MR VISSER
Mr Chairman, we refer you again to the general argument, which we presented to you and we would ask you to bear that in mind in the present instance as well.
	Mr Chairman, the facts of the present incident bear a close resemblance to the Cele matter.  We submit, with respect, that the facts are basically for purposes of your deliberations on whether to grant amnesty or not on all four in the two matters and therefore the arguments which we presented in the Cele matter, would find application, in our respectful submission, also in the Tekere matter.
	The one difference here Mr Chairman, is the fact that this is the one instance where the operatives who gave evidence before you really only acted on orders from Col Taylor.  We are in a sense fortunate that he did divulge some information to the three witnesses who appeared before you and that it was not one of the cases which we have come across where the operative simply obtained an order without any explanation at all.  They were therefore in a position to give you some background on Mr Tekere.  As far as they are concerned, Chairperson, we submit that they have made full disclosure of their knowledge, although it may not be full disclosure of all the facts, but of course they can only tell you what they know.  
	Mr Chairman, with respect, we have dealt at length with the question of the giving or orders in previous addresses to you and we related that to the general war situation of the conflict of the past and we believe, with respect, that it has been accepted, that in certain circumstances, as long as a person, an operative believed that he acted or should act on orders, that he would fall at least under the provisions of Section 20 sub-section 2 sub-section little (f).
	Mr Chairman, of course many questions will arise on the facts and one would have wanted, one would have preferred to have known a lot more about Mr Tekere and what Mr Taylor knew about his activities, one would certainly have liked to have known the answers to some of the questions put by members of your Committee.  When was he arrested?  How long had he been detained?  Who arrested him?  What were the circumstances?  Was he arrested and found in possession of weapons or explosives?  We don't know the answers to all of that Chairperson and sadly, as we indicated before to you, before consultation could come about, he had passed away.
	Mr Chairman, we really have very little to add except for the issue on the question of whether Tekere was found in possession of a bomb.  We're talking about events which took place 10 years ago and the witnesses whom you heard, Mr Chairman, did deviate to some extent, albeit it slightly, from each other in what they recalled from what Mr Taylor told them.  Now, may I immediately submit to you that that is the kind of differences which one would expect from honest witnesses to make.  They could quite easily, if they wanted to be dishonest about their recollection, have colluded and all told you exactly the same story, but they chose not to do so, they told you what they remember of what they were told and the expression of what their recollection was, differs.  But Mr Chairman, when the witnesses tell you that Taylor told them that Tekere was arrested while on his way to plant bombs, that's how they remember it.  Mr Taylor, and again we immediately place the qualification that when he completed his application forms according to evidence which we have heard before, he was forgetful, he was a very ill man but he puts it somewhat differently at page 4 of the original bundle, in his amnesty application and I would read that to you, Mr Chairman, he says that,
"Tekere was an ANC operative who was caught while on a mission to place bombs in the Durban area."
Now that's a slightly different expression, and it's page 4 Mr Chairman and it's under incident 17, the death of Tekere and it is line 5 of that paragraph, so we were well aware that Mr Taylor expressed it slightly differently, but what you heard here, Mr Chairman, was the way in which these witnesses remembered it and they stick to that evidence, even after this had been put to them in consultation.  They told you what they remembered.  
	We submit, Mr Chairman, that in the light of the events of Mr Taylor having, being now deceased, in the light of the time that has passed since the incident, that you will not hold any deviation in the evidence among these three witnesses, against them.  There are also explanations, one is that Vorster spoke to Taylor on two occasions and he says he can't remember what was said at which occasion and particularly what was said when Wasserman and du Preez were present.  Wasserman told you something which Vorster and du Preez didn't tell you and that was the question of the askaris, which they didn't know about.  His explanation for that is that his understanding of Afrikaans was poor and that he asked for elucidation and as he recalls, that took place not in the presence of Vorster and du Preez, so Mr Chairman, we're talking about matters which transpired a long time ago and these are possible solutions to the answers, to the questions as to why they remember matters differently, but at the end of the day, Mr Chairman, our submission is that these conflicts or contradictions, if you wish to call them that, are not material and that they do not detract from the fact that in fact they support the fact, support the submission that these people wanted and in fact did come to this Committee to make a full disclosure of all the relevant facts.  
	They acted, Mr Chairman, on the instructions of Mr Taylor, who was a very senior officer, who had been involved in terrorist investigations and activities for a long time, who had arrested many, many people, certainly did not kill all of them, many, many more were put through the legal process, through the courts etc and therefore we would ask you to accept that when Mr du Preez said that he had faith in Mr Taylor's decision when he had decided that a certain avenue had to be followed, that he would have considered all possible possibilities and options.
	Mr Chairman, unless there is something you specifically wish to hear me on, we have no further submissions to make, other than to ask you that, to deal with this matter on basically the same basis as the Cele matter and to favourably consider the amnesty applications. 	As far as the abduction or unlawful arrest is concerned, Mr Chairman, with respect we have thought about it and we are going to submit to you that you should in your wisdom, also consider granting them amnesty for as far as they become socio crimini after the event of the abduction, because they all told you that it was pretty clear to them that the man wasn't under a normal arrest and logic would prescribe that it couldn't have been Mr Chairman, because in a normal arrest, the person would be taken to the police station, he would be registered as an arrestee, his name would be entered in cell registers, he would be put in a cell until bail could be arranged and he would be arraigned within 48 hours.  It is hardly likely that Tekere would have been taken out of a cell by Mr Taylor and then, on his orders be eliminated, because one wonders how one would be able to explain the non-return of the body of Mr Tekere to the cell after having taken him out.  So we submit, Mr Chairman, it would be in order for you to consider granting them amnesty also for the abduction or perhaps unlawful arrest, we're not certain what happened there because we have no knowledge, Mr Chairman.