Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-10-06

MR DEHAL: Well that as well I have some problems with, Sir.  Mr McBride is saying that when he spoke to the Buthelezi family they said they were not opposing his application.  It has come to my ear from various sources - sorry, perhaps I should place this on record, that the Buthelezi family had not spoken to Mr Richard, except yesterday and they have no difficulty with the application.  So I don't know what the basis of the opposition is.

CHAIRPERSON: Well as I say let's hear from Mr Richard on that.  I don't know.

MR RICHARD: That's not quite correct, I remember having a lengthy conversation with Sister Buthelezi over the telephone, but that is within the meaning of the word privilege.  Yesterday I did consult with her and if I were allowed to finish what I'm saying, I don't believe the interchange would be necessary.  Their issue in past was as was correctly recorded earlier, who shot the young Buthelezi.  That doubt has now been removed and the outcome has been recorded this morning and that means the Buthelezi family's needs in the situation have been catered for.  I have no problem with that, in fact it would be strange if I did.  The other person in the Edendale Hospital event, and that's Mr Visagie, was here a few days ago and is available to return should the need arise.
	Now when we deal with this separate group of, or this class of 1 should I say, the Edendale Hospital, what I'm going to say to you is that there are certain things that Mr Visagie wants me to either pursue or not pursue and it depends on the answers to the questions that I'm going to put to you.
	Now his opposition turns on whether you claim he ever shot you or not.  He says he did not.  The other thing he says, to continue his instructions, do you dispute his version that shots were fired in the passage, that he could not see what was going on in the passage from where he was ...(intervention)

MR DEHAL: Sorry, Mr Chairperson, I didn't intend to interrupt.  Mr Richard has asked two questions already and I think ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think, Mr Richard, instead of having long statements, if you could just keep the questions shorter because that will prevent at the end of a long statement, then having to go back and breaking it up into compartments.  The first one was, according to your instructions Mr Visagie says he did not shoot you, he says that - well, perhaps you can leave it there and get a comment and then take it in stages.  It will be easier.

MR RICHARD: The point that I'm coming to is that provided these matters are cleared up and his credibility is not impinged, he's more than happy to say he accepts that the incident is over and done with and he withdraws his opinions regarding it and reconciles.  And that's why I was trying to compress it.

MR MCBRIDE: Sir, maybe I can help here.  Sorry to intervene.  I never said at any stage that Visagie fired at me and struck me, I said he fired at me.  So there might be a difference there.  He missed me.

MR RICHARD: So you do allege that he fired a shot at you.

MR MCBRIDE: I'm not even sure if it's only one.  I remember one.  I remember turning - I remember hearing the bang, turning around and looking at him and I still remember the cartridge that had been ejected, still sort of above his face, next to his face.  That's how quick it was.

MR RICHARD: Do you dispute his version that shots were fired in the passage and that from where he was at that time, he could not see what was going on in the passage?

MR MCBRIDE: I eluded to it in my Exhibit G.  I fired shots, at least two bursts in the passage and it's possible that in my second burst, the shots I fired killed Mlungisi Buthelezi and injured Siphiwe Shange and Nkosinati Nkabinde.  I said that in Exhibit G.  And Visagie was in the ward, he could not have seen what was in the passage, unless Visagie was in the passage and then ran into the ward.

MR RICHARD: Do you dispute his version that he was not in the passage?

MR MCBRIDE: I'm not in the position to dispute it, I can't remember him.

MR RICHARD: He then proceeds to say that when you came within each other's sight, he did reach for his weapon but was shot in his arm before he was able to reach it.

MR MCBRIDE: Then he's stalking nonsense.

MR RICHARD: And then we have ...(intervention)

MR MCBRIDE: Sir, I can just add on here since we're dealing with credibility and people's versions, he's there to guard Webster, that's his job, armed guard, a dangerous terrorist.  That's his job.  He hears shots in the passage, he doesn't take his gun out, that is crazy.  He shouldn't be guarding us then.  He fired at me.  And even if his gun was not drawn I would still have fired at him.  Just to answer your question.  He was my enemy.

MR RICHARD: I tried to compress the proposition into a proposition to discover whether there was a dispute or not.  There is a dispute.  So that means the final statement that I would have liked to have been able to say is that does then still remain an issue.  But we were categorising various events.  I think I've made my point that the Edendale Hospital event is in a category of its own.

CHAIRPERSON: Would this be a convenient time to take the tea adjournment, Mr Richard?  I see it's five past eleven.  We'll take the short tea adjournment at this stage.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: (s.u.o.)

MR RICHARD: (cont)
	Thank you, Chair.
	Mr McBride, what we've established now goes this way.  That with respect to the Edendale Hospital escape, is a dispute of fact that we can't resolve in a short quick and easy manner.  We will return to that point later.  
	Then with regard to the first category of events that I've posed to you, those items I read out, do you agree that with respect to that category infrastructural things were attacked?

MR MCBRIDE: If it refers to those where there was no attack directed at enemy personnel, then I'd agree with you.

MR RICHARD: The principal objective was to attack an infrastructural thing.  Now the next thing you've alluded to is that in some of them there was an element of a booby-trap or a come-on bomb, but it was nonetheless associated with an infrastructural thing.

MR MCBRIDE: I cannot agree with you.

MR RICHARD: Where do you disagree with me?

MR MCBRIDE: Well it's got two objectives, it doesn't fall particularly into any category.  The one is infrastructural damage, the intention sabotage, but also the intention is to injure or kill members of the Security Force investigating there.  That's it.  And I explained it in Exhibit G, exactly like that.

MR RICHARD: Now you've alluded to two common denominators in your opinion, which join them as a group.

MR MCBRIDE: I never alluded to common denominators.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and I don't think what Mr McBride said that there were two.  If he put - like one of them was limpet mine, where there was no objective to get personnel or people, it was purely to damage the infrastructure.  But whether it was one or two, I mean we know what you're getting at, we don't have to spend too much time on it.

MR RICHARD: Right.  Then there was the second group and that the supply of weapons, I believe that we've cleared that into a second group.

MR MCBRIDE: I haven't agreed that they are groups.  I wouldn't put them, I wouldn't categorise them like you are saying.  So I mean, direct me to specific operations and I'll answer you directly.

MR RICHARD: Now the next thing that I would say, with respect to that list is, is it not correct to say that the targets were selected by the unit in terms of its instructions, but it did not have to refer to anyone outside the unit to choose which pylon or which substation to attack?

MR MCBRIDE: Unless it so wished or needed someone else to assist.

MR RICHARD: It did not need to.

MR MCBRIDE: That's correct, yes.