Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-05-06

MR VISSER: Mr Ismail, can I ask you this.  With the benefit of hindsight and the wisdom that it brings, do you maintain today as you sit there that with the knowledge of the results of that bomb which you sent to Church Street that it was in fact an overwhelming military target which was hit, do you say that still?

ABOOBAKER ISMAIL: Mr Chairperson, I would say that the reconnaissances stated quite clearly that overwhelmingly military personnel were in the area, they were there, we aimed to strike at those military people. And it is sad, one regrets the loss of civilian life, but I say to all, we aimed at the Air Force Headquarters.
	One must also ask the question perhaps, was it right for the Air Force to locate itself there?  That was the same submission that the SADF used when they asked the question, you know, that we were operating from Mozambique etc, and therefore they bombed us in civilian areas, and our President raised that question at a funeral and said, if they are going to do that with us, is it not perhaps also right that we can do it to them?   And again I state it was a military target and military targets were legitimate.

MR VISSER: You've neatly avoided answering my question.  My simple question is this, as you sit here today with the benefit of hindsight, do you still maintain that that bomb hit an overwhelmingly military target?  That's all I'm asking.

ABOOBAKER ISMAIL: Whether it hit an overwhelmingly military target, is that the question?

MR VISSER: Yes, yes.

ABOOBAKER ISMAIL: Yes, because it hit the South African Air Force headquarters.  The loss of civilian life is regretted.  I state again it hit the South African Air Force Headquarters.

MR VISSER: But you see if you only wanted to hit the Headquarters you could have ...(intervention)

ABOOBAKER ISMAIL: And the personnel in front of it.

MR VISSER: But we know that more than 50% of those personnel were civilians; now I'm asking you, in the light of that knowledge, can it ever be described as an overwhelmingly military target?

ABOOBAKER ISMAIL: It was Mr Chairperson, an overwhelmingly military target.  Our reconnaissances indicated that.

MR VISSER: Let's just take up...(intervention)

DR TSOTSI: If we have regard to Volume 2, paginated page 14, there is no doubt whatsoever that this was overwhelmingly a military target.  Many of those injured may not have been military officers but were employed by the SAAF and had thereby directly associated themselves with the apartheid military aggression.  And I suppose if you read that into the answer of the witness, he still maintains today that that was a military target and I think the question was answered overwhelmingly.

MR VISSER: Yes.  You see because if - do you make that point your own?

ABOOBAKER ISMAIL: Yes.

MR VISSER: Alright,  You see but the problem is that I wasn't talking about the personnel that worked there, I'm talking about more than 50% civilians who had nothing to do at all with that building, with the military, that's what I'm talking about.  You see the difference?

ABOOBAKER ISMAIL: The question was, was that a legitimate target?  And I say yes.  You talk of the target and I say to you yes, we aimed to strike to strike at the Air Force Headquarters and that is what we did with the personnel outside, that was stated repeatedly.

JUDGE PILLAY: Mr Visser, those 114 civilians, were none of them employed by the State?

MR VISSER: By the?

CHAIRPERSON: By the state or the military?

MR VISSER: None of those of the 114 were employed by the South African Defence force or the S A Air Force as we have it, as we have it.  You know we're only appearing here for the victims Mr Chairman, with respect, if we were the applicants we would have had this information before you I can assure you and I think our track record shows this.

DR TSOTSI: No but surely if we were to rely on the figures given 146, 114 I beg your pardon, that these were divisions which should differentiate because what I read to you from page 14 of Volume 2, it says some of the people would not necessarily be members of the military air force, but some would have associated themselves, then it means if some people associate themselves it does not per se make them military people but they remain civilians who say well we are in this position, we want some jobs or that kind of thing, therefore we work and as the witness says, it's unfortunate that once we targeted the SAAF we knew that part of the people there wouldn't be per se members of the SAAF but would be civilians but it was inevitable that in the process they should be hit.  I think that was the long and short of this arduous cross-examination about the civilians there.

MR VISSER: Well frankly Mr Chairman I don't understand the Commissioner. I really don't know what he's saying, I don't know what the point is.  The point here is 114...(intervention)

DR TSOTSI: The point is simple Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: 114 civilians ...(intervention)

DR TSOTSI: Give me an opportunity to enlighten you about what I'm saying.
	I'm saying firstly if we take it simply, would you as you represent victims for instance, that the victims would come and say they the 114 were all civilians because what you should read into page 14 of Volume 2 is that not all people within that building would be the military. Some were there but they associated themselves with the military. Then the question arises, do they now become military people or civilians in that sense and can the victims say with certainty that these 114 were for instance civilians; can we have such evidence before us?

MR VISSER: The premise of the honourable Commissioner is this Mr Chairman, that all the people who are listed as civilians were in fact people from that building.  That's the first premise and we don't know what the facts are.

CHAIRPERSON: I think that this whole question, when we started on this direction of cross-examination was really relating to proportionality.

MR VISSER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And when we're dealing with proportionality we are not dealing mathematical formulas and we're not saying well because more than 50% were civilians and less military were injured or killed, that means that it's unproportional - we know for a fact that a large number of civilians were either killed or injured; I think that is common cause on both sides.  And we know that they were injured and killed as a result of the bomb that went off at that time in front of that building.
	We seem to be getting a little bit now off track and we could be here for days and days talking along this line and we'll get back to the same situation that it's common cause that a large number of civilians were injured and killed.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman you are absolutely right, in fact I think I have milked this cow dry on this particular point and I see it's five to one, perhaps you'll give me the lunch hour to recover and see whether I can attack afresh ...(intervention)

MR TRENGOVE: .. to find another ...(indistinct)  (laughter)

CHAIRPERSON: I see it's five to one now, we'll now take the lunch adjournment until two o'clock.
HEARING ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

ABOOBAKER ISMAIL: (s.u.o.)

MR VISSER: (cont)

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman I got to go to another point now from this point of proportionality.

MR VISSER: Yes I'm stepping off that point now.

UNKNOWN: Just one or two questions.

MR VISSER: Certainly.