MR WESSELS
No, that is so.  But one must look at what the Act here says, it says if the Commission is satisfied that there has been a full disclosure.  It is clear that we don't have the position where an accused or an applicant must come and prove anything on any probabilities.  If that had been the intention it would have been easy for the legislature to state that the applicant must prove on a balance of probabilities, or whatever the position was, that he was telling the truth or as is said in the Criminal Procedure Act, before indemnity can be granted in terms of Section 204, there was must be an honest and frank disclosure, then he can get it.
	One must assume that the legislature was aware of the provisions in the Criminal Procedure Act, where indemnity can be granted to a person if he makes frank and honest disclosure, and the legislature didn't use those words in this particular Act.  And one must then look at the Act as a whole to see what was the intention of the legislature, was there an onus that is being placed on a particular applicant in a civil sense, where on the probabilities he has to prove things, or does he merely have to satisfy a reasonable Tribunal, that the facts that he's disclosed were full in the sense that people would know what had been done in the past.  He doesn't even have to be a good or an honest witness. He, in my submission, can be a bad witness in the sense that he hasn't make frank disclosure or honest disclosure about many facts in his application, which in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act, would not entitle him to an indemnity in a court, but as long as he makes full disclosure of the facts pertaining to the particular application.