Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-10-06

MR RICHARD: ... there's a sentence which starts
"In our documents our officials would call for revenge attacks"

MR MCBRIDE: Yes, I have that.

MR RICHARD: Now what would a revenge attack be?

MR MCBRIDE: Well I'm reporting on what I read in the literature and the indication here, I was to give you the atmosphere at the time because of what the racist regime was doing and there was debates about revenge attacks.

MR RICHARD: Now in the quote I've read out what is said
"In our documents our officials would call for revenge attacks."
Now what would constitute a revenge attack?

MR MCBRIDE: I don't think I'm in a position to explain of ANC political officials, what they envisaged as that.  It was certainly something different from what was going on before and I'm not sure whether revenge attacks were carried out.  I'm saying this is what was called for in the literature.  I've read some of them out in the submissions I gave to you.  My application for amnesty carries some of the comments made about avenge in our ...(indistinct).  That's the atmosphere in which this was taking place and that's what I intended to convey, nothing else.

MR RICHARD: What we know is that the 14th of June 1986 represented the anniversary of a gross human rights violation by the South African Defence Force in Botswana and also the 10th anniversary of the 16th of June, and it was decided that this car bomb would go off on the anniversary.  Now would you see it as a revenge attack?

MR MCBRIDE: Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't.  I mean, I regarded it as a commemoration.  Whether it's the same thing, I'm not in a position to say.  What I can say that an instruction was given to put a car bomb where there was an infestation of Security personnel.

CHAIRPERSON: My view of a revenge attack is an attack which takes fairly shortly after an attack made by the enemy, and what prompted the attack was the previous attack of the enemy.  So it wouldn't really include a commemorative attack which took place a year before, it was something closer.  That's just my own personal view.

MR MCBRIDE: That is why I mentioned earlier, from my perception as to the bigger picture behind the attack, I mentioned in my evidence-in-chief, it looked to me as if it had a deterrent effect because I was told specifically to keep aside some SZ6s in case there's a response and we have to do a counter-response.  That's how I understood it.  Whether that was indeed the case, only someone like the Commander or the senior officials can explain.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and one of the objects of a revenge attack would be the deterrent effect.

MR MCBRIDE: Yes, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Because then the other side would know that if they attack there's going to be a response.

MR MCBRIDE: That's correct, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Richard?

MR RICHARD: Now both above that quote and in the literature that you've referred us to you describe the atmosphere of the time.  So do you believe that the fact that the previous year one of the collaborators was a six year old boy and the South African Defence Force had attacked a target of a non-strategic or military nature?

MR MCBRIDE: Can you just repeat your question, Sir.

MR RICHARD: Do you believe that the fact that a year prior the South African Defence Force had attacked a place within Botswana, where non-military people were killed and injured, justified or entitled your unit or the ANC to behave in a similar manner?

MR MCBRIDE: Are you asking whether it's my belief or perception that it's justified?

MR RICHARD: Yes.

MR MCBRIDE: I don't think I'm qualified to comment on whether it's justified or not.  I think the statements have been made by the senior political leadership in submissions to the Truth Commission on a number of occasions.  The question of - I must remind you also that the whole Kabwe Conference, being a council of war, came about precisely because of what you've mentioned, because of the attack you've mentioned now took place.  The change of policy in the ANC came about because of the attack on Botswana a year before.  So, to answer your question, I've only have the ANC to guide me on that.

MR RICHARD: Now we turn to page ...(intervention)

JUDGE PILLAY: Of course Mr McBride, you were not present at the Kabwe Conference, were you?

MR MCBRIDE: No, Sir, I was not.  Only delegates were allowed.

MR RICHARD: We turn to page 29 of my numbers, it's a page which begins
"Military Operations and Logistic Operations.  There was a different Commander ..."

MR MCBRIDE: Yes, I have that.

MR RICHARD: Thank you.  There again you were asked the question
"Did he ever communicate with you directly personally with regard to choice of target in Durban in this incident?"
		"No, (was your answer) he didn't say go to Why.  I never mentioned the names to him.  I would not mention the names to him, but I was given certain guidelines and I raised certain questions about the dangers of this type of operation.  Car bombs by their very nature injure people other than the intended target."
And then the part I emphasise is -
"... never an incident where car bombs only injured intended targets, and I raised these fears."
Was this on a different occasion?

MR MCBRIDE: Are you asking me a question now?

MR RICHARD: Yes.

MR MCBRIDE: A different occasion to what?

MR RICHARD: Well I've related an incident where you raised concerns, on page 21 according to my exhibit, and now I relate evidence on page 30 where you - sorry, page 29.

CHAIRPERSON: If I can just ask.  This car bomb outside the Why Not, was that the only car bomb that you were personally involved in?

MR MCBRIDE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you've said that already in your evidence-in-chief.

MR MCBRIDE: Yes.

MR RICHARD: My question is, was the discussion of the raising of the concern a different discussion or the same discussion as on page 21?

MR MCBRIDE: It's the same discussion, it's the same occasion.

MR RICHARD: And now we gather, it was specifically within the context of car bombs, all you were given was guidelines.  Correct?

MR MCBRIDE: I don't understand your question.

MR RICHARD: You raised the question of your concerns and you've said to your Commanders "There's never an incident where car bombs only injured intended targets, and I raise this issue.  And given the guidelines and instructions I was given in regard to the car bomb, which amongst other things ..."  So my question is, in reply to your concerns you were told what the guidelines were.

MR MCBRIDE: Yes, I was.

JUDGE PILLAY: What guidelines are you talking about?

MR MCBRIDE: They were general guidelines from the Kabwe Conference and specifically with regard to civilian injuries.

MR RICHARD: Now when you carried out the attack, did you believe that you were operating within those guidelines?

MR MCBRIDE: Yes.

MR RICHARD: Then over on the next page ...(intervention)

MR MCBRIDE: Which page is that, Sir, can you give me the number.

MR RICHARD: The next page, page 30, according to my bundle.  The quote I'm referring to starts
"Was there any discussion with anybody about the target?"
Your answer was -
"I've had millions of discussions about it."
Now ...(intervention)

MR MCBRIDE: That's after the incident.

MR RICHARD: Yes.  Now what views have been expressed in those many conversations?

MR MCBRIDE: Well for one, I've been treated unfairly by the white media in the country, by one that the National Party government is hypocritical not to want to release me as a political prisoner.  Those are some of the discussions we had.  That they were making a fuss out of it because it was white civilians.  Those were some of the discussion, yes.

MR RICHARD: The next question ...(intervention)

MR MCBRIDE: And they regretted to mention black civilians like in the Edendale operation.