MR HATTINGH
Mr Chairman, I think and I respectfully submit that if this whole issue of the first statement which was annexed to the formal application was not made an issue and the document itself did not surface at this meeting, I would still have been entitled to cross-examine this applicant on any other issue which could have a bearing on his motives for committing certain acts of robbery which are not quite consistent with a political motive.
	I would not have been restricted only to the incidents for which he makes application.  So, I don't think that the fact that the document has now become available would restrict me from cross-examining without the assistance of the document.  But even so, if a public criminal trial was held, accused was found not guilty and I can get hold of the contents of the police docket, I can get hold of his plea proceedings in the Supreme Court, if I can get hold of the documents that were submitted to the Supreme Court, let's say pointings out or confessions, what would keep me from cross-examining him on those matters even let's say if I did not know about his application in that regard?  I say, "This happened.  I want to cross-examine you on your robbery on that date", and I make use of other documentation obtained from another source and not from the TRC, and I believe I would be entitled to do so and I cannot see on what basis I would be restricted because he made application and the TRC has not yet dealt with the matter.  We don't know how many matters there still are.  How should we tread in this matter.  Ask him first, "We would like to ask you certain questions about a certain incident.  Have you made application?"  "Yes, I have".  "Okay, we're not dealing with that".