ADV PRIOR
Mr Chairman, if I was incorrect in producing the Section 29 of Mr McBride, that is something which is not conceded, but if that may be the case in the judgment of the Panel, then I would say that in terms of (5) of Section 29, that the Committee or the Commission then rule, that will be my application, that on the basis of openness and transparency, those are the guidelines, the Act provides those as the guidelines for which the Committee can or the Commission can rule that the Section 29 proceedings be used.  That would be my alternative application in response to the objection.  In other words, the objection is being based or premised on the fact that the Evidence Leader erroneously albeit in good faith, tendered the proceedings of the Section 29 and produced them as part of the bundle.  If that has to be held as correct, then I would say that the Committee is still open in terms of Section 29(5) to make a ruling on the basis of openness and fairness.   The Section refers to the Commission, however it is the Amnesty Committee in terms of Section 43 which now stands in for those powers and functions formerly exercised by the Commission.