MR RAMAWELE
Mr Chairman, I'm going to request this Hearing to believe that the, to accept that the version that has been put forward by Mr Nofomela is a full disclosure of the particular events which occurred on that particular day and that his application also complies with the Act and that he had made a full disclosure.
	There is just one aspect which I want to touch on his evidence, the question of the vehicle, which Mr Nofomela says there was a vehicle and the survivor says there was no vehicle.  I just want to point out that one has to take into account the fact that the witness himself has not seen, suspected - first of all, he saw the vehicle and he suspected that that vehicle could have been used by the attackers.   When the vehicle left the scene, he heard the vehicle being started but he is not able to say conclusively that in fact the attackers were using the very same vehicle, therefore the question arises whether, under the circumstances, would it be a - would the reasonable inference be that the attackers were travelling in a vehicle under those circumstances?  
	That is a question that I will just leave to the Hearing to consider, but I will also further say that if the Hearing comes to the conclusion that in fact the attackers were using the vehicle, it is my submission that it could not be said that Mr Nofomela did not make a full disclosure.  In fact he will obviously not be deliberately lying about the fact that a vehicle was used and I would then attribute, if the  Hearing comes to a conclusion that the only reasonable inference to be drawn under the circumstances is that a vehicle was used, that due to the failing recollection of the memory of Mr Nofomela.  Particularly in view of the fact that when regard is had to the evidence of Mr Nofomela and the evidence of the last witness, they are ad idem in the sense that they make sense.  According to Mr Nofomela he was told that people were going to get shot, he was not supposed to get involved and indeed, according to the survivor yes, the people were shot at and there were no - the inmates of the shack did not have any firearms or nothing, so nobody was trying to arrest them and therefore what Mr Nofomela is saying does make sense.  
	Now when you look at what the last witness is saying and one considers also what Mr Nofomela says Mr de Kock told him, they agree.  Mr Nofomela says: "Mr de Kock said to me that the people are going to get shot" and indeed according to the evidence, those people were assembled in one point and then shot at, so it does make sense.  It does make sense what Mr Nofomela is saying, it is actually the truth about what happened on this particular day.  
	On the other hand when you look at the evidence which was given by Mr de Kock, Mr Radebe, Mr Vermeulen, it doesn't make sense at all.  It doesn't make sense at all.  For instance, Mr de Kock talks about the fact that two Security or three Security Police officers were killed in Durban and that's why they had to go to Durban.  If you look at, I think it's Exhibit B, the one of, which was an application for a firearm, an AK47 of Mr Nortje, according to that exhibit there was just to be an infiltration in Natal, in Durban.  The note was compiled, the note was made in a hurry on the 3rd of June but they went to Durban on the 20th.  Why do you go to the police headquarters to seek for a permission to carry a firearm on the 3rd of June, in a hurry, without typing the document and then you leave on the 20th?  You have more than 15 days you know to type a proper document and get permission.  So that doesn't make sense.  
	Now Durban was a flesh point, it was a boiling point, police officers were killed, etc, etc, etc.  Now they come to Durban, according to their version and they attempt infiltration.  They get shot at and they never even attempt to arrest the survivors or to check what happened and they never pursued the case of attempted murder against the police officers.  Now what is very strange again is a whole contingent of Vlakplaas went to Durban.  Immediately after the shooting they go back to Vlakplaas.  Almost 40 members of Vlakplaas went back to Vlakplaas.  Now, the killing of the police officer was not yet resolved.  Now why would they go back to Vlakplaas, because the murder is still unresolved, but they went back to Vlakplaas.  It is quite clear, as Mr Nofomela says, that they went to Durban precisely to go and shoot at those people.  They shot the people and then they went back to Vlakplaas because the mission was accomplished.  
	It is my submission that my client's version of events as to what happened on this particular day, is the one that has to be believed, because it also is being corroborated by what the survivor said on this particular day and the survivor has nothing, the survivor and the applicant are people who are not, you know, they don't have the same interest and therefore there is no reason why the survivor cannot be believed and there is no reason why Mr Nofomela should not be believed and I therefore request that Mr Nofomela's application  for amnesty be granted in this particular instance.