MR SWANEPOEL
Of course.  And the fact of the matter is, there is a good reason why a written document in a prescribed form was required by the Legislator, and that is simply that certain investigative functions must have been facilitated.  And that is the only way to do that.  It is clear from the wording of Section 18(1), that no oral applications can be entertained firstly, and secondly, that only written applications in the prescribed form can be entertained.  And if an applicant chooses a limited wording in his written application, then he is bound through the course of the proceedings, by that limited wording.
	My submission to the Committee is, where he chooses a general wording, he is at liberty to refine the general wording by the furnishing of further particulars or oral evidence, as the Act envisages, but he is not at liberty to broaden the scope of a limited wording to include acts which were not included in his original application because the application must stand in its written and prescribed form, anything else is amplification.