Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-09-29

CHAIRPERSON: I think, what Mr Richard is getting at, Mr Pule, is you said that Mr Webster had trained Mr McBride and you then asked Mr McBride certain questions, just to satisfy yourself and to ensure that Mr McBride had been properly trained by Mr Webster and you asked these questions, and then you arrived at the conclusion, yes, he was properly trained.  Now, what Mr Richard is asking you is, once you had done that, once you had satisfied yourself that he had been properly trained by Mr Webster, did you yourself teach him anything new?  Did you teach him any new skills at all, yourself, teach Mr McBride any new skills?

ERNEST LEKOTE PULE: I would explain it this way, although I will deviate from this point.  For example when you play soccer, playing for a first division team and then you are recruited by another team in the first division, when you arrive at that team, that does not mean because you come from another team, you'll just be given a jersey and be allowed to play.  The trainer in that team will ensure that this person receives training according to his own methods.  That does not mean that he was never trained where he comes from.  Even his present coach will realise that this guy has been trained, it is just to ensure that this person will be according to the standards required by that particular coach, so coming back to the question, because I realised that comrade McBride was already trained and I was satisfied about that, I was just ensuring that he understood everything to my satisfaction.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Richard.

MR RICHARD: So, while I understand from your analogy that you improved Mr McBride's game, to use the analogy, and tactics and techniques, you didn't in fact teach him anything basic or new?

ERNEST LEKOTE PULE: That is not so.

MR RICHARD: Then I ask the question again, what new matter do you remember teaching Mr McBride?

JUDGE PILLAY: Or easier, how did you improve on the training?

ERNEST LEKOTE PULE: The knowledge that he received from Mr McBride inside the country, concerning certain things, he was able to train him, so I was unable to train him because I was based in Botswana and the conditions in Botswana were different from conditions in South Africa then.  If I remember well, it's not everything that he was trained in by Gordon Webster, that they had in the country, so when he arrived in Botswana, I was just ensuring that he understood everything that he was told by Mr Gordon Webster.

MR RICHARD: Now when it came to training, there were two parts.  There was practical and theoretical.  Now  matters such as, as you said before, the Kabwe directives, would be theoretical.  Do you understand my proposition in that regard?  Do you understand that the Kabwe directives were theoretical?

ERNEST LEKOTE PULE: Do you mean as far as training comrade Gordon?

CHAIRPERSON: I think just ask the question, you don't have to get into whether Kabwe was theoretical or not, just get to the question about what was practical and theoretical, what he did, I think.

MR RICHARD: When you trained people, you would do a number of things.  Amongst the things that you would do, is teach them how to use hand grenades, AK47s, limpet mines and so on and you would also teach them what was expected of them in terms of policy.  Is that correct?

ERNEST LEKOTE PULE: That's correct.

MR RICHARD: Now, I also go then from your evidence-in-chief to say it was your particular responsibility that they complied with policy, was it not?

MR BERGER: Chairperson, is that a question, or is that a summary of the witness's evidence-in-chief?

MR RICHARD: Was it your particular responsibility to  ensure that people you trained, complied with policy?

ERNEST LEKOTE PULE: That's correct.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, can I just come in here?  How did you ensure that the people you trained complied with policy?

ERNEST LEKOTE PULE: When you train them, like I've already explained, even though there was a confusion inside the country then, concerning the killing of innocent people in the country, we as Commanders, we were able to think that a person who is inside the country can think that he's fed up about what was happening in the country, so when we give that particular person the weapons, he will use those weapons the way he wants to use them, for example, at that time the Boers would just kill the kids the way they wished.  Any person would take a limpet mine and put it in a creche and kill the kids, so those were the things that we would discuss with the person before we give him the material, to ensure that he's always within the policies of the ANC.

ADV SIGODI: But the question is, was it possible for you being outside of the country, to ensure that whoever you gave the weapon, would use the weapons in the way in which you had instructed him to do so?  Was it possible for you to have control over those people, whilst they are inside the country?

ERNEST LEKOTE PULE: It would be difficult for me to answer that question because the person on his own would have his own thinking.  Like I've already stated in my example, you can sometimes explain everything to the person but when he arrived in the country, he would do what he sees necessary for him to do, so we would help them by explaining the policies of the ANC in as far as missions are concerned.

ADV SIGODI: So do I understand you correctly, that what you are saying is that all you could do was to teach people what the policy was and how to use the arms, but it was not possible for you to ensure that the person would carry out that policy if that person was inside the country, in so far as your mandate was concerned.  Do I understand you correctly?

ERNEST LEKOTE PULE: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Richard.

MR RICHARD: Thank you.  Now, when, in your evidence-in-chief, you said it was your responsibility to recruit people in South Africa, how did you go about doing that?  You gave the example of your brother, he phoned you, but other than that example, how did you go about recruiting people?

ERNEST LEKOTE PULE: I'll give you an example.  If I wanted to train a person, I would use somebody that I knew that he was regularly coming into Botswana and then I will send that person to a particular person that I want to meet and I'll give him the message to tell that person that I want to meet him.  So that is how I would bring in people into Botswana, then I would discuss everything with him and when he agrees, I'll give him training.

MR RICHARD: Now how would you identify a person to communicate with, to send a message to come and see you?

ERNEST LEKOTE PULE: There were many people that I knew in Botswana.  From time to time they would come into South Africa and in South Africa as well, there were people who were going to Botswana from time to time, so in that way I was able to talk to them and send them, give them the message.

MR RICHARD: I'm sorry I've lost half my ...

CHAIRPERSON: Did you get that answer, Mr Richard?

MR RICHARD: I understood the answer.  Now, so that means in effect that you would have a method of taking the message to somebody.  Now how would you select who to send the message to?  How would you know who would be receptive to the message?

ERNEST LEKOTE PULE: I don't understand your question, would you please repeat?

MR RICHARD: You want to recruit somebody in South Africa.  You've said there were people you knew in Botswana, people in South Africa who went in and out of Botswana, now you want to recruit, to use an example, somebody in South Africa.  On what basis and how would you know who in South Africa should be recruited?  How would you get the information as to who in South Africa would be receptive to the suggestion of recruitment?