UNKNOWN
Mr Chairman, I am sorry to have to interrupt my learned friend, but there is something which I think we must get clarity on. There seems to be developing in this hearing an idea that there are two parties against each other in front of you; that Sehlwana is say the one party and as opposed to him stands the other applicants. That's altogether not the situation, Mr Chairman. With great respect, the legal representative of Mr Sehlwana does not oppose our application. We do not oppose his.
	We are not here in conflict with each other in the sense that one witness has to be broken down as far as credibility is concerned merely because he says something different from another. We didn't tender this evidence to make anything out of it.  We tendered the evidence merely because we believed it is something that happened that you should be aware of. We are not making any point of it. But we do find it objectionable, Mr Chairman, that this witness is cross-examined as if he is sucking something out of his thumb, because frankly, Mr Chairman, it has nothing to do with the merits of our application for amnesty. We suggest to you that we are wasting time, with all due respect to my learned friend, if we are - you will remember that we didn't attack Sehlwana's credibility. I didn't cross-examine him.
	  What we did in our questions, was to lift out areas where his evidence coincided with ours and where they differed.  We didn't cross-examine him because it is not necessary, Mr Chairman, and you can allow it to go on, but we wish to place on record, that we are busy with something which is totally irrelevant to what we are about here, namely the applications for amnesty.