<UNKNOWN>
handed in this little document, simply to say that where we admit being involved, it does not necessarily 
mean that we agree with the evidence tendered by an applicant before you or with his particular motivation, 
it goes without saying, Mr Chairman.
	The reason why we make this point right now is that it does not occur to us to be the time or the 
place to place in issue all the evidence placed before you by the present applicants, where we should 
disagree with them.  We would be in your hands as to how you want to deal with those disputes, all that we 
will do at this stage, and we undertake to do, is to draw your attention to any disputes which may exist.
	What we want to make absolutely clear is that we are not objecting on behalf of any of our clients 
to any of the applications now before you.  If it should happen Mr
Chairman, that on the evidence as disputed perhaps by any of our clients in future, it becomes necessary for 
you to make credibility findings, well then we will have to be led by you at that stage, presently we are 
assuming that there may not be such material disputes as will disenable you to make a finding on their 
application.  We are hoping that that is going to be the situation that prevails.
	I will finish Mr Chairman, this is really a build up to the question of the Section 19(4) notices.  
We are in this position for example, this morning we heard evidence which affect Victor and Schoon for 
whom we appear and we had no notice that this was going to happen.
	Now quite clearly from an administrative point of view, it occurs to us that the Committee is in an 
invidious position.   My attorney and myself discussed yesterday the 
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/