MR SMUTS
And with respect, Mr Chairman, there was no indication from his organisation that it owned his action.  It might be of assistance to read the passage from the decision, Mr Chairman, from the bottom of the third page of the five page judgment, the majority decision:  ...[no English translation]
"Botha het geen direkte opdrag ontvang nie, die spesifieke dade te pleeg nie.  Daar is geen getuienis voorgele dat die AWB of die Orde Boerevolk Botha beveel het om hierdie dade to pleeg nie of dat hy dit met hulle goedkeuring gepleeg het nie.  Nog Eugene Terre'blanche, nog Piet Rudolph het getuienis ter ondersteuning van Botha afgele of op enige wyse tydens die verhoor te kenne gegee dat hy met hulle goedkeuring of op grond van hulle bevele gehandel het nie.  Geen brief, geskrif of eedsverklaring deur hierdie leiers of hulle organisasies is in hierdie verband voorgele."
Now, with respect, the instant application goes further because what the Committee has before it, is a number of policy statements which indicate a policy in conflict with the taking up of arms and acting violently for political objectives and so with respect, if one then looks at Section 20, sub-section 2(a) and examines whether there is here an Act on behalf of, which it clearly wasn't, or in support of the political organisation or movement, there is no such Act.
My learned friend on behalf of the applicants suggested that that should be a subjective test.  The subjectivity comes in, in determining whether they were acting bona fide in furtherance of a political struggle.  What the Committee must be satisfied is that they were members or supporters of a publicly known political organisation or liberation movement, acting on behalf of or supporting such organisational movement.  Thereafter the question of bona fide is, kicks in the subjective test, it is objective up to that point and my submission to the Committee is, there is no basis on which it can be satisfied that these applicants were acting in support of their organisation.  On the face of it they were acting in conflict with the organisation and it's policies.