UNKNOWN
It is my submission Chairperson, that the applicant has shown with no doubt and with
certainty that at the time of the incident, he was a member of a political organisation.  The act or the incident that was committed, was committed in the furtherance of the aims of the organisation in the sense that it rated to a particular community which supported the organisation, it related to incidents that involved the protecting of the community from adverse, or adversarial organisations, in this case the IFP.  It was very clear that the applicant himself in relation to the incident gained no personal benefit.  It was clear that the entire exercise was designed to benefit the organisation and the community at large. 
	The applicant was truthful in this hearing.  He expressed all the facts that were needed to be expressed, all facts that needed to be known, he indicated at the hearing that he's now remorseful, that in view of the changed political climate, that he has in fact reformed and that he does not look at the regime and the police force or his opponents in the same light as he did then and that he has indicated that should the application for amnesty be granted and he be released, that he will certainly not resort to any criminal activities.  He's also apologised to those persons that were involved and he has shown remorse.
	His political affiliations and his involvement in the incident involved, was confirmed by both the co-accused.  It is quite clear that since he's made this application for amnesty, he has not discussed the issue of amnesty with his co-accused in order to gain support.  It appeared quite clear that from the papers that have been presented that one of his co-accused in fact at some stage he elected to deny liability, that was an indication that there was not communication, that there was no fabrication of any facts or evidence and that the applicant has made the application on the facts as they were.
	It would appear that the second person who gave evidence, Mr Ntjali, obviously did not fully understand the final implications of the amnesty application when he made those allegations.  I do not know even up to this date, whether he understands the full implications of that.
	His facts were also confirmed by that of the last person who gave evidence Mr Zulu, who also did not have any contact with the applicant and the version and the facts are all very consistent.  It is clear that these were obviously the facts that had been in place at the time when the incident took place.  
	I appreciate the concern of the victim who has now submitted the letter marked Exhibit A and I agree with him that criminals should be kept in jail in so far as he relates to criminals in the ordinary sense.  I do not think that Mr Shruland, who was a victim, knew or understood the background to the incident that in fact took place.  He obviously looked at the incident from a point of view that there was a robbery, there was a hijacking, there was a hold-up and that he's been now confronted by ordinary criminals.  
	We are now looking here at a situation where the circumstances related to a situation of political violence and that it was a case more, I would say, of necessity than anything else and this is quite evident that there needed to be some kind of protection, some kind of assistance.  The community needed to be mobilised, to be helped, without furthering any criminal activities, but it was a situation that the applicant and members of his committee, as he has mentioned, could not resort, had no other assistance, they could not resort to the police because the police sided with the opponents and they were faced with this kind of position where they had to do something to take care of themselves and against that background, it is my view that the applicant has satisfied the requirements for the granting of the amnesty and I submit that the application be granted.  Thank you.