MR KINCAID
They were all tried, yes.  So in my respectful submission Mr Chairman, Melvin Nokawusana meets the criteria set out in the Act.  If you disregard his evidence in respect of the Clacker's incident and you found that he was party to robbery, common robbery there then he doesn't qualify for amnesty in respect of that count but just because he is found to be untruthful in respect of that count, in my respectful submission doesn't compellingly determine that he has to be found to be untruthful in respect of the other disclosures.  	Bonakele Bhayi is the next applicant and he was the last applicant who testified.  He was found guilty of the attack on Mr Hansel, on the attack on Mr Cobus and of Mr Pretorius.  He wasn't involved in any crime which contained elements of the robbery of common household goods and he wasn't involved with the Clackers' incident, there's nothing to suggest that his motive in attacking Mr Hansel, his motive in attacking Mr Cobus and Mr Pretorius, was a motive other than of violently intimidating these farmers and attempting to rob them of firearms.  In my respectful submission he has made a full disclosure and is entitled to amnesty.
	His brother, Rhandile Bhayi, was convicted of exactly the same offences as his brother, Bonakele, and my submissions in respect of him are similar.  Rhandile Bhayi in his evidence told of another incident for which amnesty was not sought namely the burning of a garage of Mr Madameni or a farmer known as Madameni and in my respectful submission he was quite candid and open in his disclosure.  He testified to striking Mr Hansel three blows on the back with a hammer.  He wasn't charged with that, it was a disclosure he made. 
	With respect to Nunu Umsianda, he was party to all of the incidents.  He was also the gunman by the appearance of things and was found guilty of possession of firearms and ammunition without licences.  The incident at Mrs Maria's home as we have conceded involved the additional element of common robbery as opposed to shall we call it political robbery.  Nunu Umsianda testified that he was arrested shortly after the incident in the forest by the police.  Nothing was found in his possession.  The firearm that he had he had dumped.  His conviction of the common robbery element would have been on the basis of common purpose.  All the applicants testified that the group which attacked these farmers was a large one, that it at any rate was comprised of more people than just seven of them who stood trial.  There was no evidence to link Umsianda Nunu with the robbery of any common household article.