MR JANSEN
To the extent that I may be of some help Mr Chairman, I was involved, I appeared in that matter of Coetzee, Tshikilanga and Nofomela for the applicants in that matter, I was involved in the argument there, and apart from that judgement, another judgement that you could with respect have a look at, is unfortunately I don't have the precise detail but I know it is one of the prominent leaders in the Eastern Cape who was denied amnesty, I think it is one of the Sebe brothers, I am not exactly sure, but there was an amnesty judgement for a murder and it was denied on the basis that there was ill-will and there was personal gain involved.  The facts of that matter was very clear that there was an underlying, there was some dispute about a liquor licence or a liquor business and although this person was in the Security Police or the Head of the Security Police, there was this overwhelming element of personal gain, and if I understand the argument correct in the Coetzee and Nofomela and Tshikilanga matters is more or less, or the way the argument went, was along the lines that the reason why people are granted amnesty, relates to motive.  Motive is central in the entire notion of amnesty and that for purposes of a purposive interpretation of the Act, one must never lose sight of that very central idea, because motive even in our own law and political motive, diminishes moral blameworthiness, even for the legal system, but in the eyes of many people in the community, it in fact isn't even, the motive actually reduces something to not being a crime, but in fact makes it perpetrators even heroes.  Because there is this lack or moral, or this diminished or lack of moral blameworthiness, that is why amnesty is granted.
	Obviously when people start acting for gain, it then starts negating that issue of moral blameworthiness and one must look at the facts of each and every instance, because personal gain is such a wide thing, it can mean so many things, it can mean somebody is acting at the time he acts, for - at the back of his head, he has promotion in mind, or a medal or even if there is this practice of remuneration, etc, he could say well, you know, there could even be that, but because it is not the dominant factor, he was not primarily acting for personal gain.  Along those lines, I submit to the extent that it may be of some assistance Mr Chairman, I think those ideas to some extent, underline that judgement.
	That concludes my argument, unless you want to hear me to some extent on the wording of the order, I have no further submissions.