Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — UNKNOWN

COLSON TEBOGO BEEA: My recollection is the crowd was charging towards me and as I was retreating I was shooting at the approaching crowd.  I do not remember at any instance the crowd stopping, the crowd turning back, I do not have that recollection.  The only thing that I can think of in relation to the ballistics is that in my retreat ... (inaudible - new tape) once or twice more than I was supposed to.  That possibility exists, but the physical turning of people to be shot at the back, I do not recall that I honestly don't.

MR VAN WYK: Mr Chairman I see that it's just past eleven, am I to proceed or are you going to take a short adjournment?

CHAIRPERSON: (inaudible)

MR VAN WYK: I do have a few questions, maybe if I take the adjournment I can quickly get them behind each other and I can expedite it.

CHAIRPERSON: Adjournment now and resume in fifteen minutes.
Committee ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Beea you're still under oath, do you realise that?

COLSON TEBOGO BEEA: (s.u.o.).  Yes Honourable Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Yes, please do proceed.

MR VAN WYK: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Mr Beea I want to ask you in respect of the firearm that you used, why did you use your firearm on that specific day?

COLSON TEBOGO BEEA: Honourable Chair the picture that I had on that day is that marchers came charging towards me and I had a pistol in my hand and that is the pistol that I used in my belief that the marchers who were charging were equally shooting towards me.  I used that pistol to repel the marchers who were coming towards me, that's the reason why I used the pistol.

MR VAN WYK: Were any shots fired at you?

COLSON TEBOGO BEEA: I cannot say for sure yes, I heard the sound of gunfire, I saw marchers coming towards me.  The only conclusion at that given time in that state of mind was that, yes the marchers were shooting at me.

MR VAN WYK: That is your impression, I want to ask you did you see that you were shot at?

COLSON TEBOGO BEEA: As to an individual pointing a weapon at me and pulling a trigger, no I did not see that.

MR VAN WYK: You said it was your impression that you were shot at.  Can you assist the Committee and tender or indicate of any evidence that you have available that shows that you were shot at?

COLSON TEBOGO BEEA: That's why I referred to it Chair as an impression because I don't have any physical proof and/or evidence.  In that situation, in that commotion, given that space of time the sound of gunfire and the combination of people charging towards me, the conclusion that I came to was that these people were shooting at me but as to evidently this - the people shot me, physically this is the evidence, I don't have that that's why I referred to it as an impression that was created then, given my state of mind at the time.

CHAIRPERSON: ... (inaudible) your evidence.  The mental picture in your mind is not one of seeing a man pointing a barrel at you and firing.  That doesn't form part of the mental picture you have?

COLSON TEBOGO BEEA: That is correct Honourable Chair.

MR VAN WYK: Why I'm asking you this Mr Beea is that because at the inquest, and I want to refer to pages 6917, the following questions that apply were recorded.  I'll read it to you at page 6917 at the bottom, it's line 29.  The question was posed:  "Alright why did you decide to fire?", reply:  "Because I had been fired at".  Next question on the next page (Court):  "Can I just ask you did you independently decide to fire or did anyone tell you to fire?", reply:  "I decided to fire because I was being shot at".  Now that is why I posed the question.  You cannot today say that you were actually shot at, you only heard shots and you thought that you were shot at.  Is that the correct position?

COLSON TEBOGO BEEA: It's still the position that I gave at the inquest.

MR VAN WYK: Sorry.

COLSON TEBOGO BEEA: I did not see a person physically point a pistol at me and pull a trigger.  I did not see that, but the impression and the picture in my mind, given that state of mind at that particular time, I concluded that I had been shot at.  The fact that I used or I phrased it the way I did I believe does not necessarily mean that I'm saying I saw a person because I, at the inquest, said that I did not see a person carry a pistol and I repeat that, I still repeat that I did not see anybody.

MR VAN WYK: You know of the ballistic evidence and the medical evidence and you have had consultations with your legal representative.  What is your attitude today, were you shot at or were you not shot at?

CHAIRPERSON: He answered that question already.

MR VAN WYK: Mr Chairman I think there's a bit of a distinction between what his impression was and what the factual position is.

CHAIRPERSON: Well he says he never saw a man pointing a barrel at him and shooting him.

MR VAN WYK: Thank you Mr Chairman I will ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: What point do you want to make Mr Van Wyk?

MR VAN WYK: I want to ascertain precisely if there were shots fired at him, did he act in actual self defence and thereby exceeding the bounds of self defence or if not shots were fired directly at him and there was not an emergency situation, he could not have acted in self defence, but then only he could have thought he had been acting in self defence.  There is a distinction.  I tried to ascertain which of these, in which category he alleges that he falls in.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think you'd better put that to him then.

MR VAN WYK: Thank you Mr Commissioner.  Mr Beea have you heard the argument or the point I tried raise.  Firstly I want to know from you, is it your case today that there were actual shots being fired at you that day or can you not say that?

COLSON TEBOGO BEEA: If I have to respond in relation to me having seen the ballistics, I cannot say that, but if I have to respond as I responded at the inquest before seeing - if I take the fact that I have seen the evidence, my response remains the same because that is the picture that I had, that I do believe, I did believe then without the medical evidence, that I was shot at and yes but given the other and if you ask me here and you include the medical evidence, that changes.

MR VAN WYK: You say it changes, do you accept today that there were not shots fired at you as you testified at the inquest?

COLSON TEBOGO BEEA: From the medical evidence yes I do, I mean ballistics, sorry.

MR VAN WYK: Do I also understand your application correctly that you apply for amnesty because you could have exceeded the bounds of self defence merely because you had fired too many shots.  Is that correct?

COLSON TEBOGO BEEA: The possibility exists yes that I could have, yes, I do.

MR VAN WYK: I know there are several possibilities Mr Beea, I want to precisely know what is your attitude or what is your case.  Is it that you exceeded the bounds because you fired too many shots.  Is that what your case is?

COLSON TEBOGO BEEA: It's not only that.  I was shown the ballistics and the medical evidence and the combination of that and the fact that I might have shot one or two bullets more than I could have forms the basis that ... (intervention)

MR VAN WYK: It is not your case that you had fired shots while the Zulus fled.  Is that correct?

COLSON TEBOGO BEEA: I did not see the Zulus flee.

MR VAN WYK: Do I understand your answer then correctly, you deny that you shot at them whilst they were fleeing.  Is that correct?

COLSON TEBOGO BEEA: I accept that I shot at them and when I shot at them they were approaching me, yes.

MR VAN WYK: On another aspect, you had been to Lancet Hall that morning, is that correct?

COLSON TEBOGO BEEA: Yes it is correct.