MR MADASA
Mr Chair will be well aware that on the question of analysis of her evidence, that the Committee or a court would pick and choose, yes, but provided what it picks has corroboration, what it chooses, has corroboration, and I'm saying on this point, what I pick and choose there has corroboration, but that is how evidence is approached and analysed.  You can't reject it because there are lies in evidence and reject it in total, and the evidence of the applicant has not been contradicted in evidence.  We have bare denials from the family by way of questions by the leader of evidence, but the family members are here, they are here, they did not give evidence to refute what the applicant has said, and we don't have evidence as to whether the deceased person lived with their families and the duration thereof if they lived together, whether their families were aware of the deceaseds' movements, we don't have evidence to that.  What we have is that it is denied, but I'm saying that is a bad denial, in the face of the applicant's insistence that the information he received was that they were members of a political organisation.
	Now, on the question whether the shooting was connected with a political objective on the 7th of April 1992, now I submit that an important question to ask there on this aspect is whether the applicant was malicious in this plan, was he genuinely conducting his duties, or did he have an ulterior motive, was he malicious, I submit that is the question to be asked.
	Now, I submit that he was not, he was doing his duties, an implied duty.  At that time all members of the police, whether detective or security, the dichotomy between various duties of the police did not exist inasfar as political matters were concerned, it was not maintained by the State, it was there on paper, but any member of the police, it's a notorious fact that they would do their duties inasfar as political matters are concerned, irrespective of a unit.  It would be artificial to argue that this man was involved in a crime investigation and that had nothing to do with security matters, that should have been handled by security matters.  That did not exist.  Even municipal police, traffic officers, were involved in arresting political activists, even members of the public, if they were so inclined.
	Now, my submission is that the applicant, it was within his duty to plan and arrest, and if necessary kill the deceased.  That is borne out by the statement made by General Malan in the bundle, even if that statement did not exist, this is a notorious fact, it's known by anybody in South Africa at the time, that activists had to be eliminated, because otherwise they would eliminate the State.  That's how these matters were resolved.
	Now, I submit that ...(intervention).