MR VISSER
Mr Chairman on two matters, Mr du Preez had been implicated, the one is assaulting Mr Ninela at a previous arrest in 1987 and the other as having pretended to be an attorney in order to question Mr Bengu.  Well, Mr Chairman, the evidence of Mr Bhengu is weak in that regard and it is denied.  Mr du Preez could not remember even the incident of the arrest of Mr Ninela and consequently he couldn't deny that he ever assaulted him.  What he did say is that he certainly can't remember it.  That's the furthest a witness in that position can do Mr Chairman and we submit that you would find in both these instances that insufficient evidence has been brought before you in order to make a finding that he in fact did either assault Mr Ninela or pretend to be an attorney.  And secondly, Mr Chairman, again we say that, with respect, that has nothing to do with the present application and the ambit within which you move.
	Mr Chairman, the other issue which I neglected to mention on the point of whether there were other alternatives which Taylor could have followed and the question of the limpet mine either being in possession of Mr Ninela or not found later etc is this, certainly the Committee will consider the evidence to scrutinise whether an applicant before you in his evidence had not given evidence which is so illogical and inherently improbable that you cannot accept his evidence and you have to draw the inference that he attempted to mislead you.  That is one issue, but of course one must not confuse oneself by thinking that in all these cases it was necessary in order to obtain amnesty that the person had to consider alternatives.  That certainly is not the spirit of the Act, in fact Mr Chairman, it has been expressed as follows in the past.  The applicant is not here to justify his actions, far from it, he committed a crime and part of his crime might well be that he should have prosecuted rather than to kill the man, in fact in most cases it will probably be like that Mr Chairman and I just wanted to make that point and then lastly the point which I forget is the point that Mr du Preez made on the issue of the limpet mine and where Taylor might have got it from when he handed Ninela over to him and Wasserman.  He says that "For all I know, if I have to speculate, Taylor could have assaulted the man.  In fact there is an allegation by the one witness here that he was assaulted by Taylor.  Taylor could have assaulted the man to point out the limpet mine in which event again one would then say, well under those circumstances, can he now take the man and have him prosecuted through the normal channels?  Also Mr Chairman, we don't know exactly when Mr Ninela had been arrested and how long he had already been held unlawfully after the abduction.  All these matters.  Mr Taylor could have told us, could have filled us in on, Mr Chairman, and the difficulty which you and we have is that he is unfortunately not here in order to assist with these matters but I ask you not to hold it then against Wasserman and du Preez and their evidence.  Thank you Mr Chairman.