Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-10-07

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: I gave them exactly the same guidelines that Rashid had given me when he said we should move towards arming the masses and attack collaborators.

MR RICHARD: Did you give them any guidelines as to how they should attack collaborators?

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: They should kill them.

MR RICHARD: Did you give them any direction as to when and when not collateral casualties, as is now the term, would be permissible or not permissible?

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: I don't recall that.  If I remember correctly, the targets they mentioned that they would attack would all be armed people, including Mr Klein and that they should be careful that they can retreat without injury to themselves.  I remember also saying "Don't throw it on the wall because it will bounce back at you and you'll get hurt".  Those are the most important things that stick out in my mind now.

MR RICHARD: Did you give them any criteria as to how they should select their target?

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: If I did, it would be just in line with what Rashid had said, I don't recall specifically anything different, which I added to the instructions and guidelines to them.

CHAIRPERSON: But you did say earlier that you said that they should attack Security Force personnel and collaborators.

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Yes, Sir, that's correct and they were given hand grenades.

MR RICHARD: Did you know Mr Klein?

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Yes, I knew Mr Klein.

MR RICHARD: Did he know you by name?

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Yes, he knew me.  I was a student teacher at his school for about 3 weeks at some stage.

MR RICHARD: Now we know that you did not know that your subordinates were going to attack Mr Klein, but if you had known what sort of attack they intended, would you have had anything to say to them?

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Well, with regard to the people we called the military wing of the Labour Party, I would have expected they would have gone for Clyde Pearce first, because he was the most aggressive of the lot.

JUDGE PILLAY: Did the Labour Party have a military wing?

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: That's how we called them, because they walked around with guns and terrorised people.

JUDGE PILLAY: How many were there?

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Well it was that group, there were about 5 of them, but that's what we referred to them as, because of the way they terrorised people.

MR RICHARD: Was Mr Klein one of those 5?

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Oh definitely so.  Mr Klein, for example, would fire, do target practice in his back yard, so that everyone knows he's got a gun and they're armed, that's in a build-up area.

MR RICHARD: Now to Mrs Klein when she asks the question:  "Why me?"

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: I think she's being a bit naive there really.

MR RICHARD: Is that what you would like to say to her?

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: I'm saying yes, if that's her attitude, then she's naive.

MR RICHARD: Other specific victims.  One victim of the Parade Hotel event was Rajess Dalcurren.  He was a young man then, walking in the street at the time and was not in either of the hotels or restaurants but crossing the road and he was injured.  His question is, did you take people like him into account when you set the bomb to go off outside the Parade Hotel?

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: I'm not sure what he means by that, if there's a difference between him and anybody else injured in the cross-fire.

MR RICHARD: Like him, not him specifically, in other words ...(intervention)

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: I don't know what you mean.

MR RICHARD: He is saying that he was a pedestrian in the street, walking around in that area at the time.  Did you take that factor into account when you set off the bomb?

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: I've already testified to that and I said I went back to Rashid and asked him about that.  I think it's about maybe the 10th time now I've said this in this hearing.

MR RICHARD: Now ...(intervention)

JUDGE PILLAY: Tell me, that incident,

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Yes.

JUDGE PILLAY: Was that the first time you embarked or proposed to embark on an operation where civilian life was threatened?

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Yes, Sir.

JUDGE PILLAY: And that is why you discussed it with...(intervention)

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: That's correct.

MR RICHARD: We go to another group who were in the Magoo's as opposed to the Why Not portion of the establishment known as the Parade Hotel.  There, one Paula Harvey, was sitting at a table together with other classmates of hers who had recently completed an exam.  They were still in matric at the time.  Did you foresee that someone like this particular person, who was one of the most seriously injured of all the injured, in fact nearly died, might be inside the Magoo's part of the complex when you set the bomb?

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Sir, I think my answer is the same as the previous - is the same as the answer I gave for the previous one.

MR RICHARD: Well, what is the answer?  Yes or no?

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: The answer is yes and you've heard it.

MR RICHARD: So your answer is yes, you did foresee that ...(intervention)

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Yes, I did and that's why I was sentenced to death.

MR RICHARD: Now, there's another document where I have a G turned to an H, it's a letter from the African National Congress to the Chairman of the Indemnity Committee dated 25 April 1991 and it's signed pp Alfred Nzo, the then General Secretary.  It was distributed a few days ago by your legal representative.

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Yes, I have that.

MR RICHARD: Now, that letter says:  "This is to confirm that Robert John McBride is a member of Special Ops, Umkhonto weSizwe".  Then it goes on in the second paragraph to say:  "At all material times hereto Mr McBride acted under the command and instructions of his superiors in Umkhonto weSizwe."  So now that means, I am correct in saying that even as early as 1991 it was on record that your version, as put up in the trial, that you acted on your own was not so and that, in fact, you were acting under instructions.  Am I correct in making that statement in relation to this?

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: I think there's a bit of a jump in logic there.  If you would say to me that they were aware that the operation was an MK operation, I'd say yes.  If you say as a result of it, that my trial version was not correct, they knew, then it's a different question.

MR RICHARD: Now ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: This letter is a little bit confusing standing alone, because it's just two paragraphs and it says that "all times material hereto" and you don't know what times those are referring to, because normally when that phrase is used, it means the times or the occasions referred to in the same document, which don't exist.

MR RICHARD: Do you know at whose request this letter was prepared?

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Yes, it was prepared at my request for my indemnity application.  I think if I remember correctly I'd just come off death row and there was the Indemnity Act and I'm not sure if the Further Indemnity Act was out already.

CHAIRPERSON: I think that was the first one.  I think, as far as I can recall, the second one came in 1992.

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Yes, so we were still applying for amnesty and in the whole agreement, what had happened was they did not take into account people on death row in the agreement that was signed and therefore there were problems at a later stage.

MR RICHARD: Did this letter, Exhibit H, form part of your application for indemnity?

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Yes, that's what it's meant for and you can see who it's addressed to.

MR RICHARD: What act were you applying for indemnity for?

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: For all aspects relating to my activities on behalf of the ANC.

MR RICHARD: Was the Parade Hotel event included in that application?

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Yes.

MR RICHARD: Did this letter refer to all the acts, or only to the Why Not/Magoo's events?