MR RILEY
Honourable Chairperson, Members of the Committee, the application relates to the applicant's role in the murder of Mzwonke Pro Jack on the 19th of June 1991.  It is so that the application for amnesty must comply with both formal as well as substantive requirements.  It is submitted that the applicant's application indeed complies with the formal requirements and therefore no further submissions will be made in this regard.
	As far as the purpose of the Act is concerned, it is common cause that the Act serves to advance reconciliation and reconstruction and it is submitted that amnesty should be granted in respect of acts and omissions and offences associated with political objectives which were committed in the course of the conflict of the past.
	The Committee will, or must be satisfied that the applicant committed the particular act with a political objective, that the applicant has made full disclosure, and that the applicant did not gain personally from the act, or that he acted with personal gain in the circumstances.  As far as the facts of this case are concerned, it's common cause that Mzwonke Pro Jack was wrongfully and intentionally killed on the 19th of June 1991 at Nyanga in the Western Cape.  It's also common cause that the deceased died as a result of firearm wounds of the body and the consequences thereof.  
	It is further common cause that at the time of his death, the deceased was an active and prominent member of the ANC in the Western Cape.  It was also further uncontested that his death occurred at the time when there was considerable political strife and tension within the Western Cape.  There was violence between various taxi organisations, which was the order of the day at the time.  There were situations where the members of the police and South African Defence Force, National Defence Force were targeted and killed and it is so that certain sections of the community were subjected to police brutality and were in fact being killed. It is also not disputed that the deceased had, at that point in time, tried to act as mediator in various situations but more particularly in regard to the taxi violence.
	The applicant has admitted that he was responsible for the death of the deceased.  It is not disputed that at the time of the deceased's death, the applicant was an active member of a self defence unit and that he in fact regarded him as a member of Umkhonto weSizwe, having undergone military training with them.  
	It is further not disputed that at the time of his death, that the deceased was accompanied by one Andile Jack.  It is further not in dispute that Andile Jack was also shot at and that he suffered certain wounds as a result of the attack.  It is further not in dispute, nor was it contested as such, that the applicant was accompanied by certain persons namely Kobane, Michael and Thandazile and that these persons were all armed.  It must further be accepted that attempts were made to chase them, but without success.
	The chief issue in dispute in this matter is in fact, issues that are in dispute are the reasons for the killing or the death of Mr Pro Jack and/or the circumstances under which they occurred.  Now, there is no doubt that there is much speculation and conjecture about the reasons why Mr Pro Jack was killed.  I don't know if we will ever find out precisely what the true reasons were that resulted in his untimely death, but among other things, there is the possibility that he was killed due to his involvement in trying to broker peace with rival taxi organisations or because there might have been allegations that he was favouring one taxi organisation as opposed to another, or there is the possibility or belief that he was killed because he had, there was a belief that he had caused the arrest of Christopher Toyise and his family on charges of possession of firearms and that in the circumstances, he was regarded or could possibly have been regarded as being a traitor, or there's a possibility that the authorities had instructed that his life be terminated.  There are various theories that one can speculate about.
	The applicant however, has contended throughout the Hearing that the deceased was killed in circumstances where he believed that he was shooting at the police.  It is also so though that his version of the events and I do not intend to deal with each and every aspect of the evidence that the applicant has presented to this Committee.  His evidence is still fresh in our memories.  We know what he says what happened there and the position is, however, that his version of the events is contradicted, or gainsaid by the evidence that was presented by Mr Andile Jack.  Mr Andile Jack's evidence, we will recall in brief, was that the deceased had been called by his killers, where they were standing under trees and then shot and killed.