UNKNOWN
Thank you, sir.  Mr Chairman, I will not be arguing in opposition to the application as such, more so, Chairperson, when I do not even have specific instructions towards that direction.  But, Chairperson, what I would like to do is to raise what I would call some concerns in the application itself.  I will leave it to the Committee, Chairperson, to make his findings.
	Mr Chair, I would just want to raise that, Chairperson, it may well be that the applicant was a member of the PAC, and that being the case, Chairperson, one need to be wary of a situation where a person does an act for personal revenge or personal vendetta behind the cloak of politics.  This is a trite case for that possibility, Chairperson.
	The thrust of the applicant's application seems to be that there was a political conflict between the ANC and the PAC in the area of Bethal, but the court says the opposite, and in fact it transpires that in court the defence witness gave evidence to that effect that there was no political conflict between the ANC and PAC during those days at that particular area.  It's therefore, Chairperson, as it stands, invites the applicant to do what is reasonable by way of putting evidence before this Committee further to show that there was a conflict.  What I'm saying, Chairperson, is what is contained in the court proceedings and the word of the applicant seem to contradict and that should have been some pointing fingers to the applicant that these are going to be areas of contention.  
	So, I submit, Chair, that in that particular area the applicant should have done more to satisfy the Committee, that there was that conflict, because it is claimed that this killing was as a result of that conflict.