UNKNOWN
Thank you Chairperson, I would like to address you or the Committee briefly on the following.  I would like to start off with the last witness as such.
	Chairperson, with all due respect, it's my humble submission that this witness is neither convincing or trustworthy for various reasons.  There is on the probabilities that he sketched so many aspects that should have a red light somewhere and say this is so out of the ordinary that it cannot be taken seriously.  Here we have evidence or an experience policeman who arrested the person, who gave a mock charge of five or ten metres and then the rifle is not comfortable and he just leaves a terrorist?  His aim for arresting a person ended in 10 metres.  He heard a shot and he later said two shots.  His colleague emerges from the donga, he didn't ask questions, he didn't go to look.  One would have expected even from an innocent bystander to go and look at the scene.  That's at least what one expected.  
	The first thing that arises is the fact that his version is they stopped because Mr Zokwe indicated that this was the place where arms caches were supposed to be, Mr Gumengu, the first applicant, in the first instance of the attempted murder, indicated that he asked them to stop to relieve himself.  I do agree to a very big extent with Judge Miller that is also on the probabilities unacceptable to accept that a person would go 50 metres in the dark where all the persons are male, there's no reason to go 50 metres to relieve yourself, that doesn't sound on the probabilities if that's hundred percent correct.  But I can see no reason why Mr Gumengu should dish up a lie.  If that was the fact they were stopping for the arms cache, why would he try and say he stopped the car because he wanted to relieve himself?  He could have used that just as easy if that was the fact.  But what I would like the Committee to focus on is yes, there are some discrepancies, some minor, some not so minor but to focus the thing is, Mr Gumengu got instructions to eliminate Mr Zokwe, he tried to do so, he did not succeed in it and a second attempt was made.
	With regards to the second attempt, I presume that my learned colleagues would suggest to the Honourable Committee that both of the applicants would not fit in the ambit of the law regarding to the deed that has taken place due to the fact that they will probably argue that both of them suggested or even said in so much words that they're acting in self-defence.  I that was the matter and if that is the finding of this Committee then this application is out of the back door but it's my suggestion that the Committee must give thought that they were acting on instructions to eliminate him, that they created a situation where, which tantamount to the violation of human rights as they indeed testified, I won't labour further on this point and I'll leave the decision for your superior knowledge.  Thank you so much.