MR NYOKA
I am coming logically to that.
	If at all he only interrogated and assaulted Mr Jack on the 12th of August, why did he wait for about 10 days before he interrogated him?  My instructions from Mr Jack were not to oppose Mr Nieuwoudt's application, on the following two grounds.
	The first one, that Mr Jack, unlike other victims of apartheid atrocities, did not lose any life or limb, as a result of the assaults by the applicant.
	Secondly, that we greatly appreciated his application as initial and honest gesture towards reconciliation, in particular towards one of the institutions of our young democracy being the TRC.
	However, it seems as if the applicant is mocking the process by embarking on sterile half truths. He seems to have decided - and this is the answer, Mr Chairman - he will be man enough to go it alone in his decision to seek amnesty. In so doing, conceal the role of his colleagues by changing the facts to suit that isolated event where he had not assaulted Mr Jack, but interrogated him.  Perhaps trying to avoid any criminal prosecution against them.
	We wish to say that none of the security laws and states of emergencies of the previous regime, gave the security police or anyone exclusively or implicitly the right or perhaps the duty to assault detainees. However, draconian those laws there.
	Security officers, like Mr Nieuwoudt, who did so, knew fully well, as he has confessed, that it was not outside the law to do so, but they were acting above the law. It was not in advancement of the interests of the National Party, but because it was enjoyable to do so.  As Lord Acton stated:
"Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely."
The immense security legislation corrupted the security police of the previous regime.  
	Consequently, whilst the application is defective or non-compliance of the legal requirements of the Act, we are still not opposing it, and we leave the decision to grant or refuse the amnesty in the able hands of the Commission.
	Thank you.  (Applause).