ADV PRIOR
Well he says he - yes, maybe I can address, I haven't fully prepared on that aspect.  I'm simply saying I'm not submitting that what Palapala said is correct in each and every respect.  Even the judge came to that conclusion, that in certain respects regarding the robbery of the car he accepts that evidence.  We have the direct evidence of Tjabane who said he never received vehicle.  Palapala says in his evidence in Court that the vehicle was taken to Jimmy Jones.  This Committee must then decide whether that can be accepted in the light of denial under oath by Mr Tjabane.  But where he says that he heard of the cessation of the armed struggle, that supports Mr Tjabane.  And I'm using those aspects to support or to indicate to the Committee that Tjabane can be relied on on those aspects.
	We turn to the question of what happened at Bahai.  My submission is that if one looks at all the information before the Committee, the underlying motive was robbery and nothing more.  We also heard from Tjabane that a lot of the people were angered at this indication by the hierarchy to cease the armed struggle.  And he also indicated that possibly there, people or groups splintered away from the acceptance of that instruction and carried out deeds on their own.
	I think the question of anger also was mentioned in the public submissions by the PAC, that the members were angry - I wasn't going to particularly refer to that, maybe I can come back to that briefly.