MR HOCKEY
That's right.  Sorry, I should have said that right from the start.  I just made the point that I did, before completion of these Heads, have the opportunity and the benefit of perusing the Heads as prepared by Adv Kahanovitz and Bizos, so I am not going to go into the same detail, or even, I was going to expand on some of the ball points that I make but those references and expansion were already made, so I don't find it necessary to repeat all those.
	Mr Commissioner the point that I tried to make throughout the Heads, I want to conclude that at the end of the day if this Commission finds, or it the Committee finds that there was in fact an intention to kill, then all those who applied for amnesty in respect of the ELC bombing should not be granted amnesty because in effect it would mean that there are no bona fides in their application and that they then obviously didn't make full disclosure as required by the Act.
	I just make a very brief point that - well maybe I should just say that I agree with the whole aspect of personal gain.  If the motive was personal gain, then obviously they won't qualify for amnesty.  I make the point in paragraph 12 of my Heads that from the applications and the testimony, the applicants seek to persuade the Committee that they believe the following:
One, that the Q-Town Youth Movement was involved in acts of terror, amongst others that they planted and caused to be detonated, bombs at the Athlone Post Office and the Athlone Magistrates Court, that the Q-Town Youth Movement was planning the disruption of the then up-coming tri-cameral elections by amongst other starting a big fire in Khayelitsha, three, that the QYM had secret meetings at the ELC to plan such deeds of terror and fourthly, that the Q-Town Youth ...(no further recording)
	They then go on to say that the reason why the bomb, or that they decided to bomb the Early Learning Centre was to frighten the Q-Town Youth Movement, to give the impression to the public that it was the Q-Town Youth Movement's bomb that exploded.  They tried to persuade the Committee that no-one was to be killed or injured and that they merely, besides wanting to frighten of course, they wanted to destroy the venue where the secret meetings took place and through these actions, that they would maximally disrupt the Q-Town youth, who obviously they regarded as part of the enemy.
	I submit in paragraph 14 that this line of argument is highly improbable and that it should be rejected as false for the following reasons:  That the ...(indistinct) purpose of the CCB was to maximally disrupt the enemy.  That the Q-Town Youth Movement was - if the Q-Town Youth Movement was involved in terror, it is highly unlikely that by placing a bomb in the venue that they used and caused it to be detonated after they've met, that this would frighten them and stop them from acting the deeds that they are alleged to be involved with.  My submission is further that it would have been quite easy for the Q-Town Youth Movement, if they were the people that the applicants wanted to make them out to be, then they could simply have used another venue and the question which remains is why the police were not drawn in, if they had all this information about the Q-Town Youth, that they were terrorists, that they were planting bombs, why the police were not even informed about this, to follow up with further investigation.
	It was also the evidence of the applicant van Zyl that they were in possession of some damning evidence in the form of a letter written by one of the members of the Q-Town Youth and the question remains why this was not handed over to the police for further prosecution.  I pose the question also why a sum of R30 000 was paid just to frighten this group of terrorists and by destroying a building, as opposed to a sum of R2 500 that was going to be paid for each of the killers or the intended killers, assassins of Adv Dullah Omar.  There are many other factors that I can raise.  
	I was going to expand but I'll venture to say that all these facts and circumstances clearly indicate that there was in fact an intention to kill and I expand.  If one looks at - I'd also venture to say that it has in fact, if one takes into consideration the evidence of the applicants themselves and that of Mr Oesman Alexander, I would venture to say that it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that there was in fact an intention to kill, although that is not any test by any nature that I would want to put forth.  
	In paragraph 19 I make the point that there's clear evidence from Oesman Alexander that there were cars in the parking lot and de facto there were people in the building when the bomb was detonated.  It is quite clear from the evidence that the lights must have been switched on and that van Zyl and Botha must have seen, that they must have been aware that there were people in the building.  Hardien knew that there were people from the, who were going to attend a soccer meeting inside the building, but there's no regard that's been given to that.