MS QUNTA
Thank you Mr Chairman.  I will draw the attention of the Committee to Section 19(2).  That refers to the Committee investigating an application for amnesty and it says that in respect of an investigation carried out under Section 19, the provisions of Sub-Section - of Section 30 Sub-Section 2 should be complied with.  Now that Section 30(2) deals with a person who is implicated in an application for amnesty and I will read Section (a) of Sub-Section 2
"If during any investigation by or any hearing before the Commission, any person is implicated in a manner which may be to his detriment"
And I want to emphasise the word: "to his detriment" in (a).  (b):
"The Commission contemplates making a decision which may be to the detriment of a person who has been so implicated"
Now that to me and to any person who has any legal training, suggests that a mere mention of a person in an uncorroborated statement, is not sufficient to implicate a person.  It's on that basis that I want the leader of evidence to explain to the Committee and to my client why on the basis of one solitary statement which gave rise to an investigation which was inconclusive, my client was brought before here. 
	It's quite important because what has happened in fact - if there is no sufficient explanation, there are issues I want to take up but I will give the leader of evidence an opportunity to respond to my response.  In terms of the reading of that Section and the definition of what implicated means, my client shouldn't be sitting here.
	The investigation unit - apart from my client whom I think the Committee knows is the head of investigation and he recused himself from this investigation.  The second statement which was made by the witness here has very serious contradiction and inconsistencies with the first statement.  None of the things mentioned in the first statement were - could be said to link my client or my client's vehicle in any way to the Heidelberg Tavern attack unless there is a victimisation of my client or incompetence within the section that deals with leading of evidence  and we need an explanation Mr Chairman. 
	I don't believe that in any way my clients presence here - and I want the leader of evidence to answer, does my client's presence and the bringing of the witness here, does it advance the case of the applicants in any way?  Secondly, if it doesn't advance the case of the applicants, does it hamper their case or does it show in any way that they should not be granted amnesty?  Does it counter their amnesty application?  I need an answer.