Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-10-07

JUDGE PILLAY: Mr Richard, before we proceed.  When you made an application to recall Mr Ismail, you solemnly undertook to deal with the conversation between Mr McBride and Mr Ismail regarding the planting of the bomb outside the hotel.  Furthermore, can you tell me what the purpose is of this question and how it's going to help us, seeking an objective view from Mr Ismail?

MR RICHARD: My question is, taking into account the facts which I have outlined and which I will lead as evidence if I'm required to, as to what the real concentration of so-called security personnel might have been at that time, the question:  On those facts would it be a legitimate target?

ABOOBAKER ISMAIL: No, on the basis of those facts not.  However one must reiterate.  In the minds of the operatives, they understood there would be Security Force personnel in that place.  They could not say exactly how many, they understood that they congregated at that point, they understood it could be in large numbers and that is what is before us and on the basis of that, they acted.  For that the African National Congress and I take responsibility.

MR RICHARD: I believe, in reply to Judge Pillay's comment, it's appropriate for me to say the questions arise out of the evidence that I've got.   And then you've made reference in your statements this morning of a comparison between what is known as the Parade Hotel, which is a tourist come hotel venue on the Durban beach front and the Church Street attack on the Air Force's Headquarters and you've also referred to the other situation where, if I recall the incident without going back to my papers, there was an attack on a building where there was a Standard bank and a Security Branch office in that building and I think that's the attack where you put it under the category of a civilian buffer.  My question, do you not think that an establishment such as the Parade Hotel is very different to either one of the other two situations that we've outlined in the bundles?

ABOOBAKER ISMAIL: Mr Chairperson, if there is a large concentration of Security Force personnel in the Parade Hotel, then it is not different because at that point that is where the concentration would be and that would then form a legitimate target.

MR BERGER: Chairperson with respect and I waited for Mr Ismail to answer, these questions do not flow from the conversation between Mr Ismail and Mr McBride in Botswana.

CHAIRPERSON: They're matters that can be raised in argument as well.

MR RICHARD: My next question is, none of these contextual possibilities were ever discussed with Mr McBride in the course of his discussions with you in 1986?

ABOOBAKER ISMAIL: No, but he often had discussions with some of the other sub-Commanders in Botswana.

MR RICHARD: Now, Mr McBride and I don't have notes to the answers to my questions, gave evidence to the effect that the timing and nature of this attack was premised on the fact that it was the anniversary of the SADF raid on Botswana in 1985 and two days before the June 16th events 10th anniversary.  Now, taking into account that June 16 was 10 years before that and the SADF raid was a year before that, was this a retaliatory raid?

ABOOBAKER ISMAIL: No Chairperson, but I want to go further.  The ANC has always marked many of the dates of operations.  When we carried out the SASOL attack, we were hoping to carry it out on the night before Republic, unfortunately we only managed to carry it out on the night of the Declaration of Republic.  That cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered retaliatory.  When an operation is carried out on January 12th, the anniversary of the ANC it cannot be considered retaliatory.  A retaliatory attack for June 16 would be if the ANC went and massacred white school children in their schools. The ANC never did.  We never gave such orders.  I'm not finished Mr Richard.  When innocent civilians are massacred, peoples of another country, Botswana citizens amongst them, unarmed people in their beds, we did not then order the massacre of white civilians in their beds.  That is retaliatory.  There was no personal gain, there was no personal motive.  What does the Act say about it?  There was no retaliation in that sense.  Now, when our people are massacred, we reserve the right to defend ourselves and to fight.  We fought and we made the enemy bleed, that's what we were doing, we were fighting for the liberation of our people, there was no retaliation.  We have said before, if we wanted to massacre whites, we wouldn't have bothered to come the full length and gone through a lot of pain in order to get into the bases and to strike at Security Force personnel.  We could have massacred, we never did.

MR RICHARD: Thank you.  Now, in the documentation alluded to in the various papers and there's the statement, revenge attacks, I presume your answer to the question whether this was a revenge attack or not, is the same as the one as to whether it was retaliatory?

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Richard, I thought you were going to question about the discussion that took place in Botswana.  Now we're going back to what we've already covered before.

MR RICHARD: I have one last question, with the leave of the Committee.  Is it contested that the outcome, and this is with the Commission's leave and it's my last question, the outcome of this attack, is it seriously disputed that it was as an outcome, an attack, whatever the perception before the attack might have been, on civilians?

JUDGE PILLAY: Does that matter?  It may be your last question but does it matter?

MR RICHARD: It is for argument at the end.

JUDGE PILLAY: Mr Richard we're not going ....(indistinct - mike off)

MR RICHARD: Yes.

JUDGE PILLAY: You prefaced your question, irrespective of the perceptions before the attack, isn't that the important issue?

MR RICHARD: That is the test in the Act.  Mr Chairperson, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RICHARD

ABOOBAKER ISMAIL: I would like to state that my examination of the outcome is that yes, perhaps the overwhelming numbers were civilian personnel, that is regretted.  What comrade Robert McBride sought to do, what we sought to do, was to strike at enemy Force personnel.  Sadly we may not have achieved the intention, the intended target and I want to turn again to all of the victims and the families and say to them, we are deeply sorry for that.  We never intended to strike at you.  Our intention was to strike at those Security Force personnel who upheld the apartheid State and I say to all of you, sorry from me personally for the hurt and the pain and from the African National Congress.  We need to understand that all of these casualties were the casualties of a war that was foisted upon all of us, black and white, in this country by people who thought themselves superior beings.  We had to get rid of that heinous enemy, that which was declared a crime against humanity, that which was equivalent to Nazism and I hope that all of us can walk together in the future to democracy and freedom and I hope that all of us will stand together and fight any attempt to impose any form of supremacy of one over another.  I say to all of you, sorry for your hurt and your pain, for the loss of your beloved ones and I say to you, we are proud of the many cadres who have been ready to take up the fight, many who have lost their lives, the many black civilians and white civilians who were the victims of apartheid.  Until we recognise the humanity in every one of us, we cannot go forward.  We must be ready to fight for our rights as people.  I thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Mr Berger do you have any re-examination arising from the cross-examination?

MR BERGER: Chairperson, I don't know if Mr Prior has any questions?

ADV PRIOR: No questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV PRIOR

MR BERGER: Thank you Chairperson, I just have a few questions.