MR BLACK
Yes.   So I respectfully submit that his idea when he gave his evidence, as the record will show, I used the word "assassinate", he said he was told, and he was convinced, the security police were going to send people to kill him, as it were, and that is how he understood the situation, and I've already mentioned and I don't want to reiterate the fact that he was convinced that the entire set-up, both from the soldiers in the morning, two unknown white men arriving on his premises in an unmarked police vehicle, and he claims it had a petrol, a Shell or whatever it is emblem on it, and which led to the shooting was a plot to carry out the threats to which he had been subjected to in a fairly intensive basis over a period since 1991 until October 1992.   So it wasn't just a short period of time.
	Without going into great detail, there was some criticism as to why he shot the policeman, late Mr Van der Spuy.   He's given his explanation and he was on the scene and he was an active participant on the scene and Mr O'Farrell has given his version, and there are differences.    So I don't wish to do that, but in my respectful submission that his explanation for shooting under those circumstances is a reasonable one, should his version be accepted.   As he says, his words are, the two had deployed themselves in such a way, the two policemen, that he couldn't just leave the late Mr Van der Spuy there, he had to make sure that he would be incapacitated or stabilised and he would then be able to deal with the other armed man who was approaching him, Mr O'Farrell.
	The other criticism that was - some time was spent on it, as to his - why did he have to lie at the trial, etcetera, he's given an explanation and perhaps after some time, after continuous, with due respect, examination without any break or any opportunity to consult with us, he came up with the explanation at the end here, towards the end, he said they were dealing here, lies here, with political issues, and he said the whole handling of the trial was such, the judge he felt was speaking to counsel and he had a short opportunity, not even half an hour, to speak to his counsel, who had informed him, on a pro deo basis, with due respect, whether it's correct or not, I'm not criticising counsel, that she was aware of all the facts, but he candidly tells the committee that he didn't tell the Court the whole truth, he didn't go into all the details, as he was able to do here, about his political past and his political activities and the political motive.
	I may just, and I again, we raised the point that in the supplementary affidavit which was filed some time ago and which forms part of the bundle of the documents before the Court, paragraph 10, we deal with this issue, the issue is dealt with rather, about the policeman, George Ndbande, and it is alleged there that Sergeant Ndbande did in fact check those vehicles before 29th October 1992, and was satisfied that they were not stolen, and - Ndbane, sorry - and this allegation... (intervention).