Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-20

GEORGE BIZOS: Yes, but the Investigation Unit was inquiring into things which it put before the Commission.

EDWARD WEBB: And Gen Badenhorst declared everything.

GEORGE BIZOS: Yes, except that he couldn't have made public what you and Verster knew and what the Head of the Army or Defence Force knew, those were kept back from the Commission.

EDWARD WEBB: Gen Badenhorst made his declaration, Chairperson.

GEORGE BIZOS: No, no, but you know, Gen Badenhorst wasn't a party to the CCB conspiracy, he was investigating it and he was attempting to do an honest job and he was thwarted by you, by Verster, the leader of the Army and the leader of the Defence Force, by keeping back information which led to a false conclusion being arrived at by Judge Harms at page 59 of his report.

EDWARD WEBB: Can we please read page 59, Chairperson?

GEORGE BIZOS: Well what is your answer to my question?  But you're entitled to hear it, I would have thought that you would be very interested.  Let me read to you paragraph B43, B44, in order for the Commission - have you got the exhibit before you, Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: I do ...

GEORGE BIZOS: Because it's rather important that this conspiracy to mislead the Judge should come to the fore, because it has not only an affect on the witness's credibility but also the manner in which the other applicants in this case were dealt with by their superiors at the Commission.  If you turn to page ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: It's page 58.

GEORGE BIZOS: 58.

CHAIRPERSON: Page 62 of the Harms Report, but page 58 of our pages.

GEORGE BIZOS: Paragraph B43
"An alternative approach by counsel to the question was motivated as follows.  The Minister of Defence and the then Chief of the Defence Force, adopted a plan during 1986, which meant that the ANC had to be maximally disrupted abroad and a covert organisation had to be established which was to be divided into regions.
			The CCB is the covert organisation that was established in accordance with this plan.  Region 6 is an internal region and was envisaged when the plan was adopted.  Members of Region 6 perpetrated these deeds within the borders of the country.  Members of Region 6 were promised indemnity from prosecution beforehand.  Therefore these deeds were authorised by the Minister or the Chief of the South African Defence Force.  Once again their argument ignores material facts and is based on false assumptions.  The plan was as repeatedly stated, to disrupt the ANC abroad.  The policy directive of Special Forces and therefore also of the CCB, contained an express restriction to the effect that offensive action was to take place externally.  The command structure of the CCB was aware of the restriction, realising and understanding that it applied to the CCB.  According to Gen Webb, and there is nothing to the contrary, no internal operations were submitted to higher authority for authorisation.  The allegation by van Zyl and Botha that they were informed that Region 6 had to engage in internal offensive action, cannot in the light of available evidence, be tracked back to higher authority.  The allegation by van Zyl and Botha that they were promised indemnity from prosecution was contested and in any case conflicts with the provisions of the Personnel Plan which states in no uncertain terms that CCB members must obey all the laws of the land."
Now, do you agree that your evidence and Verster's evidence whom you listened to telling the untruths, was relied upon by the Judge in order to come to the conclusion and absolve people from what they should have been found responsible for?

EDWARD WEBB: There was never any indemnity or amnesty promised.

GEORGE BIZOS: That's the detail, what do you say about the fact that the Judge says that there was no evidence?  Here was the evidence of Mr Verster, which you knew - you must have known what he knew and what the truth was according to him, some of which we heard here, why didn't you tell the Commission that you knew that Verster was lying, ex post facto, even if you didn't know before.

EDWARD WEBB: As I testified before the Webster Inquest, I tried to protect Verster at that stage.  ...(transcriber's interpretation)

GEORGE BIZOS: No, no - yes, but you see therefore you have to agree that you assisted in the process of keeping out the Head of the Army, the Head of the Defence Force, yourself, from any culpability before Judge Harms.

EDWARD WEBB: That is not true, Chairperson.  If you read the paragraph on page 63, the third sentence from the top
"According to Gen Webb, and there's nothing to the contrary, no internal operations were submitted to any higher authority for authorisation."
Because I acknowledged before the Harms Commission that I approved two internal operations.  I asked for privilege and at the end of the Harms Commission I was asked questions by the legal representative of the Defence Force and I said both operations were authorised at my level. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just for ...(intervention)

GEORGE BIZOS: You didn't submit any of that to Harms.

CHAIRPERSON: Just for the record, page 63 referred to by the General is in fact page 59 of our bundle.

EDWARD WEBB: Sorry, Chairperson.

GEORGE BIZOS: You didn't speak about that in the Harms Commission, to use the Americanism, you took the fifth, you said that you would not say anything because if you did say anything you might incriminate yourself and that was the end of - that's where it was cut off.

EDWARD WEBB: No, Chairperson, I'm very sorry but Mr Bizos does not know his facts.  If you go to the Harms Commission and you look, I think it's Adv Burger, he represented the Defence Force, he asked me in the end for my testimony and I asked for privilege "Who approved it", and I said it was approved on my level.  So your facts are not correct.

GEORGE BIZOS: In respect of what incident?

EDWARD WEBB: Of these two incidents I'm applying for amnesty.

GEORGE BIZOS: Did you not claim privilege for those?

EDWARD WEBB: Excuse me, I didn't hear the question.

GEORGE BIZOS: Didn't you claim privilege for those before the Commission?

EDWARD WEBB: Yes, I did.

GEORGE BIZOS: How is that consistent, the claim of privilege, but then that you admitted that you authorised them?

EDWARD WEBB: It was asked of me - we can look, it's on record, Mr Chairman, if any higher approved orders, I said "No, it was approved on my level."

GEORGE BIZOS: You know I am going to put to you that your evidence doesn't make sense because it's very clear that you're claiming privilege and you claimed it successfully.  I will find the passages in a moment, Mr Chairman, it's in bundle F.
	Please turn to page 49 ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Bundle F?

GEORGE BIZOS: Of bundle F, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: It's this very big document.

GEORGE BIZOS: Have you got it ...(indistinct - no microphone)

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have it, Mr du Plessis?

UNKNOWN: Chairperson, I just want to see if we can find the part which Mr Webb referred to in his answer to Mr Bizos, so please grant us a minute.

MR LAX: You'll find it at page 66, that's Burger's cross-examination.  If that's what you're looking for.  That's our note 66, 2120 of the original.  That was where Burger cross-examined Gen Webb.  It's almost half a page worth.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think Mr Bizos, if you can get to your question relating to page 49.

GEORGE BIZOS: Yes thank you.
	...(indistinct - no microphone)  Page 49.  Are you with me?

CHAIRPERSON: It's page 2103 of that record.  2103, which is page 49 of bundle F.

MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, I think Mr Bizos is referring to the typed page 49.  It's paginated page 10.

GEORGE BIZOS: The Chairman and I have page 49, it says ...(indistinct)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) Bertelsman.

GEORGE BIZOS: ...(indistinct)

MS COLERIDGE: It's page 10.  It's the typed page 49, Chairperson, but it's paginated 10.