MR RAMAWELE
Yes, I was just saying that his testimony as to why they were at the bridge, fails to give an answer as to why they were stationed there.  Therefore, it is my submission that when a lot of Security Police officers are at a bridge, surely a person of Mr Vermeulen's position should know why he was there.  He should know.  If he doesn't know why he was waiting there, then there is something wrong with his evidence.  That is Mr Vermeulen.
	Mr Radebe is the same position.  He says they went there - firstly, Mr Radebe, he says they went there to infiltrate but he doesn't know, after infiltrating, what they were supposed to do.  You see, you must remember, the Hearing should consider the fact that they went to the UDF activists to infiltrate them, according to Mr Radebe and if you take the background that the comrades were in control, police officers were killed etc, now they would infiltrate the UDF.  After infiltrating them, what then?  What they were supposed to do?  Are we to believe that a specialised unit from Vlakplaas will send people into Chesterville to infiltrate the UDF without telling them what they were supposed to do after succeeding, succeeding to infiltrate them?  Are you infiltrating and do nothing?  It's a boiling point.  You have taken the whole contingent to Durban, now you instruct people to infiltrate but you don't tell them what to do.  Does it make sense?  It doesn't make sense.  His own version again about the fact that, I know he's not an applicant but his own version about the fact that he was acting in self-defence, also it doesn't make any sense.  Even if we take his own version, we don't take the version of the survivor, he says that only one shot was fired and then they emptied all their ammunition.