CHAIRPERSON
The issue of whether the applicant can be questioned on a matter or matters which form the subject matter of another application has arisen.  Section 19.8(b) of the Act states that:
"The confidentiality of information submitted by applicants lapses only when such information is released in respect of the application or when the hearing of that application begins.  From the confidentiality flows the right to privilege in favour of the deponent of such information."
	While we are wary that other interested parties may also have certain rights, from a reading of the Act as a whole, in general, we are of the view that the right to privileged information ranks higher than all other rights which may flow from matters of concern.  In addition, the Act also favours, where necessary, the duty to curtail cross-examination albeit time wise.  But as all of us will understand, unnecessary cross-examination does entail time wasting.  
	Furthermore, in the event of an incident not before us being raised there is the risk of people not represented here today being touched or implicated.  Even those rights require to be protected.  Up to this stage we have not been informed what the actual basis for the opposition will be.  This makes it even more difficult to understand the reasons sought or for seeking to be allowed to cross-examine on issues which are not properly before us.  It has also been argued before us that the first statement forms part of the application and therefore becomes a public document at the time, at the very latest, the first day of hearing and when this document does in fact become open for public scrutiny.  
	The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, as the dominus litis, has chosen to set down for hearing certain incidents that occurred in these parts of the country.  It certainly appears to be categorised by what is commonly or come to be known as the Black Cat cases.  That is neither here nor there.  The applicant is entitled to be protected from being prejudiced in subsequent hearings and therefore we need to take cognisance of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's decision to split the hearings.  	In order to protect the applicant from being prejudiced, cross-examination relating to those issues that will possibly form the subject matter of future hearings seem to be issues that cannot be allowed.  
	Overall, we are not persuaded that the right to cross-examine the witness on incidents which fall to be the subject of other applications is allowable.  
	We consequently make the following ruling:  
	That the witness cannot be subjected to cross-examination on matters which are still subject to other amnesty applications.