GEORGE BIZOS
Paragraph B43
"An alternative approach by counsel to the question was motivated as follows.  The Minister of Defence and the then Chief of the Defence Force, adopted a plan during 1986, which meant that the ANC had to be maximally disrupted abroad and a covert organisation had to be established which was to be divided into regions.
			The CCB is the covert organisation that was established in accordance with this plan.  Region 6 is an internal region and was envisaged when the plan was adopted.  Members of Region 6 perpetrated these deeds within the borders of the country.  Members of Region 6 were promised indemnity from prosecution beforehand.  Therefore these deeds were authorised by the Minister or the Chief of the South African Defence Force.  Once again their argument ignores material facts and is based on false assumptions.  The plan was as repeatedly stated, to disrupt the ANC abroad.  The policy directive of Special Forces and therefore also of the CCB, contained an express restriction to the effect that offensive action was to take place externally.  The command structure of the CCB was aware of the restriction, realising and understanding that it applied to the CCB.  According to Gen Webb, and there is nothing to the contrary, no internal operations were submitted to higher authority for authorisation.  The allegation by van Zyl and Botha that they were informed that Region 6 had to engage in internal offensive action, cannot in the light of available evidence, be tracked back to higher authority.  The allegation by van Zyl and Botha that they were promised indemnity from prosecution was contested and in any case conflicts with the provisions of the Personnel Plan which states in no uncertain terms that CCB members must obey all the laws of the land."
Now, do you agree that your evidence and Verster's evidence whom you listened to telling the untruths, was relied upon by the Judge in order to come to the conclusion and absolve people from what they should have been found responsible for?