CHAIRPERSON
Just before we adjourned for the tea break, Mr Jansen asked the Committee to make a ruling in regard to a point of procedure.
	It is apparent from Mr Jansen's line of questioning that he was about to ask the applicant questions relating to an incident that was in no way related to the subject matter of this particular application.
	The basis for the application made by Mr Jansen, is that to allow such questioning, would have the effect of shortening proceedings in another application as had been discussed at a meeting that had been held with one of the Amnesty Committee  members, namely Judge Wilson.
	I don't know what actually occurred at that meeting, I wasn't present, but we are left with the principle now as to be decided whether to allow this questioning in relation to an incident which has nothing at all to do with the subject matter of this application.
	We all know that in these hearings, these amnesty hearings, that we are liberal in the application of the laws of procedure and evidence far more so than we would be in a court case, and there is a bit of latitude with regard to the leading of hearsay evidence and with regard to leading questions, and indeed even with regard to certain points that may be irrelevant.  It is not as tight, one can put it that way, as would be applied in a court case.
	We, the panel have discussed this matter during the adjournment and we are of the view that it would be improper to allow the questions to be asked and make such a ruling, the ruling being that we will not allow it.  To do so would in our view, lead to various potential difficulties.  For instance if we did make the ruling that the questions of this completely irrelevant to this application, evidence be led, such evidence would then become part of the evidence of this particular application, which might, depending on the answers given or the answers not given or refused to be given, have an effect on whether or not the criteria of full disclosure has been made.
	If there is not a full disclosure in respect to a piece of evidence that is completely irrelevant, but which is ruled can be pursued, how does that effect non-disclosure in this application, that sort of problem.
	We also believe that this questioning would not really have the effect of shortening proceedings because the time taken in this, the questioning in this application, would be the same time, presumably that would be taken if the evidence were to be led, where it ought to be led at the application of Mr Jansen's client.
	In the circumstances, we are of the view that seeing that the evidence is completely irrelevant to this application, that we will not allow the questions to be put.  However, Mr Jansen of course is free to put any questions to the witness that are relevant to this particular application and the subject matter thereof.