MR VISSER
Well Mr Chairman, if my learned friend is through, can I try to refresh your memory about what happened with Mr Ngo's application?
    You will recall that on the first occasion, when we arrived here Mr Chairman, there was only one incident that he had applied for amnesty for and that was murder, robbery and the illegal possession of a firearm with regard to the Venter murder.
    Thereafter there was - bundle C page eight came to light and we didn't know - bundle C page eight, Mr Chairman, and nobody knew what the status of this document was you will remember very well.   And eventually Mr Chairman this lead to a point, an item placed on the agenda of a pre-trial conference that we had to agree was what the application of Mr Ngo in the end really consisted of.
    And at that stage we conceded that you can take it for granted that page 8, 9, 10, 11, up to 14 was also part of the application.  The only point I'm making is originally there was no question about anything other than Mr Venter, that's what we came to Bloemfomntein for in the first place, Mr Chairman.
    So my learned friend's statement is factually incorrect.  And thereafter, you will recall, there was another 30 pages or whatever that came to light and we even conceded that those also would form part of the application, on the basis that Mr Ngo said to you in his evidence that he gave all these papers to the TRC. And we said well let's be fair to the man, consider it all to be part of the application.
    But it's not correct to say that originally when consultations were held with the witnesses we knew exactly what he was going to say, we knew about Venter, that's all.