MR SMUTS
Acts of defence were not contrary to the policy of the African National Congress, they were not unlawful, they were perfectly legitimate, that is so.  It stretches the imagination to the point of breaking, Mr Chairman, to believe that three days after the assassination of Mr Hani in Boksburg, the murder of two fishermen and the attempted murder of another fishermen and two children at Mpande, could in any sane society be regarded as an act of defence.  My submission is then, those actions were prima facie in conflict with the policy, the stated policy of the African National Congress even if one were to accept that this was a politically motivated act.
	In the absence of an order and it is an instruction from superiors which has in quite horrific cases nonetheless qualified applicants for amnesty.  In the absence of an order from superiors it is my submission that these applicants acting as they did, knowing that their party was committed to a policy of non-violence, could not and did not believe that they were bona fide acting in furtherance of a political struggle waged by their organisation.
	Mr Chairman, an illustration of the effect of an absence of an order emerges from the amnesty decision in the matter of Dawid Petrus Botha which is application 57/1996 where Advocate De Jager was a member of the Committee and the majority decision there granted amnesty to the two AWB sub-ordinates in consequence of the instruction that they had received from Botha but refused the application of Botha on the basis that he acted without any instruction.