CHAIRPERSON
The first request you make entails postponing the matter or at least not finalising the matter. Which is something that we, unless something extraordinary happens is not likely to happen. We are not likely to grant that. For a variety of reasons. Firstly we were told that your client had been informed some time back about the possible incriminatory evidence against him. And unless we have got sufficient explanation as to why since then he did not make use of the opportunity as he was entitled to in terms of the Act, we see no reason why we should be driven to a point where we should not finalise these proceedings this week as we intend doing.
	A secondly and turning to the nature of the evidence which incriminates your client is not any different from the one that you know of. Namely the kind of evidence that you would expect to be incriminating from Mr Kloppers. Because in most instances, all the previous witnesses did not deport to be testifying directly as to what they heard from your client. They were conveying to us as to what they were told by Mr Kloppers and they were therefore secondary witnesses in that respect. So they are not the primary source of the incriminating evidence against your client. And I think that whatever prejudice your client may suffer as a result of incriminatory evidence that prejudice will be taken care of if your client is given the opportunity to cross-examine the primary source of incrimination. 
	You will recall that the Act gives your client or any incriminated person the right to present their case if not only if they are incriminated. The Act says if they are incriminated to their prejudice. So it is not sufficient simply to say they are incriminated. It must be an incrimination to their prejudice. And therefore as I have said I think that whatever prejudice your client may think that he may suffer as a result of incrimination by secondary evidence that will be taken care of if he is given the opportunity to cross-examine the primary source of incrimination. It is precisely the same nature of evidence that you know of. 
	At any rate yesterday to the best of my ability I took note of aspects of the evidence which could be said or be it in a secondary sense be incriminating of your client. And I had in mind to bring them to your attention. And I have tried to pick them up and to systematise them as far as possible so that if you came in I would read those things to you, those aspects to you and I think they will be of assistance to you. And I would suggest that at an appropriate stage, if you so wish, I could read those areas to you and then you will consider your position as to whether really you want, you think of having the matter postponed so that you ask for the record. And in my mind that does not justify that.
	At any rate I will provide to you those aspects. I have tried to take note of them yesterday. I am going to give them to you. You will consider that and then you will see how far you can take the matter. For now we are dealing with Mr Matthews. And I do not know whether you would like to put him in the same category with the other witnesses. In other words you refrain from whether you want to refrain for now from putting any questions to him until I am going to give you a summary of what they said in incriminating your client. And then possibly if you are so advised, ask them to come back to have questions put to them. In which case we will proceed and finish with him. Then we have to take a short adjournment. Then I give you a summary of the incriminating evidence against your client. Then you take the matter further.