MR BRINK
I shall be brief, because so much has been covered by my colleagues.  I am in a lucky position, I do not have to keep you very long.  I deal firstly with the first applicant, that is Mr Maxam.
	It is my submission that this killing was not or these killings, rather, were not political.  He killed in an irrational manner and, on his own evidence, to avoid being identified which has all the hallmarks of a common law housebreaking and robbery.  I do not dispute that he was a political activist.  I do not dispute that the main motive was to go to the farm to get firearms, but he does not qualify for amnesty, in my submission, in respect of the murders.  If the Committee accepts his evidence, (A), that he and others went to the farmhouse in order to obtain firearms and that he, the first applicant, merely stole the bullets in the little red box which he spoke about, then it may well be that he qualifies for amnesty on the housebreaking matter.  
	As far as the second and third applicants are concerned, my difficulty is that, which I share with Judge Wilson, with respect, and raised by him during my colleague, Mr Lourens's argument, and that is these two applicants had denied, notwithstanding the factual findings to the contrary by the trial court, have denied that they were in any way party to the murders of the two deceased.  They have said so here and if that is so they cannot, in terms of the Act, qualify for amnesty in respect of those murders.  If they say, notwithstanding the fact, that I was found, we were found guilty of these murders, but we had nothing to do with them.  It is unfortunate, but they cannot qualify.