ADV BOOYENS
I want to pause here for a moment because I anticipate an argument from my learned friend that there would not have been full disclosure.   You will take into account that these events fall beyond the twenty year annuation date with regard to capital crimes, would there have been any consideration of a capital crime.   This is prior before Mr Beneke came to bring testimony.   He could have withheld his application or withdrawn his application but he did not do so.   Since in a spirit of the law he wants to come and tell what the true facts are.   It is important that you should
understand this and understand why it is our submission that Mr Beneke, and I want to say this actually on behalf of all of the applicants, why they are coming to tell you the truth.  It has to do with an attempt to achieve national unity; to serve the well-being of all South African citizens; to serve the purpose of reconciliation and the reconstruction of our society.  That is what is involved here.   For what single purpose, twenty years after the event should you be presented with a pack of lies.   Mr Beneke is no longer a member of the police service, therefore any effort to cover up anything is of no interest to him.   In the eyes of the media he would have no reason to come and tell you lies.   Why would he subject himself to this process?