Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-10-11

MATTHEW LECORDIER: I wouldn't say it was my own notes, there were quite a few statements that I had written that I was forced to write.

UNKNOWN: Sir, I'm just referring to the record where any summation, Judge Sherrer refers to a problem in your evidence where you had referred to some notes and it turned out that they were notes that you had made and the defence on behalf of Mr McBride, raised this and properly so.  I just want to get clarity on that.  What comes across in the trial record is that you had made those notes yourself, unbeknown to the police and the prosecution.  What is your explanation about that?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: I don't where you got that information from.

UNKNOWN: Alright, well ...(intervention)

MATTHEW LECORDIER: The thing is I was forced to write those things that were said in there.  It's not a thing that I just did on my free will.

UNKNOWN: Yes, I understand.  I'm asking you whether you can explain what the true position is.  We know from evidence ...(intervention)

MATTHEW LECORDIER: I've just explain it to you.

UNKNOWN: Just hold on, just hold on.  We know from evidence given by Mr McBride, that a lot of what was said at the trial was not true, it was done specifically to, for a purpose because they didn't trust the system.  And I think you may have gone along with that, to whatever extent.  I'm asking you, there was a passage in the judgment, and if you give me a chance I'll get to it, where there was some discussion about notes that you had referred to whilst giving evidence.  Do you remember that passage?  Or that point in the trial while you were giving evidence.

MATTHEW LECORDIER: You know, it was such a long time ago, there's a lot that I don't remember because I've tried to put this thing behind me and go ahead with my life.

UNKNOWN: I hear you, but we're here now listening to amnesty applications and we have to dredge up the past and we have to hear what the truth is.  So just calm down and listen to the question.  It's not a trick question.  You see, do I understand you to say that it was the Security Police that were getting you to make statements?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: That's right.

UNKNOWN: They were also getting you to refer to your statements whilst you were giving evidence.

MATTHEW LECORDIER: That's right.

UNKNOWN: In was something that in those days was not permissible.  Do you see what I'm getting at?  And during the trial, in the judgment of Sherrer, and one of the reasons why your evidence was rejected as unreliable was because the notes you referred to differed from the statement that you had given.  Do you remember that or don't you remember that at all?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: I don't recall that too clearly.

UNKNOWN: Right.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, excuse me.  Were you present in Court when the judgment was delivered?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: No, Mr Chairman.

UNKNOWN: I'll refer just for reference to complete this, A2, bundle A2 at page 1872 of the judgment, the last third of the - in other words, two-thirds down the page, from the sentence
"At one point his evidence, his reference to a statement prompted investigation under cross-examination."
Just before I move on from that point, can you maybe just assist us.  On how many occasions did the prosecutors and the Security Police visit you whilst you were standing down during the course of your evidence to impress upon you the need to stick to your statement that you had made to them?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: It was on many occasions.

UNKNOWN: Too many to remember?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: I can't give you a number of exactly how many.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lecordier, when you gave evidence, for approximately how long were you in the witness box?  Let's say in the trial of Mr Robert McBride.

MATTHEW LECORDIER: I don't remember.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it a question of days or was it a morning session or before tea?  Can you give us just some idea, for how long did you testify for?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: I don't remember, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got no idea, you don't know whether it was one day or more than a day?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: I know it was more than one day, but ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: More than one.  So quite a long time?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: It was a long time, but I can't say exactly how long.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, my understanding is that he was almost five days in the witness box.

CHAIRPERSON: A very long time.

MR DEHAL: I will confirm that, yes.

UNKNOWN: Just one final question on this aspect.  You indicated that you were also intimidated by the fact that in addition to this prompting by the prosecutors and the Security Police, you were also shown a noose.  Who did that?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: It was one of the Security Police, I don't who exactly it was because it wasn't always the same guy doing this thing, the policeman doing it.

UNKNOWN: Did that ever happen in the presence of any of the State prosecutors?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: I don't remember if it happened in their presence.

JUDGE PILLAY: Would it have happened in one of the rooms in the Court building?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: Yes, Judge.

JUDGE PILLAY: A noose brought to the Court building.

MATTHEW LECORDIER: Sorry, Judge, can you repeat that.

JUDGE PILLAY: That threat with the noose had occurred in one of the rooms of the Court building during one of the adjournments.

MATTHEW LECORDIER: That's right.

UNKNOWN: I want to refer you to page 10 of your statement, (vii), paragraph (vii).  I just want clarity on this because what you've told me just now in response to my question, differs somewhat from you said in that statement.  You said
"... and during the adjournment that followed, the Security Police and the prosecutors threatened me and held a noose in front of me (which they had on various previous occasions as well) and said that I was close to my death."
Could you possible just think about that and come back to my question, was the noose and the threat of death made by either the Security policemen alone or the prosecutors alone or when they were both together?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: The threats were made without the prosecutors.  When we go back to the noose story, I'm not sure if it was done in front of the prosecutors or not, in their presence of not.  I can't remember that clearly.

UNKNOWN: We know from Mr McBride's evidence that his version under oath at the trial was in the main, regarding the Why Not bar, was not true, in respect of who had identified the target and so forth.  And the evidence that he gave was that you at a very late stage on the evening in question, had said why bomb an innate building, it was just glass and bricks and mortar, you knew of a place on the beachfront where white people could be killed, proper targets, that's what the people wanted.  Do you agree with that?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: No, I do not.

UNKNOWN: No, no, that was what was said at the trial.  Or don't you remember what happened at the trial?

MR DEHAL: Sorry, I'm just wondering whether there's clarity on this question.  Is the question that that is what was said at the trial, or is the question do you agree that that is now your version?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think my understanding of the question was, do you agree that during the trial evidence given by Mr McBride to the effect that it was you at a very late stage in the incident, who suggested the Why Not or Magoo's as a target.  That that was said as evidence.

MATTHEW LECORDIER: I agree with that.

UNKNOWN: Yes, what I'm putting to the witness is what happened at the trial and obviously it's in that context.

MR DEHAL: Sorry, the only difficulty I have is, I was present during the entire trial proceedings and I know that Matthew Lecordier was not present when any of the witnesses testified, and particularly not when McBride testified.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Dehal.

UNKNOWN: Let me rephrase it.  That was Mr McBride's version when he gave evidence.