MR MARTINI
And he saw it also as a career move.  And another issue that motivated him was, if Chairperson will recall, was he didn't want to move to Pietermaritzburg, because of the dispute he had had, just in summary, I think with the Attorney-General.  He wouldn't testify specifically what the Attorney-General, something to that effect, wanted him to testify.
	And what's also important Chairperson, is if you'll recall he was questioned, it's not disputed, when he joined he did not know the intricate workings of the CCB.  If you will recall they went on a course and only then did they start finding out what the CCB's work really entailed.  My submission is clearly that his acts were not motivated by personal gain or malice.  Were his acts authorised?  Was he acting in the course and scope of his duties or within the course and scope of his implied or express authority?  My submission is that it was.  And once again also one can have reference to Section 20(f).  He believed that he was acting, he on reasonable grounds would have believed that he was acting in the course and scope of his authority.  
	If the Committee recalls this, the nature in which this clandestine and secretive organisation worked, you had the General, the Managing Director, the Coordinator and the Regional Manager, Mr Burger, and what I'd term the footsoldiers, Mr Botha, Mr Maree and Mr van Zyl, in Region 6.  They received, Mr van Zyl received his instruction from Mr Burger or Basson, who in turn had received the instruction from Mr Verster, who in turn all must have believed that he had met with the General to authorise the projects referred to in the application.  Because the footsoldiers did not meet with the General and Mr Verster when a decision was taken to go ahead with the project.  
	When I questioned Gen Webb, Chairperson will recall that he conceded.  I said: "Notwithstanding the dispute between yourself and Mr Verster, as to whether you authorised Omar or other disputed projects (I said), would the footsoldiers of Mr van Zyl have believed that they were authorised to carry out the act?"  And he had to concede it because of the nature of the way the structure worked.  
	They didn't know whether Verster and Webb met, so once Mr van Zyl got the order from either Mr Basson or Mr Burger, he believed reasonably, could only reasonably have believed that he had the authority to go ahead.  Because if you remember further in re-examination we tried to clarify the issues and it does touch on issues raised by - can we call them the Respondents, Chairperson, no disrespect, it's just a shorter word, was suggesting that Mr van Zyl took the decision to eliminate, say Minister Omar, to bomb the Early Learning Centre.  If you'll recall in the re-examination where we attempted to clear up, there was some doubt by the Committee how exactly it worked.  
	The decision did not come from Van Zyl.  Van Zyl receives an instruction to do a pre-study for the purposes of, in the case of Mr Omar, elimination.  He does the study in-house and it goes further up.  And if you'll recall Mr van Zyl's evidence, the decision then actually to carry out that elimination is still not final yet until it comes back and they say go ahead and eliminate.  So he never makes that decision.  Clearly, he acted within the course and scope of his duties.