MRS VAN DER WALT THE COMMISSION
A great deal of evidence has been placed before the Committee, relating to the political education, indoctrination and motivation of the applicants.
	The aims and objectives of the AWB and the BWB.  Excepting which, should the Commission accept that the act for which the applicants seek amnesty were in deed motivated by reason of this indoctrination, and with a view to obtaining a political, or making a political statement, that is as far as I can say as opposed to obtaining an objective.
	I respectfully submit that when one coldly analyses some details relating to the actions taken, the actions are in my submission grossly out of proportion to the objective sought by the applicants.
	I say that for a number of reasons.  Mr Harmse was not acting under orders as such to commit or to target a particular community.  He was given carte blanche to use his discretion how to achieve the broad aims and objectives of his Organisation.
	He appointed a young man of some 17 years to reconnoitre the area and with his, Harmse's, approval, a target in a fairly isolated part of South Africa, I say that with all due respect with Bronkhorstspruit, was selected.
	They had in fact considered targets in Pretoria.  Now at no stage did either Mr Harmse or Mr Froneman indicate that they even considered placing a bomb in a government building or government institution which would not be occupied by people at the time of the detonation.
	We are told that after war had allegedly been declared by their Organisation, the enemy was government.  The enemy was the ANC/SACP alliance.  The enemy was at one stage the large, it included large financial corporations.
	The names of the likes of Anglo American were mentioned.  Now, my submission as to why the acts are out of all proportion to this objective are first of all the nature of the target which was selected, a easily accessible commercial centre which was to be frequented by ordinary civilians.
	It was submitted by Mr Prinsloo for Mr Harmse that the bomb was placed there at about 4 am in the morning, but Mr Harmse in his evidence, when asked as to when he thought or
when he expected the bomb to explode, he said when the shops were opened.
	Obviously targeting at life, not simply to allow a bomb to explode in a uninhabited shopping complex and thereby make a statement and gain the publicity, but he clearly foresaw that people would be killed.
	Mr Froneman on the other hand says that he thought property would simply be damaged.  Mr Harmse on the other hand said that as his Commanding Officer, he was satisfied that Froneman was aware of the fact that people would be killed.
	So first of all it is the place and the target selected, then if one has a look and studies the nature of the device used, as a Committee member, Mr de Jager quite correctly points out, it was tantamount to laying a landmine.  
	That nature, the device was an uncontrolled explosive, it could kill anybody indiscriminately, it could be set off by a heavy truck or the vibrations of a truck just driving by.  So it was an indiscriminate killer similar to landmines.
	I submit that that is another fact that contributes to the proportionality and considering the act.  Why I say that is if it was a controlled device, deliberately set to go off at a time when no civilians would be about, it may put a different light on the issue.