MR DU PLESSIS
Yes.  Mr Chairman Mr Mpshe has just pointedout to me that that would obviously then entail the evidence ofGeneral van der Merwe who is the first witness that I want tocall and not then the other witnesses thereafter
2B before/...
48
before judgment is given on this application, as I understandyou correctly.
 Mr Chairman there is just one other issue before I go ahead tocall General van der Merwe which I want to raise with the Committeenow so that clarity can be obtained in respect of that issue forthe future.  We have a concern pertaining to the interpretationof section 31(3) of the Act dealing with incriminating evidence,and the fact that it's provided therefor that incriminating evidenceshall not be admissible as evidence against the person concernedin criminal proceedings.
 If on reads section 31(3) closely it refers to the following,
  "Any incriminating answer or information obtained or incriminatingevidence directly or indirectly derived from a questioning interms of subsection 1 shall not be admissible as evidence"
That only relates to a questioning in terms of subsection 1. Now subsection 1 says,
  "Any person who is questioned by the Commission in theexercise of its powers in terms of this Act or has been subpoenaedto give evidence...."
there is a clear distinction between a person who is questionedby the Commission and a person who has been subpoenaed to giveevidence.  
 Then I want to refer you also to section 29(c) which deals withthe right of the Commission to subpoena witnesses which says that,
  "By notice in writing call upon any person to appear beforethe Commission and to give evidence or to answer questions relevantto the subject
2B matter/...
49
 matter of the hearing".
 Now the applicants are concerned that if they are regarded asthe category of persons who are to give evidence at the hearingin terms of section 29(1)(c) and not to answer questions theywill not fall under the auspices of section 31(3) and any incriminatingevidence they might give in these proceedings might be used ina criminal case against them later.  The only point I want toraise here in conjunction with the Committee is that I want toplace it on record and I wish the Committee to agree with theapplicants that the applicants are at this hearing, although theyhaven't been subpoenaed, as a person who is questioned by theCommission as meant in section 31(1) and that the applicants willthen fall under the auspices of section 31(3) and incriminatingevidence by them will then be evidence derived from a questioningin terms of subsection 1.  We would request the Committee to,if possible, if the Committee is prepared to do that to stateon record that the applicants are regarded as witnesses who arequestioned by the Commission and that according to the Commissionand the Committee that they fall under section 31(1) and 31(3).