MR MBANDAZAYO
Mr Chairman, the two applicants are applying for amnesty in respect of the death of Mr Khungwane.  Mr Chairman, there is no dispute that on the 20th Mr Khungwane was shot dead by Mr Mvijane.  Now, the point has to be decided by the Committee as to whether what was done by Mr Mvijane was associated with political objective or was it politically motivated.
	Mr Chairman, I submit that Mr Mvijane has taken the Committee to his confidence.  He told the Committee of his past, that he was indeed a criminal and he was not a very good child from the beginning.  He did not listen to his parents and as a result he has been convicted twice for very serious offences before he met this Moss, this APLA cadre.  And, Mr Chairman, he does not hide it that he was still new and he did not know a lot, but he was just told elementary things which of course is clear from him that he did not even understand them fully, but he was told who the enemy is.  And as a result of that he acted on the 20th and it resulted to the death of Mr Khungwane.  And they took the firearm and they left with the firearm, and they gave it to Moss.
	And finally, Mr Chairman, it ended up to the tragic incident where even Doctor, who was with him, ended up dying when they went to the house where Moss was with the police which, Mr Chairman, Mr Khumalo has come and testified that indeed Moss did exist and in fact he was known as Moerapapa within the PAC circles and within APLA.  Mr Chairman, taking that and linking the whole incident up to the incident where Mr Moss was cornered, it becomes, Mr Chairman, very clear that though Mr Mvijane, the applicant, was a criminal, but in this instance, but in this instance, he acted with another motive other than the motive of a criminal.  If one would accept the evidence and also what has been said by the family of the deceased, that the deceased was always in that spot helping children to cross the street, if he was such a criminal that there was nothing more than that he should have killed him long time ago, because it's clear that this person is known according to the family, and that he's always helping there and he was studying around there.  So, he was known that he's a traffic cop.  If that's the case, I submit, Mr Chairman, that if he had that criminal mind, motive, he should have killed him long time ago.  And to his favour, as he told the Committee that he was a criminal, but it was the first time, this is remarkable, the first time that he killed somebody.  It was for the first time, and first time that he realised that he had also a gun with him.  That in itself, Mr Chairman, I submit that it shows that on the day in question he acted with a different motive, which was a political motive.
	Mr Chairman, he does not hide that he is the person who killed the deceased and how he killed him, and I submit that in that respect and what happened thereafter in that respect he has made full and proper disclosure regarding the incident.
	Mr Chairman, I would like to tie it with Mr Khwankwa.  Mr Mvijane testified before this Committee that he was not there.  He said it many a times, and also himself, he testified and to extent if one listened to the family, the brother, it's clear that he knows that he was not there, but unfortunately he was in a bad company.  And also, Mr Chairman, if you look at the record, the witness, the young boy who knew Mvijane said also in court that he was not there.  Though of course the outcome of the case were different.  The Judge take into account that he's a young boy and took into account what was said by Mr Zulu, that they came to his house and said that they did that.  But, Mr Chairman, if you take it in conjunction with what the brother of the deceased has told this Committee, that he was not there and also what was said in Court by the eyewitness who was there, and also what has been said by him that, "I went there".  Definitely if he was there, the young boy would have said, "Here is the other person who committed this offence".
	And as such, I want this Committee to accept it, his version, that he understood the filling the application for amnesty that he has to say that what has transpired in court, that he was involved, not that what he put in the application form was to mislead the Committee about what happened.  And he has also put it clear that he associated himself with what had happened, because they have been told by Moss that those people are the targets.  Though he was not there, he associated himself and he assisted them in evading the arrest, because had he not gone there to check who was there, who noticed them, they would have been caught napping in that house with those arms, all of them.  But unfortunately, because of his efforts, he told them that, "We have to move", and they moved.
	And, Mr Chairman, on that basis, that it has been canvassed and Mr Khumalo, as he also came before this Committee and testified that indeed what Mr Mvijane and Mr Khwankwa are saying is true, because he was told by Moss that he recruited, as he put it, lumpins, that is criminals, and that they were involved in this mission, and because they did not understand, they were not well versed with everything within APLA, they led to police where he was.  And I want the Committee to accept that if there is no contrary evidence to what has been led by the applicants, that indeed Moss was an APLA cadre and indeed he recruited them being criminals and he was still teaching them about the PAC and he recruited them to APLA units, which was the underground - it was an underground structure then.  They were still operating as they have not yet suspended the armed struggle.
	And taking that, Mr Chairman, in totality, the whole evidence which has been led here, I submit that the applicants have complied with the requirements of section 20 and subsection 1 and subsection 2, that on the day in question, on the 20th of August 1991, they were acting on behalf of APLA, a publicly known political organisation in the liberation movement which was engaged in the political struggle against the State at the time.  And I submit, Mr Chairman, that also that the applicants did not act for personal gain or out of personal malice, ill-will or spite directed against the deceased.  It is quite clear also, according to them, the evidence they led, that they have no personal knowledge of him and that when they saw him they merely acted because of the information and the instruction they have, that they have to repossess arms to be used by APLA.  And on that basis, Mr Chairman, I request that the applicants be granted amnesty in terms of the Act.  Thank you, Mr Chairman.