BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE
But of course the question can only arise where something wrongful has been done and as you say when the legislature enacted that it must have been within the course and scope, he must have acted within the course and scope of his employment.  If I understand you correctly you are saying the legislature must have accepted that the policemen must have acted unlawfully otherwise no policeman would get amnesty, is that what you are saying?
	But the point I am trying to raise with you, I understand your argument, but you see there must be - he must have acted in pursuit of an objective which he has been employed to achieve, otherwise if conduct deviates so far away from that objective for which he has been employed then there will be a problem, wouldn't that be a problem?
	Look a policeman is going out to arrest somebody and he has been employed to arrest people who committed crime.  He goes there, in the process of arresting a person he uses excessive force, that excessive force was used for the purpose of carrying out a legitimate objective, so in that sense that is the interpretation you are placing on HORNE's case applies and it would assist policemen who apply for amnesty provided they were pursuing an objective for which they were employed to do.  But when a person deviates so much that he is no longer really acting in pursuit of the basic objective for which he was employed then he cannot be covered because then he is on his own frolic.
	What was he doing - surely when he was employed he was never employed to shoot or kill people who had been arrested by the police, suspects who had been arrested by the police?