UNKNOWN
Mr Chairperson, as the state matter, the issue that Mr Menera is raising, is one that's been concerning me.  I understand that we must be lenient towards Mr Phelane because he's a lay person, but at the same time there appears to be a danger that the applicant might be discredited unjustified.  For instance we first do not know what his basis for putting these questions is, but it might be, and I'm simply speculating, it might be that he's trying to establish that Mr Menera is a person of criminal character and that he committed these acts out of pure criminality, however, at the same time we are not certain whether he's going to come and lead evidence and say these things as positive fact, and I would think that it might be better if it was brought to his attention that there are limits to what he can put and if he puts something he must be able or be prepared to come and substantiate it?