Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-05-14

MR DORFLING: Do you agree that you testified that those were people that was within the crowd of marchers outside Shell House that day?

MODISE MOLEFE: Mr Dorfling this is specific and I am repeating for the third time. This is TRC. It is not a (...indistinct) It is about the truth. You not want to make the distinction that I make and as Zulus, Zulus and a Zulus who tied the red cloth on top of their forehead.

CHAIRPERSON: Now the question is were there.

MODISE MOLEFE: I am taking exception to that.

CHAIRPERSON: Please. The question really directed is in that crowd on that day did you see people with the red bands and the white bands?

MODISE MOLEFE: Yes Your Honour.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the answer you want?

MR DORFLING: Indeed that is the answer.

CHAIRPERSON: Well please proceed.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Mr Molefe the evidence that you are giving today is not for the benefit of Mr Dorfling. Do you understand that?

MODISE MOLEFE: Yes Your Honour.

JUDGE NGCOBO: It is intended to assist this Committee. Do you understand that?

MODISE MOLEFE: Yes I do.

JUDGE NGCOBO: If you direct your response not to Mr Dorfling but to this Committee. Do you understand that?

MODISE MOLEFE: Yes I do.

MR DORFLING: Mr Molefe I want to put it to you that it is quite clear from the portions of the record that I have read to you that you didn't mess around with your words. You made it very, very clear that you hated a certain portion of the Zulus. That a portion of those Zulus are specifically those who have red or carry red head gear. That such Zulus were present at the corners of King George and de Villiers Street and that if you had half the chance, if your position was not that awkward you would have mowed them down. That was your evidence Sir. Would you care to respond to that

MODISE MOLEFE: Yes I have said so.

MR DORFLING: Is that your position today?

MODISE MOLEFE: His Lordship, Mr Chairman the country is under a ...(indistinct) from sick political philosophies and dogmatic political, rigid political beliefs. IFP came as a result of the African National Congress. We are speaking of a possible merger between the IFP and the African National Congress. We are perceiving the IFP as our brothers, our sisters. The leader of the IFP today can be given a position of the acting President of this country which we are (...intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I don't want to stop you from making that statement but I want to tell you please those passages that we read to you were your views which you had expressed at that time. The question is; are those still your views about those people that wore red doeks or wit doeks amongst the IFP? Those were your views at that time. The question is are those your views now as well? And the answer is either yes or no.

MODISE MOLEFE: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Those are not his views now.

MR DORFLING: What have changed your views subsequent to the inquest proceedings Mr Molefe?

MODISE MOLEFE: The country is changing.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's move on because I don't want to engage in a political debate Mr Dorfling.

MR DORFLING: I want to conclude with the position put forward by the objectors. Mr Molefe I appear on behalf of certain people that was injured at the corners of King George and de Villiers Street on that day. Nine people. It is their, it will be their evidence should they be called to give evidence in front of this Committee that there was no justification for the ANC guards shooting at them. That they did not have firearms at the day and that they were not attacking Shell House. I am asking three questions. Firstly, there was no justification for the shooting. Would you like to respond to that? I am just talking from the perspective of the people I represent. Those are my instructions. They say there was no justification for them being shot.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes now he is not talking about no justification for you shooting. He is talking about generally shooting by the guards. That there was no justification for them shooting on that day. That is what his clients are going to say. They are also going to say that they were not carrying arms.

MR DORFLING: Firearms Mr Chair yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Firearms.

MR DORFLING: There were a number of them that carried traditional arms so to speak.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes they were not carrying guns.

MR DORFLING: Traditional weapons but I am talking firearms.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes you are talking on behalf of your clients?

MR DORFLING: Indeed I can only speak on behalf of the 9 individuals I represent.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. That is what his clients are going to say if they give evidence. You are invited to comment on that. Do you agree or disagree?

MODISE MOLEFE: I disagree.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

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

MR DORFLING: .

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Molefe. If I may proceed Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes please.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Molefe do I understand you to convey that it is possible that you accidentally shot at the crowd or at the pharmacy?

MODISE MOLEFE: Repeat your question?

MR PRETORIUS: Do I understand you that you are trying to convey to this Committee that it is possible that you accidentally shot those shots which ballistically was proven to be AK47
coming from the parapet into the pharmacy?

MODISE MOLEFE: That is correct.

MR PRETORIUS: Do you still have that photograph of the top of the parapet of Shell House in front of you?

MODISE MOLEFE: Yes.

MR LAX: Sorry the photograph you looked at isn't the photograph. I can see it under your papers. It is under the papers in front of you. There it is. That is the one he is asking you to look at.

MR PRETORIUS: If one look at the person that is standing on the parapet that one can clearly see there it is also clear that just next to him the wall that he is looking is a thick wall. It is not a thin wall. Is that correct?

MODISE MOLEFE: That is correct.

MR PRETORIUS: As to shoot from the position that you were in at the angle that was indicated by the ballistic experts you physically have to lean over that thick wall with the top part of your body and intentionally point your weapon in the direction of the pharmacy to shoot in the way you did. It is impossible to do it accidentally.

MODISE MOLEFE: What is your question?

MR PRETORIUS: I am putting it to you and I want your response thereto.

CHAIRPERSON: It is put to you that the angle at which the bullet or the bullets struck the window of the pharmacy from where you were standing indicated that you had to lean forward over the wall to fire and those bullets could never have gone the way you say they were whilst you were standing in the depression firing upwards. That is what is being put to you. That this was not accidental, it was intentional.

MODISE MOLEFE: His Lordship I said when the bullets struck the concrete walls of the parapet I pulled Veli down. There was fire coming from the direction of the marchers. Meaning if I had taken that position I could not have been here now.

CHAIRPERSON: So you persist in your evidence that the shots that hit the window of the pharmacy was accidental and not intentional. Is that what you are saying?

MODISE MOLEFE: Precisely.

CHAIRPERSON: Proceed please.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Molefe the Zulus that were injured and died that day were lying exactly there next to the pharmacy where your shots were found. Is that correct?

MODISE MOLEFE: Frankly I saw that on the TV as to who killed them I am not going to respond to that. And the ballistic evidence they do not link my gun with the deceased neither the injured.

MR PRETORIUS: Do I understand your answer to be in the positive? In other words yes?

MODISE MOLEFE: I do not have any comment to that.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Molefe I put it to you, you are not telling the truth to this Committee. That what you actually did that day was to physically lean over the balcony and intentionally shot at the marchers.