MR BLACK
I'm not entirely certain under the circumstances as to how it came about that this first statement came into possession of Mr Hattingh, so I'd rather not comment on that.  I understand it might have been certainly an error, because if the member of staff of the Commission intended this information to form part of the hearing of today, I'm absolutely certain that they would have made that information available to everyone.
	The other two issues which are perhaps not directly related to the legal aspects being discussed here.  The first is, Mr Hattingh blandly makes statements and impliedly criticises me and finds it difficult to accept my explanation relating to the second statement and makes implied allegations that I have intended to mislead this Committee.  He alleges that my second statement was submitted a considerable time after the hearing at which it was held on the twenty sixth (26th) of March or was due to commence on the twenty sixth (26th) of March.  
	In fact if the Committee looks at the, and I have stated from the Bar as it were, that these statements, the second lot of statements were submitted under time pressures to the TRC in order to enable them to prepare for the twenty sixth (26th) of March.  And if one looks at, certainly on my bundle and I've confirmed that with the evidence leader, these documents were faxed through to the TRC on the thirteenth (13th) of March, about a week prior to the hearing or so, which was due to commence on the twenty sixth (26th) of March.  The evidence leader has confirmed that, that it was an error on his part when he said that they were only faxed on the thirty first (31st) of March.  	The other issue which was alluded to by Mr Hattingh relates to, I didn't quite follow his argument and I don't want to labour the point because I think it's a matter that if it has to be taken further it should be done in Chambers, to the extent that he suggested that I may have been or may have access to information, additional information which has not been placed before him or any other members by reason of the fact that at one stage, at a very early stage I may add of this matter, my reference appears on a letterhead requesting additional information, and I don't want to go into that and if necessary, I'd certainly deal with that fully.  
	I can just give this Committee the assurance that I certainly don't have any documents which are not before the Committee in the bundle particularly.  I had commenced this matter which is being discussed, prefaced by the fear that I was trying to avoid any allegations or suggestions or argument being addressed to the Committee that for the purposes of this sitting the applicant, Mr Gushu, has not made a full disclosure by reason of the fact that the incident referred to in the second statement wasn't dealt with in the second statement, but does form part of an incident in respect of which he has sought amnesty, and before commencing that argument, during the course of the adjournment while you gave us the opportunity to investigate fully all the surrounding circumstances, in my submission the evidence leader has cleared up the position for everyone.  
	I don't have any further submissions because it would appear that this issue will be dealt with.  I may just also confirm what the evidence leader has said, that in respect of this latter incident the charges were withdrawn and Mr Gushu was not acquitted and there is the possibility of any incrimination arising.  Thank you for your time, Mr Chairman.