MR BERGER
Chairperson, I don't know why the seriousness of the allegations are brushed aside.  They have been made public and they stand until they are withdrawn.  And if this application had been proceeded with and if this application had been dismissed, that would have been one thing, but the allegations still stand despite the fact that the prayers have been withdrawn.  And they are most serious allegations which have been made.  I don't suppose it will help if I go through the application to point out which allegations I'm referring to, so I won't.
	My learned friend submitted to you that those allegations are simply of academic value now, that's not so, they're not of academic value.  They were allegations made on the basis of opinions of a journalist and the applicants called for an investigation, and our submissions would have been that the proper place for that investigation should be here before this Committee, not some other investigation which was being called for by the applicants.  In the same way as the circumstances surrounding the making of Mr Nosenga's application, were investigated here in this forum, so the other allegations of fraud and laundering through the TRC, all those allegations must now be investigated here in front of this Committee.
	The applicants refer to Section 5(l) and (m) of the TRC Act, which says that this Committee has the same powers as the TRC, and we would have argued that that must be read in the context of amnesty hearings.  And yes, it's correct, this Committee has the power to investigate matters, but it must be done within the context of this very hearing, and that's what we would have submitted, and then those allegations against us could have been canvassed and dealt with here.  Those allegations are part of, at the moment part of the record of this amnesty hearing.  The allegations of laundering, of fraud, of forgery, which have been made against us, are part of the record of this very amnesty hearing, and how are they going to be dealt with if not by an investigation here before this Committee into those allegations?  That is why I submit that it's not of academic interest only and it's not - I'll move on.
	My learned friend talks about bias and he says that his opinion as a lawyer is immaterial.  His opinion as a lawyer, with respect, is most relevant and his duty is to inform his clients what his opinion as a lawyer is.  And if he informed his clients that this Committee, as the correct legal position clearly is, is not bound by the findings of the TRC Report, then his clients who have employed him to give his legal opinion would then have their feelings allayed.  I agree with completely with the submission made by my learned friend, Mr Mapoma, as to the status of the TRC Report and as to the powers of this Committee, this Committee has no power to issue a declarator.
	If the findings of the TRC report were binding on this Committee, then the evidence of, for example, Mr Baloyi, would be irrelevant.  The very fact that his evidence is being entertained as being relevant to an issue to be decided by this Committee, should indicate to Mr Lowies, and through him to his clients, that this Committee is not bound and does not consider itself bound by the findings of the TRC Report, because if it were so, then Mr Baloyi's evidence would not be heard.  I submit that there is nothing this Committee can do other than what it has been doing all along, to hear the evidence, and that it is for my learned friend to allay the feelings, the fears, if they exist, of his clients.  I have no further submissions.