MR RICHARD
I accept in that regard, it was clear from the evidence that the events the witness has intended to allude to, was the January 1988, not the previous one.  I make no particular argument on that point.
	However to proceed to the other category and that is Mr Dube and Mr Makhubu, there I think we have the classic situation of where most unreliable evidence has been led.  In fact, evidence which I submit, should be discredited, but does that mean that the entirety of what is said, should be disregarded and their application should be completely dismissed?  There is a long line of cases, the most recent of which is the S v Steinberg (1983) (3) SALR 114 (A).  I have obtained a printout which I am prepared to hand up.
	The gravamen of the decision that I have referred to and those append to it, is that despite the lies, there may yet be elements of truth amongst the lies.  For that reason I have prepared a number of lists.
	One is what facts we can extract from the four applicants' evidence, and I would list them as follows:  The deceased, Mr Dhlomo was recruited in to the MK cell.  The second his joining of the cell took place some time around August and September 1987; the next third, he received the most perfunctory of trainings, the fourth, the deceased Mr Dhlomo did not participate in any mission or operation of the cell and was not a party to the planning of any mission or operation.