Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-19

GEORGE BIZOS: What was the policy as far as you understood it, about the operatives using criminals, gangsters, murderers, as their agents to commit murder and other offences?

EDWARD WEBB: I would choose that those kind of people must have been recruited for actions externally and not within the country, because it could only improve the covert section of the CCB.

GEORGE BIZOS: Let's deal with the internal situation, why would you not have used gangsters?

EDWARD WEBB: As far as I'm concerned, gangsters would be totally unreliable, gangsters are notorious and they're known to the South African Police, it's not logical to use gangsters if you wanted to act within the country, whereas if you acted externally, then it will be alright if the police caught him, you didn't have to protect him.

GEORGE BIZOS: On any operation which you approved or you were asked to approve, was any disclosure made to you that the primary information came from gangsters?

EDWARD WEBB: No, Chair.

GEORGE BIZOS: Would you have relied on any information which primarily came from gangsters?

EDWARD WEBB: I wouldn't know whether it came from gangsters or not.

GEORGE BIZOS: Would you have expected the people who furnished you with the information, to disclose to you that the information came primarily from gangsters?

EDWARD WEBB: Definitely not, CCB did not operate in that way.

GEORGE BIZOS: You would have expected your operatives to have disclosed that fact because it was outside the policy of the CCB and their failure to do so was contrary to the procedures as you understood them?

EDWARD WEBB: Do I understand the question correctly, that the operators would have said the information came from gangsters?

GEORGE BIZOS: Did they say that?

EDWARD WEBB: No, I'm asking if I'm understanding the question correctly.

CHAIRPERSON: The question was, would you have expected them to have disclosed that?  If they were performing an operation and all the information relied on for the conducting of that operation, was sourced from a gangster, would you expect that to be disclosed?

EDWARD WEBB: No, not to me, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Why not?

EDWARD WEBB: CCB didn't operate in that way, information was given on a certain level between Joe Verster and myself, he wouldn't tell me it came from A, B, C or D.

MR LAX: Just while we're on this if you'll allow me, Mr Bizos, sorry.
	How did you know that particular intelligence or information had been verified or - what were you told?

EDWARD WEBB: If it was submitted to me by the Managing Director, I assumed that it had already gone through the channels and through the process and that it was confirmed as information.  I of course also had other sources of intelligence.

MR LAX: These are your own sources?

EDWARD WEBB: Yes.

MR LAX: Did you use those sources to verify any of these two - either of these two operations that we're talking about here?

EDWARD WEBB: No.

GEORGE BIZOS: So your authorisation of the Early Learning Centre, you depended entirely on the information that was furnished to you without making any independent enquiries yourself?

EDWARD WEBB: That's correct, Chair.

GEORGE BIZOS: Just by the way, did you make any notes of what was reported to you?

EDWARD WEBB: I assume that I made certain notes.

GEORGE BIZOS: What happened to them?

EDWARD WEBB: They were no longer in existence.

GEORGE BIZOS: I can understand that, but what I can't understand is how you could in May 1997, remember what was placed before you.

EDWARD WEBB: It's not difficult, Chair.

GEORGE BIZOS: Well we'll come to that specific thing, I'm merely ...(intervention)

EDWARD WEBB: This is my third application for amnesty, the first was done in 1990, and no ...(intervention)

GEORGE BIZOS: Where is a copy of that?

EDWARD WEBB: Somewhere with the Truth Commission, wherever those applications went.

GEORGE BIZOS: In '99 there was no ...(intervention)

EDWARD WEBB: 1990.  The Indemnity Act number 35, Mr Bizos, in 1990, and we requested indemnity at that stage.

GEORGE BIZOS: There was no Commission at that stage, Sir.

EDWARD WEBB: "Daarna het daar weer 'n ...(onduidelik) gekom, in '92."   My application has never changed, so that is where the detail comes from, from my first application which stems from 1990.

GEORGE BIZOS: Well you say that it's with the Commission, the Commission wasn't in existence then, but we'll try and find it and we'll see.  But anyway, we'll come to the specifics.  Let's stay with Exhibit L please.  Do you see that the Head of the Army, in paragraph 11 and in a couple of other paragraphs, but particularly in paragraph 11, was concerned that there should be some control over the work of the CCB.  Would you agree in general terms that this is what all these requirements are there for?

EDWARD WEBB: Yes, Chair, but it was not the Chief of the Army, it's the Defence Force.

GEORGE BIZOS: Yes, forgive me, the common practice is to equate the two, but I'll try and remember that it's the Defence Force and not the Army.  The Army is a very substantial part of the Defence Force, is it not?

EDWARD WEBB: Yes, Chairperson.

GEORGE BIZOS: But do you agree that the Head of the Defence Force was anxious that there should be control and he ...(intervention)

EDWARD WEBB: I don't know where the word "anxious" comes in, but he ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think the interpretation is that the Head of the Defence Force desires professional conduct based on sound doctrine.

EDWARD WEBB: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Well whether he was anxious about it or insisted on it, this is what he desired.

EDWARD WEBB: A doctrine had to be developed in terms of which people could act.

GEORGE BIZOS: Well and other matters.  And also there was going to be a follow-up meeting in order that other aspects of the CCB could be formalised.  Do you agree with that?

EDWARD WEBB: Yes, Chairperson.

GEORGE BIZOS: So if anyone were to suggest that the CCB was a loose cannon that could do whatever it wanted, would not be correct.

EDWARD WEBB: Yes, Chairperson.

GEORGE BIZOS: Well we'll come back to this when the affidavit of Gen Joubert becomes available.

MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman, something has struck me, ...(indistinct) a spanner in the wheels now, but if I remember it all correctly, if a person is to be incriminated in these proceedings, he should receive notice of it.  Well to me this seems rather incriminating of Gen Geldenhuys and I was just wondering what is to happen in that regard.  Is the matter going to - are we carrying on on this or we going to ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: The Act provides for persons who are implicated during the course of a hearing to be given notice and the usual practice, certainly as far as Panels that I've been involved in, what happens is, a notice is issued in terms of that Section, I think it's Section 30(4) - Section 30(2), together with the relevant extract of the testimony and then that person can exercise his rights as contained in the Act.

MR WESSELS: I follow.

CHAIRPERSON: So if ...(intervention)

MR WESSELS: So we needn't stop now?

CHAIRPERSON: No, no.

MR WESSELS: Thank you.

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

CHAIRPERSON: I'm sure Ms Coleridge is - if she's of the opinion that there is an implicated person, then such notice will go out.

MS COLERIDGE: That is correct, Chairperson.

GEORGE BIZOS: Now in relation to whether murder was ... or assassination was authorised within the borders of not, I want to ask you, have you had an opportunity of looking at Exhibit D?  That's the extract of the report of the Commission.

CHAIRPERSON: This document, have you got it Mr du Plessis?  It's got this dark ... It's fairly thick.  Mr Bizos, which page will you be referring to?

GEORGE BIZOS: The last page.

CHAIRPERSON: The last page.