<UNKNOWN>
that, as you say he is a Captain, I would have thought that there would have been people more senior to him 
who would have knowledge of all these things in respect of which you want him to come and testify.  If 
that is the case, if the position is that this knowledge that you want him to come and share with us, the 
knowledge does not peculiarly reside in him alone, I would have thought that any other person who is just 
as much conversant with all these facts, would be as good a witness as he could be, unless of course there 
are some other reasons that we don't know of why you particularly want this particular witness.
	And on the submissions that you have made to us so far, you emphasise the generality of his 
evidence, that you want him to come and give.  On the submissions you have so far made nothing suggests 
that he and he alone out of the security establishment can come and testify about these aspects.
	Nothing that I have picked up - I am not through yet.
	If I can just make one point just to round the point up.  You see I am troubled by the fact that we 
are going to have to go back to the same argument which you had last time.  I am also troubled by the fact 
that it seems to me that low and behold by coincidence the State has an interest in a particular witness and it 
turns out that that happens to be the witness in respect of which you also want to call that particular 
witness.	
	And then it takes us back to the same argument which we had last year; given that fact that this 
matter was argued before us last week in more or less the same nature; given the fact that the kind of 
evidence does not peculiarly reside within the knowledge of a particular witness about 
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/