Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-05-19

NEO POTSANE: I looked to my right. That is in the direction of de Villiers Street.

MR CURRIN: And what happened thereafter?

NEO POTSANE: When I looked at my right I saw this group of men with their traditional weapons raised at ready surging forward, running and I aimed directly at them and fired a shot.

MR CURRIN: And in doing that what was your intention?

NEO POTSANE: My intention in doing that was to protect Shell House. To protect the leadership and to protect the staff including myself.

MR CURRIN: Did you consider the possibility of either injuring or killing any of the people in whose direction you were firing?

NEO POTSANE: Yes.

MR CURRIN: Having fired that shot what did you do?

NEO POTSANE: After firing the shot I then crouched back into my position next to Moolman and I did feel scared at that time so I handed back the gun to Moolman.

MR CURRIN: And what did you do thereafter?

NEO POTSANE: After that we remained under that position. Fire was still continuing for about some seconds. After it stopped we still remained there in that position for about 10 minutes. And after 10 minutes or so had elapsed I then decided to go back to the foyer.

MR CURRIN: Before we go on to what happened in the foyer. While you were up there and you were in that crouched position you said that firing was continuing. Can you indicate to the Committee here if you had any idea as to where that fire was coming from?

NEO POTSANE: The fire which was now I was hearing at that time it was emanating from all directions.

MR CURRIN: There was also firing from your right hand side if you say from all directions. Is that correct?

NEO POTSANE: Yes.

MR CURRIN: Is it possible that any of that firing could have come from other people on the parapet who were to your right?

NEO POTSANE: It is possible.

MR CURRIN: Were you aware of the fact or put it this way rather. When you were on the parapet did you see any one else on the parapet during the course of prior to that firing other than Moolman?

NEO POTSANE: No I don't recall seeing any one.

MR CURRIN: Thereafter you indicated that you and Moolman left the parapet. What did you do? Where did you go?

NEO POTSANE: Just to put the record straight I did not say that me and Moolman left the parapet. I left alone then my intention was to go to the foyer.

MR CURRIN: Okay what did you do?

NEO POTSANE: Well I went to the foyer for the sole purpose of actually asserting myself that in actual fact this conflict is over. And when I got to the foyer I did meet Gary whom I told that I did fire a shot. And actually went out into Plein Street and actually saw that the situation has actually calmed down and there were more police and members of the army including members of the security from the ANC. And I kind of heard that the situation was under control at that time.

MR CURRIN: At any stage before you left the parapet, that is after the shooting did you see anyone else?

NEO POTSANE: Yes I did see Mr Molefe.

MR CURRIN: Having been in Plein Street what were your next movements?

CHAIRPERSON: (...indistinct) where you saw Molefe?

MR CURRIN: Yes where did you see Mr Molefe?

NEO POTSANE: I saw Mr Molefe at that door that leads into the building that is on the side of King George Street.

MR CURRIN: Okay. Right then from Plein Street what were your movements?

NEO POTSANE: Well from Plein, after satisfying myself on Plein Street that everything was calm I went back to my work station.

MR CURRIN: Why did you go? Was there any particular reason why you wanted to get back to your work station at that stage?

NEO POTSANE: Yes I wanted to get back to my work station because whilst I was there at Plein Street I remembered that my niece was here and I wanted to see how she was faring.

MR CURRIN: Were you concerned about your niece?

NEO POTSANE: I was very much concerned about my niece.

MR CURRIN: And after, when you went up to your work station was she still there?

NEO POTSANE: Yes I found her there and she was safe with some of my colleagues there and nothing had actually happened to her.

MR CURRIN: In your supplementary affidavit which has been submitted to this Committee you express the view that in your opinion your actions on that particular day were justified. Against that background why are you applying for amnesty?

NEO POTSANE: I am applying for amnesty because on that day I fired a shot which I don't know whether it actually did injure people or killed anyone. And I am not some one who is quite conversant with the law and I might feel that I was justified in that day to fire that shot and maybe another court might find me otherwise and find me guilty.

MR CURRIN: Is there any other reason why you are applying for amnesty?

NEO POTSANE: Well the other reason I am applying for amnesty is that in the spirit of reconciliation which is what I believe in that the work which is being done by this Committee is very much important for this country. That I want to contribute to that. My coming forward to this Committee I come in the spirit of trying to heal wounds.

MR CURRIN: How would you describe your political objective on that particular day?

NEO POTSANE: My political objective was to protect Shell House, the leadership of the organisation and the staff.

MR CURRIN: What do you think would have happened at that time, during the time of this particular incident and while you were involved and up on the parapet did anything go through your mind as to what may happen if the people that you believed were intent upon attacking Shell House succeeded in entering Shell House? Did you in your mind think as to what may happen?

NEO POTSANE: I can only say if those people who were attacking Shell House had they gained access into the building there could have been a catastrophe, massacre, something which was not going to be good for this country. Because people were going to die.

MR CURRIN: On both sides?

NEO POTSANE: That is correct.

MR CURRIN: At that time in the time of this particular incident how did you view, what was your view of the IFP?

NEO POTSANE: IFP was out arch-rivals.

MR CURRIN: You say they were your arch-rivals?

NEO POTSANE: Yes.

MR CURRIN: What do you mean by that? Were they just another political party or was it more than that when you say they were arch-rivals?

NEO POTSANE: They were arch-rivals in the sense that with IFP there had many, many, many clashes with them where people had died and each side attacking the other and people losing lives.

MR CURRIN: We have heard from the lawyers that are representing victims here today that their clients were not part of a group that was intending to attack Shell House. As I understand - and I am putting this to the witness. As I understand what had been put to other applicants is that their clients were so as to say innocent victims that is as they portray them to this Committee. In the sense that they were merely wanting to attend a rally in regard to the king. Have you any comment about that? Did you know in other words how that group was constituted?

NEO POTSANE: No.

MR CURRIN: If it is true and we don't know but if it is true that their clients were individuals in the group who had no intention of attacking and entering Shell House should that in any way impact on your application for amnesty?

NEO POTSANE: No it should not.

MR CURRIN: And why do you say that?

NEO POTSANE: Well I am saying this because innocent victims are often caught across fire.

MR CURRIN: You say they are often caught in cross fire? Is that what you are saying?

NEO POTSANE: Ja ...(inaudible) caught in cross fire.

MR CURRIN: And have you any examples? Would you like to mention an example of a situation where innocent victims have been caught in cross-fire and maybe there have been amnesty applications?