Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-10-06

ADV PRIOR: Now I mean one knows from experience that venues change as the attraction may differ, for example a certain group of people may frequent a certain place and may move on to a different drinking place.  Now the bulk of your intelligence was gained pre-April, sorry, pre-Easter, before your visit to Botswana.

MR MCBRIDE: Yes, that's correct.

ADV PRIOR: Anything that - it's put at the level that in June, sorry, when you returned on the 12th of April, from that time until the 14th of June - sorry, I'm getting confused, he returned in?  On the 12th of June.  From the 12th to the 14th of June, what further reconnaissance did you do to verify that the Why Not bar was still a venue for a high concentration of military personnel or Security Forces?

MR MCBRIDE: Well just to answer your question, from 1984 already the rumour was there that there's a high concentration, by '86 we have Gordon saying it's infested.  Over that period it was still being frequented by Security personnel.  But to answer your question, I went once there after - bearing in mind that it was not my operation until I took Gordon Webster out towards the end of May.  The middle of May towards the end of May I took Gordon Webster out of the country.  It then became my operation and I had to come and carry it out on the 12th of June.

CHAIRPERSON: After the end of May you went once back to the site?

MR MCBRIDE: Yes, that's correct.

ADV PRIOR: What did you see when you got there?  Was it in the day or the night?

MR MCBRIDE: It was in the night.  It's - as the one you referred to as the comment of "May the force be with you".

ADV PRIOR: And you were unable to see how many people were in the bar.

MR MCBRIDE: No, it was full.

ADV PRIOR: So it was full?

MR MCBRIDE: That's what they said to me, why I couldn't go in.

ADV PRIOR: Yes, but you never saw who was in the premises?

MR MCBRIDE: No, Sir.

ADV PRIOR: Mr McBride, do you accept that - the evidence seems to suggest that the magoo's bar, being an action bar, was frequented by a younger clientele, younger people?

MR MCBRIDE: I'm not in the position to comment either way on that.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you talking about magoo's now, because I think the target was the Why Not.

ADV PRIOR: Yes.  Yes, the target was Why Not, but magoo's was a few paces away.  And obviously, I think from the questioning of Mr Richard, injury to persons in that area was contemplated.

MR MCBRIDE: Yes, that is why I went back to my Commander and asked about it.

ADV PRIOR: And all those people, on my understanding of your evidence, were, it was an acceptable risk?  In other words, they were people that as you explained in your evidence, you'd say were caught in the crossfire.  They were an expendable casualty, or expendable civilian casualty in the sense that although they weren't your specific target, if they got caught in the crossfire, that was acceptable within the policy of MK.

MR MCBRIDE: I wouldn't use the exact words that you are using, "expendable casualties".

ADV PRIOR: Well acceptable casualty.

MR MCBRIDE: Yes, I would use that.

ADV PRIOR: Would I be correct in suggesting that your intelligence did not confirm that Security personnel frequented the magoo's bar?

MR MCBRIDE: You would be incorrect.

ADV BOSMAN: You said magoo's bar.

ADV PRIOR: That's what I said, yes.

MR MCBRIDE: Could you just repeat your question.

ADV PRIOR: Would I be incorrect to suggest to you or to state that your intelligence, because it hasn't been said thusfar, was not that Security personnel frequented the magoo's bar?  Your intelligence suggested that they frequented the Why Not bar.

MR MCBRIDE: That's correct, yes.  Not that there was no Security personnel in magoo's.

ADV PRIOR: Well you never knew that.

MR MCBRIDE: That's correct, yes.

ADV PRIOR: It as not your intelligence.

MR MCBRIDE: That's correct, yes.

ADV PRIOR: And it was never in the greater plan of things to target magoo's bar.

MR MCBRIDE: The place we had in mind was Why Not.  Whether Gordon's unit had a plan is another matter altogether.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know if you can answer this, Mr McBride.  This Why Not and magoo's bar at the time, okay we've heard they're action bars and there's some jazz music and background music and that sort of stuff, would one have to pay a cover charge to get into one of the bars?  In other words, if I went in those days to the Why Not bar, could I have a beer there and then walk across the passage and mingle in the magoo's bar and come to and fro, or would I have to pay a cover charge each time?

MR MCBRIDE: No, Sir, you'd be able to go on both sides.

CHAIRPERSON: So it's effectively - so somebody going to the Why Not bar may well spend time in magoo's bar and vice versa?

MR MCBRIDE: Yes, Sir.  Yes, that's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

ADV PRIOR: Was there any room in your equation that there might well be underage persons on the premises when you detonated your bomb?

MR MCBRIDE: Well as I said earlier, the only equivocation given to me by Rashid was that there should be absolutely no chance of children being killed.  I would imagine that people under age would not be allowed into a bar.

ADV PRIOR: Was that never even contemplated?  Did you do any checking on whether underage people frequented that particular action bar, magoo's?

MR MCBRIDE: I've just given you the answer to this question you're asking now.

ADV PRIOR: Yes, but that's - you imagine that that wouldn't happen.  I'm asking you whether you took any concrete steps, any objective steps to make sure that that wasn't the case.

MR MCBRIDE: Sir, it's difficult to follow all children, it's easier to follow police and find where they go.

MR DEHAL: Sorry, Mr Chairperson, it's not - sorry, the list of victims does not include any children and I think that's common cause.

CHAIRPERSON: But I think the question may be asked.

ADV PRIOR: Well the list is silent.  My understanding is that there was a matric, people from a matric class that were celebrating a midyear exam that they had completed.

MR DEHAL: I've never heard that before and during the trial it never emanated.

JUDGE PILLAY: The question is simple ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: The questions stands, I mean I don't think it was an unfair question.  The question was, did you take any positive steps to establish whether or not any children were in the bar at the time of, or the night of the explosion.

MR DEHAL: At that level I accept it's a fair question, but I don't think the aspect relating to a matric student ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, we were not regarding that as any evidence.

MR DEHAL: Thank you.

ADV PRIOR: I think he's answered it.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what Mr McBride has said is that he didn't expect any children to be there because it was a pub and they had no place to be there, but didn't actually take any positive steps to establish that.

ADV PRIOR: What steps were taken to safeguard the safety, if at all, of passers-by, civilians, vendors, hawkers, who were prevalent in that area?

MR MCBRIDE: My recollection is that that was part of the crossfire and the acceptable, if you want to use a modern word now, collateral casualties.

ADV PRIOR: But by the nature of your bomb it was, you couldn't, for example like with a radio control or remote control, if there were - for example we believe that, we understand that there was a flower seller, a Rajesh Dalturan(?), a 15 year old boy, who was in the immediate vicinity when the bomb detonated.

MR MCBRIDE: Yes, he gave evidence in the trial.

ADV PRIOR: Once you had obviously detonated or activated the bomb, it would have killed anyone - obviously the inference is that anyone in the immediate vicinity would have been either killed or injured?

MR MCBRIDE: That's correct.