MR HEWITT
I thought I had explained this.  Possibly I haven't, I could explain it in another way to make it clear.
	Obviously I don't want in front of the applicant, to disclose what my cross-examination would be, but if such cross-examination demonstrated incidents before the matter in which he claims amnesty today, that is the shooting at the meeting, and there was association between the two or existing motives from the applicant towards Ms Mchunu, prior to the first shooting, then the incident involving her immediately thereafter, is readily explained.
	What we have said and this was the submission I made, and obviously I don't want to disclose the evidence at this stage and the nature of my cross-examination, I make the submission on the instructions I have received, that the shooting incident involving Mr Khumalo and Ms Mchunu, are inextricably tied up with the very shooting incident for which he claims amnesty.
	This was the point I tried to make to Mr Chairman.  You cannot at this stage pre-judge that they are two separate incidents, until you have heard the whole story.  If the man has got amnesty, or indemnity for those two shootings, then I am not going to waste this tribunal's time, but if he hasn't, then clearly you have to hear the whole story of why he used his gun that night, why he shot, how many people he shot at and why and the reasons preceding it are relevant.  They are all tied up with each other, they are not separate watertight compartments.
	Therefore full disclosure is relevant to that consideration.