MR MADASA
Mr Chair, I'm not saying every time, I'm saying in these circumstances, in accordance with this plan, I'm saying from that evidence it can be inferred that the applicant was reckless, having foreseen the possibility of resistance from the deceased, but he took no steps to ensure that that eventuality does not arise, and he reconciled himself with that eventuality by planning in such a manner that they would then kill if that case arose, and this is what happened.
	Or alternatively, he could be charged on culpable homicide, and if he is so charged, then he's entitled to amnesty if his case is good.  
	I'm saying it could be inferred from his evidence that he admitted to culpable homicide, for example, which is a competent verdict to murder, and if he's granted amnesty on murder charge for example, he cannot be charged subsequently on the charge of culpable homicide on the similar facts.  Therefore, if he's granted amnesty on the murder charges, he's as well exempted from being charged for culpable homicide, and the basis for saying that he could be charged for culpable homicide is clearly that a reasonable man, in the position of the applicant, ought to have taken necessary steps that would have been indicative that the gunfire only came from the car under the circumstances, and that only in that eventuality would they have opened fire on the occupants of the car, and the applicant did not, and secondly, a reasonable man in his position, having foreseen the possibility of fire triggered by some other source, other than by the occupants of the car, ought to have taken such steps to prevent the killing of occupants in that case, and applicant did not and was therefore negligent, it can be argued, and he admitted in his evidence, and it is trite that if a trap is flawed, as it seems to have been the case here, in law such a trap would be rejected.
	Issues to be decided, Mr Chair, here are whether the applicant committed the offences as described him, and those offences whether they were associated with a political objective, and secondly whether he made a full disclosure.
	Now I proceed to address that.  The following facts are common cause:  that the applicant was a member of SAP at the time, that is on the 7th April 1992, and was a captain in the Detective Branch, Sasolburg.  
	Secondly, that his immediate superior was Swanepoel, and that the applicant planned the arrest which resulted in subsequent killings of the deceaseds.
	It is also common cause that the applicant ordered Fouche, his colleague, to infiltrate the deceaseds' group organisation or gang, with a view to trap them and arrest them on behalf of the State, of which he was an employee.
	It's also common cause that on that day the deceased persons proceeded to Vaal Park Sentra Hypersave in a stolen yellow Cressida.  They were armed, albeit with small arms, and were shot and killed by the applicant and his colleagues.
	On the question of political objective, it is disputed by the leader of the investigation, on behalf of the families, that the deceased were members of a political organisation, and the Committee has to make a finding in this respect, and the applicant has stated that according to the information that he received, and his belief, based on that information, the deceased persons were members of a political organisation, namely ANC and MK.
	Secondly, on the issue of political objective, the Committee must make a finding on whether, if it accepts that the deceased were members of a political organisation, whether the applicant had reason to believe that the deceaseds' conduct was associated with a political activity.
	Thirdly, the Committee must also make a finding on this aspect as to whether the applicant's actions, which resulted in the commission of the killings, were associated with a political objective.
	Now, on the question whether the deceased were members of a political organisation, the applicant, in his evidence, stated that he relied on information from three sources, namely Chris Fouche, Elsa de Lange and Joseph, one of the deceased persons.  These people supplied him with information either collectively or at different instances or occasions.  
	The applicant's evidence has not been challenged by way of evidence, testimony before the Committee, except for some untested evidence by way of statements in the bundle, and that evidence remains untested by cross-examination.  
	Therefore, on that basis, the Committee is obliged to accept applicant's version.