UNKNOWN
He failed ...(inaudible) his projects, he took the money.  He took no steps to recover the money if in fact was paid to a mythical perpetrator.  Again, what is the strength of his political motive if that is what he is prepared to do about the monies of the body which he joined.  I would refer to paragraph B10 where you will find references to these matters, Mr Chairperson.
	On the evidence he lied to his superiors about losing Barnard as an operative over a period of months.  The evidence of Mr Burger in this regard is clear that Mr van Zyl made reports to him regularly and in none of these reports was the fact that he had employed Barnard mentioned.  
	Thirdly, he lied in his amnesty application when he said that he had paid Hardien to burn down the printing press.  You will find that in B9.  Ten years afterwards he tried to justify this in truth by substituting Hardien by Peaches, an inventive piece of evidence, knowing that Peaches is no longer alive.  
	While we're about it, Mr Chairperson, Mr van Zyl is a very good manipulator of fact.  An honest man, when he came here, when he knew that Mr Hardien was an important witness on what happened at the training centre, would you not of expected him, Mr Chairperson, to say "I have taken Mr Hardien into my employ from March last year", coincidentally at a time when the preparation for the hearing of the applications for amnesty was being prepared that we were talking about dates?  He was buying his loyalty.  And it was "how can we trust anything that Hardien may say to corroborate Mr Van Zyl" and vice versa.  He manipulated the truth in order to show that he is an honourable man who apologises for the wrongs done.  It turns out from matters that he had to admit, published by Mr Evans and we refer you to B12, that he didn't apologise.  In fact - in fact he said in 1990 that if he had his way he would have done exactly the same.  He lied about the contents of what he said in his Section 29 statement.  We refer you to B13, Mr Chairperson.  Now you will recall how he vacillated on this.  He says that "my Section 29 statements are correct".  It was not a pleasant experience and we would all accept that it is not a pleasant experience to be detained under Section 29, even in its sanitised form that Mr van Zyl and the others had to suffer.  But he says "I was never induced to tell an untruth, I have nothing that I really want to correct except one very minor point."  But when in cross-examination by my learned colleague, he finds himself contradicting himself.  He says "Oh, blame it on Section 29."  He couldn't have it both ways.  He was asked specifically if he told any untruths and he said no.  He, for the reasons already advanced, lied and to be advanced, lied about the training centre and he lied about Omar.
	With those introductory notes, we will want to turn to paragraph 22.