CHAIRPERSON
We have considered the application to amend the amnesty application to more explicitly include two incidents.  The first one relating to a shoot-out between the applicant and members of the police at Marienhoek in Queenstown in the Eastern Cape, as well as the incident relating to the arrest, the subsequent arrest of the applicant, whom according to Mr Mhlaba, who represents him today, has been a fugitive, his subsequent arrest on the 24th of February 1994, when he was in unlawful possession of explosives and arms.
	The application form has been completed by the applicant himself without any legal assistance and that much is apparent upon a reading of the application form.
	It is not unusual in the experience of the Committee to have application forms completed under those circumstances, purporting to deal with a number of incidents, which should form the subject matter of the amnesty application, in a round about way and not as clearly and precisely and ...(indistinct) as obviously the case is where an applicant is assisted legally in completing the application form.
	Mr Mhlaba has drawn our attention to the fact that in the bundle of documents before us, there is indication of notice having been given in terms of Section 19(4) of Act 34 of 1995, to two members of the South African Police Services in Queenstown, who it appears, are interested parties in respect of the shoot-out involving the applicant.
	The application form itself, at various places, various sections of the form, purports to refer to not only an incident in Soweto but also to incidents in Queenstown.  Adv Steenkamp, the Leader of Evidence of the Committee, who appears here today, has indicated to us that although this matter is not, or does not relate to a trial that was heard long ago, the records relating to the - particularly the Queenstown, Eastern Cape incidents, are not available.  He has indicated to us that Mr Mhlaba has also searched for those records, and have also been unable to locate them, with the result that as is normally the case in these applications, the relevant court records are not before the Committee.
	We are however satisfied that no prejudice would result from us granting the application to amend the amnesty application in the sense which I have referred to.  We are satisfied that all of the interested parties have been given notice and we are satisfied that as perhaps incomplete as it might appear on the face of it, that the application form itself, does refer to the incidents which forms the subject matter of the amendment.
	We accordingly grant the order to amend the amnesty application, in the sense of including the incident relating to the shoot-out in November 1993 as well as the incident relating to the arrest of the applicant on 24 February 1994.
	Mr Mhlaba, do you want to proceed?