Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-10-07

MR BERGER: Mr Ismail, you said, in answer to a question from Mr Richard that you did not discuss the Kabwe Conference with comrade Robert in the context of a specific operation.  In case that is misconstrued, you're not, or let me ask you, are you seeking to change any of your evidence that you did discuss the Kabwe Conference and the decisions taken at Kabwe, specifically in the context of comrade Robert's next operation, which involved the car bomb?

ABOOBAKER ISMAIL: Mr Chairperson, so it is not misunderstood, I was saying in the context of that specific target, we did discuss the Kabwe Conference, we did talk about the possible loss, or the possible occurrence of civilian casualties, so I'm not changing my evidence, no.

MR BERGER: Now you also said that the decisions taken at Conference, at Kabwe, never spoke about percentages and you said that to you mind, to use your words, an appropriate concentration of Security Force personnel would be between 60 and 70%.  Is it not correct, however, that the appreciation or the decision as to what would be an appropriate concentration was specifically left to the discretion of the Commanders on the ground?

ABOOBAKER ISMAIL: Absolutely, Chairperson and I have said I had full confidence in comrade Robert and that I believe he acted on the understanding that there would be concentration of Security Force personnel at that point.  We have no reason to doubt it.

MR BERGER: Finally, Mr Ismail, I want to ask you a question which I believe goes to the nub of this whole matter and I want to go further than both you and comrade Robert have gone in your evidence.  I want to say to you, if comrade Robert had come to you in Botswana and said:  "I have, well we can't go ahead against Natal Command for the reasons already discussed, but I have done reconnaissance and I have information on a bar which is in an hotel on the Marine Parade in Durban, the bar is called the Why Not bar and is situated there", had shown you a photograph. "The intelligence that we have, gathered by me and comrade Gordon is that the place is infested with Security Personnel, but there is the real likelihood that if we put a car bomb outside that bar, that civilians are going to get killed.  comrade Rashid, do I have your authority to proceed with this operation?"  What would you have said?

ABOOBAKER ISMAIL: Mr Chairperson, had he reported the specific target, I would have then gone into the detail of it.  I would have then discussed when those people were there, at what time, how best could we have carried it out, were there any possible other things we could have done and at the end, having satisfied myself that a large concentration of Security Force personnel did indeed congregate at that point, I would have given him the go-ahead.

MR BERGER: Now, I want to go further.  I want to say, comrade Robert reports to you that on his information there is a large concentration of Security Force personnel at that location.  In other words, what I'm doing , what I'm saying is, he tells you that there is the Why Not bar where this concentration of Security Force personnel is to be found off duty, but within the context of a civilian population and he asks you, "Do I have the authority to proceed with the operation?"  Do you give him the authority, or not?

ABOOBAKER ISMAIL: Yes.

MR BERGER: Yes, you give him the authority?

ABOOBAKER ISMAIL: Yes, I do.

MR BERGER: Thank you.  I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BERGER

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you, Mr Ismail.  That will then conclude your testimony for a second time.
WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Mr McBride I omitted to mention earlier that your testimony is now concluded.

MR MCBRIDE: Thank you Sir.

MR RICHARD: With regard to these hypotheses of what and who was in the complex of the entertainment places at the Parade Hotel, I do have the witness available.  Should we call the person involved at the end of the Hearing or ...?

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps you can discuss that with Mr Prior, between you and the other legal reps when would be best, what would be most suitable.

MR RICHARD: Thank you Chair.

MR BERGER: Chairman, my ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: It doesn't make a huge difference to us.

ADV PRIOR: Mr Chairman, I would propose that we simply complete the applicants.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, the usual way is to complete the applicants, but as I say, if there's any need because of any circumstances that a witness has to be brought in, there's not a problem, but you can discuss it with Mr Prior.

MR BERGER: Chairperson could I just place on record that if Mr Richard is intending to lead any person, that he furnish us with a summary or an affidavit of that person's evidence before that person gives evidence?

MR RICHARD: There's no obligation on me to do that.  The person is here and ready to give evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes well we'll, if he gives evidence and you want a bit of time before, to take instructions before questioning, then that will be given.

MR BERGER: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: I see now it's past 1 o'clock.  We'll take the lunch adjournment.  Which applicant will be called next?  Mr Dehal, would it be one of your clients?

MR DEHAL: Ms Narkedien otherwise known as ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Narkedien.  Thank you.  And before we start, I'd appreciate it if the legal representatives could just briefly come and see us in our room, well perhaps now.  Yes we can do it just before lunch.  It's very briefly, it's nothing too important, but we just want to give notice about argument.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: I believe there's been some discussion between the applicants and some certain victims and I don't know of the outcome of those discussions, but I would just like to, on behalf of the Panel here, indeed the Commission, express our appreciation and gratification that such a meeting could take place.  It's very important.
Mr Dehal.

MR DEHAL: Thank you Chairperson.  Mr Chairperson and Honourable Members, before I begin to call Ms Narkedien, may I just raise the following aspect.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry I see Mr ...(indistinct)

HASSAN MALL: My mandate from my three clients I think, up to this stage I have fulfilled the mandate.  It was to sit in on the applications for Mr Ismail and Mr McBride.  My instructions are that as both these gentlemen have finished their evidence and the Commission has generally finished the evidence of these two gentlemen, I wish to seek leave from the Commission to place on record that my clients are not opposing the application for the amnesty of these gentlemen.  They are satisfied with the disclosure that has been made by these two gentlemen with regard to the events of the Chamberlain Road blast and they accept the word of Mr McBride and Mr Ismail.  In the circumstances, may I take leave of the Commission?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you very much for that Mr Moll and I'd like to thank you for the assistance that you have given in this Hearing.  Thank you very much.  You're excused.

HASSAN MALL: Thank you, Mr Chairman.  There's just one more point.  For the record, yesterday Mr Ismail, Mr McBride and Mr McBride's legal representative, myself, Mr Zimmerman, Mr van der Merwe and Mrs Dunn, who's the wife of the victim Mr Dunn wasn't here, but those three of my clients met with Mr McBride and Mr Ismail.  We met privately and we all spoke for about 20 minutes and I can safely say that there was reconciliation, as what I believe this whole process envisages and it has left my clients satisfied.  If I may put that on record.

CHAIRPERSON: We're very pleased to hear that Mr Mall and again express my appreciation for your clients and the applicants concerned, for what they have done.  I agree with you, we find it to be a very important aspect of this whole process and thank you very much.

HASSAN MALL: Thank you.