MR TRENGOVE
Mr Chairman, the explanation if one might call it that for the withdrawal of Mr Du Plessis amounts to this, an Advocate who had been involved in this matter for months, on the eve of a scheduled hearing, planned months before the hearing itself, withdraws from the case without offering any explanation, either to the client or to the Attorney.  That is what we are told, happened.
	Now, I for one, would be very slow to accept that Adv Du Plessis acted in such irresponsible and indeed improper manner.  It would be quite improper for an Advocate engaged in this case for so long, in whom the client has made so much investment, to withdraw from the case without explanation two or three days before the resumed hearing.
	But we need not dissolve the issue.  If Adv Du Plessis acted in the way that they said he did, it would have been highly improper for him to act, to withdraw without any explanation and then seemingly without justification.
	So there are two possibilities.  Either we have been given the real explanation of what happened, in which event Mr Bellingan's case before you is simply my Advocate withdrew, apparently without any reason at all and now you have to give me a postponement because he withdraw without any justification at all.
	But sometimes clients must suffer the prejudice of their own legal representatives' conduct and if his legal representative acted in the irresponsible and improper way that they suggest, then this is such a case.
	The other possibility of course is that indeed there was an explanation given, but that Mr Bellingan simply doesn't want to tell us what it is.
	In either event, you are left without any reasonable justification for their inability to go on.  They don't deserve any sympathy.