MR VISSER IN FURTHER ARGUMENT
Mr Chairman, if I may be allowed to reply very briefly.  Firstly Mr Chairman, to the suggestion which has now been made regarding the suggestion which you placed on the table Mr Chairman, of some method or means by which the people should be contacted, etc.
	Mr Chairman, we have discussed that and we have various problems with that situation.  It would appear Mr Chairman, that the proper way of doing that, if it was of concern to the community that perpetrators are not being prosecuted, is that you, this Committee refer this to the ... (tape ends) ... and let the matter be taken from there.
	Certainly it is not a matter which we believe the Committee should attempt to finalise.  Mr Chairman, as far as the submissions of my learned friend, Mr Ngubane is concerned, his submission as we understand it, is based on an equalisation as it were, of implicated persons, and informers.
	Mr Chairman, we simply submit that there is no basis in law for making that assumption and that equalisation, certainly none of the authorities do so and in point of fact Mr Chairman, very specifically when reference is made to protection of informers, implicated persons has never been mentioned, nor is it mentioned in the same breath in the TRC Act.
	My learned friend says Mr Chairman, he throws the argument in reverse and says the TRC Act does not provide for an exception in regard to informers, but we know on an interpretation of statutes Mr Chairman, that if the legislature wishes to make inroads in the common law and or change the common law, it has to say so explicitly so that there can be no mistake about that and that situation does not arise.
	That Mr Chairman, takes care of my learned friend, Mr Ngubane.  As far as Mr Prior's evidence, my learned friend, Mr Prior's submissions are concerned Mr Chairman, he submits that these informers are not informers in the true sense of the word and we submit that in doing so, he has telescoped into this one particular incident, and this one particular incident alone.  Surely one has to have regard to the fact that these informers may have been people who might have given information over a lengthy period of time.
	Which brings me back to my main argument Mr Chairman, and that is that you cannot change the protection in public interest, merely because an informer also becomes a co-perpetrator, and that would make good sense Mr Chairman.
	Lastly Mr Chairman, just a remark which was made by you to Mr Ngubane, regarding askaris.  An askari per definition of our past, was a person who had previously been a member or supporter of the ANC or another liberation movement, who had been turned to use that expression and who was applied overtly in order to identify members of MK and the ANC for purposes of identification so that the police could act on that information.
	There is no evidence whatsoever that the two informers in question, today, were ever askaris Mr Chairman, and for so far as that, the word askari may lead to an inference that they weren't true informers Mr Chairman, we say that that would be a finding not found on the evidence before the Committee at the present time.
	We therefore Mr Chairman, persist with our request to you and we say that with respect, questions in this regard ought to be disallowed, thank you Mr Chairman.