ADV BOOYENS
Yes, that's the argument that I'm trying to develop Mr Chairman.   It goes without saying that no politician aren't prepared to say whoever told them that people are to sit or to stand or to be given water every fifteen minutes or something like that, I think politicians talk nonsense on a higher level than that.   They do not - wouldn't deal with something like that.
	But the purpose of the interrogation; the crux of the question is whether the purpose of the interrogation was a political one.   The purpose of the interrogation could only have been to exactly find out what Mr Biko's political attitude is; Mr Biko's political attitude was relevant to determine whether he committed a political offence, so the whole Biko police confrontation was a confrontation between the forces of Liberation on the other hand and the forces of State on the other hand, and that collision was on the political level.   The policemen were the instruments that were used in this political clash.   
      It is very very conceivable that bearing in mind their own political background in that what they believed, that it is exactly because of the fact that this a political background that emotions would get frayed easier then in case of a ordinary criminal investigation.   
	Mr Chairman, so our submission would be that there was indeed a political motive and that if the act is a political act as envisaged by, as set out on page 9 paragraph 3 of our Heads of Argument, now we deal with how we say that the term "satisfied" should be interpreted.   
      Then another potential issue, which I think there's not clarity on is; it may indeed even be arguable to say well,  what people like Marx didn't sow amounted to no offence, at least as far as Mr Biko is concerned there is of course always the perjury and so on.   But that is not in our submission really within the province of this committee to decide the fact that there is a risk that the prosecuting authorities may institute a prosecution, is in our submission adequate reason for us to approach this Committee and to say give us amnesty.   It's not for this Committee to decide the technicalities of what offence and on what basis there is a risk on these facts that the prosecuting authorities may institute a prosecution.
      Mr Chairman, if one looks at the other requirements of the Act, there's a full disclosure whether there was orders.   The order that comes through to me is a general one.   "You must resist the efforts of the Liberation Movement to overthrow the Government."   It's comparable to a situation where a General in a war situation would tell - would insist that a certain enemy stronghold be taken; but the how and the why and the method does not rest with the General.   He gives the order to take the enemy stronghold, but it is the captain or the lieutenant on the ground that decides how he does it.   So quite frankly to suggest that one can attach any  validity to the fact that the politicians never said to people that they shouldn't sit down and so on, or they must tell them to stand up, with respect that is not really the issue.  The real issue is did the politicians insist that the police get results, that police Headquarters insist that they get results, and then we must look at the methods employed by the men on the ground.   They were told to get results and in the process things went wrong - horribly wrong, to quote somebody else.