MR HATTINGH
That being so with respect, Mr Chairman, it lends credence to the evidence of Mr De Kock, that the payment which he did receive, was in respect of the transaction where he negotiated with Nieuwoudt, there he personally negotiated with Nieuwoudt for the supply of arms.  All he knew about Nieuwoudt's knowledge about the second incident, was the discussion which took place in the bar and therefore even in De Kock's own mind, even if for some reason or other, Nieuwoudt intended this payment to be in respect of the second incident as well, De Kock couldn't possibly have been aware of that fact, that that was Nieuwoudt's intention because he didn't negotiate the second transaction with Nieuwoudt, why would Nieuwoudt be paying him money for arms which was delivered on the second occasion, if Nieuwoudt was not involved in the negotiations which led up to the delivery of arms in respect of the second transaction?  We submit that quite clearly that money was paid for the firearms which were delivered on the third occasion and there is no evidence to the contrary.  You cannot with respect, therefore Mr Chairman, find that prior to this incident, that there was an agreement to the effect that De Kock would received compensation in exchange for the weapons which he delivered.
	I have already addressed you on the issue that even if you do consider this payment as a payment in respect of the second transaction as well, then it is once again something which occurred after the event, and that could not affect the political motive or objective which De Kock had when he agreed to deliver the arms and in fact supply them and that you should follow the approach in this regard, which was followed by the Committee in the Tshikilanga matter, where it is clear that the money which they received was a reward for the act which they actually performed there, and despite that, the Committee found that that doesn't affect the objective which they had in mind at the time when they performed the act in question.
	Mr Chairman, De Kock didn't have to disclose the fact that money was paid over to him, there were only two people on his version who could have known about it, being himself and Nieuwoudt.  It is true that Mr Nortje in his statement mentions the fact that De Kock and others benefited.