UNKNOWN
Thank you.  Now we go to 29.9.  Verster failed to disclose the following in regard to the conspiracy.  The killers were flown to Johannesburg to kill Evans.  Instead he falsely stated in his amnesty application that the plan never progressed beyond the preparatory stages.  Please look at bundle A190 paragraph 1.1.  That is bundle and not the argument, Mr Chairperson.  The bundle A you will recall is the applications.  Bundle A page 190 paragraph 1.1 and compare that with the evidence of Van Zyl.  I haven't got a readily available reference to Van Zyl but we will find it, Mr Chairperson, that the would be killers got to Johannesburg and they were sent out in order to do the killing but a small mercy intervened, the inefficiency led to a wrong address being given to them which probably saved his life.  I will in a short while give you the reference to Van Zyl's evidence.
	29.9(ii) - I'm reminded Mr Chairperson that that reference is also a reference to Van Zyl's application in bundle A, that is the application for amnesty.  We'll give you the page because he there incorporates a paragraph of his statement and we'll give you that reference. 
	But could I just proceed to 29.9.2?  That his interest in the project was renewed when the information was received in August 1989, that Evans had met Grosskopf in Lusaka and we ask you to see paragraph B414, we're now back in the argument.  This is the evidence of Basson.  Verster does not deal with this Mr Chairperson, the evidence emerged after he had left these proceedings.  That may be a reason why our learned friend Mr Wessels did not deal with it but it stands, Mr Chairperson.  
	Then on the question of absence of authority, no credible evidence has been produced, we submit, to show that General Webb authorised Verster and Verster has accordingly not satisfied the requirements set out in 20.2.(b).  The reference to that is on A59 and it's a similar submission to the one that we made in relation to Omar, Mr Chairperson.  Could I ask you to add - not a new paragraph if you like, it's 30.2.  C28.1 and C28.2 Supra and Motate supply the argument in relation to Evans.  That is, we submit that in relation to proportionality and motive the case of Evans is an ...(indistinct) for refusal because, Mr Chairperson, this was first of all they didn't know which Evans, there were two brothers.  The one more prominent in the End Conscription Campaign and the other, they were going to kill the wrong one and for the motivation, the rather bizarre answers given by Maree in cross-examination by my learned friend Mr Kahanovitz of Basson in B167.
	Then we deal with the failure to fully, frankly and honestly disclose all relevant facts, Mr Chairperson, this is in relation still to the findings or facts that we ask you to make.  
	We submit that the Committee should find that all the applicants failed to make full, frank and honest disclosure of all relevant facts and that this was so both in relation to the offences for which amnesty was sought and offences committed members of the CCB for which amnesty was not sought.  We will develop this argument fully, Mr Chairperson.  The Committee should find that full, frank and honest disclosure of all relevant facts means full disclosure of all relevant facts required by the Committee in order to apply its mind to the criteria set out in Section 20(3).  The Committee should find that by failing to testify about involvement in other similar crimes or by giving untruthful testimony about involvement in other similar crimes committed by the CCB during the period 1988/1989 the applicants have failed to properly disclose evidence required in making of a determination in terms of Section 20(3).  That the Committee should find that evidence pertaining to the commission of other similar crimes committed by the CCB during the period 1988 to 1989 are relevant facts for the purposes Section 20(1)(c).  The Committee should find that all the applicants have either given false testimony or refused to answer questions about their involvement in other similar crimes committed by the CCB during 1988 and 1989.
	And then acts committed by members of the Security Forces, the Committee should find that the applicants besides Webb have failed to show that they committed these acts as members of the class of persons referred to in 22B.
	And then in paragraph 37, Mr Chairperson, the witness indemnify, provisions were contained.  This is the argument, Mr Chairperson, on relevance.  The witness indemnity provisions which were contained in 1917 and 1955, Criminal Procedure Acts required the accomplice to fully answer to the satisfaction to the court or Magistrate or such lawful questions as are put to him under examination.  In ...(indistinct) 1939 AD1 at 4 it was held that there were fully in this context, certainly imports the idea that the answer must be frank and honest.  Full or fully are the same, so that must be frank?