MOKOTEDI MPSHE
Thank you.  Mr Chairman, the paragraphs open up by saying whether a particular act, omission or offence contemplated in Section 2 is an act associated with a political objective, shall be decided with reference to the following criteria.
	The Act specifically says it shall be decided with reference to the following criteria.  The first one is that the motive of the person who committed the act, omission or offence and by motive there, I want to believe we understand nothing else but the reason for him to do what he has done, this is on record as to why he did what he did.  I don't want to belabour this point.
	(b) Mr Chairman, the context in which the act, omission or offence took place and in particular whether the act, omission or offence was committed in the course of or as part of a political uprising, disturbance or event or in relation thereto.  There is overwhelming evidence, we have seen the video, we have listened to evidence, there was an upheaval, there was an uprising at that particular moment.
	(c) the legal and factual nature of the act, omission or offence, including the gravity of the act, omission or offence.  I don't want to belabour that one Mr Chairman, there is enough legal and factual nature to which testimony has been given.
	Mr Chairman, paragraph (d) the object or objective of the act, omission or offence and in particular whether the act, omission or offence was primarily directed at a political opponent or State property or personal or against private property or individuals.
	May I single out the word political opponent?  Mr Chairman, the evidence is to the effect that the applicant killed the three AWB members and the questions as well as the argument by my learned friend was to the effect, why did you kill them.
	May I state that in my view Mr Chairman, with respect, the three AWB members in terms of the evidence taken as a whole, were seen by the applicant as a political opponent in that there was that unrest within the Bophuthatswana government then, unrest which was targeting the change of government to bring about a change, to bring about a democratic government, and the people, the AWB people came in to stop the change.
	Now, one cannot deny the existence of politics there.  Mr Menyatsoe should be seen to have perceived them as political opponents, because they are opposing the political move which the people of the then Bophuthatswana had and that is the change of government.
	Mr Chairman, paragraph (e), I have already touched on this one when I was dealing with the full disclosure and the question of him being an ANC supporter Mr Chairman.  I don't want to belabour that.  May I skip that one.
	Paragraph (f) Mr Chairman, in particular the keyword is proportionality.  Can we say that the act of the applicant is not proportionate to what was taking place then?
	I would be tempted Mr Chairman, to say that if one person, only one person was injured on that particular day, then Mr Menyatsoe would not qualify in terms of this particular paragraph, in that his act would not be seen to be (indistinct) with what was happening at that time.
	But we have evidence Mr Chairman and Members of the Committee, and we heard evidence viva voce from Mr Menyatsoe that shootings were going on, we viewed the video footage that showed people lying sprawled on pavements in the town, blood all over the place and we have heard evidence that close to 40 people were killed on that particular day.  Can we really say proportionality kicks Mr Menyatsoe's application out?  I would say no Mr Chairman.
	Mr Chairman, I think that is all that I want to say.  Your minds have been clouded by quite lengthy arguments from all sides, I want to rest here unless if the Committee wants to hear me on any particular aspect raised, thank you.