MR SMUTS
Not at all Mr Chairman, but a high level of emotion may lead to irrational conduct.  That doesn't mean that because you act irrationally one can ignore the fact that what you were doing didn't meet the requirements of the Act.  If the defence is "I was emotionally swept up and that's why I went and did it" that doesn't necessarily lead to a conclusion, in fact it may preclude a conclusion that this was a decision motivated by political considerations taken in good faith with a view to further the political struggle, it may militate against such a finding in entirety.  In fact, once one reaches that stage, Mr Chairman, and one has this high level of emotion and hatred as Mr Mxhayi calls it and anger and frustration as Mr Hermans and Mr Mazwi put it and once one has the low level of credibility of the witnesses in consequence of their ...[indistinct] during their testimony, one's constrained to look at the provisions of 23(ii) which preclude the granting of amnesty for persons acting out of personal malice, persons acting out of ill will or spite directed against the victims of the acts committed.