Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — UNKNOWN

MR DORFLING: Are you not conceding the possibility that there might not have been an attack, or are you conceding that there might not have been an attack?

NEO POTSANE: Maybe someone can repeat that question.

MR LAX: He's saying to you do you agree there was an attack or do you disagree there was an attack, that's really what he's asking you?

NEO POTSANE: There was an attack.

MR DORFLING: Is your evidence then that if anybody would say there was no attack you would say that's a blatant lie, you're not conceding that that's possible, you're saying it's a blatant lie if anybody says that?

CHAIRPERSON: Would he have to say I disagree with that without it being a blatant lie?

MR DORFLING: As you please Mr Chair, but that would not be the truth then.

NEO POTSANE: The way I saw things that day, the occurence of that day there was an attack and I still hold my view that there was an attack.

MR DORFLING: Is there any possibility that you might be mistaken?

NEO POTSANE: No.

MR DORFLING: I've got no further questions thank you Mr Chair.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DORFLING

MS VAN HUYSTEEN: Mr Chairman I have no questions, but just want to state that the objectors on whose behalf I am appearing are the same as those of the others.

MR VAN WYK: Mr Chairman there's one aspect I want to raise with the witness.  Mr Potsane you fired one shot from the parapet and you were asked the question by you representative what your intention was with that shot.  Do you recall that evidence?

NEO POTSANE: Yes I do.

MR VAN WYK: What was your intention?

NEO POTSANE: My intention was to protect the building, the leadership of the organisation and the staff.

MR VAN WYK: Was that all?

NEO POTSANE: Well if I may have to add that it was also the question of the elections which I took into consideration.  The elections were around the corner and if that attack had been successful there wouldn't have been elections.

MR VAN WYK: Are those your only reasons?

NEO POTSANE: Yes.

MR VAN WYK: Did you have sufficient time to think about the question?

NEO POTSANE: Yes I've thought about the question.

MR VAN WYK: Is there anything you want to add?

NEO POTSANE: Well the only thing (indistinct) is that I was also fearing for my life.

MR VAN WYK: So you were shooting in self defense?

NEO POTSANE: Can you come again?

MR VAN WYK: You want to say that you shot in self defense?

NEO POTSANE: That is correct.

MR VAN WYK: Did you perceive any attack being launched towards you personally?

NEO POTSANE: No.

MR VAN WYK: So how do you want to say that you shot in self defense?

NEO POTSANE: It's just one of his reasons, isn't it?

MR VAN WYK: That is correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: There was a combination of reasons.

MR VAN WYK: But I want to submit that concerning the one of self defense, he's eliminating himself.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you defending yourself or were you defending Shell House and the people in that building?

NEO POTSANE: I was defending the Shell House, as I've stated I was defending the building, the leadership and the staff.

CHAIRPERSON: And when you shot did you attempt to shoot at an individual or you shot at people in the crowd?

NEO POTSANE: I shot at the crowd.

MR VAN WYK: Do I then understand you, you did not shoot to defend yourself.  Is that correct?

NEO POTSANE: I shot to defend the organisation from attack.

MR VAN WYK: Ja but that is not my question, my question is did you shoot in order to defend yourself, you as a person?

NEO POTSANE: I can say to that question is that in an attack if those people had succeeded my life was also threatened that's why I also mentioned myself as that person was threatened by the attackers.

MR VAN WYK: There would only have been an immediate threat if they entered the building in Plein Street, they went up the stairs, they came onto the parapet then they approached you, then there would have been an imminent danger.  Do you agree with that?

NEO POTSANE: That is correct.

MR VAN WYK: So at the stage when you fired the shot on the parapet, there was no immediate threat to your life or your body.  Do you agree with that?

NEO POTSANE: There was.

MR VAN WYK: Could you explain to the committee in which way there was an imminent threat to your body or your life?

NEO POTSANE: If those attackers actually managed to break our defense, then it meant that my life will be threatened too, including that of the staff and the leadership in the building.

MR VAN WYK: No if that was the position and that was the perception that you had, why did you fire one shot only?

NEO POTSANE: I (indistinct) that I became scared.

MR VAN WYK: So then you were not afraid of your life anymore because you were scared.  Is that correct?

MR LAX: Sorry Mr Van Wyk that's a preposterous question, the man's scared, of course he's afraid of his life and everything else.  I mean really you're expecting him to split up his fear into tiny little compartments, it's just so academic at this point in time.  We're dealing with a real life situation where there's gunfire going off, there's things happening and you're asking this man to split all these things up into neat little compartments.

MR VAN WYK: No Mr Commissioner I'm just asking him in respect of the explanations he has given, these are the reasons, I'm questioning him on his reasons that he's giving.

CHAIRPERSON: By self defense do you mean that he shot at the man who was about to shoot at him?

MR VAN WYK: Or anybody at the crowd ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Anybody from that crowd might have fired in general direction and a bullet may have hit him.  Isn't that what could have happened?

MR VAN WYK: Mr Chairman but he said his perception was that there were no shots fired at him.

CHAIRPERSON: Not at him, shots are fired at people not specifically at individuals.  There are crowds on one side, they are firing in a general direction, he might be hit.

MR VAN WYK: But that's what I asked him.  His perception was that there were no shots fired in his direction so he couldn't be hit and that's why I want to ascertain how he could ever have thought that his own life was in danger.  That is the question I want address to him.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

NEO POTSANE: Can you repeat the question please?

MR VAN WYK: If it was your perception that no shots were fired into your direction, how could you have thought that your life might be in danger?

NEO POTSANE: That was a war situation and shots were being fired and I wouldn't know whence were they directed to so my life was threatened because of the mere fact that I couldn't stand up and just expose myself because I was scared about that.

MR VAN WYK: Was it not a matter that you stopped firing because you saw the people running away and there was no need for firing any further shots.  Isn't that the correct position?

NEO POTSANE: No, I never said that.

MR VAN WYK: I want to put it to you that there was no attack on Shell House by any of the marchers.  Have you got any comment on that?

NEO POTSANE: Well I'll put it to you again that there was an attack on Shell House.

MR VAN WYK: Thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN WYK

MR HUMAN: Thank you Mr Chairman, I've got no questions, just for the record that the objectors on whose behalf I will appear, the situation is the same as that of my colleague.

MS PATEL: No thank you Honourable Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: No questions Chair.

MR CURRIN: No re-examination Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you very much, you may stand down.
WITNESS EXCUSED