Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-05-19

MOSES VELI LLALE: "Did you see Jakwe or did you see him firing or did you not see him firing?

WITNESS: I saw him.

MOSES VELI LLALE: 		Those first two volleys that were shot did you say that you actually saw him firing? You were watching when he had fired both?

WITNESS: I did not see him fire those two volleys shots. I was next to him when he started firing My Lord then I turn around and went away."

MOSES VELI LLALE: So my explanation to this Committee today is when Jakwe started firing those shots I was very close to him because it was after we heard the fire from the marchers. Then the first shots which was the first volley I heard. Then I had to turn my back and run to the (...indistinct) alcove. And he kept on firing. That is the last volley I didn't hear. This is the explanation I gave and you accepted it in that court. I don't know why today you don't accept it.

MR DORFLING: Are you saying today that you saw the first volley of shots but not the second one?

MOSES VELI LLALE: This was my final response in that court. And I think here in this Committee I was saying this is my final response. That I only saw the first volley. I didn't see the second volley because I had already turned my back.

MR DORFLING: No but Mr Llale with the greatest respect that is exactly the opposite of what your evidence was in front of Judge Nugent. I was getting to page 3761. You see Mr Justice Nugent asked you specifically

MR DORFLING: "Mr Llale let me just get one part clear which now I am a bit confused about. Did you see Jakwe or did you see him firing or did you not see him firing?"

MR DORFLING: Your response: -

MR DORFLING: "I saw him."

MR DORFLING: It carries on: -

MR DORFLING: "Those first two volleys that were shot, do you say that you actually saw him firing? You were watching him when he fired those?  (Referring to the two volleys of shots)

WITNESS: I did not see him fire those two volleys of shots.

MR DORFLING: Today you have got a third version; you saw the first volley but not the second volley.

MR TIPP: Chairperson with respect that is (...intervention)

JUDGE NGCOBO: Mr Dorfling I think if you read further he does say with fairness to him that he witnessed the first one but didn't the second one. His body had been turned away. I think that is what he said there if you read further down the passage and up to the (...indistinct)

MR DORFLING: Indeed Mr Chair that is what I am trying to convey that witness kept on changing his evidence. He either saw both volleys or he saw no volleys or he saw one volley. He keeps on changing. He goes back and forth with his evidence and that is the point I am trying to convey to this witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Now he can't take the matter any further.

MR TIPP: Chairperson I am sorry. My learned friend put to the witness that he has now come up today with a third version which was not mentioned at the inquest and that is clearly incorrect. As Judge Ngcobo correctly points out. If one reads 3761 and 3762 it is quite clear that the evidence that was given at the inquest was repeated as Mr Llale says today. And my learned friend relies on a sentence which was "I did not see him fire those two volleys of shots." And that is correct. As the witness explains I saw the first one and not the second one. So it is correct to say I did not see the two. So for my learned friend to say that it is a third version is quite incorrect.

MR DORFLING: Yes Mr Chair with respect I think the point I am trying to convey is that there are three different versions and that the witness keeps on changing from the one version to the other. And I am giving him the opportunity to either say which one is correct or to explain the differences in his version. Because I am trying to put forward (...intervention)

JUDGE NGCOBO: Which one do you say, what are those versions?

MR DORFLING: There are actually three versions. 1 that he did not see any one of the two volleys of shots a second one that he did see Molefe firing both volleys of shots and a third one on which version he saw the first volley of shots but not the second.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Isn't it debatable whether the second version that you suggest is a statement by the applicant where he is saying: "I did not see both volleys," and he goes onto to explain that; "what I saw was only one volley"? "When the second one was fired I had turned my back."	I think he goes on to explain that.

MR DORFLING: Yes I (...intervention)

JUDGE NGCOBO: Isn't that the context in which one should read that second version that you are suggesting?

CHAIRPERSON: As the proceedings go along it is quite clear that you are not in a position to say what your clients' version is. This is not the kind of situation where you can put to him what your clients' version is, isn't it? You are merely trying to find out why he has given versions which to you seem very different. That is the purpose.

MR DORFLING: No Mr Chair with respect my clients' version is that there was no attack forthcoming from the marchers and this is in other words a fabrication. And that is why there are all these contradictions because it has been fabricated. The version that is going to be put forward by the objectors is that there was no attack. This witness is trying to explain that there was an attack.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, no it is not a question of the attack. The question is whether Molefe fired or did not fire.

MR DORFLING: Ja my clients would not be in a position to say specifically.

CHAIRPERSON: Quite right. So you are merely saying that your version varies. You are putting to him your version varies, you have given different versions?

MR DORFLING: Mr Llale's version is at variance with some of his own evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes alright.

MR DORFLING: May I respond to a question by the Honourable Mr Justice Ngcobo with specific reference to whether the so-called second version cannot be accommodated within the record. In other words there were two volleys of shots but I only saw one. May I with reference to page 3731 respond to that. At page 3731 lines 5 to 29 which I have already referred to. I have read it out already. 3731 from lines 5 to 29 Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't have to read it out. What is the gist of it?

MR DORFLING: From that portion of the record it is quite clear that the witness conveyed that he saw no shots being fired by Mr Molefe be it the first or be it the second volley of shots. To be exact at line 28 and 29.
"When he fired both volleys of shots you did not see him firing those shots?"
And the answer: -
"Yes I did not see any one of those two volleys of shots."
And that is the whole line of the questioning by Mr Ferrera is; "Did you see Mr Molefe firing?" And the response is; "No I did not see him firing." And I think it should be read in that context. This portion should be read together with the other portions I have referred the Honourable Committee. 
	Mr Llale I would like to move on to another aspect of in my respectful submission conflicting evidence from your side. Did you see any people amongst the marchers firing over and above the person with the AK47? Leave aside the gentleman with the AK47, did you see any other of the marchers firing any shots?

MR LAX: Just be clear Mr Dorfling at what stage you are talking about. The stage of not them firing back and all that stage or earlier on in the day? Because that might crop up again later in the answer and then you will have problems.

MR DORFLING: I want to confine it to specifically the immediately prior to the main shooting incident, at the main shooting incident or immediately thereafter. In other words in the time span in the close proximity of the main shooting incident.

MR LAX: Can we be clear then from the time the two groups approaching that corner merged and onwards.