Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — UNKNOWN

MR PRETORIUS: Indeed Mr Chair that is what I am pointing out and getting to as this will be part of the address at a later stage.  Mr Potsane the march you referred to where the situation was fairly tense, that was some time - I don't want to say a long time, but it was some time before this incident.  Isn't that correct?

NEO POTSANE: ... (indistinct) but sure it was earlier on.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Gary Kruser, when he told you that an attack could take place, did he give you any specific information about how the attack would take place, when it would be attacked, from where it will come etc?

NEO POTSANE: No.

MR PRETORIUS: I then put it to you that it is clear that what told you there was an attack taking place was Moolman's statement that they were being fired at.  The other information would not lead you to the conclusion that Shell House was under attack.

CHAIRPERSON: What does that question mean now.  He'd been told before hand that there is going to be this likelihood of an attack.  He hears shots, he's told by Moolman and so on and from these factors he draws his inference, so what is wrong with that.

MR PRETORIUS: What is wrong with that Mr Chairman, and that is what it's leading up to, is that we are going to point out that according to Moolman there was no such conversation ... (inaudible - new tape).  The picture that this witness painted that when he arrived at the parapet what was happening etc, that was simply not happening so if one takes the likelihood or the probabilities into account then the probabilities indicate that there was no such statement by Moolman to this witness that indeed they would be firing on and if that didn't take place, this witness would not have been in a position to state that a fire or ot conclude that firing was taking place directed at Shell House and therefore to take any action to defend Shell House.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Mr Pretorius I think it would be to our benefit if you could just make sure that your questions are very short because sometimes you ask one question with too many questions in it and if you could just put portions of the question to the witness so that he can respond promptly to those aspects of the question.

MR CURRIN: Sorry.  Mr Chairman could I just clarify again and if my colleague would put the actual words that were used by the witnesses, by Moolman to this witness, a lot of the confusion wouldn't arise and there wouldn't be a misrepresentation.  In his evidence under cross examination by me, Moolman did not say the conversation did not take place.  I asked him the question about the conversation, his words were:  "I do not recall the conversation".  Moolman in this committee has never categorically said the conversation did not take place.  Against Moolman's evidence that he does not recall it, this witness is coming and saying and stating as a fact that Moolman spoke to him.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Are you suggesting that Mr Moolman said there was the conversation?

MR CURRIN: I'm saying that Moolman said:  "I do not recall a conversation", that is very different from saying there was no conversation.

MR PRETORIUS: But where the major difference came in, and that is why the effect is that there was no conversation, is that this witness testified that that conversation took place before the first shot was fired by Moolman.  Moolman was quite adamant that he only became aware of this witness after he fired his shot and when this witness grabbed the shotgun.  If put into context then the effect of that is the conversation didn't take place.

CHAIRPERSON: People's recollection of events might be different, isn't it?

MR PRETORIUS: Well Mr Chairman if you're not even aware of a person you can't have a conversation with him at that point.  It is impossible.

CHAIRPERSON: That is his recollection.  Now this witnesse's recollection is what he's telling us.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Chairman I leave it for argument at a later stage but I wanted to give this witness the time to explain or the opportunity to explain this difference.

CHAIRPERSON: I think that you must complete because as I understand, the real kernel of your question was whether he was there and saw the firing at the parapet or not.  You see he says when he arrived at the parapet, or before he arrived there, he had been told by Kruser that there's likelihood of an attack by the IFP, he had seen a crowd that was tense downstairs that day, he had heard gunfire without saying that he had heard Moolman or anybody else firing, he heard gunfire and when he comes there he sees Moolman and whether a conversation between him and Moolman took place or not, there is a difference.  Moolman doesn't recall this, he does recall it.  What is the essential difference apart from that.  It is common cause that he took the gun from Moolman, there's no dispute about that, is there?

MR PRETORIUS: No we cannot dispute that but what the point is this Mr Chairman and that was the line that was taken in the inquest court as well, is that without the statement of Mr Moolman, he wouldn't have been aware or he couldn't come to the conclusion that an attack was taking place.  What convinced him that the attack took place was what Mr Moolman told him.

CHAIRPERSON: What about the gunfire that he heard?

MR PRETORIUS: Well that gunfire could have been ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Could have been from anywhere.

MR PRETORIUS: From anywhere, it could have been ANC guards firing at marchers etc, etc so the whole point is that the only thing at that stage that convinced him that an attack was taking place was Mr Moolman's information that they were being shot at.  That is the point, the essential point of what we're getting at.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and you say Moolman did not tell him that?

MR PRETORIUS: Indeed sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, can we proceed then?

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Potsane whilst you were on the parapet, did you hear shots being fired from other people on the parapet?

NEO POTSANE: No.

MR PRETORIUS: I take it that you mean now no other shots but the one from Moolman?

NEO POTSANE: That is correct.

MR PRETORIUS: If shots had been fired by other people on the parapet, would you have heard it?

NEO POTSANE: It was difficult (indistinct) from whence the shots were coming from because I think I've stated even during the inquest that at that stage fire was coming from all directions, they could have been coming from the left or right, centre or in front, from the front but there was just general shooting.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Was that at the time when Mr Moolman fired a shot?

NEO POTSANE: That is at the time when there was this general shooting.  For Mr Moolman, I saw him shoot and he was close to me and I could hear his shot.

JUDGE NGCOBO: At the time when he fired the shot were there any other shots?

NEO POTSANE: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: And is that the general fire that you're referring to?

NEO POTSANE: That is correct sir.

JUDGE NGCOBO: It was coming from all directions?

NEO POTSANE: Yes that is correct sir.

JUDGE NGCOBO: And you couldn't tell where it was coming from?

NEO POTSANE: Yes, I could not tell where they were coming from sir.

MR PRETORIUS: An AK47 has got a very specific sound, especially if it is being fired on automatic.  Isn't that correct Mr Potsane?

NEO POTSANE: Am I supposed to say yes or no?

MR PRETORIUS: I asked you the question whether the statement of mine is correct or not?

NEO POTSANE: An AK47, if it's shot among other guns and it's actually not close to you at a distance like if it is said that Mr Molefe was at the corner there and I was in the middle, then it will be difficult to hear those shots among other shots because it's not close to you.

CHAIRPERSON: It would depend upon whether you're waiting to hear and trying to listen what kind of shots were being fired from where.  Would it not?

NEO POTSANE: No I was not waiting to hear, no.