UNKNOWN
Mr Chairman I would like in response tothis, I would like to raise one possible problem which I would like  to  deal with now instead of when it arises.  Mr RoelfMeintjies has placed on record that he appears on behalf  of Captain van Jaarsveldt who is a State witness, he has indicatedto me that he intends, when his client is implicated, he intendsto stand up and put his client's version if it in fact differsfrom the evidence given.  Now as I read
the Act, and specifically section 30(2) it says that "Duringany hearing before the Commission, if any person is implicatedin a manner which may be to his or her detriment, the Commissionshall, if
1B such/...
130
  such person is available afford him or her an opportunity tosubmit representations to the Commission within a specified timewith regard to the matter...."
I read that as after the hearing.  And then 
  "....under consideration, or to give evidence at the hearingof the Commission".
I want to place on record here that we do not read the Act asallowing a legal representative on behalf of a person implicatedin evidence simply to stand up and to state his or her client'sversion without that person being able to testify and withoutme being afforded the opportunity to cross-examine that specificwitness.  
 If Captain van Jaarsveldt is a State witness he would clearlybe affected by the application I made yesterday pertaining tothe State witnesses and our attitude is that either he must testifyin these proceedings if he's implicated or otherwise his legalrepresentative cannot simply stand up and put his version withouthim testifying.  I thought it convenient to raise this now sothat we can deal with this matter perhaps now or in any otherway that you deem fit.