JUDGE WILSON
...matter, but before we proceed with it I have certain problems which I wanted to raise.  Firstly, made available to me for the first time, a copy of the transcript of the previous hearings and towards the end of the record, the question of the affidavits that we dealt with yesterday arises when I drew attention to the applicant's attorney that two affidavits had been handed in which have been prepared for the purpose of the trial.  I'm not sure if it should be trial or inquiries, these I think were affidavits by the police officer De la Rey and attached thereto was an affidavit from the deceased's common law wife Mishek May.
	Mr Mthembu had not seen those affidavits at that stage and we discussed it with him and it is obvious that he had to take instructions from his client and the matter stood down and he was informed that after he has taken instructions it might be necessary for us to call the people who made the affidavits.  We then dealt with the question of Mrs May and whether she had been given notice of the proceedings and whether her address had been obtained and I suggested that it could be obtained from the President Steyn mine where her late husband had worked. 
	I was reminded by Mr Mthembu that after he had had an opportunity of discussing the matter, that is the contents of De la Rey's affidavit with his client, the matter having been adjourned to enable him to do this, the hearing was informed that notice had been received from relatives of the victim that they wished to oppose the granting of amnesty and the matter was accordingly adjourned to enable that question to be dealt with, but Mr Mthembu never intended to, nor did he ever give the impression that he was admitting he correctness of the contents of Mr de la Rey's affidavit.  In those circumstances, quite obviously, Mr de la Rey should have been called to confirm what is set out on the affidavit and to enable Mr Mthembu to cross-examine him.  This unfortunately was not done, we merely proceeded with the rebuttal evidence before we heard the main evidence and in the light of the very really conflicts of fact that apparently arise, as to where goods were found, when things happened, it seems to me essential that Mr de la Rey should be called to give evidence and Mr Mthembu should be given an opportunity to examine him and thereafter, if he feels it necessary, to recall the applicants to rebut any further matters that may have arisen. But equally well if Mr De la Rey is to be recalled on this issue and there is, as I have indicated a conflict of fact, he should be notified so that he has an opportunity to find his own records, his pocket book and matters of that nature to support his evidence and also to contact and have available any other police officers who may have been with him at the time that the incidents he attested to in his affidavit took place.  And I don't want us to have him here and then have him saying, oh well, constable so and so or sergeant so and so  was there and he did this and he did that ,and then we have to adjourn the whole matter again. So I would like arrangements to be made, I understand Mr de la Rey is in Bloemfontein and accordingly be available, that he was a potential witness in the magistrate's court case today and tomorrow that is going to be adjourned. He should be informed that we wished him to come and give evidence in support of the affidavit he has made, that he must obtain what check-up in anything he wishes to and have those documents available so we don't have further adjournments and that if he intends to name other persons as having been present and that they are potential witnesses, they should also be present.
	Now how quickly can this be done?