GEORGE BIZOS
The Act as a whole and particularly (d) and particularly (d), speaking for myself, I find it difficult to see a logical reason for the deletion of (a).  If I had had the time, I would have gone to Hansard in the hope of some, but it doesn't matter, but what we do ask, Mr Chairman is that on the question of fact, consideration should be given whether or not there were any reasonable grounds that either of the two Applicants had for believing that they were acting in the scope and course of their membership of the Conservative Party.
	To consider it and come to a strong finding we would submit that there were no such reasonable grounds.  Because it was canvassed and may I recall to the Committee's memory that there were questions about why the leadership wasn't asked, why no steps were taken as to whether assassination would be tolerated or authorised or whether it was the business of the CP.  
	And what we want to submit on the facts in relation to that, that a position of a leader such as the Second Applicant, Mr Derby-Lewis, the position of reasonable grounds of belief, surely must be different where one has a cadre in the bush who has to make a decision, who is operating underground, that has no lines of communication with his leadership.  
	He may say well, I was given an order to infiltrate into the country, a policeman stood in front of me and I decided that, in the furtherance of my liberation movements actions I had to shoot him otherwise I would be shot or I would be arrested and sentenced to a long term of imprisonment.
	The test to be on the facts, it's not a different Law, it's the test to be applied on the state of mind of a person who is a member of an organisation that has, contrary to the CP's position, adopted violence as an option and where there are people on the ground who cannot communicate properly and take instructions in relation to specific events and they may sometimes go contrary to the policy of their organisation.
	But if they reasonably believe that that was within their mandate, then they would be entitled to amnesty but they start off on a different premise.  They had a mandate to commit acts of violence by their organisations, given to them by their leaders who have taken responsibility, who had publicly stated that violence, there comes a time in the life of any nation where there is no option left but violence and then publicly declare that this is the policy of the organisation.
	Now, a person that commits that act, there may be an enquiry as to whether or not, even though it may have fallen outside the policy of the organisation whether he may reasonably have believed that it was within the scope, course and scope of his, the task that had been appointed to him or her.  Here we have no policy of violence by the CP, no task bestowed upon either of the Applicants to perform any act of violence and most certainly not assassination of a high profile political leader.
	As we submitted yesterday, is a, makes a difference.  Let me not be misunderstood Mr Chairman, we are not saying that the life of a leader is less or more dear to the people involved than the most lowly and unlettered individual who finds himself in the struggle.  But what we do say is that the consequences of eliminating a high profile leader are so materially different to any other act and where we have a case where they say that they intended to create chaos when we have the leader of their party saying to Mr Venter that they had a policy of non violence, we submit that that is a different situation all together.
	Now in relation to the question put to me by the Judge presiding sir, what I want to say is that clearly, Sub Paragraph 3 of Section 20 must be cumulatively read.  In our submission what it means is this, that even if an Applicant might satisfy one of the requirements, that does not entitle him to amnesty is he or she does not satisfy the other requirements.  And it can be illustrated in a very simple way.  That there was full disclosure.
	If you come here and you say, to take the extreme case, I did it with others, but out of loyalty to them I refuse to identify them or I refuse to tell you who gave me the order from above because he is my political leader and I don't want to implicate him, he hasn't applied for amnesty, therefore I am not speaking.
	Well, even though his act may be proportional or it may have been with an objective within the ambit of the act, that person must be refused amnesty in our respectful submission because he has not complied with one of the essential elements.  Similarly, if he does not show that he did not have authority, we believe that that is the end of the matter, even though he may have satisfied other requirements.  
	Similarly even if all other criteria are satisfied, if it is so grossly inappropriate and disproportional to their act that it was a reaction to and if it was to create chaos in which hundreds, if not thousands of people were to be killed and which on their own admission was going to lead up to a race war.  Let us just examine their own evidence, we don't have to speculate in this case.  Their own evidence killing Hani would have induced black people in the country to turn and kill whites. 
	The whites would have been so disgusted with F W De Klerk's Government that they would appeal to the Security Forces to take over and hand over the staff of office to the right.  Now that is an act which most certainly doesn't fall into any of the Sub Sections of Sub Section 3 and particularly the relationship between the act and the political objective pursued and in particular, the directness and proximity of the relationship of proportionality of the act, omission or offence to the objectives pursued.
	If we go to (A), the motive, can one in a country which has so many hues of colour, so many religious denominations, so many cultural and linguistic groups, think of anything worse that any human being could commit in order to induce a race war in South Africa.  That black people must first kill white people and white people must go out and kill lots of black people so that law and order is not there and a crises is created.
	Mr Chairman, you have heard the evidence of Mr Jeremy Cronin, that had it not been for the leadership of Mr Nelson Mandela, Mr ...[inaudible] and others to calm the incensed majority of the people of South Africa.  We were on the brink of a race war but it was avoided, no fault to the two Applicants.  So that those are the submissions that we make on the facts and the proportionality of the act, of the objective to be pursued, I am merely, Mr Chairman, I don't want to read it out, I have given the main submissions, they are set out on paper, could I ask you to turn to Page 46 and add the, where we say, [Clause 10 (a) and (b)] and not only (b) Mr Chairman on Page 46, the third line - Bundle, at the end of that paragraph, Mr Chairman, at the end of 12.2, at the end of 12.1, just before 12.2, would you please add, Bundle A which are the Applications, Page 7, second last paragraph, Bundle A, Page 8, third paragraph.  Those references refer to Mr Walus, Mr Chairman.
	And referring to Mr Derby-Lewis, Bundle A, Page 24, top paragraph TRC FR, that's the Record of these proceedings, First Record, Page 897 TRC FR  Page 121, last two lines.  And if we could go to 12.2 Mr Chairman.  Do you want me to repeat that Mr Chairman, the last reference?  The last reference is TRC FR Page 121, last two lines.  And then reference as to be added at the bottom of paragraph 12.2, TRC FR, Page 194; Page 787 TRC SR 580 - 60, 58, I beg your pardon, 58 - 60; Page 805 and Pages 442 - 6 and Pages 449 - 50.  References to the factual submission made in 12.3 Mr Chairman.  TRC SR Page 781.  On top of page 47, at the end of paragraph 12.5.1 TRC SR Page 781 and Page 805.  At the end of 12.5.2 TRC SR Page 795.  After 12.5.3 TRC SR Page 799.  
	On top of Page 48 Mr Chairman TRC SR Page 832 to 833.