UNKNOWN
I start by referring to Section 20 of the Act which compels an Amnesty Tribunal to grant amnesty if three things are satisfied.  The application complies with the requirements of this Act; the third one the applicants have made a full disclosure.  In this matter I think there is no dispute that both those aspects have been satisfied.
	The second one, (b),  ought to be read with paragraph, sorry Section 2(g) of the same Section which says -
"... any person who associated himself or herself with any act or admission committed for the purposes referred to in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) and (f) ..."
	When we look at the killing of Emma Mtsweni, I believe it has been established that on the basis that I have argued in the previous matter, she was bona fide and honestly perceived by the applicants to be an opponent of the ANC and that her killing would achieve the political objective of furthering the ANC's objectives and ideals.
	We have five witnesses who gave coherent evidence to the fact that she was identified as a witch or moloi, we have it before us that if a person is pointed out to be a witch or a moloi, there is very little that that individual can do about it.  The perception then by the applicants was that for that reason and that reason alone, she was seen to be the equivalent of an impimpi and I could argue further as I did last night, a Security Force personnel, an apartheid counsellor and therefore within the framework she became a legitimate objective of an attack as contemplated by this Act.
	For those reasons I believe and submit that subsection (1)(b) of Section 20 has also been complied with.  The only potential exception to my argument might be the first person, the first applicant to give evidence today.
	There he has said that whether or not the youth of the area, the comrades had become involved, he might have done an act.  However, I believe his evidence needs to be seen in the context of that particular time.  As the last applicant has said, there was perceived to be a witchcraft problem in that area which is corroborated by the various reports that we had reference to.  It was perceived that the killing of witches would achieve both the subjective and political objective and when I refer to subsection (g) of subsection 20(2), I have no difficulty in making the submission that the first applicant was a person who associated himself with the acts which fall within the definition of (2)(a) and as read with 20(1)(b).
	I can argue at length, but I believe that in view of the time, I should make the offer that I made yesterday, if the Committee would like it, I would prepare written Heads with pleasure.