MR MARTINI IN REPLY
I agree with Mr Wessels on the issue of consistency.  It was an issue I was going to raise, but I support that view.  Chairperson, I got the impression that the issue of whether the applicant, in our instance, was not a member of the Security Forces seems to be abandoned, but just briefly on that issues, insofar as its not the section, the definition of Security Forces in the Act read with Section (2)(b) make it clear that the applicant does fall within that category of person who's entitled to qualify for amnesty.
	Chairperson, just on an issue, I'm trying to get through these voluminous replies as quick as I can, Chairperson, on a issue raised by Mr Bizos, a broad submission that they make that none of the applicants should get amnesty, because they haven't made a full disclosure of other facts and hence on that alone they should fail, I submit there's no basis for that.   Two bases, on the strict reading of the Act, it must be full disclosure relating to the acts for which the particular applicant applies for amnesty because the applicants, Chairperson, are not asking for blanket amnesty.  If you grant amnesty, they're not saying I'm indemnified for killing Mr X, Y and Z or blowing up building X, Y and Z which I never asked for amnesty for.  If such evidence exists the Attorney-General will prosecute and likewise, it cannot be expected by the victims to say well because you haven't and there's no evidence to say that you killed X, Y and Z, there's no such evidence, or that you blew up building X, Y and Z, he mustn't give him amnesty, it would be grossly unfair.  In any event, there's not a bit of evidence to suggest for example Mr van Zyl, to suggest he killed Mr Y.  There's been evidence led on Mr Lubowski, Mr van Zyl's answer to that was:  "I monitored it."
	Chairperson, on the next issue of personal gain, Mr Bizos suggested that on personal gain the applicants should all fail.  Now with respect Chairperson there's no basis for that argument.  The applicants, in this case in the case of Mr van Zyl, the evidence is clear, he does say that it was a career move, it was a better salary package and he wanted to remain in Johannesburg instead of going to Pietermaritzburg, but at the time there is no evidence that when Mr van Zyl agreed to take on, to make this career move, that he was aware of what his new job was going to entail.  If you remember they went on a course for 6 months and then they were dormant for some time and only after the course did they really understand what was going to take place within this organisation, so it wasn't, Mr van Zyl did not enter the CCB because he thought,  "I'm going out to kill people, because that's what I want to do".  It can never be argued that way.   And on the personal gain issue, the evidence of Mr van Zyl, Chairperson, which I didn't touch in argument was Mr Bizos makes it sound as if, well I'll confine myself to Mr van Zyl, but it applies for all the applicants, would get a production bonus if they killed somebody or a project went well, that was not the evidence.  One of the packages was they'd get a production bonus.  Now if you remember the evidence, in June 1989 Mr van Zyl gets one production bonus only of, I think it was two and a half or three thousand rand.  Now at that stage none of these projects had even been carried out.  July is the first time we have some movement on the Minister Omar issue, where Barnard was according to van Zyl, sent down to monitor, but no attempt was made to kill Minister Omar that day, so Mr van Zyl was certainly not rewarded for attempting to kill Minister Omar, blowing up the Early Learning Centre in a bonus or otherwise.