MR STEENKAMP
I'm a bit surprised at certain comments made by me learned colleague.  If you wish to tender new information about the ANC's initiative for granting legal aid, he can do so but then he must take the witness box so we can cross-examine him.  That information was never submitted to the Committee at all, so the value of that clearly must be taken as it is.
	Talking about the criminal action or the political motive then of the applicants, maybe we can start at the last witness that was called by my learned friend.  He is actually supporting the evidence of both Mr Nzeku and Mr Ramagotedi when he testified on a question of one of the Committee Members, that the ANC actually made an official decision that the actions of the applicants at that stage was not politically motivated at all.  I also find it a bit strange, from the families' point of view in any event, that those statements and those witnesses statements can be disregarded as it stands.
	The view of the family is that the killing of both the deceased was purely criminal, and as it stands it was a callous act, it was a revenge act for the killing or assault on Mr Mokome.  There was no evidence led whatsoever that there was third force motivation or third force actions that was responsible for the motivation of the killing of both the deceased. 
	The facts as is are isolated Mr Chairman, I would support.  The fact is that the applicants were in a group, they were looking for both the deceased.  Apparently what triggered this action was the killing or the assault of Mr Mokome.  They hunted both the deceased down.  On their own admission at least deceased number one was disarmed and then afterwards killed with his own knife.  How that can be purported as a political motivation for killing him is to me totally misunderstood.
	A further point I would like to make on behalf of the victims is that it's clear that none of the applicants took the Committee in their confidence by making a full disclosure, exactly what happened at the incident itself.  Proof of this is the differences between the different views and the statements of at least applicant number four and applicant number one.  And when there was difficulty to answer questions, they really couldn't answer any questions.
	A further important point is that the court a quo actually made a decision, a finding, that the actions of all the applicants was that of revenge, it was a premeditated action, a planned action to kill both the deceased.  The view of the victims at least is that the actions of all five the applicants were criminal and to this end their applications must therefore fail.  As it please you Mr Chairman.