Amnesty Hearings

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: I am reminding you that you are still under the oath you took yesterday. Do you appreciate that?

MOSES VELI LLALE: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Dorfling.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DORFLING: (cont)

Thank you Mr Chair, Honourable members of the Committee. Mr Llale yesterday at the conclusion of these proceedings at the time of the adjournment we were dealing with your application and the fact that the person with the AK47 whom you mentioned in your evidence here does not appear in your application. You explained that you at that point in time understood that you were going to give evidence in a court of law and that you would explain it more fully, the nature of the attack and the individual with the AK47. However at that time you had already also lodged your application for amnesty. Do you agree with that?

MR LLALE: Yes.

MR DORFLING: One of the legal requirements for an application for amnesty is that you must make full disclosure of all the relevant facts. Didn't you perceive in your mind that fact to be relevant for purposes of your application for amnesty?

MR LLALE: To the Committee I would like to respond in zulu.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes please proceed.

MR LLALE: At the time when I was applying for amnesty.

MR DORFLING: I am sorry Mr Chair my microphone didn't work and I will just try another one. If the Committee will just bear with me for a minute. Could I please just ask the last portion of the answer to be repeated for purposes of. Could I just ask the last answer to be repeated. My one microphone I had on didn't work.

MR LAX: The only thing he said so far is; "At the time I applied for amnesty," and he is about to continue from there.

MR DORFLING: Thank you Mr Committee member.

MR LLALE: When I lodged my application for amnesty the statement that was supporting the amnesty application, the affidavit it is the one that I had already submitted earlier on and had given it to the Court. So I did not add any more information besides the statement that I had lodged earlier on. I think I have explained it.

MR DORFLING: But Mr Llale the fact of the presence of the gentleman with the AK47 who you perceived to have attacked you was of vital importance. That constituted the ground for you being able to fire back at the crowd. Why is that not in the amnesty application?

MR LLALE: I tried to answer that question yesterday to the effect that when I wrote my statement I did not write as to who was doing what at what time. I just laid a general background as to what was happening at that time. That is why even in my application I pointed out that I shot at a group of marchers but I did not particularly point out as to who was doing what at what time. I think that satisfies me.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Mr Llale is your explanation to the question that the affidavit that accompanied your application for amnesty is the one that had been prepared either for the inquest or for the Attorney General and that you did not find a further affidavit. Is that what you are saying?

MR LLALE: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: You did find a further affidavit now didn't you supplementing that affidavit didn't you?

MR LLALE: The supplementary one?

JUDGE NGCOBO: Yes.

MR LLALE: Was submitted after the inquest. So I thought maybe he was saying why didn't I feathered my application with the application before I went to the inquest. I must have misunderstood it.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Yes I understand that but I think the point I wanted to clarify is that indeed on I think if the certificate that is on the affidavit is anything to go by it, it indicates that you made an affidavit on the 23rd of April this year. A further affidavit.

MR LLALE: Yes I did (...indistinct)

MR DORFLING: Now Mr Llale apart from your affidavit that was submitted for purposes of the inquest hearing which is contained at pages 109 to 112 of bundle C you had the opportunity to by way of the Ronio application form also submit further details as to relevant facts. Why didn't you submit or why didn't you in that papers make mention of the gentleman with the AK47?

MR LLALE: With regard to the second submission to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission we were called by our attorneys and they told us about the medical as well as the ballistic evidence in the reports. They also showed us and wanted to find out whether we were in agreement with the ballistic reports as well as the medical evidence. We agreed that is why I found it not to be necessary for us o include the man with the AK47 because I knew at that time that the evidence would not be - can I repeat the interpreter didn't hear me well. I can hear?

MR LAX: Sorry you missing the thrust of the question. The question was about the Ronio form not about your supplementary affidavits or other affidavits you may have handed in. He was asking you about the application form and why you didn't put these details in the application form. And you are now answering about affidavits you made long after the inquest. So just to help you, you have misunderstood the thrust of his question. Do you understand what I am putting to you?

MR LLALE: Yes but I want to know which form? This one.

MR LAX: According to that form precisely page 102 onwards. He is saying why didn't you put the details of this man with the AK47 in that form even though you handed in the statement that you had used in the inquest where you had omitted that detail? Why didn't you put that detail in this form that you are holding in your hand? Have I put it correctly Mr Dorfling?

MR DORFLING: Indeed thank you Mr Committee member. If I may just explain Mr Llale. The reason I am putting that to you is you had the opportunity when making application to make full disclosure. If you say that the affidavit that is attached to your application was more for purposes of the inquest I am asking you why then in your application where you had the opportunity to put that in a Ronio form, why didn't you disclose that in the Ronio form?

MR LLALE: No I do understand you but what I am trying to say is when I applied I did refer to a group of marchers. I did not point out to certain individuals. That is why I did not find it crucial or very important for me to specifically refer to this man.

MR TIPP:: Chairperson can I object to this point. My submission is that this line of cross-examination is particularly unfair of the witness. If one has regard to Section 20 of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act my understanding is that the Committee must be satisfied with certain things after considering an application for amnesty. My submission is that what is happening now is part of the consideration of an application for amnesty. It is not just the form that the person puts in.

CHAIRPERSON: I think there is no difficulty about that. I think an explanation is sought as to whether he has any reason why he did not put it in the form. He may have an explanation as to why and I think he is trying to offer an explanation that he did not find it crucial at the time he filled in his form. He did not find it as crucial for him to mention it or words to that effect.

MR TIPP: Indeed Chairperson but my learned friend started off this line of questioning with the comment that one of the requirements for amnesty is that there must be full disclosure. That requirement seems to be at the end of the proceedings not.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand that, we understand that. We understand that we had been offered an explanation and maybe he wants to develop that explanation. Maybe this is his only explanation that at that time he did not regard this as crucial. Maybe you can carry on from there and clear up the situation.

MR DORFLING: Mr Chair may I just very briefly respond to the comment made by my learned friend. One of the possibilities that might exist is that a Committee for amnesty might grant amnesty without a public hearing.

CHAIRPERSON: Not that there has been a gross violations of human rights.

MR DORFLING: Yes but that possibility certainly exists.

CHAIRPERSON: But I don't think you should labour the point.

MR DORFLING: I would rather leave this for argument. I would like to move on to another point which (...intervention)

JUDGE NGCOBO: ...(inaudible) what was the question that you directed ...(inaudible)?

MR DORFLING: Mr Chair the question was aimed at asking this witness for a response as to why the fact of the existence of the man with the AK47 was not part of his actual application for amnesty and if not in the affidavit itself why then wasn't it contained in the actual Roneo form that is attached to the affidavit. Seeing that a requirement is that he should make full disclosure. And that is the response I sought from this witness.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Did he answer this question?

MR DORFLING: It seems like the only response forthcoming is that at the time he didn't think it of particular significance or importance to specifically mention that fact. He just dealt with it in general terms. I think that is as Honourable Chair has summed it up. That is the way I understand his response.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes you going to move on to something else now?

MR DORFLING: Indeed Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you do proceed.

MR DORFLING: Mr Llale I am going to be with reference to the record of the inquest proceedings and also with reference to your evidence here today and also yesterday urge this Committee to find that you were untruthful and that you were fabricating certain portions of your evidence. I am going to be dealing with certain aspects that appear from the record and from your evidence here on which I will base my argument that you are fabricating. I want you to have the opportunity to respond to these questions so that you have had the opportunity to fully explain these what appeared to me to be contradictions and self-contradictions in your own evidence.

Can I first of all enquire from you whether you saw Mr Molefe, Jakwe whether you saw him firing any shots on the parapet?

MR LLALE: Yes I did.

CHAIRPERSON: (...indistinct) as distinct of having heard Molefe fire instead of seeing him fire.

MR DORFLING: I am asking specifically whether he saw Molefe firing Mr Chair.

MR LLALE: I said yes.

MR DORFLING: I want to put it to you that at the time of the inquest you contradicted yourself. At one stage you said that you did not see him fire the shots and at a later stage you changed your evidence to say that you did see him fire the shots. And I would like to refer you to the record for this proposition. And I am going to contend that the reason there are these contradictions is because you are untruthful. Can we first of all look at the record page 3731 lines 5 to 29. Have you got it in front of you Mr Llale?

MR LLALE: You said 3731?

MR DORFLING: Indeed lines 5 to 29. And I would like to read it to you. Maybe I should start at line 6

"Now how far were you from Jakwe?"

And there is an intervention, Court:

"No sorry when it hits the parapet itself do you mean the wall of the parapet? --- Yes the wall"

That is at the time when the shots were coming in your direction when it hit the parapet wall and on this portion of your evidence when you were standing close to Jakwe at the corners of King George and de Villiers Street.

"How far were you from Jakwe when you fired your shots? --- About a distance from these two walls.

About 15 metres? "

And there is no audible reply.

"Would you be able to explain why he said in his evidence that you were a metre away from him when you fired your shots? --- Could you ask the question again please?

Would you be able to explain why he would say that you were a metre away from him when you fired your shots? That is on page 2972. --- Well I would not know why he said so.

Well what is the truth? Were you 15 metres away from him or 1 metre away from him when you fired your shots? --- Mmm my version is correct.

And you actually saw him firing these shots did you not? ---Who are you speaking about?

Did you see Jakwe firing the AK47? --- I heard the firing of AK47.

So is it then correct that you did not see him firing the AK47? --- Yes because I was already facing away from him, running away.

When he fired both volleys of shots you did not see him firing those shots? --- Yes."

Now that was the one portion of your evidence where you said you did not see Molefe firing. On another occasion at pages 3734 and further you again said you did see him firing. If you could turn to page 3734 from lines 11 to 14. You were being cross-examined by Mr Ferreira: -

"Mr Llale just to recap on where we ended off on Friday. Is it then correct that you did not see Jakwe firing you merely heard the shots? --- I saw him shoot and after that I turned my back towards him."

Do you see that?

MR LLALE: Yes.

MR DORFLING: And then lastly if I may refer you to 3735 from lines 6 to page 3737 line 7. Mr Ferrera is now asking you why there was this difference in your evidence from the Friday to the Monday. Friday you said you did not see him firing and on the Monday you said you did see him firing

"Then why did you say on Friday that you did not see him firing and you gave reasons why you could not see him firing referring to your evidence that you were facing with you back towards Mr Molefe? --- That is why I say your question was confusing because I had replied to a similar question earlier on.

But what could have been confusing Sir it was a direct question? --- I might have misunderstood the question.

No but you see Sir it is not possible because if we just look at the previous question on the same page you were asked specifically did you see Jakwe firing the AK47? Your reply: 'I heard the firing of the AK47.' --- Yes I am sorry I replied wrongly to your question because it confused me because when Jakwe fired I was very much next to him and I had to turn my back towards him."

Here again you placing yourself next to Molefe. It is yet another contradiction. Previously you said some 15 metres away.

"Before or after he fired? --- When he started firing.

Because you see Sir the last question on that page then reads as follows: 'When he fired both volleys of shots you did not see him firing those shots? --- Yes.' Now is that the truth? --- Well I have conceded that I have made a mistake and I apologize and I think you should accept my apology.

I am putting this to you Sir to give you an opportunity. I am putting it to you that this is a clear reflection of your untruthfulness. You kept on changing your evidence.

MR LLALE: Can I respond Sir. I think you are only reading the only side that favours you only. In the court the Judge on that day gave me an opportunity to explain to these two versions that are coming up now and I had actually I am the one who stopped him and said: "Sir can I explain this?" Because at that court I was explaining yes, no, yes, no. In page 3761 in my evidence in court I was given a chance to explain this. I don't know whether do you have it. It is 3761

"Mr Llale let me just get one part clear which now I am a bit confused about."

This is the Judge.

"Did you see Jakwe or did you see him firing or did you not see him firing? --- I saw him.

Those first two volleys that were shot did you say that you actually saw him firing? You were watching when he had fired both? --- I did not see him fire those two volleys shots. I was next to him when he started firing My Lord then I turn around and went away."

So my explanation to this Committee today is when Jakwe started firing those shots I was very close to him because it was after we heard the fire from the marchers. Then the first shots which was the first volley I heard. Then I had to turn my back and run to the (...indistinct) alcove. And he kept on firing. That is the last volley I didn't hear. This is the explanation I gave and you accepted it in that court. I don't know why today you don't accept it.

MR DORFLING: Are you saying today that you saw the first volley of shots but not the second one?

MR LLALE: This was my final response in that court. And I think here in this Committee I was saying this is my final response. That I only saw the first volley. I didn't see the second volley because I had already turned my back.

MR DORFLING: No but Mr Llale with the greatest respect that is exactly the opposite of what your evidence was in front of Judge Nugent. I was getting to page 3761. You see Mr Justice Nugent asked you specifically

"Mr Llale let me just get one part clear which now I am a bit confused about. Did you see Jakwe or did you see him firing or did you not see him firing?"

Your response: -

"I saw him."

It carries on: -

"Those first two volleys that were shot, do you say that you actually saw him firing? You were watching him when he fired those? (Referring to the two volleys of shots) --- I did not see him fire those two volleys of shots.

Today you have got a third version; you saw the first volley but not the second volley.

MR TIPP: Chairperson with respect that is (...intervention)

JUDGE NGCOBO: Mr Dorfling I think if you read further he does say with fairness to him that he witnessed the first one but didn't the second one. His body had been turned away. I think that is what he said there if you read further down the passage and up to the (...indistinct)

MR DORFLING: Indeed Mr Chair that is what I am trying to convey that witness kept on changing his evidence. He either saw both volleys or he saw no volleys or he saw one volley. He keeps on changing. He goes back and forth with his evidence and that is the point I am trying to convey to this witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Now he can't take the matter any further.

MR TIPP: Chairperson I am sorry. My learned friend put to the witness that he has now come up today with a third version which was not mentioned at the inquest and that is clearly incorrect. As Judge Ngcobo correctly points out. If one reads 3761 and 3762 it is quite clear that the evidence that was given at the inquest was repeated as Mr Llale says today. And my learned friend relies on a sentence which was "I did not see him fire those two volleys of shots." And that is correct. As the witness explains I saw the first one and not the second one. So it is correct to say I did not see the two. So for my learned friend to say that it is a third version is quite incorrect.

MR DORFLING: Yes Mr Chair with respect I think the point I am trying to convey is that there are three different versions and that the witness keeps on changing from the one version to the other. And I am giving him the opportunity to either say which one is correct or to explain the differences in his version. Because I am trying to put forward (...intervention)

JUDGE NGCOBO: Which one do you say, what are those versions?

MR DORFLING: There are actually three versions. 1 that he did not see any one of the two volleys of shots a second one that he did see Molefe firing both volleys of shots and a third one on which version he saw the first volley of shots but not the second.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Isn't it debatable whether the second version that you suggest is a statement by the applicant where he is saying: "I did not see both volleys," and he goes onto to explain that; "what I saw was only one volley"? "When the second one was fired I had turned my back." I think he goes on to explain that.

MR DORFLING: Yes I (...intervention)

JUDGE NGCOBO: Isn't that the context in which one should read that second version that you are suggesting?

CHAIRPERSON: As the proceedings go along it is quite clear that you are not in a position to say what your clients' version is. This is not the kind of situation where you can put to him what your clients' version is, isn't it? You are merely trying to find out why he has given versions which to you seem very different. That is the purpose.

MR DORFLING: No Mr Chair with respect my clients' version is that there was no attack forthcoming from the marchers and this is in other words a fabrication. And that is why there are all these contradictions because it has been fabricated. The version that is going to be put forward by the objectors is that there was no attack. This witness is trying to explain that there was an attack.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, no it is not a question of the attack. The question is whether Molefe fired or did not fire.

MR DORFLING: Ja my clients would not be in a position to say specifically.

CHAIRPERSON: Quite right. So you are merely saying that your version varies. You are putting to him your version varies, you have given different versions?

MR DORFLING: Mr Llale's version is at variance with some of his own evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes alright.

MR DORFLING: May I respond to a question by the Honourable Mr Justice Ngcobo with specific reference to whether the so-called second version cannot be accommodated within the record. In other words there were two volleys of shots but I only saw one. May I with reference to page 3731 respond to that. At page 3731 lines 5 to 29 which I have already referred to. I have read it out already. 3731 from lines 5 to 29 Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't have to read it out. What is the gist of it?

MR DORFLING: From that portion of the record it is quite clear that the witness conveyed that he saw no shots being fired by Mr Molefe be it the first or be it the second volley of shots. To be exact at line 28 and 29.

"When he fired both volleys of shots you did not see him firing those shots?"

And the answer: -

"Yes I did not see any one of those two volleys of shots."

And that is the whole line of the questioning by Mr Ferrera is; "Did you see Mr Molefe firing?" And the response is; "No I did not see him firing." And I think it should be read in that context. This portion should be read together with the other portions I have referred the Honourable Committee.

Mr Llale I would like to move on to another aspect of in my respectful submission conflicting evidence from your side. Did you see any people amongst the marchers firing over and above the person with the AK47? Leave aside the gentleman with the AK47, did you see any other of the marchers firing any shots?

MR LAX: Just be clear Mr Dorfling at what stage you are talking about. The stage of not them firing back and all that stage or earlier on in the day? Because that might crop up again later in the answer and then you will have problems.

MR DORFLING: I want to confine it to specifically the immediately prior to the main shooting incident, at the main shooting incident or immediately thereafter. In other words in the time span in the close proximity of the main shooting incident.

MR LAX: Can we be clear then from the time the two groups approaching that corner merged and onwards.

MR DORFLING: Let me put it this way. From the time that Mr Molefe pointed out the crowd to you approaching from the direction of Wanderers Street in de Villiers Street.

MR LLALE: The question is did I see any pistols? Is that the question?

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) did you see any other person firing?

MR LLALE: No.

MR DORFLING: So as you sit here today you in actual fact never saw anybody firing a shot in that time span?

MR LLALE: Before the main shooting, yes. If you are referring to those who were still coming to the intersection I didn't see anybody firing before the intersection yes.

MR DORFLING: I am dealing from that point in time until such time as the main shooting had finished. In other words from the time the people were approaching throughout the main shooting until such time as the firing ceased did you see anybody firing any shoots amongst the marchers?

MR LAX: Mr Dorfling why don't you break it up into the different stages because you are covering quite a wide span of events that would have happened. Certainly that is my impression. Things went totally chaotic after that. So break it up into workable units that are distinct from each other and give him that opportunity otherwise it just gets into a blur.

MR DORFLING: Yes Mr Chair the reason I didn't break it down is to make it easier for the witness. If I confine him to specific portions or specific time spans he might not be sure when exactly he saw it that is why I give him a wider ambit to say; did you throughout this whole period perhaps see anything and then we can work to the specifics once he has responded to that.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Dorfling is your question only limited to a group of marchers which were approaching from Wanderers Street into de Villiers Street?

MR DORFLING: I am specifically referring to the group to which Mr Molefe drew his attention. I understood that to be the group in de Villiers Street.

MS KHAMPEPE: Which were approaching from Wanderers Street?

MR DORFLING: Indeed it would seem from west to east in de Villiers Street from the direction of Wanderers Street.

MR LLALE: I said on that group they were only carrying them. They didn't fire. It was visible for me to see they were carrying them but they were not firing them.

MR DORFLING: What kind of firearms did you actually observe amongst that group?

MR LLALE: Except the AK I have mentioned I said pistols. That is what I said. Only pistols.

MR DORFLING: Let's now concentrate on the other groups. Did you observe any other group approaching that intersection carrying any firearms?

MR LLALE: At that time I was concentrating more on this group which was in de Villiers Street. The one which was coming up King George I don't remember seeing anything about them. Whether they were carrying what but I remember I spoke about the one which was in de Villiers Street. That is where I was concentrating to.

MR DORFLING: Can I then take your answer to mean that you did not see any firearm amongst any other group? The only firearms you saw amongst the marchers was firearms carried by those people approaching the corner in de Villiers Street?

MR LLALE: If you speak about the two groups at later stage they were assembled at the intersection. I said the reason that my main focus was on this group because there was this person who had an AK. That is why I concentrated more on this group.

MR DORFLING: And to just make it absolutely clear we are also talking of the whole time duration from the time you actually observed these marchers for the first time until such time as the shooting had finished, until the fire ceased?

MR LLALE: Which fire are you are talking about the main incident now after they had shot at us? Is that it you want the explanation from there?

MR DORFLING: Yes from the time that the marchers, that your attention was attracted to them in de Villiers Street until such time as the firing ceased? Are you with me? I am talking about the main incident.

MR LLALE: If I have to recall in my statement I said not putting this AK person because he already is there. I said I saw other two gentlemen who seems to me as if they were shooting because then there was a lot of gun fire. Maybe I might have said I saw them shooting because at that time I couldn't distinguish who was shooting, who was not shooting. But for the main fact that on that day I am talking about now the shooting in King George, that they were carrying their guns. So in my mind I said I saw them shooting because already was shooting. So I assume that because their pistol were in their hands they were shooting. This is what I said that I saw people shooting. Mentioning the two if we exclude this AK person.

JUDGE NGCOBO: I am not with you Mr Llale. Which statement are you talking about now?

MR LLALE: Can I speak zulu. I think I have a problem with the way I express myself or the panel has a problem. What he is pushing me to or what he wants me to admit is that earlier on I had said I have seen people, a group of people not more than five people I think who were in front of this man with the AK47 - they were also having pistols with them. And this particular instance was up to the point of just before the main shooting. After the main shooting had started as I had said yesterday that I was shooting at that time and I was upright. This was asked during the inquest as to whether I had seen other people carrying firearms and shooting except for this man with the AK47. I think what he is going back to is the fact that I said I saw nobody shooting. Now he is saying that I am not talking the truth because I didn't see anyone shooting. Now he is going back to my statement. I don't know whether I have answered your question or I am still confusing you.

JUDGE NGCOBO: All I need you to tell me is in what statement is what you have just said contained?

MR LLALE: It is the evidence that I tendered in court. Could he please take it step by step because he is now mixing the evidence that I tendered in court as well as with other evidence? Could he please just be specific when he asks his questions and tell me what he is taking his question from?

JUDGE NGCOBO: I understand that but I think what you should take cognisance of is that if you are being asked a question you should try and confine yourself to answering the particular question. And if you do not understand the question you should ask that the question should be repeated so that you do understand what is being asked in order to avoid a lot of confusion.

MR LLALE: Mr Dorfling can you be really specific here that what you are asking me is it before the main shooting or when they were coming to the intersection. I am just confused which incident do you want me to explain here?

MR DORFLING: Okay I am going to try and make it clear one more time Mr Llale. I am referring to the time from when you saw the marchers after Mr Molefe drew you attention to it until such time as the shooting ceased. Until such time as the firing stopped. In other words the whole duration of the main incident starting from where the marchers starting approaching the intersection when you first saw them until such time as the main shooting had been over. Do you understand that? That is the time span I want to concentrate on.

CHAIRPERSON: For my benefit what was the question relating to that time span?

MR DORFLING: No the applicant asked me to please tell him which time span I am referring to and I have just dealt with that and I will now get to the questions I want him to respond with relation to that time span.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright yes thank you.

MR DORFLING: The first question I want to pose to you is whether in that time span you saw any firearms amongst the marchers apart from the AK47 you saw with the gentleman with the red T-shirt?

MR LLALE: My response was the pistols I saw were not more than five. That was my response. I am still saying it now that my response is there were not more than five that I saw.

MR DORFLING: So you saw amongst the marchers coming down de Villiers Street you saw some marchers carrying pistols but no more than five? It could be up to five? Have I got that right?

MR LLALE: Yes.

MR DORFLING: Did you see anyone or more of the marchers firing any shots with these firearms? I am not talking of the AK47. I am talking about other firearms.

CHAIRPERSON: The question once again is did you see them and not whether you heard them?

MR DORFLING: Indeed Mr Chair, see them firing.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LLALE: No.

MR DORFLING: Did you hear any other shots from firearms emanating from the crowd apart from what you perceived to be shots from the AK47?

MR LLALE: When the shooting was going on I remember seeing two marchers with pistols. In my mind I didn't know whether they were shooting or they were just holding them. But there was just gun fire at that time.

MR DORFLING: I just want to make sure that I have your answer correctly. In your mind as you perceived things and as you recall it today you did not see anybody firing any shots on that day in that time span? I am talking about see Mr Llale not what you heard, the shots that you heard. I am talking specifically see.

MR LLALE: When you exclude Jakwe, yes.

MR DORFLING: Now would you please turn to page 3698 of the record? 3698 Mr Chair. Maybe we should just to put it in the right perspective start from roughly line 9 of that page. This is where you are positioned at the wall of the parapet together with Mr Jakwe Molefe.

"Which wall is this one. Is it the wall of the parapet itself? --- My Lord one bullet hit the wall of the parapet and the other one the wall behind us. Behind me and I could see dust coming out as a result of that. Jakwe was armed with an AK47. As I was lying on the ground I could hear gun fire emanating from Jakwe's AK47 and I went, rather I rushed to the opposite direction, the opposite corner within a distance of from here up to the wall across there.

It was a deafening sound that emanated from this AK47 by Jakwe and you could hear other shots going off from the ground? --- I could hear further shots emanating from the ground and I think Steve ran past me and I was lying down on the floor there or on the ground and as I was lying there I thought that the person who was shooting at us he and the others are now attacking the personnel down stairs. I got up to investigate why there was this lot of gun fire going on. As I looked over I could see a lot of marchers running now towards Plein Street in King George but they were still in King George heading for Plein Street. And I could see that man, the man who was in the midst of the crowd and armed with an AK47 running on the side of the pavement next to the chemist across the road.'

And now the important part.

"I was confused at that stage and I could see the marchers armed with pistols and shooting towards Plein Street and I immediately got other information that they were shooting at our people but I was mostly concerned and concentrating on the man with the AK47."

You make it quite clear Mr Llale in this portion of the evidence that "I could see the marchers armed with pistols and shooting towards Plein Street." That was your evidence at the inquest in this portion of the record. Is that incorrect? You said you did not see anybody shoot. Here it is quite clear that you did see people shoot. Did you or didn't you?

MR LLALE: This is what I tried to explain earlier on. I knew that you were coming to this. When I stood up it is written here that I was confused. I was confused at that stage and I could see - how do you take something of a person who is confused at that stage. Hence I am saying there was gun fire down there I might have thought these people also were shooting. As I am saying I was confused. I was not definite. As I was saying I was confused. If there was no confusion in this that means I was definite but in this instance I was confused. I don't know whether is my explanation or whether I am running away. But I am saying at that stage I was confused.

MR DORFLING: I want to refer you to another portion of your evidence where you clearly stated that you saw people firing shots amongst the marchers. Can I refer you to page 3723 Sir from line 22 onwards. At line 22 you say

"Now you furthermore today in your evidence said that after you saw this person with the AK47 on the pavement across the road you then saw marchers with pistols firing at the guards but you mostly concentrated on this person with the AK47."

Do you recall giving that evidence?

MR LLALE: Yes.

MR DORFLING: Then it proceeds

"Now how many people with sidearms did you see firing at the guards? --- Not more than 2 although I could not be a hundred percent sure of the number.

And are you saying today that you actually saw them pointing their firearms at ANC security guards and firing at them? --- Yes."

That is in direct conflict with the evidence you give today Sir.

MR LLALE: I don't think it is really. I mean let me say it in zulu. I do not believe that I told a lie but what I am saying to you at this moment is there was a lot of gun fire emanating from the ground. And if you see a person having a pistol or firearm in his hand in your mind you tell yourself that this is the person who is shooting. Because your concentration is somehow divided. You are looking at this person who is having a firearm and there is gun fire going on all at the same time.

MR DORFLING: You see Mr Llale if we may revert back to page 3723 the last line on that page, line 30. It was quite clear that the question that was posed to you was posed to you in such a way that not only the proposition of the marchers pointing the firearms was put to you but also the fact that you actually saw them firing. It says the following

"And are you saying today that you actually saw them pointing their firearms at ANC security guards and firing at them?"

You didn't respond by saying it was pointed but I just (...indistinct)

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman I want to pose a question. Are these questions asked on the basis that one can see a bullet leaving a pistol? Because if that is what is expected of the witness then the questions may make some sense. If not I submit that the witness is being badgered unnecessarily. Thank you Mr Chair.

MR DORFLING: With the greatest respect Mr Chair the whole line of questioning was aimed at obtaining from this witness an answer as to whether he saw shots being fired from the marchers, from members amongst the marchers. And he specifically responded by answering no. That was his choice to say no I did not see that. He didn't offer the explanation that what I tried to convey to Mr Justice Nugent was that there might have been shots or that, that might have been a perception. He now today offers that explanation. I am putting to the witness that what is quite clear from the evidence in front of Mr Justice Nugent is that he not only contradicts this evidence but I will get to the other portions in the record where he contradicts himself at the time of the inquest.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's just be clear. It is quite clear that in this commotion that is taking place, people moving around and you see a man with a pistol in his hand. You are asking him; did you see him fire. In other words was his attention focused on that gun to see whether it is fired or whether is the conclusion he draws is as a result of hearing firing. You are drawing a distinction between him actually seeing firing and whether he heard the firing. I think that this is going to lead us nowhere really because if he says he heard the firing that might be more correct. But if he says I saw the firing then I am not too sure whether it is possible to say that he actually saw the firing. Seeing the firing means you were looking at the gun and you see a bullet leaving the gun. Isn't that what seeing the firing means?

MR DORFLING: With the greatest respect these questions were specifically asked to the witness at the time of the inquest to distinguish between him seeing it or just having perceived that there were certain shots firing from the guards. I am saying he contradicted himself Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: At the same time I don't think that a great deal is achieved by splitting the fact as to whether a man sees or whether he hears. The picture you get and the picture we get is that there was a commotion, there were people with arms. And he heard gun fire from downstairs. Downstairs would probably mean the guards of the ANC. He heard a lot of gun fire. He says he saw people firing those that had pistols. He says he heard them firing. And whether there is a contradiction, material contradiction on whether he saw them actually or whether he heard them firing. That might be a contradiction but as far as I am concerned at present as things stand I do not think that, that is such a material contradiction.

MR TIPP: Chairperson I am sorry but just on a point of accuracy chairperson. My learned friend said that when the witness was asked today; did you see any shots being fired and he said no and he didn't content himself with any explanation. That is not correct. The witness then went on to say that I said certain things in my statement where I said I saw them firing. Judge Ngcobo then asked the witness what statement are you referring to and the witness then said I am referring to the evidence that I gave before Judge Nugent. So in answer to the question did you see firing he said no but then he did give an explanation as to what was said at the inquest.

MR DORFLING: My learned friend is indeed correct Mr Chair. I specifically asked the witness did you see as opposed to just hearing. Mr Chair you actually remarked whether you want us to have a specific answer as to whether he saw it. And I got a specific answer to that being in the negative. "No I did not see." And that is the line of questioning I am pursuing. The witness had the opportunity today to give an explanation as to perceptions but he chose to say: "I did not see anybody firing."

JUDGE NGCOBO: Is the point that you making this; what the witness has stated as the fact that he saw the marchers firing as opposed to saying there was fire coming from the direction of the marchers and therefore I get the impression that the fire is coming from the marchers? You want to make that distinction?

MR DORFLING: Yes Mr Chair with respect I think it goes even further than that. It is a positive answer yes I did see as opposed to a negative answer no I did not see.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Yes I understand that but the witness as I understand his evidence it is to the effect that he testified that he saw the people described by him shooting. There was confusion.

MR DORFLING: No I think the witness responded by saying he did not see them shooting. That is the contradiction I am trying to point out. I say the witness today said I did not see as opposed to the inquest where he said I did see.

CHAIRPERSON: I even think where he says I see a pistol, I heard a noise and I concluded that there was firing. Now you have got all that. My suggestion is to you that you can make whatever you wish to make in the address but I do not think that a useful purpose is served in going too much further into this kind of cross-examination on a detail of this kind. You have got the versions, you put them before him and you have got his answers.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Chairman if you could just allow me to interpose at this stage because I am going to raise an argument about this very same line of questioning that Mr Dorfling now takes which I think is very important. And that is that this witness saw the firing at the guards below. In other words at the corner of King George and Plein Street. And the Committee will recall that I and others repeatedly referred to the fact that the ballistics indicate that no indication could be found that any marchers fired any shots at the guards on that particular corner. So that is also a very important part in this particular section that my learned friend raised.

CHAIRPERSON: We got that cross-examination that you put to him and we got his answers to that.

MR PRETORIUS: No I haven't cross-examined this witness.

CHAIRPERSON: (...indistinct) to another witness I am sorry. I understand. Well you will put your questions to him then.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Yes because we understand and the record in this regard does speak for itself and that is that he made the statements that appeared on a record of the inquest. He has made a statement in his evidence. Those statements are there. And the question is the inference to be drawn from the making of those statements and unless there is a point that you wanted to make beyond that it would seem to me that it may be a matter for the argument. Because I think the gist of the answer is that he was confused and I think he has referred us to the passage.

MR DORFLING: Yes Mr Chair I am trying to convey to this witness that the reason for this discrepancies is not because of his confusion. The reason for these discrepancies is simply the exact point Mr Pretorius has raised. It has now been found out ex pose factor, after the facts that this on the ballistic and objective evidence did not happen and the witness is fabricating to fit in with the objective ballistic evidence. And that is why I am putting the contradictions to him to give him a proper opportunity to respond because that will be my argument at the conclusion of these proceedings.

MR LAX: Sorry Mr Dorfling I am just not understood you correctly now. How could you be fabricating in line with objective ballistic evidence when you are saying there is no objective evidence to support his fabrication?

MR DORFLING: Maybe I am not expressing myself well. What I am trying to convey is the version put forward at the time of the inquest that there were shots fired at the security guards downstairs which was the gist of this witness' evidence. He perceived there to be or not perceived, he saw shots being fired at the guards downstairs. And that was one of the reasons why he retaliated. The objective evidence has now shown that there is no proof of that fact being in existence on the day of any such shots having been fired at the direction of the marchers. The witness now gives an explanation. He says there was a lot of firing. There was firing emanating from the crowd and I perceived that, that might have been the position. In other words he is now backing down on the very strong position he put forward at the inquest court because he can't find any support for that proposition in the ballistic evidence. That is the proposition I am putting forward.

MR LAX: Sure as Judge Ngcobo said that is something you can address us on later in argument. It really does not serve any purpose to keep pushing it down this witness' throat. I mean you are doing that but in that sense. Because we are not going to get any more out of him at this stage it doesn't appear to me.

MR DORFLING: I would just like to refer to the portions of the record where the witness at the time of the inquest said exactly the opposite as well. Where he said I did not see shots being fired from amongst the marchers at the guards. I am specifically referring to page 3736 from line 15 to 26. And also page 3711 line 4 to 6 where he responded in the negative that he did not see shots being fired from amongst the marchers in the direction of the security guards. I think I have referred to all the portions of the record where he responded in the positive. I have now also referred to the portions in the record where he responded in the negative.

In conclusion Mr Llale I want to put it to you that from these portions of the record it is quite clear that you are not only contradicting some of the evidence you gave at the inquest here today but you also at the time of the inquest contradicted yourself because you were being untruthful as to what you saw. Would you like to respond to that?

MR LLALE: At the time of the incident I said I was confused. I was panicking. So in my mind when I was looking at the things I thought things were happening the way I saw them. That is why at one stage I would say if I say they were not shooting I am referring because the questioning you are not going to the actual question. The questioning was did you see them firing as Mr George Bizos has asked did you see actually the bullets coming out of the gun. This is I was saying, that is why I said no I didn't see that.

CHAIRPERSON: Any way it has been put to you that you have given an account which according to counsel is different from the evidence that you have given and it is being suggested that, that difference is due to the fact that you were untruthful. Your answer to that is you say that at that time you were confused and you were panicking because of what was happening. That is the answer you gave?

MR LLALE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you take that any further? You may argue that it was not panicking. You may argue that he was untruthful.

MR DORFLING: Were you confused at the time of the inquest proceedings Mr Llale?

MR LLALE: I was not confused but I was under pressure.

CHAIRPERSON: I think that, that is a difficult question isn't it? You see an incident, an incident that is taking place very, very quickly and you have an impression of that. When you are giving evidence you are giving evidence about the mental picture you have and that picture you have got is a picture of a man who is confused and who is panicking. So the evidence he will give at the inquest will be the evidence that his brain conveys to him as the picture that he saw. He may not be lying. He may have a faulty recollection of what he saw. Now I think you should appreciate that when you formulate your questions.

MR DORFLING: With the greatest (...intervention)

JUDGE NGCOBO: You were under pressure from what?

MR LLALE: The line of questioning in that inquest was not the same as they are doing here. They were shouting at us and when we answer they will say: "We don't want an explanation just say yes or no." So you will be under pressure and say yes to something else and the next thing you are saying no to that same thing that was questioned earlier on. And there was I don't know something like 6 people who were questioning you on that day and didn't even want explanations. You just say yes or no. This is what they were doing in that court.

CHAIRPERSON: Proceed.

MR DORFLING: Mr Chair in response to a comment that has just been passed by Your Honourable Chair just previously. What I was putting to the witness is not simply that hi perception at the time was different from what actually happened. What I am putting to the witness is that at the time of the inquest he gave two different versions as to what his impression was. His one impression was there was not shooting from the marchers at the guards. And his other impression was there was shooting from the marchers at the guards. Now the proposition I am putting forward is both those impressions can't be right. One can't have two impressions of what transpired at the same time. If one's impression is incorrect that might well be so but one can't have two different impressions and try and put forward that both of them can be correct. One can have only one picture in your mind as to what happened.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes proceed.

MR DORFLING: Now Mr Llale can we go back to the time when your attention was drawn to the crowd coming into de Villiers Street in the direction of Shell House by Mr Jakwe Molefe. Where exactly was the crowd at that time when your attention was drawn to them?

MR LLALE: Maybe I won't be accurate but they were in the middle of the road.

MR DORFLING: They were in other words still approaching towards King George Street but roughly between Wanderers and King George Street in the de Villiers Street block is that right?

MR LLALE: Yes.

MR LAX: Sorry do I understand that to mean in the middle of the intersection then? Not? Am I confused?

MR DORFLING: The middle of the block between Wanderers and King George Street. Is that right Mr Llale? They were coming from the Wanderers Street side in an easterly direction towards Shell House and they were half way down the block approaching King George Street?

MR LLALE: I might not be right but I think if my recollection serve me well they were somewhere there.

MR DORFLING: I am not trying to pin you down to a specific point but they were still approaching the intersection.

MR LLALE: Yes.

MR DORFLING: Did you at that point in time have a view of the vicinity of Jabo's Bakery?

MR LLALE: Yes it was very close to us at that time.

MR DORFLING: Could you see it clearly?

MR LLALE: From where I was with Jakwe I could see it clearly.

MR DORFLING: Did you see any members of the ANC guards being positioned on that corner?

MR LLALE: Not that I can recall.

MR DORFLING: Is it possible that there were certain ANC members positioned on or in the proximity of Jabo's Bakery whilst you didn't see it?

MR LLALE: Maybe I don't know.

MR DORFLING: Is it possible that there could have been ANC guards positioned in that vicinity and that they could have fired shots at or in the direction of the crowd without you seeing it or hearing it?

MR LLALE: I don't think if I was there in that corner at that time I would have seen that.

CHAIRPERSON: You say you cannot recall whether the ANC guards were in the vicinity of the bakery?

MR LLALE: He is talking about the shooting. I am saying if there were people at that time who shot towards the marchers I could have seen that because already I was at that corner. I don't know whether I am contradicting myself but I am saying if because by then you asking if I was in that corner I am saying yes they were in half way. But if there were people who shot to the marchers I would have seen them that time.

MR DORFLING: You see because there was evidence by Mr Eddie Khumalo and Mr Mondli Zuma that approximately at this point in time when the marchers were approaching down de Villiers Street from Wanderers Street there was shooting emanating from the crowd in the direction of Mr Mondli Zuma and Mr Eddie Khumalo and that one of them retaliated and fired back at the crowd. You didn't see that happening?

MR LLALE: Yes I didn't see that happening but earlier on before I went to that corner we did hear some shots fired approximately at that place but it was before I went to that corner.

MR DORFLING: Is it your evidence that if that happened it might have happened prior to you reaching the corner?

MR LLALE: Yes.

MR DORFLING: Now I want to put it to you that there was evidence lead at the inquest proceedings of a certain Mr von Egidy who was amongst that marchers approaching the corner of King George and de Villiers Street. He was amongst the marchers in de Villiers Street and he never saw an incident where people from amongst the marchers fired at ANC guards positioned in front of them. The only thing he perceived to have happened is that shots were coming from ahead of them in the direction of the marchers. Can you offer any explanation?

MR TIPP: Chairperson the evidence of the witness Mr von Eggedy is that shots were fired ahead of him in de Villiers Street.

MR DORFLING: Indeed ahead of them and coming past them Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Direction?

MR DORFLING: From ahead of the position where he was amongst the marchers. And those shots came in other words from ahead and went past him. Would you like to comment on that Llale? Do you have no knowledge of that?

MR LLALE: The only thing I know is that earlier on before I went to that corner I heard gun shots but whether they were from the marchers or from the ANC guards I am not sure about that.

MR DORFLING: Mr Chair I see that it is one 'o clock. I do not know whether you would like to take the lunch adjournment now.

CHAIRPERSON: We will take an adjournment now and resume at two 'o clock.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS: .

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: You are reminded that you are still under oath. Thank you. Mr Dorfling.

MOSES VELI LLALE: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DORFLING: (cont)

Thank you Mr Chair, Honourable members. Mr Llale can we deal with your state of mind at the time when you were positioned on the parapet prior to the main shooting occurring. Did you at that point in time have any information available to yourself that there might well be an attack on Shell House that day?

MR LLALE: Yes.

MR DORFLING: Where did you obtain that information?

MR LLALE: From the meeting which was addressed by Joe Nhlanhla in the morning.

MR DORFLING: Did you have any idea or any perception in your own mind as to how that attack would take place? What mode of attack would be used?

MR LLALE: At that time what was in my mind was that after the gathering of the IFP people in library garden they will all march to Shell House and storm Shell House.

MR DORFLING: In other words if there were to be an attack it would happen after the library gardens gathering?

MR LLALE: That was what it was in my mind at that time.

MR DORFLING: And now let's move on to see whether this perception of yours had changed at any stage. When you saw the group of marchers approaching down de Villiers Street from Wanderers Street side, from west to east in other words - did that perception of yours change? Did you then think: "No, no wait they are not going to be attacking after library gardens. This might now be it"?

MR LLALE: At that time I didn't know whether this group was from library garden. I thought it was one of the groups which was going to pass Shell House like the others which have already passed.

MR DORFLING: So at the time when you observed this group for the first time coming down de Villiers Street you thought it was going to be a normal group like all the previous groups that morning. Is that right?

MR LLALE: Yes.

MR DORFLING: And did your mind-set change as they approached and as you heard shooting emanating from the crowd?

MR LLALE: My mind changed after shots were fired into the parapet. That is when my mind changed that there was something wrong now.

MR DORFLING: So when the man with the AK47 in the red T-shirt was pointed out to you by Mr Molefe you still thought it was an innocent crowd who were going to pass like the previous groups of marchers?

MR LLALE: He only surprised me they way he was carrying it but at that stage I didn't think he would use it.

MR DORFLING: What about the other marchers amongst whom you saw pistols. Did that change your mind-set?

MR LLALE: The groups which passed earlier on had their pistol openly and they never shot at us. And the other ones were conceived so in my mind I thought those were long rifles but I didn't see them because they were conceived.

MR DORFLING: I notice you use the word conceived, you mean they were hidden - concealed?

CHAIRPERSON: It is the impression we formed when he first used the word earlier in his evidence.

MR DORFLING: Thank you Mr Chair. Now what made you change your mind or your perception as to what was happening were the shots that were fired in your direction. Is that correct? I mean in your direction in the plural, where the guards were positioned?

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) when they fired shots at the parapet so just not to avoid confusion just confine yourself to the parapet.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Chair. What made you change your mind was that shots were being fired at the parapet. Is that correct?

MR LLALE: Yes that is correct.

MR DORFLING: Apart from that fact the shots being fired at the parapet was there any other incident or any other occurrence that made you change your mind or that contributed to your attitude changing?

MR LLALE: When the two policemen who tried to stop the marchers and suddenly to turn and run back also that gave me something in my mind that something was wrong with this group. And now the combination of the policemen and the shooting and the forceful push because suddenly they rushed forward. But at that time that is when I had already (...indistinct) from the parapet.

MR DORFLING: So at the time when the two policemen were shoved out of the way that is the evidence, the nature of your evidence when the policemen were forcefully removed from the front of the on-coming marchers. Did you at that stage think that these people were now going to attack?

MR LLALE: I started becoming suspicious from there that something was wrong now.

MR DORFLING: Did you have any idea in your own mind at that point in time where they were going?

MR LLALE: At that time I thought they were just pushing forward to proceed to Plein Street.

MR DORFLING: You didn't perceive that to be the commencement of an attack on Shell House?

MR LLALE: And there was no shots at that time. I am saying at that specific time. Then at that time I was not that shaken but I was beginning to be nervous then.

MR DORFLING: The question is more specific Mr Llale. At that point in time when the two policemen were shoved out of the way you didn't perceive it to be the commencement of the attack, the start of attack on Shell House?

MR LLALE: Yes.

MR DORFLING: Can I have your answer clear? Yes you didn't perceive it to be the commencement of an attack?

MR LLALE: Yes I think I said yes.

CHAIRPERSON: He said he became suspicious.

MR DORFLING: What made you decide that an attack had commenced?

MR LLALE: When I heard the first shots directed at where I was standing with Mr Molefe.

MR DORFLING: How many shots were directed at where you were standing with Mr Molefe?

MR LLALE: If I recall it was three shots that I heard.

MR DORFLING: Was this the time when Mr Molefe pushed or dragged you down?

MR LLALE: Yes.

MR DORFLING: Now during the actual shooting, the main incident can we just establish whether you can recall whom of the security guards you saw firing shots from the parapet?

MR LLALE: The person I saw with my own eyes was Mr Jakwe Molefe his firearm by then was pointing upwards.

MR DORFLING: Did you become aware of any other security guards shooting from the parapet whether you saw it or heard it?

MR LLALE: If I recall well after a (...indistinct) from where I was Steve Moolman passed then I heard a shot emanating from where he was standing but I didn't see it. I heard it.

MR DORFLING: Anybody else?

MR LLALE: I don't think I recall seeing anybody else.

MR DORFLING: I am not asking you to whether you recall seeing anybody else. Can you recall having heard shots emanating from people positioned on the parapet?

MR LLALE: Only the two I have mentioned now.

MR DORFLING: Were there other security guards that you can still recall being present on the parapet at the time of the main shooting?

MR LLALE: At the time of the main shooting when it started it was only the four of us. But the person who I am not sure about was Chris but I think at that time he was not there. But the person I remember is Jakwe, Moolman and myself.

MR DORFLING: You have got no picture in your mind as you sit there today of anybody else having perhaps fired shots?

CHAIRPERSON: From the parapet?

MR DORFLING: From the parapet Mr Chair.

MR LLALE: No I only remember myself and Moolman which I didn't see him firing. I heard the firing coming on his direction.

MR DORFLING: May I refer you to page 3700 of the record Mr Llale from lines 21 onwards at page 3700 Mr Chair. I will start reading from line 17 at page 3700: -"And you also said that you saw lots of marchers running towards Plein Street. Where was the front of the marchers that you saw running towards Plein Street when you were firing? --- More or less towards the middle of King George.

Did you see anybody else on the parapet firing except for Jakwe? --- I did not see anybody shoot except for the shot that I heard from the direction of Steve."

This refers to Moolman is that correct? --- I am referring now to my left where Steve was. I did not see him shoot but I heard a shot coming from that direction in which he was.

Was that before or after your first shot? --- I think I was still recycling the firearm, my firearm when I heard this shot go off.

So was it Jakwe referring to Mr Molefe, who fired and then Moolman and then you? --- Yes.

Did you see or hear Neo Potsane firing? --- It was difficult to say who was shooting but I could hear that firing came from our people because my main concentration was downstairs.

What other firing did you hear from your people? --- I heard about five shots, five or less fired from a pistol from my people. Because you can differentiate between fire from the shotgun or from the pistol.

Was that on the parapet? --- Yes."

That was your evidence at the inquest. That you actually heard people from amongst the people positioned on the parapet firing shots with pistols and you said you heard about five shots, five or less shots. Has that slipped your mind today?

MR LLALE: Did I mention these people I was referring because I said from my people. I might have been confused because I didn't mention specifically which people.

MR DORFLING: No you were specifically asked was that from the people on the parapet and you said yes.

MR BIZOS: The (...indistinct) the previous question was the identity of the people concerned and we move from the particular to the generalised without forewarning the witness before putting the question. The question was not; did you hear other shots emanating from the parapet. The questions were; who else did you see or hear shooting.

MR TIPP: And Chairperson to be more specific as well. The part that my learned friend, Mr Dorfling just read out says

"I heard about five shots, five or less fired from a pistol from my people because you can differentiate between fire from the shotgun or from the pistol. Was that on the parapet? --- Yes.

And then to go on:

"Did you see Chris Lushaba on the parapet? --- Yes.

Where was he? --- Not far from Steve."

And Chairperson you will recall the witness' evidence a little bit earlier on when he was recounting the people on the parapet. He said he knew about Jakwe, Moolman and himself and maybe Chris Lushaba as well. He mentioned that a few minutes ago. That is the Chris that is being referred to here.

MR DORFLING: Indeed he mentioned the person. He was specifically being asked whether he can recall having either heard or seen any of the other people from the parapet position having fired any shots. The answer was in the negative. It appears from the record that at the time of the inquest proceedings he testified that he became aware of such shots because he heard these shots and he said it was more or less five or not more than five. That was his evidence. It is in direct conflict with his evidence today Mr Chair.

Mr Llale can you explain this contradiction?

MR LLALE: I think I have to go back to Zulu because maybe we are not on the same par with english. It is better maybe if I explain in zulu. Maybe there will be a difference here.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well give your evidence in zulu.

MR LLALE: The question you asked me was that did I see anyone shooting. When I answered I said I saw Jakwe. But Moolman was next to me - I heard the gun shot. The next question was; was there anything that we heard besides the two. I said when I recall very well it will seem like I heard a pistol fire not too far but I did not see anyone. But after the shooting I do remember seeing Chris Lushaba with a firearm in his possession. I was answering that, that I did not see him shooting or shoot but I saw him with a firearm in his possession.

MR DORFLING: Mr Llale I am putting it to you, you are changing your evidence. I specifically asked you whether you became aware of any person having fired from the parapet apart from Mr Moolman, yourself and Mr Molefe. And I made it specifically clear that whether you either heard them or whether you saw them. You must say whether you became aware of such a person. You were quite clear in your evidence that you did not become aware of any such shooting from the parapet. And I asked you whether you were clear as you were sitting there today that you have no recollection in your own mind of that having happened and you said: "No I have got no such recollection."

MR LAX: And in fact Mr Dorfling the words you used where you said: "Do you have no picture of anyone else firing shots?" That was the words you specifically used.

MR DORFLING: Indeed and also the words whether you saw it or actually heard it, whether it came to your knowledge either having seen or having heard it Mr Chair. And the witness responded to that question in the negative.

MR TIPP: No Chairperson with respect the witness said: "I do not recall seeing anybody else."

MR DORFLING: I am not going to pursue this point any further Mr Chair. I am going to leave that for purposes of argument. Mr Llale it is, I am going to contend at the conclusion of these proceedings that the reason why there are these contradictions in your evidence is because you are untruthful. Would you like to comment?

MR LLALE: The only thing I will say is that today this Committee I have told them everything that I remember that transpired on that day in question. The lies that you are talking about I don't know as to where you are getting that from

CHAIRPERSON: ... that you were untruthful and you have told us that you are not untruthful what you have told us is what you remember happening?

MR LLALE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR DORFLING: Mr Llale in conclusion. I am appearing on behalf of 9 objectors who will if called to give evidence testify that at the time when shots were being fired at the marchers there was no justification for the ANC guards firing shots at them. Would you care to respond to that question?

MR LLALE: I won't respond that much but I have talked about what I know so they will also talk about what they know as well.

MR DORFLING: I put it to you that the 9 objectors on whose behalf I appear will say that they were not attacking Shell House neither did they form part of any plan to attack Shell House. Neither were they armed with firearms with which they could attack Shell House at this specific point in time. Can you comment on that?

MR LLALE: I have said already to you that they will say whatever they want to say to you but you have already heard my part of the story.

MR DORFLING: Are you conceding today that either one or both of the shots that you fired at the marchers could have hit one or more marchers in the back or from behind?

MR LLALE: Earlier on I said there is that possibility.

MR DORFLING: Why do you concede that there might be that possibility?

MR LLALE: The outcome of the inquest said a shotgun might have injured or killed a person at that particular time. So myself on that day I was using a shot gun. So there is the possibility that I might have.

MR DORFLING: Does it necessarily mean that you concede that, that person was facing with his back towards you if it happened that way?

MR LLALE: I wouldn't know the direction of a person but my explanation earlier on was the person I was focusing, so I said there was a confusion. So anything might have happened in that confusion.

MR DORFLING: I have got no further questions. Thank you Mr Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DORFLING.

MR VAN WYK: Thank you Mr Chairman I will proceed with questions that I want to address to this witness. Mr Llale you have testified at the inquest. Have you read the record of those proceedings in preparation for your present application?

MR LLALE: The outcome of the inquest.

CHAIRPERSON: No. Have you read your evidence? You are concerned about whether he has read his evidence at the inquest proceedings?

MR VAN WYK: That is correct Mr Chairman his evidence that was tendered at the inquest.

MR LLALE: Yes I have.

MR VAN WYK: And do you confirm the correctness of what you have said there?

MR LLALE: The correctness of my evidence as it has been shown here, there was a lot of contradiction so I cannot confirm the correctness but I can confirm the truth the I told in that court.

MR VAN WYK: Do you then confirm that the transcript you have, that is the what you have told the judge at the inquest. Is that correct?

MR LLALE: That is correct.

MR VAN WYK: Is this your only amnesty application?

MR TIPP: Chairperson the question was; is this your only amnesty application. I don't know what the relevance of such a question is. We are concerned with this particular amnesty application.

MR VAN WYK: Have you filed any other affidavits in respect of with amnesty Mr Llale?

MR LLALE: Yes I have.

MR VAN WYK: You have mentioned in your evidence that when the marchers were at the corners of de Villiers and King George Street you said that you think a policeman was stabbed and he ran back. Do you recall that evidence?

MR LLALE: Yes I recall that evidence.

MR VAN WYK: Did you actually see this happen or did you not see it happen?

MR LLALE: What I saw on that day was the policeman who tried to stop the marchers but he was unsuccessful.

MR VAN WYK: I will repeat my question. Did you see this policeman being stabbed or did you not see it?

MR LLALE: When he was stabbed I don't remember seeing it.

MR VAN WYK: Now where did you get this information that he was stabbed?

MR LLALE: I didn't say it in court I said it here because already in the inquest it was said that one of the police who tried to stop the marchers which was stabbed somewhere in his arm if my recollection serves me well.

MR VAN WYK: So now why are you repeating evidence in this application of yours that you do not know of yourself? That you possibly heard from somebody else. Why are you tendering that to this Committee?

MR LLALE: For the main fact that today I can agree to this Committee that due to the ballistic tests and the medical evidence which I was not when they were taking I concede to them. I can also concede to what was said in that court.

MR VAN WYK: No but what I am asking you is that you are tendering evidence before this Committee of incidents that you did not witness yourself. Why are you doing that?

MR LLALE: Maybe my information is wrong but the Committee here sits after the inquest and after the actual incidents. So there are two things that happened between now and that incident. So that is why even I am also concede to ballistics which I didn't know at that time when I was in court. But I am able to say that there were shots fired at front of Shell House because I didn't say it in court. So I am saying to your question now, I am saying to your question that I understand what you are saying but maybe I might have fabricated this part of stabbing. I didn't put it before.

MR VAN WYK: Why are you maybe fabricating now Mr Llale?

MR LLALE: Is not a fabrication. It is what I read here.

MR VAN WYK: So are you tendering evidence to this Committee that you have not witnessed yourself but that you have read from other records. Is that correct?

CHAIRPERSON: As far as the stabbing of the policeman is concerned?

MR VAN WYK: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR LLALE: Yes.

MR VAN WYK: Why are you then fabricating Mr Llale?

MR BIZOS: I object to the use of such an emotional charged word to a witness who has said that: "I have heard about it and is I remember correctly there is some reference to it in the judgment."

CHAIRPERSON: I think the word fabricating ought not to be. Why are you telling this Committee that a policeman was stabbed when you didn't see yourself? That is the purpose of the question.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Just before you answer this question. What you are required to do is to tell us about what you recall of and concerning the incident, in relation to the shooting. We do understand that you may have given evidence at the inquest and that, that Court may well have made certain findings. That is none of our concern here. What we are concerned with is what is it that you recall. Did you understand that?

MR LLALE: Yes I did.

MR VAN WYK: Can I then repeat my question to you Mr Llale. Is it correct that you yourself here today said that maybe you fabricated that? Is that correct?

MR LLALE: At first I didn't have the understanding of this Committee but now I have been told that I should only say what I saw. So I think you should go forth because I am agreeing to you that this part of stabbing I might have not witnessed it. So I am saying to you shall we continue and forget about it. I will say what I saw on that day.

MR VAN WYK: Mr Llale this question is not going to disappear. Is it correct that you told the Committee that maybe you fabricated that? Is that correct?

MR LLALE: I have misunderstood the sitting of this Committee. I am saying to you I read that, this is what Mr Nugent said and the police was stabbed. So I am saying I am not going to refer things which was said by Judge Nugent here. I am saying to you I agree with what you are saying. I am disputing it.

MR VAN WYK: But do you agree (...intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Leave it at that. He says he didn't see the stabbing. He is giving you an explanation as to why he has given that in evidence. He read that in the Nugent report.

MR VAN WYK: Thank you Mr Chairman. I just finally want to clarify one point and that was his own evidence and he can either say yes or no. Did you today say to the Committee that: "Maybe I fabricated that"? Is that correct? Did I understand you wrongly or was that what you said today?

MR LLALE: I am agreeing to the Committee that this part of stabbing I might have included it now, not in the court. I have already admitted to that.

MR LAX: Sorry you misunderstand the question. The question is did you use the word fabricate in your evidence? Yes or no? That is what he is asking you to say. Did you say, did you use the word fabricate? What he is going to make of it later and how he might want to put it that is a different issue. But did you or didn't you?

MR LLALE: I did.

MR VAN WYK: Now Mr Llale I want to know from you why do you need to fabricate something to support your application if you said you are going to tell the Committee the truth today?

MR LAX: What do you understand by the word fabricate before you answer that question?

MR VAN WYK: Giving a false version or giving something that is false and not true.

MR LAX: Just hang on a second Mr van Wyk. You are putting words in the man's mouth. He has used words in the past like conceive when he meant concealed. It is clear his use of English language is not great. Let's find out what he means if you want to make a huge meal of it. Perhaps that is where you should start.

MR VAN WYK: Thank you Mr Commissioner I will do that. Mr Llale what do you understand with the word fabricate?

MR LLALE: To put.

MR VAN WYK: May I understand you if you do not understand my question you please feel free to make use of the interpreter so that we do not misunderstand each other please?

MR LLALE: Maybe in this instance let me use the interpreter. Maybe I might be able to answer you properly.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Mr van Wyk is your complaint that the witness has fabricated the aspect relating to him seeing the policeman being injured?

MR VAN WYK: That is correct Mr Commissioner. I will address you at a later stage concerning that.

JUDGE NGCOBO: I fully understand that. The witness has just told us that he got that from the inquest findings.

MR VAN WYK: That is correct Mr Commissioner.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Are you suggesting and I think before he was interrupted he said I included that opposed to the word fabricated? His whole evidence was I included that. Now are you suggesting that, that amounts to a fabrication?

MR VAN WYK: I will submit it forms part of fabrication in respect of part of his case. He is trying to make it part of his case towards the Committee which he does not personally know of. In other words he is trying to give a broader picture to this Committee from evidence that he has no personal knowledge of. In other words he is trying to tender evidence to you of things that he pretends he has personal knowledge but in fact he has not.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Which you have made now. Have you not?

MR VAN WYK: Thank you Mr Commissioner. Mr Llale you have testified about Mr Molefe who had the AK47 at the corners of King George and de Villiers Streets and who had fired shots. Do you recall that evidence?

MR LLALE: Yes I do.

MR VAN WYK: Am I correct that you saw him firing some of those shots? Is that correct?

MR LLALE: The first shots I heard them.

MR VAN WYK: Did you see him firing the shots?

MR LLALE: Yes the first ones I saw them and I heard them.

MR VAN WYK: Was Mr Molefe at that stage at the bottom part of the parapet with the wall shielding or higher than his head? Is that what you saw?

MR LLALE: He was in the indent. That is according to his evidence.

MR VAN WYK: I want to know what you saw and not what his evidence was.

MR TIPP: Chairperson it was agreed between our learned friends for the various objectors that they were not going to repeat cross-examination. This aspect about seeing Mr Molefe firing and hearing Mr Molefe firing has been dealt with exhaustively already by some of my learned friend's learned friends.

CHAIRPERSON: True let's try and cover ground which has not been covered. Unless you have special reason for wanting to repeat it.

MR VAN WYK: Mr Chairman there is only one point I want to clarify with this person. I think if he replies to the question it might expedite the proceedings.

CHAIRPERSON: No the idea is that you are asking questions that have been asked. Now is there a special reason for that? Because we want to try and avoid repetition.

MR VAN WYK: Thank you Mr Chairman I will try and avoid them. And therefore I just want to ask did you see all the shots being shot straight up into the air? Is that what you saw?

MR LLALE: Not all the shots, the first shots before I turned.

MR VAN WYK: So the shots that you saw being fired were all shots straight up into the air? Is that correct?

MR LLALE: I according to my recollection that is what I said.

MR VAN WYK: Now this man with the AK47 in the street that you said was part of the marchers you did not see him firing any shots but you say that you saw some of the people with pistols firing shots. Is that correct?

MR TIPP: Chairperson the witness never said that either. We have had this debate again about what he saw and what he concluded.

CHAIRPERSON: Well now break this down. Are you confirming that you didn't see the man with the AK47 or you didn't hear him firing?

MR LLALE: I didn't hear him firing.

CHAIRPERSON: You only heard and saw also people with pistols firing?

MR LLALE: Yes this is what I said earlier on.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes do carry on.

MR VAN WYK: Thank you Mr Chairman. Now I want to know from you which of these marchers did you consider the most dangerous? The man with the AK47 you not seeing that he is firing or the people with the pistols firing? Who were the most dangerous to yourself at that stage?

MR LLALE: It was the person with the AK47 and others with pistols.

MR VAN WYK: Well then I want to know from you why did you fire towards the person with the AK47 and not at the people with the pistols?

MR LLALE: At the time I saw him as the one who posed danger to me.

MR VAN WYK: But you didn't see him firing. You saw the others firing. Why didn't you address your firing at the people who you saw was the imminent dangerous people?

MR LLALE: Even the ones that I said were shooting the reason was there was a lot of gun firing down there. So at the time I wasn't too sure as to who was shooting but there was a lot of gun fire. This is why I thought even that person was shooting as well.

MR VAN WYK: Do I understand your evidence correctly that you did not specifically shoot at these two people with the pistols who you perceived were firing shots? Is that correct?

MR LLALE: Can you repeat your question and be very slow?

MR VAN WYK: Do I understand you correctly that you did not specifically shoot towards the marchers that you saw with the pistols and who were firing then? You did not address your shots at them. Is that correct?

MR LLALE: This is what I said earlier on.

MR VAN WYK: Mr Llale do I understand your application correctly that you are applying for amnesty only if it is being found by the Committee that you exceeded the bounds of self-defence is that what you applying for?

MR LLALE: Yes I will say so.

MR VAN WYK: Do I understand you correctly there is no application from your side for amnesty if the Committee finds that there was no attack? Do I understand you correctly?

MR LLALE: I am not talking about whether there was an attack or not but what I am saying is that if the Committee finds out that I had exceeded the line of self-defence. I am not talking about whether there were people who were attacking or not.

MR VAN WYK: What do you say today was your shooting justified or not?

MR LLALE: There was a reason why I shot.

MR VAN WYK: What do you say, were you justified in shooting or do you concede that your shooting was not justified in the sense that you were exceeding the bounds of self-defence? What are you saying today to the Committee?

MR LLALE: I am saying my shooting on that day in question was justified. The only thing I am saying is that maybe I had exceeded the line of self-defence that day.

MR VAN WYK: Now whilst you were on the parapet Sir did you receive any information that the marchers were shooting at the other guards at the corners of Plein and King George Streets?

MR LLALE: I had said yes before. That I did gather information from Joe Mababy earlier at our meeting.

MR VAN WYK: No I don't think you are understanding my question. I am not talking about the meeting in the morning. I am talking about at the stage when you were on the parapet and the shooting started. Did you receive any information that shots were fired at your colleagues and the guards at the corners of King George and Plein Streets?

MR LLALE: I know where you are referring. I think that was made by an interpreter in court. It is an error which is (...indistinct) I know what you are talking about. That when I was there I had the information but in court I was testifying in zulu. So it is just it is written like that but what I was saying actually is an impression. I know what you are referring to. It is just an error which is written here.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Llale please answer the question. He wants the explanation about your evidence at the inquest. You will be given an opportunity.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Chairman apparently one of the persons or one of the victims just received a kind of epileptic attack. Would it at all be possible to adjourn at this stage? Merely to see that we can get him some kind of attention.

CHAIRPERSON: We will stand down for a short while.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS: .

ON RESUMPTION

MR VAN WYK: Mr Llale my last question addressed to you was that whilst you were on the parapet, whilst the shots were fired I asked you whether you received any information that there were shots being fired at other people? In other words the guards at the corners of King George and Plein Street. Did you receive such information?

MR LLALE: No.

MR VAN WYK: Did you testify as such at the (...intervention)

MS KHAMPEPE: May I interpose Mr van Wyk? Mr Llale don't you think you should continue rendering your testimony in your language, zulu?

MR LLALE: I will render my evidence in zulu.

MR VAN WYK: I will then repeat the question so that they interpret it in your mother language. Whilst you were on the parapet and the shots being fired did you receive any information that shots were being fired towards Plein Street? In other words where your colleagues Mr Kruser and the other guards were at the corners of Plein and King George Street. Did you receive any such information whilst you were on the parapet?

MR LLALE: No I heard no information.

MR VAN WYK: Did you testify as such at the inquest?

MR LLALE: Yes.

MR VAN WYK: Why did you render such evidence if you did not receive such information why did you also tender that evidence?

MR LLALE: I will like to go back and refer you to something. When I was before Judge Nugent I was using Zulu as I am using Zulu now. In my statement when I read it there is something like after they shot the parapet I immediately got other information that they were shooting at our people. So I am saying it is just a way that it is appearing on the paper. But what I was actually saying is that there was that impression that the guards were being shot. That is what I said in zulu.

MR VAN WYK: Do I then understand you correctly, you did not receive the information that the other guards were being shot at?

MR LLALE: Yes I did not get any information. It was just that is the impression I had when I heard gun shots.

MR VAN WYK: Because I want to ask your comment please and

I am referring to page 3698 of the transcript of your evidence.

And I would like to know from you why you then testified as

follows, namely it is at the bottom of page 3698:

"I was confused and at that stage I could see the

marchers armed with pistols and shooting towards

Plein Street and I immediately got other information

that they were shooting at our people."

Why did you then give such evidence if this is not what you received?

MR LLALE: I am saying to the Committee I was using Zulu at the court. The words information in Zulu meant something I was talking about the impression I had was the shooting not that I said in English "information." I was only saying "impression." In other words I was giving that kind of a picture of impression not information.

MR VAN WYK: So do you then say the transcript is not correct?

CHAIRPERSON: The translation might not have been correct not the transcript.

MR VAN WYK: The translation, thank you Mr Commissioner. Because I asked you Mr Llale before you came to testify did you read the record and did you prepare it and was it correct and I understood you to say yes that is what was said at the inquest. Did I understand you wrongly there?

MR LLALE: You asked me about the evidence I tendered at the court and I said it was true but there were some contradictions. That is how I answered you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes let's proceed.

MR VAN WYK: On this day you were issued with a shotgun and I want to know from you your function on the parapet. Was that for crowd control?

MR LLALE: My function was to be at the parapet to patrol there and if there is something that I noticed as dangerous to us I should report immediately to Chris.

MR VAN WYK: But did you use the shotgun for crowd control?

MR LLALE: What I said is the shotgun was good in crowd controlling.

MR VAN WYK: Then surely it depends on what type of ammunition you are using. Is that correct?

MR LLALE: Yes.

MR VAN WYK: And what type of ammunition were you using?

MR LLALE: I used SSG.

MR VAN WYK: Are those bullets good for crowd control or do they kill?

MR LLALE: All kinds of ammunition kill depending on the distance.

MR VAN WYK: Help me if I am wrong but the second shot that you fired at this man with the AK47 that was whilst he was retreating. Is that correct?

MR LLALE: Yes.

MR VAN WYK: Do you concede that at that stage he was no more a danger to you?

MR LLALE: At the time when I was shooting he was still posing danger to me because he still had that gun in his possession. In my mind I thought that he wanted some place of rescue where he could hide.

MR VAN WYK: Now you have made an affidavit that was attached to your application for amnesty. When you signed that affidavit were you satisfied with the contents thereof?

MR LLALE: Yes.

MR VAN WYK: You had no complaints. Is that correct?

MR LLALE: Yes I had no complaint.

MR VAN WYK: You never raised it with your lawyers that there is something in your statement that you do not totally agree with. Is that correct?

MR LLALE: Maybe I am not responding correctly. When you are referring to the affidavit are you talking to the one that I submitted to the court or here the TRC?

MR VAN WYK: The one that you made firstly for the purpose of the inquest and which was attached to your amnesty application.

MR LLALE: If you are referring to that one I think now I am.

MR VAN WYK: Will you look at page 109 up to page 112 of bundle C1. I am referring to that statement.

MR LLALE: I did not understand your question quite well. But now I am in a position to answer you. After I submitted my affidavit, after the lawyers had taken it with I think it is in number 11, no it is number 12 I am mistaken I am sorry - where I am saying I have generalised. The fact that the marchers were shooting and running forward. After then I asked about the word "shooting at the crowd," won't that give me a problem?

MR VAN WYK: ...(inaudible) to give an additional statement?

MR LLALE: They said I will have an opportunity to tell the Court about everything I am thinking about.

MR VAN WYK: But at that stage almost three years had lapsed since the incident before you made the statement. Is that not so?

MR LLALE: Yes it is true.

MS KHAMPEPE: I really did not want to interrupt your cross-examination. I thought Mr Dorfling had covered this issue quite extensively. Is there something else that is going to add to what has already been covered by Mr Dorfling?

MR VAN WYK: Madame Commissioner there is just one point in respect of the transcript that my colleague has not pointed out which I would like to address to this witness. Because he testified on page 3725 my colleague has not referred to that page, when this specific point about the marchers was pointed out to the witness. The witness replied: "Well we were told we must make statements because they are needed in court. Had I been given sufficient time to think back I think I would have been in a position to remember substantial events. And I would have been in a position to state then in my statement." My question I am addressing to this witness I want to know you had three years time to give an affidavit or to give your version of what happened. On this time and date when you gave your affidavit was your memory not serving you well any more or what is your explanation?

MR LLALE: After three years this happened I had forgotten some other things.

MR VAN WYK: And did you only remember them when you were reminded about them by your colleagues? Would that be a correct statement?

MR LLALE: Some of the things because we were together. We did try to remind one another.

MR VAN WYK: Now if I understand your application also correctly you were afraid that your leaders might be assassinated. Is that correct?

MR LLALE: Yes.

MR VAN WYK: Were you told that by anybody or was that your own impression?

MR LLALE: My duty or my function that day was to guard and protect the leaders.

MR VAN WYK: But they were inside the building. Is that correct?

MR LLALE: Yes.

MR VAN WYK: But you were not told by anybody that the leaders would be killed is that correct or assassinated?

MR LLALE: No that was just in my mind three years ago.

MR VAN WYK: I want to put it to you on behalf of the objectors that I appear for that there was no attack on Shell House and that your shooting was not justified.

MR LLALE: When I am responding to that effect I am saying the shooting was justified and the fact that there was an attack on that day.

MR VAN WYK: So your attitude is you did not exceed any bounds of self-defence, is that what you are saying?

MR LLALE: The fact that I exceeded I do agree to that but some other things I don't agree with.

MR VAN WYK: I have no further questions. Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN WYK: .

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRETORIUS: Mr Chairman firstly I would like to place on record the findings of Judge Nugent at the inquest. They are attached to the application of the applications. In that finding there was no finding that a policeman was stabbed by one of the marchers to put it that way. So I just want to place that on record in respect of what the witness testified that he heard that in the findings.

CHAIRPERSON: Evidence given.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Chairman really not to the effect that he was stabbed in the sense that he was attacked. His evidence was that he was pushed out of the way by the group. I don't want - because that witness is probably coming to testify. So I don't want to now precede his evidence so to speak. But I just want to place that on record that there was nothing in the findings about this.

CHAIRPERSON: We understand.

MR PRETORIUS: Then one further thing Mr Chairman in regard to the proposition that my learned friend Mr Bizos put that seeing a firearm being fired that contains you must see the bullet leaving the particular firearm. I am aware that Mr Bizos was at that stage not present during the meeting but at a certain stage during the inquest findings or during the inquest proceedings there was a large discussion about what happened at library gardens and there was a video shown where one could clearly see when a firearm was being fired by the way a person's hand react when the firearm is being fired as well as the smoke etcetera that emerges immediately when it is being fired. So I just want to place it on record that, that was in the discussion while everybody, what I mean there was legal representatives of all sides present. I particularly don't recall that Mr Bizos was present. But it is possible to see that the firearm is being fired. You do not have actually to see the bullet leaving the firearm. Thank you.

Then I wish to proceed as follows.

MR TIPP: Chairperson before my learned friend continues I am trying to find the exact spot in the judgment where Judge Nugent deals with the two policemen. They were van Reenen and van Greenen who ran up to the marchers and one of them was pushed out of the way. The evidence was definitely to the effect that as one of them, I believe it was van Greenen was pushed out of the way - that he received an injury from a spear. Not necessarily that he was stabbed but it definitely drew blood. I will find the reference.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) at the appropriate time.

MR TIPP: I will.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Llale the other amnesty applications or affidavits you made did it regard the killing of people?

MR LLALE: I do agree that there are people who got injured. Some were killed in that incident.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Llale I am not referring to this particular incident. I am referring to evidence that you have made other applications for amnesty and other affidavits were filed in regard to other incidents regarding amnesty. And I am asking you in those affidavits and those applications do they regard the killing of people?

MR LLALE: It said there are people who got killed in that incident.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Llale I am repeating my question.

CHAIRPERSON: Hasn't he answered it? He says that there were people who were killed.

MR PRETORIUS: He refers to this incident Honourable Chairman. I specifically regard, I asked him not regarding this incident but regarding his other amnesty applications did they pertain the killing of people. Not this incident, other incidents.

MR LAX: Do you understand the question? The question is you testified that you were asked previously whether you made other applications for amnesty. You said yes you had. Now Mr Pretorius is asking in relation to those applications for amnesty were people killed or injured?

MR LLALE: Maybe I don't understand quite clear. The applications are two. There is one that was submitted last year. One this year. I will like for him to be clear and tell me which one.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Llale let me try and explain this and also you are at liberty to tell me if you are prepared to answer. The question is amongst the amnesty applications - besides this one that we are here about today where you have asked for amnesty, besides the Shell House incident - could it be that you are asking for amnesty because there are people who were killed or injured. That is the question from Mr Pretorius.

MR LLALE: What I was showing is that I did shoot towards the marchers. If there were some who were killed or injured I am asking for amnesty.

MS KHAMPEPE: Besides this application that we are about today are there any other applications where you are applying for amnesty?

MR LLALE: No there are none.

MS KHAMPEPE: Does that answer you Mr Pretorius?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes except Madame member of the Committee that previously he said there were other affidavits and that is specifically why I asked those questions.

MR LAX: Mr Pretorius it is clear there has been a misunderstanding. It is clear that he wasn't, he is talking about different application forms that he filled in ... well then we know from past experience that people have filled out forms they have been returned, they have been re-submitted. So I mean without engaging in that whole unnecessary waste of time. Let's just leave it at this.

MR PRETORIUS: Honourable member of the Committee I never intended to take it any further. I intended to leave it. I just explained to Madame member of the Committee that, that was the reason why I asked those questions. That is all Honourable member.

CHAIRPERSON: That is alright. Do carry on.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Llale when you were questioned about your background you gave a number of incidents where you alleged that you saw that certain IFP members, etc, were the aggressors you inter alia mentioned Boipatong. Is that correct?

MR LLALE: Yes I did say that earlier on.

MR PRETORIUS: Do you accept the proposition that on a number of occasions up to 1994 and even today there are or were occasions where ANC people attacked IFP people?

MR LLALE: I won't respond to that.

MR PRETORIUS: Carry on please.

MR LAX: Sorry he is saying he won't respond to it. That was his answer.

MR PRETORIUS: Sorry I heard him to say he want to respond to that. I am putting it to you as a fact (...intervention)

MS KHAMPEPE: What were you saying Mr Llale?

MR LLALE: Maybe I did not understand the question. He was asking about the incident between ANC and IFP. I said I am not prepared to argue that.

MS KHAMPEPE: The translation was incorrect. He said he could not deny that.

(INTERPRETER: The translation was not incorrect. He said he will not answer that.)

MR PRETORIUS: ...(inaudible) Mr Llale the position is simply this and I am putting it to you the fact that on a number of occasions up to now ANC people attacked IFP people and vice versa. That is the proposition. Do you agree with that?

MR LLALE: Yes I agree to that.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Llale, Mr Moolman testified were you in court when he testified?

MR LLALE: I wasn't there when he was testifying.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Moolman testified that he fired one shot. When he fired, that is now with a shot gun. When he fired that shot with the shotgun he was firing at people that were attacking Shell House.

MR LLALE: That is what Moolman said I won't respond to that because it is what Moolman said.

MR PRETORIUS: Now you testified that you fired two shots with a shot gun. One you fired whilst they were attacking. The other could have been now when people were retrieving and they were running around, milling around. Is that correct?

MR LLALE: Yes.

MR PRETORIUS: Now the evidence up to now that was given at the inquest is that Mr Potsane fired one shot and his evidence was that he fired it at a crowd that was attacking and was moving forward. Do you understand that?

MR LLALE: What Neo observed and so I am not in a position to dispute it or agree to it but I don't know. I wouldn't know.

MR PRETORIUS: The total position therefore, that is why I took it step for step Mr Llale is as follows. There were four shots fired with a shotgun from the parapet on the crowd. Three of those shots were fired whilst people were attacking or moving forward. Whereas the medical evidence is clear that there were four people killed that day with shotguns and all four were shot in the back. Therefore I put it to you the proposition that the guards or the picture that the guards on the parapet wanted to paint to the Commission isn't correct and in fact they are all telling what is not true merely to try and justify shooting at innocent marchers.

MR LLALE: I am here in front of this Committee today to talk about what I have seen on the 28th of March. As to what they are saying, others doesn't concern me but I am telling the Committee what I have seen and in the manner which all that happened.

MR PRETORIUS: You saw Mr Molefe firing his first volley of shots. In which direction did he fire?

MR LLALE: I said if I remember well his gun was pointing upwards.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Llale do you accept the following proposition. The position where the guards were position on the parapet was such that there is now a wall between them and the crowd. The crowd and the crowd is much lower than they are.

MR LLALE: Yes when you are up there you look down at the ground and you will see people.

MR PRETORIUS: It is very unlikely that if a rifle is fired accidentally on the parapet that it will be fired at the crowd. If it is fired at the crowd it had to be a deliberate action.

MR LLALE: Please repeat your question and in a slow pace?

MR PRETORIUS: Let me put it to you this way. If you want to fire at the crowd from the position that the guards on the parapet was only the upper body of the guards protrude above the parapet. If you want to shoot at the crowd with a rifle you have to place the butt of the rifle in your shoulder and look down towards the crowd and then fire.

MR LLALE: On that day it is not what I did, what you are demonstrating now.

MR PRETORIUS: What then did you do?

MR LLALE: I will try to show you. I wish we could have pictures in front of us then you will have a clear picture or as broad a picture as possible. When you are up there on the parapet you are not able to see everything entirely on the street. There are some places or things that you can't see from up there. Now where I was standing I was able to see the centre of the street towards the pavement and the shops. Now it wasn't possible to show your whole body so I could not see where the marchers were walking or were standing. I could see.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Chairman I will leave it at that. Mr Llale a last question. After you fired your second shot did any of the people on the parapet fired further shots or was that the last shot that was fired from the parapet?

MR LLALE: If my memory serves me well I think that is what happened.

MR PRETORIUS: I am sorry I do not understand. Did you say it was your last shot or the last shot?

MR LLALE: In my statement I am saying after shooting there was that quietness. I think after I shot it was quiet.

MR PRETORIUS: I just want to put it to you further the objectors for which I and both Dr van Wyk appear will also state that they never attacked Shell House and there never was an attack on Shell House. And that they were fired on by the guards including yourself without any reason.

MR LLALE: As others who have said that I am saying that day I saw an attack. This is why I acted that way because we were being attacked.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRETORIUS: .

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Mr Chairman just a few questions from me. Mr Llale in your application and in more particular the affidavit attached to your application you say that Mr Kruser and the late Mr Gadu told you to shoot but only as a last resort. What did you understand by that? When were you to shoot as a last resort?

MR LLALE: If I remember well there are many things that happened that day. I am talking about other, I am referring to other marchers that occurred earlier on. Some were doing things that were completely unacceptable. Now what they were requesting from us was that we should not act unreasonable. So that is the reason why they said that. That we should not shoot without any reason.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: The instructions given to you by Mr Chris Lushaba if I understand it correctly one was that you should give assistance in the form of diverting any concentration of the attackers who would be attacking the security downstairs. What did you understand by that? What were you to do to divert any concentration of the attackers? What did you understand by that?

MR LLALE: What I understood that day was that if we noticing or noticed that the guards downstairs they were being overpowered we should try to get the concentration on us at the time depending on how that would be done.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: After the first shot that you fired in the direction of the man with the AK47 as I understand your evidence after that you went down behind the parapet wall. Is that correct?

MR LLALE: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: And when you stood up for the second time and looked down you mentioned that it was chaotic, there was a lot of confusion. Don't you think that at that stage that already accomplished your instruction or your order that was given earlier on?

MR LLALE: The most important thing was that the person who had that gun was retreating so in my mind then I thought he was just hiding. I did not necessarily think that he was retreating. I thought he was hiding. Maybe looking for a place where he could hide himself.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Did you say that you thought the person was retreating so that he could find a better spot to shoot from?

MR LLALE: (... no English translation)

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Just one further aspect. If I understand your evidence yesterday correctly you mentioned a certain man which you think could have been an induna standing in front of one of the groups before they charged. Can you tell me in front of which group this man was standing? Was it the group in de Villiers Street or the group coming down King George Street?

MR LLALE: The two groups when they reached the intersection of King George and de Villiers merged. That is when I heard that person talking though I did not hear exactly as to what he was saying. I also heard others responding.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Just lastly I want to put to you that the objectors on whose behalf I am appearing their positions are exactly the same as those of the objectors. No further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: .

MR HUMAN: Thank you Mr Chairperson I have got no questions. Just for the record the position for the objectors that I am appearing is the same as that of my colleagues.

MS VAN HYSTEEN: No thank you Honourable Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination?

MR TIPP: No thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Questions? Yes thank you very much you may stand down.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Currin are you calling the applicant?

MR CURRIN: ...(inaudible) call the next applicant. The next applicant who is number 9. I would like to call him now if that is alright?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes please do.

MR CURRIN: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Potsane you are the 9th applicant in this application. Is that correct?

NEO POTSANE: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN: Your application for amnesty is dealt with on pages 113 to 117 of the bundle of applications. Is that correct?

MR POTSANE: Yes that is correct.

MR CURRIN: And it is supplemented by a further affidavit which was signed by you on the 11th of May 1998. Is that correct?

MR POTSANE: Yes that is correct.

MR CURRIN: This application as well as the supplementary affidavit both deal with your application relating to this particular matter. And the detail is brief in both these documents is that correct?

MR POTSANE: Yes that is correct.

MR CURRIN: And who advised you to deal with the circumstances in a brief form?

MR POTSANE: My legal representative advised me to do that.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

MR POTSANE: My lawyer.

MR CURRIN: Thank you. I want to lead you through your personal details just by way of introduction so that the Committee knows who you are and where you are coming from. You were born in 1960. Is that correct?

MR POTSANE: Yes that is correct.

MR CURRIN: And that was in Johannesburg, Soweto?

MR POTSANE: That is correct.

MR CURRIN: You went to school in Welkom and continued your schooling until 1977 when you were in standard eight is that correct?

MR POTSANE: That is correct.

MR CURRIN: You stopped your schooling in 1977 as a direct result of the Soweto riots and you then went into exile and joined the African National Congress and UmKhonto we Sizwe. Is that correct?

MR POTSANE: That is correct.

MR CURRIN: You trained in both Angola and East Germany and thereafter you worked in military structures of MK until May 1986 when you returned to South Africa. Is that correct?

MR POTSANE: That is correct.

MR CURRIN: In May 1986 you returned to the country and you infiltrated, well you infiltrated and you got involved in military activities on behalf of MK and you were arrested in September of the same year. Is that correct?

MR POTSANE: That is correct.

MR CURRIN: Following your arrest you were charged and prosecuted in respect of certain activities and you were then sentenced to death in 1989. Is that correct?

MR POTSANE: That is correct.

MR CURRIN: With regard to those activities referred to you have applied also for amnesty and that amnesty hearing will be heard at a later stage. Is that correct?

MR POTSANE: That is correct.

MR CURRIN: In 1990 your death sentence was commuted to 25 years and in 1991 you were released as part of the political transition process that was under way. Is that correct?

MR POTSANE: Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

MR CURRIN: It was my understanding of that particular release it was a political agreement that was entered into between the African National Congress and the then government of the day. He was released on parole. You might recall that there was an agreement in regard to certain prisoners at a time that the negotiations had stalemated and in order to get those negotiations back on road a whole lot of people were released on parole.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR CURRIN: What are you, where you employed presently?

MR POTSANE: I am employed with the South African Secret Service.

MR CURRIN: In Pretoria?

MR POTSANE: That is correct.

MR CURRIN: At the time of this particular incident which is the subject matter of the application where were you employed and in what capacity?

MR POTSANE: I was employed at the head quarters of the African National Congress as a technical security technician.

MR CURRIN: Can you just briefly tell us what that means?

MR POTSANE: Well it means that we were actually required to install technical security gadgets in houses or (...intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I can't hear what you are saying. Technical what?

MR POTSANE: Security gadgets. Now in the houses of the leadership.

MR CURRIN: Thank you. I want to refer to the particular day in question when this incident occurred. You went to work on that day. How did you get to work?

MR POTSANE: I walked from home.

MR CURRIN: And what time was that?

MR POTSANE: I normally left home I think at around eight in the morning.

MR CURRIN: Was anything unusual about what was happening on the streets on that particular day which you witnessed while walking?

MR POTSANE: Yes there was you know quite, when I was working towards work on the way I could see people running and I will see now like groups of marchers. But not large groups of marchers going about en mass and that maybe they were going to their rally which I had known that it was going to take place.

CHAIRPERSON: (...indistinct) maybe I am getting old. Maybe it is the tone of his voice. But it doesn't come to me sufficiently clearly so please take it easy so that I can hear what you are saying.

MR POTSANE: Yes Chair.

MR CURRIN: Just repeat that answer?

MR POTSANE: On my way to work I often you know see like people running helter skelter you know and as a result I will see like groups of marchers but not large groups of marchers and which means people were kind of running away from them you know.

MR CURRIN: So these were groups of marchers. Could you identify if they had any political affiliation?

MR POTSANE: Yes they were IFP marchers.

CHAIRPERSON: Where was it that you saw this?

MR POTSANE: That happened on my way to work.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes the question was where?

MR POTSANE: It was in and around Joubert Park.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes do carry on.

MR CURRIN: Had you during the course of the weekend heard anything at all about any planned marchers on that particular day?

MR POTSANE: Yes I did hear about the IFP march which was going to take place on the 28th of March.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Mr Potsane you tend to swallow the last words. So we don't hear the last words or sentence that you utter. Would you please speak up a bit?

MR POTSANE: Yes I did hear about the march of the IFP which was going to take place on the 28th of March.

CHAIRPERSON: Like that yes. Much better thank you.

MR CURRIN: What time did you arrive at work?

MR POTSANE: I arrived at work at around twenty five past eight.

MR CURRIN: And what did you do when you got to work?

MR POTSANE: When I got at work I went up to my work station that was on the 11th floor.

MR CURRIN: Did you when you arrived discuss what you had seen and what you had heard with any of your colleagues at Shell House?

MR POTSANE: Yes I did. I did discuss it with my colleagues at the technical security department and we actually viewed it in a serious light that the IFP people are in town and then they might cause trouble.

MR CURRIN: You then were at your work station. What happened after that? Could you tell us?

MR POTSANE: I was at my work station for about 30 minutes and thereafter I went down out of the building to Plein Street. Whilst I was there I witnessed a group of marchers passing by and the situation was quite tense. And it even come to a point whereby there was nearly like shooting between the ANC guards and the marchers.

CHAIRPERSON: This was while you were in Plein Street?

MR POTSANE: Plein.

MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman what he said was he went down after about a half an hour there were marchers and situation was tense and in his view to such an extent that there was almost confrontation. He didn't say there were any shootings but he said there was almost confrontation.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes what I meant was that whilst he was in Plein Street?

MR CURRIN: Yes correct. But there was no particular incident at that stage. Is that correct?

MR POTSANE: Yes that is correct.

MR CURRIN: After that you, what happened after that? Did you return to your work station?

MR POTSANE: Yes after that I returned to my work station and I was there like most of the morning up until like eleven a.m. in the morning and when I received a call which came from the reception downstairs that some one wanted to see me down there. So I went down and only to discover that my niece had come to seek me at work.

CHAIRPERSON: Who had come to see you?

MR POTSANE: My niece.

MR CURRIN: Carry on.

MR POTSANE: And when I actually asked her what was the reason of her coming to my work when she was supposed to be at school she said the principal of the school has actually instructed them to leave because the situation was not conducive and it was actually dangerous for them to be in town.

MR CURRIN: Did she go to school at a school in down town Johannesburg?

MR POTSANE: Yes she schooled in down town Johannesburg in Volmerans Street.

MR CURRIN: And what was her personal state of mind at that stage?

MR POTSANE: She was very scared and she just felt she couldn't go home. She might not arrive.

MR CURRIN: So she didn't want to go back down into the streets to go home?

MR POTSANE: That is correct.

MR CURRIN: What did you advise her or what did you then arrange for her to do?

MR POTSANE: At that stage now I sent her to my work station on the 11th floor which she knew.

MR CURRIN: Okay and then what happened?

MR POTSANE: Well after that I stayed back there at the foyer there you know just evaluating the situation. I was concerned about that situation too.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Mr Potsane we can hardly hear you from this side.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought I was getting old.

MR LAX: Can I make a suggestion just for all of us. If you put these things on you can hear perfectly clearly. And it will help everybody I think.

MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman I should just mention that the witness does have a tendency and it is a characteristic of his speaking to clip off some of his words which does make it difficult. It is just the way that he speak and I think it is something which he finds very difficult not to do. So I can apologize for that.

CHAIRPERSON: I feel relieved. I thought it was an affliction I was suffering. Let's hear you.

MR LAX: Sorry you were telling us what you were doing down in the foyer. Just carry on from there?

MR POTSANE: Yes after I sent my niece up to my work station I remained behind at the foyer just to evaluate the situation because (...intervention)

I will try.

MS KHAMPEPE: I must say still with my headphones it is difficult to catch your last words.

MR POTSANE: Pardon Ma'am?

CHAIRPERSON: After that what did you do?

MR POTSANE: I remained behind to evaluate the situation because I felt that things were getting serious. And at about that moment Gary Kruser approached me and asked me if I could, that I should go and help at the parapet. And actually told me that they were expecting an attack on Shell House. And actually instructed me to go and take a gun from the cubicle which is part of the reception there at Shell House.

MR CURRIN: What was your response to him telling you, you should go and take a gun?

MR POTSANE: Well I said my (...indistinct) condition doesn't allow me to handle firearms.

MR LAX: Your what condition sorry?

MR POTSANE: His parole conditions do not enable him to handle a firearm.

MR LAX: Thank you.

MR CURRIN: What happened thereafter?

MR POTSANE: Well after that Gary insisted that I shall go nevertheless to go and assist.

MR CURRIN: And what was the nature of this assistance that he wanted you to render on the parapet?

MR POTSANE: The nature of the assistance which I was supposed to render at the parapet was to assist in observing the situation and reporting back to the guards who were posted there.

MR CURRIN: How long did you then after having received this instruction you then proceeded to the parapet? And what happened after that?

MR POTSANE: When I got to the parapet the first person I saw was Moolman and I felt that since I was still new in that situation I shall go to some one who had been there for some time and so that he could update me as to what is happening.

MR CURRIN: Okay and then what happened?

MR POTSANE: I was going to Moolman and about three paces from Moolman I then heard these shots which came from my right hand side, from down the street. And then at a stage because Moolman was at the position where he was actually covered I actually rushed to him and crouched next to him. That is on his right.

MR CURRIN: When you say that he was covered what do you mean by that?

MR POTSANE: He was actually protected by the wall of the parapet.

MR CURRIN: Did you speak to Moolman at all?

MR POTSANE: Yes when I arrived to him he actually, he himself told me that these people were firing at us.

MR CURRIN: Once he had spoken to you what were the sequence of events thereafter?

MR POTSANE: Once he had told me that, in a matter of (...indistinct) it didn't happen, it didn't take long. Moolman stood up and he fired a shot. I was still crouching at that time. And then thereafter he crouched again and he recycled his weapon, the weapon and he kind of waited or something that told me that Moolman was not about to fire again because he stayed for some of the time which looked like to me that he was taking long to respond again. And when I looked at him I saw that he was actually scared. So I grabbed the gun from him and I stood up and.

MR CURRIN: When you stood up in which direction did you look?

MR POTSANE: I looked to my right. That is in the direction of de Villiers Street.

MR CURRIN: And what happened thereafter?

MR POTSANE: When I looked at my right I saw this group of men with their traditional weapons raised at ready surging forward, running and I aimed directly at them and fired a shot.

MR CURRIN: And in doing that what was your intention?

MR POTSANE: My intention in doing that was to protect Shell House. To protect the leadership and to protect the staff including myself.

MR CURRIN: Did you consider the possibility of either injuring or killing any of the people in whose direction you were firing?

MR POTSANE: Yes.

MR CURRIN: Having fired that shot what did you do?

MR POTSANE: After firing the shot I then crouched back into my position next to Moolman and I did feel scared at that time so I handed back the gun to Moolman.

MR CURRIN: And what did you do thereafter?

MR POTSANE: After that we remained under that position. Fire was still continuing for about some seconds. After it stopped we still remained there in that position for about 10 minutes. And after 10 minutes or so had elapsed I then decided to go back to the foyer.

MR CURRIN: Before we go on to what happened in the foyer. While you were up there and you were in that crouched position you said that firing was continuing. Can you indicate to the Committee here if you had any idea as to where that fire was coming from?

MR POTSANE: The fire which was now I was hearing at that time it was emanating from all directions.

MR CURRIN: There was also firing from your right hand side if you say from all directions. Is that correct?

MR POTSANE: Yes.

MR CURRIN: Is it possible that any of that firing could have come from other people on the parapet who were to your right?

MR POTSANE: It is possible.

MR CURRIN: Were you aware of the fact or put it this way rather. When you were on the parapet did you see any one else on the parapet during the course of prior to that firing other than Moolman?

MR POTSANE: No I don't recall seeing any one.

MR CURRIN: Thereafter you indicated that you and Moolman left the parapet. What did you do? Where did you go?

MR POTSANE: Just to put the record straight I did not say that me and Moolman left the parapet. I left alone then my intention was to go to the foyer.

MR CURRIN: Okay what did you do?

MR POTSANE: Well I went to the foyer for the sole purpose of actually asserting myself that in actual fact this conflict is over. And when I got to the foyer I did meet Gary whom I told that I did fire a shot. And actually went out into Plein Street and actually saw that the situation has actually calmed down and there were more police and members of the army including members of the security from the ANC. And I kind of heard that the situation was under control at that time.

MR CURRIN: At any stage before you left the parapet, that is after the shooting did you see anyone else?

MR POTSANE: Yes I did see Mr Molefe.

MR CURRIN: Having been in Plein Street what were your next movements?

CHAIRPERSON: (...indistinct) where you saw Molefe?

MR CURRIN: Yes where did you see Mr Molefe?

MR POTSANE: I saw Mr Molefe at that door that leads into the building that is on the side of King George Street.

MR CURRIN: Okay. Right then from Plein Street what were your movements?

MR POTSANE: Well from Plein, after satisfying myself on Plein Street that everything was calm I went back to my work station.

MR CURRIN: Why did you go? Was there any particular reason why you wanted to get back to your work station at that stage?

MR POTSANE: Yes I wanted to get back to my work station because whilst I was there at Plein Street I remembered that my niece was here and I wanted to see how she was faring.

MR CURRIN: Were you concerned about your niece?

MR POTSANE: I was very much concerned about my niece.

MR CURRIN: And after, when you went up to your work station was she still there?

MR POTSANE: Yes I found her there and she was safe with some of my colleagues there and nothing had actually happened to her.

MR CURRIN: In your supplementary affidavit which has been submitted to this Committee you express the view that in your opinion your actions on that particular day were justified. Against that background why are you applying for amnesty?

MR POTSANE: I am applying for amnesty because on that day I fired a shot which I don't know whether it actually did injure people or killed anyone. And I am not some one who is quite conversant with the law and I might feel that I was justified in that day to fire that shot and maybe another court might find me otherwise and find me guilty.

MR CURRIN: Is there any other reason why you are applying for amnesty?

MR POTSANE: Well the other reason I am applying for amnesty is that in the spirit of reconciliation which is what I believe in that the work which is being done by this Committee is very much important for this country. That I want to contribute to that. My coming forward to this Committee I come in the spirit of trying to heal wounds.

MR CURRIN: How would you describe your political objective on that particular day?

MR POTSANE: My political objective was to protect Shell House, the leadership of the organisation and the staff.

MR CURRIN: What do you think would have happened at that time, during the time of this particular incident and while you were involved and up on the parapet did anything go through your mind as to what may happen if the people that you believed were intent upon attacking Shell House succeeded in entering Shell House? Did you in your mind think as to what may happen?

MR POTSANE: I can only say if those people who were attacking Shell House had they gained access into the building there could have been a catastrophe, massacre, something which was not going to be good for this country. Because people were going to die.

MR CURRIN: On both sides?

MR POTSANE: That is correct.

MR CURRIN: At that time in the time of this particular incident how did you view, what was your view of the IFP?

MR POTSANE: IFP was out arch-rivals.

MR CURRIN: You say they were your arch-rivals?

MR POTSANE: Yes.

MR CURRIN: What do you mean by that? Were they just another political party or was it more than that when you say they were arch-rivals?

MR POTSANE: They were arch-rivals in the sense that with IFP there had many, many, many clashes with them where people had died and each side attacking the other and people losing lives.

MR CURRIN: We have heard from the lawyers that are representing victims here today that their clients were not part of a group that was intending to attack Shell House. As I understand - and I am putting this to the witness. As I understand what had been put to other applicants is that their clients were so as to say innocent victims that is as they portray them to this Committee. In the sense that they were merely wanting to attend a rally in regard to the king. Have you any comment about that? Did you know in other words how that group was constituted?

MR POTSANE: No.

MR CURRIN: If it is true and we don't know but if it is true that their clients were individuals in the group who had no intention of attacking and entering Shell House should that in any way impact on your application for amnesty?

MR POTSANE: No it should not.

MR CURRIN: And why do you say that?

MR POTSANE: Well I am saying this because innocent victims are often caught across fire.

MR CURRIN: You say they are often caught in cross fire? Is that what you are saying?

MR POTSANE: Ja ...(inaudible) caught in cross fire.

MR CURRIN: And have you any examples? Would you like to mention an example of a situation where innocent victims have been caught in cross-fire and maybe there have been amnesty applications?

MR POTSANE: I can think of one example in the case of BRIAN MITCHELL who actually went to attack a house of the ANC. His intention being to bolster the IFP and he actually went to a wrong house. A house that of IFP supporters and in that case he actually killed all the people, women and children in that house who were innocent victims. And when he applied for amnesty at a later stage he was granted amnesty.

MR CURRIN: So in your view if the people who are here today being represented were not part of a group that were intending to attack then you believe that shouldn't impact on your application?

MR POTSANE: That is correct.

MR CURRIN: Would you like to say anything while you are here today to the victims who are present in regard to the incident that happened?

MR POTSANE: Well I would like to say I regret the loss of life particularly to those who lost their next-of-kins, those who got injured and I would like to place on this Committee that I am very, very sorry that my actions on that day has got this lot of suffering to the people.

MR CURRIN: Thank you. I have no further questions of this witness.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CURRIN: .

CHAIRPERSON: This may be an appropriate time to adjourn for the day and we will resume at nine thirty tomorrow morning. The Committee will now adjourn and resume at nine thirty tomorrow morning Mr Currin.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS