MR WAGENER
Chairman, I will answer it in this way.  The applicant must satisfy you that he complies, or they comply with Section 20(1), specifically (b), dealing with the issue of the political motive and in turn you will have to be satisfied of Section 20(2)(a), 20(3), all the elements.  Now part of that is whether they were acting - maybe we can read the words, the wording of the sub-section, that's 20(2)(a)
"Whether they were acting on behalf of or in support of the organisation"
Now what we do know Chairperson is that the organisation decided on the landmine campaign, but subject to certain parameters.  That I read on that page 327 of your bundle.  Now what we know here is that Mr Nondula and his sub-unit were not acting according to that.  So the question arises whether he can satisfy you in terms of Section 20(2)(a) and that is why this request is made, to bring those witnesses to tell us exactly what was envisaged by this plan and to question them on the objective facts of what happened eventually, specifically in the case of my clients and then to test that against the initial plan and then in turn to test that, whether the applicant can satisfy you in terms of Section 20(2)(a).