ADV BOOYENS
I think as long as you are in the process of trying to establish dominance over a political opponent, or in the process of actually joining issue, or trying to actively oppose his political views as opposed to your political views or those that you protect,   I think that is the line.   I mentioned the example earlier on where the policeman on duty at the police station smacks him because he doesn't eat.   That has got nothing to do with establishing  political dominance over him , that is a
	Mr Chairman , I think that it is perhaps the example that one gets in the law of delict with the liability of a master for the acts of his servant could perhaps assist one here, with some qualification.   The moment it becomes a product of their own that's got nothing to do with their work as security policemen anymore, really.   Then I think you cannot say that it has a political motive, but as long as it is in an interrogation with the purpose of subduing a political 
opponent then it's clearly within that sphere of their doing their job as the protectors of the safety of the State.   I hope that has answered your question Mr Potgieter.