ADV BOOYENS
Mr Chairman, what crime they would have investigating, appears at page 135E of the record.
"The purpose of the investigation was to determine his involvement in the continuing unrest in the Eastern Cape as well as the distribution of the mentioned pamphlets, and in the last place to determine what his intentions had been with regard to the visit to Cape Town, so that criminal or rather acts in terms of the law could be taken against him".
	That emanates from the statement of Mr Siebert, but you asked me what crime?   
      I think Mr Potgieter has probably put it much more succinctly than I can.   If for example they could pin that pamphlet onto them, there's sedition there. I think if I still remember the old Security Legislation correctly there would certainly be some or other offence there under the Terrorism Act.   If there was a conspiracy in Cape Town with people to get forces together with the ultimate purpose of overthrowing the Government, that would have been some crime under the Security Legislation.   Mr Chairman, there was - if he played a role in the unrest in the Eastern Cape at that stage that probably would have been sedition.  So in those days with respect Mr Chairman those of us who are slightly older would recall that with a loaded Act, the loaded old Terrorism Act and all the presumptions contained in it, that people could be charged with terrorism or something like that very easily without necessarily carrying a hand grenade and a AK47.   
	So I think there are any number of crimes which they could have been investigating, but obviously as it would go in crime investigation matters you would end up with the situation where first you would get the act, the acts of the man together, what had he done; and the decision as to whether what everything he did amounts to a crime of the one or the other does not ultimately rest with the Police, it rests with the Attorney General to decide whether he should prosecute.