NORMAN ARENDSE
Yes, I mean the end result was not the same because he didn't hit the intended target but I was just trying to draw some parallels with this case.  I didn't understand Advocate Prior's submission with regard to similar submissions made in the St James that not every act is a political act and not every - evoking a slogan doesn't mean that that's a political objective.  I think the evidence is very clear in this case.
	With respect, it is very clear that these applicants, they are not what one can call ordinary criminals.  You've heard from them Mr Chairman and learned members of the Committee, how they articulated their position, where they found themselves in, where they come from, their background and why they joined the liberation movement. They clearly don't deserve to be locked up for committing what was purely a political act clearly on their evidence.
	The Norgaard Principles which is referred to by my learned friend, the attacks on purely civilian targets are attacks of a purely political nature which justifies amnesty.  I'm sure that our law makers had regard to the Norgaard Principles but we have a process in this country which is unique and the Act is designed to cater for that uniqueness. 
	The law ...[indistinct] has recognised that lots and lots, hundreds and thousands of innocent people overwhelmingly black were caught up in the crossfire but to put the past behind us it was necessary to have an amnesty process. Civilians would be killed and they were killed and they were killed in this case.  
	Mr Chairman and learned members of the Committee, unless there's any aspect you wish to raise with me, those are our submissions, thank you very much.
	Mr Chairman, can I just raise one aspect which I raised at the previous hearing and that is your decision.  It concerns me and my clients who are not only the applicants but the PAC and those in the APLA High Command, that such a long time elapses and has already elapsed before the Committee makes a decision.  	It concerns us that it would appear that the Committee, not this Committee but the big Amnesty Committee, is waiting to hear all the evidence in all these matters.
	With respect, I think that's irregular.  Like my learned friend says, each case depends on it's own facts and I can't see how if this is the intention that an applicant may have a credibility finding against him or her in some other or subsequent proceeding, that it would then influence the result in for example, this particular matter.
	I would accordingly urge this Committee to make a decision as soon as possible in this matter.  The applicants have been in jail now for almost five years.  Mr Molefu for example, who wasn't directly involved in the incident and was an accomplice is also sitting in jail for a long time.