MR RICHARD
I think we have all answered an exam question or two on that one.   But in my submission here the use from the context of the Section, is that it is not shall, it is the discretionary.
	The next question is, once we look at the duty and obligation to use the discretion, we then have a look at the prescriptive manner in which the Act dictates that that discretion must be exercised.   It enjoins the Commission to have regard to the principles of openness and transparency.  At page 16, paragraph 3.3.6, I stopped my research after looking up what the meaning of the two words "openness and transparency" were and I have outlined.  Transparent means having the property of transmitting light so as to render what is laying beyond, completely visible.  That can be seen through, open, exposed to general view or knowledge and the meaning of the words is so plain, argument will take it no further.  
	I then revert to the fact that we are in a situation where the applicant has had the and I must concede the trauma and experience of giving evidence firstly at a lengthy trial, then at attending to the sequels of appeals and so on, then at a Section 29 investigation and now faces being questioned in these proceedings.   In this regard I must point out that if one examines the version put up at the trial, and compares it with the version put up by the first applicant, Mr Aboobaker Ismail, and the as yet unknown version of the fifth applicant, it would fly in the face of every notion of openness and transparency if it were said that it was prohibited that any one of all these versions and everything emanating from them all, including the warning and interrogation statements, were precluded from the gamut of cross-examination.  It would mean that the fifth applicant would be entitled in some manner or other, to not be called upon to explain inconsistencies, contradictions and in fact would lay the way open and I am not submitting that that is necessarily the case in this matter, because we haven't yet gone there and for me to say it, would be premature, to chose, to sensor a version so as to chose the most favourable which certainly is not consistent with transparency and openness.   
	Now, so to revert to the argument that the document falls as a public document, I ask the question how could any person exercising the discretion, not to allow the document and its information to remain public, justify a decision to make it secret?  The next point is ...