CHAIRPERSON
I think what Mr Mapoma was getting at and he can correct me if I'm wrong, is that even if we had before us here an applicant who said that I hurled a fire bomb or shot the grenade or whatever it was and took place in destruction of that property, such a person wouldn't qualify for amnesty because at that stage there was absolutely - this is a submission and you can respond to it - there was absolutely no need to destroy the property, certainly no political objective could be obtained by destroying it, that it was just a malicious - it was in a sense an act of hooliganism.  It was accompanied by looting and that therefore - and he just relates it to the actual destruction of the property, these submissions, he doesn't relate it to the going to Willowvale and the apprehension of Mr Jafta or the questioning of him but just to the actual destruction.  He says that it's disproportionate to - well, I think his argument has got two problems.  It's disproportionate to any political objective there may have been but it's also you're saying that there couldn't have been any political objective, it was just wanton destruction.  So then could anybody be granted amnesty in respect of that burning of the house let alone, I mean, even he'd been a constable sitting on the other side of the forest not knowing why it was burnt.