MR RAMAWELE IN REPLY
The first one is the instruction which has been raised by Mr Vermeulen, Mr Cornelius.  I just want the Hearing to note that the evidence of Mr Nofomela is to the effect that he never heard Mr de Kock instructing the unit members to go and shoot the people.  His evidence on the contrary is that Mr de Kock told him that people were going to get shot, so one should make a clear distinction about that.
	The second point is the political objective.  It is my submission that the act which was committed by Mr Nofomela is an act which is associated with a political objective and that he knew that the UDF activists were going to be killed and he associated himself with that particular act and therefore he qualifies in terms of the Act. 
	The last one is the vendetta.  Mr Chairman, I would like the Hearing to consider this in analysing the evidence.  firstly the Hearing to determine whether Mr Nofomela does have a vendetta against Mr de Kock and if that is the position, then the Hearing should continue further and find out from the evidence itself whether the vendetta that Mr Nofomela had against Mr de Kock led to Mr Nofomela actually saying that, implicating Mr de Kock because you can have a vendetta, a grudge against a person, but it does not necessarily mean that each and everything that you are saying is not true.  One cannot say, "Once a liar, always a liar", therefore, if the Commission finds that Mr Nofomela does have a vendetta against Mr de Kock, the Committee also has to further on, to determine whether in fact this vendetta led to Mr Nofomela saying what he said and I submit that when the Hearing does so, if it finds that indeed his vendetta led to him saying what he has testified about,  then we would be left with the improbable version of Vermeulen, Radebe and Mr de Kock himself.