Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-10-04

MR DEHAL: Mr  Chairperson, unfortunately I would not be able to help, in as much as I would like to, but may I just confine my address in regard to that application and the supporting documents crisply to this aspect.  Sorry it would appear firstly that reference to Mr McBride's application for amnesty and the reference therein to any aspect of the Section 29 proceedings, is an aspect which is sought to rely upon in an endeavour to have the evidence included.  My Heads and indeed my earlier submissions, I reiterate are the following briefly, one, one must understand that the word used there is application and not evidence.  I see Mr Prior's Heads of Argument incorrectly refers to it as "the evidence", but I think Mr Prior would deal with that.  His pages are not numbered, but in paragraph 7.3 he talks of evidence, he says
"... the applicant refers in his amnesty application to his evidence at the Section 29 proceedings."
	Now therein on a misunderstanding of the semantics of the ...(indistinct) lies the problem we are facing today.  Mr McBride does not refer to his evidence, he refers to the application.  And we have now, I think more than clearly established that the application Mr McBride refers to, is the papers or are the papers, he handed in through Mr Currin to the Section 29 Commission, which papers unfortunately none of us have, but which I submit are papers referred to in Mr McBride's amnesty application, purely to obviate the need, to retype, to reprint the 72 names of injured and deceased persons.  There is merit in the reason for him to simply refer to it by reference, rather than retyping it.   Obviously to save time, number of pages, etc, and the boredom thereof.  
	Now therein lies in my view, crisply the summation of that anomaly or ambiguity.  In my Heads I deal with two additional points, firstly that the evidence Mr McBride tendered at the 29 hearings, in itself do not in any way include a list of the names of the injured and deceased persons, so it cannot be contended by any party that by reference to that, sorry to the 29 proceedings or any document therein, that for the intention that Mr McBride had to include the list of names of the deceased and injured, he could possibly have referred to the evidence.  No, that couldn't possibly be so.  
	And secondly that the application handed in wherein reference is made to the Section 29 documents, was handed in on the 10th of April.  The evidence was heard on the 21st of April, much later.  It cannot be said therefore that the evidence was intended to be included, because the evidence was not even heard at the time.   And the other arguments which I have recorded in my Heads, those are the submissions for the present in response, thank you.

JUDGE PILLAY: The names, if that was the only aspect to be dealt with by those other documents, would be names that your client, or the applicant, McBride, would not have known himself, but would have submitted after perhaps research, etc.  Because it would be impossible for him to know at the time of placing the bomb there, who the, or what the identities of the injured parties would be?  Am I correct or ...

MR DEHAL: Sorry, bear with me.  Judge, I cannot argue with that point, it must be so.  It must be so.

JUDGE PILLAY: What I am trying to get at is that it was not in his personal knowledge who would be injured, but in order to supplement or fully substantiate his position at the Section 29 investigation, he was almost compelled to give whatever names he could.  He could only attain those names by research and whatever else?

MR DEHAL: Absolutely, I must agree.  May I just make one qualifying point and that is if you look at Mr McBride's application, perhaps I should just take you to it, in bundle A1, can I just get my bundle.

CHAIRPERSON: Page 107.

MR DEHAL: Thank you Mr Chairperson. On page 107 Mr McBride, three points made, on page 107 Mr McBride refers to the 29 application under the proviso dealing with list of names.  He does not deal with that under paragraph 9(a) which deals with the acts.  Had he dealt with it under the provisions acts, the anomaly, the ambiguity, the possible inference that it may refer to the evidence ...

JUDGE PILLAY: Would have been stronger?

MR DEHAL: Would have been stronger, indeed.  Secondly, Mr McBride begins be referring to two other acts in 9(b)(i) on page 106 wherein he records the names in the Klein incident to the persons injured, principally that (ii) he refers by name to the persons deceased and injured in the Edendale saga, (iii) on page 107 he refers by name to the persons deceased, but he could not refer by name to the persons injured.  He begins and that is the third point, he begins by referring to the trial record and charge sheet.  I submit respectfully that in parenthesis, his reference to the application handed into the Commission is a reference and a submission and an addition ex abundanti cautela through excessive caution and perhaps if it did not have that, the understanding would have been just as complete and correct in the absence of the words in parenthesis.   But the words in parenthesis was as I have said, added through excessive caution and nothing should be read into it, more than is intended.  Thank you.