MR CLAASSEN
Thank you Madam Chair.  Madam Chair, this Honourable Commission yesterday heard the amnesty applications of the two applicants, Mr Leonard Radebe and Mr R.S. Sithomo.
	Madam Chair, if I might just start by referring to the application of Mr Sithomo.  I think there is nothing said surrounding the merits of this application, and I will commence with the application of Mr Radebe and the evidence led surrounding the application.
	Madam Chair, Mr Radebe applied for amnesty in his application, concerning an incident which occurred on the 28th of September 1992, near the Ratanda Hostel and for which he was convicted on the 2nd of November 1995, on a charge of murder and several charges of attempted murder.
	The applicant then applied for amnesty and submitted his Form 1 application with supporting affidavits, and in this respect, submitted two affidavits.
	If I may, Madam Chair, the first affidavit states applicant's involvement in the crime for which amnesty is sought, and also shows his involvement or his alleged involvement in this crime.  Madam Chair, as far as the second affidavit is concerned, it makes mention of several other incidents, but which were not specifically, for which amnesty was not specifically applied, but an amendment of the application was then asked for in respect of these crimes mentioned or participation in certain incidents, mentioned in this second application.
	Madam Chair, I would like to start by saying that as far as the applicant's viva voce evidence yesterday before this Commission is concerned, it should be and one would be naive not to agree that there was certain shortcomings in his evidence, it is indeed so that he gave certain very elaborate answers concerning some questions which was repeated to him.
	Whether this was a question of not clearly understanding of deliberating evading the answers, I presume is open for debate.  Madam Chair, getting back to the specific application, it is then so and the point was also specifically raised by the Commission yesterday that amnesty is applied in connection with an offence for which Mr Radebe the applicant, was convicted, and that was one specifically of murder, in which it was found that he was the perpetrator of the said crime.
	It is then again also true that yesterday, following from his application and his affidavit annexed to the application, that Mr Radebe has indicated that his involvement is only limited to the planning of this particular crime.
	He gives broad evidence surrounding the planning and his involvement which is according to him, limited to the planning and he also says that he saw the act committed, but he was not a person who actually committed these particular deeds.
	Madam Chair, it is true that this creates a problem in as far as that is the specific crime for which amnesty is sought.  Madam Chair, I would like and this is my humble submission to this Commission today, that even though the applicant had been convicted or murder and in the capacity as the person who actually committed this crime, if I may be given the opportunity Madam Chair, it is my line of reasoning that I followed up on the issue, and it is true that the Committee yesterday asked me that they would like to hear me on some specific points.
	Madam Chair, it is my submission that surrounding the specific crime, it is well known in the criminal law that there are the perpetrators, the accomplices and if I may just, the definition of a perpetrator is somebody who by his conduct, state of mind and personal quality falls within the definition of the crime.
	Madam Chair, it is my submission that it was indeed in this capacity which the accused was found guilty by the court, for which he is currently serving a jail term.  If I may also just refer to the ...