UNKNOWN
Thank you.
	Mr Chairperson, Members of the Committee, my instructions are to oppose the application for amnesty.  As Mr Chairperson correctly pointed out that this attack took place on the applicant's whim, that because there was a firearm present that the victims were somehow ANC affiliated, but my instructions are - sorry, were Inkatha affiliated, but my instructions are that the applicant knew fully well that the victims were actually ANC.  
	Over and above that, as the Chairperson pointed out, Xholisile Bhengu was a nine-year-old child when she witnessed her mother and father being killed.  She today described her father as a kind man.  They also asked me to inform the applicant that there were two other children who were left as orphans, being a brother and a sister to Xholisile.  They were at that point in time five years and eight years old respectively.
	Further, it appears from the victims' families that you all lived together, you did not know each other well but they believe that you used the term witchcraft to incite these people to commit this murder, there was no political motive behind it.  They further ardently believe that you were a warlord carrying out your type of kangaroo court.  For what reason they don't know but they are quite convinced that it was not politically motivated because you all lived in the same area, you knew that the victims were in fact chased from the Lindelane area because they were ANC supporters and not IFP.
	It is your evidence Sir, that there was no violence between January and April 1991.  Mr Chairman, Members of the Committee, this cannot even be seen as a counter-attack or any way of getting back at the Inkatha people.  And obviously, it would seem that if the applicant maintained that the victims were actually Inkatha, then they wouldn't be paying the Inkatha people back or letting them know that they were killing somebody that's Inkatha, because they were doing this within their own confines.
	This ...(indistinct) being public knowledge and over and above that, the applicant maintains that he saw Oswald with Ngobo, but that did not convince him that Oswald was Inkatha, it took a firearm, a firearm which - home-made firearms are so common and it is almost possible that one looks like the other, they don't look different, they have the same type of mechanisms to make them work.
	Regarding my instructions about the applicant being a very forceful person and threatening people, the affidavits and what he said in those affidavits, he says that two people under oath were lying about saying that they were threatened to attend this meeting.  But it is submitted that this is not true, two people wouldn't give the similar version of being forced to attend a meeting.