Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-10-11

MR RICHARD: Target selection and choice of, as is termed in these proceedings "the mission", involves a number of factors.  If the witness's evidence is, which is certainly not so far, that he was told find labour party members and go and attack them, so be it.  However, he says it was more than that.  In which case I want to know what the more is, was he told when civilian casualties would be acceptable and when weren't, and all those sort of criteria.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps you could be more specific in your questioning Mr Richard, because you asked him if he was trained in target selection, he said yes, well he was told to target policemen, police reservists, members of the Labour Party.  Then your next question was well, what criteria were you trained in.  I mean now if I was told that policemen were a target, what more do you need to say?  So perhaps if you could be specific because otherwise we might, you might not be getting an answer to your question for the simple reason that the witness is not exactly sure of what you're trying to get at.

MR RICHARD: Thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Ask him if there was anything about crossfire and civilians etc.

MR RICHARD: Was the question of crossfire and casualties in the process of crossfire ever discussed during April 1986?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: Yes, it was discussed.

MR RICHARD: With whom did you discuss it?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: My Commander, comrade McBride.

MR RICHARD: What did your Commander instruct you and say to you in the discussion?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: It was accepted that on certain missions people might get caught in the crossfire, who were not our intended targets.

MR RICHARD: Under what circumstances would it be accepted to have people caught in the crossfire?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: You say to have people caught?  Like we placed them there or something.

MR RICHARD: Under what and in what circumstances would it have been acceptable to go on a mission which resulted in, to use the phrase nowadays, collateral injuries?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: Sir, I was trained as an MK operative, combatant, by my Commander, Robert McBride.  I was not allowed to ask questions or to question his decisions.

MR RICHARD: I come to the essence.  When you went on that exercise that night to throw handgrenades at the Klein residence, did Mr McBride know that you were going to attack the Klein residence?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: He didn't know from me.

MR RICHARD: Did you at any stage tell him that you were going to throw handgrenades at someone's bedroom window?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: No, I did not tell him that.

MR RICHARD: Was the choice of the target yours and yours alone?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: Yes, it was.

MR RICHARD: Now the next question is, during the month-long training that you admit that you received, was there anything that was taught to you as to when it would acceptable to throw handgrenades through a bedroom window or not?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: As to when it would be acceptable?

MR RICHARD: Under what circumstances might you be appropriate in throwing handgrenades through someone's bedroom window?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: Exactly what do you mean by that?

MR RICHARD: During the month of April, which is the entirety of the time you had been trained, according to your evidence, did anyone ...(intervention)

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, Mr Richard, I don't recall the witness saying that he was ...(intervention)

MR RICHARD: I asked him the question "Did you receive any training prior to 1 April, as to the selection of targets?" and the answer was "No, I did not".
	So now ...(intervention)

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, ...(indistinct) that he got the training for a month after being recruited.  Because the impression that it gives me at least, when you say during the month-long training it's as if he was on a continuous training for that particular month after being recruited into Special Ops.  That is the impression that it leaves me with.

MR RICHARD: In the circumstances obviously I'm questioning, I don't take down notes while talking, so ...
	Then the question can be put slightly differently.  Were you ever told when it was permissible or might it have been permissible to go to a house late at night, approximately 2am and throw handgrenades through a window?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: How do you mean by "permissible"?  When it's allowed to do such things?

MR RICHARD: Yes.  When within the policies of the ANC you could do it.

MATTHEW LECORDIER: We were at war at the time.  I don't understand what you are asking me.

MR RICHARD: My question is so simple I don't understand the confusion.

MATTHEW LECORDIER: Of course it was permissible, we were at war.

CHAIRPERSON: The question was, were you told that it was permissible to go to a house and throw a handgrenade through a window at 2am in the morning?  Were you told that it was permissible or not, that is the question.

MATTHEW LECORDIER: Yes, I was told, but I wasn't told whose house to attack.

MR RICHARD: Very well.  Now I would like you to discuss your knowledge of Mr and separately, Mrs Klein's involvement with the Labour Party.  Why do you say that Mr Klein was involved with the Labour Party?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: That's the information we had.

MR RICHARD: Where did you get the information from?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: From my Commander and also from my own intelligence gathering as well.

MR RICHARD: What intelligence gathering did you do?

MR DEHAL: Sorry, may I interject.  I don't think it's ever been Mr Richard's contention that he's placing in dispute that Mr Klein was a Labour Party member, and if that's not an issue I can't see the relevance of this line of questioning.

MR RICHARD: I don't see the relevance of the objection, the question is straightforward and relevant.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I'll allow the question.  Just repeat it, Mr Richard.

MR RICHARD: What intelligence gathering efforts did you make?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: By following Mr Klein and seeing him attending these meetings and also his behaviour as a police reservist in Wentworth.

MR RICHARD: When, or how often did you follow him?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: Sir, I used to live very close to Mr Klein and I was aware of his actions and what he was doing, abusing the authority that he had.

MR RICHARD: How did he abuse the authority that he had?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: I think it was explained to us during this hearing, the course of this hearing.

MR RICHARD: I'm asking you the question.

MATTHEW LECORDIER: He used to go around in Wentworth and think that he was you know, there's nobody who could touch him, he could do what he wanted to do.  In other words in my own words, a legal gangster, because if one went to complain by the police station about such people, nothing was done or we were chased away from the police station.

MR RICHARD: How did he abuse his authority, what did he do?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: I'll give you a small example.  If he came round the corner and he saw a guy sitting without a fence by his yard, sitting in his front yard and drinking a beer, he would walk up to the guy and slap him up and tell he's drinking in public and take him to the police station and place him under arrest for something like that.

MR RICHARD: How often did incidents of that nature happen, to your knowledge?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: Sir, I had many other things to do, I never followed Mr Klein around every day.  So I can't tell you exactly how often these things took place.

MR RICHARD: You've used ...(intervention)

MATTHEW LECORDIER: But it was often ...(intervention)

JUDGE PILLAY: Mr Lecordier, you say you used to follow him to meetings, to Labour Party meetings, where would that be?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: Sometimes they used to hold them in the school buildings.

JUDGE PILLAY: Now how would you know those were Labour Party meetings and not educational meetings perhaps?