MR DU TOIT
What happened in my view was that before the trial - when you mean did it come out you mean into the open, the public, or do you mean was it mentioned to somebody else?  If you mean by coming out in the open, at the trial already when this was canvassed for the first time Major Terblanche was deceased.  So he was deceased because, as I said, he was killed by another special constable who was himself killed by other policemen.  So that in fact when there was the first opportunity for this to be made public he was already deceased.
But the discussion at the particular time, that is when the brigadier came to Pietermaritzburg, as I understand the position - to New Hanover, when they discussed the matter with my client, Terblanche was also present.  I think it was quite clear that his presence must have influenced the brigadier from head office, who just did nothing and allowed van Zyl, after a private 
	/discussion,
discussion, to go back to my client and say, "Don't worry,
nothing will happen."
But I must point out that it is not necessary for a successful application to show that there was a stamp of approval from the authorities.  That there was an instruction is enough, but I would suggest that on the probabilities, if one looks both at what happened at the time, what happened prior to the incident, and also what happened after the incident, even when the Trial Judge said, "But there should be an investigation into this.  What is this Joint Management System?"  WILSON J said, "How could policemen be involved in this?  This is not normal police function."  He said, "Could it be that this unit was used elsewhere?"  He posed various questions and he said, "Let there be an inquiry."  If there was any concern on the side of the authorities at that point in time to establish, to answer those very apposite questions, there would have been an inquiry.  I would suggest that the fact that there was no inquiry also tends to support that there was the stamp of approval, although, as I have indicated, that is not what the Act requires.   Even if the applicant, given what he knew, was reasonably - on reasonable grounds believed that he was acting within the course and scope, or express or implied authority, it would be adequate.
The background material was made available for two reasons.  Firstly to give a graphic description of what the typical reading material in this abnormal society was for a policeman.  In what normal society would a policeman be reading a strategy document and counter measures like that?  The answer is very obvious.  In no normal society.  	/And that
And that is why I say that one - and I think my client has
also lodged his plea with you to put you back not only to those years, but also if possible into his shoes from 18 years onwards on the one side, and that is what happened.  It is tragic that there were sides, and that the normal function of a police force to remain neutral was not adhered to.  What one found was the police force in general solidly on the one side, because the other side was perceived not only to be anti-Government, anti-State, but in fact the enemy.  And it is in an almost war-like situation that the police were pulled in and then used, in my view, to do certain things.  Because what is clear is that the Joint Management System should not have been something in which the police force and my client should ever have been involved in, but they were used in order to limit UDF domination, the internal ground swell which was unstoppable probably already at that point in time.