MR JASSAT
Mr Chairman, my client has heard the applicants' request that she forgive them.  But she is not able to do so because she doesn't believe a word of what they have said in their application.  She doesn't believe that they have been frank with this Committee, and effectively the question of their political motives is basically an excuse to get out of gaol.
	She has also  instructed me to advise this Committee that this question of the pocket diary is something that the applicants manufactured because they had to have an excuse
3B - 11.2	for/...
MR JASSAT	140	ADDRESS
for having detained her son.  
	Her belief is that the only reason why her son was arrested was simply because he put his hand in his pocket and the fact that the had an ANC shirt.  If the applicants were bent on their political objectives, then we fail to understand why the 10 people that were in the group who were members of the ANC, were  not all taken into custody and done away with.  Why Jama was selected.  And it seems that the deceased got killed simply because he put his hand in his pocket. 
	Her belief is, and she is merely speculating, because this inquiry is merely about who is speaking the truth, she believes that her son was so badly assaulted by the police that they couldn't let him live in case he went to the authorities.  Having been found out they now use politics as an excuse for having done him in. 
	She is quite prepared to forgive them if they come clean and speak the truth, but she has faith in your Committee in deciding whether they should be granted amnesty or not.  
	Her one difficulty is the following.  That it appears from the evidence that the deceased was killed because he said something about the KwaShange incident.  She knows as a fact that her son was with her in Richmond at the time of the KwaShange incident and he could not have known about it or taken part in it.  So therefore the explanation tendered by the applicants for killing him, she cannot accept that.  	The other aspect that worries us is the fact that these applicants - some of them testified that Major Terblanche had given them an undertaking that if they got themselves into trouble he will be there to protect them.  But at the
3B - 11.2	time/...
MR JASSAT	141	ADDRESS
time when the deceased was murdered, Major Terblanche was no more around, he was already dead.  So who was going to protect them?  I don't know what the role is of the commanding officers who were in charge of their unit after Major Terblanche was murdered, because I wasn't here, but it seems that their story that they did this with a political motive must be rejected.  They are basically rogue policemen who just got out of line and committed a crime and are now using the provisions of the amnesty in order to get out of prison. 
	Thank you, Mr Chairman.