UNKNOWN
As it pleases, Mr Chairman.
	Honourable Chairperson and Members of the Committee, it is my respectful submission that the applicant has made a full disclosure.  That he made public all facts which are relevant to this application concerning the deeds for which he applies for amnesty.
That is application in itself is complete and that he meets the specific requirements.  It is completed in the document here and also in the evidence of the applicant, Mr de Wet Strydom and so confirmed by the second applicant.
	Inasfar as the requirements are concerned, Mr Chairperson, firstly regarding the motive.  It was evident that the applicant testifies that it is politically motivated in accordance with an instruction from the AWB to stop the election and it was not for personal gain but with a political objective.  The acts were committed during the time where there was political unrest and there were unrests throughout the whole country and at the stage the applicant committed these acts.
	As to the requirements, as to the legal nature of this applicant as in the case of other judgments that have been given by the Amnesty Committee, I would like to submit that in that instance these acts were committed.
	The objective of the acts as it is required in Section 23(3)(d), I respectfully submit that it is clear that the opposition was the ANC/SACP Alliance and the National Party to a certain extent and it was not aimed on the basis of any racisism which has no political basis at all.
	According to the evidence of this applicant, he acted on instruction of the other applicant, de Wet Strydom, and de Wet Strydom's evidence is that he acted on instruction of the leaders of the AWB, the top structure, Eugene Terre'blanche, General Etsebeth and General Fourie who is now deceased, and he acted for the furtherance of the AWB as required by the Act.  The AWB is also a movement who complies with the requirements of the Act.  It is an organisation and therefore it is clear it was clearly in several of these applications.
	I would like to argue, Chairperson, as to the  proportionality of the acts committed, were not out of proportion.  If one looks at the first act where the person was killed, where the bicycle went over the landmine, where the objective was there to stop the election from taking place and the meeting of the ANC was to be held there.   And with that objective and in the time the act was committed it was not out of proportion.  
	The other acts which were committed at the two schools, at the shop where the explosives did not detonate, by the tower of the SABC where no damage was done or very little damage, that this was also not out of proportion.
	With regards to the liquor store, the evidence of the applicant was that that person was a supporter of the ANC and the purpose was not to kill anybody but to move persons not to participate in the election, as well as that of Agriman and so also the consulting rooms of Doctor Breytenbach whom he believed were members of the ANC.
	At this stage I would not like to burden you with the Committee's judgments when have already been rendered, they have been put forward by you at other instances.  Thank you, Chairperson.