UNKNOWN
Member of the Committee, can that still be another way of putting it appropriately. I agree thereto.
	Then I move to (d) of the Act.  Whether the act was directed was at a political opponent or State property or against private property or individuals. 
	As regards political opponent, the answer with respect, is in the negative.  There as no political opponent whatsoever in the case of the applicants.  Because as I have said at the beginning, it has not been established that the deceased was linked to PAC or any liberation movement.  Whether it was directed to an individual, yes, it was, but the direction to an individual was not at all for political objective.  He was killed to conceal the bad deed, full stop, and not to achieve any change, political change or unjust situation.
	Paragraph (e).   Paragraph (e), Mr Chairman and members of the Committee, also does not qualify.  The applicants do not qualify on paragraph (e).  If I have to read it -
"... whether the act committed was in the execution of an order of or on behalf of or with the approval of the organisation, institution, liberation movement or body, which the person who committed the act was a member, an agent or a supporter."
We do not have such evidence.  The only evidence we have before us came at a very late stage through argument or submissions by my learned friend, Mr Prinsloo, that Mr Gerber was an agent of the SAP or of the security.  But this is just what we have been told.  We do not have any evidence to that effect.  Therefore, I move that it be rejected that he was an agent of the security forces.  Especially, again based on what I have already stated to the Committee.  Be it via the media.