MR DE KLERK
Thank you Mr Chairman.  Be that as it may, I don't want to go too much into the facts.  Commission has listened to all the facts.  The problems regarding these sort of applications is usually the political motive, was there any order or was it on behalf of a political party or organisation.  Clearly in these circumstances, according to the evidence of the applicant, there was a political motive.  The question usually now derives and that is usually the problem of these situations where we can accept that there was a - let's call it, the applicant also called it - a war situation on the ground.  The situation perceived at that stage differs from any other situation in a normal community.  The dynamics of that situation was two groups fighting with each other.  The one group and it doesn't matter how we look at it, the one group trying to overpower the other group.
	In this situation and dynamics, the one group will decide to attack the other group and kill people because that will benefit them in some or other way.  In these circumstances the applicant said no, it was done to take away the threat.  So the motive is clear, the take away the person which they perceived as the person supplying firearms would have been to a great benefit for his party, his community and even as he thought at that stage, his government.
	Then to say, well he didn't have a political motive, well we're almost saying well in a war situation there's two groups and one group wants to overpower the other and somebody dies according to that, there's no political motive, it just can't be.  Now the question is usually asked, the IFP especially in those circumstances, had a policy of non-violence.  So anybody that was a member of the IFP that had to live in these circumstances where we all know that people died, IFP died and ANC people died, that because they belonged to a party which officially said that there should not be violence, that makes any act of a member of that party doing something against that party's policy because that is not really true because the political party at that stage said and it was said by many of the leaders that the people may protect themself.  
	If these members now say well, we have to protect ourselves and by protecting ourselves we have to take out the persons that is involved in killing us, what is he doing against what his party is telling him?