MR RHEEDER IN REPLY
Mr Chairman, just on one or two legal aspects.
	My learned colleague concluded by saying that Mr Luff did not have a political motive at that stage when the deed was committed.  It is my respectful submission that the objective or the requirement according to the Act is not a political motive, but a political objective ... (transcriber's own translation) ...   The motive of the person committing the deed is only one of six factors to be taken into consideration by the Commission to determine whether a political motive or whether the criteria for a political motive have been complied with.   
	It is my respectful submission that the fact that Constables and Sergeants, policemen in uniform in 1985 went into townships with shotguns to protect State property and to break up crowds of people involved in riots, and that was all part of a political objective of the previous dispensation.  
	Mr Luff is a person who played a very small role in that political objective.  Therefore I am asking the Committee like - as the Act describes it regarding a political objective in that regard and I am referring to the criteria in subsection 3 of Section 20, and specifically (b), and I don't think it is necessary to read this out, or to repeat it.  
	I wish to add that when my learned colleague indicated subsection 2 of Section 20, it does not only have to do with expressed powers, but also to tacit powers.  It is my respectful submission that this deed falls within the description of political objective as determined by the Act.  Thank you.