Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — UNKNOWN

MR PRETORIUS: Well that is clearly not what he is saying because he said that he only observed you, he only noticed you, after he fired his shot, when he was taking cover and when you grabbed the shotgun from him, that's the only time that he observed you so both versions can't be correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Only to the extent that there was not this question by him and an answer by Moolman.  Only to that extent it is in, there is a difference isn't it?

MR PRETORIUS: Well that is the first point where there's a difference, the other point is when they arrived there because if he arrived there before the first shot or whether he arrived there after the first shot, of course that is also a difference in the story.

CHAIRPERSON: Well you've covered that already.  Carry on.

MR PRETORIUS: You are ... (intervention)

JUDGE NGCOBO: What was the response to the question?

NEO POTSANE: I can't remember the question directly, can you please repeat your question?

MR PRETORIUS: I put it to you that there's a difference in the version of Mr Moolman and yourself, two versions.  The one is that of Mr Moolman, Mr Moolman's version is that you only arrived next to him at a time after he fired the shot, that is his shot and when you grabbed the rifle from him, the shotgun from him.  Your version is that you arrived there before he shot his shot and that there was this question you put to him about what the situation was and his response that you were under attack.

MR LAX: Mr Pretorius just one thing, just so you don't end up putting things to the witness that weren't actually said.  The previous witness, Mr Moolman, only became aware of him at that point.  There's a big difference between saying he arrived there and he became aware of him.  He may have been there and the guy didn't notice him, he was too busy trying to cock his rifle or whatever else he was trying to do so please it's - there is a subtle difference and if you want to put words in his mouth then you run the risk that in argument you have to try and explain them.  Just be clear in terms of what Mr Moolman actually said.  He only became aware of him when he took the gun away from him.  It doesn't mean he wasn't there.  I'm just being helpful in that repsect.

MR PRETORIUS: I accept that thank you Honourable member of the committee, however, it also means that the conversation or the question and reply that took place, that could never have taken place.

MR LAX: That I absolutely agree with you on.  The issue of the conversation's one but when it was put to Moolman, it was:  "When did you become aware of his presence?" and he said:  "When he took the gun away from me".  It wasn't on when did he arrive there so that's the only issue really.

MR PRETORIUS: I think then - do you still understand the question Mr Potsane?

NEO POTSANE: Yes I understand the question.

MR PRETORIUS: Can you explain it now?

NEO POTSANE: Yes I'd like to explain to this committee that under the situation like that, where's there's pandemonium and shootings, people do not become normal, they don't behave like normal and I'm not sure that at the end when they have to relate what happened they will relate things in the same version as they actually happened and I think that confusion could be arising from that because how I remember things is how I recollect them and how I put them before this committee and remember this incidents, I think that's how he recollects them that they ... (intervention)

JUDGE NGCOBO: Are you suggesting that either you or Mr Moolman may be confused as to the sequence of events on the day in question because of the pandemonium you've just described?

NEO POTSANE: I could be confused, he could be confused but I think I'm telling my version of how I saw the events of the day and that's how they happened according to me.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Potsane on that particular day when you were on the parapet, the reason why you believe an attack was taking place at that stage was because you were told by Mr Moolman that indeed they were being shot at.  Isn't that correct?

NEO POTSANE: Well I don't think that's the only reason, no.

MR PRETORIUS: What was the other reason?

NEO POTSANE: Well apart from that, Mr Moolman had already told me that we are being fired at.  Gunshots were already going on which indicated to the effect that there is fire coming, it's like we are being fired at and the other reason will be Mr Kruser had already told me that we are expecting an attack from Inkhata and the other reason is that I saw one of the marchers march downstairs  (indistinct) very tense situation.

MR PRETORIUS: In regard to the fire that was taking place, you did not know who were firing those shots at that stage.  Is that correct?

NEO POTSANE: That is correct.

MR PRETORIUS: You also did not know where the fire was directed at.  That is the reason why you asked Mr Moolman that question about what's happening, what is the situation.  Not so Mr Potsane?

NEO POTSANE: I wish to correct him just a little bit on - I did not say - when I arrived at the side of Mr Moolman I asked him what's happening.  Mr Moolman related the information to me and said they are firing at us.

MR PRETORIUS: Indeed, but that is just what I am putting to you that you did not know where that fire was directed at, that is why you asked Mr Moolman what is happening.  If you knew the fire was directed at the guards on the parapet, there was not purpose to ask that question in any event.

MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman the witness has just explained that he did not ask Moolman what is happening.  When he arrived there Moolman said to him:  "We are under fire".  That is what he said in his evidence and when he was asked the question he clarified that he did not ask Moolman what was happening, it was volunteered to him by Moolman.

MR PRETORIUS: I will come back to this a little later, it will now need for me to look up certain places in the record Mr Chairman.

MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman we're not talking about his evidence, we're talking about his evidence before this committee.

MR PRETORIUS: Are you testifying now to the effect that when the shots were fired, immediately prior to you getting to Moolman, you full well knew that those shots were directed at the guards on the parapet?

NEO POTSANE: I did not say that.

MR PRETORIUS: Taking that together, if the information that was relayed to you by Moolman, that the guards were under attack, they're firing at us, if that information was not conveyed to you, you would not have known what was happening.  You wouldn't have known who was firing and you wouldn't have know where the fire is directed at.  Is that correct Mr Potsane?

NEO POTSANE: But the fact of the matter is one - even if I wouldn't have known, one thing is for sure is that there were gunshots and those gunshots sounded as if people were fighting and I've said earlier on that there are various factors that I've made to this commission that Mr Gary Kruser has already told me that we were expecting an attack from Inkhata and the march that I saw downstairs which was tense in it's nature, created tension in it's nature so all those factors - it's not like it's one thing, if I was not told that.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Potsane we'll get to each and every factor as you've mentioned them.  The factor now that I've asked you the question about is merely that at that stage, that is when the fire took place, immediately before you came to Mr Moolman, you didn't know who was firing and you didn't know where the fire was directed at.  It is as simple as that.  Isn't that correct Mr Potsane?

NEO POTSANE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: He told us, all he said that there were gunshots without saying who they were from and in which direction.