Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-05-18

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: An AK-47.

MR DORFLING: : Did you see Mr Neo Potsane shooting?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: I know that he shot but I did not see him.

MR DORFLING: : Why do you say that you know that he shot?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: Because he took a firearm from me and he went a little bit up the stairs.

MR DORFLING: : Sorry can you just explain that he went a little bit up the stairs.  What do you mean by that?  Did he get on to the higher level of the parapet flooring.  Is that what you mean?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: When I say he went a little bit up I mean he went a little bit higher than myself.

MR DORFLING: : Can you explain that?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: I was crouching, as I was recycling the gun he took the gun and then he stood up straight.  I do not know but he shot.

MR LAX: : Sorry just from interpretation point of view you use the word "recycling" do you mean "reloading"?  It is a bit worrying.

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: When you recycle a shotgun at the same time it gets reloaded.  Because an empty cartridge will fall off and a new one will automatically get in.

MR LAX: : A pump-action shotgun I take it?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: That is correct.

MR DORFLING: : Mr Moolman what made you decide to fire at the crowd?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: While we are still at the corner of King George and de Villiers Streets the bullets hit the parapet.  Even when I was in the middle of King George we still heard gunshots emanating from their direction.

MR DORFLING: : Is that your evidence that you fired at the crowd because you were being fired at.

CHAIRPERSON: You say you do you mean him personally?

MR DORFLING: : No I'm meaning the security guards positioned on the parapet, in the plural, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LAX: Do you understand how the Chairperson has put it? The question is do you mean you were fired on because you in the plural, all the security guards were fired at?  When I say all the security guards the ones on the parapet.

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: I shot because I was being shot at.

MR DORFLING: Are you just referring to yourself?  Did you in other words shoot because some of the fire was directed at you in the singular, at you in person therefore?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: When you say they were directed at me what do you mean Sir because my work was to protect Shell House?

MR DORFLING: : Mr Moolman you chose to use the words that I was shot at, that's why I am asking you was that the reason you retaliated?  Because you in the singular were being shot at in person?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: My evidence is that the shots hit the Shell House building as I was taking cover at King George.  The shots were hitting the Shell House building that is why I shot because I could hear that the shooting did not stop.  That was after I left the corner of King George and de Villiers Streets.

MR DORFLING: : Can I please get it clear Sir.  Are you saying that you retaliated because shots were fired in the direction of the building and hit the building?  Is that your evidence?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: I shot because we were attacked on that day.

MR DORFLING: : Mr Moolman we keep on going forwards and backwards.  Can I have - please Sir try and respond to the question, can you give me your motivation for retaliating for shooting at the crowd.  All the reasons that came up in your mind that motivated you for retaliating.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's just avoid a lot of confusion.  Sometimes a word "we" did this when you mean "I" did it.  Sometimes you say "I" did it.  The question really boils down to is this.  Did you fire because you personally were being attacked or did you fire because you all, the building, was being attacked?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: All of us were being attacked because even inside the building there were people we were supposed to protect.

MR DORFLING: : Mr Moolman at the time of you giving evidence at the inquest proceedings in May last year you firmly believed that your actions were justified.  Is that correct?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: That is correct.

MR DORFLING: : We know now from the questions asked by Mr Pretorius that your application for amnesty preceded you giving evidence at the inquest proceedings.  Is that correct?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: That is correct.

MR DORFLING: : At that point in time, I'm talking of the time when you gave your evidence at the inquest proceedings, you never in your wildest dreams thought that you might have exceeded the bounds of self-defence that you went too far, because on your evidence at the inquest and your position was that you were completely justified having been attacked to retaliate and fire one shot back at the marchers.  Is that correct?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: Yes they were justified, but you know law is law you'll never know what the findings of the court will be.

MR DORFLING: : I am just trying to ascertain your position and your state of mind at the time of you giving evidence.  I understood your evidence in front of Mr Justice Nugent to be that you had enough reason to shoot and you did or you shot under circumstances which required you to fire a shot into the crowd.  Is that correct?  Is that a correct impression of your evidence in front of the inquest court?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: I did not quite understand your question.

MR DORFLING: : At the time of you giving evidence at the inquest proceedings Mr Moolman your position was and you firmly believed at that stage that you were justified in firing one shot in the direction of the crowd.  Is that correct?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: Yes, that is correct.

MR DORFLING: : You didn't think at the time that you might have gone too far?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: That is correct.

MR DORFLING: : Sorry I just want to make sure that you (microphone off) went too far.  You are answering that in the affirmative?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: According to me I did not think that I exceeded the bounds of self-defence but my legal representatives told me that I might have exceeded those bounds.

MR DORFLING: : Was that prior to you giving evidence at the inquest proceedings?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: That is correct.

MR DORFLING: : Why didn't you explain that to Mr Justice Nugent that it's possible you might have exceeded the bounds of self-defence ?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: I thought the incidents of that day were very important in the inquest.

MR DORFLING: : Mr Moolman you see quite the opposite appears from your evidence at the inquest.  You actually tried to convey to Mr Justice Nugent that in your mind you would not even have hit somebody.  That was your evidence at the inquest.  Not that you might have hit somebody and that you might have gone further than that was required.  Can you explain that Sir?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: I have already said that at the time of going to the inquest I had a picture of how things happened and after the inquest I went back to look as to what are the possibilities as to hitting a person from where I was positioned.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Mr Moolman the picture that you are referring to is that what you actually saw or what you believed must have occurred?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: When you refer to the picture now I don't get you Sir.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Well	I understood your evidence to be when you went to the inquest that was the picture of the events you had.  In other words what you told the inquest court was the picture you had of and concerning the events of that day?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: Yes that was my recollection.

MR DORFLING: : You at the time of the inquest did not have in your mind a picture of somebody exceeding the bounds of self- defence.  Is that correct?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: My legal representatives advised me they said in such cases where self-defence is involved the courts might look at different aspects.