MR WILLIAMS
I also want to submit that the applicant had absolutely no grounds for believing that the car in which Pro Jack was travelling contained members of the SAP.  He had not ground whatsoever for believing that and furthermore, that they were now coming to arrest him.  He could have waited a little while, or he could have followed a few steps to ascertain whether that was in fact correct and his evidence in that regard is also extremely improbable.
	He says, he goes on further and he states in his evidence that he shot at the driver and he wanted to make sure that, he thought that there were other occupants in the car as well.  He wanted to make sure that no one escapes alive.  Then the logical thing for him to do would then be to go to the vehicle and see whether there are still occupants in the vehicle.  Why doesn't he do that?  Mr Chairperson, it seems, or the probabilities - it's highly probable that he knew that he was shooting at Pro Jack.  His direct intention was to kill Pro Jack and he knew that whoever else was in the car, wouldn't be in a position to identify him, maybe because of the way his face was hidden, or whatever, but that would seem to tie in more with the probabilities.            	Mr Chairperson he also doesn't dispute the fact that Pro Jack was a well-known figure in the community and the applicant himself was active in community organisations, probably the same organisation that Mr Jack belonged to and it seems highly probable that he knew who Mr Jack was and that he deliberately set out to kill Mr Jack.
	The last thing on this point Mr Chairperson is, if he was convinced that he was shooting at the policemen, why did he still ask his friends afterwards; "Was that a police vehicle?"  That would also not seem to tie in with the probabilities.
	Mr Chairperson, with respect, then my submission is that the applicant's testimony leads us to the inescapable inference that the application of the applicant is a scheme of lies designed to conceal the truth and that he's not making a full disclosure here.
	Just before I conclude, I want to deal with a submission by Mr Riley.  He says that there are other possibilities and that his client could have thought that Mr Jack worked for the establishment or whatever and maybe that was the motive why he could have killed Mr Pro Jack.  Now that flies in the face of the direct testimony of the applicant and if that is in fact the case, why didn't the applicant come and testify to that effect to the Commission?
	Then lastly, my instructions from the ANC are that the ANC completely distances itself from the action of the applicant and they've instructed me to oppose amnesty and to request that the Committee should not give amnesty to the applicant.  Thank you Mr Chairperson.