Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-20

GEORGE BIZOS: But you were to take over, did you think that you had ...(indistinct - no microphone) Army in relation to this, that you had the support of the Head of the Defence Force, that you had the support of the Minister of Defence?  Didn't you want to ask this?  You know if somebody is offered a job which is of an unusual kind, you say "Well you know, where does this come from, I want to know precisely where do I stand"?  You didn't ask yourself that question?

EDWARD WEBB: I accept it as such, I accepted that it had been approved by the Chief of the Defence Force, Chief of the Army and I just continued.

GEORGE BIZOS: So you say the Head of the Army, to your knowledge, and the Head of the Defence Force knew the purpose for which the CCB was formed?

EDWARD WEBB: The Chief of the Defence Force had approved it.

GEORGE BIZOS: Yes, well that's fairly clear from Exhibit L as well, is it not?

EDWARD WEBB: That's correct, Chairperson.

GEORGE BIZOS: Now I know that Generals want to keep out of politics, but does the Head of the Army go off on a limb such as this to form the CCB, having regard to what it's objectives were, without the authority of the Minister of Defence?

EDWARD WEBB: I don't know what the channels would be, but the Head of the Defence Force approved it, not the Head of the Army, Head of the Defence Force.

GEORGE BIZOS: Well if you had been the Head of the Army, would you have done a thing like this without the Minister of Defence having authorised you to do this?

EDWARD WEBB: I was never Chief of the Army, so I don't know.

GEORGE BIZOS: No, but you were in the "binnekring" so to speak, you were a General, you attended staff meetings.  You were sufficiently trusted to be given this leadership of this body that was going to commit these acts, would you have committed them if you did not know that the Minister of Defence and indeed the President, were party to the formation of this body? - as a General.

EDWARD WEBB: I was never placed in that position, I can't answer that question.

GEORGE BIZOS: Well you see what you are saying now is consistent with the decisions of the Generals at the time of the Harms Commission is it not, that you would cut off from the bottom the operatives, that you Generals knew nothing about what they did and that you Generals would keep quiet about the involvement of the Minister of Defence and the President and the Security Council?  Was there no decision to that effect before you entered the witness box and misled the Harms Commission?

EDWARD WEBB: I reject the type of statement Mr Bizos is making at the moment, he's trying to insinuate that there was a conspiracy between the Generals.  It's absolute rubbish.

GEORGE BIZOS: Well then is it rubbish when we are told by your General Manager, Mr Verster, that there was a lull in the activities of the CCB and also Mr van Zyl - well, I'm corrected, maybe Mr Verster didn't say it, I seem to remember that he did, but certainly Mr van Zyl said that activities were suspended when Mr FW de Klerk took over as President, because he did not know about the CCB and that you had to lie low until Mr de Klerk was informed of its existence.  Is that also "bog", as you describe it?

EDWARD WEBB: Chairperson, yes, it is rubbish, I know of no order being given as a result of the change in presidency and that actions had to be stopped.

GEORGE BIZOS: Well why would one of the operatives of the CCB talk such nonsense?

EDWARD WEBB: It was the same operative that said that the Minister and the President knew of the actions of the CCB, which is also rubbish.

GEORGE BIZOS: Yes.  You feel very strongly that you have to deny that.

EDWARD WEBB: It's not a question of feeling that, Mr Bizos, it's a question of fact.

GEORGE BIZOS: Oh.  But now do you agree that going on a tangent, for the Army to kill in the manner in which the CCB was to do it, according to the Head of the Army, in Exhibit L ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: L1.

GEORGE BIZOS: The affidavit, Exhibit L.  Oh, I'm sorry, yes you're quite right, L1 paragraph 7.
	Do you agree that redefining murder for a country in which the law was supposed to be applied, for the Head of the Army to redefine murder had political implications?

EDWARD WEBB: The Chief of the Army made no such definition, it was the Chief of the Defence Force, Mr Bizos.

GEORGE BIZOS: I'm sorry, but you know what I'm talking about.

EDWARD WEBB: Yes, but we have to have the facts in front the Committee, and you're starting to confuse me.

GEORGE BIZOS: Yes, well it's in the documents.  For some of us, unfortunately, these distinctions are not as clear as they are to you and I ask for your forgiveness.  Gen Geldenhuys - shall we refer to him by name?  Was it Gen Geldenhuys that was speaking in Exhibit L1?

EDWARD WEBB: Gen Geldenhuys.

GEORGE BIZOS: Yes, and what was he?

EDWARD WEBB: He was the Chief of the Defence Force.  Chief of the Defence Force.

GEORGE BIZOS: Yes, Chief of the Defence Force.  Would the Chief of the Defence Force redefine murder to the other Generals that were present at this meeting without there being a political fallout if it was found out?

EDWARD WEBB: Chairperson, I am not prepared to comment on what Gen Geldenhuys said in the document, it wasn't said in my presence.  I wasn't there and I saw the document for the first time yesterday.

GEORGE BIZOS: You see I am going to put to you that you as a General, knew when you took this over, that your activities would have had very serious political implications if they came to the fore.  Would you agree with that?

EDWARD WEBB: Depending on which deeds were committed, yes.

GEORGE BIZOS: Well if they were the deeds which we have heard about in this hearing and ...(indistinct) deeds which are contained in Exhibit D, the Report of the Commission.

EDWARD WEBB: What is the question?

GEORGE BIZOS: Would there be tremendous political fallout for the country if the activities of the CCB, whether under Gen Joubert or under you, came to the fore?

EDWARD WEBB: If such deeds were committed, yes.

GEORGE BIZOS: And is that why you misled the Harms Commission so that the Harms Commission could not make a finding as to what the true purpose of the CCB was?

EDWARD WEBB: The Harms Commission was misled by the level of approval, the Harms Commission was misled through allegations of it happening inside the country and that's the only way in which the Harms Commission was misled.  The deeds that were committed and for which we received privilege, that was known to the Harms Commission.

GEORGE BIZOS: I'm asking you for the reason why you misled the Commission by being untruthful before it.

EDWARD WEBB: I answered that question yesterday, Chairperson.

GEORGE BIZOS: Yes, I just thought I would remind you of it.  The State Security Council was openly said to have the function of co-ordinating the activities of the Security Forces, do you accept that?

EDWARD WEBB: In a certain measure yes, I have no knowledge thereof.

GEORGE BIZOS: Well you have heard of the Security Council.

EDWARD WEBB: Yes, Chairperson.

GEORGE BIZOS: Did you not hear what its main purpose was, ostensibly?

EDWARD WEBB: Not that I can recall.

GEORGE BIZOS: May I remind you?  That it was to co-ordinate the affairs of the Security Forces.

EDWARD WEBB: Probably in wide measures, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Bizos, I've just received a note from the Sound Engineer to say that there's a problem and that a five minute adjournment is required to fix the sound system, because we're not sure whether we're losing some of what is being said on the tapes.  So if we could take a five minute adjournment for the Sound Engineer to check his system.

MS COLERIDGE: All rise.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

EDWARD WEBB: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos.  I think when we adjourned, if my note is correct, we were talking about the function of the State Security Council, it's main function.