ADV BOSMAN: Will you be testifying in Afrikaans?
MR FLORES: In English.
ADV BOSMAN: In English, well it's over to the Chairman then.
CHAIRPERSON: Could you give us your full names for the record, Mr Flores.
LEON WILLIAM JOHN FLORES: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, you may be seated Mr Flores.
EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Mr Flores, you're an applicant for amnesty in this matter and your application is to be found on folio 245 of the bundle, is that correct?
MR FLORES: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: Just for the sake of completeness, as far as paragraph 7(a) and 7(b) is concerned, were you a supporter of the National Party?
MR FLORES: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: We find your political objectives set out from page 245 up until page 263 of the bundle, is that correct?
MR FLORES: That's correct.
MR CORNELIUS: Do you confirm this to be your political belief at that time?
MR FLORES: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: At the time this operation took place you were station at Vlakplaas, is that correct?
MR FLORES: That's correct.
MR CORNELIUS: What was your rank?
MR FLORES: Sergeant, Mr Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: Now on page 263 you refer to Kagiso House operation, what are you referring to? That's page 263, Mr Chair.
MR FLORES: I'm referring to Khanya House, Mr Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: Do you wish that to be corrected then? Is that the way you thought the spelling used to be at that time?
MR FLORES: I don't know where I got that word from, Mr Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: Fine, but this obviously refers to the Khanya House operation?
MR FLORES: That's correct.
MR CORNELIUS: Could you give a brief outline of what your actions were that specific day?
MR FLORES: Mr Chairperson, yes, after we were briefed we were allocated certain ...(intervention)
MR CORNELIUS: Where were you briefed?
MR FLORES: At Vlakplaas.
MR CORNELIUS: What was your brief?
MR FLORES: We were basically just briefed what the set-up was of Khanya House and that the main objective was to destroy a printing press situated in the premises.
MR CORNELIUS: By what means?
MR FLORES: Arson, by burning it.
MR CORNELIUS: Were you involved in the direct planning or was this done on a different level?
MR FLORES: I was just at the briefing but in the direct planning, not at all, I wasn't present.
MR CORNELIUS: I see. There's evidence that has been led which was not disputed, that professional locksmiths were taken with to gain entrance, is that correct?
MR FLORES: That's correct.
MR CORNELIUS: Now what did you exactly do on the scene, what was your actions at Khanya House?
MR FLORES: My task, Mr Chairperson, I had to just, once they opened the gates we had to enter and we were allocated to certain positions just to secure the perimeter.
MR CORNELIUS: What did you do?
MR FLORES: I went, if I can recall correctly, to the north side of the building. As I put in my application, I was accompanied with Capt du Plessis, but as previous applicants said, I was apparently with Mr Ras, which could be possible, I may have been confused.
MR CORNELIUS: I see. You're in doubt about that fact?
MR FLORES: That's correct.
MR CORNELIUS: I see. Were you armed?
MR FLORES: I was armed with a pick handle.
MR CORNELIUS: Mr Ras said there's a possibility that you might have had a .22, what have you got to say about that?
MR FLORES: I cannot recall that. I won't dispute it, but I cannot recall it.
MR CORNELIUS: As far as you are concerned you had pick axe?
MR FLORES: That's correct.
MR CORNELIUS: Was that purely to attack or of a defensive nature?
MR FLORES: Defensive, just in case someone did come in, we had to apprehend them, Mr Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: Now you made two statements on page 265 or your application which we don't find in any other applications, where you say you received information
"while we were busy with the operation that there were nuns on the top floor in Kagiso House, who were apparently resident there"
and then you say:
"We decided to carry on with our operation, notwithstanding the fact that they were in the building."
Are you sure about these facts?
MR FLORES: That is in my application, Mr Chairperson, but in the last two days listening to other applicants, definitely I was confused there, I must have heard that just after the incident or ...(indistinct)
MR CORNELIUS: When you drew your amnesty applications, did you have a long period of time to consider all the merits and did you have a period of time where you could consult with the other members involved?
MR FLORES: Not at all, I had 24 hours, Mr Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: And how many applications did you have to draw? Were you under pressure from the investigation team?
MR FLORES: Yes, I was, Mr Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: And if I recall correctly, you were also under pressure to be assistant with the exhumation of bodies and various things which placed a lot of pressure on you, is that correct?
MR FLORES: That's correct.
MR CORNELIUS: In this 24-hour period of time, how many applications did you have to prepare?
MR FLORES: 18 in total, 18 different incidents, Mr Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: Is that at your place of residence in Phalaborwa?
MR FLORES: That's correct.
MR CORNELIUS: Was it done at the local hotel, if I remember correctly?
MR FLORES: That's correct.
MR CORNELIUS: Did you have knowledge that there were people in the building?
MR FLORES: Prior to the execution of the ...?
MR CORNELIUS: Yes, prior to the execution.
MR FLORES: Not at all.
MR CORNELIUS: When did it come to your knowledge that there were people in the building?
MR FLORES: As I've just said, Mr Chairperson, in my application I've stated that, as I've just said it was wrong, that while we were doing the security of the perimeter, but only afterwards.
MR CORNELIUS: How did it come to your knowledge then?
MR FLORES: It could have been later the evening when we returned back to Vlakplaas, that Col de Kock ...(intervention)
MR CORNELIUS: Are you sure of this fact or are you guessing?
MR FLORES: I'm just speculating by myself.
MR CORNELIUS: Yes, you must be precise. Did you move around freely in the building?
MR FLORES: No, I was just securing that one section.
MR CORNELIUS: Did you get any impression that there were people sleeping there?
MR FLORES: Not at all.
MR CORNELIUS: You heard what I read previously to a previous witness, Exhibit E, that it seems to be the impression of certain people at press conferences as well, that you people didn't know that there were people there, is that correct?
MR FLORES: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: Did you receive any bonus, except your salary, for your participation in this project?
MR FLORES: Nothing whatsoever, Mr Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: Did you have any hate directed against the owners of the building?
MR FLORES: None whatsoever.
MR CORNELIUS: You are applying for amnesty to be granted for arson, malicious damage to property, conspiracy to commit a crime, possible offences under the Explosives Act, obviously defeating the ends of justice because you didn't disclose your participation and the true facts and then all delicts that may flow from your acts, is that correct?
MR FLORES: That's correct.
MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Cornelius. Mr Hattingh?
MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I do not have any questions.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr van der Merwe?
MR VAN DER MERWE: No questions thank you, Mr Chair.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DER MERWE
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nel?
MR NEL: No questions, thank you Chairman.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR NEL
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wagener?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WAGENER: Mr Flores, I am appearing on behalf of Capt du Plessis and I just want to be certain, he will testify - I'm sorry, the witness gave evidence in English.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that's correct. He doesn't have earphones, would you attempt to communicate with him in English?
MR WAGENER: Capt du Plessis will testify that he was in fact one of the people that went into the building with petrol and that he did not stay outside with you. That will be his evidence.
MR FLORES: I won't dispute that, Mr Chairperson.
MR WAGENER: Thank you, Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR WAGENER
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Wagener. Mr Jansen?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JANSEN: Thank you, Chair.
Mr Flores, your role was purely that of a minor operative in this operation.
MR FLORES: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: If something had gone wrong inside the building or outside the building, it would not have been your decision to abandon the operation or to continue with it?
MR FLORES: Not at all, Mr Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: I know there's been a lot of argument in the entire process of the TRC, as to who has what discretion at what stage, but at least at the very most, either the people inside the building would have made such a decision to either continue or withdraw, or they would have relayed information to Col de Kock and he would have made those major decisions, correct?
MR FLORES: That is correct.
MR JANSEN: At the time that you were guarding this building, you did not have contact with either the people inside the building or with Mr de Kock?
MR FLORES: Not at all, Mr Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: Did you have any other contact with any of the other operatives guarding the building on the outside?
MR FLORES: Nothing whatsoever, except for the person with me.
MR JANSEN: Yes, and that was Ras?
MR FLORES: That's correct, I understood it now.
MR JANSEN: Thank you, Chair, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JANSEN
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Jansen. Mr Joubert?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JOUBERT: Thank you, Chair. Mr Flores, just a single question. When you refer to a directive, it's on page 263 of your application, received from the Security Branch in Pretoria, are you merely referring to the instructions that were given to you by Col de Kock during the briefing session?
MR FLORES: That's correct, I actually assumed it was the Security Branch and only at these hearings heard that it was Stratcom.
MR JOUBERT: I have no further questions, thank you Mr Chair.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JOUBERT
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Lamey?
MR LAMEY: I've got no questions, thank you Chairperson.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr du Plessis?
MR DU PLESSIS: I have no questions, Chairperson, thank you.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Cambanis?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS CAMBANIS: Thank you, Chair.
Sir, are we to understand from your evidence today that you did not at all enter the structure of Khanya House?
MR FLORES: Not all, Mr Chairperson.
MS CAMBANIS: Where were you?
MR FLORES: I was placed, designated on the north side, as I stated, and when Mr Ras gave his version his version just now I did recall that he was correct, at a gate under like a dome, if that's the right word I'm using.
CHAIRPERSON: You may take them off, he's testifying in English. You may take the earphones off, he's testifying in English.
MS CAMBANIS: Chairperson, I have a ...
CHAIRPERSON: Oh, an ear problem.
MS CAMBANIS: Sorry.
CHAIRPERSON: No, no that's okay.
MS CAMBANIS: Mr Ras said that as he recalled, that he was positioned on a carport, a roof of a carport, I think was the translation.
MR FLORES: That could be possible.
MS CAMBANIS: Your legal representative is pointing to a picture on page 7, if you can just look at that, of Exhibit E.
MR FLORES: That could be possible.
MS CAMBANIS: It's possible that it's that?
MR FLORES: Yes, Mr Chairperson.
MS CAMBANIS: Just read the writing next to it. It says it is the remains of Khanya House print unit.
MR FLORES: That's correct, as I said, it could be possible. The evening we entered was the first time I ever saw the premises and have never been back since, so it's difficult to recall exactly where I was.
MS CAMBANIS: But the place that you were standing, were there operatives that entered the building that you were standing on?
MR FLORES: No, no, if I recall correctly there was some sort of gate.
MS CAMBANIS: Yes. Sir, I don't know your previous evidence, Sir, were you involved in how many arson attempts? How many applications involving arson have you applied to, to the TRC?
MR FLORES: Including this one, two, Mr Chairperson.
MS CAMBANIS: What was the other one?
MR FLORES: The other one hasn't been heard yet, it's still coming forth. It's an incident in Witbank.
MS CAMBANIS: Does the incident in Witbank involve a church?
MR FLORES: Yes, it does.
MS CAMBANIS: In which there were occupants at the time of the ...?
MR FLORES: No, there wasn't occupants, Mr Chairperson.
MS CAMBANIS: Of the two arson events for which you apply, is this the only one which involved people being in the structure at the time that the operation was carried out?
MR FLORES: Just repeat that please.
MS CAMBANIS: You apply for two arson incidents.
MR FLORES: That's correct.
MS CAMBANIS: This one and the one in Witbank.
MR FLORES: That's correct.
MS CAMBANIS: The one in Witbank, no occupants at the time of the operation?
MR FLORES: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.
MS CAMBANIS: So therefore this is the only one that people were in during the time?
MR FLORES: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.
MS CAMBANIS: Just look again at page 265, Mr Flores. Before you look at that, in any of your other applications for anything else, were nuns involved?
MR FLORES: No, no, Mr Chairperson.
MS CAMBANIS: Was the church involved?
MR FLORES: Yes, Chairperson.
MS CAMBANIS: Which one?
MR FLORES: The one in Witbank, I don't know what church it was, what denomination it was, Mr Chairperson.
MS CAMBANIS: Now Sir, as it turns out the fact is that there were people in Khanya House that night and your sentence is factually correct to the extent that people were there at the time of the event, you know that now.
MR FLORES: That's correct.
MS CAMBANIS: Just please, it baffles me, can you explain to me where this sentence comes from?
MR FLORES: If I can put it as such, I think I totally misplaced and misphrased this section, Mr Chairperson, and as I previously stated as well, I did 18 different incidents within 24 hours.
MS CAMBANIS: Yes, Sir, and that is why I asked you about the nature of the operations and whether you were confusing it with one of the other 17 or 18 events.
MR FLORES: That's correct, but I think one can make a mistake, Mr Chairperson, if you are told after the incident that there were people in, like Mr de Kock gave in his evidence, saying that he saw a lady or a woman being carried down by fire department people and being a church, one would say that obviously it's going to be nuns and in that case it's just totally confused. If I can refer, I've got different names, I'm misplacing people, so this whole application of mine is a confusing one at present.
MS CAMBANIS: No, no, where have you misplaced names, Sir?
MR FLORES: I placed Mr du Plessis ...(intervention)
MS CAMBANIS: One error, yes? What other error is there?
MR FLORES: I said Kagiso House and not Khanya House.
MS CAMBANIS: Yes, and what else?
MR FLORES: I referred to Mr Ras saying I had a weapon and I say I had a pick handle.
MS CAMBANIS: Yes.
MR FLORES: That's basically it.
MS CAMBANIS: Sir, just please tell me this, can we agree that there is no other of your applications which you could have confused with this incident?
MR FLORES: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.
MS CAMBANIS: Yes. As a matter of interest, why do you say it being a church you would have associated it with nuns?
MR FLORES: Being Catholic, they say it was Catholic, so I refer to women in Catholic churches as nuns.
MS CAMBANIS: And the Bishops that were present?
MR FLORES: It could have been Fathers.
MS CAMBANIS: Is this a laughing matter, Sir?
MR FLORES: Are you referring to me now?
MS CAMBANIS: Yes, I'm referring to you.
MR FLORES: I wasn't laughing now, Mr Chairperson.
MS CAMBANIS: Being frivolous, Sir.
MR FLORES: Not at all.
MS CAMBANIS: Do you have anything to say to the people, the 70-year old nun, it being Catholic, that had to be rescued from the second floor that night?
MR FLORES: I can just state as Mr de Kock and Mr McIntyre have stated, is that my humble apologies for any inconvenience and the trauma they had at that stage and I apologise, I'm sorry for what happened.
MS CAMBANIS: Are you aware that seven people were trapped on the second floor that night?
MR FLORES: Only afterwards we were notified, yes.
MS CAMBANIS: Yes. Now if you look at page 265, you've made this inconceivable error, look at the next sentence
"We decided to carry on with our operation, notwithstanding the fact that they were in the building."
MR FLORES: That's correct that I state it there, but that is also wrong there.
MS CAMBANIS: Yes, I've heard you say that is wrong. Do you see that that stands separately, that's a separate concept to the one in the second?
MR FLORES: That's correct.
MS CAMBANIS: And what do you say about besides that it is wrong? How is it possible?
MR FLORES: Mr Chairperson, I can't answer on that.
MS CAMBANIS: When you were writing this, who is the "we" that you refer to? At the time that you make this application, who is "we decided"?
MR FLORES: I presume if one would write "we" in the statement, it would say everyone involved in that specific incident.
MS CAMBANIS: And as you recall when you were recalling at the time of making the statement, how would that decision have been made out, amongst all of you in the operation?
MR FLORES: Mr Chairperson, one again, this is totally misinterpreted by me in the wrong manner and I can't answer on that.
MS CAMBANIS: Look at page 264, Mr Flores, the third sentence
"The operation was carried out with military precision"
MR FLORES: That's correct.
MS CAMBANIS: Is that still correct today?
MR FLORES: That's correct.
MS CAMBANIS: Explain to us what you mean by that please.
MR FLORES: Military precision is terminology we use that there was a planning of the operation, certain people were allocated certain tasks and the Intelligence network and in covert operations one would refer to as military precision, Mr Chairperson.
MS CAMBANIS: Thank you, Chair, I have nothing further for this witness.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS CAMBANIS
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Cambanis. Ms Patel?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.
Mr Flores, in your evidence-in-chief you stated that you were briefed at Vlakplaas, can you recall whether this was a general briefing session with all the operatives present?
MR FLORES: If I recall correctly, I could be wrong, Mr Chairperson, I presume we are all present at the general briefing.
MS PATEL: You also stated that you were told what the set-up of Khanya House was, what did you mean by that, can you elaborate?
MR FLORES: Yes, Mr Chairperson, basically the set-up is where we would enter, the north side where I was allocated to, what side the printing works would be, basically the infrastructure how it would be. I mean we wouldn't just enter not knowing where to go, what position.
MS PATEL: Okay. So was there a map or a plan there that was drawn, where you were shown where you were to be positioned?
MR FLORES: I can't recall any photos or plans as such, Mr Chairperson.
MS PATEL: But the layout of the building was definitely described to you.
MR FLORES: Yes, it would have been.
MS PATEL: Then also, you've stated in your, you give quite a lot of detail in your application, amongst others you state that a device was planted in the printing works and your instructions were to apprehend anyone who gained access to that area. You also say that a certain Capt Kotze planted the device and set it, do you confirm that?
MR FLORES: That's what I stated there, Mr Chairperson.
MS PATEL: But you stand by that testimony?
MR FLORES: I can't say that, listening to all the previous applicants, that Mr Kotze did plant it.
MS PATEL: Then there's not much that one can then rely on in terms of your application, because you're basically retracting a lot of it.
MR FLORES: Mr Chairperson, if I could just notify the Commission as well, as I've stated I did 18 applications in 24 hours, the original copy was then lodged in Cape Town at the TRC's offices, we had to then rewrite everything again, which was not on any computer disk or anything.
MS PATEL: And your application was lodged in 1996, is that correct?
MR FLORES: '97 or '7, that is possible.
MS PATEL: It's '96. And you've had four years in-between, well almost four years in-between then and now, to think about the various incidents and to supplement your papers before you came here and before you listened to the testimony of everyone, not so?
MR FLORES: That's correct.
MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Patel. Advocate Bosman?
ADV BOSMAN: Thank you, Chairperson.
Mr Flores, just one question. How many of your applications have been heard thusfar? You said you applied for 18 incidents.
MR FLORES: I think it's 11, Mr Chairperson.
ADV BOSMAN: About 11. Have you had the same difficulties in those applications, that your evidence, your oral evidence did not correspond with the written applications?
MR FLORES: There are a couple, Mr Chairperson.
ADV BOSMAN: What do you sort of, how do you explain it? It's a general occurrence that you have difficulty with the discrepancies between the document and the oral evidence.
MR FLORES: Chairperson, well I'm human, I make mistakes, I can't recall everything.
ADV BOSMAN: No, no, that I understand, but is there no other explanation except that it's a memory problem?
MR FLORES: It could be a memory problem, I don't know, I haven't been checked on that, Mr Chairperson, I can't ...
ADV BOSMAN: So as far as you know you're not suffering from a general memory disability problem at all?
MR FLORES: Up till now not, I hope not.
ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Advocate Bosman. Advocate Sandi?
ADV SANDI: Thank you, Chair.
The Witbank incident you've mentioned, is that also a Roman Catholic Church?
MR FLORES: I have no idea what denomination that one is, Mr Chairperson, the church.
ADV SANDI: If it had been discovered that there were people inside the Khanya House building, would it have been decided that - I know that this would not have been your decision, what would have happened, would it have been decided that you carry on with the burning down of the place, nevertheless?
MR FLORES: Mr Chairperson, would that be prior to entering the premises? The knowledge of persons ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Let's say when you entered the premises before it was doused with petrol.
MR FLORES: There persons in charge would have aborted the mission.
ADV SANDI: Ja, but why did you - just as part of the enquiry to get some explanation of the mistake you say you have made, but why do you say
"We decided to carry on with our operation, notwithstanding the fact that they were in the building"
Why do you say that there?
MR FLORES: Mr Chairperson, I've no idea why I stated this, those two, three sentences as such.
ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you, Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Flores, just on page 245, this is what I don't understand, 8(b) you say
"(1) Sergeant: 15 years
(2) No rank: 2 years"
Is that within the Police Services?
MR FLORES: Mr Chairperson, could you just repeat that paragraph, so I could just find it.
CHAIRPERSON: 8(b). 245, the written portion of the application.
MR FLORES: Yes, number (1) where I say
"Sergeant: 15 years"
that was while I was a member of the South African Police at that time.
CHAIRPERSON: And the "no rank" one?
MR FLORES: "No rank" was, I was a member of the Directorate of Covert Collection, Military Intelligence.
CHAIRPERSON: Director?
MR FLORES: Directorate of Covert Collection.
CHAIRPERSON: But does that not fall within the Police?
MR FLORES: I was appointed as a civilian working for Military Intelligence, Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any re-exam?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair.
Mr Flores, if I recall correctly, you were under treatment of Dr Russel Matthews, a Clinical Psychologist at one stage, is that correct?
MR FLORES: That's correct.
MR CORNELIUS: That was following quite a severe nervous breakdown.
MR FLORES: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: Furthermore, you were the rank of a Sergeant at the time this Khanya House attack took place, was that the lowest rank available on the scene that day or not? Of all the operatives at the project, were you the lowest rank?
MR FLORES: Chairperson, yes, I don't think our unit had Constables at that stage, so a Sergeant would be the lowest then.
MR CORNELIUS: Yes. And you worked on the need-to-know basis, you testified that.
MR FLORES: That's correct.
MR CORNELIUS: Would it have been expected of you to make decisions on the ground?
MR FLORES: Not at all, Mr Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: This was a highly planned operation, I can see it clearly from the documents.
MR FLORES: That's correct.
MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS
ADV BOSMAN: Mr Chairman, may I just ask one more questions, if you will allow me please.
CHAIRPERSON: Ja, I would.
Mr Flores, what is your level of education?
MR FLORES: Standard eight.
ADV BOSMAN: And 15 years in the Police and you reached the rank of Sergeant, is that not rather slow progress?
MR FLORES: That is correct.
ADV BOSMAN: What is that due to?
MR FLORES: Maybe I just didn't have it up here, Ma'am.
ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Flores, you are excused.
MR FLORES: Thank you.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: I see we have just gone past eleven, we'll take the tea break. We'll adjourn for 15 minutes.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
CHAIRPERSON: Who is next?
MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Mr Chair. Van der Merwe on record, the next applicant will be Mr Tait.
