respondent and the other parties requesting letter is hereto annexed marked 'F 1. that everything that has been before the

Transcription

1 respondent and the other parties requesting that this should be done. A copy of the said letter is hereto annexed marked 'F 1. My affidavit has been prepared on the assumption that everything that has been before the first respondent will be before the above Honourable Court. Save where otherwise indicated, the facts deposed to herein are within my personal knowledge. 2.2 My wife and I and our remaining two major children are most concerned that the truth in relation to the circumstances of my son's death should be ascertained. that my son committed suicide. It is suggested My family and I cannot accept this. I have accordingly engaged attorneys and counsel to advise me and to appear for me at the inquest into his death. 3. I oppose this application on the grounds that: 3.1 The court will not interfere or exercise its power of review at the present stage in the inquest proceedings or give directions to the magistrate, more particularly as:

2 3.1.1 the applicants have not shown that they will suffer real prejudice; the bringing of the application has, to my prejudice, adversely affected the continuity of the inquest proceedings. 3.2 The ruling of the first respondent is in any event correct. 3.3 Furthermore, the making of the statement and its contents are admissible evidence to prove the matters in issue and will in any event be referred to: during the examination of a number of deponents who have stated in their affidavits that my son did not complain that he had been assaulted or about the conditions of his detention or interrogation; to show that those responsible for his detention and well-being failed

3 in their statutory duty to allow a magistrate or the inspector of detainees to see him or a district surgeon to examine him in respect of his injuries of which they must have been aware; generally to test the credibility of the witnesses who have deposed to affidavits concerning the circumstances of my son's detention and interrogation and his physical and mental condition. 4. AD PARAGRAPHS 1 TO 23 OF THE FOUNDING AFFIDAVIT OF PETRUS JOHANNES COETZEE I admit the allegations contained in these paragraphs in so far as they purport to summarise what occurred before the first respondent, but reserve to myself the right to make reference to the record which ought to have been placed by the first respondent before the Registrar of this Honourable Court and which should be placed before it for the proper adjudication of this M U P

4 application. I have been advised and submit that a decision as to whether or not the first respondent's ruling was correct and whether or not he committed any irregularity cannot be decided in vacuo. 5. I have been advised that before I deal in detail with the remaining allegations and submissions in the affidavits of the deponents I should set out certain facts and circumstances appearing in the record as information before the first respondent My son, a qualified medical practitioner, 28 years of age, was detained on 27 November 1981, under the provisions of section 22(1) of Act 62 of 1966, on the instructions of Colonel H C Muller, Commander of the security branch of the South African Police in Johannesburg. Later, from 11 December 1981, under a warrant, my son was detained under the provisions of section 6(1) of the Terrorism Act, From 15h30 on the afternoon of 11 December 1981 my son was detained in the cells on the

5 second floor of John Vorster Square police station, Johannesburg, where the third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants were stationed at the time. 6.3 My son was, from time to time, taken from the cells at John Vorster Square police station to the offices of the security branch of the South African Police on the tenth floor of the same building complex for the purposes of interrogation, for compiling statements and for indexing a statement which he had made. The affidavits by various members of the South African Police, mostly officers, which are in the papers, give reasonably full particulars of the periods of interrogation and I have been advised that it is unnecessary for me to repeat these particulars in my present affidavit. 6.4 It appears from their affidavits that, between 15 December 1981 and 4 February 1982, my son was kept in the interrogation room for a total period of approximately 211 hours. During the last 10 days of his life from 25 January to 4 February inclusive, my son

6 appears to have been in the interrogation rooms for some 11^ hours out of 240 hours. /Si 6.5 My son complained to the magistrate Wessels on 18 January and in pursuance of that complaint a statement was taken from him only on 4 February 1982 in which he complains of serious assaults and that he was kept awake from the morning of 28 January to 30 January. 6.6 By way of contrast, a number of security policemen, including certain of the applicants testify to the good nature and to the "gemoede like stemming" or genial disposition of my son throughout the period of his interrogation They aver that he was not assaulted by any of them and a number of them testify to the fact that he did not complain to them that he had been assaulted or about the conditions under which he was being held or interrogated: Captain Naude "Dr Aggett was 'n aangename persoon, wie spontaan op vrae geantwoord het, en was altyd in 'n gemoedelike stemming... Ons het dikwels oor sport, en ander nietighede sit en gesels." Warrant Officer Karel Johan de Bruyn "Die laaste keer dat ek vir dr Neil

7 Aggett lewend gesien het was op omstreeks 15h00. Hy het soos gewoonlik normaal voorgekom en geensins 'n teken van neerlagtigheid of moedeloosheid getoon me. Hy was oor die algemeen 'n stil en saggeaarde persoon." Lieutenant Stephan Peter Whitehead Die hele ondervragingsproses was altyd in n gemoedelike stemming en dr Agqett het nooit gekla of beswaar gemaak teen die metode van ondervraging nie." "Toe dr Aggett op deur my ondervra was, was hy heeltemal normaal, waf absoluut geen aanduiding dat hy ongesteld was oor enigiets nie." Major Arthur Benoni Cronwright Whitehead en Speurder-Sersant an Schalkwyk is lede van my ondersoek personeel. Op geen stadium het ek bewus geraak dat toe die betrokke lede vir dr Aggett ondervra het, dat hulle vir dr Aggett aangerand het en het dr Aggett ook nooit by my gekla dat hy aangerand word me. Ek het dr Aggett elke dag besoek tydens r? M dr ^ aging' dit wil s en met " Similar statements have been made by other deponents and the court's attention may be drawn thereto in so far as it may be necessary at the hearing of the application. My son made at least three statements while

8 under detention. A first statement, which he is said to have typed himself, together with the index, which my son is said to have compiled and typed himself, comprise some 27 pages of typing, describing my son's life from his birth in Kenya, through his schooling, his university and latterly his engagement in the service of the African Food and Canning Workers' Union. What I describe as the second statement was, according to the affidavits, still incomplete at the time of my son's death. It appears to be an amplified version of the first statement but the process of amplification appears to be only about one-third complete, having regard to the period covered by the first statement. 6.8 Some weeks before the manuscript of the second statement was produced, my attorneys were handed a typed version of the second statement which, it will be observed, differs in an important respect in the first paragraph from the manuscript version.

9 A comparison of the first and second statements makes an interesting study. All I wish to draw attention to at this stage is a significant amplification of the first statement and, for example, the opening statement, "I support the marxist ideology and therefore I am a communist. I am also an idealist." It should be observed that the last sentence, namely "I am also an idealist", was omitted from the typed transcript of the statement submitted to us and no explanation for this omission has been furnished. I would add that in the opinion of Tom Lodge, whose affidavit has been placed by me before the first respondent, this sentence was most material. 6.9 The third statement made by my son while he was under detention is the affidavit which he made to Sergeant Aletta Gertruida Blom at about 10h45 on the day before he died and which is the statement, the use of which has

10 precipitated the present application by the applicants. 10 On 4 February 1982, the last full day of my son's life, he was engaged in writing his statement from about 08h37 to 15h49. He appears, according to the meal book, to have been served with some food but he did not, on that day, make the customary entries in the informal register kept at the cells. Sergeant Aletta Gertruida Blom called on my son at 10h45 at the offices of the security branch at John Vorster Square. He was, at that stage, being interrogated by members of the security branch. She took the disputed affidavit from my son and he showed her an old scar on his right forearm which was alleged to have been caused by the watch of the person called Schalk (presumably the fifth applicant) who had assaulted him. The affidavit went on to raise fresh complaints about having been kept awake from 28 January to 30 January and being assaulted by

11 Lieutenant Whitehead and another on the night of 29 January My son was found hanging in his cell at John Vorster Square in the early hours of the morning of 5 February 1982 in circumstances which, it is suggested by the applicants, point to suicide Precautions, provided by the Legislature for the protection of detainees, had not operated in the case of my son. On no less than three occasions, according to the papers, the inspector of detainees or a magistrate called at John Vorster Square for the purpose of interviewing my son only to be told, on each of these occasions, that my son was not available for interview. At the time of each of these three visits, my son was, in fact, according to the affidavits, in the offices of the security branch at John Vorster Square. Consequently, between 17 December 1981, when he was visited by a magistrate, and 18 January 1982, when he was again visited by a magistrate, my son did not see a magistrate or an inspector of detainees.

12 6.13 When he saw the magistrate, Mr A J G Wessels, on 18 January 1982, my son complained to him that he had, on 4 January 1982, been assaulted by the fifth applicant The magistrate at Johannesburg, on 19 January 1982, made reports to sundry authorities in the South African Police and to the Director General of the Department of Justice on the subject of my son's complaint of an assault on 4 January My son complained to the fourth applicant, who is the police warrant officer in charge of the cells of John Vorster Square, that he suffered from backache on 5, 6, 7 and 8 January 1982, as a result of which the fourth applicant, on each of those days, gave to my son a pain tablet for his backache. It is said by the fourth applicant that, despite his backache, my son elected not to consult a medical practitioner According to the record of meals taken by

13 prisoners, my son did not take any meals on 4, 5 and 6 January The affidavits are silent on the subject of whether or not my son had the physical exercise to which he was entitled under the warrant detaining him As will appear from the documents placed before the first respondent in terms of sections 4 and 5 of the Inquests Act, and more particularly the documents headed "Inkululeko", purporting to be issued by the "Communist Party of South Africa", and a document issued shortly before my son's funeral, purporting to have been issued by a number of unlawful organisations, and a public statement made by the deponent shortly after my son's death, the applicants are likely to suggest that my son committed suicide because of his involvement with unlawful organisations and their activities. 7.2 Evidence will be led by my legal advisers that the former is not a genuine document and

14 the latter may not have been issued by the organisations referred to therein. 7.3 My contention is that, if in fact my son did commit suicide, he did so because of the treatment meted out to him and because his complaints appeared to have fallen on deaf ears and not for the reasons suggested by the applicants, and I submit that I will be entitled to refer to the disputed statement and to lead other evidence to show that the reasons suggested by the police are not correct. 8. I have been advised and submit that the admissibility of the statement and of the question allowed by the first respondent depends in addition upon certain questions of law with which I propose to deal briefly hereunder: 8.1 The rights available to the South African Police Force to detain and interrogate my son did not embrace a right to impair his mental or physical health. On the contrary, they were obliged to maintain him in good health, both in body and mind, and to ensure that, at

15 the end of his detention (had he been so released), he would be released with his physical and mental health unimpaired. The police were not entitled to subject him to any form of assault or to make use of what are commonly described as third degree methods in interrogating or attempting to obtain a statement from him. 8.2 The police are the custodians of detainees who have been deprived of their freedom of movement and whose capacity to make their own decisions and carry them out have not only been restricted but completely neutralised. As in the case of the prison warder, the police must therefore protect prisoners in their charge and must not allow their diligence in this respect to flag for a moment. I am advised and submit that this duty of care is even greater in the case of detainees than in the case of ordinary prisoners. 8.3 There was therefore a duty on the applicants, and other persons having custody and control

16 over my son, to protect him, having regard more particularly to the number of people who are known to have died while in detention under the security laws of South Africa during the last approximately 20 years. Recognising this fact, and the wide concern which has been expressed in many quarters regarding the well-being, the safety and the physical and mental health of persons detained under the security laws, the first applicant stated in Parliament on Wednesday, 3 February 1982 (two days prior to my son's death) as follows: "People are very concerned about the circumstances under which these people are detained. I should like to say to the hon members that the detainees in police cells or in prisons are being detained under the most favourable conditions possible. Where possible they are being detained in separate cells. All reasonable precautions are being taken to prevent any of them from injuring themselves or from being injured in some other way or from committing suicide. Surely hon members are aware of the serious circumstances in the past. We were all faced with this, but during the past two or 2h years there has not been a single serious case of this nature. There are some hon members who are well-informed on this subject, and who know that everything possible is being done to

17 prevent anything irresponsible happening to these people while they are in detention." 8.4 The first respondent, enquiring into my son's death and vested with the responsibility of deciding inter alia whether any person may be criminally responsible therefor, is obliged to enquire into the circumstances of his detention, interrogation and physical and mental condition. He is obliged to enquire whether those persons upon whom rested the legal responsibility to safeguard my son's well-being in fact observed their legal duties and whether they came to his assistance if they had reason to believe that he was being assaulted or ill treated or whether his rights were in any way being I infringed. 8.5 If the first respondent should find that one or other of the persons who were in charge of my son whilst he was in detention failed in their responsibilities towards him and that this led to his death, they may be guilty of the crime of culpable homicide and he would

18 have to make a finding in that regard in terms of section 16(2)(d) of the Inquests Act. 8.6 The first respondent is therefore obliged, in the execution of his functions as an inquest magistrate, to enquire into and receive evidence relating to the circumstances of my son's detention and interrogation, more particularly in the light of his statement that he had been physically assaulted by being hit, punched, kicked, having his scrotum grabbed and his testicles squeezed, being deprived of sleep, blindfolded and subjected to electric shocks and that these assaults had left certain scars and caused certain injuries. 8.7 The first respondent is obliged to enquire into whether or not members of the South African Police Force who were in charge and control of my son either themselves committed any such assaults or, if they did not, whether they were party thereto or took steps to protect him against assault or further

19 assaults by them. Thus the complaint made by my son to the visiting magistrate on 18 January 1982 concerning the alleged assault on 4 January, and the affidavit made by him to Detective Sergeant Blom on 4 February 1982, are directly relevant and are of fundamental importance in regard to this issue into which the first respondent must enquire. In the circumstances, I submit that it is vital that the first respondent enquire into the following questions: 9.1 Whether, if my son died by his own hand, he had been ill treated by members of the South African Police Force to the extent that he chose to commit suicide rather than submit to further ill treatment. 9.2 If my son was so ill treated that he chose to die by his own hand rather than to submit to further ill treatment, which of the various police officers were responsible for such ill treatment.

20 9.3 Having regard to the concern expressed about the well-being of detainees in the light of the history of the number of deaths which had occurred in detention, whether the police who were holding my son took such precautions as were necessary to prevent him from injuring himself or from committing suicide, more particularly since my son's complaint to the magistrate on 18 January had been or ought to have been drawn to their attention. I am further advised and submit that: 10.1 The statement made by my son on 4 February is, in any event, admissible in regard to the question of the credibility of those members of the police force who were in charge of him at the time of his death and prior thereto during his detention and interrogation. The police have chosen to place before the first respondent a number of affidavits dealing in considerable detail with the circumstances of the detention of my son and the circumstances, periods and manner of interrogation of him during December, January and February. Evidence has been placed

21 before the first respondent on oath that he had been well treated, that he had not been assaulted in any manner and that he had not been subjected to any form of treatment which might be described as third degree The first respondent has indicated that various members of the police force who have deposed to such affidavits will be required to give evidence at the inquest and it is submitted that my legal representatives will be entitled to cross-examine them on these issues, not only to establish the facts but to test their credibility in the light of the complaint made by my son to the magistrate on 18 January and his statement of 4 February The persons who appear to have been in charge of my son on or about 4 February appear to have been Colonel Muller, Major Cronwright, Lieutenant Whitehead and Warrant Officer De Bruyn. These persons, and other members of the police force who were concerned with his interrogation and detention, will be required to explain why my son, who has been described in the affidavits as having maintained a

22 "gemoedelike stemming" until the last day of his life, and who was a man of high ideals and purpose and did not have a predisposition towards suicide, apparently performed an act in direct contradiction to his nature and disposition. 11. I am advised and submit that the ruling of the first respondent which has now been brought before this Honourable Court on review, was correct: 11.1 He was obliged to make available to the interested parties at the inquest all such information as had been placed before him and it is submitted that witnesses at the inquest may be cross-examined by making use of any such information, particularly where, on the face of it, the information is directly relevant to the issues before the first respondent. Such issues include the question of the credibility of the witnesses who have deposed to affidavits and who have given evidence as to the facts relevant to the main issue.

23 11.2 The very fact of the making of a complaint to the magistrate on 18 January and the deposition of an affidavit on 4 February are evidence not only of my son's state of mind but of what had happened to him physically and which may have been a prelude to, and was relevant to, his death on 5 February The fact of the complaint and its contents are relevant to rebut any suggestion tendered by the police that my son committed suicide for reasons unrelated to anything which may have happened to him during detention and interrogation and that he was not induced to do so by reason of any ill treatment or the fact of the detention itself The applicants, having chosen to make out a case that my son was not assaulted, was well and courteously treated and never complained of ill treatment, cannot now be heard to contend that evidence or information to the contrary which was furnished by my son while still alive is not admissible to rebut that case. In so far as it has been suggested

24 that the affidavit may have been fabricated and that my son cannot now be cross-examined in regard to its contents, this is a factor which will be taken into account by the first respondent in assessing the overall picture. I am advised, however, that this objection to the use of my son's affidavit relates to its weight rather than its admissibility Furthermore, my legal advisers have been advised by an eminent pathologist retained by me that certain of the injuries or marks found by Dr Kemp on my son's body when conducting the post mortem examination and mentioned by him in his post mortem report are consistent with the injuries described by my son in his affidavit of 4 February and his report to the magistrate on 18 January. I am advised that, quite apart from the general admissibility of that affidavit at the inquest, the first respondent was perfectly correct in allowing the question which was put to Dr Kemp in this connection.

25 12. AD PARAGRAPH 24 OF THE FOUNDING AFFIDAVIT I have already made submissions above as to why it is contended that this affidavit is admissible in the inquest proceedings and further argument will be advanced in that regard by my legal representatives at the hearing of this application. I also propose to deal more specifically below with the submissions and contentions of the said Coetzee in his founding affidavit. 13. AD PARAGRAPH 25 OF THE FOUNDING AFFIDAVIT Ad paragraph 25(a) 13.1 I deny that the first respondent's decision in allowing the question to be put to Dr Kemp and reference to be made to the contents of the affidavit constitute an irregularity. On the contrary, it is my submission that his decision was correct and that, far from preventing a proper enquiry into the death of my son, it is only by allowing a full investigation of the matters raised by him in

26 his affidavit that a proper enquiry into his death may be conducted and a decision arrived at as to whether any persons may have been criminally responsible for his death. Ad paragraph 25(b) 13.2 Section 16(2)(d) of the Inquests Act obliges the first respondent to enquire into the very question of whether any person may be criminally responsible for the death of my son. Whatever the position may have been if the affidavit of my son had stood alone, it is submitted that it, together with the inordinately long periods of interrogation disclosed in the affidavits, the affidavit of Smithers, the affidavits of certain other ex-detainees which are to be placed before the first respondent and the injuries found by Dr Kemp may well lead the first respondent to find that one or other of the persons involved in my son's detention and interrogation was criminally responsible for his death.

27 13.3 In so far as the police officials who are referred to in the affidavit are implicated, they are in a position to give evidence and deal with and deny the allegations under oath. They themselves have said how well they treated my son and how he did not complain. The deponents' concern that they should not be cross-examined on the statement tending to show that they did not speak the truth is understandable but not a good reason in law. To suggest that putting the statement and the allegations contained therein to the witnesses will constitute a "fishing expedition" is without foundation and an unwarranted innuendo in relation to my wish to ascertain, as far as may be possible, the truth in relation to the circumstances under which my son died After all, they have themselves placed in issue their conduct in dealing with my son and their interrogation methods. They cannot now be heard to complain if evidence or information to the contrary is advanced at the inquest and questions are directed

28 towards them based upon such evidence or information The purpose of the inquest is to arrive at the truth as to what happened to my son and, in attempting to exclude my son's affidavit and to avoid being questioned in this regard, the impression has and is being created that the police officials concerned may have something to hide and something to fear. The applicants' concern about the image of the police force and the impression which may be created in the outside world would, I submit, be better served if all information before the first respondent is made public and the deponents are questioned in open court so that the truth may be known. 14. AD PARAGRAPH I admit the contents of paragraph 27(a) of the founding affidavit. I submit, however, that the greater the public interest and concern, the slower the court should be to exclude any information and evidence which

29 may have a bearing upon the circumstances of an unnatural death, more particularly of a detainee to whom those responsible for his detention owe a special duty of care Ad paragraph 27(b) I deny that the statement is inadmissible and I submit that the attempt to exclude it is likely to cause greater harm than that apparently feared by the applicants Ad paragraph 27(c) I am unable to understand the relevance of this paragraph in an application which is based upon the legal submission that the statement is inadmissible and that cross-examination on the basis thereof should be disallowed. The applicants have filed affidavits from various members of the security police in v/hich they have set out their allegedly lav/ful methods of interrogation. These affidavits, as already indicated above, deal at great length with

30 the interrogation of my son during December 1981 and January and February By filing these affidavits it was surely intended by the applicants that the contents thereof should be made public and that the public would thereby be informed of the lawful methods of interrogation employed by the security police..4 On the other hand my son's affidavit discloses serious assaults and unlawful methods of interrogation. If it is true, then it would appear that he had been assaulted in various ways including being slapped, punched, kicked, deprived of sleep, blindfolded, electrically shocked and having his testicles squeezed. It is surely in the public interest that if such unlawful methods were used by the police in interrogating my son that such methods should be exposed and that they should be required to answer for them having regard particularly to the fact that my son died shortly thereafter and his death may be related thereto. It is furthermore in the interests of the

31 administration of justice that such conduct towards my son be fully investigated in this inquest In any event, that my son made an affidavit and certain of its contents have already received widespread publicity both in South Africa and abroad, after they were referred to during the proceedings of 13 April. If these allegations are allowed to stand unrebutted, the very suspicions complained of will persist Ad paragraph 27(d) I repeat that, if unlawful methods of interrogation are employed by the security police, it could hardly be in the public interest that such methods are not brought to the fore Ad paragraph 27(e) I submit that the basis advanced in this paragraph is no ground in law for seeking the

32 relief claimed. The death in detention of my son, a leading trade unionist, may have affected the South African Government's international relations in important fields. A full and open enquiry of the circumstances under which he died and allowing justice to take its course as speedily as possible may do much to undo such prejudice. 15. AD PARAGRAPH 2 8 I have been advised that the decision of the inquest magistrate is not appealable. I submit, however, that that is no ground for bringing these proceedings. The applicants may be completely exonerated by the first respondent. If they are held culpable by him on inadmissible evidence, they may review his decision at the end of the proceedings. 16. AD PARAGRAPH 29 I have no knowledge as to whether a Supreme Court has dealt with such a statement previously or not. I have been advised and submit that it can be

33 safely left to the first respondent to decide to what use the other statements made by my son can be put during the course of the inquest. I have been advised and submit that my son's statements are inextricably interwoven with the manner in which he was interrogated and are vital to the credibility of certain of the deponents who interrogated my son. What was said in those statements and the length of time which, according to the deponents, it took my son to make them, are factors having a direct bearing on the credibility of his interrogators. 17. AD PARAGRAPH 30 I deny that a case for review has been made out. 18. I annex hereto an affidavit by my attorney, William Lane, Annexure 'G', confirming the matters referred to above which are within his particular knowledge.

34 WHEREFORE I pray that the application may be dismissed with costs, such costs to include the costs occasioned by the employment of two counsel. I certify that the deponent has acknowledged that he knows and understands the contents of this affidavit which was signed and sworn to before me at Somerset J O H N M c N A U G H T O A V IS C O M M IS S IO N E R O F O A T H S P R A C T IS IN G A T T O R N E Y R.S.A V IC T O R IA C E N T R E S O M E R S E T W E S T. BUSINESS ADDRESS CAPACITY

35 K.VV. Stuart. B A, L L M W.Lane, S A, LLB R.O.G u s n. B C o m, LLB K.F.G iil, B C o m, LLB M.).S im p s o n, B A, LLB D.K.Sin c la ir, B A, LLB A ssiste d by V.M te tw a, B A, B Proc K.D.F in e g a n, B A, LLB C.L.C re e n, 3 A, LLB N.O.C a rm a n, B A, LLB A.M itchell, BSclEng), LLB D.R.H offe, BA, LLB N.J. Roodt. B Com, LLB BELL, DEWAR & HALL#) A T T O R N EY S, N O T A R IE S A N D C O N V E Y A N C E R S 10th Floor, Norwich Union House 91 Commissioner Street, Johannesburg, 2001 Telephone (011) Telegrams 'Justinian' P.O. Box 61680, Marshalltown, 2107 Telex SA Y o u r reference O u r reference Mr P A J Kotze Mr W Lane/TJM 30 April 1982 The Magistrate Johannesburg By hand Minister of Law and Order and Others v Yourself and Others - Our client: Mr J A E Aggett You are aware that we act for Mr J A E Aggett and members or the Aggett family in connection with the inquest into the death of the late Dr Neil Hudson Aggett. As Mr Aggett has been cited as the third respondent in the above proceedings, we will, shortly, through our Pretoria correspondents, Savage Jooste & Adams, be giving the appropriate notice of our client's intention to oppose the present application brought by the Minister of Law and Order and Others. We wish to refer to your affidavit, which you handed to us yesterday, in response to the notice of motion and, more particularly, to paragraphs 4, 5 and 6. In terms of the notice of motion, you were called upon to despatch to the Registrar of the Supreme Court in Pretoria the record of the said inquest, together with all statements, documents and information submitted to you in uerms of section 5 of the Inquests Act, No 58 of 1959 In our respectful view, all the statements and documents placed before you in terms of section 5 of the Inquests Act should be delivered to the Registrar so that they may be made available by the Registrar to the court and to the parties. We submit that, as you had had insight into the documents before you when your decision which is subject to review was made, the Supreme Court should be in the same position. Furthermore, we, having been placed in possession of copies of all the documents placed before

36 you before the commencement of the formal hearing, will need to refer to them in our client's answering affidavit. ^'?^.su^^estl0n ^ n t*ie last sentence of paragraph 5 of your arfidavit, that the Deputy Attorney General should do this in case it is required for the application, can only lead,to delays. We do not expect the Registrar of the Supreme Court to exercise a discretion. If copies of all the documents are not before the members of the court who hear the application, unnecessary delays will occur in a matter which all parties agree to be one of some urgency. In saying this, we do not exclude the possibility of, by consent and to save unnecessary costs, excluding, certain formal documents such as the bulky occurrences book. To ensure that the notice of motion and the provisions or che Rules of the Supreme Court are complied with, it will be appreciated if you will take the necessary steps to ensure that the Registrar of the Supreme Court is placed in possession of the record of the inquest, together with all statements, documents and information submitted to you in terms of section 5 of the Act. We are sending copies of this letter to the Registrar of the Supreme Court, the State Attorney and to the Attorney General of the Transvaal, as the other interested parties herein. Yours faithfully BELL DEWAR & HALL

37 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION) CASE NO 6533/82 In the matter between: MINISTER OF LAW AND ORDER SOUTH AFRICAN TRANSPORT SERVICES STEPHAN PETER WHITEHEAD WALTER MACPHERSON JAMES ANDREW VAN SCHALKWYK MAGEZI EDDIE CHAUKE First Applicant Second Applicant Third Applicant Fourth Applicant Fifth Applicant Sixth Applicant and PETRUS ARNOLDUS JURGENS KOTZe N.O. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRANSVAAL JOHN AUBREY EDWARD AGGETT First Respondent Second Respondent Third ResDondent AFFIDAVIT BY WILLIAM LANE

38 I, the undersigned, WILLIAM LANE, hereby make oath and say: 1. I am a partner in the firm of Bell, Dewar & Hall, the attorneys of the third respondent in this matter. I have been intimately involved with the handling of the third respondent's representation at the inquest, in the present application and also in making sundry enquiries and consulting various experts. 2. I have read the affidavit of my firm's client, the third respondent, to which this affidavit is attached as Annexure 'G', and I confirm that the paragraphs set out hereunder are true and correct: 2.1 Paragraph 6.8 on page 10 The Senior Public Prosecutor, Johannesburg, handed me the typed version of the two statements on about 19 March The manuscript of the second statement was sent

39 to me by the Senior Public Prosecutor under cover of a letter dated 7 April Paragraph 7.2 on page 15 Paragraph 11.5 on page 26 Paragraph 13.2 on page 28 The further evidence referred to in these three paragraphs has been received and considered by the legal representatives and steps are being taken to draft affidavits for placing before the first respondent in due course. I certify that the deponent has acknowledged that he knows and understands the contents of this affidavit which was signed and sworn to on the of May FULL NAME - i,?i s s :k s i r. -. v OHAM. 83U rg, - 'k t is e r e r i- P r : k j.*eur ".S.a ' r3c:isijt Attorney f?.s. BUSINESS ADDRESS CAPACITY

40 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION) CASE NO 6533/82 In the matter between: t MINISTER OF LAW AND ORDER SOUTH AFRICAN TRANSPORT SERVICES STEPHAN PETER WHITEHEAD WALTER MACPHERSON JAMES ANDREW VAN SCHALKWYK MAGEZI EDDIE CHAUKE First Applicant Second Applicant Third Applicant Fourth Applicant Fifth Applicant Sixth Applicant t and PETRUS ARNOLDUS JURGENS KOTZe N.O. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRANSVAAL JOHN AUBREY EDWARD AGGETT First Respondent Second Respondent Third Respondent AFFIDAVIT BY WILLIAM LANE

41 ^ 7 I, the undersigned, WILLIAM LANE, hereby make oath and say: 1. I refer to my affidavit which is Annexure 'G' in t this matter. 2. I now beg leave to refer this Honourable Court to certain further correspondence in this matter which took place during the period that the answering affidavit of the third respondent was in the process of being signed by him in Somerset West, Cape Province, and immediately thereafter, up to the time of my signing this affidavit. This t correspondence comprises: Annexure 11 1 A letter from the attorney for the applicants to the first respondent dated 4 May Annexure 'J' A letter from my firm to the first respondent dated 5 May 1982.

42 3. In writing the letters of 30 April and 5 May 1982, Annexures 'F' and 'J 1 respectively, I had misunderstood the provisions of Rule 53 of the Rules of Court and was under the impression that I should inspect the record after it had been lodged with the Registrar of this Honourable Court. It appears that there is no such obligation. 4. I beg leave to refer this Honourable Court to a letter, Annexure 'K', annexed hereto, addressed to the attorney for the applicants. The said letter correctly sets out the approach of the third respondent to the present proceedings as at the time of signing this affidavit. 5. On behalf of the third respondent I humbly pray for the assistance of this Honourable Court in having the present application dealt with expeditiously. I certify that the deponent has acknowledged that he

43 Historical Papers, Wits University Collection Number: AK2216 AGGETT, Dr Neil, Inquest, 1982 PUBLISHER: Publisher:- Historical Papers Research Archive Location:- Johannesburg 2013 LEGAL NOTICES: Copyright Notice: All materials on the Historical Papers website are protected by South African copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, or otherwise published in any format, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. Disclaimer and Terms of Use: Provided that you maintain all copyright and other notices contained therein, you may download material (one machine readable copy and one print copy per page) for your personal and/or educational non-commercial use only. People using these records relating to the archives of Historical Papers, The Library, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, are reminded that such records sometimes contain material which is uncorroborated, inaccurate, distorted or untrue. While these digital records are true facsimiles of paper documents and the information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, Historical Papers, University of the Witwatersrand has not independently verified their content. Consequently, the University is not responsible for any errors or omissions and excludes any and all liability for any errors in or omissions from the information on the website or any related information on third party websites accessible from this website. This document is part of a collection deposited at the Historical Papers Research Archive at The University of the Witwatersrand. 07:52:17 AM]