MR PRINSLOO
State v Messina and others 1990 (4) SA 709 (AD) judgment of acting Appeal Judge Friedman as he was at the time, page 718, letter C
"In respect of the fifth finding, it needs to be mentioned that the evidence does not reveal that the appellants were mere puppets who were obeying the orders of their superiors of the ANC without thought or questioning.  They were under the general command of their leaders.  They themselves identified as targets for assassination, people whom they considered in accordance of ANC policy, to be appropriate victims"
With respect, these people also identified suitable targets for the purposes of suicide.  The Act was accepted as one which had a political motive and that is how it was implemented.  
	With respect, this is the case here as well.  Here Mr Botha was acting as the leader of the cell, such as the person I referred to acted.  The people who were killed in this case - there was a policeman who was described as a person who would have killed other members of the ANC or Black people.  There was a Mr Lukele who had a tendency to kill people or could tend to do so, that was analogous.  So this is a matter of a consequence of a previous act. 
	In Exhibit A which has been submitted to the Committee says that:
"I shall ensure that commands that I give in the course of the achievement of the above-mentioned ideals are carried out".
There's no reason why Mr Smuts should have doubted in the authority and powers of Mr Botha.  On the contrary, as Judge Ngoepe said, it would be fatal in any organisation to go back every time to ask, "what are my commands"?  That would be against the whole purpose.  So here is a matter of a person acting in his own discretion to ensure that a certain goal is pursued and that is how it is carried out.
	With respect, it would also be problematical for - in many cases which are probably still going to be seen by the Committee - in the case for example in the Eastern Transvaal there was a case of a landmine and two Black people were killed.  This is people who have no connection with a political organisation but again that was intended to indicate to the Government of the day - you're on the wrong path and then there are innocent victims.  But that isn't the problem with respect, one must look at the political motive and that political motive and the objective matches with that, that is to criticize the Government.
	So, I submit that there was a full disclosure and as my colleague said and I associate with it,  I say that amnesty should be granted to the applicant.  Thank you.