MR WESSELS
Yes Mr Chairman, he does, because full disclosure is full disclosure insofar as he's concerned, of the facts that pertain to the case and his motive, or rather, his beliefs if found to be incorrect, can't be held against him and now say: "You genuinely believed that you had authority, but now it's turned out that somewhere there hasn't been the official authority that was required, now you can't get it, because that's not a full disclosure."  It's not an objective full disclosure in regard to all facts and - let's take an example, let's assume that authority had to be given by the Minister of Defence and somewhere in the chain of events the Secretary of the Minister didn't sign the order, but lower down it was believed that the order had been signed and the deed is executed, then objectively there wasn't the authority as is required, presumably in Section 20(2)(b), then he can still get the amnesty, although he will come and say: "I had the authority".  Some other witness may later on come and say: "No, that signature that appears there is not the Minister's, that's only the Secretary's signature.  And that's where (f) comes in.  If I may read (f) to you ...(intervention)