JUDGE WILSON
As result of enquiries made by my Brother, Judge Ngoepe, we have been informed that there are three pages relating to this applicant's application at the office in Cape Town.  We understand that they are at the present time being faxed up here and that the first page or two have arrived.  In these circumstances it seems impossible to proceed with the matter at the present time. These pages must be made available to the parties and an investigation made as to when they were received, because if that is - if they were sent, as we were told they were, we can stop talking about the Annexure B and everything else.  It appears that a proper application was launched at the proper time, with the necessary annexures, because our attitude has been that we do not insist that everything must be written on the principal page, as long as it is attached to the application in terms of the Act.  And if that was done here, well, then the question we have spent a great deal of time on today debating goes out by the window.  We continue and the parties must obviously be given an opportunity to investigate the incidents which he in fact applied for amnesty originally. And it appears that having regard to the time now, it would be impossible to conclude the matter today and it would be unfair to commence the evidence of a witness when one is going to have to adjourn halfway through his evidence in chief, which means that his legal advisers can't talk to him and months later he has got to remember what he said.
	That appears to us, subject to anything that may be said, that the only answer at the present time is to adjourn to a date to be determined and the matter can then be disposed of.  We say this, because there is a matter set down for hearing tomorrow, this has already been crowded out once, and we feel that this matter certainly not be ready to proceed tomorrow.  It also appears to us, having regard to the new incidents which the applicant now, I think is going to introduce, if they are similar to those in Exhibit B, that the argument in favour of hearing the two applications together, becomes very untenable.  
	There are at the most, I think, two incidents in common and numerous other incidents that were not committed by the same people at the same time and it would be far preferable in those circumstances to hear the applications separately.  We propose accordingly, to adjourn this matter to a date to be arranged.
	It may well be that when we - communication is kept up between the parties that it would be desirable to set it down for hearing before or after the other matter that we have already adjourned, because they are the same legal advisers engaged in both matters, that we could do one and the other one immediately thereafter.  But I do not think it possible to continue, certainly, it is impossible to finish it today and I regret very much that it seems that the delay, the wasted day has been caused by the fact that these three pages were not made available. They are the pages that should have annexed to the letter written to the applicant's legal advisers. They are obviously the pages which one says are these part of your application, if they were lodged with the application it is clearly that is a very proper question to ask.  For some reason there has been some misfiling or something of that nature, I cannot say what, but the papers must be made available to all parties. This is the application form which you are all entitled to have access to.