CHAIRPERSON
Mr Gordhan and Mr Lalla, you've now got to make a decision whether you want to testify.  You've indicated earlier that you had not but I haven't explained the implications of testifying or not testifying.  At the moment we have evidence under oath from the applicants.  We know that certain aspects of that evidence has been put into issue by yourselves and we know that from the nature and content of the questions that you have asked them.  However, if the way to contradict evidence is to actually give evidence as well because if at the end of the day we only have the evidence of the applicants and no other evidence controverting that, that doesn't necessarily mean that the evidence of the applicants has to be accepted because we examine the evidence, we analyse it, we deal with it in connection with the probabilities, whether there's self-contradictions, contradictions amongst that evidence, so it's not automatic that it will be accepted but if it stands uncontroverted by any other evidence, it's more difficult to reject, it's got to be inherently weak in order to have it rejected.  So I'd like you to think carefully before you make a decision as to whether or not you're going to give evidence bearing that in mind.  If there's anything further you wish to know please ask and I'm sure between the three of us we will be able to answer your questions.