Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-10-06

MR RICHARD: The Truth and Reconciliation Commission requested further information.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so it's the Further Submissions?

MR RICHARD: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: That's dated the 12th of May 1997.

MR RICHARD: That was the answer to the ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have a page number or is yours different?

MR RICHARD: I have three documents, the August submission, the questions thereto and then the third one, the 12 May '97, the Further Submissions.

CHAIRPERSON: Now are you on that one?

MR RICHARD: No, I'm on the middle document.

CHAIRPERSON: The middle one.

MR RICHARD: I had assumed that everyone had it.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I don't.  Anyway, carry on.

MR RICHARD: My question is very straightforward, are you aware that the ANC was requested for further particulars by the Truth Commission?

MR MCBRIDE: I can't recall being aware of it, I just know a second submission was made.  I wasn't - I mean I'd prepared my application at some stage and handed it in, it wasn't a sum-total of my life, the ANC's submission or my application.

MR RICHARD: Even if it spoke of you?

MR MCBRIDE: Yeah, even if it spoke of me.  I gave Rashid the information, Rashid gave the information to the President.  What more do I need to do?

MR RICHARD: Now if we turn to page 180 of Exhibit C, page 4 and as indexed by someone subsequently, 180.  It's page 4 of the typed record.  There Mr Govender makes this statement
"Just one concern, Mr Chairman, my learned friend referred to a statement that he's going to hand over to the Commission.  Just to get clarity from my learned friend whether this is an amnesty application or a statement in response to the information we require in terms of our subpoena.  Perhaps he can clarify that."

JUDGE PILLAY: Mr Richard, where are you reading now?

MR RICHARD: I'm reading from approximately line 21, page 4.

JUDGE PILLAY: Okay.

MR RICHARD: Now that is the question that Mr Govender put to Mr Currin.  Do you know what document was being debated?

MR MCBRIDE: If my memory serves me correctly there were two documents.  One was an affidavit by Rashid and the other was an application for amnesty for that particular aspect at that stage.  Because McNally had said, that's the former Attorney-General here in this province, he wants to prosecute those who are named by McBride in the hearing.  And there was evidence of that in the Dirk Coetzee case, where they applied for amnesty and provided particulars and were prosecuted and convicted.  So that's why the amnesty application was put in together, because it would have made it difficult then to, when information is elicited from me about Rashid, that they then charge Rashid, as McNally had indicated he wanted to do.  Somewhere my lawyer has that statement from McNally.
	So to answer your question, my recollection is there were two documents.  One was an amnesty application which refers to, I think the issue your leading up to is the list of injured people and it refers to this court record, this orange one here, for the list of injured people in that document.  And that is what we had expected to be handed in from the application.

MR RICHARD: So what we're missing at the moment is the statement that came with the amnesty application.

MR MCBRIDE: No, we have that somewhere.  We have it in one of the documents.  It's an affidavit.  I think it's in your bundle.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps if that could be identified because when one reads this section (c) that talks about an amnesty application together with some supporting statement, annexures, and they are not, if one takes a look in volume 1A, they're not attached to the amnesty application.  So I think if they are in the bundle, if they could be positively identified at this stage.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, the affidavit by Mr Ismail is at pages 76 to 77 of bundle A1.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Berger.

MR DEHAL: Sorry, Mr Chairperson, it would appear as if that would not be the only annexure, because the application for amnesty by Mr McBride refers to other annexures within the content thereof.

CHAIRPERSON: So this one that has been referred to by Mr Berger now, would that have been one of the documents that was handed up at the Section 29 hearing?

MR MCBRIDE: Yes, Sir, that's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR RICHARD: Indeed it is an affidavit dated the 19th of April 1997.  So that document and the following pages were in addition to and separate from an amnesty application.

MR MCBRIDE: Could you repeat that question, Sir.

MR RICHARD: That document, that affidavit, which is page 76 and 77 and then a statement which starts at page 78 and carries through to page 87 ...(intervention)

MR MCBRIDE: If I recall correctly, there were two different statements, it's not the same thing, they were not together.  I'm not sure if this one was included in there, I can't remember.  But this one, the affidavit definitely was one of the documents handed in.  It was an important document for me at that time, that's how I remember it.  That was the first time when there was a different version placed as to the Why Not incident.  All along I took the burden alone on my shoulders.  That's why it's important to me and I remember it.

MR RICHARD: So when one reads Exhibit C, am I correct in saying that while it is clearly two different documents, there's the affidavit of the 19th of April 1997 and then the statement, both of them were at the Section 49 hearing?

MR DEHAL: It's 29 hearing.  And I think what Mr McBride has indicated already, is different from the proposition now being put.  Mr McBride said he remembers clearly page 76 and 77 as a part of the application, as an annexure, but he does not remember the subsequent pages, 78 onwards.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that's what I understood Mr McBride to say.

MR RICHARD: I stand corrected on that one.
	Now ...(intervention)

MR BERGER: Chairperson, perhaps if we could just clarify.  The document which starts at page 78 of bundle A1, Mr Ismail's affidavit, was prepared for the purposes of the hearing in Pretoria in relation to the Voortrekkerhoogte operation and other operations.

CHAIRPERSON: That would have been some time after the lodging of the amnesty applications.

MR BERGER: Indeed.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Berger.  I think that makes it abundantly clear, Mr Richard.

MR RICHARD: Thank you.  The statement 78 to 87 has no date on it to attach it to anything.
	Now when you prepared for the hearing that started on the 21st of April ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Is it the Section 29 hearing?

MR RICHARD: Correct.
	... in your mind, what did you think?  Did you think that the record that would emanate from that hearing would come out in the amnesty hearing, or not?

MR MCBRIDE: Could you repeat your question.

MR RICHARD: You were about to attend an investigative inquiry in terms of Section 29 of the Act constituting the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the evidence would be received.  Did you believe at that stage that the ensuing record, which is now Exhibit C, would be before you today?

MR MCBRIDE: I don't think I applied my mind specifically to that aspect.

MR RICHARD: Now what did you think the purpose of the event on the 21st of April was going to be?

MR MCBRIDE: They wanted to know who gave me instructions.  It was clear that that was the intention.  And if you look at the questioning they wanted to know what was the structure of Special Ops.  And just to add, they could have asked that from the ANC leadership, gone to Rashid and asked him and he would have told them.  That's why I was concerned.  There was no need for this subpoena and stuff.  It wasn't a major secret or anything.  Rashid would tell them.  That's all they wanted, it was the structure of MK, how it operated, how Special Ops and how MK and how instructions were given.  That is all.