CHAIRPERSON
This is an application for a postponement of these proceedings launched on behalf of the applicant, Mr Gonya, by Mr van Breda who for this purpose acts on behalf of the applicant.  Mr van Breda indicated that he is instructed, it appears apparently at the instance of the Department of Defence to act on behalf of the applicant in these proceedings, that he is unable to proceed with the matter at this stage due to the fact that he has another professional commitment which clashes with the dates of this present matter before us.  His position as we understand it is not so much that he has been unable to prepare for this application although he indicated that he has not prepared as thoroughly as he normally would have by for example doing an inspection in loco and matters of that nature, it is really due to the fact that he is unable, unavailable to proceed with the matter on behalf of the applicant in the days, today and tomorrow, set aside to hear this matter.  You also indicated that there have been some misunderstandings about the dates and the venue for this hearing and that he has only been furnished with the proper detail in regard to these matters a few days ago.  He indicates that his firm, legal firm, has been instructed to act on behalf of the applicant even at the postponed hearing of this matter that was scheduled for November last year but that they had various difficulties in making contact with the applicant who, it appeared, eventually only contacted Mr van Breda Monday past being the 31st January 2000.  Under those circumstances he indicated that if the matter were to proceed he would not be available to act on behalf of the applicant and he accordingly applied for the proceedings to be postponed.
	The application is opposed by all of the other parties although Mr Smith who acts on behalf of the victims indicated that his clients don't have any strong position on the matter but that it would be in their interest also if the matter is to be finalised due to the emotional stress that is understandably caused to them by these proceedings in having to deal with an incident which has obviously been a very difficult one to deal with. 
	 The opposition to the application is based briefly upon the fact that the matter was previously scheduled to be heard during November 1999 as has already been indicated but that it had to be postponed at that stage due to the fact that the applicant could not be located.  Those arrangements went with the usual significant expenditure of resources that is involved in arranging matters of this nature.  That expenditure has in fact been duplicated for the purposes of the present session which is set down for today which is Thursday the 3rd February 2000 and tomorrow, Friday the 4th February 2000 which time is reserved entirely to hear and finalise this matter.  It is accordingly the only matter that is on our roll to be dealt with in this time.
	Notice has been given to more than 150 victims and 76 of those persons are physically present at the venue today.  There's also legal representation on behalf of the victims as has been indicated, the African National Congress and other interested parties in the proceedings as well as the co-applicant present at the venue today.  The letter to legal representatives, hail from Gauteng Province and made the arrangements to proceed to this venue in order to finalise the matter in the set down period. 
	Notice has in addition been given to other implicated parties who we are told are members of the South African National Defence Force who are also present at the proceedings at public expense like the legal representatives on behalf of the victims and the applicant himself.  The taxpayer, in addition, has to foot a substantial bill in regard to this hearing.  Mr Koopedi, who acts on behalf of the African National Congress likewise referred to the considerable expense to his client as one of the grounds of opposing the application.  We might of course add that Members of the Panel and our support staff are also from elsewhere in the country and similar substantial expense is occasioned in arranging their presence at this venue.
	Having carefully considered the matter it would in our view not be in the interests of justice to delay these proceedings any further.  The substantial prejudice which would be occasioned by a postponement in our view by far outweigh any possible prejudice which applicant might suffer in the circumstances.  We specifically bear in mind in this regard the fact that it is possible to arrange for alternative legal representation for the applicant of a legal representative who is available to proceed with the matter in the time available for these proceedings.
	In the circumstances the application for postponement is refused.