MR SARDIWALLA
Yes, I've had sight of the post mortem and I'm glad, Chairperson, that you've raised that.  What appears to be the position as far as those reports are concerned is that there was continuous firing and the evidence is clear from my client that there was firing also on the canopy side of the vehicle.  I mean, he was standing on the side, they were firing all around, there were four of them.  We are looking at high calibre arms at a distance of approximately 20 paces.  We are also looking at people sitting on benches in a vehicle and you must remember that there are some people that would have had their backs facing, at the back of the vehicle, their backs facing the area from which the firing would have taken place.
	So you may well have had, and there's no clear unequivocal evidence as to how those shots were fired, but it could well be and that is from the evidence of my client, it's my understanding of my client, that in that process they may have been shot from the canopy into their backs, resulting in rear penetration as was shown in the post mortem report.  I can't take that any further, I must concede that, I can't take that any further.  My client doesn't say -the one thing he's clear about and remember it took - his evidence which is uncontested, it took a minute or two, this was a spontaneous quick attack, in and out and that's how these attacks normally take place, with three automatic weapons firing at the same time, four automatic weapons. There's a hang of a noise, firstly, there's metal being hit continuously,  it happens for a minute of two and people are gone.  
	Now there is some - I believe that my client's version is probable in the sense that he didn't wait to see what happened.  One doesn't normally wait.   You know that the opposite party is normally armed, that you can expect anything to happen, be it from the vehicle or from the area, if you stand there and wait for a response.  They did what they had to, they believed they had in fact completed their task, and he said so in his evidence, which is uncontested, that they thought they actually hit Makeke, they didn't see him come off the vehicle.  That was never really taken any further, that he came off prior to them escaping or running away but it seems in his mind or their minds, particularly in my client's mind, they'd hit the target and they ran off.  They heard screams, but obviously they were running for their lives as well.  	So I believe that the version that has been put by my client, taking, and one must look at the circumstances objectively here, is a probable version, without doubt.  The question one must ask, and I think Chairperson, Members of the Committee must ask, would a person who is sitting safely in a comfort zone without any indications of coercion, come up here and give a version that is totally bizarre or absurd or not in line with the truth?  
	Now I'm just saying, there may be situations, you have more experience of them, but I am saying that I believe my client has played open cards and there may be factual discrepancies, I can concede that, there may be factual discrepancies, but if one looks at the evidence overall, the factual evidence overall both in the criminal trial and the evidence in the manner it was led, one must accept that his version is probable even having taken the evidence of the victims into account.  I think it does not necessarily attack or in any way undermine the evidence led by my client.