=====================================================================
&#9;TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION
=====================================================================
&#9;TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION 

&#9;AMNESTY HEARING

DATE:&#9;18 MAY 1998

NAME:&#9;STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN

CASE NO:&#9;5549/97

DAY 6

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

MS MORAKA: Mr Chairperson the next up is witness number seven Mr Stephen Marole Moolman.

CHAIRPERSON : Thank you.

MS MORAKA:&#9;Mr Moolman is going to testify in Sotho.

CHAIRPERSON:&#9;Mr Moolman are you prepared to take the oath.

MR MOOLMAN:&#9;I am prepared.

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN :&#9;(sworn states)

MS MOROKA: Mr Moolman you have applied for amnesty and your application with the annexure the affidavit and the supplementary affidavit are from page 92 to 101D. Is that correct?

MR MOOLMAN: That's correct.

MS MOROKA: Before we deal with your affidavit can we for the record place your personal particulars before the Committee. It is correct isn't it that you were born on the 16th of November 1972 in Johannesburg?

INTERPRETER :&#9;The speaker's mike was not activated.

MR MOOLMAN: That is correct.

MS MOROKA: And that you matriculated in Soweto in 1991?

MR MOOLMAN: That is correct.

MS MOROKA: Thank you and thereafter you did a

course in business administration with the Newport University?

MR MOOLMAN: That is correct.

MS MOROKA: During your school days were you involved at all with political activity?

MR MOOLMAN: Yes I was involved in the politics. That was before Cosas was obeyed and I was also involved in the Soweto Youth Congress. 

MS MOROKA: In 1992 you were then employed by the ANC in it's security department. Is that correct?

MR MOOLMAN: That is correct.

MS MOROKA: Some training was arranged by the ANC for you can you tell the Committee about that?

MR MOOLMAN:&#9;ANC requested a certain organisation to train its people for VIP protection and the training lasted for ... (intervention)

MS KHAMPEPE: The speaker is to far from the microphone the interpreters could not catch the last part. Mr Moolman try to speak a little bit louder please. 

MR MOOLMAN: There was a certain company or an organisation that was requested by the ANC to train its people with regards to installation and the guarding of VIP. The course was done in Roodepoort. 

MS MOROKA: But is this also correct that before you were formerly recruited in 1992 for training you were recruited for underground you are recruited underground?

MR MOOLMAN: That is correct.

MS MOROKA: Where are you employed presently?

MR MOOLMAN: I am at the National Protection Service we are studying protection.

MS MOROKA: On the 28th of March 1994 you were employed then by the ANC as a security guard. Is that correct?

MR MOOLMAN: That is correct.

MS MOROKA: I draw attention now to your application for amnesty. Your statement at page 99. You state at paragraph 3 that you first heard about an anticipated attack on Shell House when you arrived at work on Monday morning. What time did you arrive at work?

MR MOOLMAN: We were supposed to start at seven o' clock before anybody could come because we were the security we had to check as to whether everything was in order. 

MS MOROKA: You say you were suppose to arrive at that time. Did you in fact arrive at seven o' clock?

MR MOOLMAN: That is correct.

MS MOROKA: And you received a briefing when you arrived and from whom and what was the content of the briefing?

MR MOOLMAN: Everyday before starting with our work we would gather for a briefing so that we can be deployed and as to what time will we be deployed. Joe Mababi was the person who handled us on that day. 

MS MOROKA: Can you briefly tell the Committee specifically what he told you specifically on this day?

MR MOOLMAN: He told us that there were rumours that Shell House might be attacked. Because we were the guards he said we had to search people thoroughly so that they don't get into the building with any weapons.

MS MOROKA: So it's correct then that during the course of the early morning you were doing your normal duties of access control?

MR MOOLMAN: That is correct.

MS MOROKA: At paragraph 7 you talk about given an instruction by Mr Chris Lushaba. Can you tell us what he told you to do and where you went?

MR MOOLMAN: Chris came to me and he told me to go and help the people at the parapet. When you go to the parapet you have to use the stairs. He said on my way I should take the gun in the control security room. 

MS MOROKA: What kind of gun did you take?

MR MOOLMAN: I took a shotgun.

MS MOROKA: You then went to the parapet. Can you briefly tell the committee what it is that you observed on the parapet?

MR MOOLMAN: The first person was Jabu at the parapet. I was told that he is the person who will brief me as to what we should do on that day.

MS MOROKA: Jabu being Mr Molefe. Is that correct?

MR MOOLMAN: That is correct. Jakwe then told us that, that day would be expected to patrol because when you on the parapet you have a clearer view and we started working with Jakwe.

MS MOROKA: In paragraph 10 you set out the events that led to the main shooting. Can you tell the committee what then happened during the course of this morning.

MR MOOLMAN: Whilst still patrolling I would say different

groups passed and their sizes were also different you would be able to, to see or identify people within these groups who were armed with guns or even traditional weapons. I was standing all by myself at the corner of King George and Plein Street when Jakwe called me. He was at the corner of King George and de Villiers Streets and he pointed at people coming, coming in King George Street the others were going down de Villiers Street towards Shell House. 

MS MOROKA: Then what happened?

MR MOOLMAN: When these two groups approached the one in King George Street was not as big as the group in de Villiers Street, we concentrated on this group in de Villiers Street because it was much bigger than the other one. When they came down de Villiers Street we heard gunshots and we even saw people handling their guns pointing their guns.

MS MOROKA: Please carry on.

MR MOOLMAN: When they came nearer just before the crossroads of King George and de Villiers a policeman appeared just beneath the parapet and he went to the group that was in de Villiers. He stood in front of the group and he raised his hands. He did not stand there for a long time he ran back to where he was. Now this group charged. They were now walking faster. Now at the corner of King George and de Villiers the two groups met the other one came from King George and they formed one group. And thereafter we heard gunshots. I would say the automatic rifle hit where we were, that is the corner of King George and de Villiers Streets. And we hid and we dispersed. We ran for other directions.

MS MOROKA: What then did you do?

MR MOOLMAN:: I went to a certain position and I stood for

quite some time. At the time the guns were still firing and I also shot.

MS MOROKA: How many times?

MR MOOLMAN: I shot once.

MS MOROKA: At whom did you fire?

MR MOOLMAN: I was shooting in the group of marchers.

MS MOROKA: What then happened?

MR MOOLMAN: After shooting with a shotgun you have to recycle it and prepare it for the second shot. When I was busy recycling it Neo came to me and he snatched the gun from me and I stayed there hiding.

MS MOROKA: When you say Neo you referring to Mr Neo Potsane?

MR MOOLMAN: That is correct.

MS MOROKA: Do you know why Mr Potsane took the firearm from you?

MR MOOLMAN: He must have realised that I was scared. Maybe he thought he was of assistance to me because we never expected that kind of a thing.

MS MOROKA: You state in your supplementary affidavit at paragraph 7 that you were informed about the ballistic and medical evidence tendered at the inquest. You then further state at paragraph 8 that you accept that you may have killed or injured some of the marchers. Is that correct?

MR MOOLMAN: That is correct.

MS MOROKA: Can you tell the Committee why it is that you say you fired this shot?

MR MOOLMAN: It was our duty to protect Shell House and the property that was within and the leaders. We shot on that day

from where we were. Even after we have left the gunshots went on and that is when I decided to shoot just to repel these people whom I thought at that stage they were going to attack.

MS MOROKA: Mr Moolman why have you applied for amnesty?

MR MOOLMAN: In consultation with my legal representative they told us that it would be difficult to say that this was just a case of self-defence. I might have exceeded the bounds of self-defence.

MS MOROKA: You explained on page 95 your justification for your actions on the day in question. Can you in your own words explain to the court, I beg you pardon, explain to the Committee why you were of the view and are of the view that you were justified on shooting on this day with special reference to the forthcoming elections?

MR MOOLMAN: I have been fighting for human rights for many years and it was my dream to see people living happily ever after. And I saw people dying in this struggle fighting for human rights. It was very important that the fruits of their toil be seen. I didn't wish that they be left without being noticed at all. Parents died and their children left behind. Now the elections were very important for that reasons. 

MS MOROKA: Thank you Chairperson I have no further questions for the witness.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS MOROKA.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRETORIUS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

&#9;Mr Moolman when you fired the shot did you look at the crowd at which you were firing now? 

MR MOOLMAN: I just shot at the marchers there was just one

group on that day I shot at the group.

MR PRETORIUS: But did you look at them did you see what they were doing?

MR MOOLMAN: There were gunshots from their side and others were charging forward.

MR PRETORIUS: So according to your observation they were in the process to attack at that stage. Is that correct?

MR MOOLMAN:&#9;Yes according to my recollection.

MR PRETORIUS: And you only fired one shot?

MR MOOLMAN:&#9;That's correct.

MR PRETORIUS: At that stage that you were firing you were positioned on the parapet roughly halfway between King George and de Villiers Street, that's the corner of King George and de Villiers Street, and the corner of King George and Plein Street in other words roughly halfway along that block on the parapet. Is that correct?

MR MOOLMAN: I do not quite understand you, repeat your question.

MR PRETORIUS: The position where you were standing at the stage that you fired the shot was roughly halfway on that block of the parapet that is between the corner of King George and de Villiers and the corner of King George and Plein Street?

MR MOOLMAN: That is correct.

MR PRETORIUS: Do you say that shots were fired at you whilst you were standing in that position?

MR MOOLMAN: I would say when I was taking cover some of the shots were heard hitting just where I was.

MR PRETORIUS: No I want to get this clear, you were initially standing at the on the parapet at the corner of King

George and de Villiers Street. Is that correct?

MR MOOLMAN: That is correct.

MR PRETORIUS: After the first shots were fired you then ducked underneath the parapet wall and ran to the position midway between the two blocks we've already indicated and that from the last mentioned position, that is where you fired your shots from. Is that correct?

MR MOOLMAN: That is correct.

MR PRETORIUS: Now the shots that were fired at you speaking to you personally in the position where you personally were, were they fired when you were positioned on the corner of King George and de Villiers Street or when you were in the position roughly middle in the block before you fired your shots your shot?

MR MOOLMAN: When you referred to being shot at or, or what do you refer to Sir?

CHAIRPERSON :&#9;The question is were the shots fired at you personally, where were you at that time? 

MR MOOLMAN: I said I took cover underneath the parapet and I still heard shots hitting the building that is the building behind me where I was. I refer now to Shell House itself.

MR PRETORIUS: But was that whilst that you were still standing at the corner of King George and de Villiers Street or whilst you were standing in the position in the middle of the block immediately before you fired your shot?

MR MOOLMAN: It was after I have left the corner of de Villiers and King George.

MR PRETORIUS: In other words in the position you were standing in the middle of the block immediately before you fired your shot? 

MR MOOLMAN: That is correct?

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Moolman the ballistic experts could find no evidence of a shot at Shell House in the position where you stood when you fired your shot. The only ballistic evidence that could be found of shots that struck the parapet was at the corner of King George and de Villiers Street.

MR CURRIN: Chairperson, sorry. My learned friend is not correct again the ballistic reports say that shots may well have hit the tower block of Shell House because of the nature of the material with which Shell House the tower block is constructed it was not possible to say whether dents in the concrete were as a result of a natural process or whether that, that was as a result of shots having hit the building. But what the ballistic report definitely expressly does not exclude are shots that hit the tower block of Shell House which is what this witness has just said.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Chairman there was no evidence of a shot that struck the parapet in a position where this witness stood. The ballistic experts said in their report that they cannot exclude the fact that there could have been marks as against Shell House. They however could find no one which they could indicate, not even a dent that was possible to say that it is a possibility hatt, that particular dent was caused by a shot as against the tower building of Shell House. My question therefore stands.

CHAIRPERSON :&#9;At some stage I would like to get some clarity, bearing in mind your clients attitude that they were unarmed and did not fire and so on that is going to be their evidence

that is the stand that they've taken. Now the purpose of this cross examination about details is as to were shots fired or were not fired, what was that supposef to achieve?

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Chairman according to the ballistic evidence there was, if I remember correctly three maybe four shots that were fired at the parapet at the corner of King George and de Villiers Street. According to an independent witness Mr Dias who we have already referred to he observed one of the marchers after the initial shots and after the people fell down and were crying and shouting shooting blindly into the air with an AK-47. My clients do not dispute that there was such a person the object of evidence prove that however ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON:&#9;I understand that.

MR PRETORIUS: However my clients will testify to the effect that they never saw, physically saw, a person with a firearm in the group point one. Point two - that they were shot at and all they observed was the shots being fired at them. They fell down injured and hurt; there was a commotion of shots being fired; they cannot say in this process of this commotion who fired what shots. So although they do not dispute the object of evidence at the same time they dispute the fact that shots were fired by anybody in the crowd initially. In other words that there was any attack. They cannot dispute that after the shots were fired by the guards some in their midst might have fired at the building or at the guards on the parapet but that is as far as it goes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no I was concerned about precisely where the shots might have been fired in the building and whether they were on the parapet where he was standing. Details of that kind how far does that take this amnesty hearing?

MR PRETORIUS: It all concerns the alleged attack on Shell house which we still dispute.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I understand that. I am talking about the details about whether the shot landed here or there or somewhere else. 

MR PRETORIUS: The point is this Mr Chairman our attitude is still that the guards are not telling the truth about an attack and that we trying to point out to the Chair and to the Committee that the guards are not telling the truth they hiding the real facts from this Committee. And that is the purpose of the real question.

CHAIRPERSON:&#9;Do carry on.

MR PRETORIUS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Now Mr Moolman it leaves me with the question that I am going to repeat that no evidence was found of shots fired at the parapet where you were standing at immediately before you fired your shot in other words midway in the block between King George and de Villiers and King George and Plein Street. Can you explain that?

MR CURRIN: Chairperson sorry that I keep on interrupting but the witness' evidence was that shots were hitting the building Shell House itself and if I can just refer you- behind him. Chairperson if I can just refer you to page 169 of bundle B. That is typed page nine of the ballistic's report. The report is in Afrikaans and I am going to read out from the top of page nine it readss as follows. 

&#9;&#9;"Weste kant van Shell House die toring gedeelte van Shell House bokant die balkon is ook aan die weste kant deur die deskundiges ondersoek probleme is ervaar as gevolg van die hoogte van die gebou asook die klipperige afwerking wat dit moeilik maak om beskadigings merke waar te neem. Stukkies beton is ook geneig om af te splinter waar staal draad onderliggend aan die oppervlakte roes." 

And then the important part. 

&#9;&#9;"Alhoewel geen duide, duidelike koëel beskadigings merke waargeneem is nie kan die moontlikheid nie uitgeskakel word dat hierdie gedeelte van die gebou." 

&#9;&#9;"We cannot exclude the possibility that this part of the building was hit by bullets."

...the report that the ballistic experts could not exclude the possibility that shots hit the tower block of Shell House itself. Which is exactly what this witness has told the committee. So if my learned friend would put the questions in that light.

JUDGE NGOEPE: What did you say the evidence of witness was?

MR CURRIN: That the shots hit the building behind him, not the parapet.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes.

MR CURRIN: Not the parapet. That was his evidence I recall it very clearly because I made a note to that effect.

MR PRETORIUS: He also referred to shots hitting the parapet he did not only refer to shots hitting the block he also referred to shots hitting the parapet Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON:&#9;Now in the light of the fact that ballistic evidence does not exclude the possibility of shots hitting the building and your questions are designed to elicit that shots did not hit the parapet, I would like you weigh that and find out now how far are we going to pursue this matter of detail on the question of the amnesty application?

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Chairman I then just ask him directly whether it was he testifies to the fact that the shots did in fact hit the parapet at that stage.

CHAIRPERSON:&#9;Put it to him then.

MR PRETORIUS: Do you now allege that whilst you were standing in the middle of that block, immediately before you shot at the marchers, shots hit the parapet just where you were standing in that position? 

MR MOOLMAN: No. They hit the wall behind me.

MR PRETORIUS: Now you applied for amnesty on the 9th of May 1997. Do you accept that?

MR MOOLMAN: That is correct.

MR PRETORIUS: On the 29th of May 1997 you started your evidence in front of Judge Nugent. Is that correct?

MR MOOLMAN: That is correct.

MR PRETORIUS: When you gave your evidence at the inquest it was to the same effect as you did now to a certain extent as to that you only fired one shot whilst the marchers were attacking. Is that correct?

MR MOOLMAN: That is correct.

MR PRETORIUS: You however also testified initially in front of Judge Nugent, and Mr Chairman I refer to page 3463, that you fired at the crowd regardless whether they had weapons or not? 

MR MOOLMAN: You did not have time to look who had a firearm and who did not have a firearm.

MR PRETORIUS: But at the same time you testified on the same page that you could not have injured anybody it was impossible to injure or kill anybody to shoot from the position as you did and in the manner that you did?

MR MOOLMAN: This happened so very quick that is why I thought that it impossible to have shot or to have hit someone.

MR PRETORIUS: When and how did you change that belief that you now say that you could have hit someone?

MR MOOLMAN: They have never changed Sir according to the ballistics and when I view the situation not in - not hurriedly, I thought yes that it was quite impossible for someone to be hit from where I was positioned.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Chairman there must have been something wrong with my earphones I did not get the interpretation of that at all. If it can be just.....

CHAIRPERSON :&#9; Will the interpreters please repeat the answer.

MR MOOLMAN: After this incident I had time to review the position where I was and what happened then and I realise that yes there was a possibility that a person might be hit by a bullet from a position where I was, because even the ballistics say so. The ballistics show that many people were injured on that day, some even died because of that shotgun.

MR PRETORIUS: You see Mr Moolman what bothers me is that at the time you brought your application for amnesty that is on the 9th of May 1997, you still believe, according to you, that you only fired one shot and that that shot was fired while an attack was taking place and further more you could not have injured or killed anybody, why then did you apply for amnesty?

MR MOOLMAN: Such a possibility exists that because of my shooting one might have been hit. I explained that already.

MR PRETORIUS: The problem I have with that explanation Mr Moolman is again, and I repeat it, that at the time you launched your application you personally did not believe that - you at that time - also the ballistic reports were not available. So I am asking you once again on what basis did you initially bring your application for amnesty? 

MR MOOLMAN: That is why Sir you have a supplementary affidavit and I do not dispute the fact that someone might have been hit by my bullet because the ballistics were given after I testified.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Moolman that's explaining why you initially brought your application because when you initially brought your application the ballistics weren't even available. So you could not have been aware of any ballistic reports at the time that you brought your application. I am still asking you initially right in the beginning when you brought your application why did you bring it?

MR MOOLMAN: Because I shot and the shot was - the firearm was directed at the marchers.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Moolman I put it to you that your evidence in front of the inquest court was totally contradictory to and any explanation that you could have exceeded the bounds of self-defence in fact it was quite the opposite. Only ten days before that you brought your application on the grounds you might have exceeded the bounds of self defence. I am putting it to you that your whole evidence in front of Judge Nugent was quite the contrary. Can you explain that?

MR MOOLMAN: The evidence that I gave Judge Nugent is the recollection of what happened and I would not go to an extent of saying that the evidence is contradictory. That's how I perceived things to have happened.

MR PRETORIUS: I furthermore put it to you Mr Moolman that you full well knew and still know that what you did was not justifiable and that is the fact why you applied for amnesty. 

MR MOOLMAN: I just dispute what you say.

MR PRETORIUS: &#9;Mr Chairman I am now going to refer to the record as from page 3501 of the evidence of Mr Moolman. Just to place the Chairman and the honourable members of the Committee in a position at that stage the full video material that was shown, of which just a part of it was shown in front of this Committee, was shown to the witness and various points were pointed out to him that the legal representatives representing the families at that stage would raise with regard to that video material. I do not think that it is - I do not want to show again I think it would be sufficient if one pointed to these points that were raised with this witness in the presence of their legal representatives as it was not in dispute at that stage and I can see no reason why it should be or could be disputed now. So as to short cut the procedure of showing the video material again I can just refer to the record and place things on record as what was at that stage common cause.

CHAIRPERSON :&#9;Please do that.

MR PRETORIUS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Moolman can you recall that whilst you were testifying at the inquest, a video was shown to you and various points were made with regard to the video?

MR MOOLMAN: I remember seeing the video.

MR PRETORIUS: Right. Mr Moolman I am going to put certain points to you that were pointed out during that occasion. Your legal representatives will point out if that is incorrect but if there's anything that you personally want to dispute about that kindly place that on record as well.

MS MOROKA: Chairperson what is the question?

MR PRETORIUS: I am just requesting the witness if he disputes something if he would point that out to the Committee as well Mr Chairman. That's a mere request.

CHAIRPERSON:&#9;For my benefit I don't know what precisely you want as an answer. You're asking whether certain points were pointed out to him in the video, and he said he saw the video. What is it that you want from him?

MR PRETORIUS: I just want him to indicate whether he understands the position that he must point out something if it is contrary to what he observed.

CHAIRPERSON:&#9;You mean now at this stage without seeing the video?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MS MOROKA: Chairperson if I may the difficulty is I don't understand this question and I don't know whether the applicant does and the applicant is being asked to point out what he doesn't agree with. If my learned friend recalls very well that this page 3506 even the Judge was of the view that it was difficult to say where that shot came from. So I am not very sure what my learned is friend is trying to get out of this applicant. 

MR TIPP: Sorry for your benefit I understand Mr Pretorius is going to read passages from the record and then ask the witness to comment on those passages as he reads them. I think all this is a bit premature. Let him read what he's going to read and in each case the witness will be asked to comment on that.

&#9;Thank you Mr ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON :&#9;Assist us please we are in the dark. You saw the video, he saw the video but we here don't have a clue about what it is precisely you want.

MR PRETORIUS: I am going to put it step for step to the witness now Mr Chairman all I wanted him to do is to understand is that if he objects to he doesn't agree with it he can just place that on record that is all that I want.

CHAIRPERSON :&#9;Yes do that please.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Moolman when the video started right in the beginning of the video it was a scene pictured at the corner of Wanderers Street and de Villiers Street approximately one block or exactly one block away from Shell House as such. Can you recall that?&#9; 

MR MOOLMAN: When I watched the video I saw Wanderers many a times, I can't remember now what happened then.

MR PRETORIUS: What then happened is that one could clearly see some marchers at the corner of Wanderers and de Villiers Street taking shelter behind buildings on that corner. Do you recall that?

MR MOOLMAN: I do not remember that.

MR PRETORIUS: Do you dispute it?

JUDGE NGCOBO:&#9;What is it that you want him to dispute, is it the fact that it appeared on the video or is it the fact that it never happened at all?

MR PRETORIUS: The fact that, that is what appears on the video honourable members?

MR TIPP: The man says he can't remember. Is there any point of him denying it or admitting it. Really if he can't remember he can't remember it. That is what he just told you.

CHAIRPERSON:&#9;Yes. If the Committee wants to see the video -ifit will help we will on our own screen and see the video and see if it is available.

MR PRETORIUS: It is available Mr Chairman but the Committee members and the chairman will recall that my learned friend Mr Berger raised the question whether inter alia how long or how soon after that specific portion that was shown to the Committee was taken. From all the events that is stated now and what appears from the video that was pointed out during that occasion it was quite clear in the words of Mr Honourable Judge Nugent that the video was taken very shortly after the particular shooting, the main shooting event took place. 

&#9;I want now through this witness and through what happened whilst this witness was testifying to place all those facts which is really not in dispute it cannot be disputed because then it wasn't in dispute, before the committee, so that it is clear that these are the important factors to take into regard when one considers the time phrase when this video was taken.

MS KHAMPEPE: May I understand you Mr Pretorius. Is this line of questioning therefore intended to establish the time when the video was taken?

MR PRETORIUS: Precisely, and it was pointed out - all these factors were pointed out during the previous hearing and it was then not in dispute anymore so it was then, in the words of Judge Nugent, clear that the video was taken very shortly after the main incident.

CHAIRPERSON :&#9; Ask him whether he disputes that, because if he can't dispute that, that would eliminate the necessity of going point by point of what was shown in the video. Isn't it?

MR PRETORIUS: I will attempt to do that Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON :&#9; Yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Unless Mr Pretorius there is a further point you want to make by this line of questioning.

MR PRETORIUS: Honourable member of the Chairman I think what I will do is I'm just going to put the line of the general line of what was the observed on the video at him and if he doesn't dispute it I am going to leave it at that, because then it is on record and it will be easy to argue it later. &#9;

&#9;Mr Moolman I am just putting it to you that the general line of what happened during this video immediately prior to the camera zooming in on the people as they lay down on the corner of King George and de Villiers Street is the following. Point one - we can clearly see the marchers on the corner of King George - at least on the corner of de Villiers and Wanderers Street one can clearly see from the video as well that the streets, from the corner, that is on the corner from King George and de Villiers Street, it's clear there is no marchers there, there is no policemen there, there is no army personnel there everybody is clear. So in other words everybody dispersed. There is no one except the people that was now lying down on the corner of King George and de Villiers.

CHAIRPERSON:&#9;The question is does he does he remember that.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes. 

MR MOOLMAN: I was shown a video and I saw Wanderers Street but what happened in Wanderers Street when watching that video I do not remember because Wanderers Street appeared many a times on that video.

MR PRETORIUS: The camera then moved on to this exact corner of King George and de Villiers Street. I may just point out that I am not saying from which direction it was fired but one can at that stage clearly hear a shot that is fired and one can see that the marchers on the corner of de Villiers and Wanderers Street ducked and take shelter behind buildings.

MR MOOLMAN: I did not hear a question there.

MR TIPP: Did you see that in the video what he's just described to you. He is asking you whether you remember seeing that. In other words a shot, did you hear a shot being fired and did you see the people on the video dive and take cover? 

MR MOOLMAN: There was a gunshot on the video that I looked on that, that I watched on that day but from where I can't remember.

MS KHAMPEPE: Are you saying Mr Moolman that there was a gunshot coming from the corner de Villiers and King George Street?

MR MOOLMAN: I said when a video was shown in the court I heard the sound of a gun but I do not remember from which direction. 

MR PRETORIUS: Thereafter the video zooms in on the people on the corner of King George and de Villiers Street and it's clear that there's no one there except the witness Mr Von Eggerdy who is trying to assist the injured and the death.

MR MOOLMAN: Yes the video showed people, dead people. Where they were I would not be in a position to tell. I do not remember.

MR PRETORIUS: And it's only after some period of time has lapsed with only Mr Von Eggerdy on the video that one sees policemen or other people running to the corner to assist the injured or dead people there. Do you recall that?

MR MOOLMAN: I do not remember.

MR PRETORIUS: And lastly it is only sometime after that, that some of the marchers returned to the particular corner to watch what was going on insofar as to what the injured and etcetera is concerned. Do you recall that?

MR MOOLMAN: I saw the video but I would not be in a position to explain and recall what I saw on that video.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Chairman I am then just going to place the following observation of Judge Nugent on record and ask this witness whether he differs from it. It appears from page 3506 of the record. Approximately line 6. 

&#9;&#9;"Now what the advocate is saying is this if you look on the video it seems to be very shortly after the shooting had taken place and you can see that the crowd have dispersed."

&#9;I will leave it at that and the rest concerns the shot I do not want to debate the shot as such now. Do you agree with that Sir?

MR MOOLMAN: Yes. 

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Moolman why did you run from the corner of King George and de Villiers Street to the middle of the block, approximately, just after the initial shooting took place. Why did you run to that position secondly? 

MR MOOLMAN: I do not understand your question Sir?

MR PRETORIUS: What was the purpose of you running from the position from the corner of King George and de Villiers Street to a position in the middle of the particular block on the parapet?

MR MOOLMAN: It would be difficult to shoot as a group.

MR PRETORIUS: Do I understand you correctly is the reason why you ran was to get into a better position to fire at the crowd?

MR MOOLMAN: That is correct.

MR PRETORIUS: After the whole incident was all over did you look over the parapet to see where the position where the injured and wounded were lying on the ground?

MR MOOLMAN: That is correct.

MR PRETORIUS: Looking from the position from where you shot you would've been in a position where they - that is those people that were lying there on the corner of King George and de Villiers Street were, if they were running towards Shell House would've still been running towards where you were positioned halfway in the block?

MR MOOLMAN: From my position yes it was possible.

MR PRETORIUS: I put it to you therefore Sir that if you were firing at people attacking Shell House you would've shot at them and you would have struck them in the front and not in the back?

MR MOOLMAN: According to the ballistics which I do not dispute people were shot at the back but when I shot I do not remember seeing people turning their backs on me. Well I do not dispute that well they were shot at the back.

MR PRETORIUS: Do you agree then that if the ballistics are correct, and I just want to place it to you on record so you do understand it again, four people were killed with shotguns on the corner of King George and de Villiers Street. All four of them had been shot in the back. Do you understand that?

MR MOOLMAN: I already alluded to fact I do not stand against the ballistic evidence.

MR PRETORIUS: If that is the case and you accept it, I put it to you that the people must have already been running away from Shell House before you shot?

CHAIRPERSON:&#9;They may have momentarily turned. Not necessarily running away.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Chairman it is just very unlikely that all four of them had momentarily turned.

CHAIRPERSON:&#9;How many did?

MR PRETORIUS: Well Mr Chairman according to the evidence that of Mr Dias, that I have already placed on record through the previous witness, all of them immediately started running away, and that is what I will also place on record for this witness to reply to. 

&#9;Mr Moolman Mr De Silva Dias, one of the witnesses who was in the fish and chips shop, the second shop from the corner of King George and de Villiers Street testified to the following. 

&#9;&#9;"What did you see happen immediately the shooting the first shots were fired? --- There was chaos and people just went down towards the floor".

He there refers to the marchers. 

&#9;&#9;"Do I understand then that as the first shots were fired people fell to the ground and fled?"

And his reply is "Yes". 

&#9;I put it to you that his observations are quite correct. That what actually happened that the guards started shooting first at the people, the marchers that is; they turned around and fled and they were then shot at whilst they were busy fleeing.

MR MOOLMAN: My real collection does not provide me with any scene of a person turning away when I started shooting.

MR LAX:&#9;Reference to Mr Dias' evidence at that point please.

MR PRETORIUS: Certain honourable member of the committee is page 3538 as from line eight to approximately line eleven.

MR LAX:&#9;Thanks.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Moolman you were already referred to a position in your evidence where you testified that it was difficult for you in the position that you were there on the parapet to shoot at the crowd. Do you still maintain today that, that is the position?

MR MOOLMAN: When I gave the statement and when I went for the inquest I thought of this but after ascertaining and making sure as to how big is the probability of shooting from where I was, I was then convinced yes there was such a possibility.

MR PRETORIUS: I wish to point out to you that Mr Neo Potsane testified at page 3575 as from approximately line seven to line 9 during this same inquest and I quote. 

&#9;&#9;"Alright if he (and that is referring to you now) wanted to fire into a crowd he would have no difficulty as he was in a similar position as you were? --- Yes". 

&#9;Do you agree with Mr Potsane? 

MR MOOLMAN: I did not hear a question there.

MR PRETORIUS: I put it to you that Mr Potsane during the inquest testified in direct conflict with what you testified the following: 

&#9;&#9;"If he (that is referring to you Mr Moolman) wanted to fire into a crowd he would have no difficulty as he was in a similar position as you were..."

and he replied "Yes". So he testified that you would have no difficulty if you wanted to fire into the crowd to fire into the crowd.

CHAIRPERSON:&#9;Hasn't he said that he did fire into the crowd?

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Chairman I referred him initially to his evidence at the inquest where he said that it was impossible for him at that stage to hit and injure anybody in the crowd because of the position he was in. In other words what I am putting to him is that at that stage he was simply not telling the truth .

CHAIRPERSON:&#9;I think we are really going to get bogged down with the immense little details here you know.

MS KHAMPEPE: Yes Mr Pretorius I thought I heard the witness' testimony conceding that after reviewing the whole incident he is now convinced that there was such a possibility.

MR PRETORIUS: Honourable member of the committee it still remains he had to review this whole incident over and over again before he testified in front of Judge Nugent approximately three years, even longer than three years after the incident. Before he testified he had to review it all over again. Now the point is he is changing his evidence as things come along, and it's clear that he is not telling the truth.

CHAIRPERSON:&#9;Carry on but I appeal to you to really to concentrate on the essentials, you know the important points. Where the man says he did fire, the next question is whether he fired from one spot or another spot at the end of the day might not be very, very relevant because the man says he did fire.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Chairman I agree with you but the motives or the reason why he fired is very important and it therefore goes around that.

CHAIRPERSON:&#9;No the motive is he felt Shell House was under attack and so he fired.

MR PRETORIUS: Well we're indicating to the Chairman, we try to indicate to the Chairman and the committee that, that is not the truth.

CHAIRPERSON:&#9;That I gathered already from the kind of questions that have been put about what your clients did or did not do. 

MR PRETORIUS: Now Mr Moolman the clients for whom I'm appearing will say that they never intended to attack Shell House and they were never part of a group that attacked Shell House or intended to attack Shell House. 

MR MOOLMAN: I dispute that.

CHAIRPERSON:&#9;How can you dispute that when you don't know who his clients were?

MR MOOLMAN: That is why I dispute that because I did not - I could not identify on that day who of the people he is representing today.

MR PRETORIUS: They will state further that they merely attended a meeting or a march to attend a meeting to support the Zulu king.

MR LAX:&#9;Do you agree with that or don't you? Are you even able to say that they did or didn't?

MR MOOLMAN: I really can't give comment on that.

MS KHAMPEPE: Are you able to say Mr Moolman whether there was a march that was in support of the Zulu king?

MR MOOLMAN: That is correct.

MR PRETORIUS: Thank you Chairperson. Now finally they will also state that they were fired on without any reason or justification by the guards of Shell House.

CHAIRPERSON:&#9;You are not required to answer this you are being told that, that is what the objectors are going to say. You have given us your version you are being told what they are going to say. Do you understand?

MR MOOLMAN: Yes Chair I understand.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Chairman the objectors for which Dr Van Wyk appears their position is exactly the same and therefore they are not going to repeat it.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRETORIUS

CHAIRPERSON:&#9;Are there going to be any questions put to this witness?

MR DORFLING :&#9;Yes Mr Chairman and honourable members of the committee I've got quite a number of questions to put to this witness.

CHAIRPERSON :&#9;Very well we'll take a short adjournment at this stage and resume in 15 minutes.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON:&#9;I would just like to remind you that you are still under oath.

STEPHEN MAROLE MOOLMAN: (s.u.o.)

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR DORFLING:&#9;Thank you Mr Chair and honourable members of the committee. 

&#9;Mr Moolman when you went up to the parapet did you have any specific instructions as to what your role would be on the parapet? 

&#9;Mr Chair it would seem there is no translation I think the witness is waiting for a translation.

MR LAX: He is talking I can see him in the box talking.

MR MOOLMAN: I was told that Jakwe will give me instructions as to how to work on that day.

MR DORFLING:&#9;And did you prior to the main shooting incident taking place receive any specific instructions as to what your role should be, or would be rather?

MR MOOLMAN: Yes.

MR DORFLING:&#9;What were your instructions?

MR MOOLMAN: That we will shoot to repel the marchers from gaining access to Shell House.

MR DORFLING:&#9;What would be the nature of the fire that would be emanating from the people on the parapet, would they shoot into the crowd? Would they be the first line of fire or what would be the position?

MR MOOLMAN: To shoot and repel the people means to shoot at them.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Would the guards on the parapet be a first line of fire or would you in other words commence firing at the crowd or was there a different plan? 

CHAIRPERSON:&#9;Do you mean were there particular instructions to him as an individual?

MR DORFLING:&#9;To the people on the parapet in general Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright. Now the question is not about precisely what were your instructions but are you aware of what the instructions were to all the people that were on the parapet?

MR MOOLMAN: I do not recall specifically we were all together when we were instructed.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Sorry I am not sure I understand your answer. Are you saying you can't recall all having been present when you were given instructions. Is that what you are saying?

MR LAX:&#9;No he is said we were all together when we got instructions. That was his answer.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Now what were this specific instructions you were given at the time when you were all together? 

MR MOOLMAN: That if there is an attack our work will be to repel the attackers, so that they don't gain access to Shell House.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Were you ever instructed that you were to act as a so-called secondary fire that you would in other words by secondary fire distract the attention and the concentration of the marchers?

MR MOOLMAN: I understood the instructions to be that we should stop them from getting into Shell House.

MR DORFLING:&#9;You see both Mr Kruser and Mr Molefe, the person Jakwe you've referred to from whom you got your orders, is of the opinion that the idea with the people on the parapet was that they were there to provide what they called secondary fire to distract and divert the marchers. Are you disagreeing with that evidence?

MR MOOLMAN: That is how I understood the instructions Sir and I've already told you.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Mr Moolman can I have a more direct answer. Are you saying that you never received the order to provide secondary fire? 

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Dorfling may I interpose I am sorry to be doing this during your cross examination. I am not clear in my mind who you are referring to the person who might have given him instructions about the secondary shooting. Maybe that's the difficulty that the witness has.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Thank you Madam Commissioner I think the evidence of this witness is that he would've received his instructions on the parapet from a person by the name of Jakwe which we know is Mr Molefe. It was the evidence of Mr Molefe that they were to provide secondary fire from the parapet. If I may refer perhaps to the inquest proceedings I can refer to the page numbers in this regard as well.

MS KHAMPEPE: As long as the witness is on the same page with you I am fine.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Now Mr Moolman let me make it clear. It was the evidence of Mr Molefe and it was also the evidence of Mr Kruser at the inquest that the people on the parapet were placed there for the purpose of providing secondary fire. You seem to be in disagreement with that. You seem to have perceived the instruction to be that you had to shoot at the people when they were attacking Shell House not to provide secondary fire. Am I correct?

MR MOOLMAN: Maybe I do not understand what secondary fire means.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Let me try and explain to you what the gist of the evidence of Mr Kruser and Mr Molefe is in my interpretation. As I understood the evidence the people on the parapet were supposed to be a second line of fire. In other words the people that would be defending would be the guards downstairs on ground level on the corners of King George and Plein Street, and the guards on the parapet would be a secondary line. In other words they would then also fire from the top but not specifically with the intention to divert an attack but more specifically to divert the concentration of the marchers and to distract their attention. That is how I understood their evidence.

MR LAX:&#9;Mr Dorfling isn't the issue with secondary fire that you distract their fire. You distract the concentration of their fire at you by giving them another point from which they are being attacked thereby creating a dissolution if you like, a dissolving their fire. It doesn't mean that you don't shoot at the crowd at all. So I mean we're talking really fine strategic points of military tactics here and you're expecting this man, who on his evidence so far, hasn't had any military training to understand these fine distinctions. Really I don't think it's necessaryily that fair. He's made it clear that he doesn't understand what you mean by secondary fire. Maybe it wasn't put to him in that basis and maybe that is what you should explore before you pin him down to it.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Mr Moolman may I turn to your evidence at the inquest. I got the impression from reading your evidence at the inquest that the reason you were placed on the parapet was to protect the security guards downstairs on ground level at Shell House if they were to come under an attack. Do you agree with that?

MR MOOLMAN: Yes I agree.

MR DORFLING:&#9;For purposes of the committee I'm specifically referring to pages 3483, line one, to 3487 line 17, and also page 3436, lines 20 to 25. 

CHAIRPERSON:&#9;I am sorry to interrupt, just the first one was 3483 to 3487?

MR DORFLING:&#9;Indeed Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON:&#9;Yeah, thank you.

MR DORFLING:&#9;And the second one was 3436 lines 20 to 25.

CHAIRPERSON:&#9;Thank you.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Now were you aware where the guards were positioned downstairs?

MR MOOLMAN: I was told that the guards were downstairs, where they were positioned I could not see them.

MR DORFLING:&#9;You weren't informed of the specific position of the guards you didn't know whether they were on the corners of Plein and Klein or King George and de Villiers, or Plein and King George, you didn't know. Is that correct? 

MR MOOLMAN: That is correct.

MR DORFLING:&#9;How would you have then been in a position to know that the guards on the ground level were coming under attack?

CHAIRPERSON:&#9;The instructions were if the guards are fired theyu must fire. He may not know exactly when the guards are going to be attacked and how.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Mr Chair I think the question is bit different. I am trying to establish from this witness how he would have known that the guards downstairs were being fired at and were coming under attack if he didn't know where they were positioned. That's the question I am trying to pose to the witness.

MR LAX:&#9;Do you understand the question. How would you have known that the guards downstairs were coming under attack?

MR MOOLMAN: Firstly we were on the parapet to patrol and to keep an eye on the situation. Everything that happened we saw it clearly.

MS KHAMPEPE: But I think the question that Mr Dorfling wants you to respond to is how would you have known that the guards on the ground were under attack because you didn't know where they were specifically located on the ground.

MR MOOLMAN: I have indicated already that we went to the parapet to protect because we were also part of the security, now the attack would not only be on the people on the ground floor it would also be directed at us.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Mr Moolman in my previous question preceding this one you confirmed that you perceived your role to be to protect the security guards downstairs when they come under attack. The question remains, how would you have known that to happen if you didn't know where they were positioned?

MR MOOLMAN: Maybe I did not understand your question Sir. But we were supposed to repel the attackers so that they do not gain access into Shell House.

MR DORFLING:&#9;I want to put it to you Mr Moolman that you're not being truthful, you are not telling the full truth, and that you had exactly the same difficulty at the time of the inquest to explain your actions. And you can read the record I am going to argue that your untruthfulness appears from the record. You can read if you wish pages 3448 line one to page 3449 line nine where you had exactly the same difficulty you had today in explaining this question of mine.

CHAIRPERSON:&#9;At least he is consistent.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Indeed so Mr Chair it would seem that the lie remains consistent. 

CHAIRPERSON:&#9;His truthfulness may be consistent as well. You know I - situation where it says my understanding of the instructions were to prevent an attack on Shell House. That's how he understood it. Then you bring in the question of secondary fire. He may have understood that or he may not have understood that. But where does it take the matter?

MR DORFLING:&#9;Mr Chair I think the witness was quite clear that he understood his position to be defending the guards on the ground.

CHAIRPERSON:&#9;That was part ....(intervention)

MR DORFLING:&#9;Indeed.

CHAIRPERSON: The other was prevent an attack on Shell House.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Indeed. Did you, when positioned on the parapet, see Mr Molefe shooting Mr Moolman?

MR MOOLMAN: I did not see him but I heard that he shot.

MR DORFLING:&#9;What kind of fire did you hear emanating from where he was positioned?

MR MOOLMAN: An AK-47.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Did you see Mr Neo Potsane shooting?

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

MR DORFLING:&#9;Why do you say that you know that he shot? 

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

MR DORFLING:&#9;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? 

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

MR DORFLING:&#9;Can you explain that?

MR 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:&#9;Sorry just from interpretation point of view you use the word "recycling" do you mean "reloading"? It is a bit worrying.

MR 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:&#9;A pump-action shotgun I take it?

MR MOOLMAN: That is correct.

MR DORFLING:&#9; Mr Moolman what made you decide to fire at the crowd?

MR 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:&#9;Is that your evidence that you fired at the crowd because you were being fired at.

CHAIRPERSON:&#9;You say you do you mean him personally?

MR DORFLING:&#9;No I'm meaning the security guards positioned on the parapet, in the plural, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON:&#9;Yes.

MR LAX:&#9;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. 

MR 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?

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

MR DORFLING:&#9;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?

MR 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.&#9;

MR DORFLING:&#9;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?

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

MR DORFLING:&#9;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:&#9;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?

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

MR DORFLING:&#9;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?

MR MOOLMAN: That is correct.

MR DORFLING:&#9;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?

MR MOOLMAN: That is correct.

MR DORFLING:&#9;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?

MR 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:&#9;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?

MR MOOLMAN: I did not quite understand your question.

MR DORFLING:&#9;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?

MR MOOLMAN: Yes, that is correct.

MR DORFLING:&#9;You didn't think at the time that you might have gone too far?

MR MOOLMAN: That is correct.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Sorry I just want to make sure that you (microphone off) went too far. You are answering that in the affirmative?

MR 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:&#9;Was that prior to you giving evidence at the inquest proceedings?

MR MOOLMAN: That is correct.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Why didn't you explain that to Mr Justice Nugent that it's possible you might have exceeded the bounds of self-defence ?

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

MR DORFLING:&#9;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?

MR 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:&#9;Mr Moolman the picture that you are referring to is that what you actually saw or what you believed must have occurred?

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

JUDGE NGCOBO:&#9;Well&#9;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?

MR MOOLMAN: Yes that was my recollection.

MR DORFLING:&#9;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?

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

MR DORFLING:&#9;But say your evidence was that in your view you didn't even hit a single marcher. How would the question of exceeding the bounds of self-defence ever come into play?

CHAIRPERSON:&#9;I will imagine a general consultation between the lawyers and the clients for this matter is generally discussed. Can't you as a lawyer, experienced lawyer, picture that?

MR DORFLING:&#9;Mr Chairman I am dealing specifically with the applicant's perception, his own perception, and what went on in his own mind. But I will leave it at that for purposes of argument.

CHAIRPERSON:&#9;Yes.

MR DORFLING:&#9;I think - can I just conclude the point by saying or referring the Committee Mr Chair to page 93 at paragraph 9A of the application 9A(I)

CHAIRPERSON:&#9;Yes.

MR DORFLING:&#9;"Prior to the commencement of the inquest proceedings Mr...." Have you got it in front of you Mr Moolman? Page 93, you've got it? I'm reading from paragraph 9A(I). Already there prior to you giving evidence in the inquest proceedings Sir you provide for the possibility of you having exceeded the bounds of self-defence. Now if that perception was never in your own mind then why did you include it in your application?

MR MOOLMAN: I said I applied for amnesty because of the advice from my legal advisers. Everything you see there, almost everything you see there was an advice from them.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Now Mr Moolman if I may just revert back to your instructions. Were you told that you could shoot at the at the marchers at the time when you perceived there to be an attack regardless whether people were carrying firearms or not?

MR MOOLMAN: When we were told to repel the marchers we were not told what arms would they be carrying.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Did you understand your instruction to entail that you could shoot at people amongst the crowd that did not have any firearms?

MR MOOLMAN: Sir what do you mean when you say were we instructed to shoot people who did not have firearms?

MR DORFLING:&#9;I am not saying you were instructed to shoot at people who didn't have firearms. I asked you whether you understood your instructions to mean that if there was an attack forthcoming from the marchers you could shoot at the crowd and at the marchers without having regard who carries firearms and who not. In other words you can shoot at the crowd at random, in general without aiming your fire at a specific individual carrying a firearm. Did you understand your instructions to be that? 

MR MOOLMAN: The instructions said that people will be attacking and those are the people that we should repel.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Did you understand that to mean that you can only shoot at people that form part of an attack?

MR MOOLMAN: I referred to people who would attack.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Firearms or not necessarily?

MR MOOLMAN: I believe when we were given this instruction nobody knew what kind of an attack would be carried forward with firearms or without firearms nobody knew.

MR DORFLING:&#9;You see Mr Moolman the reason why I am asking this is Mr Kruser was asked specifically as to what the nature of the instructions were and he was quite clear that the retaliation from security guards were to be aimed at persons whom the security guards saw shooting. I am referring to page 2882 at lines 22 to 25 of the record Mr Chair. That was Mr Kruser's evidence that the understanding was that the guards would be firing at people amongst the crowd who they see shooting.

MR LAX:&#9;Mr Dorfling did Kruser brief this witness or did somebody else brief this witness? That's really the issue. What Kruser may have said you don't know, he may not even know. I'm just - to be fair to the witness if Kruser didn't brief him then rather put the person's evidence who briefed him in that regard.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Mr Chair with respect to the honourable committee member, this witness was specifically confronted with this portion of evidence at the time of the inquest. He was specifically asked how this didn't come to his knowledge and that's the reason I'm repeating this question because the response doesn't seem to be identical. 

&#9;Were you aware of any instructions Sir that you had to direct your fire if there was an attack at the marchers who you saw shooting?

MR MOOLMAN: Not according to my recollection.

MR DORFLING: Are you saying Sir that if there was such an instruction it never came to your knowledge, or can you simply not remember whether you had such an instruction or not?

MR MOOLMAN: The instruction that I remember is the one that I already told this Committee. 

MR DORFLING:&#9;Mr Moolman is it your evidence that on the day you would have been prepared to fire in the direction of a crowd on your evidence charging forward regardless of whether you saw any firearms? Just shoot in the general direction of the crowd?

MR MOOLMAN: I think these were the people who were attacking not just marching.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Is that your evidence that you would fire in the general direction of the crowd without identifying individuals who were aiming fire in your direction? Sorry may I just complete the question. Or would you specifically look for individuals carrying firearms and directing their fire at you before you would retaliate?

MR MOOLMAN: Sir you speak of identifying individuals within the group but when you speak of attackers all of them will be attackers. You can't say individuals within a group of attackers those are the only people who will be attacking, all of them, because they are attackers they will engage in the act of attacking.

CHAIRPERSON:&#9;In other words whether they had a firearm or not?

MR MOOLMAN: That is correct Chair.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Mr Moolman you were halfway down the block between Plein and de Villiers Streets on the King George side of the parapet. You could see the - as you perceived them to be, attackers approaching. They were coming from north to south in King George Street. Did you just shoot in the general direction without aiming at an individual? Is that your evidence?

MR MOOLMAN: I shot at the attackers Sir.

MR DORFLING:G:&#9;By attackers you mean the whole crowd that was coming forward?

MR MOOLMAN: That is correct.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Who fired the first shot from the parapet?

MR MOOLMAN: According to my recollection it's myself.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Have you got a clear picture of you having fired the first shot from the parapet that day? Have you got a clear picture in your mind of that?

MR MOOLMAN: I said according to my recollection I am the first one to shoot.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Was that also your recollection at the time of you giving evidence at the inquest proceedings?

MR MOOLMAN: That is correct that was my recollection.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Mr Molefe may I refer you to page 3442 of ...(intervention)

MR LAX:&#9;Sorry it's Mr Moolman.

MR DORFLING:&#9;I beg you pardon Mr Chair. Mr Moolman may I refer you to page 3442 of the record. I am particularly interested in lines three to 5. You were asked the following question. 

&#9;&#9;"Just before you started shooting did anybody else on the parapet start shooting before you? --- Yes. Who shot first? --- Jakwe opened fire. 

&#9;&#9;Did you see him shooting? --- I did not see him shoot I heard him open fire." 

&#9;And now on that portion of the record you seem to indicate to Mr Justice Nugent that Jakwe, referring to Mr Jakwe Molefe, fired the first shot. Is that not correct?

MR MOOLMAN: According to my recollection I am the first person to shoot from the parapet.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Was that evidence before Mr Justice Nugent from you incorrect, is that your evidence?

MR MOOLMAN: I would say yes.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Can you perhaps advance a reason why you would have made such a mistake, why you would have at that time said Mr Molefe fired first and today have a different perception?

MR MOOLMAN: On that day I still remember I said I was the first to shoot.

CHAIRPERSON:&#9;But you are being referred to the record of the inquest proceedings, and according to that transcript of the record it says that Jakwe, the man Jakwe opened fire first. You heard him open fire first before you did. So you say that that record was incorrect or are you saying you may have said so but it was not right?

MR MOOLMAN: Maybe what I said was not written down properly.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Mr Moolman I just want to give you the opportunity, I am going to be arguing in front of this committee that this record, the portion I have quoted to you, accurately reflects what was conveyed to Mr Justice Nugent by yourself and that there is nothing wrong with that record. That you had - or you gave different evidence at the time of the inquest proceedings. Would you like to comment on that?

MR MOOLMAN: What I've told this Committee is what I remember.

MR DORFLING:&#9;I am going to move on. I will leave that for argument Mr Chair. 

&#9;Mr Moolman can I ask you about your application form itself, and I'm specifically referring to pages 92 to 98 of bundle C, Mr Chair. Could you please get that in front of you. Have you got it Sir?

MR MOOLMAN: Yes.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Has this proforma or roneo form been filled in by you in person?

MR MOOLMAN: That is correct.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Do you confirm that it records your version as to your reasons for the amnesty application accurately or is there some problems with the forms?

MR MOOLMAN: I had problems here and there but the advice from my legal representatives was very useful. I managed to fill in this form. 

MR DORFLING:&#9;Now with hindsight Sir are you happy that this form reflects your position accurately?

MR MOOLMAN: That is correct.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Does it relate your motivations and your reasoning from a personal point of view? In other words are these the words that you chose to use for purposes of your application?

MR MOOLMAN: That is correct.

MR DORFLING:&#9;You didn't get some suggestions as to what you should put in the form from anybody else but yourself?

MR MOOLMAN: I said earlier on that I had problems here and there and I consulted with my lawyers and they assisted me.

MR DORFLING:&#9;I understand your position to be that you took certain advice but once you started filling in the form when you started putting in the information that was required with regard to the actual application, were those your own words or did it come from somebody else?

MR MOOLMAN: I wrote what I think happened.

MR DORFLING:&#9;You didn't perhaps get assistance from one of your co-applicants?

MR MOOLMAN: I would not remember because when I filled in this form I was not alone, we were quite a few.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Was any one or more of your co-applicants with you?

MR MOOLMAN: Yes there was one.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Who was with you Sir?

MR MOOLMAN: Veli Llale.

MR DORFLING: You already testified that at the time of you filling in the form you used your own words. Now I would like to refer you to bundle C, page 102 to 108. Could you please get those pages in front of you Sir. Could you just turn to page 103 paragraph 9 ... (intervention)

MR LAX:&#9;Just hang on a second Mr Dorfling he doesn't have Llale's application.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Have you been placed in possession of a copy of Mr Llale's application?

MR MOOLMAN: Yes.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Can I read out paragraph 9A(I) of Mr Llale's application to you Sir, it reads as follows. 

&#9;&#9;"I shot at a group of IFP marchers in self-defence. I apply for amnesty if it is found that I exceeded the bounds of self-defence". 

&#9;That's what Mr Llale said. You see that? 

MR MOOLMAN: Yes.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Can we now look at your application page 93 paragraph 9A(I). 

&#9;&#9;"I shot at a group of IFP marchers in self-defence. I apply for amnesty if I exceeded the bounds of self-defence". 

&#9;The only words that have been omitted from your application that's different from that of Mr Llale is "there is found that I", which was inserted by Mr Llale afterwards or at a later stage. Do you see that Sir? 

MR MOOLMAN: Yes.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Is that mere coincidence that both you and Mr Llale chose to use exactly the same wording to paragraph 9A(I)?

MR MOOLMAN: I do not - I am illiterate I don't quite understand English that's why I requested Mr Llale to help me and I looked at his form.

MR DORFLING:&#9;But wait a minute Mr Moolman a few questions ago we cleared this out. You said the words used in this application were your own words. Are you now saying they were indeed Mr Llale's words?

MR MOOLMAN: I said when we filled these forms in it was after the advice from our legal advisers, we took advices from them. 

MR DORFLING:&#9;I am going to repeat the question Mr Moolman. Are you saying that the words you used on your application form were indeed the words used by Mr Llale? Did you copy his words?

MR MOOLMAN: I think so I would not dispute that.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Are you now changing your evidence are you now saying it's not my own words it's Mr Llale's words?

MR MOOLMAN: I have said Sir that English really beats me. I looked at Mr Llale's and he explained everything to me and what he wrote was exactly what I would have loved to put in my form. If it was requested that I write in seSotho or even when I consulted with my legal advisers they said yes carry on those are right things. 

MR DORFLING:&#9;Mr Moolman I do not want to go through the whole statement let's just look at one specific paragraph which I am particularly interested in and that is paragraph 10A which sets out your objectives and your justification for having done what you did. Can you look at your application page 94 Sir. Perhaps before we get to paragraph 10A you can also, at the same page, page 94 look at paragraph 9B it is the first filled in paragraph on page 94 of your application Sir. It reads:

&#9;&#9;"I don't know if anyone was killed or injured as a result of my action".

You made it quite clear to Mr Justice Nugent that in your perception you did not injure or hit anybody by firing the shot with the shotgun because it jerked up. Is that not true?

MR MOOLMAN: That is correct. But I said when in consultation with my lawyers they advised me that there are many aspects involved in the self-defence issue. The court might find that some incidents did not happen as I related them.

MR DORFLING: But Sir it could simply not have been your own words that you are not sure whether any one was injured or killed because that was not your position. That wasn't what you believed at the time. This must have have come from somewhere else.

MR MOOLMAN: When I gave this statement before Judge Nugent is what I - that's my recollection.

MR DORFLING:&#9;But then your application dated the 10th of May, or submitted on the 10th of May contained a untruth Sir. That wasn't what you believed is set out in paragraph 9B. Would you like to respond?

MR MOOLMAN: What I said before the inquest was that it would be impossible to have hit someone according to me because of my position. But after consulting with my lawyers they explained to me that self-defence has many issues with it. It might have been just an oversight or maybe things didn't happen according to how I related them.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Mr Moolman your application was made under oath it says clearly you don't know whether anyone was injured, that's a blatant lie. That wasn't your position on the 10th of May. MR MOOLMAN: I do not understand Sir what you refer to.

MR DORFLING:&#9;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.

MR 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:&#9;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?

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

MR DORFLING:&#9;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. 

&#9;&#9;"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?

MR MOOLMAN: Which word did he use Sir?

MR DORFLING:&#9;You chose in paragraph 9B to use the word -

&#9;&#9;"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?

MR 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:&#9;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?

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

MR DORFLING:&#9;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. 

&#9;&#9;"In the month before the first democratic elections the IFP had started a campaign of stopping the elections from taking place". 

&#9;I now read from Mr Llale's statement or application at page 105. 

&#9;&#9;"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:&#9;Almost identical. He has some small differences here and there but I mean really. Carry on. 

MR DORFLING:&#9;It's almost identical Mr Moolman. Do you agree?

MR MOOLMAN: Almost identical what do you mean?

MR DORFLING:&#9;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. 

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

MR DORFLING:&#9;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.

MR 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:&#9;Why did you tell that lie Mr Moolman?

MR 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:&#9;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?

MR MOOLMAN: I do not understand Sir because I told the Committee already that some of the things I saw in Veli's &#9;application.

MR DORFLING:&#9;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?

MR MOOLMAN: No comment.

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

MR MOOLMAN: I did not know.

MS KHAMPEPE: Thank you Mr Dorfling.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Mr Moolman did you take the oath after you completed your application form?

MR MOOLMAN: That is correct.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Where did you do that Sir?

MR 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:&#9;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?

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

MR DORFLING:&#9;So he was together with you at the time of the completion of the forms but thereafter you parted ways. Is that correct?

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

MR DORFLING:&#9;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? 

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

MR DORFLING:&#9;Can you recall whether you took the oath in Johannesburg, or in Pretoria or in some other place?

MR MOOLMAN: It was here in Gauteng.

MR DORFLING:&#9;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"? 

MR MOOLMAN: I meant they were walking faster.

MR DORFLING:&#9;They did not run at all?

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

MR DORFLING:&#9;Have you ever in your life Sir attended Zulu gatherings?

MR MOOLMAN: No.

MR DORFLING:&#9;You would not have known whether this group was charging forward in an attacking mode or not. Is that correct?

MR MOOLMAN: I don't quite understand you.

MR DORFLING:&#9;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?

MR 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:&#9;And with these actions you mean the fact they were they were firing shots is that correct?

MR MOOLMAN: To shoot at us and to shoot at Shell House.

MR DORFLING:&#9;So if one takes the shooting in your direction out of the equation, if one has to just for a moment work from the point of departure that there was no shooting in your direction there would have been nothing else that would indicate to you that there would be an attack. Is that correct?

MR MOOLMAN: Shooting where Sir?

MR DORFLING:&#9;There was no shooting Mr Moolman, there was nothing else in the behaviour of the marchers that indicated to you that they were attacking that's the only thing that you saw that persuaded you that this was now an attack. Is that correct?

MR MOOLMAN:&#9;That is correct.

MR DORFLING:&#9;I want to put it to you that I am going to urge this Committee to find as a fact that there were no shots emanating from the crowd and that therefore there would have been nothing in your mind that would have persuaded you to perceive what was happening as an attack?

MR LAX:&#9;No response? You are being asked to respond to that statement. In other words there was no shooting and therefore there was no attack.

MR MOOLMAN: I do not understand what does he means when he says there was no shooting. There was shooting on that day.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Now the last aspect I want to deal with Mr Moolman is the incident in which - during which Mr Potsane grabbed the fire arm from you. Do I understand you correctly you fired a single shot? Did you then go into hiding again.? Did you hide behind the parapet after you fired your shot?

MR MOOLMAN:: That is correct.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Was there at that point in time any shooting that hit the parapet wall next to you?

MR MOOLMAN: At what time Sir?

MR DORFLING:&#9;At the time after you fired your first shot and after you hid behind the parapet wall again?

MR MOOLMAN: What I told you Sir is what I remember that while I was still hiding the bullets were still hitting the wall at Shell House.

MR DORFLING:&#9;The question was more specific. I asked you whether any shots struck the parapet wall at that point in time?

MR MOOLMAN: Yes after I've separated from Jakwe and them.

MR DORFLING:&#9;I just want you to be clear in your mind what I'm asking. I'm asking after you fired your shot with your shotgun when you, as you put it you tried to recycle the gun when you tried to reload at the time Mr Potsane took the firearm from you, are you saying that at that point in time further shots were hitting the parapet wall?

MR MOOLMAN: I do not remember.

MR DORFLING:&#9;I want to put it to you Mr Moolman as a fact that on the ballistic evidence there are no signs of any shots having hit the parapet wall towards the middle of the block where you claimed to have been positioned at the time when you fired your shot. Would you like to comment on that?

MR MOOLMAN: No comment.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Now Sir the ballistic experts examined the parapet wall and they did find some shots that entered into the parapet wall but that was on the north western corner of Shell House being the corners of King George and de Villiers Street. Can you offer any explanation why there's no sign of any bullets having hit the parapet wall halfway down the block where you claim you were positioned at the time when shots hit the parapet wall?

MR LAX:&#9;Sorry Mr Dorfling it's not this witness' evidence that any shots hit the parapet wall. He said that shots hit the building behind him, the wall behind him. That's my recollection of his evidence.&#9;But if I'm wrong the record will speak for itself and his answer will stand as it has already stood. Let's leave it there I think, but feel free to take it further if you want to.

MS KHAMPEPE: I may be inclined to agree with you Mr Dorfling I think he did refer to the parapet.

CHAIRPERSON:&#9;But both he did say they were hitting Shell House as well. But I think once again that matters of this detail I have no doubt will form part of your address rather than pursuing this cross-examination.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Mr Chair the reason why I am specifically asking this question is the witness did indeed refer to both the parapet wall as well as the tower block. 

CHAIRPERSON:&#9;That's right.

MR DORFLING:&#9;It was his evidence that at the Shell House inquest that at the time the bullets struck the parapet wall he was positioned at the corner of King George and de Villiers Street. Not close to halfway down the block.

CHAIRPERSON:&#9;Yes.

MR DORFLING:&#9;His evidence now is completely different from his evidence at the inquest court. Not only does he contradict himself with relation to the shots that fired or that hit the parapet which is shown by the ballistic evidence not to be true but he also contradicts himself as regard to his position. He positioned himself at the corners of King George and de Villiers Street during the time of the inquest. If you, Mr Chair, just bear with me for a second I'll refer you to the specific portion in the record.

CHAIRPERSON:&#9;Yes please. &#9;

JUDGE NGCOBO:&#9;Mr orfling to the extent that there may be a conflict between what the witness said at the inquest and his evidence before us today, I think it would be fair to put those matters to the witness so that he may have the opportunity to explain them, if there is any explanation.

MR DORFLING:&#9;I am indebted to you honourable committee member I have indeed got the reference of the inquest proceedings and I would refer the witness to that right now. I am referring to page 31, sorry 3515 lines 11 to 30 Mr Chair. Maybe for purposes of clarity I should read this out so the contradictions would appear. 

&#9;You were asked about your positioning and how the or where the shots emanating from the crowd struck the building, and at line 11 the following is recorded Sir. "And tell me what was it then, when they were on the corner of King George and de villiers, what was it that made you think that all these things were now going to happen?"

It relates therefore to your position at the corners of King George and de Villiers Street at the time. And then you respond -

&#9;&#9;"When the group started shooting in our direction. Is that the only reason that you thought all these things were going to happen is that the group were shooting in your direction? --- Yes and running towards the direction of Shell House. 

&#9;&#9;And when you say the group was shooting in your direction as I understood it you did not actually see anyone shooting in fact is that right? --- I could not see who specifically was shooting but I could see that we were being shot at. 

&#9;&#9;Well there were some shots that hit the parapet. Is that what you are talking about? --- Yes. 

&#9;&#9;Was that the only sign or were there any other signs that people were shooting? --- That was the sign that convinced me. 

&#9;&#9;So it was the shots that hit the parapet that told you that all this was not going to happen that the people were moving towards Shell House? --- Yes as well as the bullets that struck the wall at the back at the building or against the building."

&#9; You made it very clear Mr Moolman you were standing at the corners of King George and de Villiers Street what you observed were bullets hitting that corner of the parapet and also bullets hitting the tower block of Shell House. Your evidence today is in total conflict with that. You have not only positioned you in a different place but you tried to avoid the issue of the bullets having struck the parapet of which there was no ballistic evidence to support it.

MS MOROKA: Mr Chairperson when the witness first gave evidence he indicated that he was at the corner of de Villiers and King George when the bullets hit the parapet. He then ran, all of them ran in different directions.

MR DORFLING:&#9;It was quite clear during the cross-examination of Mr Pretorius that what the witness said is he moved halfway down the block. I'm specifically asking about the time when after his first shot, this is the time we talking about now the witness at that point in time positions him halfway down the block in King George Street. He says at that point in time bullets hit the parapet. That was his evidence and I am putting it that, that is my note on it and that this is in conflict with what the witness testified at the inquest.

JUDGE NGCOBO:&#9;Today he did testify though that there were, as far as I recall, that there were shots that were fired whilst he was at the corner did he not?

MR DORFLING:&#9;Indeed so Mr Committee member.

JUDGE NGCOBO:&#9;And there was no indication - was he asked as to where those shots struck? I don't recall him being asked that.

MR DORFLING:&#9;My memory doesn't serve me, I'm not sure that he was asked that specific question.

MR LAX:&#9;You see Mr Dorfling ... (intervention)

JUDGE NGCOBO:&#9;... and the second shooting occurred when he was now more-or-less in the middle of the parapet is that...

MR DORFLING:&#9;That would be the impression that I get from his evidence today.

JUDGE NGCOBO:&#9;What you are putting to this witness is that the passage that you have just read out to him relates to the second shooting, that is just before he fired shots.

MR DORFLING:&#9;It relates to the one and only shooting he testified about. He testified as to one shooting when they were positioned on the parapet. I don't want to be as specific as saying it was the second or the first, he only testified as to that and I am saying that is in conflict of his evidence today.

MR LAX:&#9;Just so I understand you correctly Mr Dorfling so there's no confusion on my part, are you saying that at the inquest he said nothing about being halfway down the parapet between King George and Plein Streets, in other words between de Villiers and Plein in King George at the time he shot?

MR DORFLING:&#9;No he did in actual fact mention that Mr Committee member but he related the time of the shooting to be at the time when he was at the corner of King George and de Villiers and those shots to have struck the parapet. And that is the only shooting he referred to at the time of the inquest - hitting the parapet.

MR LAX:&#9;Okay, but what's more important is where he shot from because all the questioning of Mr Pretorius was initially this morning was focused around when he shot. It started of with him hearing the shots, running, taking cover, moving and then being halfway down that parapet and then going over and shooting, and then shots as well at that stage hitting the building. That is my recollection of his evidence this morning. So what I am trying to understand is what is the contradiction you are putting to this witness?

MR DORFLING:&#9;The witness today testified as to a shooting that would have transpired at the time, a shooting in his direction, that would have transpired at the time when he was positioned halfway down the block between Plein and de Villiers Streets. 

MR LAX:&#9;And you are saying that, that never happened he didn't testify to that effect at the inquest?

MR DORFLING:&#9;That is indeed the nature of it.

MR LAX:&#9;That is the major contradiction you putting to him? Because you see no one else has put that to him so far on that basis. You are the first person to do that.

MR DORFLING:&#9;That is indeed the contradiction I'm putting to the witness. What from the inquest record is that this shooting which struck the parapet wall, which is the only shooting he referred to that struck the building occurred at the time when he was positioned at the corners of King George and de Villiers. He seemed to have added a second shooting today. And what Mr Pretorius had indicated to the witness is that there is no ballistic evidence to support this so-called second shooting at the parapet. 

&#9;And I'm - maybe I can in conclusion put it to the witness that the reason there is no ballistic support for this evidence of yours Mr Moolman is because you are fabricating; you are adding on to your evidence and the ballistic evidence is clear proof of that.

MR LAX:&#9;Do you understand the question that has been put to you? It's been put to you that there was no shooting at you that hit the building at the time you were halfway down from the corner where you fired your shot from, as you've told us today, because there is no ballistic evidence to support that proposition. Do you understand what I am saying? Have I put it correctly Mr Dorfling?

MR DORFLING:&#9;Ja, that is the gist of the proposition.

MR LAX:&#9;You may answer.

MR MOOLMAN: When I was in the middle of King George I heard bullets hitting the wall at Shell House. I testified to that effect even in the inquest.

MR DORFLING:&#9;I'll leave that for purposes of argument Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON:&#9;Yeah.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Mr Moolman I want to put it to you in conclusion that I am appearing on behalf of nine objectors who have been injured on the corners of King George and de Villiers Street or in that proximity on the day of this shooting, and those persons whom I appear for, would, if called to give evidence in front of this committee, give evidence that they were never part of any attack of Shell House. First of all can you respond to that, if you can?

MR MOOLMAN: I do not know the people that you are representing and I never had a chance to know them even on that day.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Those objectors would say that there was no reason for the ANC guards to shoot at the marchers whatsoever there was no justification for that happening at the time when it did. Would you like to respond to that please Sir?

MR MOOLMAN: No.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Now I want to give you a proper opportunity to respond if you disagree. 

&#9;The objectors on whose behalf I appear say that there was no attack at the time when you allege there was an attack and that there was no justification for you having shot at the crowd, for you, in the plural, you and your co-applicants as ANC security guards?

MR MOOLMAN: In my mind I still have the picture of an attack on that day.

MR DORFLING:&#9;And lastly I want to put it to you that the objectors on whose behalf I appear will say, if called to give evidence, that they were on this day or they intended on this day to attend a meeting to be held at Library Gardens on behalf of the Zulu king. Would you like to comment on that statement Sir?

MR MOOLMAN: No comment.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Do I understand you correctly don't you know or are you not giving any response?

MR MOOLMAN: Maybe I don't know the meaning of comment because you said any comment, I said none.

MR DORFLING:&#9;I'm saying to you Mr Moolman, the objectors, those people who got injured they will say they were going to a rally or a gathering on behalf of the Zulu king. That was the purpose of them coming to town on that day. Do you know of that or don't you know of that?

MR MOOLMAN: I would not dispute that. I really do not know.

MR DORFLING:&#9;Thank you Mr Chair honourable members I've got no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DORFLING

CHAIRPERSON :&#9;Any further questioning.

MR HUMAN:&#9;Thank you Mr Chairman just a few questions for this witness. Sir on that specific day did you receive a bullet proof vest to put on?

MR MOOLMAN: That is correct Sir.

MR HUMAN: From whom did you receive it?

MR MOOLMAN: I found it at the control point.

MR HUMAN: Round about what time was that in the morning?

MR MOOLMAN: It was at the time when I was started to go up at the parapet.

MR HUMAN: Did you have a radio with you that morning?

MR MOOLMAN: No Sir.

MR HUMAN: Did any of your colleagues, being the ANC guards on the parapet, did they have radio contact with their colleagues on the ground level for purpose of communication?

MR MOOLMAN: I don't remember seeing a radio amongst those whom I was with on that day.

MR HUMAN: Did you see Mr Basil Jacobs on the parapet firing any shots at the crowd?

MR MOOLMAN: I don't know that person Sir.

MR HUMAN: One other aspect I want to clarify with you, do I understand you to say that the shot you fired from the parapet you fired that shot indiscriminately into the crowd without identifying the person that you want to shoot at. Is that correct?

MR MOOLMAN: I spoke of people who were attacking not people who were marching.

MR HUMAN: But the shot that you fired was indiscriminate, you didn't aim at somebody specifically. Is that correct?

MR MOOLMAN: I shot among the people who were attacking.

CHAIRPERSON: I think the answer is really he wasn't pointing his gun at a particular individual.

MR HUMAN:&#9; Thank you Mr Chairman. When you fired this shot was there any reaction in the crowd?

MR MOOLMAN: I don't understand what you mean by response.

MR HUMAN: Did the crowd stop moving, did they turn around, did they still proceed towards Plein Street, what happened to the crowd?

MR MOOLMAN: At the time when I was shooting those people were still coming to Shell House. That's what I remember.

MR HUMAN: So even after you've fired the shot they still proceeded towards Plein Street. Is that correct?

MR MOOLMAN: I was not looking then until until the end of the shooting.

MR HUMAN: Excuse me you fired a shot towards the crowd, after you fired the shot did you immediately go down, didn't you look anymore or what happened?

MR MOOLMAN: After shooting I took cover. After I shot I took cover.

MR HUMAN:&#9;After you took cover did you peep over the parapet again to see whether they are still proceeding and whether you were effective or not?

MR MOOLMAN: The way I took cover it was in such a way that for you to look to the street you should stand up straight so that you should look down.

MR HUMAN: Why didn't you get up again and have a look at what was happening to the crowd Sir? 

MR MOOLMAN: I've already said that the shooting was still going on. If I would raise my head I will be susceptible to that shooting.

MR HUMAN: I only want to put it to you that on behalf of the people that I appear for, the objectors, will also state that they had no firearms with them on that day and they were not attacking Shell House. Do you got any comment on that? 

MR MOOLMAN: I don't know the people that you are representing and even at that time I did not know them.

MR HUMAN: Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HUMAN

CHAIRPERSON:&#9;Yes any other questions? 

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRETORIUS:&#9; Thank you Mr Chairman.

&#9;Mr Moolman when you were at the corner of King George and de Villiers at the parapet were you able to see the crowd that was eventually shot and still advancing in de Villiers Street? Were you able to see them at that stage before they were at the intersection?

MR MOOLMAN: Which people? I don't understand.

MR PRETORIUS: There was evidence that there was a crowd coming from Wanderers Street into de Villiers Street towards King George and that they met with another group at the intersection of King George and then they moved down in King George. I am asking you, when you were on the parapet in the corner at the corner of King George and de Villiers were you able to see this crowd advancing to the intersection of King George?

MR MOOLMAN: In my evidence I spoke about two groups the one which came from de Villiers to Wanderers and the one which came from Noord to King George I don't know which group you are talking about.

MR HUMAN: I am referring you to the group that was coming from Wanderers to King George in de Villiers Street?

MR MOOLMAN: What's your question?

MR HUMAN: My question is were you able to see this crowd before they entered into the intersection at King George?

MR MOOLMAN: That is correct Sir.

MR HUMAN: What was this crowd doing whilst they were advancing in de Villiers Street? Were they just walking quietly, were they singing were they dancing? What was this group doing in de Villiers Street when you saw them?

MR MOOLMAN:&#9;They were dancing, others were raising their traditional weapons.

MR PRETORIUS: If someone should describe this group to you as moving quietly not singing not dancing, would you agree with that description?

MR MOOLMAN:&#9;That's the way I remember.

MR PRETORIUS: No, but would you agree with such a description of the crowd?

MR MOOLMAN:&#9;I would disagree with that Sir.

MR PRETORIUS: Thank you just for completeness sake the objectors on whose behalf for whom I appear, the situation is exactly the same as that of my colleagues and I would not like to repeat that.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRETORIUS

MS VAN HUYSSTEEN: Sorry Mr Chairman I have no questions but I would just like to state that the objectors on whose behalf I appear their position are the same.

CHAIRPERSON:&#9;We'll record that.&#9;Yes, no questions.

MS VAN HUYSSTEEN: No thank you. 

CHAIRPERSON :&#9;Any re-examination?

MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman before re-examination there is just one issue that we would like to clarify if we can on behalf of Mr Potsane.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you wishing to put questions to this witness?

MR CURRIN: There is just one aspect of his evidence which is slightly in variance with what Mr Potsane says. And I just think that I need to put it on record.

CHAIRPERSON:&#9;Do that.

MR CURRIN: Thank you. Mr Moolman in your evidence you testified that Mr Potsane joined you after you had shot. Is that correct?

MR MOOLMAN:&#9;That is correct Sir.

MR CURRIN: You are aware that in his evidence which you've read before the inquest that he says that he joined you on the parapet before you shot, do you have any comment about that?

MR MOOLMAN: At the time when I saw it was the time I was recycling my gun.&#9;

MR CURRIN: And the last point that I would just like to raise with you. Mr Potsane says that when he joined you on the parapet you told him that you were under attack. Do you recall that?

MR MOOLMAN:: I don't remember talking to him. I remember that he took a gun from me.

MR CURRIN: Thank you, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MS MOROKA: Just two questions. Mr Moolman have you got your record there with you? Have you got the record there with you?

MR MOOLMAN:: That is correct.

MS MOROKA: I want to refer you to page 3467. You were asked a question as to whether, as to who had fired the first on the parapet and you were referred to page 3443 where you said you had indicated that Mr Molefe had fired first. At page 3467 I want you to read - you are able to read English aren't you? The question reads Mr Moolman -

&#9;&#9;"So do you say that as far as you are aware you were the first one to fire?"

and your answer is - Correct. Do you recall that?

MR MOOLMAN: Yes.

MS MOROKA: And I further want to refer you to page 3445. Chairperson my Afrikaans is not very good but I will read in Aafrikaans. 

&#9;&#9;"Nou behalwe vir die skote teen die balkon van watter ander skote praat u nou? --- Daar is skote wat die parapet self getref het asook die muur agter ons". 

Do you confirm that you said that at the inquest?

MR MOOLMAN: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO:&#9;Mr Dorfling you've indicated in your cross-examination that the witness did make reference to standing in the middle of the parapet. Would you just indicate where that appears on the record of the inquest if you can?

MR DORFLING:&#9;I haven't got it handy in front I'll look at it, look it up during the lunch adjournment and then indicate after the lunch adjournment where exactly it is.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Yes. Alright. Mr Moolman from time to time in your evidence you've been referring to a picture of what you 

recollect. What I want to find out from you is, as far you can remember, what did you see on the day in question in regard to the crowd when you fired? Do you understand that?

MR MOOLMAN: No,can you please repeat your question.

JUDGE NGCOBO: In your evidence Mr Moolman you've made reference to a picture that you had in mind, I just want to understand what is it that you are referring to when you talk of the picture. Do you understand that?

MR MOOLMAN: I was merely referring to how I recollect the incidents of that day. This took place four or five years back.

JUDGE NGCOBO: I understand that. But what I want to understand is how much of your recollection is based on your impression and how much of your recollection is based on what you actually saw or observed on the day in question?

MR MOOLMAN: I seem to be lost. 

JUDGE NGCOBO: When you shot at the crowd can you tell us what was the crowd doing at the time?

MR MOOLMAN: They were coming towards Shell House.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Is that what you saw?

MR MOOLMAN: At that time that is what I saw.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Thank you.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Moolman just a follow up of what has been asked of you by my colleague. 

&#9;Can you paint a picture for me of how large this group was? I think different estimations have been given by different applicants. In your opinion how large was this group?

MR MOOLMAN: It was quite a large group after they met at the intersection because two groups merged a group from de Villiers Street and a group from King George it was quite a big group.

MS KHAMPEPE: Are you able to estimate in terms of numbers? Are we talking of approximately 500 marchers, a 1000 or over a 1000 marchers?

MR MOOLMAN: I would not give an estimation.

MS KHAMPEPE: Thank you.

MR LAX: Just one question Mr Moolman. In your evidence in- chief you said that the two groups approached and you said where they were. You said the one group was not as big as the other. You said-

&#9;&#9;"We then heard gun shots..."

and you said 

&#9;&#9;"...we even saw people handling their guns."

That was your evidence in-chief. What precisely did you see? Can you just elaborate on that, you saw people handling guns?

MR MOOLMAN: I said already that the group that was in de Villiers, that is the group we concentrated a lot on because it was not as large as the one coming from King George. You'd see guns as they came nearer.

MR LAX: &#9;Yes, what sort of guns did you see?

INTERPRETER :&#9;The speakers mike is not on.

MS MOROKA: It is a pity that I hear both languages and sometimes words gets lost in the interpretation. The witness said because the group was a bigger group we concentrated a lot on that group and the group had a variety of guns.

MR LAX: Thank you. Can you describe some of those guns? Can you tell us what sort of guns they were?

MR MOOLMAN: I recall AK, AK-47 and pistols, shotguns were among those.

MR LAX: Are you able to say how many firearms you may have seen in that crowd just to give us an estimate or if you are not then say you are not, it's okay?

MR MOOLMAN: I did not count.

MR LAX: Thanks Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON :&#9;Yes very well thank you very much.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MR DORFLING:&#9;Mr Chairperson before we take the adjournment I am able to respond to the honourable chair committee member the Honourable Mr Justice Ngcobo's question pertaining to where Mr Moolman testified he was positioned with reference to the parapet.

CHAIRPERSON:&#9;Yes.

MR DORFLING:&#9; The first portion appears in the evidence in- chief led by the state advocate at page 3439 practically from line one of that page up to lines 28 on that page, and it again appears at page 3460 in cross-examination by Mr Ackermann, from lines ten rather lines 15 to lines 18 where it is clear that the witness was first at the corner and when the shots struck the parapet he moved towards the middle of the parapet.

CHAIRPERSON:&#9;Thank you Mr Dorfling.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Thank you.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Chairperson finally may I just read into the record or place on the record where I referred to what Mr De Silva Dias said to wit that a man with a AK-47, that is the marcher with the AK-47 that he saw, only started firing after the guards shot at the people - the marchers. That's on page 3551 as from line two to line nine.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. We'll adjourn for an hour and resume at twenty past.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

