MR RILEY
Thank you Mr Chairperson.
	Another issue which obviously arises and which I referred to earlier on, is the fact that, which is obviously a difficult and contentious kind of situation for the applicant.  The position which arises is whether or not, if the applicant and the persons who were with him, had believed that Mr Toyise had in fact been arrested as a result of, incorrectly maybe, as a result of information which the deceased might have given the police, if the applicant and others had believed that and obviously that is not the applicant's version, but if he had believed that and had acted in accordance with that belief and believed he and others had believed that, that Mr Pro Jack was in fact therefore an enemy and a traitor, if he had believed that and acted in accordance with the belief that it was important politically therefore to target him, it is submitted that I would want to argue that his motives in acting then were also political in the broader sense of the word, in the sense that he believed that he was acting in the best interests of the organisation of which he was a member at the time.   Whether or not he was entitled to act in that fashion at that time is a different thing.  But certainly, that is a factor to be considered.
	The applicant has further contended throughout the Hearing that his version of the events was the correct version.  I submit, notwithstanding rigorous cross-examination, did not deviate materially from his version.  He stuck to his version.  On the contrary, he was at great pains to in fact point out that he had no reason to in fact tell the story that he did.   If he did want to implicate any other persons in this event or said that he was acting on instructions, then he would have done so.
	It is submitted that his version of the events cannot be rejected unless it's found that it's false and not reasonable in the circumstances.  
	It is submitted further that the evidence of Mr Andile Jack must be viewed against the background of him being very young at the time of the incident.  It was obviously a traumatic event for him.  He was very close and attached to the deceased.  The deceased's death and the circumstances under which the deceased was killed, must have had an effect on him in some or other way.  The possibility can therefore not be excluded that his version of the events was not influenced in some or other way by these factors that existed at the time. He, we will all remember, was also not prepared, or his evidence in certain respects in regard to how he became aware of the persons under the trees, whether or not a window was open or closed at the time that the shooting occurred is, with respect, not satisfactory in all material respects.  So his evidence must also then be treated with caution.  
	The upshot then is that the possibility cannot be excluded that Mr Pro Jack proceeded to the area under the trees where he was killed, out of his own accord and therefore effectively in doing so, surprised the applicant and others who were there and was killed in those circumstances and if we find that Mr Pro Jack in fact drove to that area out of his own accord, then the version that the applicant has presented, is a version which is reasonably possible and it is submitted that it must then be found that it's an acceptable version.  
	According here to the applicant, submitted on his behalf, that he has made full disclosure and that it's accordingly argued that all the requirements for amnesty have in fact been met and that amnesty should therefore be granted in this matter.  Thank you Mr Chairperson, Committee.  Any further aspects you wish to hear me on, I'll be glad to address you on.