To quote my favorite ex-governor of Alaska... "You Betcha"!
Seriously, though, as a party you have the right to testify, but the other side ALWAYS has the right to cross-examine. Indeed, cross-examination is one of the most fundamental tools for truth and fairness in our judicial system. It is really the reason for the hearsay rule. That is, you can't cross-examine someone who isn't in the courtroom. That's why the general rule against hearsay keeps out anything that's said outside the courtroom if the statement is being presented to prove the truth of the statement.
Being a pro se party is tough. Good luck.
Yes, I can not imagine a circumstance when they would not have that right at trial. So I'd say your chances of being cross-examined are at or near 100%
You should probably request a continuance so you can retain legal counsel and then actually hire an attorney who can represent you if the court grants the request. Without knowing the background of the case, it's hard to say whether the court would do so. It's not exactly fair to the other side when you have presumably known about the trial for some time.
This posting is a contribution to a general discussion of a topic based on a hypothetical situation similar to the situation presented. This is not legal advice, and should not be relied upon as such. Legal advice is only rendered in a confidential manner within an attorney-client relationship created by an agreement between the attorney and the client described in the agreement. Furthermore legal advice is rendered only after a full interview with the client and investigation of the relevant facts of the specific case and a review of applicable laws.