CHAIRPERSON
He is not obliged to get an Attorney or any assistance.  He has applied for certain incidents which covers the Kliprivier incident and there he says, in that incident he stole weapons and for that, he now seeks amnesty because it was a political matter.
	He comes to the hearing today and he includes a whole host of other incidents which on its own maybe able to be covered by a general statement, but we look at his whole application and then clearly we can see what he intended to apply for.
	Is there any leeway to think differently, never mind what he tells us now?  We are bound by what is contained in that, because if we can't bring it under any of those sections, then by allowing him to testify and deciding on the matter, would in effect allow a new application in.  Do you follow the reasoning?