Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-10-06

MR RICHARD: So I use that to illustrate that on J, K and L, if those be examples, you didn't establish that any one of the three were policemen.

MR MCBRIDE: I was not trying to do that.

MR RICHARD: What you did establish was, to repeat, that how many policemen were in the pub.

MR MCBRIDE: No, I'm not saying that, and this is important, I want you to listen to this.  There's three people who were outside the pub, they were not inside.  Only two people were inside the pub at the time of the explosion, they came to testify as victims.  These three were outside.  I think there's some significance to that.  Especially with regard to Mr Baker in the Chamberlain Road incident.  I'm making that association.

MR RICHARD: Now what is the inference you want us to draw?

MR MCBRIDE: It's that you cannot say using these people, that there was not Security Force personnel in there because you don't have an accurate record of who was in the bar, you have a record that changes, it goes up and goes down in terms of victims.  You get new names added and some names taken away.  Why?

MR RICHARD: Now if I look at it this way, in an event such as this there will be, and I'm sure you will agree, a number of fatalities, a number of serious injuries, not so serious and light injuries.  There's be a range.

MR MCBRIDE: What is your question, Sir?

MR RICHARD: I'm putting the proposition to you there'll be a range of severity of injured people.

MR MCBRIDE: Yes, I'm sure that's correct.

MR RICHARD: Now how people will react after being injured, provided they're not incapacitated, badly hurt, is unpredictable.  Would you agree?

MR MCBRIDE: Yes, I agree people are different.

MR RICHARD: Now ...(intervention)

MR MCBRIDE: Just to add onto that, in just pre-empting where you are going.  I think the Security Police at that stage will find each and every witness possible to the incident because they looked at every specific piece of evidence that was on the floor.  Some of those pictures you have there you see them walking and picking up little bits of things, and therefore they would be thorough in their investigation to catch the culprit.

MR RICHARD: Yes, but there would have been no way that they could have prevented that the less seriously injured packed up and left as soon as possible after the bang.

MR MCBRIDE: In fact there is evidence in the trial record to find out that they went searching specifically for as many people as possible.  All these people, the way they were brought there, you would see the cross-questioning of my advocate indicates that they were told by for example, Russel Davidson was told that he found out that there was a guy called Hentie Engelbrecht who had been in the bar and had left earlier and then they went and looked for him and found him.  So it was by word of mouth who was in there.  I can direct you to the relevant ones if you give me time to find it.

MR BERGER: I see it's gone five minutes past one, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Would this be a convenient stage for you, Mr Richard, or do you want to finish this point?

MR RICHARD: One question.
	In your affidavit in support of your application for amnesty, you make the statement -
"There were 69 injured"

MR MCBRIDE: That's from the records that were given, that's the ones I used.

MR RICHARD: That's what you swore to under oath.

MR MCBRIDE: I beg your pardon?

MR RICHARD: That's the figure that you accepted and swore to.

MR MCBRIDE: That is why I referred them to the indictment, based on the information that was available to me.

MR RICHARD: And do you accept that your figure of 69 is correct?

MR MCBRIDE: I don't accept it's correct, except insofar as it was the information available to me.

MR RICHARD: So are you saying that there were more or less injured than 69?

MR MCBRIDE: I'm not in a position to say who was there.  I mean, you're representing the people.  You know, how many people are you representing?  I don't know, I never had the police records, why it's going up and why it's going down, why names are added or names are taken off, I don't know.  The same thing with Mr Baker, I don't know.  What I do know is that in the statistics given by you to Mr Ismail, there was a very big discrepancy in terms of Security Forces killed in Church Street.  You said two and the records who nineteen.

MR RICHARD: I'm not arguing about a schedule that I found in the bundle, what I'm saying is that you swore to 69, Judge Sherrer in his judgment found 89 and that's the best information ...(intervention)

MR MCBRIDE: And we now have 74.

MR DEHAL: Mr Chairman, that figure of 89 was conceded to being a typographical error, Mr Sherrer had not referred to 89.  On appeal we dealt with that and ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Was it meant to be - what was it meant to be if it was a typographical error?

MR DEHAL: 69.

CHAIRPERSON: 69.

MR RICHARD: Next question ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Would this be a convenient time now?  Thank you, we'll now take the lunch adjournment.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

ROBERT MCBRIDE: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.  Mr Richard?

MR RICHARD: (cont)
Chair, I am indebted.
	Mr McBride, we were dealing with the statistical perceptions.  Where we left off was that I understood, and again I'm using one of my cut-through propositions to eliminate a hundred questions, I understood your attitude to be you don't trust the figure of either 64 or 74 or any precise figure.

MR MCBRIDE: What I was saying is at this stage you can't place any reliance on the list that you have because it's been altered and we have experience where someone who was never involved suddenly appears as a victim in the Chamberlain Road.  So I can't place reliance on those figures that you make available here.

MR RICHARD: Now I hear what you say, but nonetheless do you accept that a number of people were injured?

MR MCBRIDE: Yes.  It's clear from my application.

MR RICHARD: And we also accept that what you've said is that your perception, you used the word very deliberately, perception, was that there would on probability be a number of Security Force personnel in that pub that evening.

MR MCBRIDE: My belief then and my belief now was that was indeed the case.

MR RICHARD: Now you've heard the debates that I've been through with Mr Dumakude and the preceding witnesses about when a target might be legitimate or illegitimate, and you heard what those witnesses said. Do you agree with them or disagree with them?

MR MCBRIDE: This is not simply an answer of yes or no because were are speaking hypothetically to them, not of anything specifically and not with regard to the conditions for which I'm making this application for amnesty for, under which I operated.

MR RICHARD: On the hypothetical examples they made certain observations.  I haven't yet related to the position on the ground.  You heard their evidence on the hypothetical propositions.  On the hypotheses, do you agree with their evidence or not?

MR MCBRIDE: Where I did not agree with their evidence or where I required elaboration I instructed my attorney to ask the questions and we got the satisfactory answers from them.

MR RICHARD: So do you think Mr Dumakude's evidence is incorrect?

MR MCBRIDE: I did not say that.

MR RICHARD: My question is quite straightforward.  They made certain observations as to what they believed would be policy and appropriate practice on certain hypothetical propositions.  You've referred us back to further questions.  My question is direct, do you think their statement of the then policy was correct or incorrect?  It's a simple answer.