ADV J MOSES
If I may proceed Chairperson.
	The gist of the submission my Lords, members of the Committee, is that from those paragraphs which I have referred to, it is clearly, or it is clear that that would constitute evidence or information which might be to the detriment of the witness and as such might incriminate him.  Now it is clear as I understand the provisions of Section 31, my Lord, members of the Committee, that evidence tendered at a Committee in the course of their proceedings could be inadmissible, provided it does not fall within the proviso to sub-section 3 of Section 31.
	The problem of Mr Mbane, my Lords, members of the Committee, is that there was no application for amnesty and there is...the act does not prohibit the Attorney General from indeed instituting prosecution against Mr Mbane and in the context of that...of that possibility, that real possibility, that it is submitted that an order might have to be made by the Committee with regard to the evidence which might be elicited either through examination in chief, or through cross examination.  Because from the statement, whether it be in the form as contained in volume 2, or in the form as it is indicated and reflected in the original document, it is clearly, it is clear from that that those evidence or facts would conforms to what is referred to in Section 31, sub-section 2(c) of the Act, where it is, and it reads thus my Lords and members of the Commission:
"A person referred to in sub-section 1 shall only be compelled to answer a question or to produce an article which may incriminate him or her if the Commission has issued an order to that effect."
And then the objective jurisdictional requirement, as I understand it, my Lords members of the Commission, after the Commission firstly has consulted with the Attorney General who has jurisdiction, and has satisfied itself that to require such information from such a person is reasonable, necessary and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on freedom and equality, and has satisfied itself that such a person has refused or is likely to refuse to answer a question or produce an article on the grounds that such an answer or article might incriminate him or her.
	Now it seems to me with respect, my Lords and members of the Committee, and I might be wrong, that in order for Mr Mbane to invoke only the privilege of his evidence not being admissible against him in criminal proceedings should it follow, an order at least is required to be issued by this Committee.  That in any event, it seems to me and it is submitted with respect, would not preclude the Attorney General to institute criminal proceedings.  It would, however, preclude him or her to use his evidence which would be elicited here and which clearly indicates that it would be of incriminating nature to be used against Mr Mbane, should he be prosecuted.