MR VERSTER
Chairperson, if you would grant me the opportunity to answer that question.  In documentation that was available to me, documents of the past eleven or ten years, I would just like to say as background that there was a dispute before the Harms Commission between myself and Gen Webb.  That dispute entailed the fact that I had authorised the project but that Gen Webb could not recall it.
	The Harms Commission - and I think today it is still true, that the approaches and the evidence of the previous government's side was in my opinion an attempt to firstly assist the Police and secondly to expose the CCB, and thirdly to grant the opportunity to the previous government to get away.  I opposed it.  I was at the Harms Commission against my own will.  I said here that I had claimed privilege to certain things, I later corrected everything and in terms of documents I did correct those things.   
	And it happened to me in the Harms Commission that at some stage I stayed away from the Harms Commission when I had to lead evidence because I said that I had a problem with the Harms Commission and then the government, by 10 o'clock that evening, would tell me that they would withdraw my legal team if I did not appear the following day in the Commission.  All these things are in writing.  So I do admit that then for those reasons I had misled the Harms Commission and I do admit that I did so because I was in complete isolation.  For example, it was quite obvious to me and I have put it here before you already, that newspaper reports from the State's side with regard to for example the financial plan, the financial plan was forged before me and there was said that there was a distinction between internal operations and external operations, which was never the case.  For example, this made me think that Gen Webb could be told by the higher structures of the State, it could have been a direct instruction from the Minister, that under no circumstances should internal action be approved because now we have made a distinction with regard to the financial plan.  The money that was spent for Dullah Omar and Evans and so forth, were irregular expenditures in terms of a financial plan that was forged after three years as if that was the policy.  The implication of that forgery was that we had used money from 1986 in such a manner which had now changed in 1989, according to which we had been audited now.
	Furthermore, Gen Badenhorst told me that "leave Slang van Zyl, I will look after him, I'll speak to him."