GEORGE BIZOS
Pages 339 - 341.  And then I would like to make a submission, yes, I would like to make a submission in relation to Paragraph 6.1.3, and to submit that although we have taken the list and the knowledge of Mr and Mrs Derby-Lewis for it's purpose and dealt with it separately with the knowledge of the purpose for which the gun was to be used on both Mr Derby-Lewis' and Mrs Derby-Lewis' knowledge, what we would submit is that, if the Committee accepts that the list what was for the purposes of elimination then it becomes highly improbable that the showing of the gun was merely of the, for the purposes of showing that a start had been made in the accumulation of stock piling of guns for the future.
	What we submit is that these two should be taken together and evidence of the intention to use the list for the purposes of assassination is in fact strong evidence that the use of the gun was not for the supposedly lawful purpose of self defence in the future.  Mr Chairman I do not intend, with respect, reading out the passages.  They are there for the Committee's consideration and I do not want to burden the record, or to take up time unnecessarily.  
	I want to go to 6.2 on Page 11 where we submit that the Applicants' lied about the purpose of obtaining the firearm and the silencer and again we submit that they should be taken together with the list.  And 6.2.4 that we draw particular attention to the statement of Mr Derby-Lewis, the reference to which is given in 6.2.4.1 and we would refer to the fact that there it is stated that the question of procuring the gun was before February 1993, Mr Chairman.
	Then, I would like to go to Page 14 and this is the Applicants have lied about the scope of the conspiracy as to the number of people who were to be arrested.  I have already dealt with that in general terms and, but here are the references which are both to the Record and to their statements and we set out verbatim answers given to members of the Committee which clearly show what we submitted yesterday that their answers are so inherently improbable that their evidence should be rejected and that what is contained in their statements is true and what the overwhelming probabilities indicate that this was a murder list.
	The untruthfulness of Mrs Derby-Lewis in the criminal court of course are of vital importance in relation to her credibility and on Page 18 we submit that the Applicants have lied about when the conspiracy to murder ANC SACP leaders was entered into and we submit in 6.4.1 on Page 18 that although Chris Hani was decided upon in February  1993 as the first target, the discussion as to what action should be taken started immediately after the referendum in March 1992 and intensified by the latter part of 1992 and we rely on that on the evidence of Mr Derby-Lewis which we give the reference to.
	The names other than those identified as Revolutionaries were added to the list, to the hit list in order to cause confusion which may also be an excuse invented at the time of the criminal trial and we refer to the R4 statements in support of that submission.  Walus' statement that after the unbanning of the ANC, PAC and SACP in February 1992 when he became very concerned about the situation in the country, "especially during the second part of 1992 when Clive and I discussed the worsening of the security situation and the high level of unrest which deteriorated day by day.  More and more policemen got shot on duty.  
	That was unacceptable for us and Clive and I started to discuss in the direction of eliminating selective members of the ANC, PAC Alliance.  Clive asked if I was prepared to eliminate political opponents and I agreed to do so.  Towards the end of February 1993 during the visit to Clive at his home, he showed me a list with nine names.  We discussed the names on the list and I numbered them according to priority of elimination", accords with the probabilities and should be accepted without reservation and we submit that that is quite inconsistent with the denial.