MS THABETHE
Yes, that's my point.  Thank you, thank you Honourable Member of the Committee.
	The second point on disclosure is based on the fact that the applicant says when they fired shots at the vehicle they did not know that it was children that they were firing shots at.  I would argue that I find that improbable because when they fired shots, there must have been screams from the car indicating that it's children screaming.  Further, from the evidence of Mr Kuala, he even said that he himself tried to run away and some kids were shot outside the vehicle.  So I find it very improbable that the applicant did not know that it was school kids that they had fired shots at.  Also, because he seems to suggest that they knew Makeke very well to be driving a white bakkie and they have observed him quite a number of times, I find it very strange that in their observation of Mr Makeke, they wouldn't have known of a regular trip that always occurred in that route every morning, of a cream-white bakkie that used to take school kids from their homes to work.  I find that very hard to comprehend and I would argue that if they had time to observe Makeke, observe his ins and outs with the cream-white van, they should have known that it also, more especially because he indicates it was not Makeke's car, it did not belong to him.   He must have known that it's also used, if at all it was the same car, it's also used to carry or transport school kids to school.
	Further, I think - I argue that the applicant should have or would have foreseen that if it's not Makeke's car, or if the car doesn't belong to Makeke, when they attacked they could have been attacking the owner of the car and not Makeke, or somebody else for that matter, as it occurred in this instance and therefore caution could have been - they should have foreseen, I think they would have known, they should have known that it could carry anybody, I mean somebody else, not necessarily Makeke.
	Also I would like to address the Committee on the identity problem that my learned friend has argued on, the fact that it's so improbable that Mr Kuala could have seen Qeda Zulu.  I would argue that I don't find it improbable because if we could for a moment imagine what was happening there, there were shots fired, according to Mr Kuala, and then it became quiet.  So probably that's when the balaclava was taken off.   Because it was quiet, he might have thought that everybody that they have shot at has been killed and that's when maybe he decided to take off his balaclava.  I mean, we can never know what the reasons are, but I don't think it's improbable that that could have happened, considering that after they fired shots, it was quiet thereafter.  They might have assumed that everybody else was shot or was dead and it was safe to take the balaclava off.
	If you could bear with me please.  On the issue of political motive, I would argue that, in the light of the fact that they could have foreseen that not only Makeke was driving the white bakkie but maybe the owner as well could drive the bakkie, they could have exercised more caution.  The applicant has stated clearly that he had no intention to kill the school children.  He also indicated that had he known that it was school children, he would not have fired those shots.  So basically this offence - he also admitted that the killing of school children was not associated with a political objective even though there might have been attacks that were made by the ANC before that.  This specific one was not associated with a political objective at all. 
	That is my argument Madam Chair, unless you want me to address you on a specific issue.