MR CURRIN
I understand that problem, but I do not believe that it should be a problem because there is nothing in this PHOKENG HEARING	AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN	146	ADDRESS
Act that says that an applicant must have a political
objective in relation to the offence.  You will find that nowhere in the Act.  What the Act says is that the offence must be associated with the political objective.  And what was the political objective?  With what political objective was the offence associated?  The political objective was to obtain keys of this building and this entire structure.  That was the immediate political objective that was verbalised and motivated by the applicants and others. We, as lawyers, know the significance of keys in the context of law.  We know that there was a time in Roman Law when they spoke about, in common law when they spoke about the transfer of property through the handing over of keys.   That is really what the keys symbolised.  Their political objective, their associated political objective was not only to get keys, and we heard that, it was to take over the - to take back the affairs of the tribe, to take back governance of the tribe.  To take back that power of the tribe of their own people.  That was the political objective.  The question that we need to ask and in respect of which we need to satisfy you, is merely whether the offence which we say was an ordinary common law offence, is associated with that political objective.  And not that the murder had that as its objective.  We have never argued that, we have never tried to lead any evidence that that was the objective of the murder.  We don't believe that that is a requirement of the Act.