MOKOTEDI MPSHE
Thank you, sir.
	Mr Chairman, I'm still on sub-paragraph (a), all right, I will move, I think I have covered that one sufficiently.
	Mr Chairman, if you move to paragraph (g), where it states that:-
"Any person who associated himself or herself with any act or omission committed for the purpose referred to in the above paragraphs."
I'm just quoting it here to state that even if it can be argued that, "Yes, we now concede that he was not a supporter of the ANC, we now concede that he was not a member of the SDU's, but we submit that under paragraph (g) he did what he did, associated himself with the Act, and he's not covered by the others, but except by this one", because paragraph (g) makes room for a person who is not a member, who may not be a supporter, but who may bona fide believe that what he did was in the furtherance of a political organisation or State or liberation movement, now I'm saying should that submission be advanced, of course it has not been advanced, it also wouldn't hold water.
	Sub-paragraph 3, Mr Chairman, (a) thereof, I must state it right away that these are just guidelines, what follows under paragraph 3 exactly, these are not the requirements really, these are guidelines or the criteria laid down by virtue of the (Indistinct) rules, but the impact thereof is that when a committee decides on its decision, these criterias are to be looked at as well, but not necessarily that they are to be complied with by the applicant.
	I will then go directly to (a) thereof, sub-section 3, (a) thereof:-
"The motive of the person who committed the act or omission or offence."
Mr Chairman, if my interpretation of this part is correct, this is directed to furthering the liberation struggle or seeing to it that the political climate changes or seeing to it that a new political dispensation is brought into existence, because we're dealing here with the political objective.    Now this also wouldn't apply to the applicant.  The Chair and the members of the committee will recall very well that I made him put it on record pertinently that the structure that was established by themselves was to protect the community, and I said to him it was more directed to social protection, other than political, and he said yes, it was social protection.   So the political injection is not in existence, but the social one is there.