MR HATTINGH
0063/96, 0065/96 and 0064/96.  It was heard in Durban from the 5th to the 7th of November 1996 and again in Johannesburg from January, 20th until January 23rd.   On page 3 of the decision, the following appears
"... the evidence before us also disclose that some time after the killing, Brigadier Schoon gave the first applicant R3 000-00 which he had apparently received from Brigadier Jan du Preez and which was to be given to the three persons who actually participated in the killing.  This included the second and the third applicants.  Although they received this reward for having acted as they did, we do not feel that in killing the deceased, they acted for personal gain as referred to in Section 20(3)(i) of the Act."
	Amnesty was granted to these people.   Now there the Committee actually found on the evidence, that that money was paid as a reward for the act performed in that particular incident and despite that, they arrived at the conclusion that it cannot be said that that act was performed for personal gain.  We submit Mr Chairman, that you have to look at the time when the act was performed, when it was planned and performed.  This act, there is no evidence that the act was performed for personal gain.  There is no evidence before you of whatsoever nature with respect, Mr Chairman, and I will elaborate on that further, that the weapons concerned in this particular incident with which we are dealing here, were supplied for reward.  There is no evidence that there were negotiations prior to the delivery of the weapons, to the effect that a reward would be paid.  In fact, the only evidence in that regard is evidence to the contrary.  De Kock said there were no negotiations for compensation, no other witness came forward and said anything to the contrary.
	In as much as you are still entitled Mr Chairman and members, to have regard to the application of Mr Nieuwoudt, and we may be wrong when we submit that you are still entitled to look at his affidavit, even though his application has been withdrawn, because that was evidence placed before you, and you could had you decided not to have a public hearing, you could have decided that in chambers on inter alia that information contained in that affidavit.  It is after all evidence on oath, before you.  If you look at that affidavit, you find no evidence from Nieuwoudt to the effect that there was a prior agreement ...