Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-10-06

MR RICHARD: 9, is the Leaf incident, 10 is Mr Klein, 11 is Edendale Hospital.  Then we go to 12, which is the Pine Parkade.  That's put in the same grouping as I've said, what is the common denominator between them all.  Then we skip number 13, that's the Magoo/Why Not Parade Hotel and then we go to 14, that's the Umlaas Mobile Oil pipeline.  15 is the mini-limpet explosion at Vegetable Oil tanker, and then we skip the Copper Shop and go to 17, and that's the water pipeline.  Now is there a common denominator between those that I've put in that group?

MR MCBRIDE: I don't know, I'm so confused now I have numbers that should be included, numbers that don't and a lot of statements.

CHAIRPERSON: The numbers included, perhaps if you can take a pencil ...(intervention)

MR MCBRIDE: I'm busy, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.  That I've recorded is 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 14, 15 and 17.  Now the question is, of those incidents, as listed in Exhibit G, is there a common denominator between ...(intervention)

MR RICHARD: Common thread.

MR MCBRIDE: You know, Sir, I can say it's an MK operation, it's a common denominator in all of them.  The explosives are used.  I can you know ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps if you can be more specific, Mr Richard ...(intervention)

MR RICHARD: Alright.

MR MCBRIDE: As me a question, I'll answer it.

CHAIRPERSON: ... because what Mr McBride is saying is correct.  One can always find a common denominator.

MR RICHARD: Alright, now we'll go through to number 1.  It was an arson attack on a government building.

MR MCBRIDE: Yes, Sir.

MR RICHARD: In your opinion, was that a legitimate target or not?

MR MCBRIDE: In terms of the instructions from the ANC and in terms of the insurrection taking place, very much so.

MR RICHARD: Then next one which I skip, you can see the supplying of weapons to yourself fits into another type of activity.  But we go to number 3, the attempted sabotage of Cato Manor substation.  Now what was the nature of that particular event, in your opinion?  A legitimate target and if so, why?

MR MCBRIDE: Just to answer your question, there's nothing here that was not a legitimate target, in this whole thing right up till the end.  To answer your question in short.  None of them are illegitimate targets, they are legitimate targets, all of them.

MR RICHARD: I'm not asking you whether they're legitimate or not, I'm asking you whether ...(intervention)

MR MCBRIDE: Sir, you are asking me at each stage, is this a legitimate target and I'm saying yes or no.

MR RICHARD: I'm saying that in each case there was the use of fire, the use of a bomb and indeed I will make the submission at the end that in that group of attacks, other than to comment that they are within the bounds and parameters of policy, orders, practices, there's more remarkable about them.

MR DEHAL: Mr Chairperson, may I come in at this stage.  My difficulty and objection is the following.  I envisaged that there would be this problem in the cross-examination of Mr McBride.  Mr Richard has traversed the entire document, Exhibit G, but for the exclusion of a few items.  His cross-examining on items where in many cases there are no victims.  I don't know who's instructing him in that regard.  Then he deals with the Chamberlain incident and Chamberlain here is item 8 and he's included that within the purview of the items he seeks to rely upon.  Mr Mall represents the victims there, but he seeks to question on those as well.  Herein lies the difficulty Mr McBride and I have in regard to who he represents, where is that list.  Otherwise we are going to go on a fishing expedition and we're going to be sitting here for a long time.  Relevance comes into play as well.  Thank you.

MR RICHARD: I do not believe in reply to Mr Dehal's proposition, that saying that the various attacks fit into different categories.  And working to the proposition that there is a particularly aberrant category, which is Magoo's/Why Not parade and then to say that when we speak of the act of supplying weapons, whether it was to his own unit or to people on the East Rand, that is a different category, that's all I'm saying.

CHAIRPERSON: I'll allow the question, Mr Richard, but wouldn't it be better rather just to put what you're saying to Mr McBride, than put a whole lot of questions and then we just end up being confused as we were now.

MR MCBRIDE: Sir, I will answer directly, I give you my word.  I will answer directly, whatever you ask me directly I will answer.  I won't mess about with it.

MR RICHARD: Now you heard my proposition, that in that grouping, that cluster of events that I've referred to as group 1, do you understand where I see a particular pattern, a grouping of them?  In other words, I can put them in a particular file where a particular type of thing, whether it be a pylon, a substation or a school, was attacked legitimately, according to the policies.  That's my ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: They would fall under the group of economic or propaganda attacks.

MR MCBRIDE: You haven't asked me a question yet, Sir.

MR RICHARD: Do they fall into a group is my question.

MR MCBRIDE: Where they have fallen into different groups, I have explained in my evidence-in-chief, it's there in Exhibit G.

MR RICHARD: Now when I say the two other acts that I'd listed, and that is the supplying of weapons to SDUs or to your own unit, they form a different classification of acts.  I'm also saying legitimate.

MR MCBRIDE: Well they are not involved in targets at that stage, it logistical.  But in terms of the laws in the country then and probably now also, you can't take illegal weapons and give them out, it's an offence.  That's why I'm applying for amnesty for them.  But they are not a target, there's just a transfer of weapons from the ANC to the units.

MR RICHARD: And then if one is to classify a particular event, and that is the Edendale Hospital one, that's sue generous, it's in a category of its own, it's an escape.  It's as I put as a proposition to Mr Ismail, where soldiers utilised their privilege of trying to escape.

MR MCBRIDE: Well I would say it wasn't exactly a privilege, Sir.

MR RICHARD: But it's in a group of its own.

MR MCBRIDE: Yes, it can be put in another group, yes.

MR RICHARD: Because then with regard to Edendale, I would say that as per my instructions per the Buthelezi family yesterday ...(intervention)

MR MCBRIDE: I'm sorry, Sir, can I just get clarity here, whether Mr Richard acts on behalf of the Buthelezis, because the Buthelezis told me personally they are not opposing my application.

CHAIRPERSON: But I think Mr Richard did put it on record that he appears for the Buthelezi family at the start.

MR RICHARD: I did and in fact I consulted with Mrs Buthelezi.  I've chosen not to take exception to the fact that they were approached without me being notified, consulted with, I'll leave that, I'm happy with what the instructions are.

MR DEHAL: Sorry, Mr Chairperson, again this is a relative attack, what the design is I do not know.  They were not consulted with.  Mrs Buthelezi, or the Buthelezi family sought to reconcile and chose to meet with Mr Ismail and Mr McBride ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no, we accept that, Mr Dehal and I can assure you we don't take the view that there was anything underhand or sinister or unprofessional involved in the meeting with Mr McBride and the Buthelezi family.

MR RICHARD: I'm not making that point.

CHAIRPERSON: All we're saying is that Mr Richard did put it on record at the start that he does appear for the Buthelezi family.