Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-05-18

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: I do not understand Sir what you refer to.

MR DORFLING: : Let me try and make it clear.  You made this application and you filled in the form prior to you giving evidence.  You testified when giving evidence at the Shell House inquest that in your mind your perception was that you would not have hit any person because of the gun jerking upwards.  If that was your honest belief at the time of you giving evidence at the inquest on, I think towards the 20th of May, then it couldn't have been that at the 10th of May when you submitted your application you put in an application under oath that you might have injured or hit anybody.  That possibility didn't exist in your mind at the time Sir.  That is what I'm putting to you.  It shows a clear lie.

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: Sir I do not know whether you read my amnesty application thoroughly.  I said if, if anyone got injured or died.  I didn't say no one was injured, no one died.

MR DORFLING: : That's exactly the point.   That's what you believed at the time nobody was injured, nobody died.  Why then put it as a fact somebody might have got injured or might have died in your application?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: Because when I when I shot I felt it was impossible for one to be hit by my bullet.

MR DORFLING: : I am going to carry on Mr Moolman.  Could we please have regard to Mr Llale's application at page 104, this specific paragraph, paragraph 9B.
"I do not know if anyone was killed or injured as a result of my shooting".
But for the last word Mr Llale use the word shooting you use the word action, but, but for that last word identical wording.  Is it merely coincidence?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: Which word did he use Sir?

MR DORFLING: : You chose in paragraph 9B to use the word
"I don't know if anyone was killed or injured as a result of my...."
 and you then use the word "action".  Mr Llale says exactly the same he only chose to use one other word as a result of "my shooting" and not "action".  Is it merely coincidence that the two paragraphs are virtually identical?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: I have a problem with English that is my problem.  We were together with Mr Llale when we filled in these forms and our legal advisers told us that they were fine as put here.

MR DORFLING: : Mr Moolman what you don't seem to be willing to admit is that you copied Mr Llale's application, is that what you did?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: I would say some of the things I looked from his application.

MR DORFLING: : Look at paragraph 10B Sir then you can make sure whether there might be a difference somewhere.  I am reading from page 95 at paragraph B of your application.  I'll take it sentence by sentence not to be unfair to you.
"In the month before the first democratic elections the IFP had started a campaign of stopping the elections from taking place".
	I now read from Mr Llale's statement or application at page 105.  
"In the month before the first democratic election the IFP had started a campaign to stop the elections taking place".
Identical wording Mr Moolman.  Where does it come from?

MR LAX: Almost identical.  He has some small differences here and there but I mean really.  Carry on.

MR DORFLING: : It's almost identical Mr Moolman.  Do you agree?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: Almost identical what do you mean?

MR DORFLING: : Just what I am saying the wording is almost identical.  You can go through the whole of paragraph 10B Sir,  your application and that of Mr Llale is almost identical.

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: When you say our applications are almost identical yes we were together when we filled in these forms.

MR DORFLING: : I want to put it to you Mr Moolman that it is quite clear that you told a lie to this Committee before I started this line of questioning by saying the words used in this application form are my own words.  That's a clear lie.

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: I would not dispute that I lied but the words that I put down there explained exactly what happened and I am satisfied with them.

MR DORFLING: : Why did you tell that lie Mr Moolman?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: Your question was that did I write with my own hand.  I said yes.  You asked whether I agree with everything that is written down there.

MR DORFLING: : I specifically asked you whether these reflect your own words you chose, you confirmed that Mr Moolman that has now been shown to be a lie.  I am asking you to explain your reason for having told this lie?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: I do not understand Sir because I told the Committee already that some of the things I saw in Veli's  	application.

MR DORFLING: : Mr Moolman I do not want to burden the record with further questioning. I am putting it to you that I am going to be arguing that you were being untruthful as to the contents and the nature of your application.  It is quite clear that you copied your application from that of Mr Llale.  Would you like to respond to that?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: No comment.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Mr Moolman did you know at the time when you completed this application form what standard of education Mr Llale had obtained?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: I did not know.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Thank you Mr Dorfling.

MR DORFLING: : Mr Moolman did you take the oath after you  completed your application form?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: That is correct.

MR DORFLING: : Where did you do that Sir?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: I took a few oaths.  We went for the inquest there was an oath and I submitted my application form and there was also an oath.  But according to my recollection I think it was at a different firm of lawyers.

MR DORFLING: : Can we first of all try and establish, it might make it easier for you, were you and Mr Llale did you together go and take the oath on your application?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: He was not with me when I went for an oath.

MR DORFLING: : So he was together with you at the time of the completion of the forms but thereafter you parted ways.  Is that correct?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: We did not take them on the day we finished them, we completed them.

MR DORFLING: : So the forms were completed on one day and on a different day you took the oath and on that occasion you weren't in the presence of Mr Llale.  Is that your evidence?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: When I took an oath he was not with me, that's what I remember.

MR DORFLING: : Can you recall whether you took the oath in Johannesburg, or in Pretoria or in some other place?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: It was here in Gauteng.

MR DORFLING: : Mr Moolman I would just like to deal lastly with two aspects of your evidence.  This morning when you started giving your evidence you testified how you saw a policeman approaching the on-coming marchers and you say that the policeman then returned to where he came from and then you used the following words.  "This group then charged".  What do you mean by "this group then charged"?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: I meant they were walking faster.

MR DORFLING: : They did not run at all?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: I remember them increasing their pace.  They were not running.

MR DORFLING: : Have you ever in your life Sir attended Zulu gatherings?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: No.

MR DORFLING: : You would not have known whether this group was charging forward in an attacking mode or not.  Is that correct?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: I don't quite understand you.

MR DORFLING: : You cannot say Sir on what you saw from the movements of the marchers picking up pace and walking quicker forwards, you can't from that infer whether they were attacking or not because you don't know what exactly they were doing at the time?

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: When people are just about to attack you don't just look at their pace you look at their actions.  We saw by their actions that they were attacking us.

MR DORFLING: : And with these actions you mean the fact they were they were firing shots is that correct?