Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-10-07

JUDGE PILLAY: When last was the last bit of reconnaissance done in respect of the Why Not?

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Between the two trips, the last two trips, the one where I left off Webster and the one where I went to fetch material for the car bomb.

JUDGE PILLAY: Do you recall when the state of emergency was ...?

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: 12th of June.

JUDGE PILLAY: After the 12th of June, was there any reconnaissance on the bar?

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Between the 12th and the 14?  No Sir, I had absolutely no...(intervention)

JUDGE PILLAY: And you say it never crossed your mind to do so because of the state of emergency?

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: I had two days in which to do it.

JUDGE PILLAY: No, I accept that.  It just didn't cross your mind to ...?

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: No.  No, Sir.

JUDGE PILLAY: One of the applications for amnesty you make is in respect of possession of firearms that you produced and supplied to members of the self-defence Units in Gauteng.  Do you know where these arms came from?

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: The arms, as I understand now, it's information received over the years, the ANC had brought in a few tons of weapons which would be kept in caches under Operation Vula.  The armaments that were used, they were from Operation Vula.

JUDGE PILLAY: And you were provided with some of these to distribute?

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: That's correct, yes.

JUDGE PILLAY: And you say high ranking officials provided.

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Yes, the NEC of the ANC was aware of it also.

JUDGE PILLAY: Do you know if any of your seniors who provided the stock...(intervention)

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Yes.

JUDGE PILLAY: No, I'm not asking for names, whether they have made application for amnesty?

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Yes, the people who gave me the weapons...(intervention)

JUDGE PILLAY: In respect of those offences.

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: They have applied for amnesty for those offences.

JUDGE PILLAY: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Adv Sigodi, do you have any questions you'd like to ask?

ADV SIGODI: Yes there's just one aspect which I'd like to clarify with you.  I don't know what the Why Not Bar looks like, but I get the impression that it was in Marine Hotel, is it?

CHAIRPERSON: Parade.  Just the Parade.

ADV SIGODI: The Parade Hotel?

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Yes Ma'am.

ADV SIGODI: So the hotel was above the bar, that is where the residents would stay, above the bar?

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: That's correct.

ADV SIGODI: Is it correct?  What concerns me is, did you know how far the bomb would affect the building?  When you made the bomb, did you know if it would go up and affect the hotel itself, or did you do it in such a way that it would only affect up to the first floor, or up to the Why Not bar?

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: My understanding was that the way it was constructed with the limpet mine placed on top of the charges, most of the force would be blown downwards and to the left because it was packed on the side.  A clear indication of this is the fact that there is a hole in the road, indicating the blast went down and towards the left and not up and any damage that occurred on top, would probably have been from shock waves or any shrapnel going up.

ADV SIGODI: So at the time that you made the bomb, did you consider that in your mind?

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Yes.  That's why the limpet mine was placed on top of the rest of the charges, so in other words the blast, the explosion started on the top, the only other way it can go is downwards, where the rest of the explosives are.

ADV SIGODI: Okay thank, that's all.

CHAIRPERSON: Judge Pillay indicates that he wishes to put a further point.

JUDGE PILLAY: When this application first started last week, you were quoted in newspapers and some alleged victims were quoted in newspapers.  The impression I got there was that there was so much tension, specially in this area, as a result of the past history of this country.  It's gone even to the extent of radio surveys being held as to whether you should be granted amnesty or not.  Let us not debate the wisdom of newspaper articles and radio surveys, but in an attempt to stop this madness or hatred in this country, are you able, do you see yourself clear, to try to make peace with the victims?

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Yes, Sir, I want to do that.  I've never been given an opportunity to do it.

JUDGE PILLAY: Are you willing to attempt that if the representatives are able to arrange it?

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Yes, Sir, 100% co-operation I'd give for that.

JUDGE PILLAY: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Are there any questions arising, that have been put by the Panel.

MR BERGER: No questions.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR BERGER

MR DEHAL: I have none, thank you.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR DEHAL

MS KOOVERJEE: None thank you.
NO QUESTIONS BY MS KOOVERJEE

MR RICHARD: I have a comment to make, but no questions, but I'll reserve it until ...
NO QUESTIONS BY MR RICHARD

HASSAN MALL: I'm not too sure of the procedure.  Are the representatives going to address the Panel shortly?

CHAIRPERSON: What we're going to do is we're going to hear all the applicants first, before we hear submissions, but I'm just asking whether there's any questions arising out of questions that have been put by myself, Judge Pillay and Adv Sigodi.

HASSAN MALL: No questions.

ADV PRIOR: Nothing arising, thank you.
NO QUESTIONS BY ADV PRIOR
WITNESS EXCUSED

MR RICHARD: Chairperson, with the leave of the Committee and yourself, at this juncture I must make a formal application for the recall of Mr Aboobaker Ismail.  When I attempted to cross-examine him on references made to discussions between him and Mr McBride, contained in the Section 29 Hearing transcript, such questioning was ruled out.  However, the basis of those, the objection to that questioning can no longer stand.  Mr McBride has now given viva voce evidence before us on all those matters.  That is all now in the public domain.  Whatever the status of the Section 29 transcript or information might or might not be, that certainly cannot play any role in a decision as to whether Mr Ismail should be cross-examined on what Mr McBride has now said.
	Mr McBride's evidence is very pertinent and simple.  He says to sum up, he was instructed as late as a few days before the bomb to go ahead with, what I say very specifically a car bomb, at a hotel, as described, the name might not have been mentioned.  It was a specific instruction from him as the High Command of the ANC to carry out that attack and I believe that it is more than appropriate that he, at his level, should now be cross-examined on that aspect and be asked to give us evidence that might have been obtained, had we been able to cross-examine him on matters emanating from the Section 29 information.  Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Berger?

MR BERGER: Chairperson, might I take instructions.  I have a response, but Mr Ismail is not here.

CHAIRPERSON: I see your client is here.  We'll take  short adjournment.  We did start late, that's why we've gone through tea, but maybe we can have a late tea and just if you can let us know when you're ready. Thank  you.  We'll take a short adjournment now.

MR BERGER: Thank you very much.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you.  Mr Berger?

MR BERGER: Thank you Chairperson.  Chairperson in principle, I would submit that Mr Richard has not laid any basis for the recall of Mr Ismail.  Firstly the Section 29 proceedings, the order of this Committee still stands that it would not be competent for Mr Richard to cross-examine Mr Ismail on the contents of the Section 29.  Secondly, any differences that there may be between the evidence of Mr Ismail and Mr McBride are (a) quite possibly attributable to the passage of time and (b) are, in our submission, more apparent than real.