Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-20

GEORGE BIZOS: Yes, what would you have done if there were a few lives lost and you knew that Mr van Zyl pressed the button?  What would you have done in relation to Mr van Zyl?

EDWARD WEBB: We would have had an investigation and we would have acted according to the order.

GEORGE BIZOS: But what would you have done about the fact that there was a result which you had forbidden?

EDWARD WEBB: But I am telling you we would started an investigation, we would have acted according to higher orders.

GEORGE BIZOS: Yes, but he didn't carry out your instructions properly, there were loss of lives, what would you have done?  We know that people were injured, if people are injured it was just as likely that people may have been killed.  What would you have done to van Zyl if there had been a loss of life?

UNKNOWN: Chairperson, how many times does Mr Bizos want the General to answer this question?  He would have reported it to higher authority, there would have been an investigation and he would have acted according to higher authorities.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes I think what Mr Bizos is getting at, if there was an investigation which established that your orders hadn't been properly followed, what would you have done to the operative?

EDWARD WEBB: It would have shown from the investigation what the circumstances were.

GEORGE BIZOS: You are the Chairman of this body, the CCB, you budgeted for Mr van Zyl's salary, you gave him the motor car in which he went there, you gave him the gun which he carried, you gave him the bomb which he put there, you ...(intervention)

UNKNOWN: Chairperson, I seriously object against these assumptions, to tell the witness that "you gave him a gun", where is the evidence that Gen Webb gave a gun to Mr van Zyl?

GEORGE BIZOS: ...(indistinct - no microphone) is a permissible way of cross-examining.  He was the Chairman, he had to authorise the budget, he aided and abetted the procurement of those things.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes you can continue.

GEORGE BIZOS: Thank you.
	Would you not have felt some sense of responsibility for a person under your command having caused loss of life?

EDWARD WEBB: Of course, Chairperson.

GEORGE BIZOS: What would you have done about this dereliction of duty on the part of van Zyl if it were not injuries as they were, but deaths?

EDWARD WEBB: I've answered that question already.

GEORGE BIZOS: What would you have done?  What would you have recommended to those above you should happen?  As the Head of this organisation what would you recommend should happen to him?

EDWARD WEBB: The investigation would have determined what the circumstances were, whether he was careful or not.  Can he be blamed or not?  Plus what the higher authorities would have said, yes or no, plus what their orders were.

GEORGE BIZOS: Would you have not had a say of what higher authority would have said about your operatives?  Would you not have had a say?

EDWARD WEBB: I would have had a say after having seen the facts of the investigation.

GEORGE BIZOS: Let us assume that one of the circumstances that Mr van Zyl placed before this Inquiry which you would have had, was "Well it's bad luck that there was loss of life, after all my District Manager, or Regional Manager told me that the project made provision for the loss of life as far as members of the Kewtown Youth Movement were concerned."  Assume that he said that, what would you have done or what would you have recommended should be done?

EDWARD WEBB: There would have been an investigation ...(intervention)

GEORGE BIZOS: No, we're already had the "ondersoek" and ...(intervention)

EDWARD WEBB: Yes, but that's another example for you, Mr Bizos, I'm busy with another investigation because you're ...(intervention)

MR MARTINI: Chairperson, sorry.  Chairperson, if I may make a general statement here.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MARTINI: I don't want to interfere but I can't see the relevance of this line of questioning.  Factually in terms of the Act, the Act says the Commission must consider whether there's been a full disclosure of all the relevant facts, what is the relevance of what would have happened had someone died?  Factually we know no-one died.  And I make this general statement Chairperson, because I see we're in the third week now and there is a Section in the Act, Section 34, where the Commission may limit cross-examination in order to expedite proceedings.
	Now Chairperson, I'm making this statement since most of my learned colleagues here, we are from Johannesburg, we do not have the benefit of returning to chambers to do consultation work and catch up on chamber work and we've been here a long time and I think we should put some limit on the cross-examination, there should be some relevance to the cross-examination.  What would have happened to Mr van Zyl and Mr Botha had someone died, what is the relevance when we know?  Unless Mr Bizos can produced evidence that someone died with this explosion, then I can't see the relevance of this line of cross-examination.  This can take us here for another five weeks Chairperson, if we're going to carry on at this rate.  I think, Chairperson, you have the power within Section 34 to limit the cross-examination, really.  Otherwise I can see these proceedings continuing for months.

GEORGE BIZOS: May I proceed?

CHAIRPERSON: Well you see I think what's being get at here is with regard to the relevance.  We know we're dealing with supposition, we know that somebody didn't die but there is, certainly on the documents and between evidence that has been given here, the possibility of a contradiction relating to what the order was.

MR MARTINI: But Chairperson, that can be argued.  This is not a fact.  The fact is no-one died, no-one was seriously injured and if Mr Bizos wants to argue that because we haven't come to the Commission - which I find an absurd argument, and stated that our intention was to kill and hence we shouldn't get amnesty, he must argue that.  But factually the Commission, the way I understand this Act, the Commission must have reference to relevant facts.  Now I would say a relevant fact is, "Did you or did you not blow up the Early Learning Centre?"  The General, the way I understand his evidence is, "I accept responsibility, I authorised it."   Mr van Zyl says "I pressed the button.  Do you want me to say I didn't press it?"  That's a relevant fact, but as to what may or may not have happened if someone had died, is totally irrelevant to these proceedings.  And this has been going on for a long, long time in these proceedings, we've allowed it with Mr van Zyl, it's now happening to Gen Webb and I'm sure it's going to happen with other witnesses.  I'm just trying to find a way to curtail the proceedings and, Chairperson, I do believe you have the power to limit this type of cross-examination.  Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Bizos, I'm sure you're aware that time is of the essence and ...(intervention)

GEORGE BIZOS: Oh absolutely Mr Chairman, but the state of mind of the witness Mr Chairman, in relation to the authority given, is a vital matter for this and once we have the contradictory evidence which - one of the ways of testing whether he is telling the truth or not is to put this hypothesis to him, Mr Chairman.  It's a perfectly permissible way of cross-examining.  This is how probabilities are established, Mr Chairman.  Certainly in our training and in our practice I've had some experience in the running of trials, Mr Chairman.
	Now the question was, had there been a death and there was an inquiry and Mr van Zyl said at that inquiry what he said in his statement and in his evidence, that "I was told by Mr Burger that if there were to be deaths, make sure that they are from the Kewtown Youth Movement", what would you have recommended to those above you should happen to Mr Burger or to Mr van Zyl, or both?