Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-09-29

MR RICHARD: Were you the party to the construction of that bomb?

MR BERGER: Chairperson, that is the subject matter of another hearing.  It's not relevant for the purposes of this hearing.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the relevance of whether Mr Mnisi made another car bomb for this particular hearing, Mr Richard?

MR RICHARD: The relevance is that I'm about to go into his opinions as to whether the Parade Hotel was a legitimate or inappropriate target.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you just ask him whether he knows about car bombs, rather than whether he took part in  building the Pretoria car bomb, or any other one, because then we're going to get into that.

MR RICHARD: Well,  I'll leave the point, it doesn't take us ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Because he did say that he was trained in making a car bomb.  I'll put the question this way.  Do you have any knowledge of the effects of the car bomb?

JOHANNES MNISI: Yes, I do know.

MR RICHARD: What are the effects of the car bomb?

JOHANNES MNISI: If you've placed it in a building, it demolishes the building.

MR RICHARD: And if you placed it in a crowded street, what would happen?

JOHANNES MNISI: If there's no building in that street, then it will just damage where you've placed it.

MR RICHARD: And if the street is crowded with people near the car bomb?

JOHANNES MNISI: They will get injured if there are people.

MR RICHARD: Will few or many people get injured if the street is crowded?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Richard, I can assure you that we won't have to rely on the evidence of Mr Mnisi to be able to find that if a bomb goes off in a crowded place that many people might get injured.  I think you can accept that we would accept that a car bomb placed where there's a huge crowd of people, it's going to injure people.

MR RICHARD: Now from your experience of car bombs, if and I use the word if, a car bomb is placed on the corner of a street outside two pubs or restaurants which are busy, where lots of people are enjoying themselves, what would the consequences be?  But I believe the question has been dealt with by the Chair.  Would you have anything to add?

JOHANNES MNISI: As I've already said, it is obvious that people would get injured.

MR RICHARD: ;   Now, in the ordinary course, from your training and experience, would two pubs with people in them and busy at the time, without anything else being said about it, be a legitimate target?

JOHANNES MNISI: Yes, that's correct.

MR RICHARD: So that means you are saying that it was in accordance with the African National Congress's policies and guidelines to place car bombs outside two crowded pubs, without knowing anything more about it?

JOHANNES MNISI: If you are trained, you know exactly where to place the bomb, you won't just put a bomb among innocent people, you will put it where you know and to the people you are fighting with, not just innocent people.

MR RICHARD: Now, who would the people you would be fighting with be?

JOHANNES MNISI: Soldiers and police.

MR RICHARD: Now, if out of 100 people that would be affected, 10 or 5 were soldiers and police, would it be legitimate to put the bomb there?

JUDGE PILLAY: Mr Richard, can you just me something please?  If you get a different answer to what Mr Ismail has given to that same question, who are you going to ask us to believe?  Who are you going to argue is giving the proper answer?

MR RICHARD: Chair, the question put to me is if I get contradictory answers as to what is legitimate and inappropriate, what my argument would be.  It would be dependent on the answer.  If one says to kill one soldier it's legitimate to blow up 100 civilians or 10 civilians and another says to kill 50 soldiers it's legitimate to blow up 50 civilians, I will say very clearly that there was no clear policy at all.

JUDGE PILLAY: I would have thought that you got the answer already, if that's the line you're taking, proceed.

CHAIRPERSON: You can put the question.

MR RICHARD: My question was, hypothetically, if there were two crowded restaurants in which there were 100 people and that being for the hypothesis a crowd, and of those 100, 5 were Security Force personnel, would that be a legitimate target?

JOHANNES MNISI: In every operation where you go to participate, you do your reconnaissance therefore you know your target, you don't just go to kill innocent people.

MR RICHARD: Is your answer to my question that in the case of the example I have outlined, that would be not a legitimate target and you would be killing innocent civilians?

MR BERGER: No, that wasn't the answer.

MR RICHARD: I said, is that the answer?

JUDGE PILLAY: Well maybe we must allow him to answer the question instead of it being suggested to him.

MR RICHARD: He did not answer my question and I'm asking him what his answer is.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, he answered the question about 5 out of 100 being Security Force personnel.  The answer was in every operation you do your reconnaissance, therefore you know your target.  Now the question is, you can repeat it, Mr Richard.

MR RICHARD: In the example that I've outlined, if your reconnaissance reveals that there are 5 out of 100 and that's merely a hypothetical example, would that target be legitimate?

JOHANNES MNISI: As I've already mentioned that before you conduct any operation you do your reconnaissance first to make sure that your target is there.  If you choose a place and you realise that your target is not there, then you won't go there, you only will go there when you know that that place is your target and you don't just do a reconnaissance for one day, you do for days to make sure, to be 100% sure that that's a legitimate target.

MR RICHARD: And if after making 100% sure by doing a thorough, detailed, careful reconnaissance, you find out that your target will consist of 5 out of 100 Security Force personnel, would you proceed or not?

JOHANNES MNISI: There I think it depends on the person who is going to participate in the operation.

MR RICHARD: So that means it would be up to the individual to decide whether to proceed or not, not up to an interpretation or the application of a policy or a guideline?

JOHANNES MNISI: You will follow the guidelines of the ANC.  First if you're trained, you know that you won't attack any place if it's not a target place.  It depends on the person who's going to take part, or who is going to participate in the operation.

MR RICHARD: What would the guidelines require you to do in the context that I've outlined, the hypothetical test case that I've put to you?

JOHANNES MNISI: It depends on the objective.

MR RICHARD: Now I don't understand what you say, on the objective.  You've said to me that it would not be permissible to bomb 100 civilians.  All I've changed now is that there are five Security Force personnel of no particular importance or rank, which is added into this proposition at this stage.  Would that now make it legitimate?

JOHANNES MNISI: Would you please repeat your question?

MR RICHARD: If I took 5 ordinary Security Force personnel of no particular importance into a place where there are 100 civilians, so that means we have now a 5% concentration of Security Force personnel, would that make bombing that place, or those two places, legitimate or not?

JOHANNES MNISI: Why place 5 people among the innocent civilians, when you know you have enemies who are after you?  You put the 5 people among the innocent civilians because you want your enemy to be scared of attacking them.  You know you have an idea, why put those 5 people there?  It is because of you who sent the 5 people among the innocent people, it is you who are actually killing them or betraying them, the person who sent the 5 people to the 100 innocent people.

MR RICHARD: Sir, you've changed the proposition.