CHAIRPERSON
Thank you.  Now - you can turn your machine off for the moment.  The problem that arises in my view, and I invite comment on that, is that the application that was set down for hearing before us was the application of two people and that they were duly given notice, their lawyers were given notice and Mr Prior was then informed that two other persons had made application in connection with the same incident.
	There was then a great deal of rushing around and contact was made with the attorneys Bell, Dewer and Hall and attempts were made to contact Mr Van den Berg who was otherwise engaged, he was ultimately contacted and arrangements were made for those, one of those hearings of the present third applicant, Mr Dumakude to be heard with the other two.  
	When the matter started yesterday, the question was raised as to the fact that although Mr Dube, the person who is not present, had in his application referred to this incident, Mr Dumakude in his application only dealt with matters in the most general terms, where he accepted responsibility as the commander for acts committed by persons under his command.  He made no mention in his application, which was handed in to us by Mr Van den Berg, of this particular incident.  He made no mention of the part he played in it or anything of that nature.  
	We agreed yesterday to hear the evidence on the basis that the question of the acceptability of the application would be dealt with in due course.  That we did not, by hearing his evidence yesterday, concede, and I think this was agreed to by Mr Van den Berg, that the application was in order.  There are other applications at present before the Committee of a similar nature and obviously before any decision adverse to the applicant could be arrived at Mr Van den Berg would have to be given the opportunity to make such representations as he thought fit, and that was indicated to him yesterday.
	But as I had said, there was no application from Mr Dumakude and no details of his participation.  His evidence was heard merely to get it on record but this meant that the other parties had no notice of what he was going to say or no indication of what his version of the events would be because Mr Van den Berg had not had the opportunity of cross examining the first two applicants, he'd merely been told in very general terms I think what their evidence had been.  
	Mr Dumakude has now given evidence and during the course of his evidence he was asked questions by me and other members of the Committee.  He has been questioned by Mr Landman and Mr Prior and the time had been reached when he was to be re-examined, but during the course of adjournment I was, thought further of the matter and it struck me that it might be grossly unfair to the applicant to proceed on this basis in that a number of statements have been obtained from persons and laid before us in the normal process of investigation by the Amnesty Committee in terms of the act.  This is evidence that is available - it's not evidence, this is information that is available to us and may well be to the prejudice of the present applicant.  Why I say this is basically on two aspects which he's not been questioned about fully and has not been given the chance to deal with, nor has his legal advisor, as I discovered this morning, had any opportunity to acquaint himself with this evidence and accordingly to take instructions from his client on it and the first aspect is that Mr Dumakude told us in his evidence that they went on to reconnoitre Friday afternoon, I confirmed the time this morning, and that the houses or house outside which the car was parked was abandoned.  
	Well it is clear from the information before us, firstly in the bundle headed Ellis Park Rugby - sorry they're both headed that, in which the first person named is Maria Gloria Dos Santos Van Sunsa, that is the thicker bundle.  In that bundle at pages 29 and 34 it is clear that a family lived at No 3 Upper Meyer Street, that is Maria Irene Nunas Dos Santos and her husband Jose Dos Santos Pias.  They were in their home at the time of the bombing and were injured.  
	Furthermore if one looks at the next bundle, Damaged Property, one will find right towards the end of that bundle, 7 pages from the end headed A-92, a statement from Mary Magdelen Bothma who lived at house No 3A, the adjoining house to No 3.  
	As you will probably recollect from the photographs, these were the houses that the front piece of the car landed on their front verandah after the explosion and there was extensive damage to them.  She also says she was living there, she was not there on the day of the explosion, but it appears to me that evidence - that firstly the applicant should have been questioned about the fact that these houses were far from abandoned, that people were living in that at the time and it should perhaps be desirable to obtain evidence from them as to whether they were there on the Friday afternoon and whether there was signs of them being there, curtains in the windows, laundry hanging up, matters of that nature which indicate that houses are occupied and in fairness to the applicant, he should then be given an opportunity to deal with such evidence rather than us merely drawing inferences from statements made.
	That is the first aspect.  The second aspect is that the applicant said, and has confirmed this morning, that he saw, although he was at the intersection of Bight Roads and Upper Meyer and a matter of 25 metres from the explosion, 30 metres from the bus, that he saw only two people in the vicinity.  
	Well if one looks at the statements in the first volume I have referred to, practically every one of those persons said that they were in Upper Meyer Lane at the time.  The schoolboys that had been playing in one of the curtain raisers who had arrived and were waiting to depart in the bus that was parked there, all said that they were standing next to the bus when the explosion took place.  Their master, the bus driver and others said the same.  
	Many of the injured people whose statements are in that volume, said they were walking up Meyer Road in a northerly direction on the lefthand side of the road when the explosion took place.  They must have all been.  If that evidence is correct, they should have all been clearly visible to the applicant who was standing at the intersection there.  And it again appears to me that this is a matter that should be put to the applicant as he should have an opportunity of dealing with it and of explaining the differences that appear to be in the evidence.  
	All these people, I think I am correct in saying, every one of them says they had been at the rugby, they came out of the stadium, they were walking up the road to where their transport was or matters of that nature, which appears to conflict entirely with the version of the bomb being set off before anybody from the stadium could get injured by it and it is a matter again that I think it would be grossly unfair to the present applicant for us to deal with it and say well there are 25 people here, when he hasn't been given the opportunity of considering it, hasn't been referred to it and I would be interested to hear what comments, if any, (indistinct) Mr Van den Berg.