MR ZILWA
Indeed violence, it was quite alive to the fact that the situation could be such that violence could not be avoided, hence these SDU's were established and even armed in some instances.  The ANC was quite alive to the fact that there could be in fitting circumstances be a need for the use of violence.  Now in my submission, in circumstances in such as one in issue, where there had been this very violent activity that robbed the ANC of one of it's most prominent stalwarts, it was quite foreseeable and it was quite in keeping with the policy of the ANC that in fitting situations, violence could have to be resorted to.  Now the applicants say, in their mind, given that they were members of an SDU, an SDU which by it's very own definition has inherent in it, it has - the issue of violence cannot be excluded therein, then it would be my submission that in their action, in acting as they did, the applicants acted within the course and scope of what their unit was all about.  It was an SDU and inherent in that, as I've already stated, it was quite foreseeable that there could be instances where violence would be inevitable and I would submit that they were quite in keeping with their scope of authority, so to speak, when in acting as they did, in fact as they say, they were members of an SDU, an SDU who is meant to protect even if it means resulting to violence in the process.  Now they say in their mind the event in issue qualified as exactly what the establishment of the SDU was all about, in other words, it qualified for the use of the type of violence which they did and which they term a pre-emptive action which however would amount to a defence in that their actions send a message that, please, hands off our leaders otherwise we'll retaliate and as such they say in that sense they protected some leaders who could have been assassinated had they not taken the stance which they did.  So my submission would be in acting as they did, the applicants did not act contrary to the policies of the ANC which had established the SDU's and under the banner of which they claimed to have acted.  So having said all that, my direct answer then is that the action of the accused was not an action which went contrary to the stated views of the ANC given the circumstances under which occurred and given the prevailing circumstances at the time.
	Now a question has been asked repeatedly as to seeing that the accused - I'm sorry, not the accused - seeing that the applicants did not immediately after the commission of the offence go to the press and say we are responsible.  Then a suggestion was made that then their message would be lost and nobody would know that their action had anything to do with the death of Chris Hani which they retaliated.  My submissions for that would be, in fact as the applicants sometimes selves has stated, even though they never went to the press to own up on being responsible for the act, but the prevailing circumstances at the time was such that it was clear to all and sundry that in fact their act was directly connected with the death of Chris Hani and ...[intervention]