Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — UNKNOWN

MR DORFLING: Mr Chair the purpose for this line of questioning - the same witness, also in the translation which I concede at certain points in time, was referring or there was one reference to niece.  That I find at page 3572.

CHAIRPERSON: Well let's move on then.

MR DORFLING: The reason - may I just motivate the reason why I'm putting this?

CHAIRPERSON: Please.

MR DORFLING: The reason why this witness gave that portion of evidence was obviously to motivate his state of mind, to say I had information that there was certain things going wrong in town.  One of these things, amongst others, was the fact that my niece of nephew came to the building and he or she made this report.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes now if your version was that there was no such person that came there then I can understand, but if there was a person who in the course of interpretation is referred to as nephew or niece, where does it take the point?

MR DORFLING: The only point I wish to make is if the witness referred to it on numerous occasions in the masculine it shows a contradiction and therefore one cannot safely rely on that piece of evidence, it goes to the credibility of the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, bear in mind always that the evidene was given through interpreters.

MR DORFLING: I'll leave it at that Mr Chair.  Mr Potsane at the time when you were in the foyer prior to you going up to the parapet, can you still recall your evidence on - the evidence you related pertaining to the discussion between yourself and Mr Kruser?

NEO POTSANE: Yes.

MR DORFLING: Can you recall whether, when you gave your evidence in chief, you actually mentioned the fact that Mr Kruser told you that there was going to be an attack on Shell House or didn't you mention that?

NEO POTSANE: At the inquest that portion of the statement I did not mention, but during the examination it came - I did mention it and actually I told the court that it slipped my mind not to mention it at that time.

MR DORFLING: That is indeed what I'm getting at, at the time when you gave your evidence in main you said that you had a certain discussion with Mr Gary Kruser on the ground level, and perhaps we could just read the two portions of the record so that I can ask you to clarfy this.  At pages 3553 from line 29 onwards you testified as follows.  Maybe I should start reading from line 28:  "Yes and then?", "Well I remained behind in the foyer and just evaluating the situation.  That same moment Gary came to me.  He said I had to go up to the parapet to offer assistance to some guards who were there regarding the situation".  "Yes?", "And he had said I should go to the reception in order to get a firearm".  "Well?", "I explained to him that according to my parole conditions I was not allowed to handle a firearm".  "Yes?", "He said I should nevertheless go up to the parapet and just assist in evaluating the situation".  "You eventually went up to the parapet?", "Yes".  "Without a firearm?", "Yes".  "That what you have told his Lordship and learned assessors about what took place between you and Gary, is that all that took place between you and him?", "That is all".  Do you see that?  Do you confirm that that was your evidence at this point in time, at the time of the inquest?

NEO POTSANE: That is correct.

MR DORFLING: You however at that point in time ommitted a very important fact and that is that Mr Gary Kruser actually conveyed to you, on your evidence that there might possibly be an attack on Shell House?

NEO POTSANE: That is correct.

MR DORFLING: You were later asked about that and you said it slipped your mind.  Is that correct?

NEO POTSANE: That is correct.

MR DORFLING: That is found at page 3560, lines 26 to page 3561, line 3 Mr Chair.  Now Mr Potsane what I want to determine from you is how did it happen that this most important piece of information that you got from Mr Kruser, being the possibility of an attack on Shell House, how is it possible that that slipped your mind.  Can you offer an explanation?

NEO POTSANE: The only explanation that I can offer is that I'm a human being and I'm bound to forget certain points.

MR DORFLING: Is it your evidence that you remembered the other detail of the discussion of the parole conditions, the fact that you didn't want to carry a firearm, that you were only going there to evaluate the situation, you remembered all that, but this vital piece of information, because of human error, you forgot being that the real purpose for you going up to the parapet would be that you should be aware of the fact that there might possibly be an attack.  Is that the only explanation, it's just human error?

NEO POTSANE: That is correct.

MR DORFLING: I'm going to be arguing at the conclusion of these proceedings that that is a lie and that the reason that you ommitted it is because it obviously never happened.  Would you like to comment on that?

CHAIRPERSON: You're putting to him that that is what you're going to argue and I don't think you should invite comment on that.  That's your argument, we will hear your argument.

MR DORFLING: I would just like the witness to respond by saying whether he agrees or doesn't agree with that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well what is the tenor of his evidence up to now?

MR DORFLING: I take it that he will probably disagree.

CHAIRPERSON: Quite right.

MR DORFLING: Can we move on to the time when you arrived at the parapet, at the door to the parapet leading onto the parapet.  You already explained to Mr Pretorius that at the time when you opened the door of the parapet you saw Mr Moolman, he was standing up straight and the position appeared, in your view, to be normal.  Are you with me Mr Potsane?

NEO POTSANE: Yes, I'm with you.

MR DORFLING: From there you started approaching Mr Moolman, moving from the door towards where he was positioned at the parapet wall?

NEO POTSANE: Yes, I'm with you.

MR DORFLING: When exactly did you hear the first gunfire?

NEO POTSANE: It came from there, from the right that is on the street, on the side of De Villiers.

MR DORFLING: When exactly did you hear the first gunfire, where were you position, were you still on your way to Mr Moolman, were you already at where he was positioned at the parapet.  Where exactly were you?

NEO POTSANE: I was about three paces from Moolman.

MR DORFLING: What was the nature of the gunfire you heard?

NEO POTSANE: Well to me it sounded as if many people were firing.  That was the nature of the gunfire.

MR DORFLING: Did Mr Moolman at that point in time take hiding behind the parapet wall?

NEO POTSANE: That is correct.

MR DORFLING: What were your actions then?

NEO POTSANE: ...(indistinct) I rushed next to Moolman.

MR DORFLING: Did you move forward on your haunches?  Were you standing up straight approaching Mr Moolman?

NEO POTSANE: Yes, I was haunching because I couldn't expose myself above that wall of the parapet.

MR DORFLING: You then had a discussion with Mr Moolman - not you had a discussion, Mr Moolman then offered you a bit of information being that they were being fired at.  Did you understand that to mean that the marchers downstairs were firing at the guards on the parapet?

NEO POTSANE: That is correct.

MR DORFLING: And after Mr Moolman gave you that piece of information, was that the time when you took the firearm from him?

NEO POTSANE: After Mr Moolman give me that, told me that they were firing at us the I stood up and fired a shot and he took cover again and recycled the gun and he didn't appear to be like he was going to fire again and when I looked at him he seems very scared and that's when I took the gun from him and fired.

MR DORFLING: Was the firing still going on at that point in time?

NEO POTSANE: Yes.