MR HATTINGH
Thank you Mr Chairman, that amount bears no relation to the amount of R160 000.  The amount of R100 000 was mentioned, I think by Mr Nieuwoudt in his application, but that amount was paid over to Mr Duli according to him, not to Mr De Kock, and Mr De Kock never gave evidence that he received any money from Mr Duli, neither did anybody else give evidence that money was paid over to him by Mr Duli.  He only received money from Mr Nieuwoudt, and therefore these amounts of R50 000 and R100 000 cannot have any relevance to the amount of R160 000.  First of all, the amounts differ, and secondly, the amounts were paid over to someone other than Mr Nieuwoudt, and there is no evidence that that person paid it over to Mr De Kock.
	... attention to the fact, Mr Chairman, that Nieuwoudt could never have been under the impression that he was paying this amount of R160 000 in respect of all three transactions, because on his own version, he was aware that an amount of R100 000 had already been paid in respect of one of the other consignments of firearms.  As far as Nieuwoudt was concerned, compensation had already been paid in respect of one of the others, and therefore he could never have intended the R160 000 to have been payment in respect of all three transactions.
	We submit therefore Mr Chairman, that you should find first of all, that there is no evidence, no direct evidence to the effect that Mr De Kock had a personal gain when he supplied the arms and ammunition in question.  Secondly Mr Chairman, that in as much as he did receive money, that that money was paid in respect of a different transaction and thirdly, even if and we strongly submit Mr Chairman, that you cannot draw that inference, but even if you are prepared to draw the inference that that was intended as payment in respect of all three transactions, then we submit that that was money that was paid after the firearms were delivered, there was no, there is no evidence that there was an agreement before any of these consignments of arms were delivered to the effect that compensation would be paid for it, and the mere fact that compensation was paid for it afterwards, doesn't make the accused's objective one for personal gain.  In this regard we refer once again, to the Committee's decision in the Tshikilanga matter.  We submit therefore Mr Chairman, that you cannot with respect, find that he acted for personal gain, and that you should therefore with respect, grant him amnesty in respect of this particular incident. 
	We submit Mr Chairman, that he should be granted amnesty for any contravention of the Arms and Ammunition Act, 75 of 1969, any contravention of the Provision of the Explosives Act, 26 of 1956 and that he should also be granted amnesty in respect of a contravention of I think Section 18 of the (indistinct) Assemblies Act, being a conspiracy to commit murder and any competent verdict on that, on the charge, of conspiracy to commit murder.  It is the Act, the (indistinct) Assemblies Act, 17 of 1956 Mr Chairman.  Thank you Mr Chairman.