MR VISSER
Just so, Chairperson, I'm just mentioning this as a matter of background and because it was raised but of course, Chairperson, the fact of the matter is that Operation Vula was smashed because of information which could only have come from Ndaba.
	Now if I may come to the present matter, Chairperson.  At the time there was suspicion of a mole, an enemy agent, in the security branch at C.R. Swart.  Mr Mac Maharaj confirmed that, that there was such a person.  This at once explained why about two weeks - well, even less, after the arrests of the Operation Vula people had been made, he went to Bethlehem to go and ascertain from Mr Gordhan who - what the identity of this person was.  He told you here that he had good reason to believe that Mr Gordhan knew who it was and that was in fact confirmed by Mr Gordhan's questioning here today, he knew who it was and the rest, Chairperson, are facts which you are aware of.  Mr Gordhan and I take it Mr Lalla, appeared to oppose these applications on the trite issues set out in the requirements of the Act, no full disclosure.  The closest that Mr Gordhan could draw the non-full disclosure is in regard to his arrest which is not to remain to the issues before you today.  The fact that the - as it appeared, Chairperson, from the questioning, that the assault would have taken place because of a personal vengeance or personal malice or spite on the part of Mr Botha, no basis is laid for that.  There's no evidence before you, tested under cross-examination which even vaguely hints at it except for the statements put by Mr Gordhan to Mr Botha.
	And lastly then, Chairperson, there might even have been a hint of disproportionality.  Mr Botha, with great respect, gave frank evidence before you.  He has made various concessions which shows and proves in our respectful submission his credibility and we submit in brief, Chairperson, there is no evidence at all to make a finding against Botha on any of the counts which I've just mentioned.
	Chairperson, it is clear that also again from the cross-examination of Mr Gordhan that what took place on that day in July/August 1990 in Bethlehem had everything to do with a political background and political motivation.  It was quite clear that the armed struggle was still at the time proceeding, in fact the armed struggle was only suspended on the 6th August, if I remember correctly Chairperson, 1990 which is a date which follows the occurrences of the present incident and Mr Botha also gave evidence here to you to say that while the bomb attacks had diminished, other type of attacks were taking place particularly that in Natal or between the IFP and the ANC which was just another dimension as we all know, Chairperson, of the armed struggle.  So the armed struggle was by far not something of the past when these assaults took place.
	We say, Chairperson, that it is clear on the evidence that has been given to you under oath that it was a very brief encounter.  Ten to fifteen minutes.  Chairperson, nothing turns on another fifteen minutes for that matter but the fact is that all the witnesses recorded to have been brief, it was not a savage assault and even if it was, Chairperson, amnesty also provides for savage assaults but the fact is, in our submission, it does appear to be proportional to the ends which Mr Botha intended to achieve.
	All in all, Chairperson, we submit that you would not have a problem with the evidence of Mr Botha or for that matter of any of the witnesses.  The contradictions such as they appeared from the evidence are such as one would expect from honest witnesses attempting to recall what happened nine years before.  There was no inherent improbability in anything that the witnesses stated and there certainly wasn't a fatal contradiction between them on any essential part of the elements for which - of the incident for which they apply for amnesty.  
	We would therefore ask you, Chairperson, to favourably consider that amnesty be granted to Mr Botha as prayed for.  Thank you Chairperson.