CHAIRPERSON
Mr Visser, I think we should indicate to you that we are very reluctant to allow ourselves to get entangled in the whole question as to whether or not certain people were wrongly convicted.  That is the problem for the Supreme Court, I do not know there is in Kimberley or Bloemfontein.  I have already mentioned that we have come to know that papers have been filed and I am sure there is going to be an argument about whether or not that conviction of those people should be set aside or not and I am sure one of the people you have mentioned, Mr Nele, has filed papers and I am sure there is going to be a huge, possibly, there is going to be a huge dispute of fact and those people who filed affidavits in support of that application are going to be called upon to come and testify and the like.
	Now, we do not want to take that problem, which is not ours, and bring it into our arena and find ourselves involved in an argument here as to whether or not the conviction of those people was good or bad.  Those who want to support the conviction of those people must go to the Supreme Court concerned, file affidavits and, or go and lead evidence there.  Those who say that conviction or those convictions are bad must file papers with that court and go and give their evidence there.  We are going to be very reluctant to allow ourselves to take that problem, which is not ours, and bring it here and find ourselves sitting here having to decide whether or not the conviction of those people is good or bad.  That is not our problem and we will try by all means possible not to get ourselves entangled in problems which are not ours.  	
	Now, to the question of, the point that you have raised now, it is not really a new point, because, Mr Visser, surely it is so that every person in this country wants the truth to come out.  Everybody in this country is interested in the truth coming out.  One cannot, on that basis, simply because somebody is interested in having the full truth told and say, well, that gives the person the basis on which that person can participate in the proceedings.  It must still boil down to a particular individual.  That particular individual must still show that him, I am talking about people with interest, they must still show that they have got interest in the proceedings and this simply takes us back to the same argument which was raised before lunch time.  
	I do not think we have, anybody has got a problem about the fact that your clients are interested in having the truth told.  Indeed, everyone in this hall is interested in having the truth told, but does that give them, bring them within the ambit of that section?  No.  They must, as individuals, still show the basis on which they will be entitled to participate to the extent of cross-examining witnesses and I am not so sure whether the argument is any different that, than when we broke up for lunch.  
	In the meantime though, Mr Visser, well, you have suggested that we should make a ruling.  It crosses my mind that, perhaps, if we are to make a ruling with regard to Mr Mbatha, perhaps it would be better not to do so now.  It might be better to wait until your colleagues representing the victims have cross-examined.  It may be that from their cross-examination it may emerge that your clients have got some legal basis to cross-examine the witness.  It may be that during their cross-examination they may elicit some evidence which may tend to establish your client's interests one way or another and I thought, maybe, we should shelve that point and then let the other people put questions and only thereafter, your client's position, viz a vie this particular witness can only be properly assessed.  After all, simply speaking, the witness has not finished testifying.