When we finished last Friday, the issue of an interpretation of the Act and what the powers of the Commission was came to the fore. I asked all representatives to have a look at it and perhaps we could work out something.
The Panel has looked at it and we've discovered there's some lacunas in the Act, it should have been there it's not there and it is our view at this stage that yes it is only the Committee that can subpoena people but there are very stringent regulations or guidelines attached thereto.
Would everybody agree with our interpretation thus far? Our interpretation is that the calling of such witness must be reasonable, necessary and we must be of the view that that witness is able to give relevant information in order to discover the truth and contribute the requirement of full disclosure. Do we agree with that? You see? I told you. And it is our duty to stipulate for what reasons such witness is called and to establish the parameters by which he can be examined and cross-examined.
Anybody disagree with that? So there's no more trouble? The issue of Mr Barnard was the issue in question and yes we agree there his name was mentioned on a number of occasions. We might add that very flimsily and we have reservations about what he could contribute to this hearing. However, it seems that the Committee is stuck in a cycle because we've allowed it in respect of other witnesses who were subpoenaed and to come as closest to fairness.
We're of the view that we should call Mr Barnard but we are of the view that we must really set the parameters by which he can be examined and cross-examined. Anybody want to argue on those parameters? Or let me first ask, are there any objections to that plan of action? MR VISSER : Chairperson, Visser on record, we agree with everything that you've said this morning, certainly coincides with what our views are on the matter, with respect.
