MR PANDAY
I concede the point, Mr Chairman, but with regards to the applicant, the issues of the ZP and the Inyanga, coupled with a firearm, gave them a perspective totally different as to how they would view the victims in the matter and as a result of this they viewed them as a threat and the actions thereafter were a reaction to this possible threat that they may be in for another attack or they may be in for some problem with the IFP, and as such the applicant acted the best way he knew how, was to protect the community and the ANC people.  And having regard to all of the above, Mr Chairman, I would submit that the applicant would fall within the ambit of Section 20 of the Act, in that his actions were politically motivated in that he was protecting a community, that being namely the ANC.  He was their recruiting officer as well as a believer in the policies of the ANC.  And in terms of his disclosure he has given evidence to the Commission as to what took place on the day in question.
	One accepts that there may have been discrepancies, namely in his statement.  But I think that has been clarified, namely that he has a standard eight education, he was being assisted to make statements by officers of the TRC, who themselves we are not aware of whether they had the necessary interpretation skills or the understanding of the language and as a result of which there may have been discrepancies that would have occurred.
 	But on the evidence of the ...(intervention)