UNKNOWN
Well yes, whatever it was but one can even indicate that this may be an even clearer case than the case of robbery because in a case of robbery the act committed, except in rare circumstances, does not have a political objective in mind.  I know that many people convicted of robbery are saying that we did it for the cause.  There was even a case, not in this country, in another country that he was a robber and said no, no, no, he was committing lots of bank robberies in order to keep the police busy so that they wouldn't chase political - his comrades, that was his contribution to the struggle.   So the circumstances must be taken not in isolation, it's not only this but it's coupled with the other unusual features that we have referred to and on top of that the gain.
	The purity of their political belief is coloured and negative.  Let us pose the question, Mr Chairperson and I think Mr van Zyl is the clearest example.  Would Mr van Zyl have done any of this if it was not financially attractive to him and on the probabilities the answer must be a simple one.  He wouldn't have done it and we only need his own evidence and his own undisputed behaviour that as soon as his business really got of the ground his patriotism came to an end and he became a successful man in the security business and he tell us in the Heads of Argument filed on his behalf how much good he has done the country.
	And then if we turn to paragraph 1 on page 10, I would like to refer you in relation to support of that, of the misappropriation of the funds that were intended for the ELC.  It's in paragraph 126 and here we have - it doesn't matter which of the two is to be believed.  What we do know is that R12 000 was taken.
	What patriotic fervour led one or both of them to do this and there is a conflict.  They were both unsatisfactory witnesses.  We remain with the one proven fact, admittedly proven fact that the R12 000 was not paid to Hardien.  Because there are unsatisfactory witnesses the negative finding must be made against both of them that probably both of them received it without actually preferring Van Zyl as a witness to that of Burger.
	Now in relation to - and I might as well deal with it before I deal with the conspiracy to assassinate Minister Dullah Omar and because we are going to rely on the evidence of Mr Barnard, I want to refer to the indignantly strong submissions made against Mr Barnard and his credibility.  We would submit that the evidence of Barnard must be approached with grave caution, careful consideration, because when we deal with the evidence of accomplices, of course we have to warn ourselves against the danger of the ability of the accomplice to implicate people because he knows the facts, with the usual thing that in Kanana's case that Schreiner spoke about, we don't have to develop it.
	 But let us see what Mr Martini left out in his indignant attack about Mr Barnard.  Firstly, Mr Barnard was chosen as a partner of Mr van Zyl's crime with Mr van Zyl knowing who Mr Barnard was and Mr van Zyl is not allergic to lying and I will give you a number of examples.  Firstly, he lied when he said that he forgot to tell the CCB about ...(intervention)