UNKNOWN
Mr Chair thank you.  I am not an advocate so my argument will probably be far simpler than Mr Bizos' argument.
	Much emphasis has been placed on what the applicants' have failed to do, or what the applicants have erred in.  I want to state very simply, at least and at the very best for persons applying for a postponement the date of this hearing was known in February of this year.  The question arises, what would such a person do, a person who brings the application today to save their own situation with regard to the application.  During July of 1996 this application was handed in.  
	The applications of the applicant consists of Addenda A, B and C.  As has been stated very thoroughly in the heads of argument Addenda A, B and C consist of the pages as you would have found them and as they are paginated in Volume B pages 1 through to 48.  You will note that there is an indication that this consists of pages 1 to 56, but that is in fact not correct, 48 to 56 is in fact not correct.  However, in paragraphs 12 to 18 of the heads of argument a complete explanation is given of the constitution of the various documents.  With respect, Honourable Chair, the only documents not in the possession of the legal team of Mrs Hani would have been the documents reflected as pages 57 through to 112.  The total of these documents consists of 66 pages.   
	I could you through these addenda and you would find that for instance in the works quoted, the History of Communism of Pike(?), 11 of these 14 pages consists of the front page of the book and the contents pages of this particular book.  All that has to be read out of the History of Communism in South Africa is a meagre three pages.
	In the end what is at issue is not the volume of reading matter against which there is a complaint, what is involved is simply this - the person or institutions who oppose the application for amnesty know full well which requirements such an application must meet. There is a duty on such a person or institutions, when opposing an application, to prepare their case to such an extent that they would be able to bring contravening testimony at the hearing.  Allow me to restate this.  
	If the claim in the application for amnesty would be A, and if these applications are then opposed, because the actual situation would have been situation B, any person or institutions who opposed the application must bring testimony to prove position B and to therefore contravene position A.  What does the persons do who oppose these applications they say, here is a series of documents, documents which you have attached to your applications, we must now work through these documents and once we have worked through these documents we will decide on what testimony we want to call and what will be necessary to contravene these arguments.  
	What must the applicants prove?  It's very simple.  When we look at the particular act it would appear that there must be full disclosure; it would appear that the person of the applicant must qualify in terms of Section 22;  and in conclusion it would appear that the act of the person in terms of Section 23 must meet certain requirements and qualifications.  
	With respect, it is the most simple task for the legal team opposing us when they know what the claims are that are made by the applicants to contravene these claims by means of contravening evidence.  Mr Bizos says that there are four grounds or four points of difference which are at issue.  The first would be - ...full disclosure at the trial and in its applications.
	With respect Chair, a person or an advocate in the person of Mr Bizos, a respected senior advocate, would in cross-examination be able to chase a person who has not made full disclosure from one side to the other of the matter.  He is well-known to be able to do this.  There is no reason to justify a postponement on these grounds.
	The criminal hearing of the applicants was concluded four years ago.  Had the applicants not told the truth four years ago, and it's common knowledge that they did not give testimony, then there would have been adequate grounds and in fact reasons, enough time from then, or at least from the date when the team received notice that the applications would be considered, to collect testimony with which to counter the arguments. 
	It had in addition been argued that there would be an additional disagreement, namely, that the crime had not been committed on behalf of a political movement and would therefore not qualify in terms of Section 22.  Again, there is no need for documentation by the applicants to be provided to support their claim in order to enable Mr Bizos' team to contravene the claim.  They could independently go about gaining independent testimony to in fact argue against this claim.
	The other two aspects with regard to disputes would, in a respect not be under disagreement and that could also be handled in terms of normal cross-examination.
	The submission of the applicants Mr Chair is very simple.  There is something far more serious underlying the reasons for opposition to these particular applications.  It is important to pay attention to the fact that on the very first occasion, the very first reason which was presented when we were approached for a postponement the single reason given was that Mrs Hani, for personal reasons, would not be available to attend the hearing.  On the 13th of June 1997 a letter was directed to us in which it was stated that due to "personal reasons" she would not be able to attend the hearing and that there would therefore be a request for postponement.  
	On the 13th of June 1997, 10 days ago, no single word had been mentioned yet that there would be a mass of work to conclude, that there would be a large number of reports that are awaited, that there are a number of witnesses that have to be consulted, this single reason was given, namely that Mrs Hani would not be available.  
	The request was directed to enquire why she would not be available, the reasons were requested from the legal team and until today we have not yet heard what these reasons would be, except to determine that she was in fact on her way to America.
	In the heads of argument we had to anticipate that this matter would be handled, and it is said that should she leave if I could handle only this aspect, should she be on her way overseas prior to or rather had she left with the date of this hearing already being agreed she would do it in the face of this Committee.   Had she made her travel arrangements overseas prior to the agreement of this date then certainly this date would not have been agreed between the parties.
	On the 16th of June, on Monday, after the legal team of Mr Bizos had worked all weekend a host of new excuses appear.  The first of these would be that they received on the 8th of June, in their own words voluminous materials which had been added or supplemented by the applicants.  If the Committee would go back to the original applications submitted by the two applicants it is clear that when they submitted these applications the only page that was amended in the case of the first applicant, Mr Walus, was amended during January of this year. 
	Secondly, that the second applicant, Mr Derby-Lewis amended his application during October last year by adding another page.  Addendum C, which the complaint apparently entails, comprised initially of three pages.  It was elaborated upon by the applicants and it eventually consisted of five pages.