MR HATTINGH
We submit that it is of the utmost relevance Mr Chairman and members.  You cannot judge a person's objective as being an objective for personal gain, merely because after he performed the act, somebody came to him and gave him money which he never expected, (a) and (b), which he first of all refuses to accept.  You have with respect, got to decide Mr Chairman and members, whether the particular act was associated with a political objective.
	As was decided in the Nofomela and Tshikilanga matters, the fact that  money was paid and accepted afterwards, does not change that objective.  The crucial time to look at is what happened before and at the time when the act was performed in order to decide whether that was the objective which they had in mind.  One should ask oneself the following question, if you had asked De Kock immediately prior to the performance of this act and probably during the course of performing the act as well, why are you doing it, surely he could only have given one answer, I am doing it because I believe that Mr Holomisa's government should be substituted by another government.  That is our political objective.  We have no personal gain, no motive to obtain any personal reward for what we are doing.  That is not why we are doing it, we are doing it for political reasons.  If you later on get money, how can it ever be said that that changes the motive with which you performed the act originally?
	Mr Chairman and members, that is - I have been addressing you now on the assumption that a reward was paid in respect of this particular transaction.  Mr De Kock applied for amnesty in respect of three different transactions.  The first one took place in about March of 1990, the second one being the relevant one, November of 1990 and the third one, in roundabout February/March 1991.  There are clearly three separate incidents with some months elapsing between each of them.   De Kock's evidence was that after the third incident, he was paid the money which he first refused.  Once again the argument would be relevant to that incident as well, he didn't agree to provide the firearms for reward on that occasion, he did it with the same objective in mind as he did with the first two incidents, and he was only offered the money after he had delivered the arms on the third occasion.