Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-05-19

MR DORFLING: I put it to you that the 9 objectors on whose behalf I appear will say that they were not attacking Shell House neither did they form part of any plan to attack Shell House. Neither were they armed with firearms with which they could attack Shell House at this specific point in time. Can you comment on that?

MOSES VELI LLALE: I have said already to you that they will say whatever they want to say to you but you have already heard my part of the story.

MR DORFLING: Are you conceding today that either one or both of the shots that you fired at the marchers could have hit one or more marchers in the back or from behind?

MOSES VELI LLALE: Earlier on I said there is that possibility.

MR DORFLING: Why do you concede that there might be that possibility?

MOSES VELI LLALE: The outcome of the inquest said a shotgun might have injured or killed a person at that particular time. So myself on that day I was using a shot gun. So there is the possibility that I might have.

MR DORFLING: Does it necessarily mean that you concede that, that person was facing with his back towards you if it happened that way?

MOSES VELI LLALE: I wouldn't know the direction of a person but my explanation earlier on was the person I was focusing, so I said there was a confusion. So anything might have happened in that confusion.

MR DORFLING: I have got no further questions. Thank you Mr Chair.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DORFLING.

MR VAN WYK: Thank you Mr Chairman I will proceed with questions that I want to address to this witness. Mr Llale you have testified at the inquest. Have you read the record of those proceedings in preparation for your present application?

MOSES VELI LLALE: The outcome of the inquest.

CHAIRPERSON: No. Have you read your evidence? You are concerned about whether he has read his evidence at the inquest proceedings?

MR VAN WYK: That is correct Mr Chairman his evidence that was tendered at the inquest.

MOSES VELI LLALE: Yes I have.

MR VAN WYK: And do you confirm the correctness of what you have said there?

MOSES VELI LLALE: The correctness of my evidence as it has been shown here, there was a lot of contradiction so I cannot confirm the correctness but I can confirm the truth the I told in that court.

MR VAN WYK: Do you then confirm that the transcript you have, that is the what you have told the judge at the inquest. Is that correct?

MOSES VELI LLALE: That is correct.

MR VAN WYK: Is this your only amnesty application?

MR TIPP: Chairperson the question was; is this your only amnesty application. I don't know what the relevance of such a question is. We are concerned with this particular amnesty application.

MR VAN WYK: Have you filed any other affidavits in respect of with amnesty Mr Llale?

MOSES VELI LLALE: Yes I have.

MR VAN WYK: You have mentioned in your evidence that when the marchers were at the corners of de Villiers and King George Street you said that you think a policeman was stabbed and he ran back. Do you recall that evidence?

MOSES VELI LLALE: Yes I recall that evidence.

MR VAN WYK: Did you actually see this happen or did you not see it happen?

MOSES VELI LLALE: What I saw on that day was the policeman who tried to stop the marchers but he was unsuccessful.

MR VAN WYK: I will repeat my question. Did you see this policeman being stabbed or did you not see it?

MOSES VELI LLALE: When he was stabbed I don't remember seeing it.

MR VAN WYK: Now where did you get this information that he was stabbed?

MOSES VELI LLALE: I didn't say it in court I said it here because already in the inquest it was said that one of the police who tried to stop the marchers which was stabbed somewhere in his arm if my recollection serves me well.

MR VAN WYK: So now why are you repeating evidence in this application of yours that you do not know of yourself? That you possibly heard from somebody else. Why are you tendering that to this Committee?

MOSES VELI LLALE: For the main fact that today I can agree to this Committee that due to the ballistic tests and the medical evidence which I was not when they were taking I concede to them. I can also concede to what was said in that court.

MR VAN WYK: No but what I am asking you is that you are tendering evidence before this Committee of incidents that you did not witness yourself. Why are you doing that?

MOSES VELI LLALE: Maybe my information is wrong but the Committee here sits after the inquest and after the actual incidents. So there are two things that happened between now and that incident. So that is why even I am also concede to ballistics which I didn't know at that time when I was in court. But I am able to say that there were shots fired at front of Shell House because I didn't say it in court. So I am saying to your question now, I am saying to your question that I understand what you are saying but maybe I might have fabricated this part of stabbing. I didn't put it before.

MR VAN WYK: Why are you maybe fabricating now Mr Llale?

MOSES VELI LLALE: Is not a fabrication. It is what I read here.

MR VAN WYK: So are you tendering evidence to this Committee that you have not witnessed yourself but that you have read from other records. Is that correct?

CHAIRPERSON: As far as the stabbing of the policeman is concerned?

MR VAN WYK: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MOSES VELI LLALE: Yes.

MR VAN WYK: Why are you then fabricating Mr Llale?

GEORGE BIZOS: I object to the use of such an emotional charged word to a witness who has said that: "I have heard about it and is I remember correctly there is some reference to it in the judgment."

CHAIRPERSON: I think the word fabricating ought not to be. Why are you telling this Committee that a policeman was stabbed when you didn't see yourself? That is the purpose of the question.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Just before you answer this question. What you are required to do is to tell us about what you recall of and concerning the incident, in relation to the shooting. We do understand that you may have given evidence at the inquest and that, that Court may well have made certain findings. That is none of our concern here. What we are concerned with is what is it that you recall. Did you understand that?

MOSES VELI LLALE: Yes I did.

MR VAN WYK: Can I then repeat my question to you Mr Llale. Is it correct that you yourself here today said that maybe you fabricated that? Is that correct?

MOSES VELI LLALE: At first I didn't have the understanding of this Committee but now I have been told that I should only say what I saw. So I think you should go forth because I am agreeing to you that this part of stabbing I might have not witnessed it. So I am saying to you shall we continue and forget about it. I will say what I saw on that day.

MR VAN WYK: Mr Llale this question is not going to disappear. Is it correct that you told the Committee that maybe you fabricated that? Is that correct?

MOSES VELI LLALE: I have misunderstood the sitting of this Committee. I am saying to you I read that, this is what Mr Nugent said and the police was stabbed. So I am saying I am not going to refer things which was said by Judge Nugent here. I am saying to you I agree with what you are saying. I am disputing it.

MR VAN WYK: But do you agree (...intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Leave it at that. He says he didn't see the stabbing. He is giving you an explanation as to why he has given that in evidence. He read that in the Nugent report.

MR VAN WYK: Thank you Mr Chairman. I just finally want to clarify one point and that was his own evidence and he can either say yes or no. Did you today say to the Committee that: "Maybe I fabricated that"? Is that correct? Did I understand you wrongly or was that what you said today?

MOSES VELI LLALE: I am agreeing to the Committee that this part of stabbing I might have included it now, not in the court. I have already admitted to that.