MS PATEL
I was going to concede that the evidentiary value of that statement will have to, by its nature be very limited.  My argument is not that there was any personal malice or that the applicant acted for personal gain, that is not my submission.  If those allegations have been made by Mr van Jaarsveld, I do not from my point of view, align myself with that.  I have no basis, evidentiary basis upon which to align myself with that submission.  My submission is very simply based on the question of the religious motivation and whether that falls within the ambit, technically, of this Commission's brief.  I wish to take it no further than that, I wish to make that very clear.  Alright.
	And then in respect of the Ventersdorp matter, I leave it in your capable hands, Honourable Chairperson.  I wish to however come to the defence of Mr Rudolph.  He has raised a portion of the transcript in which the Judge - no not the Judge, the Honourable Magistrate is evaluating his evidence, I would however like to state that further on in the judgement, I can't recall what page exactly, that the evidence or the allegation that Mr Rudolph was in fact in possession of a firearm was rejected by the magistrate.  So I mean, there is no way that anybody can rely on that specific part of Mr Venter's testimony at the trial.  It was indeed even rejected then.  In respect of both then that incident and Mr Terre'blanche's application on possession of arms and ammunition, I leave it in your capable hands.  Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.