UNKNOWN
Mr Verster, we can continue for a very long time like this, and you say that then there was a dispute with regard to the authorisation.  Your evidence at the Harms Commission indicates that there was no dispute with regard to the authorisation, but let us read from page 1629 and 1630 and further.  Exhibit G, Chairperson.
"Now we are ad idem that there was a project with regard to, existed with regard to Gavin Evans.  That is as I have told you, it was with regard to monitoring."
		"No, I refer to a project to eliminate Gavin Evans."
		"No, there was no such authorisation."
		"There was no such authorisation.  So in other words, if there is evidence before this Commission that there was a project launched to kill Gavin Evans, it was not submitted to yourself or Gen Webb?"
Then you give another explanation and then you continue and -
"You say there was no authorisation to eliminate him?"
		"That's correct."
		"There was no authorisation by Gen Webb, do I have it correctly?"
And your answer -
"To eliminate him?"
		"Yes, and there was no authorisation by yourself?"
		"That is how I said it, yes."
		"Was there a submission made to you for his elimination?"
		"No, except monitoring, there was not."
	So I put it to you this is contrary to what you are saying today.  And I continue on page 1631, at the bottom -
"If money was spent on a plan that was aimed to eliminate Mr Gavin Evans, then you do not have any knowledge of this?"
		"That is correct."
And then it is put to you that the persons could have done anything - all these things on their own.  You may comment on it, I won't go any further.