CHAIRPERSON: ... he comes, then we can then take a short adjournment and as soon as the interpreter arrives ...(intervention)

ADV PRIOR: Yes, I apologise. I was told as you were virtually coming into the hall.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I think also we can use this opportunity, the people in the gallery would then perhaps need these devices to follow the proceedings which will be simultaneously interpreted. They are available from the sound technician in the front here, so if you wish to follow the proceedings, please, during this break, get one of these. Thank you. We'll then take an adjournment until the interpreter arrives.

ADV PRIOR: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Interpreter, did you get ...

INTERPRETER: Yes, I did Chair. He seems to be having a

problem with his headphones.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you hear that last comment, Mr Berger?

MR BERGER: Yes, I did, but there's going to be some assistance now.

CHAIRPERSON: Is he on Channel 4?

MR BERGER: Yes, he is.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll just wait while Mr Pule gets another set of head phones. Mr Berger could you please repeat your question?

MR BERGER: I will, Chairperson.

ERNEST LEKOTE PULE: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR BERGER: Is it correct Mr Pule that you were born in 1955 in Newclare, Johannesburg and that you went to school at Naledi High?

MR PULE: Yes, that's correct.

MR BERGER: There's an error in paragraph 2 of your statement, in that you left school during standard 9 and not standard 8, is that correct?

MR PULE: That's correct, that I did standard 8. I was busy with standard 9, that's when I went to exile.

MR BERGER: You talk in paragraph 5 of your statement about what happened on the 16th of June 1976 and that you were in fact present in Soweto on the 16th of June 1976, is that right?

MR PULE: That's correct.

MR BERGER: Is that while you were in Standard 9, during 1976?

MR PULE: Yes, in 1976 I was doing Standard 9.

MR BERGER: As a result of what you experienced, witnessed, on that day and the days subsequent to the 16th of June, you then decided to go into exile and you left the country in August of 1976?

MR PULE: That's correct.

MR BERGER: Now you've detailed in your statement and we're not going to go through it in detail, about what you did when you left the country, how you went to Tanzania, went to Moscow, the training that you received, and ultimately returning to Kashito camp, where you remained until 1981. You confirm the contents of those paragraphs, is that right?

MR PULE: That's correct.

MR BERGER: Now I'd like to move to 1981 when you were recruited by comrade Rashid as part of Special Operations. You talk about working in Swaziland from 1981 until 1984, in Special Operations and then from after April 1984, because of the signing of the Nkomati Accord, you were withdrawn from Swaziland and redeployed to Botswana. Now, you speak about working with Mr Dumakude, comrade Chris, both in Swaziland and in Botswana. Could you briefly tell the Committee what work you were doing as part of Special Operations, particularly in Botswana after you left Swaziland? What was the nature of your work?

MR PULE: Can you please explain and say whether I should only explain my duties in Botswana only?

MR BERGER: If you could start off with your duties in Swaziland, what you did in Swaziland, but then give a little more detail on what you were doing in Botswana from 1984 onwards.

MR PULE: I arrived in Swaziland in 1981. I was sent there by comrade Ismail. My duties there were to be at the border to reconnoitre the situation.

MR BERGER: Yes, if you'll just speak a little slower so that the interpreter can translate. Please continue.

MR PULE: I was there reconnoitring and also waiting for the soldiers who were coming over to Swaziland for training.

MR BERGER: These were soldiers of Umkhonto weSizwe?

MR PULE: That's correct.

MR BERGER: You were also a soldier of Umkhonto weSizwe?

MR PULE: Yes, at that time I had already completed my training, that is why comrade Aboobaker recruited me and sent me in Swaziland, so that I could accept soldiers who wanted to join Umkhonto weSizwe.

MR BERGER: What did you do with the soldiers when they came into the country, or they came out of the country and into Swaziland?

MR PULE: My duty in Swaziland was that when they finished their training, was to arrange accommodation for them in Swaziland, where they could stay, to arrange accommodation and protection, before they were sent back into the country to fight. Apart from accepting them in Swaziland, it was also to make sure when they are sent into the country to fight, that the way is well prepared for them.

MR BERGER: What does that mean, that the way is well prepared for them? What did you have to do?

MR PULE: My job was to make sure that when they cross the borders from Swaziland into South Africa, there were no soldiers that will stop them. Apart from that, we had to make sure that there were people from South Africa, who were based in different cells in South Africa, who would accept them.

MR BERGER: When - sorry please continue.

MR PULE: Another duty was to accept the arms from Maputo. Those were sent from Maputo, so that if one soldier needed something, I could be able to give it to him. I was also arranging money. I would receive money from Aboobaker and I would decide how much money I would give to each one of them.

MR BERGER: You mentioned, I'm sorry to interrupt, but you mentioned arms that you would receive from Maputo and furnish these to the soldiers, is that correct?

MR PULE: That is correct.

MR BERGER: What sort of weapons would you pass on from Maputo to the soldiers of MK?

MR PULE: That would depend what their operations at that time would be, when they are sent into the country. Apart from that, comrade Aboobaker told us before that that the people who would come, would need certain weapons and then we would prepare those weapons before they arrived at our place. After that, we would keep contact with the people who were inside the country. We would check the way for us so that the people that we sent back into the country will be well-protected when they come into the country.

MR BERGER: So is it your evidence that comrade Rashid would inform you that there are soldiers coming, they need certain weapons and ammunition and then it would be your task to make sure that those weapons and ammunition were ready when the soldiers arrived, so that they could be furnished with them?

MR PULE: Yes, that's correct, even though it was not at all times.

MR BERGER: Please continue.

MR PULE: The reason why I say this, was that we had people who would bring weapons for us, so we'd give those weapons to the people who would arrive and it was not all times that they would use those weapons when they arrive.

Sometimes those would be weapons that would help them to protect themselves when they come across the police or the soldiers. Those weapons I'm referring to were AK47s, pistols and grenades. Sometimes we'd give them the bombs, to use them.

MR BERGER: Those bombs that you would give them to use, those would be for the purposes of carrying out attacks inside South Africa, is that right?

MR PULE: That is correct.

MR BERGER: Did you know what each particular operation was when you gave the bombs, for example, did you know what those bombs were going to be used for?

MR PULE: When the soldiers arrived from Mozambique, they had already been in contact with comrade Aboobaker in Maputo. When he came in Swaziland, he would tell them what they should do when they cross over. It was not our duty to tell them that. My duty was to give them what they required.

MR BERGER: Whilst you may not have known of the exact operation in which they were going to use the bombs, for example, would it be correct to say that you knew that the bombs were going to be used either to blow up installations, or to kill Security Forces, or both?

MR PULE: I did not know, but I was just thinking about that.

MR BERGER: You accepted that that is what the bombs could be used for?

MR PULE: I do not understand the question.

MR BERGER: When you provided those materials ...(intervention)

JUDGE PILLAY: Did you know they were going to bring it to South Africa to use it?

MR PULE: Yes, I did know that.

MR BERGER: Now you've spoken about providing material to soldiers for use in South Africa. You've spoken about making sure that they are housed in Swaziland when they arrive and infiltrated back into the country and making sure that they are safely infiltrated back into the country. Besides that, what else were you involved in?

MR PULE: Apart from that, my duties in Swaziland and Botswana were to recruit people inside the country and to train them.

MR BERGER: What ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I didn't quite catch that Mr Berger. You said "One of my duties was to recruit people inside the country and to train them." To recruit people inside Botswana and Swaziland, or did you come across to South Africa to recruit people and then take them for training, what was the position?

MR PULE: That would depend on the situation. What I'm saying is that sometimes it would happen that the people that you knew in Swaziland, we would send them into the country and they would come, we would send them to certain people and that was the way that we used to recruit people inside the country. Sometimes there were people inside the country, those that we knew and then we would keep contact with them through telephones and that would enable us to recruit them and make way for them to come into Swaziland or Botswana. For example, my brother. I phoned my brother and then he came over to Botswana and then he decided himself what kind of job that he would do and then he went on with that job.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Berger.

MR BERGER: Thank you, Chairperson. You spoke about training of people. What did your training of them entail?

MR PULE: That would depend on whether, that time when we talked to that people, what kind of job he was prepared to do. If he wanted to transport the weapons into the country, then we would give him that job. If he wanted some training, so that he comes back into the country to come and fight, then we'll give him that training. That would depend on the individual person.

MR BERGER: Besides training people to fight in the country or to bring arms and ammunition into the country, was there any other training that you were involved in?

MR PULE: That was the only job I was doing.

MR BERGER: Now you left Swaziland in 1984 and you were then redeployed to Botswana. Would it be correct to say that you then continued in Botswana, the work that you were doing in Swaziland?

MR PULE: That's correct.

MR BERGER: You say in your application at page 89, if you would have a look there, bundle A1 page 89, paragraph 9(a)(i), do you have it? Page 89.

MR PULE: Yes, I do see it.

MR BERGER: You say:

Now the bringing of weapons into the country and the training of cadres, that was done in Swaziland and Botswana, is that right?

MR PULE: That's correct. The nature of the job that we were doing forced us to train the people in Swaziland and Botswana.

MR BERGER: Then you say:

Now the training of people in the preparation of car bombs, was that done in Swaziland or Botswana, or both?

MR PULE: In training the people to make car bombs, we gave them that training in Botswana.

MR BERGER: When you speak about the procurement and preparation of materials for car bombs, would that be in Botswana?

MR PULE: That's correct.

MR BERGER: When was the first time, if you can remember, when was the first time that you met comrade Gordon and comrade Robert? If you can't remember the year, then can you remember where it was that you met them?

MR PULE: To tell the honest truth, I would say it was in 1985 when I met them.

MR BERGER: Would that have been in Botswana?

MR PULE: That is correct.

MR BERGER: Now, if you'd look at your statement, B4, paragraph 15, you say there:

This would have been during the period 1985 to 1986, am I correct?

MR PULE: Yes, that's correct.

MR BERGER: Can you recall what sort of material you provided comrade Robert with, on these various occasions?

MR PULE: Although I would not be certain about that because my job in Swaziland, I worked with quite a number of people there and I gave different materials to different individuals while I was there.

MR BERGER: That was in Swaziland. And what about in Botswana, was the situation the same?

MR PULE: Yes, that was the same even in Botswana. I would not be able to tell what type of material that I gave to him. Like I've already said that I gave different material to different individuals.

MR BERGER: Can you recall what sort of theoretical training you gave Mr McBride?

MR PULE: What I remember is that I trained him how to use the AK47 and the pistol, the grenades, the limpet mines and also how to make the car bomb and how to prepare oneself when you are going to use the car bomb. As far as the political education was concerned, the emphasis was on making sure that when you gave him the material, he won't use that material the way he wanted to, but he would follow the policy of the ANC in as far as using that material, so I told him that he should that material the way he was supposed to do, in line with the policy of the ANC.

MR BERGER: When you say that you gave comrade Robert instruction on how to use the materials in line with the policies of the ANC and so that he didn't use it the way that he wanted to, are you saying that he wanted to use it differently, or are you saying that so that he would not use it according to his own dictates, but that he would use it according to the principles and policies of the ANC, it's not clear what you meant by that.

MR PULE: May you please repeat the question? I did not understand the question.

JUDGE PILLAY: When you provided those materials, that you accepted that those to whom you gave it would use it in a disciplined fashion in terms of the policies of the ANC and its arms struggle.

MR PULE: That is correct.

MR BERGER: Did comrade Robert ever indicate to you that he would use the materials in any way other than in accordance with the principles of the ANC?

MR PULE: What I asked him was only to ensure that he was carrying out what I had told him. That was not only happening to comrade McBride, it also happened to other people that I had trained.

MR BERGER: Please continue.

MR PULE: I will explain why I say that because what happened in South Africa at that time was very hurting because most of the people who were killed at that time, were especially black people, because we differ as people, somebody would use that material and use it in the way that he liked, so you would not know what the person was thinking at that time, so my task was to ensure that the person that I gave the material or the weapons, he would use the weapons in line with the instructions that he is given.

MR BERGER: If I understand your evidence correctly, you're saying this was a general approach that you followed in respect of all cadres of MK, it wasn't something that was specific to comrade Robert?

MR PULE: That is correct. More especially in as far as the soldiers who were coming from South African into Botswana, people like comrade Webster, were people who had already received the training and they were always in line with the ANC policy, so when we were addressing them about the ANC guidelines, it was easy for them to understand, because they had already learned about that.

MR BERGER: Now, Mr Pule, you say that, in paragraph 16, that you don't really know or you can't recall specifically what you were doing around June 1986 and you cannot say whether you provided comrade Robert with the materials that were in fact used in the Why Not explosion, but you say it is quite possible that this is so. Can you elaborate on that for the Committee, why do you say that?

MR PULE: I would not remember everything that I was doing at that time because this happened many years ago. If somebody says to me that I did that, if he says that I gave comrade McBride weapons at that time when we went to bomb at that place, I would not be able to dispute that. Like I've already said that I gave different weapons to different individuals.

MR BERGER: Thank you, Chairperson, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Berger. Mr Dehal, do you have any questions that you would like to put to the witness?

MR DEHAL: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, I do. I see some notes are being handed to me by Mr McBride. Would the Committee please bear with me, for me to go through them?

Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DEHAL: Mr Pule, you've known Robert as Duggie, is that correct? That was his code name?

MR PULE: That's correct.

MR DEHAL: And your code name was Oupa, is that correct?

MR PULE: That's correct.

MR DEHAL: Were you present in these proceedings when Mr Ismail testified?

MR PULE: Yes, I was present.

MR DEHAL: You've heard his testimony, you must have heard that he supported Mr McBride's application and took political responsibility for the acts referred to in Mr McBride's application for amnesty, do you remember that?

MR PULE: Yes, I do.

MR DEHAL: Now to the extent that you participated in any of these activities, relative to Mr McBride, either directly or indirectly, do you support Mr McBride's application for amnesty in that regard?

MR PULE: Yes, I do support his application.

MR DEHAL: For that matter, I see that in your application which is contained in A1, the bundle A1, beginning at page 88, you refer to Mr Ismail's application for amnesty and reiterate same in so far as it relates to you in support thereof, correct?

MR PULE: Yes, I do.

MR DEHAL: In educating Mr McBride, you said you sought to bring him within the guidelines of the ANC and at some stage you mentioned that Gordon Webster had understood these guidelines and also that when you spoke to these comrades, they had by then known of the guidelines, so it was easy for them to understand. Do you recall?

MR PULE: That's correct.

MR DEHAL: Now in so far as Mr McBride himself is concerned, when you came to educate him, you said you met in 1985 and 1986, would you say that he was already politicised, if you'll pardon that term?

MR PULE: What I knew at that time was that the political education that he had received, he had received that education from comrade Gordon Webster.

MR DEHAL: And you gathered that when you discussed discipline, guidelines of the ANC etc. with him, him meaning McBride?

MR PULE: I do not understand the question, may you repeat the question please?

MR DEHAL: Yes, when you met McBride and discussed or educated him in guidelines of the ANC, I'm sure it was evident to you that McBride was by then already aware of these, having been educated by his then Commander in the unit, in South Africa, namely Gordon Webster?

MR PULE: I was certain at that time, because I knew that he was recruited by comrade Gordon Webster and I knew that he would not recruit him and educate him about the use of weapons beside educate, giving him political education.

MR DEHAL: You've heard Mr Ismail in his testimony refer to his satisfaction of Mr McBride and indeed of Mr Gordon Webster, in the way McBride in particular carried out his operations. Remember that?

MR PULE: Yes, I do.

MR DEHAL: Do you also recall Mr Ismail referring to Mr McBride as a hero, as one who is held in high esteem by the ANC and the MK?

MR PULE: Yes, I do remember.

MR DEHAL: Would you confirm that? Would you agree with that view?

MR PULE: Yes, I would agree with that view because that is how I viewed comrade McBride at that time.

MR DEHAL: In so far as the operations that McBride carried out and the ammunition that you had given him to carry out such operations, would you say that you are happy with the way Mr McBride carried out these operations?

CHAIRPERSON: Shouldn't you ask him if he knows how he carried them out and what operations?

MR DEHAL: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. Mr Pule, you've supplied Mr McBride with lots of ammunition from time to time. You mentioned that you did not know precisely for what purpose you would have used this ammunition. Did you get any report back from Mr McBride on operations that he carried out?

MR PULE: I would explain this in as far as reports are concerned, that I've already said that my task was to train the people. What they were going to do at different times, that was the task of comrade Ismail, because he was our overall Commander at that time.

MR DEHAL: Thank you. Now you mentioned in paragraph 16 of the document B4 that you do not have a specific recollection of the period around June 1986 and cannot positively say whether you provided comrade Robert with materials which were used in the Why Not explosion and it is quite possible that you did so. You remember that?

MR PULE: Yes, I do remember.

MR DEHAL: Now you've heard much evidence here and presumably you are familiar from your knowledge obtained otherwise, of how the Why Not operation was carried out by comrade Robert and the others?

MR PULE: That's correct.

MR DEHAL: Would it be correct to say that that whole operation, loosely termed the Why Not operation, where the car bomb exploded, accords with your understanding of the ANC guidelines and falls within the parameters thereof?

MR PULE: Yes, that's correct.

MR DEHAL: Thank you. In paragraph 14, you mention that McBride had called with a lady who was introduced to you. You saw her in his company, you could not recall her name, but that you subsequently learned that she is Greta Apelgren, do you see that?

MR PULE: Yes, I do.

MR DEHAL: Now I understand your evidence as being that whenever you supplied ammunition, limpet mines, grenades, AK47s, pistols etc., you would have handed these to either Gordon Webster or McBride, correct?

MR PULE: May you please repeat that question?

MR DEHAL: Whenever you met with McBride and/or Gordon Webster, even if Ms Apelgren was in their company, is it correct that your handing over of the arms and ammunition for the carrying out of the various operations, would have been done directly by you to McBride or Gordon Webster, not to Apelgren, that Apelgren was in fact a decoy?

MR PULE: When I was with comrade Duggie and comrade Webster, most of the time, comrade Greta wasn't present. We would send her to the hotel. After giving over the weapons, it was then that we'd go and meet her and greet her.

MR DEHAL: Thank you. Did you understand that Greta Apelgren was in fact a decoy? That in circumstances like these, crossing the borders between South Africa, Botswana, Swaziland and the neighbouring countries, it was wise, prudent, advisable, to have a lady in the company of a man for it to appear like it was a couple moving across and suspicions would then not be raised. Did you have that understanding of Greta's role play in this matter?

MR PULE: Yes, I did understand that, In as far as my job at that time, it was necessary that we had a person like comrade Greta.

MR DEHAL: Thank you. Mr Pule, may I just get back to the education you gave to Mr McBride? Did you also, when educating Mr McBride and indeed Gordon Webster, give them ANC literature and literature of other liberation movements based in Africa?

MR PULE: That is correct. I remember one time, we gave him the material and it was packed in his car. We gave him a lot of literature including the Seshaba document and many other ANC materials, so that he could read at home, so that he could understand the policies of the ANC.

MR DEHAL: And when educating him and discussing possible targets, did you discuss with Gordon Webster and Robert McBride and indeed other comrades then in their presence, the possibility of attacking Security Force personnel, places that Security Forces frequent for example pubs, etc?

MR PULE: I do not understand. Can you please explain what you mean by the Security Personnel?

MR DEHAL: In the different operations that Mr McBride would have carried out and in your educating him on the operations that he had to carry out, did you educate him in regard to the need for Security Force personnel to be attacked?

MR PULE: Yes, that's correct.

MR DEHAL: And in the execution of such operations, did you also educate him about places that Security Force personnel frequent, for example pubs, drinking places?

MR PULE: To attack the Security ...(indistinct), it did not matter where they were, as long as you knew where they would always gather, then you would attack them.

MR DEHAL: Yes. Now Mr Pule, if I may just by example deal with this, when dealing with substations, the planting of limpet mines, is it correct that in educating McBride, you would talk about different substations in different areas and perhaps areas where substations are more further away from residential areas, so as to have minimal civilian casualties, correct?

MR PULE: That is correct.

MR DEHAL: And by the same token, when dealing with Security Force personnel, policemen in uniform and not in uniform, you would have discussed different places in South Africa, which would have been more opportune to attack, so as to achieve your objective of attacking Security Force personnel, correct?

MR RICHARD: Chairperson, while I understand we're not in a trial, I would submit, my learned colleague is over leading the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, that is cross-examination as well, cross-examination in inverted commas, yes. I think perhaps if you can ask questions, rather than just making statements and calling for an answer to whether it's correct or not.

MR DEHAL: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. Would pubs, frequented by Security Force Personnel, be a legitimate target?

MR PULE: That is correct.

MR DEHAL: Did Mr McBride and Mr Webster tell you that they had reconnoitred a few places in South Africa for the carrying out of car bombs?

MR PULE: Do you mean that they had already prepared their car bombs and they already knew where the place, they would attack?

MR DEHAL: No, I'm asking you this question in line with paragraph 16 of the 4, which deals with comrade Robert and the materials that you supplied him and that you said that these materials were possibly used by him in the Why Not? explosion. Do you see that?

MR PULE: Yes, I do see that, but I do not understand your original question.

MR DEHAL: The question is this, at the time you gave them the material, which would possibly have been used in the Why Not? explosion, and perhaps before, did McBride and you discuss, indeed with Gordon Webster as well, that they, meaning McBride and Gordon Webster, had already reconnoitred a few places.

MR BERGER: Chairperson if I can just jump in there. My learned friend is referring to paragraph 16. At that time comrade Gordon had been injured and was long since out of the country.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think that was in April, wasn't it.

MR BERGER: May 1986.

JUDGE PILLAY: Mr Berger, the question relates to reconnaissance, not the commission of any act.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but he referred to paragraph 16. I think what Mr Berger is saying, is during June or 1986, he discussed - the question was that he had discussed with Mr McBride and Mr Webster, what Mr Berger is pointing out is that in June 1986, Mr Webster was not ...

MR BERGER: In the picture anymore.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DEHAL: I accept that. My apologies, I agree with you. The question perhaps more rightly put would be the following, it's dealing with reconnaissance basically, before Easter 1986 and during general discussions, did you and McBride and indeed Gordon Webster discuss their having already reconnoitred a few places in South Africa to carry out those car bombs?

MR PULE: I already knew that he had discussed that with comrade Ismail who was our Commander. The question of whether they were going to attack and when, that did not concern me, because that concerned only our Commander. They would decide which places and at what time they would attack because they were the people who were inside the country then.

MR DEHAL: Thank you, Mr Pule, I accept that. I'm not saying that Mr McBride expressively discussed any given spots, but that in general discussions with you, both during education and at the time you gave him arms for a car bomb, sorry arms generally, was it discussed that McBride and Webster had already reconnoitred legitimate targets in South Africa?

MR PULE: I do not remember clearly because most of the time when they arrived at Botswana, we would make sure that comrade Ismail was present so that he could hold discussions with them, because he was our overall Commander then.

MR DEHAL: Okay, to the extent that you don't remember, I don't want to sound unfair to you, could you say that there is a possibility that such discussions did take place, but because of the length of time you can't remember it now?

MR PULE: There is that possibility because we would discuss targets that they wanted to attack. There is a possibility that we did have a discussion about the targets at that time, although I do not remember.

MR DEHAL: And to the extent that you may have discussed targets, do you recall whether you discussed that such targets might have been in line with Kabwe and that they could go ahead with such targets?

MR PULE: I do remember. In our discussions of targets, we would always consider the agreements, the Kabwe agreements.

MR DEHAL: Mr Chairperson, might I just confer with my client to see if there's anything more? Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps this would be a convenient stage at which to take the tea adjournment. I see it's quarter past eleven. We'll take a short tea adjournment.

MR DEHAL: Thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DEHAL: (cont.)

Will you please tell this Committee how a car bomb is made?

JUDGE PILLAY: How relevant is that Mr Dehal? You run the risk of doing your client a dis-service. Don't we have all this evidence already from Mr Ismail?

MR DEHAL: Sorry Judge, my client was also talking to me at the time.

JUDGE PILLAY: I'm just suggesting, I'm not saying you must stop, but I'm pointing out to you that you have all these answers, you run the risk of doing your client a dis-service by getting a wrong answer.

MR DEHAL: I accept that. I have no further questions. Thank you. I'm indebted to you.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Kooverjee, do you have any questions you'd like to put to the applicant?

MS KOOVERJEE: None, thank you, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Richard, would you like to put some questions to the applicant?

MR RICHARD: I believe I do, thank you, Chair.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD: Mr Pule, my first question is, how many code names did you have, did you have one or more?

MR PULE: I had many code names and that would depend on the place where I am at that particular time.

MR RICHARD: Now you've already, in answer to one of Mr Dehal's questions, indicated that one of them was Oupa, is that correct?

MR PULE: That's correct.

MR RICHARD: Where you ever called Chris?

MR PULE: Chris was my fellow comrade. He used to work with me.

CHAIRPERSON: The question was, were you ever called Chris, as a code name?

MR PULE: No, I was never called that way.

MR RICHARD: So that means where I read in here the name Chris, there is no possibility of confusion?

MR PULE: That would be a mistake.

MR RICHARD: Thank you. Now, Victor, whose code name was Victor?

MR PULE: That was Mnisi's code name.

MR RICHARD: And by the same token, Mr Mnisi never, for the sake of confusion or misleading people, used the name Oupa or Chris?

MR PULE: As far as I remember, no.

MR RICHARD: So that means, there's only one other code name that I need to clarify here. Who was Tommy, Tommy Masinga?

MR PULE: That was Chris.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, that's the next question. Who was Chris?

MR PULE: His real name was Lester Dumakude.

MR PULE: I'm sorry, I know that code names were meant to do exactly this. I just have to be careful. So that means where I read Tommy or Chris, they always mean Mr Dumakude?

MR PULE: When there is reference to Chris and to Tommy Masinga, that refers to Lester Dumakude.

MR RICHARD: And also when I read in this context here, Oupa, were there any other Oupas?

MR PULE: In my unit I was the only person referred to as Oupa.

MR RICHARD: Thank you. Now we go back to Annexure B1. On the 16th of June 1976 ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: That would be B4, I think.

MR RICHARD: B4, paragraph 5. On the 16th of June 1976, where exactly were you, can you recall? Chair, I haven't heard an answer.

CHAIRPERSON: I haven't either. The question, Mr Pule, was where were you on the 16th of June 1976? Can you remember? If so can you tell us please?

MR PULE: Yes, I do remember, I was in Soweto that day.

MR RICHARD: Where in Soweto and what were you doing that day?

MR PULE: On the day of the 16th June 1976, I participated in the demonstrations launched by the students.

MR BERGER: I'm sorry, could I just interrupt for a moment? It's got nothing to do with my learned friend's questions. Apparently there's a problem with the head phones again, could we try another set of head phones?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly, Mr Berger. Sometimes it's the connection into this little box that's faulty and there must also preferably be a clear run from these little lights to the machine there, that makes it clearer. Yes, the last answer, Mr Richard, was that he participated in the demonstrations that took place in Soweto on the 16th of June.

MR RICHARD: Thank you. That's correct, that is what I heard. Now what do you mean by participated?

MR BERGER: Chairperson, is this really relevant to any inquiry that this Committee is seized with?

MR RICHARD: It's relevant in the sense that, with regard to some matters, the witness has a less than clear recollection, but the 16th of June was a particularly noteworthy date in history and if he can remember what he did on the 16th if may be of some value in argument later, when I've finished the line of questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, as long as we don't have to find out what he did every minute of the whole day of the 16th and be here for 24 hours listening to it. I think the question, Mr Pule is, how did you participate in those demonstrations that took place? What sort of role did you play?

MR PULE: I was a member of the SRC at school, so we had already met before that day. In our meeting we discussed how we would help the young kids at primary in Pefene. They were demonstrating against the education that was rendered in Afrikaans and they were against that and they were also objecting to the beatings by the police.

MR RICHARD: Thank you. Now that resulted in you going into exile that August and you've already outlined your career, first in Swaziland, via the USSR to Botswana. Now when did you return from exile?

MR PULE: I returned from exile in September 1989.

CHAIRPERSON: No, that's incorrect.

MR DEHAL: He said September the 1st, 1991.

MR RICHARD: I confirm that's also what I heard.

MR PULE: I returned from exile in September 1991.

MR RICHARD: Thank you. That was your first answer, for the sake of clarity. Now during that period between August 1996 and September 1991...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I think you mean 1976.

MR RICHARD: 1976, correct, did you ever cross the border back into the Republic of South Africa for any reason or at any time?

MR PULE: I would cross the border, more especially when I was helping the soldiers who were coming into the country.

MR RICHARD: And once you had crossed into the Republic, were you ever part of any action or operation, other than helping the soldiers get back into either Swaziland or Botswana, as the case might have been?

MR PULE: Can you explain that question further?

MR RICHARD: My question is, from your evidence so far, we understand that you recruited people, you trained people and now we hear that you crossed into the South African Republic and your statement was, to help soldiers returning. Is that all you ever did while in South Africa, during that period between August 1976 and September 1991, while in South Africa?

MR PULE: If I understand your question well, my coming to South Africa, that was when I was helping the soldiers who were crossing into the country and then I would return back. Sometimes it would happen that I also come into the country for a particular mission.

MR RICHARD: Now, what were those missions?

MR PULE: For example, the attack in Braklaagte, in North West.

MR RICHARD: Was anyone injured in the Braklaagte attack?

MR BERGER: Chairperson, the Braklaagte attack is the subject of another incident, which is not before this Committee and I submit the details of that attack are not relevant.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, there is reference made to it in the application form in which the witness says he's not sure whether people were injured, but he learned from reports later that in fact people were killed.

MR RICHARD: Nothing turns on it, I will without conceding the point proceed. Now ...(indistinct)

JUDGE PILLAY: Why was the question then asked, if nothing turns on it?

MR RICHARD: I accept that if it's the subject matter of another hearing, it will be explored somewhere else. There is no reason for me to carry on on that point. Now, other than the Braklaagte attack, were there any other incidents?

MR PULE: There are no other incidents where I was directly involved. Other attacks that concerned me, my involvement was in as far as supplying the weapons to those people who were going to attack those places.

MR RICHARD: So, for the purposes of this line of questioning, all I needed to know was that there was only one incident within the Republic of South Africa, during that period 1976 to 1991 and I leave it there.

INTERPRETER: It seems the applicant has a problem with his receiver.

MR RICHARD: I'll repeat.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Richard, yes please, I was just going to ask if you could repeat your question.

MR RICHARD: What I'm trying to establish, and I'll outline it in full, we've now established that there was one incident at Braklaagte which you've referred to during the period 1976 to September 1991, which took place within the borders of the Republic of South Africa. I'm now asking you this question. Can you confirm that there were no other incidents within the Republic of South Africa, besides that incident?

MR BERGER: Chairperson, the witness has already explained that on numerous occasions. He entered into the Republic of South Africa to assist soldiers entering South Africa on their way to carry out certain missions.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what Mr Richard is getting at is whether the Braklaagte incident was the only mission, I think we use the word mission or operation in which the applicant participated in the action.

MR BERGER: And he's already said so, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: That's what my understanding was, it was the only one inside the Republic.

MR RICHARD: I take it as then confirmed. So then with regard to the subject matter of the current hearing, please confirm that all and everything that you did, took place outside the Republic of South Africa.

MR PULE: Yes, I would agree with you. Like I've already said that in other incidents I was indirectly involved.

MR RICHARD: But in relation to this particular sequence of incidents that we're discussing during these hearings, as you've said, other incidents you were involved, but not these.

JUDGE PILLAY: His answer was that he wasn't directly involved.

MR RICHARD: And the indirect involvement was indirectly while you were outside the Republic of South Africa?

MR PULE: That's correct.

MR RICHARD: Thank you. Now I take it then that you'd never on any one occasion helped Mr McBride or Mr Webster, or any one of the applicants in this hearing while on the South African side of the border, to either exit or enter the Republic or Botswana as the case might have been?

MR PULE: Can you please explain that question further?

CHAIRPERSON: The question asked is, did you at any stage assist or help any of the applicants at this hearing in South Africa? Is that the question?

MR RICHARD: Correct.

MR BERGER: There was none, but just for clarity, is the question whether this witness ever helped Mr McBride or Mr Webster or any of the other applicants in this hearing, on the South African side of the border as they were coming in or going out from operations?

MR RICHARD: Yes, that is correct, thank you.

MR PULE: I have never helped them.

MR RICHARD: And I take the statement, "I've never helped them", to mean on the South African side of the border. You helped them on the other side of the border?

MR PULE: You question was that whether I helped the people who are my co-applicants here, particularly Mr Robert McBride, so my answer was that I never helped Mr McBride.

MR RICHARD: My next question then is, if you say you never helped Mr McBride, that answer means you never helped him either on the South African side of the border or on any other side of the border in any other country.

MR BERGER: No Chairperson, it clearly doesn't mean that at all.

MR DEHAL: My submissions would be the same.

CHAIRPERSON: I think if you can go back to the original question and put it again, Mr Richard, because there seems to be a bit of confusion here.

MR RICHARD: I understand the confusion. Did you ever help Mr McBride, or Mr Webster or any of those mentioned as applicants in this hearing?

JUDGE PILLAY: To commit the crimes?

CHAIRPERSON: I think there might be difficulty or confusion relating to the word help, because we've heard evidence quite clearly that he supplied materials, he performed political education, he did some training, certainly with Mr McBride and with Mr Webster. I think perhaps if you can just be a little bit more precise, that might be the problem.

MR BERGER: And also now, Chairperson, there's now residual confusion and my learned friend somehow needs to clear the slate and start again with this line of ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think so. Let's start again.

MR RICHARD: The essence of what I am trying to establish, and I will explain it, from what you've said earlier this morning, you did assist Mr McBride and Mr Webster at various points in time, to do various things and I will ask you what you did later, while in Botswana. However, you did nothing to assist or help them once they left Botswana and that's the proposition that I'm asking you to confirm. The next question would be ...(intervention)

JUDGE PILLAY: Mr Richard, just let us stop there. Helping a person could be financial or any other way. Let us get to the crux of the matter. How are you saying, or asking, did this applicant help Mr McBride?

MR RICHARD: The next proposition is quite simple. If everything that he did was outside the border, whatever it was, the question is, what did he do outside the border, because from his evidence-in-chief, I'm less than clear what he did.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you have any dealings with Mr McBride or any of the other applicants in South Africa, when you were physically present in South Africa, is that what you're trying to ...

MR RICHARD: Correct, I'm happy with that as a proposition.

MR PULE: I've never helped Mr McBride in South Africa.

MR RICHARD: Thank you. I'll proceed then. Now, please refer to paragraph 17 or Exhibit B4. At the second sentence of that paragraph, you state,:

Do you see the sentence I have just read?

MR PULE: Yes, I do.

MR RICHARD: Now, from what you said in your evidence-in-chief, it means, and I asked you, can you recall whether you provided anything at all, any material at all to either Mr McBride or to Mr Webster.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, with respect, my learned friend is quoting one sentence out of a statement. He doesn't quote paragraph 15 and the witness has given specific evidence in relation to 15 as well.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think the question's unfair, because the question was simply whether he can recall whether he provided any material at all. He can answer it. The question was, can you recall whether you provided any material at all to Mr McBride or Mr Webster. That is the question.

MR PULE: Yes.

MR RICHARD: So then, can you recall what you provided in the form of material to Mr McBride or his unit, or to Mr Webster?

MR PULE: Yes, there is a material that I remember.

MR RICHARD: What material was it?

MR PULE: That's a limpet, AK47s, grenades and bullets.

MR RICHARD: Did you supply any explosive devices as well, besides limpets?

MR PULE: Yes.

MR RICHARD: Now, you were present when Mr Ismail gave the evidence that Mr McBride attended to the fetching and collection and transporting of his own materials. Is that in accordance with your memory as well?

MR PULE: Yes, I do.

MR RICHARD: Now, in your evidence-in-chief, it was said and I gained the impression and I'm now clarifying, that when Mr McBride or Mr Webster, either jointly or severally, collected material, you did not know what the material was intended for, other than the general purpose of what the material was used for?

MR PULE: That's correct.

MR RICHARD: Now to be specific, did anyone ever tell you that specifically a car bomb attack was being planned in and during the period between March 86 to June 86?

MR PULE: No one told me about that.

MR RICHARD: Would there ...(intervention).

JUDGE PILLAY: Why did you train Mr McBride in creating car bombs?

MR PULE: When I trained somebody about the making of bombs, that does not necessarily mean that he's going to make that car bomb the following day or the next week. That would depend on my Commander, his plans, so my task was only to train the person the way it was required from me.

JUDGE PILLAY: Right, I just want to find out then, when you train him, when you're satisfied that he's able to do that, you expect him to use that knowledge at some time or other in the future, not so? You're not going to train him for nothing.

MR PULE: That's correct.

JUDGE PILLAY: Yes. Yes, Mr Richard.

MR RICHARD: How many people did you train to make car bombs?

MR PULE: I cannot remember the number.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you give us an approximation, perhaps, more or less? Was it a great number of people? More than 10, more than 100, just one?

MR PULE: It can be about 7, between 4 and 7, but I am not sure about the number, but that can be between 4 and 7.

MR RICHARD: Now it's true to say that you not only supplied Mr McBride with material, that you supplied other people as well, isn't that correct?

MR PULE: That's correct.

MR RICHARD: Now, I know you can't give me a precise answer, out of the material you supplied during the first half of 1986, how many car bombs approximately could have been made?

MR PULE: There is no number of kilograms that you use when making the car bombs, it depends on the person who has reconnoitred the place, who knows the target, that's the person who knows how many or how much kilograms will be needed for that particular target, I cannot precisely say.

MR RICHARD: So, I understand from your answer that of the equipment you supplied to various operatives during the first half of 1986, many car bombs could have been made.

MR PULE: Can you please repeat the question?

MR RICHARD: You supplied various people with ordnance, materials, explosives, hand grenades, etc. during the first half of 1986. If you take the total quantity of materials you supplied to the various people you did supply during the first half of that year, say till the end of June that year, my proposition which I put to you is, is it not true that many car bombs could have been constructed out of that material?

MR PULE: I have thought that I have already explained that. I said you cannot precisely say how many kilograms are going to be used for that car bomb, it will depend on the person who has reconnoitred the target, how many kilograms he wants for that particular target.

MR RICHARD: Now, would you know when people or a person, or a group came and drew equipment from you, whether they were going to make a car bomb, or go and blow up a bridge, or blow up a building?

MR PULE: I can give you the material that you use for the car bomb, but you're the person who's going to use that material. When you find yourself in that particular situation, if you realise that it will not be necessary to make a car bomb, you can also use that material in other targets, on numerous occasions, so when a person comes to collect material, that does not mean that when he comes to collect that material he's going to use it for the making of a car bomb.

MR RICHARD: And it also means that when you give material to a particular operative, you've got no particular way of knowing what he's going to use it for, you've already said, it's not your part of the actions, it's our Commander's.

MR PULE: Yes, that's correct. As far as my knowledge, at least I would know that he may use that material for a particular, for making a particular thing, but I would not precisely know what he's going to make.

MR RICHARD: Mow, did anyone ever report to you what either Mr Webster or Mr McBride or any one of their unit's members did while in South Africa?

MR PULE: In our discussions with our Commander, Aboobaker Ismail, there were things that he would discuss with us. He would tell us that certain things had happened, like for example when the transformers were made at substations, he would discuss such things.

MR RICHARD: Does that mean that you were told that Mr Webster's unit, to which Mr McBride belonged, had blown up a transformer?

MR PULE: Yes, our Commander discussed that with us.

MR RICHARD: Thank you. Now for the sake of clarity, you say you trained various people and now I want to know, did you train Mr Webster, Gordon Webster?

MR PULE: Like I've already said, Gordon Webster was already trained, so my training in Botswana, I cannot say that was training as such, it was just to remind him of certain things that he already knew at that time.

MR RICHARD: Now I'm going to put it very simply. Did you or did you not know that Mr Webster had trained Mr McBride?

MR PULE: I did know.

MR RICHARD: Then my next question is, was there any need for you to train Mr McBride?

MR PULE: Yes, there was a need.

MR RICHARD: Why was there a need?

MR PULE: I have already explained that Gordon Webster already had the knowledge, he was already trained, so I had to ensure that he remembered certain things, so when he came to bring comrade McBride in Botswana, I had to ensure that comrade McBride understood everything that he was told by him, so that I could be satisfied that he was told everything.

MR RICHARD: Now how did you go about that task of finding out whether Mr Webster had properly trained Mr McBride?

MR PULE: I would ask him questions concerning matters that I was supposed to train him in. That was just to ensure that he understood everything that he was told.

MR RICHARD: And what opinion did you form of Mr McBride's training by Mr Webster?

MR PULE: I was satisfied.

MR RICHARD: So to go back to the beginning of the sequence, did you teach Mr McBride how to do anything, if you were satisfied that Mr Webster had trained Mr McBride?

INTERPRETER: The applicant does not understand the question.

MR RICHARD: After you had questioned Mr McBride, so as to check that he had been properly trained by Mr Webster, I understand you were satisfied that Mr Webster had done his job well and Mr McBride was properly trained. Is my understanding correct?

MR PULE: That's correct.

MR RICHARD: It then follows that there was no need particularly for you to train Mr McBride.

MR PULE: That was not so.

MR RICHARD: That is why I asked you, what, after you had satisfied yourself as to the quality of Mr McBride's training, if anything, did you teach Mr McBride?

MR PULE: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: I think, what Mr Richard is getting at, Mr Pule, is you said that Mr Webster had trained Mr McBride and you then asked Mr McBride certain questions, just to satisfy yourself and to ensure that Mr McBride had been properly trained by Mr Webster and you asked these questions, and then you arrived at the conclusion, yes, he was properly trained. Now, what Mr Richard is asking you is, once you had done that, once you had satisfied yourself that he had been properly trained by Mr Webster, did you yourself teach him anything new? Did you teach him any new skills at all, yourself, teach Mr McBride any new skills?

MR PULE: I would explain it this way, although I will deviate from this point. For example when you play soccer, playing for a first division team and then you are recruited by another team in the first division, when you arrive at that team, that does not mean because you come from another team, you'll just be given a jersey and be allowed to play. The trainer in that team will ensure that this person receives training according to his own methods. That does not mean that he was never trained where he comes from. Even his present coach will realise that this guy has been trained, it is just to ensure that this person will be according to the standards required by that particular coach, so coming back to the question, because I realised that comrade McBride was already trained and I was satisfied about that, I was just ensuring that he understood everything to my satisfaction.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Richard.

MR RICHARD: So, while I understand from your analogy that you improved Mr McBride's game, to use the analogy, and tactics and techniques, you didn't in fact teach him anything basic or new?

MR PULE: That is not so.

MR RICHARD: Then I ask the question again, what new matter do you remember teaching Mr McBride?

JUDGE PILLAY: Or easier, how did you improve on the training?

MR PULE: The knowledge that he received from Mr McBride inside the country, concerning certain things, he was able to train him, so I was unable to train him because I was based in Botswana and the conditions in Botswana were different from conditions in South Africa then. If I remember well, it's not everything that he was trained in by Gordon Webster, that they had in the country, so when he arrived in Botswana, I was just ensuring that he understood everything that he was told by Mr Gordon Webster.

MR RICHARD: Now when it came to training, there were two parts. There was practical and theoretical. Now matters such as, as you said before, the Kabwe directives, would be theoretical. Do you understand my proposition in that regard? Do you understand that the Kabwe directives were theoretical?

MR PULE: Do you mean as far as training comrade Gordon?

CHAIRPERSON: I think just ask the question, you don't have to get into whether Kabwe was theoretical or not, just get to the question about what was practical and theoretical, what he did, I think.

MR RICHARD: When you trained people, you would do a number of things. Amongst the things that you would do, is teach them how to use hand grenades, AK47s, limpet mines and so on and you would also teach them what was expected of them in terms of policy. Is that correct?

MR PULE: That's correct.

MR RICHARD: Now, I also go then from your evidence-in-chief to say it was your particular responsibility that they complied with policy, was it not?

MR BERGER: Chairperson, is that a question, or is that a summary of the witness's evidence-in-chief?

MR RICHARD: Was it your particular responsibility to ensure that people you trained, complied with policy?

MR PULE: That's correct.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, can I just come in here? How did you ensure that the people you trained complied with policy?

MR PULE: When you train them, like I've already explained, even though there was a confusion inside the country then, concerning the killing of innocent people in the country, we as Commanders, we were able to think that a person who is inside the country can think that he's fed up about what was happening in the country, so when we give that particular person the weapons, he will use those weapons the way he wants to use them, for example, at that time the Boers would just kill the kids the way they wished. Any person would take a limpet mine and put it in a crèche and kill the kids, so those were the things that we would discuss with the person before we give him the material, to ensure that he's always within the policies of the ANC.

ADV SIGODI: But the question is, was it possible for you being outside of the country, to ensure that whoever you gave the weapon, would use the weapons in the way in which you had instructed him to do so? Was it possible for you to have control over those people, whilst they are inside the country?

MR PULE: It would be difficult for me to answer that question because the person on his own would have his own thinking. Like I've already stated in my example, you can sometimes explain everything to the person but when he arrived in the country, he would do what he sees necessary for him to do, so we would help them by explaining the policies of the ANC in as far as missions are concerned.

ADV SIGODI: So do I understand you correctly, that what you are saying is that all you could do was to teach people what the policy was and how to use the arms, but it was not possible for you to ensure that the person would carry out that policy if that person was inside the country, in so far as your mandate was concerned. Do I understand you correctly?

MR PULE: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Richard.

MR RICHARD: Thank you. Now, when, in your evidence-in-chief, you said it was your responsibility to recruit people in South Africa, how did you go about doing that? You gave the example of your brother, he phoned you, but other than that example, how did you go about recruiting people?

MR PULE: I'll give you an example. If I wanted to train a person, I would use somebody that I knew that he was regularly coming into Botswana and then I will send that person to a particular person that I want to meet and I'll give him the message to tell that person that I want to meet him. So that is how I would bring in people into Botswana, then I would discuss everything with him and when he agrees, I'll give him training.

MR RICHARD: Now how would you identify a person to communicate with, to send a message to come and see you?

MR PULE: There were many people that I knew in Botswana. From time to time they would come into South Africa and in South Africa as well, there were people who were going to Botswana from time to time, so in that way I was able to talk to them and send them, give them the message.

MR RICHARD: I'm sorry I've lost half my ...

CHAIRPERSON: Did you get that answer, Mr Richard?

MR RICHARD: I understood the answer. Now, so that means in effect that you would have a method of taking the message to somebody. Now how would you select who to send the message to? How would you know who would be receptive to the message?

MR PULE: I don't understand your question, would you please repeat?

MR RICHARD: You want to recruit somebody in South Africa. You've said there were people you knew in Botswana, people in South Africa who went in and out of Botswana, now you want to recruit, to use an example, somebody in South Africa. On what basis and how would you know who in South Africa should be recruited? How would you get the information as to who in South Africa would be receptive to the suggestion of recruitment?

MR PULE: I was using people that I knew, that they were coming into South Africa on a regular basis and I would send him to the people that I knew in South Africa. The person that I would send, I would give him full information concerning the person that I want, and then he would bring the phone numbers of that particular person and then I would keep contact with that person.

MR RICHARD: So it was based, who you recruited was based on your memory of who was in South Africa and you were out of South Africa from 1976 to 1991?

MR BERGER: Chairperson, this is very interesting, but with respect, it's really got no relevance.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it going to be denied that he was recruiting people? What is the relevance of this, in respect of your clients?

MR RICHARD: The relevance is that as far as I can understand, everything that this applicant did as far as this particular transaction and these particular events that we're considering, was outside the South African border and in fact there's no amnesty ...(indistinct)

CHAIRPERSON: I think that's what you've established already.

MR RICHARD: Having said that, I'm not quite sure how much further to go, except in relation to what might be useful when it comes to questioning Mr McBride.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I don't know if that's recruiting, if, how he recruited people and why and how he did it, telephone calls and sending messages, it's not going to really take us much further.

MR RICHARD: Chair, I accept it was an overkill, I've established the extra-territorial activity.

JUDGE PILLAY: You almost revived it.

MR RICHARD: To end before one, I simply go to paragraph 16 of B4, do you confirm what you say there?

Is that what you confirm?

MR BERGER: No Chairperson, it goes a little further than that.

CHAIRPERSON: It's quite possible that this is so.

MR RICHARD: My next question is...

CHAIRPERSON: I mean, that's the question, do you confirm that paragraph?

MR PULE: That is correct.

MR RICHARD: And it's equally possible that you did not?

CHAIRPERSON: I think that's, isn't that a natural conclusion, if it's possible that it's so, then it's possible that it's not so as well, because possibility's got a meaning.

MR RICHARD: Before I conclude, may I confirm with the applicant, the respondents that ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, perhaps Mr Prior wants to ask a couple of questions. Do you mind...

ADV PRIOR: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I was going to suggest that in order to save some time, I've only got one or two points to canvass and possibly if Mr Richard needs to come back to anything, he can do that after I've, unless there's an objection.

CHAIRPERSON: Well you can do it, it doesn't really matter.

ADV PRIOR: Thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV PRIOR: Mr Pule, from the information which was collated and put before the Committee, we understand that Mr McBride was in Botswana from the 6th to the 11th of June 1986. Are you aware of that or have you seen any information, have you read any of the documents that were prepared in this matter which may jog, or not, your memory?

MR PULE: Yes, I did see that in the papers.

ADV PRIOR: And it would seem that three days after that, he returned to the Republic on the 11th of June and on the 14th of June the car bomb exploded at the Parade Hotel, that's on the information that we have. Were you, there's also information that you were arrested on the 11th of June 1986, can you remember that event?

MR PULE: You mean the 11th of June?

ADV PRIOR: If that's not the correct date, then you can say so, but were you arrested at about that time?

MR PULE: Who arrested me? Are you referring to Botswana police or South African police?

CHAIRPERSON: The question was, were you arrested by anybody on or about the 11th of June?

MR PULE: Yes, I was arrested in Botswana, but I do not remember the exact date.

ADV PRIOR: I just refer to the Committee to paragraph 13, or page 13 of A1, which was information put together by our investigative unit. It's basically for background. I want to just try and get the witness to, maybe he recalls that particular period. If it was the 11th of June, it would seem that you were in Botswana at the time when Mr McBride was taking instruction from Mr Ismail and a final briefing about what was to happen when he returned to the Republic. If you can't remember that, sorry I ...

CHAIRPERSON: What is the question?

MR PULE: I do not remember.

ADV PRIOR: I stopped because I see Mr Pule seems to be conferring with people to his left, I don't want to ...

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Pule if you could just concentrate on what Mr Prior's asking you.

MR DEHAL: Sorry, may I just correct for the record. Mr Pule was not conferring with me at all. Mr McBride was talking to me, sorry and my volume is being used by Mr Pule and I just thought out of courtesy I should ...

ADV PRIOR: Yes, I simply raised it, that's why I stopped, because I saw he was...

CHAIRPERSON: If you could just put the question.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, but before Mr Prior puts the question, we don't know where this information comes from, but if one reads that whole paragraph, it seems that the information is a little faulty. It talks about Mr Pule now being the Ambassador to Botswana.

JUDGE PILLAY: He's allegedly.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think just get to the crux of it.

ADV PRIOR: He can deny it with respect, I don't, you know, if we can just get on with it. He says he was arrested, he can't remember if it was at that time and I've invited him, if it wasn't the 11th of June, then he can say so. Are you saying you can't remember being arrested on the 11th of June?

MR PULE: I do not dispute that because I was arrested on a number of occasions in Botswana.

ADV PRIOR: Alright, do you have any recollection of seeing Mr McBride in Botswana between the 16th and the 11th of June 1986? I know your statement has said you have no ...

CHAIRPERSON: Between the 6th and the 11th.

ADV PRIOR: Between the 6th and the 11th, yes.

MR PULE: I do not remember the date, but I am sure that that was before the 16th when I met him.

ADV PRIOR: And we heard yesterday from Mr Ismail that on that occasion, or over that period, before he returned to the Republic, he had been shown how to construct a car bomb. Were you present on those occasions?

MR PULE: Even though I was in Botswana then, when Mr Ismail gave instructions to comrade McBride, I wasn't present.

ADV PRIOR: So, if I may put it at this level, if it is correct that shortly before his return to the Republic, that is before the 14th of June when the bomb was detonated, would there have likely been any discussion regarding the reason for exploding or detonating such a bomb? In other words a symbolic reason, for example the commemoration of June 16th? Would that have likely have been the motivation for sending someone in to detonate a car bomb?

MR PULE: I would ask you to repeat the question, it was very long.

ADV PRIOR: I'll leave it.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Richard, do you want to confer with you client?

MR RICHARD: What I do need to say, there are bundles of documents which I have in my possession, which do refer to Mr Pule, but in the light of what's happened, I don't intend to traverse those documents one by one with him. As long as my failure to do it with Mr Pule doesn't prejudice me later, I'll leave it.

ADV PRIOR: Sorry, I haven't finished Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, sorry, I thought you had.

ADV PRIOR: I said I'd leave that aspect, I wasn't getting anywhere with the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, sorry.

ADV PRIOR: There's just one other aspect. In the bundle that was put up at page, that's A1 Mr Chairman, if I can just get the reference, page 152, paginated bundle A1, reference is ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prior, if you could just quote that reference again, I missed it.

ADV PRIOR: Mr Chairman, yes, it's bundle A1 at paginated page 152. Reference is made to an unsigned statement of Mr McBride, at paragraph 168. There's some suggestion there that Oupa, someone Oupa, had emphasised that the car bomb should be set off on or before the 14th of June 1986. The question is, do you have any recollection of that, if you are Oupa?

MR PULE: I do not remember me saying that.

MR DEHAL: Sorry, may I just come in at this stage Mr Chairman? I don't think Mr Prior is intending to be misleading, but he used the words "Mr McBride's unsigned statement". It will later be contested that this, it will be placed on record through Mr McBride that this is not his statement, signed or unsigned. He's neither the author of the document, nor was anything therein extracted from him.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Dehal. Yes, Mr Prior.

ADV PRIOR: I really have nothing further. May I just simply put a remark on record, that this was the type of situation that we sought to avoid, by holding a pre-hearing consultation. I've indicated to other of my colleagues that a lot of the confusion would have been sorted out, if we had been able to all attend such a hearing, because the bundles were prepared and obviously it would seem from yesterday's proceedings and today, there is a lot of the information has been put up that is not accepted, so now we're sitting with a situation with a whole lot of information that we don't really know the status of and if we're going to have to be put to the proof thereof, we're going to possibly take more time than has been allocated. Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Prior.

MR RICHARD: The statement to which Mr Dehal and Mr Prior have now referred, is going to be the subject matter of hot debate. I will insist that it be proved, because it is peppered with corroboratable evidence and factual allegations and I don't believe it can be left in the status that it be simply withdrawn.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I think Mr Prior's now heard what you've said and has been forewarned.

MR RICHARD: And neither do I want to be prejudiced by the same token, by not putting references to this witness in this document, to him, but subject to that I close my cross-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Mr Berger, do you have any re-examination?

MR BERGER: Very briefly, Chairperson.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR BERGER: Mr Pule, you were asked by Mr Richard, how did you ensure that people complied with policy, with ANC policy and your answer was: "We as Commanders were able to do certain things." I beg your pardon, it wasn't Mr Richard, it was Adv Sigodi who asked the question. Do I understand by your answer that ensuring that cadres received proper training with regards ANC policy and guidelines was not your responsibility alone, it was the responsibility of all the Commanders in Botswana?

MR PULE: That is correct.

MR BERGER: And would it follow from that that it was also the responsibility of your Commanders? In other words, that it fell within the responsibility of you, Chris, Rashid, all the Commanders to ensure that cadres understood ANC policy and guidelines?

MR PULE: That is correct.

MR BERGER: Now, I'd like to refer you to page 13 of A1. This is a document apparently compiled by some investigators of the TRC. In relation to you, the information there is that Oupa could be L E Pule, who was allegedly responsible for despatching three consignments of arms to the Republic of South Africa during March 1986 and who resided at 13 000, Extension 46, Gaberone, perhaps with Webster and McBride. Now up to that point. Did you reside at number 13 000, Extension 46, Gaberone?

MR PULE: I do not remember where, I don't know where the origin of this information, because I stayed in different places in Botswana. I was changing places from time to time. I cannot specifically say that I resided in a particular place in Botswana, so I really don't know where this information comes from, I do not understand it.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Berger, we as a Committee won't be making any findings of facts based on that particular document, on the report, if that's what you concern is, I mean, we'll only make a finding that Mr Pule was arrested on the 11th of June, if we have evidence to that effect, we won't rely on that document or the same with any address that he may have been at or any other allegation contained in that document.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, I understand that, I just want to place this whole paragraph in context for Mr Pule himself as well, because the next sentence is perhaps more relevant. It says Mr Pule, and perhaps you can, this will jog your memory or not, it says:

Now do you recall ever being arrested with limpet detonators and electric detonators?

MR PULE: That is not true.

MR BERGER: And you say you were arrested a number of times, but you can't recall the specific dates.

MR PULE: That is correct.

MR BERGER: "He was deported on the 24th of August 1986 without being charged and returned to Botswana allegedly in October 1986." Is there any truth in that?

MR PULE: I do not understand and I don't know this information written here.

MR BERGER: And unless you've not told me something, we know you are not the Ambassador to Botswana, is that correct?

MR PULE: That's true, I've never been an Ambassador.

MR BERGER: Thank you Chairperson, no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BERGER

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Adv Sigodi, do you have any questions you'd like to ask? Right we'll take the lunch adjournment at this stage. I see it's ten past one now and then I'll give an opportunity to Panel Members to ask Mr Pule questions. We'll take the lunch adjournment now.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Adv Sigodi, do you have any questions that you would like to put to Mr Pule?

ADV SIGODI: I have no questions Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Judge Pillay?

JUDGE PILLAY: None.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Pule, that concludes your testimony, you may stand down.

MR PULE: Thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Berger.

MR BERGER: Chairperson the next witness is Mr Mnisi.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------JOHANNES MNISI: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Berger.

MR BERGER: Thank you, Chairperson.

EXAMINATION BY MR BERGER: Mr Mnisi, is it correct, you have made an application for amnesty and that your application appears at pages 97 to 102 of bundle A1? The bundle is in front of you, if you can just check that.

MR MNISI: Yes, that's correct.

MR BERGER: You have ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, before we proceed, Mr Berger, Mr Mnisi, are you also known as Mr Molefe?

MR MNISI: My name is Johannes Mnisi, my MK name is Victor Molefe.

CHAIRPERSON: So you used you, in making the application you used your MK name, but you confirm that that's your application?

MR MNISI: I used Johannes Mnisi. If you can look on my statement at the end, just towards the end, I signed my real name.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. I'm looking at page 97 Mr Berger, my document says Molefe.

MR BERGER: Yes, Chairperson, what Mr Mnisi is referring to is, if you have a look at page 102, he has signed the application as J Mnisi.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. No I was just clearing it up for record purposes, I'm not disputing that this is his application, but I just wanted to clear that confusion.

MR MNISI: Yes, that's correct.

MR BERGER: So for the record Mr Mnisi, you confirm that the document from page 97 to 102 is indeed your application for amnesty?

MR MNISI: Yes, that's true.

MR BERGER: You have also made a statement which has been handed in as Exhibit B3. Do you confirm that that is your statement?

MR MNISI: Yes, that's correct.

MR BERGER: And in that statement, in paragraph 1, you say that your MK name was Vic or Victor and that you were also known as Johannes Molefe, is that correct?

MR MNISI: Yes, that's correct.

MR BERGER: Now, your application for amnesty deals with a number of different operations. You have already given evidence on another operation, the Voortrekkerhoogte operation, in another hearing, is that correct?

MR MNISI: Yes, that's correct.

MR BERGER: As well as the Pretoria Church Street car bomb. Am I correct?

MR MNISI: Yes, that's correct.

MR BERGER: Now, you were a member of Special Operations from 1980 until 1991?

JUDGE PILLAY: Can you just tell us, what are you applying for amnesty for firstly?

MR MNISI: In this hearing I participated in giving Mr McBride the material.

JUDGE PILLAY: For what? That's why I'm asking, which offences are you applying for? Or Mr Berger, maybe you can help us.

MR BERGER: Judge, for the purposes of this application, it's Mr Mnisi's interaction between himself and the unit operated by Mr McBride and Mr Webster and in particular the provision of material.

JUDGE PILLAY: What offence are we talking about?

MR BERGER: We're talking about a co-conspirator in the murder of certain people, attempted murder of other people, the delict of...

JUDGE PILLAY: I'm just confining myself to offences. You say murder and attempted murder. Any particular murder you're talking about, or murders?

MR BERGER: Well in particular, it would be the car bomb placed outside the Why Not Bar.

JUDGE PILLAY: And attempted murders in respect of the same incident.

MR BERGER: The same people, yes.

JUDGE PILLAY: Was that all? Anything else?

MR BERGER: Judge, it doesn't appear that there are any more specific incidents as far as this hearing is concerned.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Berger, you put a question and I didn't catch the dates. You said that he was a member of Special Operations from?

MR BERGER: From 1980 until 1991. Thank you Chair. Is that correct, Mr Mnisi?

MR MNISI: Yes, that's correct.

MR BERGER: The detail in paragraph 2 of your statement, how you moved from Mozambique to Zambia and how you travelled between Botswana and Zambia in the execution of your duties.

MR MNISI: Yes, that's correct.

MR BERGER: Could you briefly elaborate for the Committee, what work you did during that period, particularly the work that you did in moving between Botswana and Zambia?

MR MNISI: At first I was based at Mozambique. I left Mozambique in 1984. I went to Zambia. This was after the Nkomati Accord. I was working between Zambia and Botswana. I was the co-ordinator, I was sending messages and other materials which were used. I was transporting this between Zambia and Botswana. We had people in Botswana, Tommy and Vusi. I used to meet them there when I left Zambia. The person who used to send me to Botswana was Rashid.

MR BERGER: Can I ask you just to speak a little louder and a little slower? The person that you used to report to was Rashid?

MR MNISI: Yes, that's correct.

MR BERGER: And that would have been in Zambia, is that correct?

MR MNISI: Yes, that's correct.

MR BERGER: And that was until July/August 1987?

MR MNISI: Yes.

MR BERGER: After that, comrade Rashid was promoted and then to whom did you report?

MR MNISI: Lester Dumakude, Kgatle ...(indistinct).

MR BERGER: And when you spoke about Vusi, who was that?

MR MNISI: Vusi was someone who was working with Tommy in Botswana, he was also a comrade.

CHAIRPERSON: That's Mr Pule?

MR MNISI: Pule.

MR BERGER: How did you assist the comrades in Botswana?

MR MNISI: I used to work with them when I was in Botswana.

MR BERGER: Doing what?

MR MNISI: Most of the time when I arrived there, I would find that people were there with them and I would meet these people and sometimes I would go there to give them money. I would bring money to Botswana and sometimes I will arrange transportation for them.

MR BERGER: Now, when did you meet, if you can remember, comrade Robert or comrade Gordon for the first time?

MR MNISI: comrade Gordon I met him in Zambia. I don't remember which year, but he was the first person I met and comrade McBride, I met him later and also I can't remember the year.

MR BERGER: Now, there is an occasion that you refer to in paragraph 4 of Exhibit B3, when you assisted in packing certain materials into comrade Robert's vehicle. What I want to ask you is, was that the first time that you had met comrade Robert, or had you met him prior to that?

MR MNISI: It wasn't the first time. I don't remember how many times I met him before I met him there. I think meeting him there was the last time. The person who was supposed to work with Vusi, was Tommy and Tommy had been arrested at the time, therefore I was assisting Vusi to pack the material in comrade McBride's car.

MR BERGER: Before we get to that incident, on the previous occasions when you had met comrade Robert, had this been in Botswana?

MR MNISI: Yes.

MR BERGER: And how had you assisted comrade Robert on those occasions, if at all?

MR MNISI: Before I don't remember assisting him because the comrades who were in Botswana, used to assist him, that was Lester and Pule.

MR BERGER: Alright. And on this particular occasion, this is now in June of 1986, is it your evidence that you specifically assisted comrade Robert because comrade Chris, that's Mr Dumakude had been arrested?

MR MNISI: Yes.

MR BERGER: Now what do you remember of this incident when you assisted comrade Robert? Do you remember why you were assisting him or what you were assisting him with?

MR MNISI: I was in fact helping Pule to pack the material in comrade McBride's car because comrade McBride had a job to do inside the country.

MR BERGER: Who told you that?

MR MNISI: It was a known thing to us, we knew that if we give someone material, that person was supposed to come back to the country and do a certain job, even though we did not know what type of a job, but we knew that.

MR BERGER: Who gave you the instructions to pack the material into comrade Robert's vehicle?

MR MNISI: As I've already indicated that the people who were responsible for this were two people, Lester and Pule, therefore Lester was no longer there since he was arrested, then I was just helping Pule so that McBride could drive back with the material, back to South Africa and the instruction came from Rashid that the comrades were going to be given the materials.

MR BERGER: You then assisted in packing the material into the vehicle and then comrade Robert left, is that correct?

MR MNISI: That's correct.

MR BERGER: Subsequently did you come to know about the operation that comrade Robert had carried out?

MR MNISI: Later, after the operation, in fact if I'm telling the truth, it was after he was arrested.

MR BERGER: You heard that comrade Robert had been arrested?

MR MNISI: I think it was after a week, he had been arrested, I don't remember quite well.

MR BERGER: Did you hear why he had been arrested?

MR MNISI: The information that I received was that it was the operation which he conducted on the 14th at the Why Not Bar.

MR BERGER: And also that it was a car bomb?

MR MNISI: Yes.

MR BERGER: Subsequent to that operation, you say you didn't see comrade Robert again?

MR MNISI: No, I didn't.

MR BERGER: Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Berger. Mr Dehal, do you have any questions you'd like to put?

MR DEHAL: Thank you Mr Chairperson. May I have leave to confer with my client briefly?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly.

MR DEHAL: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I'm indebted to you. Mr Mnisi, were there ever discussions between McBride, yourself and perhaps with Gordon Webster about ANC policies and guidelines?

MR MNISI: I don't remember because this was Dumakude's job.

MR DEHAL: And were there any discussions in which you were involved with McBride and perhaps Pule as well, relating to targets in South Africa?

MR MNISI: I don't remember.

MR DEHAL: Mr Mnisi, would you regard yourself, at that time, as having been Mr McBride's senior in the structures?

MR MNISI: Yes, at that time.

MR DEHAL: And I take it you'd agree that you're familiar with Mr McBride's application for amnesty, which has been discussed with you and you support it?

MR MNISI: Yes.

MR DEHAL: I have no further questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Dehal. Ms Kooverjee, do you have any questions you'd like to put?

MS KOOVERJEE: None, thank you, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Richard, do you have any questions you would like to put?

MR RICHARD: Very few.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD: Mr McBride's legal representative put this question and correct me if I noted it wrongly, were there ever discussions regarding ANC policy and guidelines with Mr McBride and the reply I noted was:

Was that your answer?

MR MNISI: Yes, I'm saying I don't remember, but what I can remember is that we used to discuss things, but then I cannot be specific about what you want to get from me as to guidelines or whatsoever, but I do know that we used to discuss matters.

MR RICHARD: Thank you. Now, on what basis did you believe that Mr McBride was under Mr Dumakude's command, or control, or accountable to him?

MR MNISI: These two comrades in Botswana, they were responsible strictly for those things.

MR RICHARD: You say there were two comrades in Botswana responsible for those things. My first question emanating from that, is what do you mean by those things?

MR MNISI: I'm referring to, they were receiving people who infiltrated Botswana, people who came from South Africa gong to Botswana, they would be received by Pule and Dumakude, those were the people who were giving them guidelines.

MR RICHARD: Now, so it was, my next question was who were they? So you say it was Mr Dumakude and Mr Pule.

MR MNISI: Yes.

MR RICHARD: Now within the context of the time and in the situation in Botswana, would it be appropriate for somebody on the level of Mr McBride or Mr Webster, to report to persons above them, the two individuals you've just mentioned?

MR MNISI: Yes, they were reporting to them, but most of the reports were directed to Rashid, but some of them, they used to give to Pule and Dumakude, but the person whom they used to report to was Rashid.

MR RICHARD: I realise that your involvement was very short lived. Now when, at that time, ordnance, materials was given to an operative such as Mr McBride or Mr Webster, were they ever required to account for the use of their ordinance?

MR MNISI: Would you please repeat the last part of your questions?

MR RICHARD: Would they ever be required to explain what they used the equipment or materials they were given? In other words report back on what happened to the weaponry?

MR MNISI: I don't think they were supposed to explain to us because it went this way. The Commander will give instructions to them, therefore they will know what operations they are going to do. There was no need for anyone to tell them.

MR RICHARD: Now, I'm summarising it and I'm compressing the earlier part of your evidence. From what you said, I understand and I'd like you to confirm it if I understand it correctly. You had no idea what the materials being packed into Mr McBride's vehicle were going to be used for?

MR MNISI: Yes, I didn't know.

MR RICHARD: Now, what sort of vehicle did you pack them into?

MR MNISI: I think it was an old Ford.

CHAIRPERSON: A sedan, a motor car, or was it a panel van or a bakkie?

MR MNISI: A bakkie, an old bakkie, Ford.

MR RICHARD: Thank you. Now was there anything particular about where weapons could be stored in that vehicle?

MR MNISI: Would you please repeat, I can't hear.

CHAIRPERSON: I think there's a problem with the equipment again. Let's try again repeating, Mr Richard, and see if it's in fact an equipment problem.

MR RICHARD: Was there anything particular about that vehicle into which you packed the weaponry as to where you could pack it?

MR MNISI: There was a space where we could fit in the materials, it's just that I don't remember which side where we fitted but there was a place where we could hide it there, so that no one could see.

MR RICHARD: So it was a concealed compartment?

MR MNISI: Yes.

MR RICHARD: How big was that compartment in length and breadth and depth?

MR MNISI: I cannot say exactly, but it was a much spacious compartment. There was enough space for the material.

MR RICHARD: It's difficult to guess, but do you recall what, difficult to remember, but do you recall what you packed into that compartment that day?

MR MNISI: What I can remember, I think there were extended charges and concentrated charges.

MR RICHARD: What are extended charges?

MR MNISI: These are bombs.

MR RICHARD: What are they used for?

MR MNISI: It depends on the person who is going to use them. You can manufacture a car bomb, or you can place it somewhere. It's almost the same as a limpet mine. You can place it wherever you choose to place it, it's up to you.

MR RICHARD: Is it more or less powerful than a limpet mine?

MR MNISI: Extended charges are more powerful than limpet mines.

MR RICHARD: What does the term "extended connotate" and mean?

MR MNISI: I don't know how I can explain this, but it depends on the kilograms in that extended charge.

MR RICHARD: And now you mentioned some other category of...

CHAIRPERSON: Concentrated charges.

MR RICHARD: What are concentrated charges?

MR MNISI: The kilograms in the concentrated charges are smaller than the extended.

MR RICHARD: And what are they used for?

MR MNISI: You can still use them the same way, it depends on the type of the operation that you want to conduct, therefore you will manufacture it according to the operation. It depends on the kilograms.

MR RICHARD: Do you remember approximately, how many kilograms of such equipment was packed?

MR MNISI: No I don't remember.

MR RICHARD: Was it a lot or a little?

MR MNISI: No I don't remember exactly how many.

MR RICHARD: Now, when you said you cannot remember exactly, but matters were discussed, what did you mean by you cannot remember exactly? You cannot remember exactly when what matters were discussed, or you cannot remember what was discussed, which is it that you meant?

MR MNISI: There were times when people came who came from South Africa. We used to ask them about life in South Africa, that's why I said we used to discuss matters, I mean things, many thing.

MR RICHARD: Now I gather then that there were discussions between you and either or both of Mr McBride or Mr Webster?

MR MNISI: I used to discuss with Webster quite a long time because I used to be with him outside the country because he was also trained outside of South Africa, but McBride, I think our conversations were minimal.

MR RICHARD: The impression I get from your answer is that it was more generalities and matters of interest, it wasn't specific, in relation to operations or MK's affairs, that you had discussions about?

MR MNISI: Most of the time our conversation would be general.

MR RICHARD: Did you ever discuss any operations with them?

MR MNISI: I don't remember.

MR RICHARD: And you certainly didn't discuss any of the operations that either Mr Webster nor Mr McBride had carried out, or were about to carry out?

MR MNISI: I don't remember very well, but maybe when I met Webster in Lusaka, we talked about those operations, but I don't remember really.

MR RICHARD: When would you have met Mr Webster in Lusaka? After his escape?

MR MNISI: Yes, after his escape.

MR RICHARD: Now, do you have any experience in the manufacture and the putting together of the car bomb?

MR MNISI: I trusted and I believed that any trained MK member can manufacturer a car bomb, because this is one of the things that you are trained with in our general courses.

MR RICHARD: If the equipment that you packed into that Ford was made into one car bomb, what sort of car bomb would it be, a small one, or a big one?

MR MNISI: This depends on the operative himself. If that person decides to make a car bomb, then it depends on him, solely on him.

CHAIRPERSON: I think the question put by Mr Richard was, if all the material that was packed into the vehicle, the Ford, was used in the manufacture of a car bomb, would that be a big car bomb or a small car bomb, can you say if that material was used, all of it?

MR MNISI: It can be a big car bomb, because extended charges have big kilograms and it also depends whether he has other material to add on top of it.

MR RICHARD: What sort of other material would you add on top?

MR MNISI: I'm talking about material in other occasions when he used to go to Botswana and Dumakude and Vusi will give him.

MR RICHARD: So you know that he was given other equipment as well?

MR BERGER: The witness is talking about other occasions.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that's what I understood by it.

MR RICHARD: Mr Mnisi, my question is very simple. You helped pack the equipment into this particular Ford on that day and from your previous answer I gathered that you were aware that on other occasions in the past, Mr Webster or Mr McBride had received equipment, is my impression correct, that you were aware, that's all?

MR MNISI: Yes.

MR RICHARD: And when you speak of adding material on top, you were saying that some of the other equipment that they had received on other occasions, could have been added to what they got from you that day? Have I understood it right?

MR MNISI: I was trying to answer your question because you asked me that the charges which we gave Mr McBride, was he going to make a strong and powerful bomb, or a smaller one, now I answered your question by saying this was going to depend on him. If he wanted to make a powerful bomb, he was going to do so, but if he wanted to make a less powerful bomb, he was going to do so.

JUDGE PILLAY: As I understand you, Mr Mnisi, or let me ask you this. The material you provided to him, was that sufficient for him to have built a powerful car bomb, on its own?

MR MNISI: Yes, it was enough.

JUDGE PILLAY: And whether it was a powerful car bomb, or not so powerful, depended on what he himself decided to use and if he wanted to build a very powerful bomb, he could have, if he had other material, have used it in addition to what you provided for him?

MR MNISI: Yes, that's correct.

MR RICHARD: Thank you, Chair. Now in the manufacture of a car bomb, was it taught that you could add things like nails or pieces of metal, or cut up reinforcing steel?

MR MNISI: I wasn't part of the people who trained him, therefore I don't know how far he was trained.

MR RICHARD: When you were trained to make car bombs, or trained others besides them, did you ever suggest to them that they could add that sort of stuff into a car bomb?

MR MNISI: As I've already mentioned, that if one is a trained MK member, you are trained by so many things, including a car bomb. You are trained by everything in manufacturing a car bomb, but at the end of the day it relies on the person who is making it, if you want to add on other pieces of metal, then you will.

MR RICHARD: So from your training you were taught that you could make the car bomb more effective by adding shrapnel, or pieces of metal into it.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, the witness never said that.

CHAIRPERSON: I think if you can just rephrase your question because he didn't say that he was taught that.

MR RICHARD: Sorry. Mr Mnisi was it ever the practice to teach person being trained that should they want to make a car bomb, they could add pieces of metal such as nails, cut up pieces of reinforcing rod and such-like, to the bomb?

MR MNISI: When one is trained they show you haw to manufacture a bomb and how to place it. As I've already answered before, I said it depends on the person whether you put nails and everything. I don't know how he was trained, Mr McBride, therefore I don't know whether he was trained in putting nails or whatsoever, in the making or in the manufacturing of the car bomb.

MR RICHARD: My question was not whether Mr McBride was trained to put in additional pieces of shrapnel to a car bomb, my question is whether trainees were told and trained to put extra bits of shrapnel into car bombs, should they want to.

MR MNISI: I personally in my training, I don't remember anyone telling me to put nails in the manufacturing of the car bomb.

MR RICHARD: One last question on that point, if they did do that, what would be the purpose of doing that?

MR MNISI: When one places a bomb in a certain place, that person has a reason for placing that bomb there. At the time the situation was very bad, therefore putting a bomb, you had reason of why you're putting the bomb where you've put it.

MR RICHARD: I'll leave that point. Now from your evidence-in-chief, we heard that you did have some experience of car bombs and that you were and have given evidence in the Pretoria car bomb incident. Now you have been present during Mr Ismail's evidence. I'm not sure whether you were or you weren't.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, I'm not sure that Mr Mnisi said in his evidence-in-chief that he had experience of car bombs.

CHAIRPERSON: No, he didn't say he had experience, he mentioned that he had made application and had appeared in hearings involving inter alia the Pretoria car bomb.

MR BERGER: Indeed.

MR RICHARD: Were you the party to the construction of that bomb?

MR BERGER: Chairperson, that is the subject matter of another hearing. It's not relevant for the purposes of this hearing.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the relevance of whether Mr Mnisi made another car bomb for this particular hearing, Mr Richard?

MR RICHARD: The relevance is that I'm about to go into his opinions as to whether the Parade Hotel was a legitimate or inappropriate target.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you just ask him whether he knows about car bombs, rather than whether he took part in building the Pretoria car bomb, or any other one, because then we're going to get into that.

MR RICHARD: Well, I'll leave the point, it doesn't take us ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Because he did say that he was trained in making a car bomb. I'll put the question this way. Do you have any knowledge of the effects of the car bomb?

MR MNISI: Yes, I do know.

MR RICHARD: What are the effects of the car bomb?

MR MNISI: If you've placed it in a building, it demolishes the building.

MR RICHARD: And if you placed it in a crowded street, what would happen?

MR MNISI: If there's no building in that street, then it will just damage where you've placed it.

MR RICHARD: And if the street is crowded with people near the car bomb?

MR MNISI: They will get injured if there are people.

MR RICHARD: Will few or many people get injured if the street is crowded?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Richard, I can assure you that we won't have to rely on the evidence of Mr Mnisi to be able to find that if a bomb goes off in a crowded place that many people might get injured. I think you can accept that we would accept that a car bomb placed where there's a huge crowd of people, it's going to injure people.

MR RICHARD: Now from your experience of car bombs, if and I use the word if, a car bomb is placed on the corner of a street outside two pubs or restaurants which are busy, where lots of people are enjoying themselves, what would the consequences be? But I believe the question has been dealt with by the Chair. Would you have anything to add?

MR MNISI: As I've already said, it is obvious that people would get injured.

MR RICHARD; Now, in the ordinary course, from your training and experience, would two pubs with people in them and busy at the time, without anything else being said about it, be a legitimate target?

MR MNISI: Yes, that's correct.

MR RICHARD: So that means you are saying that it was in accordance with the African National Congress's policies and guidelines to place car bombs outside two crowded pubs, without knowing anything more about it?

MR MNISI: If you are trained, you know exactly where to place the bomb, you won't just put a bomb among innocent people, you will put it where you know and to the people you are fighting with, not just innocent people.

MR RICHARD: Now, who would the people you would be fighting with be?

MR MNISI: Soldiers and police.

MR RICHARD: Now, if out of 100 people that would be affected, 10 or 5 were soldiers and police, would it be legitimate to put the bomb there?

JUDGE PILLAY: Mr Richard, can you just me something please? If you get a different answer to what Mr Ismail has given to that same question, who are you going to ask us to believe? Who are you going to argue is giving the proper answer?

MR RICHARD: Chair, the question put to me is if I get contradictory answers as to what is legitimate and inappropriate, what my argument would be. It would be dependent on the answer. If one says to kill one soldier it's legitimate to blow up 100 civilians or 10 civilians and another says to kill 50 soldiers it's legitimate to blow up 50 civilians, I will say very clearly that there was no clear policy at all.

JUDGE PILLAY: I would have thought that you got the answer already, if that's the line you're taking, proceed.

CHAIRPERSON: You can put the question.

MR RICHARD: My question was, hypothetically, if there were two crowded restaurants in which there were 100 people and that being for the hypothesis a crowd, and of those 100, 5 were Security Force personnel, would that be a legitimate target?

MR MNISI: In every operation where you go to participate, you do your reconnaissance therefore you know your target, you don't just go to kill innocent people.

MR RICHARD: Is your answer to my question that in the case of the example I have outlined, that would be not a legitimate target and you would be killing innocent civilians?

MR BERGER: No, that wasn't the answer.

MR RICHARD: I said, is that the answer?

JUDGE PILLAY: Well maybe we must allow him to answer the question instead of it being suggested to him.

MR RICHARD: He did not answer my question and I'm asking him what his answer is.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, he answered the question about 5 out of 100 being Security Force personnel. The answer was in every operation you do your reconnaissance, therefore you know your target. Now the question is, you can repeat it, Mr Richard.

MR RICHARD: In the example that I've outlined, if your reconnaissance reveals that there are 5 out of 100 and that's merely a hypothetical example, would that target be legitimate?

MR MNISI: As I've already mentioned that before you conduct any operation you do your reconnaissance first to make sure that your target is there. If you choose a place and you realise that your target is not there, then you won't go there, you only will go there when you know that that place is your target and you don't just do a reconnaissance for one day, you do for days to make sure, to be 100% sure that that's a legitimate target.

MR RICHARD: And if after making 100% sure by doing a thorough, detailed, careful reconnaissance, you find out that your target will consist of 5 out of 100 Security Force personnel, would you proceed or not?

MR MNISI: There I think it depends on the person who is going to participate in the operation.

MR RICHARD: So that means it would be up to the individual to decide whether to proceed or not, not up to an interpretation or the application of a policy or a guideline?

MR MNISI: You will follow the guidelines of the ANC. First if you're trained, you know that you won't attack any place if it's not a target place. It depends on the person who's going to take part, or who is going to participate in the operation.

MR RICHARD: What would the guidelines require you to do in the context that I've outlined, the hypothetical test case that I've put to you?

MR MNISI: It depends on the objective.

MR RICHARD: Now I don't understand what you say, on the objective. You've said to me that it would not be permissible to bomb 100 civilians. All I've changed now is that there are five Security Force personnel of no particular importance or rank, which is added into this proposition at this stage. Would that now make it legitimate?

MR MNISI: Would you please repeat your question?

MR RICHARD: If I took 5 ordinary Security Force personnel of no particular importance into a place where there are 100 civilians, so that means we have now a 5% concentration of Security Force personnel, would that make bombing that place, or those two places, legitimate or not?

MR MNISI: Why place 5 people among the innocent civilians, when you know you have enemies who are after you? You put the 5 people among the innocent civilians because you want your enemy to be scared of attacking them. You know you have an idea, why put those 5 people there? It is because of you who sent the 5 people among the innocent people, it is you who are actually killing them or betraying them, the person who sent the 5 people to the 100 innocent people.

MR RICHARD: Sir, you've changed the proposition.

MR MNISI: I thought I was following you, the way you're questioning me. You told me that if you put 5 people among innocent 100 people, you ask me...(intervention)

MR RICHARD: Let me go through it again before I push it harder. You, as an experienced operative, who had been a member of the MK for many years, do a reconnaissance. As a result of your reconnaissance, which you've done carefully, methodically and rechecked everything that you know, you discover a place where you are going to put a car bomb and from your intelligence gathering exercise, you know that there will be approximately 100 people in that place and I repeat, of that 100 people, which is a hypothetical figure as well, 5% of those might or are Security Force personnel, would you proceed to bomb that target with a car bomb? It's you who is putting the car bomb, they don't know the car bomb is going to be there.

MR MNISI: As I've already mentioned that in each and every operation you do your reconnaissance first, in order to identify a target that's what you do, that's the first step. You try your level best not to injure civilians, that's why any soldier has to do a reconnaissance before the operation.

MR RICHARD: We're not getting anywhere, you're avoiding answering the question.

MR MNISI: I thought I was answering you, I don't know.

MR RICHARD: You haven't given me an answer even though I believe you've understood the proposition as to whether you would go ahead with the operation or not in the example that I've given you, but now, I'll phrase it slightly differently. On the hypothetical example that I've given you, and taking into account that you know all about the Kabwe decisions and resolutions and all the rest of it, would that hypothetical situation that I've outlined, when you apply the Kabwe tests and factors, constitute a legitimate target?

MR BERGER: Chairperson, with respect...

CHAIRPERSON: I think it's the same question as before because...Are you saying, Mr Richard, in your first proposition when you said would 5% Security Force Personnel amongst 100 people be a legitimate target, now you've moved on, now you're saying, bringing in the Kabwe principles, you're asking exactly the same question, obviously by using the word legitimate target, you're incorporating the policies that existed at the time, including Kabwe.

MR BERGER: And further, Chairperson, there is no Kabwe test. Kabwe is just a decision taken by the ANC that now the struggle is going to be intensified and less regard is going to be paid to avoiding civilian injuries, that's what Kabwe decided. No test.

MR RICHARD: I have here a situation where I think I've put a very, very simple proposition in very plain language to a very experienced operative and I haven't got an answer. In fact the witness, in my submission, has declined to answer the question. I think I'll leave it there on the basis that the only inference that can be drawn from the answers that we have received, is that it was not within the ANC's...

CHAIRPERSON: I think that's for argument.

MR RICHARD: The witness has heard my proposition and I put it to you that I'm correct, that that would not have been a legitimate target.

MR MNISI: I don't know whether you want me to answer you.

MR RICHARD: I would like you to give me either a yes or a no, nothing more complicated.

MR MNISI: If a place is being frequented by your target, that place it's a target place.

MR RICHARD: Thank you. So we now know that in accordance with your training and expertise and experience as an MK member of many years standing, you would have believed that to kill 95 civilians for the sake of 5 Security Force personnel, was legitimate.

MR MNISI: I don't know how to answer you. If I may say it is so very easy for him to say what you're saying to me because you were not affected like I was in those days, we were in war.

MR RICHARD: It is the rules of war that we debate. No further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Prior, do you have any questions you'd like to ask?

ADV PRIOR: Thank you Mr Chair, there are just two areas I'd like some clarification on.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV PRIOR: Mr Mnisi, in response to one of Adv Sigodi's questions, Mr Pule, well first the question was, how, as Command structure, were you able to ensure that the guidelines were carried out and that the material supplied was used for legitimate purposes, in other words a legitimate target destruction and so forth and in summary the answer was really there was no way to ensure that it could be done, but the best in the circumstances was to keep reminding the operatives who were going out of Botswana back into the Republic, was to keep reminding them of the political objectives, that there operation should fall within the guidelines set out by the MK Command, is that correct?

MR MNISI: Yes, that's correct.

ADV PRIOR: And I just want your response to what he added to that. He said because of the situation in the Republic, or in the country, where the government of the day and he used the word Boers, the type of atrocities that they were committing, he indicated that there was the possibility or there was some indication that the operatives going back could have, for example, placed a limpet mine in a crèche and the impression that I gained from Mr Pule is that they didn't want that to happen, so in order to maybe calm things down, they impressed on the operative to operate within the guidelines. Can you comment on that response of Mr Pule from your own perspective?

MR MNISI: Yes, people were taught and they were reminded by the guidelines of the ANC and they were told that they mustn't go and do as they pleased, they must do exactly as the guidelines required of them and yes, some people were angry but they were taught and they were told to follow the guidelines of the ANC.

ADV PRIOR: Did it sometimes appear to you in Botswana that the operatives moving back into the country may have been motivated by feelings of anger towards the situation in the country? In other words, there was a desire to take revenge on one or other group within the country, as a result of what was happening in the country at the time.

MR MNISI: All the cadres who were coming to South Africa, they were briefed first, they were not allowed to do as they pleased.

ADV PRIOR: It's not quite an answer. For example, in your inter-relationship with Mr McBride at the time when you were packing these explosives in his vehicle, did you gain the impression that he was particularly angry at the situation in South Africa, the emergency, the various attacks by Security Forces on black civilian populations and so forth, or did you not get that impression?

MR MNISI: No I didn't get that impression with Mr McBride because what I realised is that he knew, he was briefed and I think even today he knows the guidelines of the ANC.

ADV PRIOR: Yes, one last matter. Your amnesty application, the application form 1, did someone assist you with that form, in other words to complete the form?

CHAIRPERSON: This is the form that appears on page 97 et seq.

ADV PRIOR: Did someone assist you to fill in the form? Was it a colleague, or was it an attorney or somebody else?

MR MNISI: I think my lawyer.

ADV PRIOR: I just want to refer to page 99, paragraph 4 under the heading Car Bomb Blast - Why Not, Magoo's Bar. If I may Mr Chairman, just read out the brief description and I'll come to the question.

Do you confirm what is there in your application?

MR MNISI: When I filled the application form, I was told already that that material that I packed in McBride's car was the one which was used for that bomb.

ADV PRIOR: I was coming to that because there just appears to be a contradiction from the statement B3 that you tendered today. Are you saying that that information was supplied to you by your attorney, that's after the fact, in other words?

MR MNISI: There on the other statement, I didn't know, but when I filled in this one, then I had already been told. On the other one I didn't put it because I didn't know, but then when I filled the other statement, I had already been told.

ADV PRIOR: There's not trap or trick, I just want to clarify it.

MR BERGER: But Chairperson, with respect, this statement doesn't say that Mr Mnisi knew at the time.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I think it creates - it might be ambiguous, I think he's just clearing it up, I think it's quite clear from what Mr Mnisi has said that what's contained in the application form that the material that he packed was used in the operation, he learned after the event. Is that correct, Mr Mnisi?

MR MNISI: Yes.

ADV PRIOR: Yes, I needed to clarify that. Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no other matters.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Berger, do you have any re-examination?

MR BERGER: Just very briefly, Chairperson.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR BERGER: Mr Mnisi, is it correct that when you packed the explosives into comrade Robert's vehicle, you knew that that material could be used to manufacture a car bomb?

MR MNISI: Yes.

MR BERGER: No further questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Berger. Adv Sigodi, did you have any questions you'd like to put to Mr Mnisi?

ADV SIGODI: Just one aspect, to clarify. How many training camps were there in Botswana?

MR MNISI: We didn't have camps in Botswana, we used residential places.

ADV SIGODI: But I mean groups for training. How many people were responsible for training people in the making of car bombs in Botswana?

MR MNISI: I wouldn't know about other units, but in our unit it was Vusi and Dumakude.

ADV SIGODI: Were there many units that perhaps you didn't know of?

MR MNISI: Yes, when I'm saying units, I'm talking about other departments, there were others.

ADV SIGODI: No, I'm referring to, in particular, to units where people would be trained in the making of car bombs. Do you know?

MR MNISI: No.

ADV SIGODI: Was it possible to know each and every unit that was in existence in Botswana and/or Lusaka?

MR MNISI: No, I will only know people who were in the Special Operations, the others I wouldn't know.

ADV SIGODI: The reason I'm asking you this is because you were asked about whether in the training of people in the making of car bombs, you knew if people would be taught to put in shrapnel and nails into car bombs, is it possible that there was a unit that would teach people to make car bombs in this was, or is that something out of your knowledge?

MR MNISI: No, I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: Judge Pillay, do you have any questions you'd like to ask?

JUDGE PILLAY: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mnisi, sorry - are there any questions arising out of questions put by Adv Sigodi? Any questions arising?

MR BERGER: None Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mnisi, that concludes your testimony, you may stand down.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Berger.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, the next witness is Mr Lester Dumakude.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------LESTER DUMAKUDE: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Berger.

MR BERGER: Thank you, Chairperson.

EXAMINATION BY MR BERGER: Mr Dumakude, you have before you a bundle of documents marked A1, is that correct?

MR DUMAKUDE: That's correct.

MR BERGER: Now, the document from pages 93 to 96 of that bundle, do you confirm that that is your application for amnesty?

MR DUMAKUDE: Yes.

MR BERGER: In addition to the application you have made a statement, which has been handed in as Exhibit B1, do you confirm that that is your statement?

MR DUMAKUDE: Yes, that's correct.

MR BERGER: Now it's correct that you've given evidence at another hearing of the Amnesty Committee, but I'm going to just ask you some questions very briefly about your background. For starters, as is contained in Exhibit B2, your MK names included Chris and Tommy Masinga, is that correct?

MR DUMAKUDE: That's correct.

MR BERGER: You were born on the 24th of October 1952 in Sophiatown, Johannesburg?

MR DUMAKUDE: That's correct.

MR BERGER: After your family was moved from Sophiatown, you went to live with your grandparents in Diepkloof, Soweto, is that correct?

MR DUMAKUDE: That's correct.

MR BERGER: You left school whilst you were completing Standard 8 and although you wanted to go to a Technikon to complete your education, you were unable to do so and you had to begin to seek work, is that correct?

MR DUMAKUDE: That's correct.

MR BERGER: What were you doing at the time of the uprising on June 16 1976? Where were you?

MR DUMAKUDE: I was working for a newspaper company.

MR BERGER: I'm going to ask you Mr Dumakude to please speak - you don't have to worry the microphone will pick you up.

MR DUMAKUDE: I was working for a newspaper company, as an inserter.

MR BERGER: As a result of the impression on you of the uprising on June 16 and the events which followed, you left the country towards the end of 1977 and you went to Swaziland, is that correct?

MR DUMAKUDE: That's correct.

MR BERGER: From Swaziland you were sent for training to Angola.

MR DUMAKUDE: That's correct.

MR BERGER: You underwent further training. You eventually were trained in the Soviet Union and after your return from the Soviet Union, you were appointed as an instructor in the camps, is that correct?

MR DUMAKUDE: That's correct.

MR BERGER: You were initially an instructor at Klakulama camp and then you were transferred to Fundafunda, Kashito, is that right?

MR DUMAKUDE: Yes, that's correct.

MR BERGER: Now, in 1981 you joined Special Operations, is that correct?

MR DUMAKUDE: That's correct.

MR BERGER: What were your early responsibilities in Special Operations, from the time that you joined?

MR DUMAKUDE: When I first joined the Special Operations unit, my responsibilities were to infiltrate the trained cadres and to help them to find accommodation and also to give them materials which they will need for their various operations and also to recruit people and also to recruit others to help us with accommodation.

MR BERGER: Initially you were based in Swaziland, is that right?

MR DUMAKUDE: Yes.

MR BERGER: At that stage when you were infiltrating cadres into the country for the purposes of carrying out operations, did you have any knowledge as to precisely what operations they were being sent in to carry out?

MR DUMAKUDE: No, I was not involved in the planning, I was only involved in helping them to cross the borders.

MR BERGER: Now, after the signing of the Nkomati Accord, which was in 1984, you then left Swaziland?

MR DUMAKUDE: Yes, I left Swaziland because I was arrested.

MR BERGER: You were deported to Tanzania and thereafter you received instructions to open up a front in Botswana, is that right?

MR DUMAKUDE: Yes, that is correct.

MR BERGER: Now, can you just describe briefly for the Committee what your duties then were from Botswana, from the moment that you opened up that front?

MR DUMAKUDE: It was not different from the one that I was doing in Swaziland. I would arrange, I would recruit, arrange accommodation and provide material when necessary. What I was doing in Botswana, was not that different from my responsibilities in Swaziland.

MR BERGER: Your responsibilities only changed then in July/August 1987, when you were promoted to Commander of Special Operations? You took the place of comrade Rashid, is that correct?

MR DUMAKUDE: Yes, that is correct.

MR BERGER: Now, do you recall when it was the first time that you met either comrade Gordon Webster or comrade Robert?

MR DUMAKUDE: I cannot remember exactly, but I think it was early in 1985 when I met with comrade Gordon Webster.

MR BERGER: And was it after meeting comrade Gordon, that you met comrade Robert?

MR DUMAKUDE: Yes, that is correct. I first got to know comrade Robert through comrade Webster. I knew comrade Robert through comrade Webster.

MR BERGER: When you met both of them, the one, then the other, you were already in charge of the Sub-Command of Special Operations in Botswana?

MR DUMAKUDE: Yes, that is correct.

MR DUMAKUDE: You worked with Mr Pule, who gave evidence this morning and you say in your statement that his MK names were Vusi, Oupa and also T Man, is that correct?

MR DUMAKUDE: Yes, that is correct.

MR BERGER: In brief, I know it's in your statement but if you could just briefly outline for the Committee, what was the extent of your interaction and how did you operate with the, if you can call it the Webster/McBride unit, or comrade Gordon, comrade Robert. How was it that you operated with them? What was the nature of your interaction?

MR DUMAKUDE: My interaction with Gordon Webster's unit, I would get instructions from my senior, comrade Ismail Rashid. I would do everything per instruction. I would be told as to what to do for them, where to assist only.

MR BERGER: And in what way would you assist them?

MR DUMAKUDE: When Webster came, we were supposed to facilitate with the infiltration. When he was inside the country and we had to get out of the country, we had to arrange his meeting with Rashid. There was supposed to be material that would be given to him by us when necessary, if it was necessary for the training of the unit, we would be told to train them in whatever.

MR BERGER: What was the nature of the training? Was it political, was it military, was it both, your training of them?

MR DUMAKUDE: It was both, political and military.

MR BERGER: From the political point of view, I take it that you trained them in the policies of the ANC?

MR DUMAKUDE: Yes, that is correct.

MR BERGER: And from a military point of view, what was the nature of the training?

MR DUMAKUDE: We would train them, facilitate them for a deployment and the material or equipment that they would use. If a person was going to use a firearm, that particular person would be trained in the operation of the firearm. Even with the grenade it would be the same. If a person was to use car bombs, he would get that kind of training.

MR BERGER: When you talk about a person, we're talking now specifically about comrade Gordon and comrade Robert, is that correct?

MR DUMAKUDE: Yes, that is correct, because I am here because of that case.

MR BERGER: And this provision of materials, so that they could come back into the country and carry out operations, did this happen on one occasion when you were present, or on more than one occasion?

MR DUMAKUDE: The trips were more than one, therefore it was more than one occasion.

MR BERGER: You say that, in 8.2, towards the bottom of that paragraph:

Where did your instructions come from?

MR DUMAKUDE: My immediate Commander was comrade Rashid, therefore I would get my instructions from comrade Rashid.

MR BERGER: You've heard comrade Rashid's evidence on your activities, not only in relation to comrade Gordon and comrade Robert, but in respect of other cadres as well, do you confirm that evidence?

MR DUMAKUDE: Yes, I confirm that.

MR BERGER: As far as the operation which we now know was aimed at the Why Not bar, were you present when comrade Robert and comrade - and the other comrades, not comrade Gordon, because he wasn't there, when comrade Robert was given the material, when the material was packed into his vehicle?

MR DUMAKUDE: No, I was not present. I knew that he was coming but unfortunately I got arrested by Botswana police, therefore I was not present, I did not witness that.

MR BERGER: Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Berger. Mr Dehal, do you have any questions you would like to put?

MR DEHAL: I do thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DEHAL: Mr Dumakude, you have already testified in response to your advocate's question, that you heard comrade Rashid's testimony. I ask you simply this, do you confirm your support of Mr McBride's application for amnesty as indeed comrade Rashid did?

MR DUMAKUDE: Yes, I do.

MR DEHAL: And just briefly further, do you recall before Easter 1986, having met with comrade McBride outside South Africa when a discussion of possible targets took place, in particular the target of a bar that was frequented by Security Personnel?

MR DUMAKUDE: First of all, I would like to get some clarification when you say outside South Africa. Where?

MR DEHAL: In Botswana.

MR DUMAKUDE: Will you please repeat the question, Sir?

MR DEHAL: Sorry, in Botswana and before Easter 1986, do you recall having had a discussion with comrade McBride on a possible target namely, or rather in particular a bar frequented by Security personnel as being the target and Gordon Webster was present at this discussion?

MR DUMAKUDE: The discussion about the possible targets, we used to do that everyday because that is how we used to encourage the comrades who were coming in, but if you become more specific about a certain target, I cannot remember that, we would not be told about the target. It was not for us to inquire about the targets, but we had to discuss generally about the targets. We would discuss with anyone who was under our control.

MR DEHAL: Mr Dumakude, Mr McBride agrees with that, but he says that in addition, there was much discussion about a number of bars, or places frequented by Security personnel, not in particular the Why Not bar or the Magoo's Bar. No place by name, but reference was made to a bar frequented by Security personnel. Would you recall that as being an additional aspect discussed?

MR DUMAKUDE: I cannot dispute that, as I'm saying we used to discuss about a lot of issues. Perhaps it was also in our discussion, but I cannot say for sure, because we were not talking about the specific targets that the units were supposed to attack. It could have been possible that he did talk to me about his target that he was about to attack, but I never discussed with him a specific target that he was going to attack.

MR DEHAL: Did you ever discuss any specific targets with comrade Gordon Webster?

MR DUMAKUDE: As I've said, this unit was the unit that I used to work with per instruction from comrade Rashid. For me, in this unit, was to assist as instructed by comrade Rashid. I do not remember discussing anything about specific targets.

MR DEHAL: Was any training given in the construction of a car bomb, by you to either comrade McBride or comrade Webster?

MR DUMAKUDE: I cannot remember exactly, but what I can recall, I did train them on how to use the devices of the car bomb.

MR DEHAL: Generally when you worked with comrade Robert, did you regard him as a disciplined cadre?

MR DUMAKUDE: Yes, that unit was one of the disciplined units.

MR DEHAL: And likewise your view of comrade Gordon Webster?

MR DUMAKUDE: Yes, that is correct, as I've said the whole unit was very disciplined. They were operating on a higher discipline.

MR DEHAL: And I take it you would agree that both comrade Robert and comrade Webster, in your view, were committed to the struggle, as you understood the struggle to be?

MR DUMAKUDE: Yes, I agree.

MR DEHAL: Chair do you mind bearing with me? Sorry. And finally Mr Dumakude, I see that in your evidence, you have already agreed that you trained comrade Robert McBride in political and military matters and additionally in the making of car bombs, do you agree with that?

CHAIRPERSON: I think he said - you asked him specifically about car bombs and he said: "I can't recall if I trained him in the making of car bombs, but I did train him on how to use the devices of a car bomb."

MR DEHAL: Thank you very much. Now, sorry, Mr Dumakude, you now understand, you now know, sorry, precisely or more or less what happened at the Why Not place, the bomb that exploded there, the people that were killed, the number of persons that were injured, etc. Would you say that this accorded with your understanding of what Mr McBride was required to do with that bomb, with that car bomb?

MR DUMAKUDE: Will you please repeat the question Sir?

MR DEHAL: The Why Not bomb is something you are now familiar with. You certainly did not know of it, on your evidence as a target when you dealt with Mr McBride in Botswana. You educated Mr McBride in military and political aspects. Would you agree that the Why Not bomb accords with your education of Mr McBride?

MR DUMAKUDE: Yes, I agree.

MR DEHAL: I have no further questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Kooverjee, do you have any questions? Sorry, have you finished, Mr Dehal?

MR DEHAL: Yes, certainly, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Kooverjee, do you have any questions you'd like to put to the witness?

MS KOOVERJEE: None, thank you, Mr Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: I would believe it's an opportune moment to adjourn.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I see it's 4 o'clock. Yes, we'll adjourn until tomorrow morning, half past 9, when we'll proceed. Thank you.