Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-09-29

MR RICHARD: It was sporadic, that is the instruction.

ABOOBAKER ISMAIL: That is not as the operatives had it.

MR RICHARD: However then I put it as a hypothetical proposition, if he was a periodic, if, that is the question I started by asking.

ABOOBAKER ISMAIL: Mr Chairperson, I believe we have been through this yesterday.  A reservist is able to go into action at any time, he is able to act against people at any time and therefore can be active at any moment in time.  We believe he could be, he should be seen as active.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, perhaps if I could ask Mr Richard just for some clarity, when you say sometime or a periodic reservist, was this a question of Mr Klein applying to become a reservist and then being a reservist and then after some time, terminating his appointment and then some time in the future reapplying or do you mean that he was only on duty once a week or whatever, but...

MR RICHARD: He was, I am informed, on duty on irregular and unpredictable days.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what ...

ABOOBAKER ISMAIL: As and when required?

CHAIRPERSON: What Mr Ismail is saying is that what I understand me, correct me if I am wrong, is that if you are a reservist, you do have certain powers, even if you are not on duty, which you can exercise as a reservist?

MR RICHARD: Chairperson, he has answered the question, I am moving on to the next one.  I am putting these various propositions simply so that - now, what we do know from the documents and there is a separate bundle which I do not think yet has a number, which is entitled "Grenade Attack of Pieter and Brenda Klein's House on 5 May", it is A7.

ABOOBAKER ISMAIL: Mr Chairperson, I have never had sight of that document, I do not believe that my legal representatives have had a copy of that document either.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ismail is not involved in that, as he says save for - he has taken political responsibility for the actions of persons acting under his command.

MR RICHARD: When I introduced the item, I would however point out that there is one or I would say two relevant pieces of paper.  One is the one paged affidavit by Mrs Klein, the former Mrs Klein and the doctor's report.   If my learned colleagues would like to take a moment to read those two pages, it certainly wouldn't delay our proceedings.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps you can just refer to them more specifically.

MR RICHARD: In your bundle which has just been handed to you, for the sake of the record,  there is a statement by Brenda Klein which is headed "Statement for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission", is that document identified?  Then there are a number of medical reports.  From that bundle we learn that Mr and Mrs Klein were in bed when a handgrenade was thrown through the bedroom window, with the result that both of them were injured and another handgrenade was also thrown at the house but it was deflected and landed in the garden.   For the purposes of my question as you were not involved, we work on the assumption that Mrs Klein is and remains and was what she is described in the affidavit, somebody who is not a police reservist or a teacher.  My question is would the fact that she was in bed with her husband or in the bedroom with her husband, render her a legitimate target?

ABOOBAKER ISMAIL: Chairperson, the target in that case would have been her husband.  I believe unfortunately she was caught in the cross-fire to put it in that way.

MR RICHARD: Now - I would put into the record that as I asked the question, I saw Mr Berger nodding his head.

MR BERGER: I am sorry Chairperson, I don't understand what my learned friend is seeking to infer from the fact that I nodded my head.  I am not even sure that I nodded my head, I was talking to my Attorney at the time, but perhaps my learned friend could be clear on what he is seeking to infer from my conduct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Richard?

MR RICHARD: I infer that you were implying that yes, Mrs Klein was a legitimate target, but I leave it.

CHAIRPERSON: But then the witness would not have listened to his legal advisor, because he did not give that answer?

ABOOBAKER ISMAIL: Mr Chairperson, I am sorry you know, with all these legal procedure, but would it not be proper then for counsel on the other side, to withdraw that proposition?  I don't even have sight, I am trying to look at you whereas i answer these questions, I don't even have sight of what is happening here.  I think it should properly be withdrawn.

MR RICHARD: I am quite happy to withdraw the comment.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think if we can just keep this as behaved, ask questions without making comments that lead to difficulties.

MR RICHARD: Now, I believe that we have taken the Parade Hotel incident as far as we can with you, so I don't ask any further questions on this one.  The last incident that I would like to comment on is the incident at the Pine Parkade in Pine Street, Durban.  Just to remind ourselves from the record it appears that a bomb was placed under a car and it was discovered and that the bomb, from the record, was armed, but removed.  My question is very, very simple.   If that bomb had not been discovered and had been exploded, would it not have been an indiscriminate and random attack on civilians who use the parking garage?  It is a hypothetical question, if?

MR DEHAL: Sorry Mr Chairperson, I am instructed to oppose, object to that line of questioning because it is common cause that that device was not established as being a bomb, to term it a bomb premises that all things were in place for the explosion.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry I didn't hear Mr Dehal, you are saying it wasn't a bomb in that vehicle?

MR DEHAL: Indeed.

CHAIRPERSON: So it would never have gone off?

MR DEHAL: Indeed.

CHAIRPERSON: It is not a question of it being defused?

MR DEHAL: Correct.

JUDGE PILLAY: Then I need clarity on that Mr Dehal, is this an incident for which application is being made by any of the applicants?  Because I see it is numbered here as an incident, subjected to an application?

MR DEHAL: Judge, correct, Mr McBride was convicted of this incident, not on the basis that it was a bomb, but on the basis that it was a device that he caused to be placed there in order to induce threats, fears, etc, to persons and public.

MR RICHARD: May we refer to page ...

JUDGE PILLAY: I just asked Mr Dehal to just repeat what he had said.

MR RICHARD: Sorry, I didn't hear, I apologise.

CHAIRPERSON: I think Mr Dehal, there is a little bit of resonance in your microphone, so if you can just speak a little bit slow, sometimes it is difficult to hear exactly what is being said.

MR DEHAL: Thank you.  What I am saying simply is this, Mr Richard has asked a question in which he refers to this device as a bomb and the use of the term bomb is what is being objected to.  In that, one, it was not a complete device with a detonator, it could not have exploded, never would have exploded.   Mr McBride secondly was charged on this as a count, at the hearing he was convicted thereof and hence the application for the amnesty.  Perhaps the question ought to be phrased more correctly, least somebody reading this record, gets the wrong inference.

JUDGE PILLAY: Well, what was he convicted of?

MR DEHAL: Sorry Judge, I don't have the record with me, but it was given to my learned colleagues and I can look at it and tell you precisely.  If my memory services me correctly, it related so some disturbance that he had caused and inducement of fear, threat, violence on persons, property in the nature of terrorism, etc.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Richard?

MR RICHARD: Thank you Chair, I read from page, and this is the page in the bundle of records behind us, 1898.  It appears in Exhibit A2 and is part of the judgment in the matter of the appeal in the S v Robert McBride.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, could you just repeat that page number?