Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-10-07

MR DEHAL: Your question at length by Mr Richard about various categorisation and groupings of the incidents, you mentioned in your testimony that you would regard them all as MK operations.  Apart from that general categorisation, would you be able to categorise them any differently, or venture to categorise them as Mr Richard suggested?

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: They were all legitimate targets and all carried out under the instructions and auspices of the ANC and Umkhonto weSizwe Special Operations Command.

MR DEHAL: Thank you.  In so far as the Why Not operation is concerned, is it correct that when you got to Botswana to obtain all the bomb material for this operation, you knew and had settled in your mind that the intended target was Why Not bar?

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: It was not finalised until the stage where Rashid gave formal instructions after I discussed with him, so if Rashid had said "No, don't go ahead with it because of the problems you'll raise", I would not have gone ahead with this.

JUDGE PILLAY: I think the question is designed to establish whether the idea of bombing of the Natal Command had already been abandoned by then.

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Yes, it had been abandoned very early on, although it was re-discussed at a later stage again.

JUDGE PILLAY: And at that stage, when you collected the material, that the Why Not Bar was a prospective target.

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Yes, that was quite clear.

MR DEHAL: Thank you, Judge.  And at the time you collected all the stock for the car bomb, the command, the persons in command in Botswana knew that it was a car bomb that it was intended to be used for, that it was intended for a bar, that it was intended to go off on the 14th of June, but did not know of Why Not as the target?

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: I'd agree except to re-emphasise a bar frequented by Security Personnel.

MR DEHAL: Thank you.  To some extent you were question by Mr Richard about, again on the Why Not Operation, the occasion when you caused the blue Ford Cortina to be parked outside Why Not and whether you had looked up to see who was walking about, the people on the street, etc.  You said you were too busy, you did not.  Now even if you did look and let's presume you saw plain clothed people, would you have known whether they were police persons in plain clothes?

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: No, I wouldn't have.

MR DEHAL: And you mentioned something to the effect that you had placed the bomb in your vehicle, closest to the Why Not.  Can you explain that?

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Well, in the bigger picture, I don't know if it makes much difference, I placed it on the left side so the centre of the explosion would be as close as possible, the closest possible position to the Why Not.

MR DEHAL: And the left-hand side would have been closest to Why Not?

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: That's correct, I have already said so.

MR DEHAL: Thank you.  Now this explosion occurred on Saturday night, you said at about 9.45 p.m.

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: That's correct, yes.

MR DEHAL: From your experience of the Marine Parade and particularly that area where Why Not is, on a Saturday from about what time to what time would you estimate is the busiest period?

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Really, I don't even want to speculate on that.  From what I recall is at a stage, it's normal in any country after a certain time people go home and it's not busy on the streets.  The bar was usually busiest at that time with police from Intelligence Gathering, between quarter past, half past Nine, that's when the recces were held, between Nine, sorry and half past Nine.

MR DEHAL: And finally in regard to the 69 alleged injured persons, they had not testified in your trial, or 90 % or 99% of them had not testified in your trial, so you had not had the opportunity to test whether any of them are in fact  Security Police personnel or civilians, is that correct?

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: That's correct, yes.

MR DEHAL: Is it not correct that during your trial endeavours were made to look at the docket, to establish by looking at the statements of the injured, who they were, what the record was, but you failed?

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: That's correct.  If I recall those were my instructions to you then.

MR DEHAL: And you subsequently instructed me, prior to this TRC proceeding beginning, to try and obtain your docket, but we've learned that your docket has gone astray, it's missing.

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Well, the docket has gone missing, as, I think Mr Prior indicated at some stage.

MR DEHAL: Thank you.  Thank you, Mr Chairperson, that is all.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DEHAL

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  The Panel will now ask some questions.  Yesterday I received a letter from the father of a victim who has asked me to put some questions, which I think I'll do.  He says in the letter that, amongst other things, that he's attended here, but he's stopped attending the hearings and whatever we decide as to whether Mr McBride gets amnesty or not, he'll accept the decision, but the questions posed are, he's just summarised them and he says the emphasis has been placed on the fact that the bomb at the Why Not was detonated on the 14th of June 1986 because of the significance of the date, it being the anniversary of the raid carried out by the South African Defence Force in Botswana, which resulted in the death of a number of people who weren't combatants and also because of its proximity to June the 16th, now he asks:  Does this not indicate that the bomb was a reprisal attack in the first instance and that the killing of Security Force Personnel would be nothing more than the cherry on the top, a bonus?

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: To my knowledge that is incorrect.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying what - it would be a bit of both, or...

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: I can only say, Sir, what I've been told and the instructions I'm aware of and the reasons given to me by my Commander.  I'm not aware of anything else.

CHAIRPERSON: And then he asks:  Was it ever considered to ambush Security Force personnel when they were returning from the pub back to their barracks at CR Swart, perhaps when their guard is down, when they're not alert, they're coming back?  Was that ever considered, to ambush them?

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: All of that was considered, the problem was I was given material for a car bomb and instructed to do a car bomb.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  Or to put, and he goes on further, to place a booby trap vehicle with a car bomb in the parking area of the police residences at CR Swart?

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Yes, I've indicated all aspects have been looked at and all suggestions were made at various occasions.  I was given a car bomb.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and lastly, he asked:  Was it ever considered or was it ever taken into account that a state of, a national state of emergency was declared on the 12th of June?

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: No, Sir, it could not have been because I was somewhere between Botswana and Durban when the national state of emergency was declared, it had nothing to do with my instructions.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  No, no, but this question was, the fact that it was a national state of emergency, if your reconnaissance relating to the attendance of policemen going to the Why Not was done prior to that, would one not expect that because there was a national state of emergency, that Security Force personnel would be on duty, rather than in a bar?  In other words, they would have been required to have been on duty, more of them would have been required to be on duty, merely because it was a state of emergency and so the prospects of there being fewer policemen in the bar at that time, because of the state of emergency, was that a factor taken into account?

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: I cannot recall it being a factor taken into account prior to the act.

CHAIRPERSON: Judge Pillay, do you have any questions you would like to ask?