MR DU TOIT
Thank you, Mr Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, Commissioners and members of the audience.  The application is brought under the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act of 1995.  I think it is necessary - I think that it is necessary to state first of all that one finds in the introduction to this Act certain aims set out;  to build a bridge between a divided society, to establish the truth in order to prevent a repetition of such acts.  That would be acts of gross violation of human rights.  And it says that the well-being of all South African citizens and peace would require reconciliation and the reconstruction of a society, and it is in order to advance this reconciliation and reconstruction, according to the Act itself, that amnesty shall be granted in respect of acts and offences associated with political objectives committed in the course of the conflicts of the past.
It is important to note that the Constitution provides that amnesty shall be provided or granted in respect of offences or acts associated with a political objective and committed in the course of the conflicts of the past.  It is of course necessary that there should be a political objective, and the motive of the person who committed the offences is also the first consideration to be considered in section 20 (3) of the relevant Act.  
I would submit that in this particular matter there is no doubt that there is a political objective.  The motive was not personal.  And I would submit that that is quite clear from the facts, not only before the Committee, but also the facts placed before the Trial Court.  	Secondly, the context in which the act or the
	/offences
offences were committed, and whether it was committed in the course of political uprising, a disturbance, or an event, or in reaction thereto.  We would submit that it is clear on the facts that what happened was part of the events in that particular time and in the area of Natal, and that there is in fact also a satisfaction of the second requirement, which is the context.
Thirdly there is the consideration of the legal and factual nature of the act or the offence, including the gravity - the gravity of such act.  It is of course obvious that the offences here are very serious indeed.  Were that the only consideration the application probably would not have been placed before you, but it is one of the considerations and it must be weighed as against the other considerations.
Fourthly, the question as to whether the object or objective of the Act was primarily directed at a political opponent or against private property or individuals.  It is significant that the section does not refer to the victim itself, but the aim, the primary aim of the act.  In this instance the primary aim of the act, of the offences, certainly was directed at political opponents as seen from the point of view of my client, and we would submit that the requirement that there should be primary direction at a political opponent has in fact been satisfied on the facts before you.
It was done in the execution of an order.  He was instructed by Major Terblanche to receive the special constables and place them at the house of the Gabela.  He was instructed to see to it that the violence is stopped, and I would submit that it is quite clear on the facts
	/before
before you that there was the execution of an order.
Lastly, the relationship between the acts and the political objective pursued, the directness, the proximity of the relationship, the proportionality of the acts or offences to the objective pursued.  We would certainly submit that on the facts there is the political objective, and that there is also a direct proximity in what was done.  The specials were taken there in order to achieve the political objective which was sought by my client.
We would therefore submit that on the facts before you the criteria have been met.
What also has to be considered is whether the requirements mentioned in subsection (2) are met.  Firstly, my client was an employee of the Security Force, he was a member of a Security Force, and I would submit that on the facts he clearly acted within the scope of his express or implied authority as a result of an order, and that it was directed against a known political organisation.  It was also committed with the object of countering or otherwise resisting the struggle.
At worst for my client I would submit, Mr Chairperson and Members, he satisfies the requirements mentioned in subparagraph (f) of subsection (2) of section 20, that he on reasonable grounds believed that he was acting in the course and scope of his duties, and within the scope of his express or implied authority.  
The background information placed before you was placed before you in order to show what went on in his mind, what his state of mind was like at that point in time;  to show what facts he knew and what facts he took into account when he acted.  At worst for him the factual
	/basis is
basis is such that there are reasonable grounds for the applicant to believe that he was acting within the course and scope of his duties.  There is no evidence that there  was a personal motive.  It is clear that the motive was a political motive.
It is not necessary for my client to show that the official policy was the use of the special constables in the way in which he used the special constables, but what is clear is that there was the frame of mind that not a single inch of land will be lost to what was perceived to be enemy or the opponent.  The strategy was that the special constables should be a physical wedge against the Comrades.  His perception, at worst for him, was that the special constables were there to prevent further land from being dominated or won over by the UDF/ANC Comrades.
Again it is not offered as justification for what was done, because it cannot be justified.  It is not offered in order to show that there is innocence, because the Court has already found that there is guilt.  It is offered to show that from the age of 18 there was this culture, one can describe it as a subculture, as Professor Grazer in fact has done.  There developed a culture which is foreign to a democratic and open society.  There developed a subculture within the police force which was unhealthy, which was abnormal, and which brought about a situation where people were indoctrinated, where people saw other citizens as enemies.  And we see that from the open way in which the evidence was placed before you, and we see that even in the strategy document that there is a reference to enemy.  And the friction in the past, the difference of views, brought about an approach within the
	/police
police force in the circles in which my client moved that certain citizens were to be regarded as enemies, not only of the police but of the State.  And I think that what was demonstrated by the evidence today is that a peaceful co-existence became impossible;  that the police, in Natal at least, chose sides;  that in Natal the police force was strengthened by the addition of certain special constables, at least some of whom had definite links with Inkatha.  Of course they should have remained neutral.  Of course they should have been involved in normal policing, but my client did not have the privilege of working in a normal society.  My client was used to quell disruptive action.  My client was used by the police force to quell and limit rioting.  He was certainly not privileged to serve as a community policeman.