MR BRINK
Indeed.  It also follows, that is the principle conclusion to be drawn, but a fairly important conclusion is also that the account given by the applicant that they intended merely to drop them off, drop the police off in a dark and remote spot, must be false.
	That is a lie.  Mr Chairman and Honourable members of the Panel, I could move along then to where the alleged disarming took place and the shooting, etc.
	The impression given although this was not foreshadowed in the affidavit supporting this application, but the impression given by the first applicant was that car trouble created a distraction, permitting the policemen to cease the opportunity to disarm one of the guards as it were, shoot him and try to make the escape.
	I would respectfully underscore that the omission of this detail in regard to the opportunity generated, should count against the first applicant and it makes it, it throws in doubt the truth of this allegation.
	It is true that his co-applicants talk about car trouble in their application forms, but there is a different spin on the story in the application forms.  The suggestion there seems to be that while, and I quote "while we were concentrating on that problem", this mechanical problem "both policemen disarmed one member".
	I am aware that the applicant sought to tap dance a way around this, but the fact is that the strong impression created by the plain language employed in the application form, strong impression is that it was during a time that this mechanical problem was attended to, that the two policemen did what they were alleged to have done.
	I would urge the Panel to find that this claim, that there was any car trouble at all, is false.  It is a rouse, it is just a concocted tale of cock and bull to provide what was intended to be a credible explanation for how it came to be that the policemen found a gap as it were.
	The evidence is that this was a dark night, it was pitch black, it was unlit.  The policemen, their silhouettes apparently were seen although the first applicant had difficulty explaining how in the absence of light, but their silhouettes apparently were seen and they were shot after.
	It is common cause that both bodies of the deceased policemen showed numerous bullet wounds.  The post-mortem of Sergeant Ngubo was put up, it came to hand in the middle of the proceedings and the allegations of Sergeant Mbhele's brother were admitted.
	What Sergeant Mbhele's brother observed, significantly, were shots in the front of, a single shot in the front of his brother's body, four in the back and five in the forehead area.
	It has been suggested that the five shots in the forehead could have been caused by a shotgun blast.  That is not what his brother observed, he observed one in the front, four in the back and five in the forehead.
	Having regard to the rest of the improbabilities of the applicants' account, I would ask this Panel to find as a fact that Sergeant Mbhele was shot at close range to account for the close grouping of shots at least in his forehead.  The number of shots in  his back, similarly would suggest that he was close by.  It seems inconceivable that he could have sustained all these grouped bullet wounds in the back and in the forehead, had he been a considerable distance from the applicants as he fled from them.
	The five in the forehead are damning and the only reasonable conclusion that this Panel can draw, is that he was shot at close quarters as he faced these people.  What is more, it was put - I don't know whether this is formerly admitted, but I will raise it any way, it was put that two of Sergeant Mbhele's fingers were visible severed, they were dangling and that would suggest, it is speculative I can see it, but it would suggest that he held up his hand to try and protect himself vainly.
	We also have it (indistinct) this claim that there was no struggle and no violence before the shooting, we also have it that Sergeant Mbhele's teeth, front teeth were smashed, were broken.  That would suggest that a blow with a blunt instrument, he wasn't after all shot in the throat, it would suggest that he was struck in the face, in the mouth, before all this.
	It is consistent with the objective hard evidence of struggle at the police station.
	I would highlight first applicant's, I think this might go for all of them, I have to check, but I would highlight first applicant's lie to this Commission when making his application to the effect that he was a soldier of Umkonto We Sizwe.
	He stated pertinently in giving evidence in chief that he was no such, and that he was merely a non-ranking man of no particular command responsibility, a non-ranking member of a community Self Defence Unit.
	He, it is not a nice distinction, a mere semantic difference, this is a hard discrepancy which was exposed during the cross-examination and it makes him a liar on this point.
	If the Panel will bear with me.  Then there is the discrepancy as between the accounts, because the discrepancy stands unresolved between the accounts given in the versions set out in the application forms of two of the first applicant's co-applicants.  The discrepancy between the claim that the men were fired on, shot down as they were running away as against the allegation that and I quote "we cornered and shot them at different directions".
	This is wholly irreconcilable, no matter how much neat foot work they attempted, wholly irreconcilable with the scenario described in evidence in chief, namely the policemen were fleeing, they had covered about 55 metres and they were shot at with the bullets really following the same direction, from the police allegedly from one, and from the applicants from the other.