Mr Chairman, in the affidavit and I call them representatives of the Commission because I do not want to cast any aspersions to the Committee because there was no representation made that there was acting with the authority of the Commission or this Committee, disputing my client's bona fides, suggesting the whole application was male fides, Mr Chairman, well, a Judge of the High Court has corrected the position, it has found that my client's application was bona fides because the order was granted with costs against the Commission and that's unfortunate because it's a waste of taxpayers' money.  Why do I say that, Mr Chairman?  Because immediately after the order and within hours, we received notification that the venue was changed and lo and behold and remarkably, my client in his affidavit had suggested that the venue be held in this very building.  That was opposed on the basis that there's no facilities in this building and remarkably within hours of the order, we now find this venue available.  My client's concerns, as the Judge remarked, had not been taken into consideration in considering the venue and my client, unfortunately for victims or Minister Omar, has rights even under this Act and a Judge upheld his right and that was a victory for justice and its with regret that Minister Omar does not accept a decision of the Judge.  
	Mr Chairman, notwithstanding all this, my client, Mr van Zyl, has applied for amnesty voluntarily,  notwithstanding that it is his contention that indemnity has already been granted under a previous Act and he has done so in order to participate within the spirit of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, for the purpose of attempting to achieve reconciliation in this country and in our way forward and in so doing, Mr Chairman, he has come here today to these very hearings, notwithstanding the treatment he was given, with the expectation and belief that he will be given a fair, just, impartial hearing and that his application for amnesty will be dealt with on the same basis, which we trust Mr Chairman will be the case and unfortunately, Mr Chairman, if Minister Omar was here today and chose to participate, we accept he has pressing business, possibly he could have made a reconciliation with my client, after all I understand this is the purpose of this, to face each other, to possibly reconcile.  He has chosen not to be here and it's with regret that Minister Omar has chosen to make this statement that he has made.  Thank you Mr Chairman.