UNKNOWN
That is correct Mr Chairman.  In pursuance of 
what Mr Bizos said, I suggested to the Committee that we will 
have it transcribed, and this developed subsequent to the 
adjournment period.
	Members of the Committee, we have already submitted 
heads of argument and subsequently heads of argument have been 
received from the members of the family.  These heads were 
received on the Thursday and unfortunately they were received 
late.  Mr Bizos had other obligations, but we will leave it at that.
	Honourable Chairperson, our heads have been discussed 
thoroughly under various topics.   I would like to refer to a 
number of aspects with reference to the testimony and in light of 
the fact that further new evidence was submitted, since the 
submission of the heads, and if preferred as such, we could submit 
written heads of argument in response to Mr Bizos' heads of 
argument to the Committee.
	I would like to argue with respect that the applicants firstly 
complies with the provisions of the relevant Section 21(c) and 
with specific reference to the applicant's action in support of the 
Conservative Party, that he believed on a bona fide basis that he 
was supporting the cause of the Conservative Party.  With 
reference to the aspect of his actions in support of the 
Conservative Party, I refer you to the judgment of the S v Maloi 
and others in SA Court Reports, 1987 1 (196) (A), judgment of 
Presiding Appeal Court, Judge Boshoff, and specifically on page 
210, H - I and also on page 211, and 212 H - I.
	With respect in this respect, I would like to argue that in 
that judgment it was necessary that the party had to have been 
aware of the actions which were undertaken by the applicants.
	It is my argument that under these circumstances the 
applicant who was an Executive Member of the Consecutive 
Party, acted in support of the Party.  There is no evidence to the 
contrary which supports that the applicant acted maliciously or 
acted in any way for his own interests or to promote his own 
interests.
	The Committee with respect, should consider what the 
political history of the country was, which preceded all these 
events, where the country was governed by a white government, 
which consisted of the National Party, later the Conservative 
Party and the National Party which devolved by following a 
different policy and had a vision of a unity State and the 
Conservative Party's vision was that of separate development and 
each nation governing itself.
	This was the strong policy of the Conservative Party which 
was not negotiable according to them, and in short, it took place 
that the party according to the evidence of Dr Hartzenberg, the 
leader of the Conservative Party, that the democratic process at a 
stage, was closed and that negotiations would serve no further 
purpose and that according to the evidence of Mr Derby-Lewis, 
the Codesa negotiations were overwhelmed or dominated by 
members of the Communist Party and as seen by the Conservative 
Party, communist rule was at the order of the day and with 
respect, this fact was a fact according to the people and the party 
who believed that there was a threat which was eminent and that 
there was no other option but to mobilise on all fronts, there was 
talk of war.
	There was a climate of war.  Yesterday evidence was given 
about it again, Visser and Clark, Dr Hartzenberg have all testified 
in terms of this, the applicants have testified in terms of this, and 
at this stage there are applications for amnesty which indicate or 
which go as far as May 1994.
	I would like to argue with respect that it was not indicated 
to the contrary that it could be said that there was no state of 
undeclared war.