MR PURSHOTAM
Thank you Mr Chairman.
	Mr Chairman, it's my submission that none of the evidence which we've heard yesterday, brings the applicants within the ambit of the Act.  It's my submission that very crucial provisions of the Act have been overlooked.  And I'll be indebted to the Committee if it permits me to analyse those provisions and show how those provisions have not been complied with.  Thank you Mr Chairman.
	It appears that Section 20 of the Act sets out the requirements which need to be satisfied before an application for amnesty may be granted.  The first three Sub-Sections are of relevance in this regard.  The first sub-section deals with two important provisions and both are contained in Sub-Section 21(b) and they read as follows:
"The act, omission or offence to which the application relates is an act associated with a political objective committed in the course of the conflict of the past, in accordance with the provisions of Sub-Sections 2 and 3.
And (c), paragraph (c) states that:
"the applicant has made a full disclosure of all the relevant facts".
	It may be instructive to deal with what is meant by the term "associated with a political objective" first.  The Act has given guidance in this regard. And the guidance is contained in Sub-Section 3 and Sub-Section 3 has been divided up into 6 sub-paragraphs.  The first one says that:
"in determining whether it is an act of a political objective, the motive of the person who committed the act, omission or offence, shall be taken into account".
	The evidence which we heard yesterday was clear that the motive of the attack and the killings was a tit for tat revenge killing.  No matter how much the applicants may justify whether the term "revenge" should now be given a new interpretation, they've repeated in the trial, they've mentioned that they did not write the rules by which these killings had to occur - the PAC wrote them.  So if the PAC was going to engage in indiscriminate killings, they were also going to engage in indiscriminate killings.
	It's on the record in the criminal trial and it's stated by the applicants themselves that their reason for attacking the Putco bus, was in revenge for an attack which had happened earlier that day in which a number of Whites had been attacked by knife-wielding men.  The word weerwraak is mentioned on numerous occasions and up to now, the Committee hasn't heard any evidence as to why it should disregard the employment of that term at the criminal trial.
	We then go on to the attack - I think it may be of some use to analyse very briefly, the attack which occurred on the morning of the 9th which apparently was the catalyst which caused the attack in the evening.  The attack was on a group of Whites on the beach-front, that's common cause.  What's also common cause is that the individuals who perpetrated the attack in the morning, had PAC T-shirts but a crucial piece of the evidence is missing.  And that is, there's no evidence before this court, nor was there evidence at the criminal trial about the political inclinations of the Whites who were attacked because if one looks at this logically, the applicants have sworn an oath for the freedom of the Boerevolk.  The first line of the oath states that:
"AN OATH THAT I SHALL COMMIT MYSELF TO THE LIBERATION STRUGGLE OF THE BOER PEOPLE".
But we don't have any evidence before this Committee, nor was there evidence at the criminal trial that the people who were attacked were Boere or that they identified with the aims and objectives of the OB.
	In 1990, if one looks at the climate - the political climate, it may very well have been that the Whites who were attacked on the beach-front may have been ANC members.  So we don't have any submissions, evidence, nothing about who the applicants were trying to protect or avenge on that particular day.  One of the Commissioners put a very important question to the applicants yesterday and that is, whether the applicants would have killed a bus full of White ANC supporters?  The answer was in the negative.  
	But surely if one takes the argument of the applicants to it's logical conclusion, their ill-feeling, their problems were with the National Party Government, the ANC and the PAC.  But they would not attack a bus full of White ANC supporters.  We don't have any reasons for that.  The only conclusion one can come to as a result of hearing all that evidence and the submissions is that they had a malice towards people with a Black skin.  No-one can escape from that.  
	It did not matter to them what political affiliation those Black people followed.  It was sufficient for their purposes that the people that they were going to attack, had Black skins - full stop.  So much for the motive of the attack.
	Sub-Section (c) talks about the legal and factual nature of the act, omission or offence, including the gravity of the act, omission or offence.  Now in our judicial system, it's my submission that the highest or at least the offence that one could commit which is of the most pronounced gravity is treason.  Murder ranks second, but treason is not committed very often, so for all intense and purposes our criminal justice system deals with murder which is one of the highest and worst crimes that one can commit.  Seven of these killings occurred.  (end of tape)  
	In fact I have skipped a section I should have gone on to sub section B and that is the context in which the act, omission or offence occurred.  And in particular whether the act, omission or offence was committed in the course of or as a part of a political uprising, disturbance or event or in reaction thereto.  I think one has to look at the events of the morning before one can deal with a reaction.  And the Act is clear, it has to be a political uprising, disturbance or event.  
	Now if my learned friends were to be believed, any attack on any person would fit into that section as long as the attacker and the victim were of different colours.  It would then be a political attack and it was construed as a political attack by the applicants and the only basis on which they construed this attack as a political attack, was that the people were wearing PAC T-shirts.  I think it's really far fetched to suggest that any person who wears T-shirts bearing political slogans and who thereby then commits an offence, one then has to construe that as a political offence.  I think - I would submit ...[intervention]