MR HATTINGH
Thank you Mr Chairman and members of the Committee.    Mr Chairman, we submit that it has been clearly established that the act, the supplying of weapons for purposes of a coup d'etat, that act has been clearly established as an act which was associated with a political objective and that that act was committed in the course of the conflicts of the past.  There can be no doubt about that, Mr Chairman.
	Mr De Kock testified that his objective was to assist in the overthrow of the Transkei government because of the fact that Mr Holomisa was sympathetic towards the ANC and the PAC, that he allowed members of those two political organisations to come into the Transkei and to plan acts of so-called terrorism, against the former government and the Republic from within the Transkei and at the same time, he did not allow members of the South African Police or the South African Defence Force to enter the Transkei in order to try and apprehend these persons.  That was the purpose of the whole transaction, the whole incident, they wanted to have the government of the Transkei overthrown so that a government more friendly disposed towards the former government and the Republic, could be put in its place.  That was the evidence of Mr De Kock, that was the evidence of all the applicants.
	It is also clear Mr Chairman, that Mr De Kock was an employee of the former State, that he was a member of the Security Forces of that State and that he acted within the course and scope of his duties as such when he supplied the arms for the attempted coup.
	You have also heard the evidence that he was given instructions by his superior Officer, being Gen Engelbrecht, to assist in this regard.  He therefore clearly believed that he had the support of his superior Officers in supplying arms for the purposes of the coup d'etat.
	The evidence, we submit, clearly establishes that the acts were associated with this political objective and that his acts were primarily directed at political opponents of the former State.   We also submit Mr Chairman, that the act is not out of proportion to the political objective, pursued by him, especially having regard to the fact that Mr Holomisa was assisting members of these political organisations in their struggle against the former government and the Republic of South Africa.
	We submit therefore Mr Chairman, that all those requirements of the Act, have been met and complied with and that the only thing, as you have pointed out to us yesterday, that you really need to be addressed on, is the question as to whether the act was performed for personal gain.
	Mr Chairman and members of the Committee, in deciding this question you can only adjudicate or decide this question on the evidence placed before you.  You cannot with respect, Mr Chairman and members, draw inferences from facts which were not placed before you as evidence.  You've got to be guided by the evidence before you.  That being so, with respect, Mr Chairman, it becomes necessary to determine whether Mr De Kock's motive at the time of the performance of the act, what his motive was at the time of the performance of the act, in other words, did he do it for personal gain, or did he have a political motive.
	We submit Mr Chairman and members, that there is no evidence whatsoever to the effect that De Kock provided the weapons relevant to this incident, for personal gain.   He, himself, said there was no agreement entered into prior to the delivery of the weapons in terms of which he would be compensated for the delivery of the weapons in question.  There is no such evidence.  	That is the crux of the matter Mr Chairman.