MR WESSELS
I consulted with my client and in an effort to see if there was really any issue between Mr Bizos and my client that could be resolved, I asked Mr Bizos whether he could tell me what questions he was going to ask relating to the Tutu incident.  He told me - he asked me whether the version would be incriminatory or exculpatory.  I told him that it would be incriminatory and he then said well then he was going to probe into the matter.  Mr Chairman, as a result of that, I am instructed that Mr Verster's version pertaining to the Tutu incident, is incriminatory.  That the reason that he did not apply for amnesty is that he rightly or wrongly believed that it was not necessary as it wasn't a gross human rights violation.  I submit that the requirements of the Act haven't been complied with in so far as notice is concerned, that  certain issues are going to be dealt with that are incriminatory.  That therefore, as this Committee whose jurisdiction is for amnesty purposes and not  an investigative unit, the witness cannot be expected to answer questions pertaining to the Tutu incident, in so far as it relates to that particular incident.  If there are any general questions that may be relevant in so far as the other matters are concerned, then he's obviously willing to answer those questions, but nothing about the Tutu incident in particular.