ADV PRINSLOO
But with respect, Chairperson, that particular conduct of the applicants must be seen on an ongoing basis as if it existed throughout. The motive must not be confused with intent.  That is where the problem will arise.
	Just as in the case of S v Messina where the sister-in-law of Lukele was shot.  There too, there was no intent to kill her.  The intent was directed against Lukele and she was caught in the cross-fire.  With respect, what happens to those cases, for instance, the Pretoria bomb case.  It was accepted that it was aimed at a government body, but innocent people are often caught in the cross-fire, but the intention was not that they had that intention.  It will be argued that they did not have that intent.
	But the way in which the act was performed, and the consequences thereof, means that one cannot divide it into compartments. It is one ongoing action performed by the applicants.
	For instance, Van Eyck gave evidence why he burnt the corpse of the deceased afterwards.  So there is one ongoing mode of conduct.  The whole reason for the act must be found in the political motive, because the applicants will have no case if they have no political motive. But I would like to submit that the political motive is decisive.