CHAIRPERSON
Well, I'm just putting it to you, I'm not saying it's a finding, but Mr Prinsloo said that the source - Mr Pienaar said that when the first incident had to be kept quiet because it would otherwise upset the possibility of the second infiltration taking place and that was done by the source going back to the people in Swaziland and relaying false information about the success of the first incident, thereby prompting the second infiltration.  Now is that just being an informer?  What I'm asking, is that just being an informer or is it going somewhat beyond that and actually now playing an active role in the incident and thereby becoming, in terms of our Act, more an implicated person rather than just an informer?