Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-19

MR P DU PLESSIS: Yes, overtly - well, there were well known operations which took place, there was also - as you've just said, there were certain covert actions against the enemies and situations where the South African Defence Force did not want to reveal its involvement for public knowledge.

EDWARD WEBB: That's correct.

MR P DU PLESSIS: As far as the internal or domestic section or region is concerned, to get back to that for a moment, was it your instruction or orders that in the same way as it was possible to act in a cover way against the enemies of the State abroad, that this could also be done within the country in order to destabilise the enemies of the State?

EDWARD WEBB: I think the word that you're using, "order", is not correct because it was conveyed to me from an equal rank, what could be done and what couldn't be done.  So it couldn't have been an order.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Alright.  Your equal rank predecessor, Gen Joubert, you took over his post, right?

EDWARD WEBB: Correct.

MR P DU PLESSIS: So you should have been informed as to your powers and functions and orders, not so?

EDWARD WEBB: Correct.

MR P DU PLESSIS: And was one of your orders as a result also of the establishment of Region 6, to destabilise the enemies of the then State within the borders of the country?

EDWARD WEBB: The order was maximal disruption of the enemy, under which you can include within the country if there was an appropriate target, but it could also be done outside of the country where there was an appropriate target.

MR P DU PLESSIS: The destabilisation of the enemy outside of the country, that you've placed on record, but General, your predecessor must surely have described to you in so many words that Region 6 was specifically established for purposes of the maximal destabilisation and disruption of the enemies of the State, internally, is that correct?

EDWARD WEBB: Yes, but in very concealed terms, but I understood that one had the capacity to act internally, yes.

MR P DU PLESSIS: What my clients or their position, my clients being Burger, Basson and Maree, as far as they're concerned there is on record on other forums, which also forms part of the documentation before this Truth Commission, it's been placed on record that there was a very specific briefing from official quarters, from the Defence Force and they were informed that part of their duties was the maximal destabilisation and disruption of the enemies of the Republic, within the country.

EDWARD WEBB: I wasn't part of that briefing session.

MR P DU PLESSIS: But that briefing which they received, General, you will agree with me that that would have been in line with the perception, at least, which you had regarding the powers and functions of Region 6 of the CCB?

EDWARD WEBB: Yes, with the perception, yes.

MR P DU PLESSIS: If therefore you had been formally told by the Managing Director, Joe Verster, that a briefing session had taken place and that he had told the members of Region 6 that their job description was to be in the following terms, namely the maximal disruption of the enemy of the Republic of South Africa and of the State, with the country, you wouldn't have disputed that?

EDWARD WEBB: No, I wouldn't, but such a briefing never took place between myself and Col Verster.

MR P DU PLESSIS: But the point is, if your approval was sought you would have given it because that was your perception as well, that that was the powers and functions of Region 6?

EDWARD WEBB: Correct.

MR P DU PLESSIS: And if at that briefing it was for instance said that that disruption could take place, for instance by burning vehicles, damaging buildings etcetera, that would still according to your perception, have been correct?

EDWARD WEBB: Yes.

MR P DU PLESSIS: And if those members had been informed that part of their job descriptions and powers and functions would be the death in certain cases, appropriate cases of certain people within the borders of the country, that would also have been correct in terms of your perception and specifically in terms of the capacity of the CCB's internal wing?

EDWARD WEBB: Yes.

MR P DU PLESSIS: As far as the approval for these acts are concerned, you say that - and here I'm referring to the worse case scenario of conduct action against the enemy, namely the death of a person.  Was there in any way a written authorisation for such acts, from say, the Head of the Defence Force?

EDWARD WEBB: No.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Was there any written prescriptions regarding the procedures to be followed in those cases?

EDWARD WEBB: There was a procedural prescription or order, as to how to go about to have an operation approved, but it was described as an operation, it wasn't said that if you want to eliminate a person, you have to follow this procedure.

MR P DU PLESSIS: If I understand you correctly, then there was no official procedure laid down for the internal conduct and action of Region 6.

EDWARD WEBB: They had their plans, but there were no orders.  They had their plans, but you would also not find it anywhere in writing with them, that they were there to eliminate people.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Yes, no I think we have already passed that particular point.  You agree with me that it was your perception that they could do so and that you would not have been surprised if that had been the perception of the footsoldier, van Zyl for instance, in his cell at Region 6?  You wouldn't have been surprised if that was his perception?

EDWARD WEBB: Correct.

MR P DU PLESSIS: You've already said that ...(intervention)

GEORGE BIZOS: There is an element of common cause among our friends across the table, the evidence of the witness is that he doesn't know Mr van Zyl, nor did he authorise him.  He's being led into a situation where we can deny each other's version, but let's try and reconcile, and on that basis it is put to him that Mr van Zyl must have had this perception and the witness obliges with an affirmative answer.  I submit that this is not a permissible way of leading evidence.  The evidence thusfar from Mr Verster is not that he was under an incorrect perception, he says that this witness authorised the two conspiracies or attempted murders.  That is the evidence that must be put to him.  And as far as the last question, it's completely impermissible to ask a witness about what the perception of an operative that he does not know, he doesn't know what discussions there were, he doesn't know him at all, yet a favourable answer, so that they can have an argument about perceptions at the end of this hearing.  I submit that the question should be disallowed.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Sorry Mr Chairman, may I just say that I totally disagree, my view, with respect, is there's nothing improper about my questioning, I did not lead this witness, what I've done now is to just summarise what has been said by him up to this stage.  I did not ask him what the perception of van Zyl, for instance, was, I asked him whether he would be surprised if that was said to have been his perception.  There's a total difference there.

CHAIRPERSON: But whatever Gen Webb might think what Mr van Zyl or any other operative's perception was is of very little value to us because he doesn't know them and he doesn't know what they were briefed, he said he wasn't at the briefing.  So it's of no value really.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Well Mr Chairman, the situation is that if this witness were to say that it was totally against the policy of the South African Defence Force and the CCB as such, that people could be eliminated, then obviously that would be virtually the end of the inquiry as far as my clients are concerned, but that is not his evidence and that is what I'm getting on record.

CHAIRPERSON: Well you can proceed, but we don't have to get Gen Webb's - you keep asking him what his opinions are about something that he really has no knowledge about.