MR WESSELS
Well Mr Chairman, with respect, then it becomes simpler for me.  On what basis can you say that Verster, on his own version, is lying about the authority?  The probabilities are in favour of that never mind any credibility aspects.  The probabilities are the CCB was there to act against the perceived enemies in a violent way.  The evidence was that there was money obtained, that there was a weapon obtained, through the system.  The evidence was that that was a type of permission that would have been granted, had it been asked for.  The probabilities are that Verster would have done that, because there is no reason why he would not have obtained the permission if it was something that he would have received.  It is something that had to go through the system, that if he didn't get the permission there could have been repercussions at a later stage, so there is nothing at all to disprove or even cast doubt on Verster's version that he had the permission.  The only criticism against his evidence was that because you didn't tell the truth or you wouldn't forthcoming at the time of the Harms Commission, now ten years later when you say you had permission, that shouldn't be accepted.  In my submission, that cannot be upheld in any way.