MR CLAASSEN
Madam Chair, I was just getting to that point.  It is true that he in his evidence given today, differs substantially from that in his applications, Madam Chair, it is true that he said that the offence was committed in self defence, which was also his line of defence during the criminal trial.  Madam Chair, in my opinion, maybe the applicant should be afforded the  benefit of the doubt in the circumstances.
	Saying, by his own admission, that he wants amnesty and that he is prepared to tell the truth, therefore.
	Madam Chair, one can however not get passed some of the very substantial questions surrounding key issues which have not been answered satisfactorily.
	I think there is just one which I think one cannot over look this, even though it might be very detrimental, when asked by Madam Chair, in his application it is stated that the deed was committed with a political objective of furthering the causes of the IFP, and in cross-examination he said that he did not want the community to find out about this killing, because it would damage the image of the party in the township, Madam Chair.  I think that speaks for itself, it is a contradiction which he was unable to clear up.
	Madam Chair, all taken into consideration, I think  ...