Let me approach it in a lay sense rather than an overly legalistic one.
It's something each of you can answer in your own thoughts, without necessarily speaking up on it. But if you believe that records were concealed, based on what Mr. Esau and I have said, then that's a prima facie violation of paragraph 67.1(1)(c) of the Access to Information Act, which is punishable by imprisonment or a fine. It's as simple as that.
If, hearing the story, you think that nothing was concealed, then you would have to possess the opinion that there has been no possible criminality. If you believe it is possible that documents and records were concealed, then prima facie you must believe there could be criminality.