MR RICHARD
Chairperson, my next point would be that the context was that at the time the deceased was certainly in a broader context, murdered with the political motives that we've argued, and I believe convincingly so for his brother, Michael, and I believe it would be absurd to have a situation where quite rightly, Michael Phasha would qualify for amnesty for being part of what was a murder and the person who because he saw hit rationally and clearly, should be sanctioned.
	There my argument is that since the incident of the killing of Madibeng Phasha, clearly constituted a crime, since Daniel Phasha was convicted on the basis of common purpose for it, the wording of the Act does stretch to the argument that since the crime was committed with a political motive and objective, he who might have been associated with it by virtue of the common purpose and therefore convicted on that basis, should enjoy the benefits that his co-perpetrators or common purpose partners, who fall within the strict language of the Act, do enjoy.