MR STEWART
With respect Mr Committee Member, I don't see the necessary connection between the rewards on the one hand and the business objectives on the other.  That the rewards, such as they were, can be equally consistent with the objective being a political objective to eradicate the ANC in the area, to assert the IFP's presence, to try and further their campaign for the incorporation of Claremont into KwaZulu, and so on.  That Jamile was a political leader inasmuch as he had businesses, he was a political leader, he was a member of the KwaZulu legislative assembly, he was later a cabinet minister in KwaZulu and he had political objectives.  And the fact that he rewarded people for assisting him in his political objectives is not inconsistent, and not only consistent with a business or eradication of business opponents kind of objective.  That would be my answer and my submission in that regard.
	Some of the justifications and explanations in regard to these incidents and attacks also occur in the cross-examination by my learned friend Mr Wills of Mr Luthuli.  And indeed by the Members of the Committee.  The cross-references, much of the  cross-referencing is already in the schedules, but that, those refer on the whole to evidence in chief rather than the cross-examination, but it is there and in my submission falls into those particular, particular incidents, or particular justifications.
	Now, the Honourable Member Ms Khampepe has pointed out to me that in the first instance the most reliable place to find answers in this case is the record of this case, rather in other cases, and I'm equally mindful that in a particular case the Honourable Member gave a dissenting opinion or decision, but in a sense, the amnesty decision in the case of those who were involved on the attack, the AWB attack on a bus, which I think was on its way to Inanda, if I remember correctly, falls into a like kind of category.  So too in a sense the attack on the St. James church in Cape Town.  I don't come before the Committee to argue in support of those decisions, but only to suggest that those decisions do offer some support to amnesty being granted in respect of the incidents which fall into this category here, of so called random attacks, or attacks on innocent or unidentified civilians but nevertheless pursuant to an overall political objective or motive as I've suggested.  I appreciate of course that in the case of the AWB bus attack there's some very different considerations as well, if anything that case is much worse.  It's far more retaliatory.  It's far more out of anger.  It's far more out of racial hatred, than any of these cases before the Committee today, but it, because of the extremity of it it does offer some support to the amnesty applications here today.