Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-05-19

MR DORFLING: Mr Chair may I just very briefly respond to the comment made by my learned friend. One of the possibilities that might exist is that a Committee for amnesty might grant amnesty without a public hearing.

CHAIRPERSON: Not that there has been a gross violations of human rights.

MR DORFLING: Yes but that possibility certainly exists.

CHAIRPERSON: But I don't think you should labour the point.

MR DORFLING: I would rather leave this for argument. I would like to move on to another point which (...intervention)

JUDGE NGCOBO: ...(inaudible) what was the question that you directed ...(inaudible)?

MR DORFLING: Mr Chair the question was aimed at asking this witness for a response as to why the fact of the existence of the man with the AK47 was not part of his actual application for amnesty and if not in the affidavit itself why then wasn't it contained in the actual Roneo form that is attached to the affidavit. Seeing that a requirement is that he should make full disclosure. And that is the response I sought from this witness.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Did he answer this question?

MR DORFLING: It seems like the only response forthcoming is that at the time he didn't think it of particular significance or importance to specifically mention that fact. He just dealt with it in general terms. I think that is as Honourable Chair has summed it up. That is the way I understand his response.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes you going to move on to something else now?

MR DORFLING: Indeed Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you do proceed.

MR DORFLING: Mr Llale I am going to be with reference to the record of the inquest proceedings and also with reference to your evidence here today and also yesterday urge this Committee to find that you were untruthful and that you were fabricating certain portions of your evidence. I am going to be dealing with certain aspects that appear from the record and from your evidence here on which I will base my argument that you are fabricating. I want you to have the opportunity to respond to these questions so that you have had the opportunity to fully explain these what appeared to me to be contradictions and self-contradictions in your own evidence.
	Can I first of all enquire from you whether you saw Mr Molefe, Jakwe whether you saw him firing any shots on the parapet?

MOSES VELI LLALE: Yes I did.

CHAIRPERSON: (...indistinct) as distinct of having heard Molefe fire instead of seeing him fire.

MR DORFLING: I am asking specifically whether he saw Molefe firing Mr Chair.

MOSES VELI LLALE: I said yes.

MR DORFLING: I want to put it to you that at the time of the inquest you contradicted yourself. At one stage you said that you did not see him fire the shots and at a later stage you changed your evidence to say that you did see him fire the shots. And I would like to refer you to the record for this proposition. And I am going to contend that the reason there are these contradictions is because you are untruthful. Can we first of all look at the record page 3731 lines 5 to 29. Have you got it in front of you Mr Llale?

MOSES VELI LLALE: You said 3731?

MR DORFLING: Indeed lines 5 to 29. And I would like to read it to you. Maybe I should start at line 6

MR DORFLING: "Now how far were you from Jakwe?"

MR DORFLING: And there is an intervention, Court:

MR DORFLING: "No sorry when it hits the parapet itself do you mean the wall of the parapet?

WITNESS: Yes the wall"

MR DORFLING: That is at the time when the shots were coming in your direction when it hit the parapet wall and on this portion of your evidence when you were standing close to Jakwe at the corners of King George and de Villiers Street.

MR DORFLING: "How far were you from Jakwe when you fired your shots?

WITNESS: About a distance from these two walls.

MR DORFLING: About 15 metres? "

MR DORFLING: And there is no audible reply.

MR DORFLING: "Would you be able to explain why he said in his evidence that you were a metre away from him when you fired your shots?

WITNESS: Could you ask the question again please?

MR DORFLING: 		Would you be able to explain why he would say that you were a metre away from him when you fired your shots? That is on page 2972.

WITNESS: Well I would not know why he said so.

MR DORFLING: 		Well what is the truth? Were you 15 metres away from him or 1 metre away from him when you fired your shots?

WITNESS: Mmm my version is correct.

MR DORFLING: And you actually saw him firing these shots did you not? ---Who are you speaking about?

MR DORFLING: 		Did you see Jakwe firing the AK47?

WITNESS: I heard the firing of AK47.

MR DORFLING: 		So is it then correct that you did not see him firing the AK47?

WITNESS: Yes because I was already facing away from him, running away.

MR DORFLING: 		When he fired both volleys of shots you did not see him firing those shots?

WITNESS: Yes."

MR DORFLING: Now that was the one portion of your evidence where you said you did not see Molefe firing. On another occasion at pages 3734 and further you again said you did see him firing. If you could turn to page 3734 from lines 11 to 14. You were being cross-examined by Mr Ferreira: -

MR DORFLING: "Mr Llale just to recap on where we ended off on Friday. Is it then correct that you did not see Jakwe firing you merely heard the shots?

WITNESS: I saw him shoot and after that I turned my back towards him."

MR DORFLING: Do you see that?

MOSES VELI LLALE: Yes.

MR DORFLING: And then lastly if I may refer you to 3735 from lines 6 to page 3737 line 7. Mr Ferrera is now asking you why there was this difference in your evidence from the Friday to the Monday. Friday you said you did not see him firing and on the Monday you said you did see him firing

MR DORFLING: "Then why did you say on Friday that you did not see him firing and you gave reasons why you could not see him firing referring to your evidence that you were facing with you back towards Mr Molefe?

WITNESS: That is why I say your question was confusing because I had replied to a similar question earlier on.

MR DORFLING: 		But what could have been confusing Sir it was a direct question?

WITNESS: I might have misunderstood the question.

MR DORFLING: 		No but you see Sir it is not possible because if we just look at the previous question on the same page you were asked specifically did you see Jakwe firing the AK47? Your reply: 'I heard the firing of the AK47.'

WITNESS: Yes I am sorry I replied wrongly to your question because it confused me because when Jakwe fired I was very much next to him and I had to turn my back towards him."

MR DORFLING: Here again you placing yourself next to Molefe. It is yet another contradiction. Previously you said some 15 metres away.

MR DORFLING: "Before or after he fired?

WITNESS: When he started firing.

MR DORFLING: 		Because you see Sir the last question on that page then reads as follows: 'When he fired both volleys of shots you did not see him firing those shots?

WITNESS: Yes.' Now is that the truth? --- Well I have conceded that I have made a mistake and I apologize and I think you should accept my apology.

MR DORFLING: I am putting this to you Sir to give you an opportunity. I am putting it to you that this is a clear reflection of your untruthfulness. You kept on changing your evidence.

MOSES VELI LLALE: Can I respond Sir. I think you are only reading the only side that favours you only. In the court the Judge on that day gave me an opportunity to explain to these two versions that are coming up now and I had actually I am the one who stopped him and said: "Sir can I explain this?" Because at that court I was explaining yes, no, yes, no. In page 3761 in my evidence in court I was given a chance to explain this. I don't know whether do you have it. It is 3761

MOSES VELI LLALE: "Mr Llale let me just get one part clear which now I am a bit confused about."

MOSES VELI LLALE: This is the Judge.