Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — UNKNOWN

NEO POTSANE: ?

MR PRETORIUS: ... (inaudible) is that your first answer, that is that you were a seasoned soldier, is in fact the correct one and I then again put it to you that if that was taking into account all the other factors I've put to you as well, that in that situation if there was an attack, your duty was and what you should have done was to stand up and ward off this attack?

CHAIRPERSON: Are you criticising him for not doing more damage that he did?

MR PRETORIUS: Indeed not Mr Chairman, what I'm going to argue is that he in fact knew that there was not attack, that is the reason why he didn't get up and shoot any further shots.

CHAIRPERSON: That's the question you must put to him.

MR PRETORIUS: I'm laying the basis before I do that Mr Chairman.  Now Mr Potsane did you hear the conversation as between me and the Honourable Chairman?

NEO POTSANE: Can you please repeat your question again?

MR PRETORIUS: I then put it to you that the very reason why you didn't get up and fire any further shots is because you full well knew there was no attack taking place and that there was no reason for you to shoot?

NEO POTSANE: I'm sorry I don't understand correctly whether - are you saying that I did not fire again because there was no attack, or I fired - can you clarify me.

CHAIRPERSON: General question.  He's putting it to you that there was no attack on Shell House that day and there was no reason for you to shoot and that you knew that, that there was no attack and there was no reason for you to shoot.  That's how he's putting it to you.

NEO POTSANE: Mr Chairman no, if I have to begin ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No you can either agree or disagree with that, you don't have to repeat what you've said.  You can either agree or disagree with what's being said.

NEO POTSANE: I disagree.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Potsane the objectors for whom I act, as well as that of Dr Van Wyk's objectors, will testify if necessary that there was no attack on that day by the marchers on Shell House.  They were part of that marchers and there was no attack that took place.  They will further testify that they were shot at without any reason whatsoever.  Do you understand that?

NEO POTSANE: Well I suppose I did not know your objectors and I cannot agree or disagree.

MR PRETORIUS: I've got no further questions to this witness.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRETORIUS

MR LAX: I'm sorry, I didn't catch your answer clearly, it was a bit indistinct for me.  Just repeat it please.

NEO POTSANE: I said I did not know his objectors and I cannot agree or disagree.

MR DORFLING: Thank you Mr Chair, Honourable Members.  Mr Potsane may I start with the person that came to visit you at Shell House.  You said it was your niece.  Is that correct?

NEO POTSANE: That is correct.

MR DORFLING: What is her name?

NEO POTSANE: Neo.

MR DORFLING: The same name as you?

NEO POTSANE: That is correct.

MR DORFLING: Is that a lady?

NEO POTSANE: That is correct.

MR DORFLING: May I refer you to your evidence that you gave at the time of the inquest proceedings and specifically at page 3553, lines 14 to 25.

MR DORFLING: "Yes and then?

WITNESS:  I went downstairs to find my nephew there waiting for me.

MR DORFLING: 		Is that now in the foyer of the building?

WITNESS: Yes.

MR DORFLING: 		And this nephew of yours, does he work at Shell House?

WITNESS: No.

MR DORFLING: 		Yes what happened then?

WITNESS:  My nephew reported to me that the principal of the school where he attends school, somewhere in Wanderers Street - at Wolmarans Street, I beg your pardon, had said they should go home because of the situation that was reigning then in town.

MR DORFLING: 		Did your nephew leave you at one stage to go away?

WITNESS:  Yes when I sent him up to the 11th floor where I was posted".

MR DORFLING: Can I also turn to page 3685 at lines 12 to 16.

MR DORFLING: "Can you give any indication as to approximately how long you spent in the foyer prior to going to the parapet?

WITNESS:  It is ..." (intervention)

JUDGE NGCOBO: What page is that sir?

MR DORFLING: Sorry Mr Chair, page 3685, lines 12 to 16.

MR LAX: We seem to be missing that as part of our transcript but we'll find it somewhere.  Don't worry.

MR DORFLING: I'll read out from page 3685, maybe I should start then from line 10 just to put the committee in the picture.  It was during cross exmaination by Mr Hattingh at the time of the inquest

MR DORFLING: "Can you give any indication as to approximately how long you spent in the foyer prior to going to the parapet?

WITNESS:  It is difficult to give an indication because that was immediately after my nephew had arrived and whilst he had arrived I send him up to the upper floors so it is not easy for me to can give an indication of how long I was in the foyer".

MR DORFLING: You clearly here refer to a gentleman.  Do you agree with that?

NEO POTSANE: (indistinct)

MR DORFLING: I beg your pardon?   The question I'm asking to you, in the evidence at the inquest you are clearly referring to a man, a gentleman not a lady?

NEO POTSANE: May I explain to this committee about this aspect.  I think this aspect - I was speaking in Sotho at the inquest and the interpreter was interpreting English and in so to what I referred to a boy or a girl, it's Mtana, now if the interpreter said the nephew that could have been misinterpretation from the interpreter.

MR DORFLING: Do I understand you correctly that the word used for both nephew and niece in your language is the same.  Is that your evidence?

NEO POTSANE: That's correct.

MR DORFLING: Now sir but that doesn't explain away the fact that you referred to this person in the masculine.  You referred to him as him, constantly, there are a number of references where you referred to him and not to her.

NEO POTSANE: I spoke Sotho, I referred to him as Mtana and the interpreter ... (intervention)

JUDGE NGCOBO: At the time of the interpretation, you didn't notice that he was using nephew instead of niece?

NEO POTSANE: I did notice that and there was a time I used to tell my interpreter, that will be usually during the breaks, it's not actually a nephew, it's a niece and hence in some sections here, which I cannot entirely remember at what pages, there are reference to a niece.

MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman if you refer to page 3683, Mr Dorfling himself clarified the issue, line - Mr Dorfling about the third line from the top, where there was this confusion and there he says:  "My Lord, I'm not going to persist with the point.  The record actually reflects that ..." and then it was English:  "I was concerned about my knees, not leadership", and they spelt there k-n-e-e-s whereas he was saying niece when he spoke in English and Mr Dorfling, it seems to me, got this clarification himself but he obviously didn't understand the clarification.

CHAIRPERSON: May I enquire Mr Dorfling, is it so material now.  Can you not move on to the more important points?

MR DORFLING: Mr Chairman with the greatest respect the witness, not only at the time of his inquest, used the word nephew or niece which could be used interchangeably because the same word is used in the Black language, but all the translations refer to this specific person in the masculine ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: That would be the interpreter again.  Some of us who have been on the bench long enough know that him and her are quite often used in the course of interpretation, but be that as it may, if it is your version that there was nobody there, neither niece nor nephew, then there might be some point in cross examining, but on this issue here please I want you to agree with me that this is not a matter of such grave importance is it?