MR CORNELIUS
My client has complied to the statutory requirements of the Act as stipulated in Section 20(2)(a) and 20(2)(f) Act 34 of 1995 and has at all times acted in the course of his duties and in the execution of his orders from Mr de Kock.
	If we look at what the order had been to the Vlakplaas members, they went there to infiltrate and to gather information and then to do further planning.  I have quoted in the cross-examination, the point of view of Gen Coetzee on page 10 of Exhibit C of the aims of Vlakplaas and this, just to use this as a starting point, Gen Coetzee says in paragraph 2.2, Gen Coetzee's point of view, as can be drawn from this is that it was countering terrorism and this was to identify so-called terrorists and then after this they would be arrested and then they would be convinced to co-operate as askaris with the members.  In these cases where there had been people who had been followed up, if you can remember then I quoted a part where they say that the specific Commanders of the unit then had to take responsibility for this.  I would then ask that after this information had been gathered, then a return would be made.  It would be conveyed to the Commanders and then the Commanders would make a decision in the Security Branch, what the further steps would be.   The reason why I'm saying this Mr Chairperson, is that I am getting the impression that this shooting had been a sporadic incident that happened.  Something must have happened.  
	If we look at this and you have heard many of the hearings of de Kock, this is not the normal covert operation.  We don't have a weapon that has been drawn from Vlakplaas's stores where there is no record of which had then afterwards been used in a covert operation or afterwards been destroyed or burned.  This is not the normal action of the Vlakplaas unit.  
	Nortje in this case, he goes and he draws on a written document and we can have all sorts of suspicions about this document, Chairperson, but it is very clear that it is aimed at Section C1 Security Headquarters and we do not know what the roles of Brig Schoon in the past had been and it surprises me that Mr Wagener is not present in this aspect today, but he did approve it, he approves it.  We draw a weapon, we give a reason for wanting this weapon, we say that we want to use this weapon for a period, 30 June 86 or 3 June to 30 June 86 and this weapon is necessary to secure the credibility of this team, to ensure the infiltration of this team with a group of ANC terrorists
in Port Natal and this is, according to my experience of the few hearings that I've done, not the normal action, if it was not an overt operation.  There was nothing covert about this operation and now they come down and this incident takes place.
	My application is to a very lesser degree.  I realise this, but in the light of the evidence of Mr Nofomela where he makes very serious allegations, we had to get involved.  Let's look at the evidence of Mr Nofomela and then we see all the answers that I had taken down in English.  He said:
"I do not remember, if my memory serves me well, could have been, not sure if de Kock was, cannot remember if Vermeulen was in the car."
You see and I'm not criticising him in this respect, it did happen a long time ago, but the fact is that his evidence is full of unsureties.  If we look, then most of his assumptions are based on hearsay.  He says de Kock had dealt out the weapons and later on he says Nortje had dealt out the weapons and later in cross-examination he says but they were both there when these weapons had been handed out and these are important aspects and what had been said at those scenes would have been very important evidence.  He remembers Steve Bosch, Frank McCarter, but he cannot identify Vermeulen.  He can admit that it is a possibility.  In his application he gives evidence on page 85 that AK47s had been given and when I questioned him about this, he tried to rectify this and he said well actually it was only one AK.  One does not make such a plural mistake if you had been present when these weapons had been handed out Chairperson.  I then put it to him if he wants to correct the version in his application and he said yes he would like to do that, it was actually just one AK47.  
	When my learned colleague, Mr Schalk Hugo, cross-examined Mr Nofomela, then it became very clear that a vendetta is being held by Mr Nofomela against Mr de Kock and you  asked the legal representative what reason would Nofomela have to imply de Kock and there you have the answer, Chairperson.  There is a vendetta that has come from the Court case, there is evidence before you that de Kock had received a message when he was in the Adriaan Vlok Prison, with the following idea and this is an indication Chairperson, that it's not necessarily just from Nofomela's side, it's from both of them because I understand that the same message had been sent to him for the murder on Lourens, this man on the farm and de Kock said: "You just have to take the pain" and then between these two there had been a vendetta and there is a vendetta which would definitely give an indication or give a reason why he would like to imply de Kock and if we ask, what is the easiest way to get de Kock in trouble?  If you say that you had been on a scene where de Kock gave orders, then de Kock has problems, that's logical. So you are implying yourself, in other words.