ADV PRINSLOO
Mr Chairperson, with respect, as a result of what happened, things went wrong, how could they have foreseen that Oosthuisen would have shot the deceased through the shoulder and that the whole thing then went out of control.  What you are saying is that the person that they regarded as a part of the enemy, and they wanted to extract information from him, and they in fact did by all possible means; by suspending him from a tree and shocking him, all those are drastic actions.  The killing of that person is still connected with this particular conduct. It cannot be removed from it.
	Just a moment, please, Mr Chairperson.
	With respect, the next aspect is the motive or purpose behind the act. I have already pointed out that it was aimed against the PAC, this act, and that the deceased as we have mentioned was a component of this organisation.  This was not a random act, it was a specific action against a specific person, an organisation. It wasn't a case of just walking into a public place and taking out a gun and shooting people or planting a bomb and killing people at random. That is not what happened here.  That is why we distinguish these two situations.
	Chairperson, I have already dealt with the aspect that the act was performed in pursuit of the aims of the National Party and the police.
	Paragraph (f) is the connection between the act, omission or offence and the political motive.  The directness and proximity of the relationship and the proportionality of the act.
	Chairperson, here I would like to put it to you that when we refer to proportionality of the act one must look at the even-handedness here. If I could illustrate this by means of an example.  Here it was aimed against a specific party, against a specific person.  It was not something done at random to try and persuade people, it was a very specific action aimed at a specific person and this I am sure will - this particular kind of situation will crop up again in respect of actions committed by the safety police.  That condition of balance which is important it.
	For instance, because of Barend Strydom in comparison to the two applicants.  Barend Strydom just shot people at random.  That is not the case here and can be distinguished from that situation on all points.  
	I refer here again to the case of S v Messina, where it was said that a policeman didn't treat people well, and the other policeman also.  They obviously didn't like Lukele due to his political involvement and in that case - these two cases can be distinguished from each other and this proportionality between the act and the relationship between it, the act and offence and political motive, that link or connection was to protect the State against possible infiltration by the liberation movements. 
	I would like to contend, Chairperson, that to sum up, that there was full disclosure by Mr Gerber and that they did in fact comply with the requirements of Section 20(2)(a), (d) and (f), and that the Committee must grant Mr Gerber amnesty on the charge of murder, in accordance with his application.  Thank you.