MR ZILWA
I will make the submission that it cannot be said that what the accused did at the time was contrary to the policy of the organisation at least in so far as they were concerned.  Now Mr Chairman, I will submit that one really should view this subjectively even though of course the element of reasonableness as to whether or what they have done is reasonable or what he says is reasonable should also be taken into account.  But one should take into account the state of mind of the applicants at the time of the commission of the offence.  Now they say they belonged to the SDU's which was set up for the purposes of protection or defence.  Now they say the event of the murder of Chris Hani was such that -and what they subsequently learned was such that this was not an isolated event, similar things were going to follow, in other words, similar murders to prominent leaders of their organisations were imminent.  Now they say when they got that intelligence, they took it upon themselves that acting as they did cannot be said to constitute an action that would be in violation of the stated stance of their organisation.  In other words, they say they regarded their action of pre-emptive defence, if one could put it that way, that if the message is sent that a deed of this nature would not be tolerated and there's going to be retaliation if murders of prominent leaders of the struggle, such as Chris Hani, were killed.  Now they say they regarded their action in that sense as a species of a defence in that similar victims, similar leaders who could have fallen victim to similar assassinations would have been saved by their actions if the message did go across.
	Now addressing the question directly that has been posed, whether one can be said to be acting in support of a particular organisation if he acts directly, directly contrary to it's principles, one could say that a direct answer to that would be a no, but again, as I keep repeating, one should take a very close look at the prevailing circumstances, the magnitude of the event that gave rise to this action and all that.  Even the Act itself has made a provision for that, because Section 3 - I'm sorry, Sub-Section 23, it says:
"Whether a particular act, omission or offence contemplated in Sub-Section 2 is an act is associated with a political objective, shall be decided with reference to the following criteria
(i)	The motive of the person who committed the act, omission or offence"
Let me pause there.  The applicants have clearly indicated the motivation that led them to commit this offence and in my submission there can be no doubt whatsoever that it was a political motivation, they wanted to retaliate and to send a message for the salvation of their political leaders.  So insofar as motive of the applicants in committing the act is concerned, I don't think there can be any doubt it was politically motivated, there was no robbery, nothing, in fact I need not even refer to that because it's clear that this was done purely in response to the slaying of Chris Hani.  So, as to the nature of their motive in committing the offence it's clear that it was politically motivated.
	Now (b) which is also very opposite to their situation ...[intervention]