Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-05-18

MR PRETORIUS: : However my clients will testify to the effect that they never saw, physically saw, a person with a firearm in the group point one.  Point two  - that they were shot at and all they observed was the shots being fired at them.  They fell down injured and hurt; there was a commotion of shots being fired; they cannot say in this process of this commotion who fired what shots.  So although they do not dispute the object of evidence at the same time they dispute the fact that shots were fired by anybody in the crowd initially.  In other words that there was any attack.  They cannot dispute that after the shots were fired by the guards some in their midst might have fired at the building or at the guards on the parapet but that is as far as it goes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no I was concerned about precisely where the shots might have been fired in the building and whether they were on the parapet where he was standing.  Details of that kind how far does that take this amnesty hearing?

MR PRETORIUS: : It all concerns the alleged attack on Shell house which we still dispute.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I understand that.  I am talking about the details about whether the shot landed here or there or somewhere else.

MR PRETORIUS: : The point is this Mr Chairman our attitude is still that the guards are not telling the truth about an attack and that we trying to point out to the Chair and to the Committee that the guards are not telling the truth they hiding the real facts from this Committee.  And that is the purpose of the real question.

CHAIRPERSON: Do carry on.

MR PRETORIUS: : Thank you Mr Chairman.  Now Mr Moolman it leaves me with the question that I am going to repeat that no evidence was found of shots fired at the parapet where you were standing at immediately before you fired your shot in other words midway in the block between King George and de Villiers and King George and Plein Street.  Can you explain that?

MR CURRIN: Chairperson sorry that I keep on interrupting but the witness' evidence was that shots were hitting the building Shell House itself and if I can just refer you-  behind him.  Chairperson if I can just refer you to page 169 of bundle B.  That is typed page nine of the ballistic's report.  The report is in Afrikaans and I am going to read out from the top of page nine it readss as follows.
"Weste kant van Shell House die toring gedeelte van Shell House bokant die balkon is ook aan die weste kant deur die deskundiges ondersoek probleme is ervaar as gevolg van die hoogte van die gebou asook die klipperige afwerking wat dit moeilik maak om beskadigings merke waar te neem.  Stukkies beton is ook geneig om af te splinter waar staal draad onderliggend aan die oppervlakte roes."
And then the important part.  
"Alhoewel geen duide, duidelike koeel beskadigings merke waargeneem is nie kan die moontlikheid nie uitgeskakel word dat hierdie gedeelte van die gebou."
		"We cannot exclude the possibility that this part of the building was hit by bullets."
...the report that the ballistic experts could not exclude the possibility that shots hit the tower block of Shell House itself.  Which is exactly what this witness has told the committee.  So if my learned friend would put the questions in that light.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: What did you say the evidence of witness was?

MR CURRIN: : That the shots hit the building behind him, not the parapet.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Yes.

MR CURRIN: : Not the parapet.  That was his evidence I recall it very clearly because I made a note to that effect.

MR PRETORIUS: : He also referred to shots hitting the parapet he did not only refer to shots hitting the block he also referred to shots hitting the parapet Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Now in the light of the fact that ballistic evidence does not exclude the possibility of shots hitting the building and your questions are designed to elicit that shots did not hit the parapet, I would like you weigh that and find out now how far are we going to pursue this matter of detail on the question of the amnesty application?

MR PRETORIUS: : Mr Chairman I then just ask him directly whether it was he testifies to the fact that the shots did in fact hit the parapet at that stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Put it to him then.

MR PRETORIUS: : Do you now allege that whilst you were standing in the middle of that block, immediately before you shot at the marchers, shots hit the parapet just where you were standing in that position?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: No.  They hit the wall behind me.

MR PRETORIUS: : Now you applied for amnesty on the 9th of May 1997.  Do you accept that?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: That is correct.

MR PRETORIUS: : On the 29th of May 1997 you started your evidence in front of Judge Nugent.  Is that correct?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: That is correct.

MR PRETORIUS: : When you gave your evidence at the inquest it was to the same effect as you did now to a certain extent as to that you only fired one shot whilst the marchers were attacking.  Is that correct?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: That is correct.

MR PRETORIUS: : You however also testified initially in front of Judge Nugent, and Mr Chairman I refer to page 3463, that you fired at the crowd regardless whether they had weapons or not?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: You did not have time to look who had a firearm and who did not have a firearm.

MR PRETORIUS: : But at the same time you testified on the same page that you could not have injured anybody it was impossible to injure or kill anybody to shoot from the position as you did and in the manner that you did?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: This happened so very quick that is why I thought that it impossible to have shot or to have hit someone.

MR PRETORIUS: : When and how did you change that belief that you now say that you could have hit someone?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: They have never changed Sir according to the ballistics and when I view the situation not in - not hurriedly, I thought yes that it was quite impossible for someone to be hit from where I was positioned.

MR PRETORIUS: : Mr Chairman there must have been something wrong with my earphones I did not get the interpretation of that at all.  If it can be just.....

CHAIRPERSON: Will the interpreters please repeat the answer.

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: After this incident I had time to review the position where I was and what happened then and I realise that yes there was a possibility that a person might be hit by a bullet from a position where I was, because even the ballistics say so.  The ballistics show that many people were injured on that day, some even died because of that shotgun.

MR PRETORIUS: : You see Mr Moolman what bothers me is that at the time you brought your application for amnesty that is on the 9th of May 1997, you still believe, according to you, that you only fired one shot and that that shot was fired while an attack was taking place and further more you could not have injured or killed anybody, why then did you apply for amnesty?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: Such a possibility exists that because of my shooting one might have been hit.  I explained that already.

MR PRETORIUS: : The problem I have with that explanation Mr Moolman is again, and I repeat it, that at the time you launched your application you personally did not believe that - you at that time - also the ballistic reports were not available.  So I am asking you once again on what basis did you initially bring your application for amnesty?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: That is why Sir you have a supplementary affidavit and I do not dispute the fact that someone might have been hit by my bullet because the ballistics were given after I testified.