Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-05-18

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: I understood the instructions to be that we should stop them from getting into Shell House.

MR DORFLING: : You see both Mr Kruser and Mr Molefe, the person Jakwe you've referred to from whom you got your orders, is of the opinion that the idea with the people on the parapet was that they were there to provide what they called secondary fire to distract and divert the marchers.  Are you disagreeing with that evidence?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: That is how I understood the instructions Sir and I've already told you.

MR DORFLING: : Mr Moolman can I have a more direct answer.  Are you saying that you never received the order to provide secondary fire?

SISI KHAMPEPE: Mr Dorfling may I interpose I am sorry to be doing this during your cross examination.  I am not clear in my mind who you are referring to the person who might have given him instructions about the secondary shooting.  Maybe that's the difficulty that the witness has.

MR DORFLING: : Thank you Madam Commissioner I think the evidence of this witness is that he would've received his instructions on the parapet from a person by the name of Jakwe which we know is Mr Molefe.  It was the evidence of Mr Molefe that they were to provide secondary fire from the parapet.  If I may refer perhaps to the inquest proceedings I can refer to the page numbers in this regard as well.

SISI KHAMPEPE: As long as the witness is on the same page with you I am fine.

MR DORFLING: : Now Mr Moolman let me make it clear.  It was the evidence of Mr Molefe and it was also the evidence of Mr Kruser at the inquest that the people on the parapet were placed there for the purpose of providing secondary fire.  You seem to be in disagreement with that.  You seem to have perceived the instruction to be that you had to shoot at the people when they were attacking Shell House not to provide secondary fire.  Am I correct?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: Maybe I do not understand what secondary fire means.

MR DORFLING: : Let me try and explain to you what the gist of the evidence of Mr Kruser and Mr Molefe is in my interpretation.  As I understood the evidence the people on the parapet were supposed to be a second line of fire.  In other words the people that would be defending would be the guards downstairs on ground level on the corners of King George and Plein Street, and the guards on the parapet would be a secondary line.  In other words they would then also fire from the top but not specifically with the intention to divert an attack but more specifically to divert the concentration of the marchers and to distract their attention.  That is how I understood their evidence.

MR LAX: Mr Dorfling isn't the issue with secondary fire that you distract their fire.  You distract the concentration of their fire at you by giving them another point from which they are being attacked thereby creating a dissolution if you like, a dissolving their fire.  It doesn't mean that you don't shoot at the crowd at all.  So I mean we're talking really fine strategic points of military tactics here and you're expecting this man, who on his evidence so far, hasn't had any military training to understand these fine distinctions.  Really I don't think it's necessaryily that fair.  He's made it clear that he doesn't understand what you mean by secondary fire.  Maybe it wasn't put to him in that basis and maybe that is what you should explore before you pin him down to it.

MR DORFLING: : Mr Moolman may I turn to your evidence at the inquest.  I got the impression from reading your evidence at the inquest that the reason you were placed on the parapet was to protect the security guards downstairs on ground level at Shell House if they were to come under an attack.  Do you agree with that?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: Yes I agree.

MR DORFLING: : For purposes of the committee I'm specifically referring to pages 3483, line one, to 3487 line 17, and also page 3436, lines 20 to 25.

CHAIRPERSON: I am sorry to interrupt, just the first one was 3483 to 3487?

MR DORFLING: : Indeed Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yeah, thank you.

MR DORFLING: : And the second one was 3436 lines 20 to 25.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR DORFLING: : Now were you aware where the guards were positioned downstairs?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: I was told that the guards were downstairs, where they were positioned I could not see them.

MR DORFLING: : You weren't informed of the specific position of the guards you didn't know whether they were on the corners of Plein and Klein or King George and de Villiers, or Plein and King George, you didn't know.  Is that correct?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: That is correct.

MR DORFLING: : How would you have then been in a position to know that the guards on the ground level were coming under attack?

CHAIRPERSON: The instructions were if the guards are fired theyu must fire.  He may not know exactly when the guards are going to be attacked and how.

MR DORFLING: : Mr Chair I think the question is bit different. I am trying to establish from this witness how he would have known that the guards downstairs were being fired at and were coming under attack if he didn't know where they were positioned.  That's the question I am trying to pose to the witness.

MR LAX: Do you understand the question.  How would you have known that the guards downstairs were coming under attack?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: Firstly we were on the parapet to patrol and to keep an eye on the situation.  Everything that happened we saw it clearly.

SISI KHAMPEPE: But I think the question that Mr Dorfling wants you to respond to is how would you have known that the guards on the ground were under attack because you didn't know where they were specifically located on the ground.

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: I have indicated already that we went to the parapet to protect because we were also part of the security, now the attack would not only be on the people on the ground floor it would also be directed at us.

MR DORFLING: : Mr Moolman in my previous question preceding this one you confirmed that you perceived your role to be to protect the security guards downstairs when they come under attack.  The question remains, how would you have known that to happen if you didn't know where they were positioned?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: Maybe I did not understand your question Sir.  But we were supposed to repel the attackers so that they do not gain access into Shell House.

MR DORFLING: : I want to put it to you Mr Moolman that you're not being truthful, you are not telling the full truth, and that you had exactly the same difficulty at the time of the inquest to explain your actions.  And you can read the record I am going to argue that your untruthfulness appears from the record.  You can read if you wish pages 3448 line one to page 3449 line nine where you had exactly the same difficulty you had today in explaining this question of mine.

CHAIRPERSON: At least he is consistent.

MR DORFLING: : Indeed so Mr Chair it would seem that the lie remains consistent.

CHAIRPERSON: His truthfulness may be consistent as well.  You know I - situation where it says my understanding of the instructions were to prevent an attack on Shell House.  That's how he understood it.  Then you bring in the question of secondary fire.  He may have understood that or he may not have understood that.  But where does it take the matter?

MR DORFLING: : Mr Chair I think the witness was quite clear that he understood his position to be defending the guards on the ground.

CHAIRPERSON: That was part ....(intervention)

MR DORFLING: : Indeed.

CHAIRPERSON: The other was prevent an attack on Shell House.

MR DORFLING: : Indeed.  Did you, when positioned on the parapet, see Mr Molefe shooting Mr Moolman?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: I did not see him but I heard that he shot.

MR DORFLING: : What kind of fire did you hear emanating from where he was positioned?