Court rules in McBride's favour

2010-02-27 07:12

Bloemfontein - The Citizen newspaper was wrong to call Robert McBride a murderer and criminal, because he had been granted amnesty for his apartheid-era crimes, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) ruled on Friday.

McBride, the former metro police chief of Ekurhuleni, instituted action for damages against the newspaper, its editor and two journalists after a series of editorials and articles they published.

They were written when it became known that McBride would become head of the metro police and McBride alleged that the articles were defamatory.

Not suited

They stated that he was not suited for the position at the time because he was a criminal, a murderer and that he had been in illegal activities with gun dealers in Mozambique.

The high court agreed with McBride, but the newspaper appealed the decision to the SCA.

On Friday, the SCA held that that it had not been alleged in the articles that McBride had been involved in illegal activities with gun running in Mozambique, but only that there were facts indicating that he may have been involved in such gun dealing.

To this extent the newspaper's appeal was successful.

Amnesty

But, referring to McBride's involvement in the bombing of the Magoo's Bar/Why Not Restaurant in Durban in which three female patrons were killed, the court said once amnesty had been granted to McBride he could no longer be branded a criminal and murderer.

This is in terms of the offences in respect of which amnesty had been granted to him.

McBride was sentenced to death for the bombing but in 2001 he was granted amnesty in terms of section 20 of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act.

The judgment held that the purpose of amnesty provided for in the interim constitution was to advance reconciliation and reconstruction of the South African society on the basis that there was no need for retribution or victimisation.

No longer branded

The court held that it had no doubt that the Reconciliation Act had the intention that people to whom amnesty had been granted should not be held criminally and civilly liable for offences committed by them, but also that they should be considered not to have committed the offences and that those offences should not be held against them.

The SCA found that once amnesty had been granted to McBride he could no longer be branded a criminal and murderer in respect of the offences that he got amnesty for.

However, the SCA ruled it was not to say that McBride's actions and the consequences of his actions were to be considered not to have taken place.

"The granting of amnesty was an attempt to shape the future not to undo the past. The statement in the editorials and articles that the respondent is a murderer is therefore false," the judgment read.

- SAPA