MR HATTINGH
I agree Mr Chairman.  So the point is that the applicants in this application for recusal feel that this Committee is not looking for the full truth, not trying its best to obtain the full truth from the applicants, and that the applicants are being protected by the Committee in not telling the full truth.
	In this regard, I would specifically like to make reference to Gushu and the other incident to which he refer in his confession and the pointing out statement.
	As well as the response to questioning regarding the fact that he committed only two robberies, armed robberies during the course of two and a half years for the purposes of arming the SDU's and that he was protected from cross-examination with regard to any further illegal activities in attaining his aim of providing arms for the SDU's.
	If you would just bear with me for one moment please.  That is my submissions in terms of my instructions, all I want to say is that if one have regard to the case law and the test which is to be applied, it is not a matter of what I think, what the Committee itself may think, even if the Committee consider itself to have done a pretty good job in being unbiased and not biased in this matter, it all boils down to the perception ...