On Monday morning there will be no place left to hide for Mac Maharaj and Mo Shaik.

It will be time for Maharaj, the former transport minister, and Shaik, a former diplomat and (temporarily suspended) special adviser to the minister of foreign affairs, to tell the Hefer Commission why they believe that the national director of public prosecutions, Bulelani Ngcuka, was a spy or informer for the apartheid regime.

In October the two men appeared before the commission, chaired by Judge Joos Hefer, and set up on September 19 by President Thabo Mbeki to investigate whether Ngcuka was a spy, code named RS452.

Hefer gave the two men until Monday to prepare their evidence.

Maharaj and Shaik became involved in the issue following a City Press report, apparently given to that newspaper by former Sunday Times reporter Ranjeni Munusamy.

The story alleged that Ngcuka had been investigated as a spy by the African National Congress. Maharaj and Shaik told various print and broadcast media that this report was, in their view, accurate.

In the meantime, a former eastern Cape attorney now living in London, Vanessa Brereton, told the media that she, not Ngcuka, had been RS452.

In addition, this week the President also issued amended terms of reference for the commission.

In the amended version, Maharaj and Shaik are clearly named as the perpetrators of the allegations against Ngcuka, thus shifting the spotlight clearly on to the two men.

Whether the two men will in fact give evidence, however, or will have their counsel argue that they cannot do so, is a subject of widespread conjecture.

In Bloemfontein this week, Hefer set aside the subpoenas the commission had served on the police service, the National Intelligence Agency, the SA Secret Services and the national defence force, mainly because of the statutes and laws that strictly forbid "publication" of classified documents.

This decision effectively excused the various security agencies from having to bring documentation related to Ngcuka, and the matter in general, before the commission. Hefer did indicate, however, that he might, if necessary, re-issue the summonses.

It is possible that Maharaj's and Shaik's legal representative may argue that, just as the commission has been unable lay its hands on the necessary documentation, Maharaj and Shaik also have been unable to do so, and are therefore being denied the chance of a fair hearing.

Their attorney, Yunis Shaik, brother of Mo, has put on record a number of times that his clients have been denied access to documentation.

On Wednesday he crossed verbal swords with senior counsel George Bizos, appearing for the security agencies, on the issue.

Shaik pointedly raised the question of whether his clients could be prosecuted if they had in their possession any classified documents.

Yesterday commission secretary John Bacon pointed out that, in terms of commission's regulation 9 (2), gazetted on September 19, no evidence regarding any of the issues before the commission may be used in a criminal matter against the person who gave it.

With acknowledgements to Jeremy Gordin and the Saturday Star.