MR PRETORIUS
Yes, Mr Chairman, with your permission, the document that Mr Bizos referred to as Dr van Wyk's answers or replies to his question actually is a document with a heading that it is the replies of the legal representatives, jointly myself, my colleague Mr P A van Wyk and Dr van Wyk and therefor on behalf of those objectors.
	Secondly, insofar as the objectors we represent, on page 78 and further of the documentation the Committee will find an affidavit of Arm Johannes van Wyk, who is Dr van Wyk.  In particular, it answers all the questions raised by Mr Bizos.  Insofar as the grounds is concerned, he specifically set out the grounds as it appears from page 80 with reference to paragraph 4 and further.  I wish to refer to paragraph 6 where we set out in detail that paragraph 1:
"None of the applicants made a full disclosure of the relevant facts as is required by the section 21 of the relevant act."
Point 2:
"The applicants blatantly lie about their motives why they shot at Zulu marchers on the particular day,"
And that thereafter in full it is set out why we say so, or the objectors say so.  Mr Chairman, I do not wish to read out the full affidavit, but it is there for the Committee.  
	Insofar as the admissions my learned friend sought us to make, I wish to state the following:  It is our specific instructions as is set out in affidavits as well as in the affidavit of Dr van Wyk, that the objectors who we appear for were approached by the Indunas, the Zulu Indunas and informed them of a gathering on behalf of the King or in support of the King.  They reacted to that request and they wished to attend this meeting on behalf of their King.  
	They do no, or they are not aware of the applications made by members of the IFP and furthermore, are not aware and were not aware at least, of speeches referred to by my learned friend, Mr Bizos.   More in particularly, seeing that they did not even reach Library Gardens, they were not aware of that particular speech and cannot therefore associate therewith.