MS QUNTA
No, Mr Chairman, I do not but I don't pre-empt my learned friend here but I think the point that he's trying to make and which we were not able to make prior to your adjournment, is that in fact it's the applicant - it is the applicant that has to implicate.  Now I appreciate it that in some - obviously if you're going to have an investigation and someone other than the applicant raises a very serious point and there's lot's of evidence, you can't ignore that simply because of Section 19.1.
	But I think the point here is that it's the applicant that has to implicate the person that has to be notified and here in this - the applicants in fact specifically denied any knowledge of this thing, they did this in paragraph 6 and paragraph 7.  Mr Madasi was interviewed at Victor Verster prison on the 25th of July '97 and he denied - he confirmed what the operational vehicle is, that is the document we looked at prior to the adjournment Mr Chairman, and he denied two, three days later at an entirely different venue in the Free State or in Bloemfontein.  
	Mr Gqomfa was approached and he also said that he doesn't know anything about an Audi, so what we are saying is that the applicants not only doesn't mention an Audi, they specifically deny both in their early evidence and here at the hearing  and it's on that basis that I'm saying there was not sufficient evidence.  
	On a proper reading of 19, Section 19 (1) and (2) and Section 30 (2), our view is that there was not sufficient reason to serve a notice on our client in terms of Section 19 and that's all Mr Chairman.  Perhaps what I would like to say now is that I will leave it to you, I would like to perhaps - once you've informed us of the decision that you have made, I would just like to make one brief sentence before we can proceed but I will hand it over to you now.