CHAIRPERSON
You see, Mr Ndou, there's no point getting
upset.  What Mr De Jager has pointed out to you is absolutely 
correct.  When an affidavit is made, it is made by a deponent who 
swears at the end of that affidavit that he understands and knows 
the contents of this declaration.  What is missing there also is 
that it is the truth.  It is normal practise that in affidavits that 
hearsay is always explained 'That this is not in my personal 
knowledge but I heard it.'  Otherwise it is assumed that this forms 
part of the personal knowledge of the deponent.  Now he says at 
paragraph 25,  whether it is disputed or common cause is 
irrelevant.  	"Further meetings where held whereat we resolved..."
	The import of that sentence says to us that this Applicant was party to that decision.  In order to be party to that decision, he must have been at that meeting to be party to that decision.  He now tells us he wasn't at that meeting.  Do you understand?