MR STEWART
It certainly, in my submission, falls within his overall authority.  The question which arises, though, is whether or not that specific incident can be justified as being one as an act associated with a political objective, and even, even if.  Well, let me put it like this, it was in my submission, within his overall authority and objective to create terror, to shoot ANC supporting people and so on.  But in, the suggestion has been made, this specific incident may have been merely an angry outburst, and the way in which Luthuli described it on one occasion under cross-examination by Mr Hewitt, this is at page 153 of the record, towards the foot of the page, he was asked
"...Now can you explain to this Committee what possible political objective you could be achieving for your masters, for your party, by doing that"
and the incident referred to is the Clewer incident.  And Mr Luthuli said:
"...I will explain that in Claremont the IFP no longer existed.  Mr Jamile wanted by all means that he IFP's strength should be clear and be evident at Claremont.  This group of people and this remark that you are talking about from the IFP side, the person who makes this remark provokes the IFP, was is showing the people that he is with that here is somebody belonging to the other side, something must be done to him. Therefore, what happened at this incident was to show that he IFP at Claremont is there.  Such remarks shouldn't be used anyhow.  That was helping Jamile at Claremont."
And I don't deny that, or don't seek to deny that there may have been some anger or some level of insult being felt, but this falls within what Luthuli has described, if anything, as retaliation rather than revenge.  And the Members of the Committee will recall that that was a distinction that was drawn by him.  Revenge, he said, would be where if his brother was killed and he felt the need to revenge that death.  But retaliation he put very much in a political context.  Someone attacks us, we must go and attack them.  It's a means of defence, it's a means of showing that we're not vulnerable to such attacks, that we have some strength, and it may indeed be done in anger but that doesn't put it within the category in the Act of spite, of motive of spite for example, it doesn't remove it from the realm of being an act with a political objective.