MR SWANEPOEL COMMITTEE
As you please, Mr Chairman.  I have endeavoured to find something in writing which is more than my mere opinion in this regard, but I have been unable to do so.  I've also contacted my colleague, Mr Hewitt at the Durban Bar, who is well versed in the Truth Commission's doings and he was unable to help me in this regard.
	I do have a few submissions to make in this regard, and the first one of that is that the wording of Section 18 or Section 18(1) is clear, that the written document submitted in the prescribed form forms the application and that that document must be an application for amnesty in respect of any act, omission or offence, and those are words used in the singular, their meaning is quite clear from the wording of the text.
	I do however accept that it is amply clear from the wording of the text, and it's subsequent articles pertaining to further investigation, that an applicant may at any time, whether it be by virtue of a request for further particulars from the Committee or whether it be by virtue of oral evidence at a hearing which was convened by the Committee, supplement his founding papers, if I may call it that, in the form of his written application.  
	In that regard I submit to the Committee with respect, that it seems clear and only logical from the wording of the text of the Act, that a person must be allowed where a general statement has been made, to specify that general statement and supplement it further.  And if that were not the case, then of course the sections dealing with further particulars would have been irrelevant and superfluous.  It must have been the intention of the Legislator.
	A good example of that in this case, is the application of Meneer, who is mentioned in almost all the applicants' applications and he himself deposes to a general application but then he came and he testified to two specific events.  I'm prepared to accept that, Mr Chair. 
	There is however, in this matter before the Committee, a somewhat different aspect and that is that not only are there applications in writing which are vague and of a general nature, which have been clarified and more specifically attested to in oral evidence, but there are also applications which have, the contents of which have been contradicted in oral evidence.  And my submission to the Committee is that these two types of applications should be distinguished.