MR COETZEE IN FURTHER ARGUMENT
Thank you Mr Chair.  Yes, just with regard to my learned friend's remark that taking a gun apart and throwing it away is an act, a criminal act.  One must bear in mind that the evidence was that AWB members had a standard order to always be in possession of their legal firearms.
	It is clear that the AWB members in general were very well armed.  The question originates, would anybody really have the need to have two firearms?  They have a hand weapon, they don't need any more, they have enough of their own.  This item could have led to the identification of people who were definitely sought, because of their connection to a crime.  That is why the structure of command decided to destroy it, and I submit therefore with respect, that criminals indeed would keep a weapon like this, and criminals would definitely make use of these items in other criminal activities. 
	That was not the case here, and therefore that inference is not justified.  With regard to the issue of a negative inference to not call those who were people in command, I can only reiterate what my learned colleague, Mr Prinsloo said and say that Mr Van Schalkwyk's status as an implicated person, must be regarded and that it is not up to him to incriminate himself.
	He would probably say that he had a common set up or cause and that he would have incriminated himself.