MR NGUBANE
Thank you, I am grateful for that clarification because I didn't know how to go about with my argument.
	Mr Chairman, before I come to the Heads of my argument, to follow that sequence, I would like to address some of the issues that had been raised by my learned friend.  
	The first one being an extensive quotation from Seshaba and other documentation from the ANC, the intention of that being to stress the point that there will be no security of informers if their identities are disclosed.  I will come later on more fully to the question security of informers.
	But I would like to point out to the Committee that a very important intervention was omitted by my learned friend, and that is after this publication, there was an important development that the ANC renounced the armed struggle and since then, there has been no indication that there was any inflammatory publication by the ANC to incite people to kill informers.  My respectful submission Mr Chairman, is to the effect that in the absence of that, the point as advanced or intended to be advanced by the various publications by the ANC should fall away.
	Regarding the locus standi of the victims, Mr Chairman, I would submit that they are here to indicate that the applicants are not disclosing fully and the whole question of informers centre around that, that here are these people, they are applying, but they are not disclosing fully.
	I respectfully submit that the families as well as myself, have a locus standi to be here to disclose that these people are not being forthright with their application.
	My Lord, turning to the issue at hand, that is the disclosure of informers, I do concede that it is established law in South Africa, that there is a privilege covering informers.  That privilege as we all know, was adopted from English law and it was imported into South Africa, and it was interpreted in various judgments and applied  in various situations.
	What is important Mr Chairman, is that when this policy was developed and adopted by South Africa, there was no ...(indistinct) generous process as the truth and reconciliation and all the authorities that have been quoted by my learned friend, I do concede they do apply, but they do apply to ordinary situations.
	Here we are dealing with a peculiar situation, the truth and reconciliation and the authorities quoted, were to an extend some doubt in Rex v Pillay 1945 AD 653 (658) and the Courts I submit sir, follow that authority and the existence of the privilege relates to certain instances, exists as a result of certain instances for example public policy, the likelihood of the informer not informing further if he is identified and hinderance of the investigations in the event of identity of the informer being disclosed.
	In this situation we are dealing with the past, we are dealing with the policemen who in fact, on their own version, have resigned from the South African Police.  We are dealing with the policemen who were not involved in legitimate investigations, and I submit respectfully that is why the distinction is public policy demands that those people be known.
	If one looks at the spirit of the Act, the spirit of the Act is this, that all those people who have been involved in criminal activities should come forward, and say so otherwise they will be prosecuted.
	We do not have information that the so-called informers have applied for amnesty or not.  If they haven't applied for amnesty, and I submit in all likelihood they haven't, public policy demands that those people be prosecuted, be disclosed and be prosecuted.
	I respectfully submit that then the privilege that extends to informers does not extend in this particular case.