UNKNOWN
He didn't go kill his neighbour, he didn't go and kill - he went and killed a prominent of the UDF or SWAPO or whatever it is.  Why else would he have done it other than being a policeman or a soldier.  Why else would he have done it?  But when you ask that question, the answer on the probabilities and on the facts clearly emerge.  There was another set of factors which having regard to his subsequent conduct and abandonment lends colour to his act and should persuade the Committee that it was not.  It's only got to be stated in general terms, Mr Chairperson.  We do have as lawyers and you as a judge and Members of the Committee have to analyse this.  But the thing can be stated very, very simply.  What sort of a person bargains for a bonus for killing and then seeks to get the benefit of an important piece of legislation to deprive the victims of the rights they have under the Act?  It has only to be stated in that stark way in order - and what we submit, Mr Chairperson, is that we have heard the submissions about generosity but generosity must be at the expense of the express provisions of the Act and without having regard to the innermost feelings of the victims and their families in relation to what they have done.