Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-19

MR P DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
	General, what I'm trying to get to is due the lack of documentation in this case.  I want to get to the procedure which would have been followed, with the approval or otherwise, of operations of Region 6, the CCB.  Can I ask you directly, was the procedure and levels of authorisation for operations, such as for instance, the elimination of somebody, let's say specifically relating to the elimination of a person, specifically between yourself and the Managing Director, was that discussed between yourselves?  Or was it just left hanging in the air?

EDWARD WEBB: Well the Managing Director was a founder member of the CCB and he would have known about the procedures which were to be followed, so I assume that he would know that if somebody had to be eliminated, then authorisation had to be got from me.

MR P DU PLESSIS: You see - well, do I understand your answer to be that it was never discussed, because my question was actually, was it or was it not discussed?  Yes or no?

EDWARD WEBB: I will accept that it was discussed, but I can't recall a specific incident where it was discussed, but it is possible.

GEORGE BIZOS: Mr Chairman, with the greatest respect, Mr van Zyl clearly stated what the procedure was, Mr Verster clearly stated what the procedure was, none of them were challenged in relation to what that procedure was.  Mr Verster said that he got permission from Gen Webb.  These hypotheses that are begin put are not based on the evidence.  If hypotheses are to be put, they must be put on the evidence and no attempts should be made in order to reconcile irreconcilable differences.  The differences on the evidence are irreconcilable, Mr Chairman, and an attempt is being made - and I will read a passage from a judgment in relation to the CCB, from another Court, as to what has happened in other proceedings.  We are here to try and prevent the same thing from happened here, Mr Chairman.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I really don't understand Mr Bizos' objection at all, I'm trying to establish facts from this witness and if the witness doesn't know the answer, or if he cannot remember, he can say so.  But the question is simple, did you or did you not discuss the procedure?  And the answer is either yes or no or "I can't remember."  Now what is the objection about?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I'll allow the question because as you say it does relate to a question of fact, whether they discussed or not, or whether Gen Webb merely assumed that Mr Verster knew what the procedure was.
	Did you discuss with Verster, the procedure relating to the elimination of people, or projects involving the elimination of people?

EDWARD WEBB: I can't recall that we spoke about elimination but the procedure was laid down.  As I explained earlier on, the powers that he had as Managing Director, or he had certain powers and others he did not have, and I've explained that.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Yes General, I'm sorry, the answer is still not clear to me.  Can you recall specifically that as to the powers and functions of the Managing Director, whether you discussed it specifically with him, yes or no?  Can you recall that or can't you?

EDWARD WEBB: There must have been such a discussion, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: But what Mr du Plessis is asking you is, as you sit here now, can you remember such a discussion?  - not what ought to have happened.

EDWARD WEBB: Not specifically, Mr Chairman.

MR LAX: Can you just repeat your answer, I couldn't hear it.

EDWARD WEBB: Not specifically, Mr Chairman.

MR P DU PLESSIS: You mentioned, General, that Mr Joe Verster was a founder member of the CCB, and if I understand you correctly, you therefore assumed that he was familiar with the procedure?

EDWARD WEBB: Yes.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Can you, if that was your perception that he as a founder member of the CCB who'd already been involved in it for quite a while, that he must have been familiar with the procedures and functions, is it not possible then that you did not specifically discuss it with him?

EDWARD WEBB: I can't remember a specific example or instance where we sat and discussed the procedure but the two of us had a very clear understanding as to what he could approve and what he couldn't approve.

MR P DU PLESSIS: And what do you base that on?

EDWARD WEBB: They had their administrative plan which contained certain functions, which - well, certain things that Verster could approve, appointment of staff, purchasing of motorcars, certain administrative things which he could approve.  Then there was a procedure laid down for the two of us approving certain things jointly, certain operational things.

MR P DU PLESSIS: In other words, executive actions of the CCB relating to destabilisation of the enemy in the country?

EDWARD WEBB: That is correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry General, before you got involved with Special Forces, what was your position?

EDWARD WEBB: I was the Commanding Officer at the Infantry School at Luhatla, the Army Combat School in Luhatla, which is a completely conventional form of warfare as opposed to the Special Forces which was totally unconventional.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Mr du Plessis.

MR P DU PLESSIS: You've already told us that in the case of certain projects you would have had to obtain authorisation from your superiors, was that specifically spelt out as to what actions against the enemy that would relate to?

EDWARD WEBB: No, apart from that distinction of, people would not be killed or casualties were not expected and would casualties be expected.  ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR P DU PLESSIS: Who laid down that distinction?

EDWARD WEBB: It was conveyed to me by Gen Joubert.

MR P DU PLESSIS: So what it amounted to was - well to put it directly, actions within the country which were actually illegal and which had to be carried out against the enemy and in which there were not casualties envisaged, those you could authorise?

EDWARD WEBB: Yes.

MR P DU PLESSIS: So the dividing line, the distinction made between what you could and couldn't authorise, would be physical injuries to people described as enemies of the State?  For those kinds of operations you would have to get authorisation from your superiors.

EDWARD WEBB: Casualties, Chairperson.  If casualties were expected, in other words, loss of human life.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Loss of life.  So you would be able to give approval where injuries were expected, but not necessarily casualties or loss of life?

EDWARD WEBB: That's correct.

MR P DU PLESSIS: And this was made clear to you and spelt out to you by your predecessor, Gen Joubert?

EDWARD WEBB: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, who was your higher authority?

EDWARD WEBB: Chairperson, if I wanted to launch certain actions or if Special Forces wanted to launch actions against the ANC, Umkhonto weSizwe, then it was the Chief of the Army who at that stage was Gen Liebenberg.  If these were actions envisaged against any other enemies of the State, the PAC for instance, then it would be the Chief of Staff Defence Force, who was Gen Gleeson and then Gen Bishoff.

MR P DU PLESSIS: That would also apply to actions within the borders of the country against these banned organisations?

EDWARD WEBB: That's correct.

GEORGE BIZOS: ...(indistinct - no microphone)

CHAIRPERSON: Gen Gleeson and thereafter Gen Bishoff.

GEORGE BIZOS: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I'm sorry ...(indistinct - no microphone)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Mr Chair.
	Did you have any meetings with these people to give them information, your superiors I'm referring to, relating to these projects to be launched?

EDWARD WEBB: I am not quite with you, what projects are you referring to?