MR VAN ECK
Thank you, Mr Chairman.  If I can jump in at this stage.  Regarding Calla Botha, also I share the same view, in that I'm not going to repeat the requirements of the Act, it is before this Committee, and I am the first one to confess that this Committee knows much more about it than I profess to do so I'm not going to repeat it for the Committee.  As well as the position of the law.  That was also argued already before you and I'm not going to repeat it.
	Regarding the Heads of Argument, I also submitted Heads and I'm not going to read it out, it's brief, and the point I made in there I think is quite clear.  Regarding Botha, when he was giving evidence the translation that came through described him as a qualified demolitions expert, now that is not right, he was an explosives expert, and I submit that there's a big difference between a demolitions expert and an explosives expert, Mr Chairman, and that is not due to the fault of Mr Botha.  It maybe created the impression that he was there to demolish a building and that's surely not the position.
	Mr Chairman, if we look at the arguments relating to Botha, from the Heads we've been served with, Botha was placed on ice.  Botha was basically in his own words, not informed of what happened there at the CCB, especially the relationship between him and Burger was not as it was between Burger and the other people working there.  
	And when Van Zyl encountered problems relating to the bombing of the Early Learning Centre, Van Zyl urged on Burger that he wanted Botha to help him in that.  On that basis Botha came back.  On that basis Botha was then informed by them.  	And I submit at this stage, when he arrived there at the hotel he was encountered by Basson, Burger and Van Zyl, and he had not reason to query the decisions already made, the in-house, the plans, everything.  He was requested at that stage to carry the bomb and as an explosives expert, to arm the bomb at the Early Learning Centre.  He had nothing to do with the preplanning.  He had nothing to do with the political motivations regarding that.  And I submit with respect, Mr Chairman, that if we look at Botha's evidence relating to that incident, that he told this Honourable Committee exactly what he was informed and he had no need to query of those decisions there.
	If we look at page 2 of part A of the bundle from Mr Bizos and Mr Kahanovitz, the criticism levelled against the people in the Early Learning Centre, from paragraph 4:
"The evidence of the applicant is to the effect that a bombing was intended merely to frighten the members KTY"
It's false.  Botha had nothing to do with the preplanning of this, this was Van Zyl's part.  Van Zyl had to do it and Botha had to rely on what Van Zyl said.  You must also have regard to the evidence of Gakkie Hardien, how he described Botha as:
"that fat person.  Met him for the first time"
There was no contact between them.
	If we go further and we look at page 3, from paragraph 5 on part A from the Heads, I submit that if we look at that, the bulk of that criticism can't be levelled against Botha.  Botha was not involved in the gathering of the information.  Botha was not involved in the planning of this and Botha was most definitely not involved, in paragraph 8, the payment of Hardien.  He had nothing to do with the initial R30 000 and the eventual R18 000 that was paid.  So if we look at that, then I submit that we must look at the evidence of Botha and the role he played there in context, as it happened there that day.  That he was called in from the cold and asked to do a certain job in relation to the CCB, been instructed to that by Burger, Basson and his colleague at that stage, Van Zyl.