CHAIRPERSON
As has been said time and again, we don't sit here as a court for appeal.   As set out in his application, he says it's self defence, and that is what he has said before us.   I don't know if we want to, shall we give our reasons now, or shall we - shall we give reasons now?    Right we'll give our reasons for the decision now.
F I N D I N G
	The applicant in this case was convicted in the high court on a charge of murder.   He raised the defence of self defence and claimed that at the time he shot the deceased, the deceased had a weapon and was threatening him.
	The trial court in its judgment dealt thoroughly with this defence and dismissed it.
	There were witnesses present whose evidence contradicted the version given by the applicant, and perhaps one of the most important factors was that the fatal shot entered the deceased from behind, when he was apparently lying on the ground, and certainly was not fired while he was facing and attacking the applicant.
	In his application for amnesty, he again set out, where he was asked on the form whether the acts were committed in the execution and order, on behalf of the approval of the organisation, he said:-
"The act was on my self defence."
	When he gave evidence before us, he told us that he was coming out of the hotel where he was staying with a friend when five people approached them, there was a struggle over a firearm belonging to his friend, and that he ended up in a crowd of people where he shot the deceased five times.   He said his intention was to defend himself:-
"as ANC members had attacked us first because we were IFP."
He said it happened on the spur of the moment and agreed that his defence had already been rejected by the high court.
	His explanation that the act was politically motivated was based on the fact that if the deceased had killed him, he would have applied for amnesty too.   That is not a very strong basis for suggesting a political motivation and we are certainly not able to gather any political motivation from the evidence led before us or from our reading of the amnesty application and the judgments delivered on the merits and sentence at his trial.   
	There was an affidavit put up by the widow of the deceased in which she said that the killing was politically motivated because the accused had said that it was someone identical to the deceased whom he thought he was killing.   That has not been advanced before us and there is no reason to accept that the act was politically motivated.
	It appears to have been a struggle that commenced in a bar.   Evidence was given at the trial that the accused had a sjambok in his hand and that there was a struggle for the sjambok, and the deceased gained possession of it, and he was still holding onto it when the investigating officer arrived on the scene.   It is quite clear, therefore, that there was a struggle of sorts between the parties, but nothing on the lines suggested by the applicant.
	We are satisfied that he has not made a full and frank disclosure, nor has he advanced any reason that could justify a finding that the act was politically motivated, or committed with a political objective.
	The application is accordingly REFUSED.