MR SWART
That is correct, but then in their evidence the motive is expanded into say that it was not only firearms, but anything else which could, cash or other valuables which could be sold.  Now, it seems to me just that that is possibly a convenient explanation for what happened.  One would have expected that the first and the second applicants whose motives appear on their amnesty applications clearly, would have also said that we were, our motive was to go and ransack the farmhouse, take what we could get, because we so urgently needed firearms that we were all out to take whatever we could get and it seems to me that the explanations given here were so as to explain away, to make it acceptable that there was actually a robbery.
	Then if one looks, secondly, at the context in respect of the second and the third applicants as regards the murders.  It is so that they were part of the group, but that the second applicant had specifically asked that the gardener not be shot.  As a group they, unfortunately, have to bear some of the brunt of what happened in the group. 
	The third criteria, the legal and factual nature, I will not go into that.  Then again the object or objective against which was directed, that the same arguments apply as in respect of the first applicant excepting that it could be argued in their favour, I suppose, that the stuff was stolen from a farmer, but the lives were taken of people who were their own compatriots.  
	Then sub-section E and that is, again, what, if they were acting within the execution of an order or with the approval of the organisation.  My submission is in this case I am not convinced that their organisation would have approved of them taking anything more than firearms.  They said that this was their motive and the text which has been supplied speaks specifically of firearms.  I think that it has just been convenient for them to say to this Committee, well, we took anything else as well to buy firearms with.  On that same point there was the evidence of the first applicant who bought a firearm for R50,00.  So there were ways and means of, other ways and means of getting firearms without killing people and that also applies then to sub-section F which is the relationship between what happened and the objective which they were pursuing and especially the proportionality of that act.  Whether it was necessary to go to these lengths to kill people, in their case not directly, but to then ransack a house go beyond the scope of their direct order.  I do not think, I think it is disproportional.  
	Then lastly there is the question of personal gain.  If the Committee should find that it was outside the scope of what was said in the Tambo text, that they should steal firearms, they actually took jewellery and cash as well.  The jewellery they say they bought firearms with, but the cash they used for expenses.  Now, is that not personal gain?