CHAIRPERSON
I thought about what you have submitted, after having looked at this, but it also leaves a problem with the interpretation.  I hear what you say, but if you say "against the person concerned in criminal proceedings in a court of law, or before any body, institution established under a law", that means that it couldn't be used before any other body or institution established by law in respect of any matter, any evidence.  Why then restrict the evidence in a court of law, to only criminal evidence, do you see what I am getting at?  Why shouldn't it be - you know, I think what - you know if it was against the person concerned in proceedings in a court of law or any other body, then of course there would be no, then it would be quite clear, but the way that you ask us to interpret it, court of law is only criminal proceedings, but not delict or contractual whatever, anything else, civil, but in any other body can be anything.  Whereas the problem with the interpretation as Mr Richard puts it, you know, is criminal proceedings in any other institution or body, you know, what did the legislature have in mind?  Okay, we have come up with perhaps court martial and Mr Richard came up with saying well, you might get disciplinary proceedings where somebody is charged in-house by his employer of thieving or let's say, now can they use the evidence that he gave at Section 29 in the disciplinary proceedings where he admitted to thieving from his employer, that sort of thing.  So, there is difficulties whichever way one looks at it.