CHAIRPERSON
We have considered Mr Hewitt's application to reserve further cross-examination of Mr Sithole, specifically in regard to the incident or incidents relating to his client Ms Mchunu and a Mr Khumalo.
	After consideration, we rule that the application be refused for the reason that the witness, Mr Sithole has specifically testified, stated in his testimony that he is not applying for amnesty in respect of the alleged attempted murders of Ms Mchunu and Mr Khumalo.
	Those matters are therefore not before us and the applicant has given evidence relating to the firing of two shots outside the premises where a meeting was held, on apparently the same night as the attempted murders referred to and unless the attempted murders arise out of the firing of those specific two shots, we are of the view that whatever may have happened later that night, or earlier that night, whenever it might have been, is not before us and therefore it is not our concern to delve into those two incidents.
	We believe that this ruling would apply whether or not the applicant, Mr Sithole has been granted indemnity in terms of either the Indemnity Act of 1990 or the 1992 Act, it doesn't make any difference, and we, on that point of whether or not the applicant, Mr Sithole has been granted indemnity in respect of those two attempted murders, we make no finding in that regard.  We don't find that it is necessary to make such a finding.
	We also are of the view that this ruling would in no way prejudice either Mr Khumalo or Ms Mchunu, because if the applicant has been granted indemnity previously, referring specifically to those two incidents, such indemnity would obviously effect their right.  If they haven't, then our ruling in no way effects any rights that they may have with regard to those incidents.
	We do not grant the application to reserve further cross-examination.