CHAIRPERSON
Yes I think Mr Khanovitz has already said that he will go into the detail and the next hearing after Mr van Zyl has had the opportunity of reading the statements with that question in mind but there won't be any pressure, I can assure you, we're not going to hold it against him.  He mentioned some aspects that are untrue but not all of them.  It's a long statement made a long time ago.  I'm not going to hold it against Mr van Zyl and I'm sure Mr Khanovitz won't at this stage either because he has already said let him read the statement before he answers it fully but Mr van Zyl has said, look there's definitely, he used the word "beslis", definitely untruths.  The question is what can you tell us, perhaps he should just make the question slightly more vague to eliminate any later argument.  Can you tell us of some examples of that?