Guy Oliver : .....and a second day which in legal terms is known as cross-examination, (but) in reality it is a bludgeoning through questioning. Lawyers representing government and the military establishment employed measures that would make their clients proud; laying ambushes, traps and throwing up legal chaff when demanded to prevent certain documents coming into the public arena. But their strategy seemed as obvious as a tank on the front lawn, to discredit Young as a witness. Young alleges that chief arms procurer Chippy Shaikh had a conflict of interest in his dealings around the Arms Deal which saw his brother's company profit.

...And the legal wrangling swung on a word. It's a pity that Selby Baqwa, the Public Protector, has banned television cameras from the proceedings, because what happened here today is truly bizarre. A bunch of lawyers gathered in a room whose legal experience probably numbers hundreds of years and yet none could agree on what the word recusal actually means.

Is it that they all missed the class at university which deals with the issue, or have none of them ever been involved in a case where a magistrate or judge recuses themselves and when he or she does they physically leave the room?

Shaikh's lawyers argue that recusal procedures had been followed when the Arms Deal was first discussed, though Shaikh's lawyers conceded that in some instances Shaikh hadn't left the room.

Young rebutted that in one instance, where a conflict of interest was at play, Shaikh had not recused himself and participated in the discussions and in other instances where he had recused himself, he still stayed in the room where discussions took place.

The line is thin, but the issue is not how far the line was crossed, but if it was crossed at all.

Guy Oliver, eNews in Pretoria.

With acknowledgements to San Reddy, Guy Oliver and eNews at 7.