Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-05-18

MR PRETORIUS: : Mr Moolman that's explaining why you initially brought your application because when you initially brought your application the ballistics weren't even available.  So you could not have been aware of any ballistic reports at the time that you brought your application.  I am still asking you initially right in the beginning when you brought your application why did you bring it?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: Because I shot and the shot was - the firearm was directed at the marchers.

MR PRETORIUS: : Mr Moolman I put it to you that your evidence in front of the inquest court was totally contradictory to and any explanation that you could have exceeded the bounds of self-defence in fact it was quite the opposite.  Only ten  days before that you brought your application on the grounds you might have exceeded the bounds of self defence.  I am putting it to you that your whole evidence in front of Judge Nugent was quite the contrary.  Can you explain that?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: The evidence that I gave Judge Nugent is the recollection of what happened and I would not go to an extent of saying that the evidence is contradictory.  That's how I perceived things to have happened.

MR PRETORIUS: : I furthermore put it to you Mr Moolman that you full well knew and still know that what you did was not justifiable and that is the fact why you applied for amnesty.

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: I just dispute what you say.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Chairman I am now going to refer to the record as from page 3501 of the evidence of Mr Moolman.  Just to place the Chairman and the honourable members of the Committee in a position at that stage the full video material that was shown, of which just a part of it was shown in front of this Committee, was shown to the witness and various points were pointed out to him that the legal representatives representing the families at that stage would raise with regard to that video material.  I do not think that it is - I do not want to show again I think it would be sufficient if one pointed to these points that were raised with this witness in the presence of their legal representatives as it was not in dispute at that stage and I can see no reason why it should be or could be disputed now.  So as to short cut the procedure of showing the video material again I can just refer to the record and place things on record as what was at that stage common cause.

CHAIRPERSON: Please do that.

MR PRETORIUS: : Thank you Mr Chairman.  Mr Moolman can you recall that whilst you were testifying at the inquest, a video was shown to you and various points were made with regard to the video?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: I remember seeing the video.

MR PRETORIUS: : Right.  Mr Moolman I am going to put certain points to you that were pointed out during that occasion.  Your legal representatives will point out if that is incorrect but if there's anything that you personally want to dispute about that kindly place that on record as well.

MS MOROKA: Chairperson what is the question?

MR PRETORIUS: : I am just requesting the witness if he disputes something if he would point that out to the Committee as well Mr Chairman.  That's a mere request.

CHAIRPERSON: For my benefit I don't know what precisely  you want as an answer.  You're asking whether certain points were pointed out to him in the video, and he said he saw the video.  What is it that you want from him?

MR PRETORIUS: : I just want him to indicate whether he understands the position that he must point out something if it is contrary to what he observed.

CHAIRPERSON: You mean now at this stage without seeing the video?

MR PRETORIUS: : That is correct Mr Chairman.

MS MOROKA: Chairperson if I may the difficulty is I don't understand this question and I don't know whether the applicant does and the applicant is being asked to point out what he doesn't agree with.  If my learned friend recalls very well that this page 3506 even the Judge was of the view that it was difficult to say where that shot came from.  So I am not very sure what my learned is friend is trying to get out of this applicant.

MR TIPP: Sorry for your benefit I understand Mr Pretorius is going to read passages from the record and then ask the witness to comment on those passages as he reads them.  I think all this is a bit premature.  Let him read what he's going to read and in each case the witness will be asked to comment on that.
	Thank you Mr ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Assist us please we are in the dark.  You saw the video, he saw the video but we here don't have a clue about what it is precisely you want.

MR PRETORIUS: : I am going to put it step for step to the witness now Mr Chairman all I wanted him to do is to understand is that if he objects to he doesn't agree with it he can just place that on record that is all that I want.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes do that please.

MR PRETORIUS: : Mr Moolman when the video started right in the beginning of the video it was a scene pictured at the corner of Wanderers Street and de Villiers Street approximately one block or exactly one block away from Shell House as such.  Can you recall that?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: When I watched the video I saw Wanderers many a times, I can't remember now what happened then.

MR PRETORIUS: : What then happened is that one could clearly see some marchers at the corner of Wanderers and de Villiers Street taking shelter behind buildings on that corner.  Do you recall that?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: I do not remember that.

MR PRETORIUS: : Do you dispute it?

JUDGE NGCOBO: What is it that you want him to dispute, is it the fact that it appeared on the video or is it the fact that it never happened at all?

MR PRETORIUS: : The fact that, that is what appears on the video honourable members?

MR TIPP: The man says he can't remember.  Is there any point of him denying it or admitting it.  Really if he can't remember he can't remember it.  That is what he just told you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  If the Committee wants to see the video -ifit will help we will on our own screen and see the video and see if it is available.

MR PRETORIUS: : It is available Mr Chairman but the Committee members and the chairman will recall that my learned friend Mr Berger raised the question whether inter alia how long or how soon after that specific portion that was shown to the Committee was taken.  From all the events that is stated now and what appears from the video that was pointed out during that occasion it was quite clear in the words of Mr Honourable Judge Nugent that the video was taken very shortly after the particular shooting, the main shooting event took place.
	I want now through this witness and through what happened whilst this witness was testifying to place all those facts which is really not in dispute it cannot be disputed because then it wasn't in dispute, before the committee, so that it is clear that these are the important factors to take into regard when one considers the time phrase when this video was taken.

SISI KHAMPEPE: May I understand you Mr Pretorius.  Is this line of questioning therefore intended to establish the time when the video was taken?

MR PRETORIUS: : Precisely, and it was pointed out - all these factors were pointed out during the previous hearing and it was then not in dispute anymore so it was then, in the words of Judge Nugent, clear that the video was taken very shortly after the main incident.

CHAIRPERSON: Ask him whether he disputes that, because if he can't dispute that, that would eliminate the necessity of going point by point of what was shown in the video.  Isn't it?

MR PRETORIUS: : I will attempt to do that Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Unless Mr Pretorius there is a further point you want to make by this line of questioning.