MR SARDIWALLA
Yes.  Can I just respond to that?  Our version throughout, and clearly there is a factual dispute as far as identity of the perpetrators is concerned, there are two sets of facts as far as identity of the perpetrators is concerned.  What is presented by the evidence is one and what my client has submitted seems to be at total variance.  What is also clear is that our client indicated in his evidence that Qeda was not there, nor was Sibusisu there.  He indicated that in his evidence and that was not really contested.  That was not contested.  The strength of my view or my submission as far as Kuala's evidence is that the probabilities relating to identity are based on whether Qeda was actually wearing a balaclava or not.  My submission is that his version is so improbable, that it must be disbelieved on that aspect.  That he could not,  whatever motive he may have had, it's highly unlikely and improbable that a person would come and divulge his identity after perpetrating a crime of this kind, to a person that is known to him and particularly in a case where all the rest of them still had their faces covered.  So, my submission is, on that aspect, Kuala's evidence must be rejected in total, it's so improbable.