UNKNOWN
Thank you.  As has already been done, I divide the second and fourth applicants into a category of their own.
	In their case, the question in terms of Section 20(2) is whether there was any act or omission which constitutes an offence or delict, which according to the criteria set out in subsection (3) is associated with a political objective, in other words an act which constitutes an offence or delict for which they may apply for amnesty.
	There is the cover up, but is that an actual offence or a delict?  I would submit not.  Did they make themselves guilty of being what is loosely termed accessories after the fact?   We know one thing that when Mr Tshabalala went to make his reports, he was escorted by the third applicant, that is Mr Makhubu who had been the person responsible for shooting, I would submit not.
	Their evidence is that they took no part in the decision and were eyewitnesses to the execution.  At law, even if their evidence is accepted, no offence is revealed.  In other words, there is no abdication on which they may be given an amnesty and I believe the proper finding in their case, is that they should not be given an amnesty.
	They haven't made out a case.  The fact that Tshabalala and Mr Zungu made application for an amnesty, evidence is that they were in their opinion, guilty of something.  The Act requires that they make a full disclosure of all relevant facts.
	What they feel they are guilty of, they have not yet revealed.