Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-09-29

MR DEHAL: Whenever you met with McBride and/or Gordon Webster, even if Ms Apelgren was in their company, is it correct that your handing over of the arms and ammunition for the carrying out of the various operations, would have been done directly by you to McBride or Gordon Webster, not to Apelgren, that Apelgren was in fact a decoy?

ERNEST LEKOTE PULE: When I was with comrade Duggie and comrade Webster, most of the time, comrade Greta wasn't present.  We would send her to the hotel.  After giving over the weapons, it was then that we'd go and meet her and greet her.

MR DEHAL: Thank you.  Did you understand that Greta Apelgren was in fact a decoy?  That in circumstances like these, crossing the borders between South Africa, Botswana, Swaziland and the neighbouring countries, it was wise, prudent, advisable, to have a lady in the company of a man for it to appear like it was a couple moving across and suspicions would then not be raised.  Did you have that understanding of Greta's role play in this matter?

ERNEST LEKOTE PULE: Yes, I did understand that,  In as far as my job at that time, it was necessary that we had a person like comrade Greta.

MR DEHAL: Thank you.  Mr Pule, may I just get back to the education you gave to Mr McBride?  Did you also, when educating Mr McBride and indeed Gordon Webster, give them ANC literature and literature of other liberation movements based in Africa?

ERNEST LEKOTE PULE: That is correct.  I remember one time, we gave him the material and it was packed in his car.  We gave him a lot of literature including the Seshaba document and many other ANC materials, so that he could read at home, so that he could understand the policies of the ANC.

MR DEHAL: And when educating him and discussing possible targets, did you discuss with Gordon Webster and Robert McBride and indeed other comrades then in their presence, the possibility of attacking Security Force personnel, places that Security Forces frequent for example pubs, etc?

ERNEST LEKOTE PULE: I do not understand.  Can you please explain what you mean by the Security Personnel?

MR DEHAL: In the different operations that Mr McBride would have carried out and in your educating him on the operations that he had to carry out, did you educate him in regard to the need for Security Force personnel to be attacked?

ERNEST LEKOTE PULE: Yes, that's correct.

MR DEHAL: And in the execution of such operations, did you also educate him about places that Security Force personnel frequent, for example pubs, drinking places?

ERNEST LEKOTE PULE: To attack the Security ...(indistinct), it did not matter where they were, as long as you knew where they would always gather, then you would attack them.

MR DEHAL: Yes.  Now Mr Pule, if I may just by example deal with this, when dealing with substations, the planting of limpet mines, is it correct that in educating McBride, you would talk about different substations in different areas and perhaps areas where substations are more further away from residential areas, so as to have minimal civilian casualties, correct?

ERNEST LEKOTE PULE: That is correct.

MR DEHAL: And by the same token, when dealing with Security Force personnel, policemen in uniform and not in uniform, you would have discussed different places in South Africa, which would have been more opportune to attack, so as to achieve your objective of attacking Security Force personnel, correct?

MR RICHARD: Chairperson, while I understand we're not in a trial, I would submit, my learned colleague is over leading the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, that is cross-examination as well, cross-examination in inverted commas, yes.  I think perhaps if you can ask questions, rather than just making statements and calling for an answer to whether it's correct or not.

MR DEHAL: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.  Would pubs, frequented by Security Force Personnel, be a legitimate target?

ERNEST LEKOTE PULE: That is correct.

MR DEHAL: Did Mr McBride and Mr Webster tell you that they had reconnoitred a few places in South Africa for the carrying out of car bombs?

ERNEST LEKOTE PULE: Do you mean that they had already prepared their car bombs and they already knew where the place, they would attack?

MR DEHAL: No, I'm asking you this question in line with paragraph 16 of the 4, which deals with comrade Robert and the materials that you supplied him and that you said that these materials were possibly used by him in the Why Not? explosion.  Do you see that?

ERNEST LEKOTE PULE: Yes, I do see that, but I do not understand your original question.

MR DEHAL: The question is this, at the time you gave them the material, which would possibly have been used in the Why Not? explosion, and perhaps before, did McBride and you discuss, indeed with Gordon Webster as well, that they, meaning McBride and Gordon Webster, had already reconnoitred a few places.

MR BERGER: Chairperson if I can just jump in there.  My learned friend is referring to paragraph 16.  At that time comrade Gordon had been injured and was long since out of the country.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think that was in April, wasn't it.

MR BERGER: May 1986.

JUDGE PILLAY: Mr Berger, the question relates to reconnaissance, not the commission of any act.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but he referred to paragraph 16.  I think what Mr Berger is saying, is during June or 1986, he discussed - the question was that he had discussed with Mr McBride and Mr Webster, what Mr Berger is pointing out is that in June 1986, Mr Webster was not ...

MR BERGER: In the picture anymore.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DEHAL: I accept that.  My apologies, I agree with you.  The question perhaps more rightly put would be the following, it's dealing with reconnaissance basically, before Easter 1986 and during general discussions, did you and McBride and indeed Gordon Webster discuss their having already reconnoitred a few places in South Africa to carry out those car bombs?

ERNEST LEKOTE PULE: I already knew that he had discussed that with comrade Ismail who was our Commander.  The question of whether they were going to attack and when, that did not concern me, because that concerned only our Commander.  They would decide which places and at what time they would attack because they were the people who were inside the country then.

MR DEHAL: Thank you, Mr Pule, I accept that.  I'm not saying that Mr McBride expressively discussed any given spots, but that in general discussions with you, both during education and at the time you gave him arms for a car bomb, sorry arms generally, was it discussed that McBride and Webster had already reconnoitred legitimate targets in South Africa?

ERNEST LEKOTE PULE: I do not remember clearly because most of the time when they arrived at Botswana, we would make sure that comrade Ismail was present so that he could hold discussions with them, because he was our overall Commander then.

MR DEHAL: Okay, to the extent that you don't remember, I don't want to sound unfair to you, could you say that there is a possibility that such discussions did take place, but because of the length of time you can't remember it now?

ERNEST LEKOTE PULE: There is that possibility because we would discuss targets that they wanted to attack.  There is a possibility that we did have a discussion about the targets at that time, although I do not remember.

MR DEHAL: And to the extent that you may have discussed targets, do you recall whether you discussed that such targets might have been in line with Kabwe and that they could go ahead with such targets?

ERNEST LEKOTE PULE: I do remember.  In our discussions of targets, we would always consider the agreements, the Kabwe agreements.

MR DEHAL: Mr Chairperson, might I just confer with my client to see if there's anything more?  Thank you.