MR VISSER
Mr Chairman, it is at page 58, right at the bottom, the second-last paragraph under the heading perpetrators and, perhaps, better, in better words than I can explain why we are here, Mr Chairman, we read at Analysis Conclusion at page 59, the following
"Sipho Moses Mbakwe did know about the hand grenade ..."
That was accused number one who was found guilty,
"... and he also brought it to the march.  It is not likely to believe his explanation that he did not know that it was going to be launched at the venue.  The police would most probably have been of the same opinion and when Nkosinatie ...",
that is Engochla, who was accused number two, Mr Chairman,
"... admitted to having launched the grenade adding the statement of the State witness ...",
that, Mr Chairman, is Mr Ngqele, N G Q E L E, N G Q E L E, Mr de Jager,
"... the conviction seems to be in order."
Then it follows on,
"Now if the statement and sworn testimonies given before the Commission are to be believed, the police fabricated the case and that theory is supported by the remarks that the two inmates refused to apply for amnesty or parole",
and it is said in parenthesis,
"(However, Sipho ...",
that is Mbakwe,
"... did apply for amnesty, but was, but it was clearly a mistake due to lack of information).  Based on the information given, the two inmates ...",
that is Mbakwe and Engochla,
"... must be described as victims of gross human rights violations."
Now, that is the way this whole application fits together, because what we have here is two convicted persons serving a jail sentence and two others coming to the fore to say those people never committed any wrong, we are the ones that did so.  That, Mr Chairman, is, in plain words, not due to a mistake made by the police or by the Attorney-General or by the judicial system, but on purpose.  That is the point that is made.  At the time when these witnesses gave evidence before the Committee for Gross Violations of Human Rights, there was an outcry, because of certain findings that were made at the time and it is in your record.  We might be allowed, later, to refer you to them, which elicited quite a reaction from the Attorney-General of the Northern Cape, Mr du Plessis.  I read one letter to you a little while ago.
	The point here, Mr Chairman, this witness may not, specifically, say anything about the police, but the next witness, Smiles, will definitely have things to say about what the police did when he went to present his statement, Mr Chairman, and all of this you must read against the evidence that was given by Ngqele before the Gross Violation Committee by Mr Smiles, by Mr, that the police intimidated people, they did not want to listen to reason, there is even evidence of threats, of assaults and killing.  That is the background, Mr Chairman.
	Now, if I do not cross-examine Mr Mbatha and Mr Smiles walks into the witness box and he implicates, directly, the people for whom I appear, then I am going to have to call Mr Mbatha back, because I have to build up some sort of platform upon which I have to cross-examine Mr Smiles when this issue arises.