MR WILLS
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.  What I'm saying, if I could, the evidence in it's essential, in other words material, the event as described, the material facts are corroborative in every respect.  There were incidents where my client was obviously reminded or given more detail and his version changed slightly as a result of him, (1) having read the other persons' versions prior to coming here and also hearing the viva voce evidence of the first applicant, but I submit that essentially it stayed the same throughout and as a result of that, I submit that there can be no finding made against his credibility.  	There's no suggestion whatsoever, Chairperson, that this act was done for personal gain, or that it was done out of personal malice or spite directed against the victim.  I submit on two legs, firstly the fact that he was given an order, but secondly the fact that all he did was essentially blew up the body, that the issue of proportionality doesn't even come into consideration at this point.
	I submit my client would - he has been involved in the murder of this person, although not directly, clearly there was a common purpose, he knew what was going to happen to this person when he was alive and I submit that Adv Booyens' suggestions as regards the order, I concur with completely.  I think that it's fair to say and it's justified a decision to the effect that it involves any incident or any crime flowing from the murder of a Mr Madondo, or a person known as MK Scorpion, which occurred during 1980 in this particular location.
	Like Mr Booyens we have nothing to say as regards, or nothing to gain or lose as regards the actual identity of the body and so I cannot make any submissions in that regard.  It was obviously immaterial as regards my client's involvement, as to who that person was.  It could have been anyone, from his point of view.