MR RICHARD IN REPLY
My reply to my learned colleague is I must point out that the circumstances and context of this event was the struggle in 1990.  It was a period when as I argued last night, make the country ungovernable, was the crime.
	The deceased by her confession, however it was obtained, established in the minds of the crowd and that is certainly the third, fourth and fifth applicants, that she was associated with witchcraft.
	We have argued the position of witches in the context of the time before.  They were perceived to be the enemy of the struggle.  My learned colleague then seems to create two categories - one is the Mtsweni family and that of the others.  Without labouring or repeating my previous argument, subsection 20(2)(f) speaks of any person who associates him or herself with an act committed within the meaning of subsection 20(1)(b) as read with 20(1)(2)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f).
	While it might well have been as has been pointed out at the initial stages of the transaction, that it was a family affair, as soon as the talk of witchery penetrated into the comrades' minds, it became a very public affair.  Whether and I believe the only one who might be affected by my learned colleague's argument is the first applicant, July ...