MS PATEL
If you are then to accept the bona fides of the applicants in respect of the other four incidents save the Clackers, then my difficulty lies in terms of the thefts that accompanied the two incidents at least inasmuch as they were not convicted of robbery of any other goods except the shotgun in the Hansel incident.  The applicants have testified that they've taken other goods besides the gun and that that was in fact handed over.  With the Marulia incident and the goods that were taken there, my difficulty with accepting their bona fides is that I think that or it is my opinion that it is - what's the words I'm looking for - it's convenient for them to come here to us today and say that we only took firearms and ammunition because that fell within the mandate and they go further than that, they say not only do we deny taking any of the other goods but we didn't even see anybody else take any of the other goods.  How probable is that, Honourable Chairperson, given that they were all present together in the same house.  Does that not effect their bona fides and their motive.  How does one distinguish and it is in fact conceded by their legal representative that the thefts don't relate to a political motive.  How does one distinguish unless the applicants make full disclosure as to what exactly their motives were and it is my respectful submission that the onus lies on the applicants to leave us without any doubt as to what motivated them?