MR RAUTENBACH
Mr Chairman, our point of view is that despite the motivation that has been given and the explanation that has been given by Mr Du Plessis, one thing that has not been explained is the timing thereof, the fact that this happened a week, or a couple of days, before this hearing and without any explanation in that regard, because on the one hand we heard about the ethical considerations which is said, I've got an ethical problem, but because of the privilege, I am not telling you what the problem is, the applicant himself also and we know that that privilege is the applicant's privilege, also does not come and give an explanation for that.
	We are basically sitting in the situation that as far as the problem that has arisen, and I accept that if he so, when an Attorney terminates the mandate of counsel, one's got to accept that that is something that has happened, our concern is that there was no explanation to you to say why it happened at such a late stage.  If there was an ethical problem, that problem should have existed at the time of the previous hearing or shortly thereafter, at best, for the applicant.
	In those circumstances we say that there is still no proper basis to postpone these proceedings and should you, Mr Chairman, allow a postponement in a sense, it should be a short postponement so that we can, it should be a matter of a day or two and nothing more than that, because if you allow more than that, we certainly, and I am sure other parties here certainly, will be prejudiced.  Thank you Mr Chairman.