Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-10-06

MR RICHARD: 4th of May, sorry.

MR MCBRIDE: That's also wrong.  It was round about the 27th of April.  After we had split into two units.

MR RICHARD: And when you say the Sub-Command made the decision, which Sub-Command are you now talking of?

MR MCBRIDE: My other co-applicants, preceding me and after Rashid.  But at that stage when - Chris was arrested soon after I arrived with Gordon.  So whilst he played an initial part, the final stages of discussions were held between Vic and Oupa.

MR RICHARD: That's Mr Pillay and Mr Mnisi?

MR MCBRIDE: That's correct, yes.

MR RICHARD: Now the next question is, from your answer I gather - I'm asking you for your confirmation, that the decision had been made within that Sub-Command to by name attack the Why Not pub.

MR MCBRIDE: That is incorrect and I've never ever stated that, that the name was given to anybody.

MR RICHARD: To attack a pub.

MR MCBRIDE: That's correct.  Frequented by Security personnel, or as Gordon Webster put it to them and to me "infested".

MR RICHARD: We're coming to that point.  So that means who within the Sub-Command knew which pub?

MR MCBRIDE: Nobody.

CHAIRPERSON: You must have known.

MR MCBRIDE: I was not in the Sub-Command, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MR RICHARD: So that means the identity of the target was secret to you.

MR MCBRIDE: And Gordon Webster.

MR RICHARD: However, as from the date of his arrest what Mr Webster knew or didn't know ceased to be particularly relevant.

MR MCBRIDE: Could you just repeat that.

MR RICHARD: As from the date of his arrest until his final redelivery to Botswana, he wasn't an active role-player in the process.

MR MCBRIDE: No, he wasn't, he was injured.

MR RICHARD: And then shortly after his return to Botswana he was sent to Moscow for treatment.

MR MCBRIDE: That's correct, yes.

MR RICHARD: So the next proposition is that as from the date of his arrest you were effectively the only person of relevance in the action who knew which target had been selected.

MR MCBRIDE: That's correct, yes.

MR RICHARD: Now ...(intervention)

MR MCBRIDE: Well just to add on, there were two targets at that stage, one which had been reconnoitred more than the other, according to my knowledge.  The one was the Barn in Athlone and the other was the Why Not.  We hadn't finalised on that one yet, on the one we had in mind.  Because I remember Rashid speaking to me on the last occasion that I saw him, about the number of targets we had and I briefly explained some of the difficulties with them.

MR RICHARD: Well now, how many ...(intervention)

MR MCBRIDE: So what I'm saying is I had in my mind Why Not because we had checked it already and Gordon had told me that it's infested with Security personnel, but there were also other targets.

MR RICHARD: What were the other targets?

MR MCBRIDE: The one I'm speaking of now, the other one was ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: It's called the Barn.  Is that at the old Athlone Hotel?

MR MCBRIDE: That's correct, yes.

JUDGE PILLAY: How would that have been a possible target?

MR MCBRIDE: Because also police frequented that place.

MR RICHARD: Now we've got Natal Command, the Barn and Why Not, is that the list?

MR MCBRIDE: As I can recall, yes, at that stage.

MR RICHARD: Now Mr Webster had come up with the statement "infested with Security personnel".

MR MCBRIDE: Yes.

MR RICHARD: Do you know on what basis he formed that opinion?

MR MCBRIDE: He conducted reconnaissance and came to that conclusion.

MR RICHARD: Do you know what reconnaissance he conducted?

MR MCBRIDE: No, I don't know, he worked with his unit whilst he was doing that.

MR RICHARD: Would any member within his unit know what he had done?

MR MCBRIDE: I'm sure a member would have known if they were working together.

MR RICHARD: Now you however didn't question his opinions.

MR MCBRIDE: No, I didn't question him.  He was thorough meticulous person and was committed to the struggle.  Where I differed with him it would be on maybe tactics, then we would discuss it.  That is all.

MR RICHARD: We know that the intention to use a car bomb came up in March/April, what was the delay between March and April and June in carrying out the plan?

MR MCBRIDE: There was no delay, it was meant to commemorate the two things I've mentioned already, the Soweto massacres and the massacre in Gaberone a year previously.  As far as I know there was no delay and that was the date.

MR RICHARD: So that means that while the identity of the target was yet to be selected as at March/April, the date was certain?

MR MCBRIDE: Yes.  Just to add on, I only left Botswana on the 11th, I arrived on the 12th and had to set it off by the 14th.  It would have been more opportune to wait longer if the date was in doubt, but I had to work very hard to set it off on the 14th.

MR RICHARD: Now we know that post Mr Webster's arrest and yours, a considerable amount of weaponry was recovered, it's listed in the charge sheets amongst other places.  Why was it necessary to go to Botswana to fetch additional equipment?

MR MCBRIDE: I think you've just answered your own question, it was recovered and caught, so it wasn't there anymore.

MR RICHARD: Now from what was found, and I see in photographs, on your arrest, was there enough there to construct a bomb?

MR MCBRIDE: A car bomb?

MR RICHARD: Yes.

MR MCBRIDE: You can construct a car bomb out of fertiliser, but it's quite a lot of word because you have to ground it finely into powder.  So it's really, it takes a lot of time.  So you can make a car bomb as one of the co-applicants said, from gas bottles, you could do that also.  But quite frankly, I'm not, I'm a bit paranoid about gas bottles.

MR RICHARD: I think his intimation was that by putting gas bottles into the bomb, one would increase the shrapnel and fire effect.  Now ...(intervention)

MR BERGER: Chairperson, that wasn't the evidence, the gas has to do more with the sound of the explosion, it's got nothing to do with increasing shrapnel.

CHAIRPERSON: In any event, not much turns on it because the gas wasn't used.

MR RICHARD: Mr Dumakude used gas bottles and other car bombs, but that's another matter not relevant to us today.

MR MCBRIDE: Just to elaborate on the answer, Sir.  The SZ6s, as you can see from these pictures you showed me, they are very neat, they're easy to handle, easy to work with, there's not much required to secure them in there, they are very expedient for car bombs.

MR RICHARD: Thank you.  Now were any other pubs examined besides the Barn and the Why Not?

MR MCBRIDE: No, the information we had on those two were where Security personnel went to, because we were not - because of the peculiarities of South Africa we were not really in the white community so we couldn't pick up more information on other pubs.  There may have been, but we didn't.

MR RICHARD: Now am I correct from my reading, that you in fact went to the building know as the Parade Hotel, where the Why Not is?

MR MCBRIDE: When?  Now or yesterday?

MR RICHARD: No, some time between March and June 1986, or maybe beforehand.

MR MCBRIDE: Before.  It took place before Easter and on one occasion I tried to enter after I left Webster in Botswana.

MR RICHARD: Now when you went up to the building, what did you see?  Did you see one pub or three pubs or ...?

MR MCBRIDE: The impression I got from getting there, because I was stopped by someone who told me it was full, was that there were two, it's the Why Not on the left, the Magoo's I could not remember very well seeing inside.  You enter the passage and on your left, on the left was Why Not, on the right was Magoo's.  I didn't look into Magoo's at all.  I found out later that it's where they play live music, but at that stage I don't recall being able to see in there.

MR RICHARD: Now how far away from Why Not is Magoo's?  It seems to sound as it it's the width of a ...(intervention)