MR CORNELIUS
That is quite correct Mr Sandi.  So, there is no evidence tendered before this Committee that if they did receive an order and they carried the order out, they would have been compensated for it.  That falls away.
	If we take the example a bit further, shouldn't the individual applicant have been allowed a decision?  I am given an order by Colonel Eugene de Kock and I say, Mr Cornelius, you have got a choice, you can go down to Duli, help us with the arms supply and this is what you will make out of it.  Then I can decide am I prepared to expose myself to this type of operation and I can make some money out of this, then I've got a choice.  So you expect some kind of contractual subjective thought or consensus, some kind of contractual consensus that will be reached prior to the operation and at the time of the giving of the instructions, or at the planning phase of the instruction, some contractual situation, but there is nothing.  There is no evidence of that Mr Chairman.  I am given an order, I've got to carry it out.  That is a factor which should be weighed up.
	Furthermore, I don't think I refer to this, but at the London bomb incident, where the people were all awarded SOE awards, they should be refused amnesty is that is taken into account.  We have the situation that the C-Section of the Police successfully traced terrorists who blew up a landmine or whatever in the rural areas and the farmers come and they award them with three sheep and a couple of pumpkins, they received an award, they received personal gain, they should be refused amnesty.  It is a ludicrous, far fetched example Mr Chairman, but I am trying to bring home the way I read the Act and I feel it on a balance of probabilities, what the situation should be.
	So although you were presented with a one-sided application, presentation of applications before you, if we look at it from this viewpoint, it is my submission it is easier to see which way the sceptre should sway in this action.  As far as - I don't think I should waste the Committee's time with my clients' political objectives, it is quite clear, they testified fully on it.  They didn't contradict in any way, it has happened a long time ago, there are certain vagueness as far as memory is concerned, that is logical to expect Mr Chairman.  The only aspect which I need to clear up is that Mr Vermeulen did testify that he heard about this possibility of land being given to him after, after, not even during planning phase, all had passed, because I made certain when I consulted with him on that aspect specifically.  He heard about it, he considered it as a joke, and he said what must I do with a piece of ground in the Transkei?  But if there were evidence tendered before the Committee that specifically, we knew that we were going to get ground and where the ground was, it is a different kettle of fish.