UNKNOWN
Thank you.  Mr Chairman, the other aspect is 
about full disclosure, and here I am referring to various 
witnesses.  The applicant and others, but specifically I want to 
refer to later witnesses.
	Mrs Venter was called here, and with respect I want to 
argue that Mrs Venter was a very good witness.
	Her evidence was clear that on the 10th of March, that 
firearm had been taken out of her house to Mr Derby-Lewis, and 
she moved into the house at the beginning of March.  On the 10th 
of April, she saw Mr and Mrs Derby-Lewis. 
	Mrs Derby-Lewis' evidence regarding her products, the 
Sportron products is indisputable and she did not remember a 
previous statement she made, and she gave a very good 
explanation of what happened.
	As you can see from her evidence, I could not see it myself, 
 you asked whether she had signed and it was taken away, she 
supported this evidence and she was a very good witness and she 
supported Mrs Derby-Lewis' evidence.
	Mr du Randt with respect, I wanted to argue he is not an 
intelligent person you expected.  The documentary facts supports 
his evidence that there was an election for a Mayor, that was also 
his election in the Supreme Court.
	On that day, and according to the programme it took place 
on the 10th of March 1993, and a jersey would have been 
delivered and with respect, I want to say under the circumstances, 
it cannot be said that Mr du Randt was part of a conspiracy.  He 
or Mrs du Randt regarding this aspect.
	A jersey was delivered, in his innocence he came here and 
he gave evidence here, he gave evidence in the Supreme Court, he 
was not regarded as a co-conspirator.
	The same applies to Mrs Venter.  She did not testify in the 
Supreme Court case, but it is clear from her statement provided 
to the State, that they had to accept with respect, that the 
evidence of her husband, Mr Faan Venter is supported by hers.