<UNKNOWN>
hear about the State Security Council and how it functioned.
	And then secondly that there is a likelihood that harm may be caused to any person as a result of 
the proceedings being open.  There has been no evidence at all of harm resulting from the proceedings 
being open.  The only harm that was referred to was possible harm in relation to prejudice with his own 
application, but quite frankly whether the application is heard behind closed doors or in public, the situation 
as far as his subsequent amnesty application is concerned, would be exactly the same.
	In any event that possible prejudice could be dealt with in the same way as the Committee would 
deal with any prejudice to General van der Merwe when he testifies, where, if for example a question may 
prejudice his application, your Committee is quite entitled to curtail that question and one could deal with 
questions on an ad hoc basis as and when they are before the Committee.
	So quite frankly we have heard no serious motivation for it to be heard in camera and I think we 
need to remind ourselves that the constitutional dispensation in this 
country really underscores and underwrites and emphasises the need for openness and transparency, and I 
think the
situation should be unique before the Committee were to decide in favour of a hearing in camera.
	Thank you Sir.