CHAIRPERSON
Mr Mpshe?
MR MPSHE ADDRESSES COMMITTEE ON MERITS OF CASE
	Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, I am not going to belabour the points that have been canvassed, but just to say something on the two requirements, very briefly.
	I will start with the question of full disclosure. Mr Chairman, before I do that, I want to put it on record that as a member of the TRC, representing the TRC, I am not here saying what I am going to say in order to oppose the amnesty application, but the purpose of my duty is just to place before the Committee what I think is necessary for the Committee to know.
	I will first start with the full disclosure part, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, I have been listening very carefully that the evidence of Mr Nieuwoudt, the applicant, has been gainsaid by Mr Jack and vice versa. That may be the case, Mr Chairman, but the point I am trying to make here is that full disclosure has not been satisfied and I want to believe that what I am talking about as to full disclosure, is very much relevant in casu, because we are talking of assaults, plus minus four assaults on the very same person, Mr Jack. This evidence has not been contradicted whatsoever by the applicant. In fact, the applicant's lawyer at a certain stage, whilst making the submission, said we do not dispute the evidence of Mr Jack, which then means that Mr Jack's evidence stands, which then means that the assaults did take place.  Which then means that the application as put forward before the Committee today, selectively choosing the 12th and leaving out the rest.  Then there has not been full disclosure.
	On the question of political objective. Mr Nieuwoudt, the applicant during cross-examination, stated that the emergency regulations gave them "wyer magte" (wider powers) to do what they did or what he did.  But under questioning by the learned Committee member, Adv Potgieter, the answer was so specific and so direct, when he was asked about the assault, as it being included in the regulations. The answer was very clear, no, the emergency regulations did not provide for the assault.  This was an admission that the assault was not authorised.
	Granted, he may have acted in order to stop the activities of activists then or particularly of Mr Jack. That I do not want to dispute. He was carrying out his normal duties as a police officer. But, in as far as the assault is concerned, that cannot be condoned, because it was outside his ambit of jurisdiction and that assault then becomes unauthorised, and if it becomes unauthorised, it is not politically motivated.
	That is all, Mr Chairman.