MR WESSELS
The uncontroverted evidence of Verster and everybody else that gave evidence about how the CCB operated at the time, was that Verster was fanatical about procedure, security and all those sort of things.  Why would he not get the authority when it would have been the easiest thing in the world for him to get it?  It doesn't make sense.  So on the probabilities, it's clear that his version in that regard should be accepted.
	Mr Chairman, Mr Lax asked me to give some indication of portions in the record that may indicate that there could have been a mistake or misunderstanding between Verster and Webb in this regard.  I have some references, some are oblique, some are more direct.  May I just give them to you?  Page 128, 130, 137, 140, 142, 143, 168 to 169, 191, 214, 216, 412, 476 to 477, 499 and 502.  
	Mr Chairman in regard to the test, the words "full, frank and honest disclosure" that are used by Mr Bizos and Mr Kahanovitz in their Heads of Argument and particularly on page 16, but one must ask oneself, why did the Legislature use the words "full and frank" - sorry frank and honest in Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but not those words in Section 20 and the answer is that what the Legislature was wanting, was a disclosure of the deed for which amnesty is being applied for.  It had accepted that applicants may not be good witnesses, that they may lie about other matters, but those weren't relevant factors as far as the purposes of the legislature in this particular Act is concerned.  The Legislature wanted facts to come in the open in regard to what happened to people, that a disclosure must be made so that those people would know, the victims would know what had happened to their dear ones, themselves and how it happened that that happened.  They're not interested in the credibility of a witness and the rest of his life.  The emphasis is on a particular act and that particular act is the one for which amnesty is applied for.