MR HATTINGH
With respect not, Mr Chairman, you have wide powers in terms of the Act, and if you feel that there is a one-sided version before you and that there are possibly other people who might place a different complexion on the facts before you, you have the powers to subpoena such a person to appear before you and to give that evidence.  We submit therefore Mr Chairman, that quite clearly the inference that you are seeking to draw, should be an inference based on the evidence as being a reasonable inference, applying the same test or standard as you would in a criminal or in a civil trial, regardless of the fact that there is no other party before you.  That is all that is before you, we submit, and that is why I stressed the point at the beginning of my argument Mr Chairman, that you have got to base your decision with respect, on the evidence, you cannot speculate.
	The evidence before you is to the effect that that money was paid in respect of the third transaction.  Bear in mind with respect in this regard Mr Chairman, that on the affidavit of Nieuwoudt and on the evidence of De Kock, Nieuwoudt wasn't even involved in the negotiations for the delivery of the weapons relating to the second incident.  He didn't deal with him.