UNKNOWN
Let me take 99 and 100 as read, except in 100 they might very well face prosecution on the fourth last line of the second paragraph, very well face prosecution, but for these applications they might well.
	Let us take the Rosskam incident for which no amnesty has been applied, but nevertheless we've had evidence.  They stole the money, there's a relevant factor that they were in it for the money.  Is that irrelevant?  And if that is admissible, why what happened in relation to Webster?  The general motives of what their activities in relation to the South West African situation was about Lubowski and we agree, Mr Chairman, that with respect, there have to be some limitations, but what we asked questions about were in relation to a limited period were a small number of the 170 odd projects and in respect of which one of the applicants made very relevant notes in his diary.  If we are to get the - how could they refuse if one of their main operatives makes notes in a diary in the course and scope of his employment, how can they refuse being parties to this conspiracy, how can they refuse to answer questions about Webster, about Lubowski, about all the other people whose names appear in that diary?  I'm sorry Webster doesn't appear, not refer to Lubowski by name, but by clear inference Mr Chairman, as my learned friend showed during the cross-examination.  And also, if they were - once they claim that they were merely monitoring him whilst he was in Johannesburg, why can't we ask searching questions and why can't they answer honestly what it is that they did in relation to it?  To merely say well because it was outside and because we chose not to apply for amnesty, this is the end of it.  Yes, Mr Chairman, that they couldn't get amnesty for things outside, we have indicated what applications for amnesty have been made, but on the question of relevance, Mr Chairman, the relevance is to be found in the Judgment of Motoung, which we refer to in page 55.  If you do things as a gang in furtherance of a conspiracy, you cannot say that what the gang did is irrelevant in relation to motive, circumstance.  We have - 	Then we deal with the credibility of witnesses Mr Chairman.  This really deals in detail ...(intervention)