MOKOTEDI MPSHE
To be fair to the applicant and to the question, I do concede and that is what the applicant also said that he was the leader and he gave commands and he ordered us to do whatever that needed to be done, I do concede to that, but I do not think the applicant was not in the position where he could disagree with the brother, more so that information was begotten and a meeting between the two of them ensued and if you think, if you talk of a meeting between two persons, it was this person, these people can negotiate and talk on certain issues on the same level.  Perhaps the influence, if it may be referred to, influence of the brother could be put onto the action itself but insofar as the planning and all, it was only the two of them in the meeting.  If their brother was so dominating, there won't even have been a meeting between the two of them.  The brother would have said, look fine we've got this information now this is what we are going to do and you carry out that.  But that is not the evidence, I don't know whether I've addressed this aspect.
	Mr Chairman and Members of the Committee, on the question of the firearm, the intention as testified to by the applicant is that they wanted to give the firearm over to the leadership and to believe if this was the intention and if this was done, given to the leadership of the IFP, then one would be having no problem with the political objective insofar as this firearm is concerned, but the firearm is not even given to the leadership of the IFP.  If the leadership of that piece told thereof at court fourteen months down the line, now can it be said that the firearm, the taking of the deceased's firearm was done also on behalf and in interest of the IFP, I think the answer will be in the negative.  
	In conclusion, Mr Chairman and Members of the Committee, my submission is that this, even if there is no such evidence as correctly indicated that there was, there could have been a fight between the applicant and his brother and the deceased, but what is funny here is that the planning is done by two brothers in their own house at home, not involving anybody of the organisation, two blood brothers and it's the two blood brothers from the house who go out and carry out this execution.  I find it very absurd.  I don't say that he should have called the informer but one would have expected really in the circumstances that I want to tell what has happened, I going to tell the Amnesty Committee that this is what happened and this was my informer and my informer is here to can testify to that effect.  We were just told about the informer but no evidence has been led in as far as the informer is concerned to endorse that actually this was done on behalf of the IFP, to protect the IFP.  I think, Mr Chairman, that is all, unless the Committee would like me to refer to any other thing.  Thank you.