CHAIRPERSON
It is not the duty of anyone else to put that kind of evidence in order to clear the air.  That's why applicants are represented by lawyers.  I don't want such things being imputed to any persons having to try and clear the air in that regard.  Mr Mkhwanazi was properly represented, and Ms Moloisane had the fortunate advantage of consulting and knowing the testimony of the two applicants.  She must have anticipated what would be a problem in this regard.
	I am addressing this to the Honourable Member of my Panel, as well as Ms Thabethe.  In case you've forgotten that the applicants lead evidence and has to comply with the requirements of full disclosure.  Indeed we have from time to time assisted as it is fit and proper for us to do when such things do come to our attention, but that is why applicants are legally represented, so that such mishaps do not happen.  
	Coming back to what you earlier on stated, Ms Thabethe, you are saying that it's possible that Mr Mkhwanazi might not have understood his structure very well, and the he must have mistaken Mr Radebe as being the commander.  You have referred to his written application form, and pertinently I suppose to question 11 A and B, which requires of an applicant to indicate whether the act was committed on the orders of any particular person.  Yes, there is a reference to Mr Radebe, but that does not mean that Mr Mkhwanazi did not understand the structure of command.  You will recall that he led evidence before us and in his evidence he was able to paint a very vivid picture of his structure, which he stated quite unequivocally that it was a unit commanded by Mr Bonga Khumalo.  He went on to say Mr Radebe was the second in command.  
	For you, therefore, to infer that he might have thought Mr Radebe to be the commander, would under those circumstances, be incorrect.