MR SMUTS
Mr Chairman, I intend to submit in due course that you can't accept any of their evidence once you reject, as you must, the evidence of right-wing infiltration but that probably falls more effectively in answer to the second question.  In summary on the first question then, objectively they did not act on behalf of or in support of their organisation, they acted in conflict with it's policies as so clearly illustrated by the statement by President Mandela and subjectively on their own requirements, they did not act bona fide in furtherance of a political struggle.  Absent an order to act as they did, they fail the test absolutely, they do not qualify in terms of Section 22(a).
	...[inaudible] if it's accepted that their motive is in any event a retaliation committed to send whatever message they wished to convey, my submission to the Committee would be quite correct in rejecting the evidence of any AWB activity because as this hearing wore on, it became quite apparent that there was no evidence of any AWB activity.  At best for the applicants, there were unconfirmed rumours which they had not sought to confirm and even with a modicum of examination by the applicants of the rumours that had come to them, there could be no belief, no sincere or honest belief, that there was a right-wing infiltration of the area.