UNKNOWN
I am, Chairperson.   I would like to start by stating that we've had an informal discussion with my colleague on the other side, I'm more used, or I used to be more used to appear before him than appearing next to him, but we have basically decided that the main bone of contention, if I can put it that way, would be section 21(b), and that is whether there was a political objective.  It would seem that we are more or less in line on the rest of it, and I will basically concentrate on that.
	I am, however, going to request the committee and the chair to find that this was a political objective, that the whole incident that occurred was politically inspired and that 
	As far as the applicant is concerned, I believe it's on record that he was part of the SDU, whether we call it a self defence unit or a street defence unit, I think it's a matter of terminology, he was politically involved, there were problems in his community, and the reason why they decided to attack the Ledig Police Station was to get firearms so that if and when Inkatha attacks again, that they will be in a position to defend the people properly.
	He also mentioned that they also started feeling that, to be merely offensive was not the only way to go, but to be
basically offensive as well and to start pinning the Inkatha warlords down to the hostels, so that they could not attack the people.
	I don't agree with my colleague if he, what he attempted under examination of the applicant, to get it to a basic social structure.   I really cannot see how we can accept that that is a mere social structure.   Yes, it was there to defend people.   Why was it necessary to defend people?   It is obvious that it was because of what was happening in the area.   As it was put in sub-section 3(b) where it talks about:-
"Was part of a political uprising, disturbance or event, or in reaction thereto."
	They were attacked, it was political.   The attacks of Inkatha on the people there was not criminal, it was politically inspired.   So how can your defence then just be a social one.
	Further, I would request the honourable committee to look at the rest of the criteria which is mentioned in sub-section 3.   If we look at his motive, he was a young man, he was 23 years old, and he says that that was the reason why they went there.   I know it was touched on about Sun City and the money and things like that, but surely, I mean you don't go and attack a police station to get money, and they didn't have money, we know that, because whilst they were fleeing, they didn't have money to pay the petrol attendant there and... (intervention).