UNKNOWN
Yes, Mr Chairman, thank you.
	Mr Chairman, as the Chair has made an indication on the question of full disclosure, what my learned friend said at the beginning, when he mentioned our small discussion, is actually what happened, but I indicated to him that the major problem that I've seen as far as the full disclosure is concerned is not actually the full disclosure itself, but the question of credibility finding, and I want to believe that one can safely leave to the discretion of the committee, but be it as it may, the issues raised by the committee member, Advocate Bosman, and the issues raised again by the Chair on the question of full disclosure, I would urge the committee, with respect, to take them into consideration when a credibility finding is being made.
	May I then, Mr Chairman, move directly to the question of political objective?   Mr Chairman, the Act is well-known to all of us, it requires satisfaction of both elements or requirements.   My learned friend has correctly indicated that section 20.2(a) of the Act is the only section that is apposite to this application.   May I then venture, Mr Chairman, to analyse what is said under sub-section (a), starting from the third sentence, which I think is the most apposite, where it states that:-
"In furtherance of a political struggle waged by such organisation or movement against the State or any former State or another publicly known political organisation or liberation movement."
	Mr Chairman and members of the committee, much has been said about Inkatha, and Inkatha was one of the, if I may call it, liberation movements or publicly known organisation, but what is surprising, despite the fact that Inkatha is mentioned even in the application, Inkatha as an organisation is mentioned in passing by the applicant, even in evidence in chief as well as under cross-examination, the only thing mentioned about Inkatha is that the warlords were terrorising people in the trains, the warlords were at a particular hostel or they were all over in the hostels, but we're not told as to what they did that warranted the reaction of the appellant and his colleagues.  If that is the position then we do not have an opposition against which we can say the appellant and his colleagues waged the action.
	The second part is that, still on that issue, yes the appellant may be regarded as a supporter, although I must admit, with respect to my learned friend, even the organisation which he alleges he supports, the ANC, really one would have expected, as Advocate Motata had indicated, as well as Advocate Bosman, that you are a supporter of an organisation but you do not attend the meetings of that organisation, and he went further, did not even know the chairman of the local chair, the name of the local chair of the organisation. 
	Mr Chairman, to get further than that, before we adjourned for lunch, and ask him directly, "Was it a deliberate decision by yourself not to attend meetings?", and if my memory is my good servant, I have no doubt that the answer was yes.   Now really, if I support an organisation and I'm aware of their meetings, I'm aware of their operations on the ground, of that operations, I would like to be seen to be aligned to that organisation, but it is not the issue, it is not the question with the appellant.
	Mr Chairman, I do not want to belabour this point, Advocate Bosman has done a lot on it, I do not want to be heard or to be understood to be saying that I'm an expert inasfar as political structures that existed then in the 1980's and the 1990's, but Mr Chairman I want to put it on record that there was nothing like street defence units.   Yes, we had SDU's, formed in the 1980's, formed by the UDF, which was a body operating on the ground in order to pursue or to advance the interests of the ANC, which was operating covertly.