MR MALINDI
Yes, indeed Chairperson, that is the submission that we have been attempting to put across to the Committee.  That an individual may totally believe that their act is an advancement of a political objective.  It may be so but in this instance we submit that there has to be separation where an act is a publicly known political organisation is not aware that such a person is purporting to be acting on his behalf.
	Chairperson, further submissions are made on Paragraph 10 and at Paragraph 10.3(iii) which is on Page 41, I would like to add at the bottom that Mr Clark also believes that Hani, being an anti Christ would have been a major reason why he was assassinated or he would assassinate him, I don't remember the evidence well but the emphasis was on the anti Christ.
	And then Chairperson, the submission therefore on this paragraph is already made and some of the Sections under Paragraph F are dealt with separately like proportionality which Mr Bizos is going to deal with and acting under orders which follows thereafter which is Paragraph 11.  But Sub Paragraph 3, taken as a whole and taking into account Paragraph 11 and the proportionality submission which my learned friend Mr Bizos is going to make is such that, and that submission is made on Page 42 that when the criteria in terms of Section 20 Sub Paragraph 3 are taken as a whole, there is doubt that the act is associated with a political objective and therefore the Applicants have failed to satisfy the Committee as such.
	Under these paragraphs Chairperson, our submission is that there are so many things that make it difficult to conclude that they have satisfied Sub Paragraph 3.  There are elements of the anti Christ and other elements which should be taken into account, elements of gravity of the act and so on and even though one of those topics in itself does not go to the extent of excluding a political association, we would submit that, taken together, they will indicate that this act was not associated with a political objective.