MR PATEL
Mr Chairman, may I just make a request here, I am concerned, I am very concerned because I don't represent Mr Gushu, but I have ten applicants to come.
	In a normal trial, you are requested or it is normal procedure to disclose to your colleagues beforehand what documents you are going to use.
	The reason for that, whether it doesn't deal with the admissibility or otherwise, of the document.  One of the reasons would be that I could address you or Mr Black could address you on the document itself.  He is arguing in the air, and so would I without the document in front of us.
	What really gives raise to concern here is the following.  Mr Hattingh says to this Committee that he is objecting and the way on which he proposes to do so is to use pieces of evidence.  I have no idea what these pieces of evidence are and I should be in a position to anticipate what these pieces of evidence are.
	More particularly when we are dealing with an application of this sort, where the word full disclosure has been bandied around for some time.  This sort of disclosure is even proper in an ordinary civil matter.  The other thing that concerns me is the basis of the opposition.
	We are not at all certain at this stage as to what exactly the basis is.  It gives raise to even further concern.  It is obvious that Mr Hattingh sits with this confession, at some stage I am not sure, but it appears  at least by this morning, he was fully aware that he was going to, his intention was to cross-examine this particular witness on this document.
	Yet, we are not made privy to that document prior to him attempting to use it.  This is in essence an application then by ambush, because we have had no opportunity whatsoever to prepare for what is coming, and it is highly prejudicial to the clients, to the applicants.
	My concern is I have ten applicants to come, I don't know what the pieces of evidence are, nor do I know what the basis of the opposition is.  As it pleases the Committee.