ADV PRINSLOO
Mr Chairman and members of the Committee, the testimony of the applicant Mr Harmse, is supported by that of the second applicant Mr Froneman.  The requirements in the Act which must be met is that there must be full disclosure and I want to argue with respect, that with regard to Mr Harmse, this requirement has been met entirely.
	There has not been any suggestion from the side of Mr Black that there is any lack of disclosure.  There is no evidence to the contrary either.  To determine whether the act in fact meets the requirements that this was in fact an
act linked to a political motive and this is the crime
committed by the applicant, I want to argue with respect that this application also meets this particular requirement.
	The applicant was a member of the Boer Resistance Movement, he acted on behalf of and under the instructions of the BWB and the purpose of his act was aimed against the then government as well as the ANC/SACP alliance in his words.
	The target determined by the applicant, he has given testimony, was one linked to members of the Muslim community which in his view and in the view of the BWB, were members of the ANC, members and supporters of the ANC.
	He believed that by placing a bomb at this particular target, this would bring the then government to other views, would convince the then government and would also the persons directly involved, the ANC/SACP alliance.  
	He believed, and he has been brought under cross-examination by my learned colleague, Mr Black that by placing a bomb at such a property of the Muslim community, this would make a difference with the then government as well as the great financial powers.
	I want to argue there was no racial hatred, no personal gain, that this was a political motive which was in the mind of the applicant and which he wanted to achieve.
	Furthermore his actions prior to and subsequent to the act, supports this argument.  The testimony as in Annexures A and B as well as in the verbal testimony, as well as the principles held by the Boer Resistance Movement, as well as those in his plea to the court and that is Exhibit D and in particular paragraph 4.7 which reads "I decided that as an 
Afrikaner it was my duty to defend my country against
communism and Black domination.  I decided to use a home made explosive device and to explode it in an area which would create tremendous publicity for the Afrikaner and the Afrikaner cause.  At a later point an area was identified by myself, namely the Indian business centre in Bronkhorstspruit.  The purpose was through the damage done there, to indicate to the government that it was the aspiration of the Afrikaner to be free of Black and communist domination."
	This was the argument of the applicant at his court case and in his application today, he stands by this claim.
	In the charge against the applicant, it was also indicated that this was an act with a political motive and we want to argue with respect that at no point during his hearing, court hearing nor at any time, there is any reason to believe that this act was not committed with a political motive.