MR PRINSLOO
I am indebted to the Chairperson.  Honourable Chairperson, then in so far as the prerequisites for amnesty are concerned, the applicant in this case, falls under Section 20(2)(d) of the Act with reference to Section 20(2)(3)(a), it is my argument that the motive of the person who committed the acts, omission or offence is very clear.
	At that stage, according to the applicant, there was a war, the BWB had declared war, and the objective was to obtain weapons for the purposes of its warfare and if one looks at the judgment of Justice Wunch, page 38 of the bundle, approximately line 7, the evidence is and can be seen that at the time of the offence, the country was in hysteria.
	This is with regard to the two other applicants' judgments.  The motive was clearly political and not at all based upon malice or any other reason.  The context in which the offence was committed and more specifically the deed itself, as set out in the Act with regard to political objective, I submit that this falls in with what the order of the applicant was, what the applicant was supposed to do and what the BWB actually stood for.
	I would like to refer you Honourable Chairperson, to the amnesty application of L.H. Froneman and P.J. Harmse.  This was served to Justice Wilson, and Mr De Jager.  I think the third person was - just a moment please - Ms Khampepe.  In that specific case, these two persons Froneman and Harmse were members of the BWB and they were also members of the BRL and also in the same way as the applicant has submitted to you how he received his order telephonically and was to carry it out, this is analogous to this particular application, and is set out in the application.  If you wish to have a copy of this, I can make it available to you.
	I don't know if you have had insight into these documents.