NORMAN ARENDSE
Thank you Mr Chairperson.  In the heads, we say that the applicants apply for amnesty in respect of five, only four had been mentioned specifically in your bundle.  The one that had been added was in fact the one so graphically described by Mr Meyer, which is the Guguletu attack at NY 108.  It is I have pointed out yesterday, at page 32, it is mentioned by one of the applicants.
	The points we would like to highlight, if I could just refer to page 8, the Claremont restaurant attack in which my colleague, Mr Warner has an interest.  This concerns only applicant Shiceka and we submit that this attack is very similar to the one perpetrated on the Crazy Beat Disco at Newcastle, the Heidelberg Tavern attack in Cape Town and the St James church attack and in respect of all those three attacks, applications for amnesty were made and were granted.
	We have pointed out to you the numbers of this Committee's decisions.  We submit that there is a common thread that runs through all these incidents, including the Claremont restaurant attack, that they were given instructions by senior APLA leaders, that these instructions were not questioned.  Whether they came from the High Command to the Commander of the Unit or instructions given by the Unit Commander to the members of his Unit.  In all of these attacks, the applicants didn't know any of the victims personally, they therefore had no personal malice towards them, they couldn't have had.
	In none of these attacks did they gain personally, we have dealt with the R1 000-00 that was given to Shiceka.  It is uncontroverted on the evidence that he used it for food, accommodation, clothing and so on, for him and members of his Unit.  In all these attacks, a vehicle was stolen and then subsequently abandoned.  And importantly for the purposes of the political affiliation, association and the political objective, APLA claimed responsibility for these attacks.
	The pattern is clear, we submit.
	We submit therefore that the requirements of Section 21 and those set out in 20 and the criteria set out in 22 and 23 have been met.  We then quote from a dicta in the St James church application which we say is of application also in these applications before you.
	We deal in paragraph 9 on page 11 with the affidavit filed on behalf of Ms Amanda Warner, where she had submitted that the requirements of 23 had not been met.  We say that it is not in fact disputed that the attacks were politically motivated, that the applicants were members of APLA and the PAC, that they acted on instructions from the APLA High Command and that they didn't know any of the victims, including Ms Warner, that the applicants did not gain materially or personally from any of these attacks, that the attacks were in line with APLA policy and then I think just importantly we say that in any event, Adv De Jager SC, a member of this Committee, had made an important observation in the Amy Biehl application, where he said and perhaps I just want to read that back.
	It is however not a prerequisite for amnesty that the offence should fall within the category set out in Section 23(f).  The Committee often pointed out in previous decisions that Section 23 provides criteria or guidelines to assist the Committee to decide whether an act is associated with a political motive or not.  The provisions are criteria and not requirements or preconditions that must be complied with.
	We submit that in any event, they had complied.  Our submissions are repeated in respect of the other attacks, the Khayelitsha train attack, the Khayelitsha Police vehicle attack, the Crossroads Police attack and the Guguletu Police van attack.
	Chairperson, unless there is anything you or one of your Committee members wish to ask of me, our submissions are set out in writing.