MR DU PLESSIS
: Yes.   Mr Chairman I want to place ourposition on record in this regard.   First, in answer to my learnedfriend Mr Mpshe's argument that he only gave notice to let peopleknow who are implicated in the actual commission of the deed orthis specific deed itself, that that argument does not pertainto the Metasi matter because in the Metasi matter it was decidedthis morning that that matter cannot go on because other peopleare implicated should have notice and should be witnesses.   Itseems to me there is not consistency in the application of whoshould be called as witnesses, who should be notified as partieswho have an interest in the matter.   We, and I want to placethis on record, before the hearings were scheduled to start on21 October, before that we gave an indication that we are workinghard to finalise the applications, we were requested to hand inthe applications as soon as possible so as to enable the Commissionto notify all relevant persons.   We
2. did /...
MR DU PLESSIS 470 ADDRESS
did so.   We handed in the applications the Monday before the21st, that was a week before.   We were given an indication bythe Commission, as I understood it and my attorney as well, thatthere was enough time that they would be able to reach personsand those persons they won't reach could be reached during thefirst week of the hearings and one could then proceed with thosematters that people were notified.   We are now two and a halfweeks away from the point where we handed in the applications.  As far as I understand, the Commission has an investigativeunit whose task it is to notify people implicated in the hearingsand who have an interest in applications.   We, as well as thepublic and I want to include yourselves as well, expect from thepeople who are responsible for this to do that.   I am not pointinga finger to my learned friend because that's not his job, he'sthe chief presenter of evidence.   What we say is if applicationshave to be postponed every time because these requirements havenot been met in respect of which we have no obligation, in respectof which we cannot do anything about, we are prejudiced.   Weare prepared, there are various issues involved here, there arequestions of legal costs involved here which everybody knows isa difficult aspect and I just want to place on record that ifmatters have to be postponed because people have not been notified,as they should have done, the applicants are prejudiced by that.
 What I want to say, however, is that we are fully prepared andI reiterate what I said this morning.  We are fully prepared toaccommodate everybody concerned in these hearings.   We are preparedto go ahead with any application that we possibly can where peoplehave been notified and we
2. feel /...
MR DU PLESSIS 471 ADDRESS
feel that because the Act makes provision that people must benotified, that must be done before an application is heard.  I am not conceding in saying that, that that is a requirementthat has to be satisfied before amnesty can be granted, I willhave another argument on that when I address the Committee onthe requirements for amnesty.   As I read the Act, compliancewith this specific part of the Act is not an obligation that restson the applicants and because it doesn't rest on the applicantsthat is not a requirement the applicants have to satisfy for amnesty.  What we don't want is we don't want procedural difficultieswhich can cause difficulties later.   
 Our view is we will be prejudiced but we also say if people haven'tbeen notified there could be problems with the hearing continuingon that specific incident and we are quite prepared to go on withany other incident we can under the circumstances to utilise thetime.   I want to make the point that Brigadier Cronje is therenow, there was an indication by Mr Currin that he wanted to cross-examineBrigadier Cronje...(end of side 1)...