MR KINCAID
Sorry Advocate Sandi, the basis of their convictions essentially were on an application of the doctrine of common purpose and they've come before you as individual applicants expanding their personal motive in committing these attacks.  What they've said to the Committee is "this is why I did it, I concede that there were items taken which belies the political motive but I didn't have any control over that, I wasn't party to it, if that did happen it was done by others in the group."  Now if you're looking at - if you're applying the criminal law to such a scenario then there is no difficulty in confirming the properness of their conviction but the question for consideration for this Committee is vastly different from that facing the trial judge in the trial scenario.  Here we have to look at their motive and the lie to the motive would be if it had been established that he personally had taken some of those common household goods and my submission merely is that that wasn't established.  He wasn't found in possession of any of those items, his conviction was on the basis of common purpose.
	The applicant Umsianda Nunu fired two shots, one which struck Joe Senti and one which struck Mr Pretorius.  He has given a reason for the circumstances, he's explained the circumstances, he's given a reason for discharging the firearm.  His conviction was proper in proper in law, my submission is that this Committee will take into account the circumstances in which he fired that shot and the fact, it will focus it's attention at him.  He would have been a young boy of about sixteen given a firearm and I suppose to instil discipline in a man of such an age and to oblige him to stick by the strict rule of a mandate would have been an impossible task so Umsianda Nunu was fallible given that critical moment.  Now it's my submission that he didn't cause the death of Mr Cobus or of Mr Pretorius.  All the applicants envisaged the fact that a firearm may well have to be used.  It's use by Nunu Umsianda was not the manner or the fashion in which the group intended or he intended.  My submission in respect of him is that it is difficult to conceive of how he would qualify for amnesty in respect of count 11 but in respect of the other counts my submission is that he has essentially made a full and true disclosure.
	And final applicant, Mr Chairman, is that of Jimmy Nokawusana.  His case is very much the same as that of the previous applicant.  He was also convicted on the count of robbing Mrs Marulia of firearms and household goods.  That is the only conviction which deprives the political motive of some force.  He was similarly convicted of robbing Mrs Clackers but there is nothing to suggest like Umsianda Ntonga that Jimmy was found in possession of these firearms - no, in possession of items not of a weapon or arm nature and in respect of count 11 I find it difficult to concede the base upon which he can qualify for amnesty but in respect of the other attacks on the farmers there's nothing to suggest that he wasn't heeding the call of the community that the attacks on the farmers were done with the purpose of intimidation and of driving them from the farms and of robbing them of firearms so in my respectful submission with the exception of count 11 this applicant too is entitled to amnesty.
	Mr Chairman, those essentially are my submissions, if there's anything in particular I shall address it.