Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-05-19

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?

MOSES VELI 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?

MOSES VELI 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?

MOSES VELI 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?

MOSES VELI LLALE: Yes I do.

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

MOSES VELI LLALE: The first shots I heard them.

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

MOSES VELI 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?

MOSES VELI 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?

MOSES VELI 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?

MOSES VELI 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?

MOSES VELI LLALE: I didn't hear him firing.

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

MOSES VELI 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?

MOSES VELI 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?

MOSES VELI 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?

MOSES VELI 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?

MOSES VELI 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?

MOSES VELI 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?

MOSES VELI 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?

MOSES VELI 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?

MOSES VELI 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?

MOSES VELI 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.