Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — UNKNOWN

MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman the applicant would be willing to answer all questions put to him in respect of these other two incidents for which he is applying for amnesty if we're going to now proceed with that amnesty application.  Until that amnesty application commences, he is not obliged to answer any questions in regard to those incidents.  That is certainly my understanding of the Act and if necessary I can get the relevant sections, but maybe I can help both the committee and my colleague on that side by placing on record that this applicant, as he indicated in his evidence, was an MK soldier.  In that capacity he was engaged in what he regarded as a war for the liberation of South Africa, in the course of that he was involved in the two incidents which are referred to above, in other words Act No 1 which related to activities which are subject to a separate amnesty application and in respect of which he has already been sentenced and convicted.  The only reason why he's applying for amnesty there is because he is not entitled to travel freely throughout the world because he has a criminal record and he wishes to clear his criminal record.  The issue relating to Brigadier Malope is a separate matter, it's got nothing at all to do with 1.  In respect of that matter he has never been prosecuted, in fact that assasination was never ever successfully investigated and he voluntarily came forward and submitted the information with regard to that particular incident so those are two separate incidents, they are not in any way related to one another and he for not one moment would deny that as an MK soldier he was involved in activities which resulted in the death of people and that is why he is applying for amnesty.  The third application relates to the Shell House incident and it is completely separate from the other two.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the explanation.  What are the - paragraph 9.b talks about three people killed and twenty injured, what does that relate to?

MR CURRIN: That relates to the first incident.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Mr Currin if one reads the whole application it becomes quite apparent to me at least that your client simply combined three applications in one application.

MR CURRIN: That is precisely what he did because at the time that the application was completed there was a tendency or there was a procedure followed by this committee to deal with applications by applicant, so an applicant would come along and all his applications would be dealt with in one hearing.  And that is why he was advised to do it on this basis.  Subsequently the TRC changed that and decided to do it in terms of themes - this is the Shell House so they pulled him in and you are only now dealing with the Shell House incident, the other two are dealt with separately and that was not the situation when this application was completed.

SISI KHAMPEPE: And for purposes of this application, paragraph 9.a must only relate to paragraph 9.a.iii for purposes of this application?

MR CURRIN: That is correct.

MR LAX: Can we also just assume that the last part of 9.a.iii which says:  "He does not know whether anyone was hit by the bullet", is in fact an answer in a sense to 9.b?

MR CURRIN: Precisely because that's why he doesn't know that he killed - although he shot to kill, he's admitted that, he doesn't know whether in fact the shot that he fired hit anyone so he can't make that (indistinct).  And I should just also add that 10.a has of course been supplemented by the additional Affidavit which was filed later where he gives his, elaborates further on his political motivation in regard to Shell House.

CHAIRPERSON: If it is your desire to find out what precisely are the matters for which he has applied for amnesty without going into the details of matters related to that application then you may do so, but be clear.  This committee has not read the papers in relation to his application for amnesty in other matters and we are not dealing with that here.

MR PRETORIUS: I do understand it and I emphasise all I want to know is the nature, I will even be satisfied if my colleague, Mr Currin explains it to me, just broadly the nature of what it is.  In so far as paragraph 1 is concerned, if it is so that he has been tried and convicted, that is public documents so it is traceable and it is public documents.  I submit we can just know.   If my learned friend can just broadly indicate for us what the that operations was.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Currin do you know the facts briefly, without going into any detail about this?

MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman I know the facts very briefly and I do not want to in any way mislead this committee.  I would want to be absolutely sure that what I tell this committee is correct and for that reason I would just need to have a short consultation with the applicant just to clarify one or two issues in my own mind and I can very briefly deal with that if the committee thinks that it is relevant.

CHAIRPERSON: (inaudible)

MR PRETORIUS: I'll do so Mr Chairman.  Mr Potsane when you arrived at the parapet and you came through the parapet door, how far was Mr Moolman's position from the parapet door, the parapet itself?

NEO POTSANE: The distance between the parapet door and the parapet itself is about fifteen to twenty metres.

MR PRETORIUS: What was Mr Moolman busy doing when you came through the parapet door?

NEO POTSANE: Mr Moolman was standing there observing the situation.

MR PRETORIUS: In other words he was standing on the upper level of the parapet so that his body was above the wall and he was looking, he was observing the situation in and around King George Street next to Shell House.  Is that correct?

NEO POTSANE: That is correct.

MR PRETORIUS: At that stage, that is now just as you entered the parapet, did you hear any shots being fired?

NEO POTSANE: As I entered the parapet at the door, no I did not.

MR PRETORIUS: The impression that I therefore get from your evidence is that when you walked out, just as you got out the parapet door, everything that you observed at that stage was quite normal, there's no shots firing or being fired, Mr Moolman is standing and he's just observing the crowd.  Is that correct?

NEO POTSANE: That is correct.

MR PRETORIUS: At that stage also Mr Moolman is standing all by himself approximately in the middle, that is if one looks at the block of King George Street between Plein Street and De Villiers Street, he was standing approximately in the middle of the block on that parapet.  Is that correct?

NEO POTSANE: That is correct.

MR PRETORIUS: And you did not see anybody with Mr Moolman at that stage, he was standing all by himself.  Is that also correct?

NEO POTSANE: That is correct.

MR PRETORIUS: Now Mr Potsane it was common cause between the guards, that is Mr Molefe, Mr Veli Llale and Mr Moolman himself that when the shooting started Mr Moolman was on the parapet at the corner of King George Street and De Villiers Street and he was accompanied by the two guards I mentioned, that is Mr Llale and Mr Molefe.  Do you deny that?

NEO POTSANE: Yes.

MR PRETORIUS: It was also common cause amongst the three guards that I've just mentioned that immediately when the shooting started the guards took cover and Mr Llale and Moolman ran under cover in various directions.  Do you also deny that?

NEO POTSANE: Yes I deny that.

MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman I wonder if my learned colleague here could just ascertain that the witness understands precisely what he is saying.  I sense that there's confusion simply because this witness wasn't anywhere on the scene when these things happened, so if maybe my colleague could just explain which period in time he's referring to so that the witness understands whether he's referring to a time that Mr Potsane was on the parapet or before he even got to the parapet.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, clear that up please.