Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-20

EDWARD WEBB: I think the reason was as a result of the covert nature of the organisation.  The names were simply not revealed and pseudonyms were used.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos.

GEORGE BIZOS: You see on page 40 - have you got it in front of you?

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I think if we can just get it on record, is this an extract from the Harms Commission Report?

GEORGE BIZOS: No, this is a statement, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it?  Because if you go to page - oh, I've got the wrong one, no wonder.  Sorry.

GEORGE BIZOS: It's paragraph 78.  I don't want to read the first part because it's clear.  Just have a look, that
"Staal Burger then told me that the project had been approved on ELC and that Joe Verster's message to me was that if one more bomb had been activated by the Kewtown Youth Movement, then it would be my fault."
Now leave out the rest but go back to the last two sentences of that paragraph.  
"It was said by Staal Burger that the project had provided for the loss of human life as far as members of the Kewtown Youth Movement was concerned.  However, this had to be limited to a minimum."
Now assume that to be a statement of fact, deposed to by Mr van Zyl both in his statement and in his evidence here, you can hardly say that it was not foreseen that there would be loss of life when the person, the Manager of Region 6 foresaw it and warned the operative, but he was selective, that it was okay to kill the people that you thought were "'n bende".  And that that is authorised.
"provide for the loss of human life"
how can - well there are two possibilities, either that van Zyl is not telling the truth and ...(intervention)

MR MARTINI: Chairperson, just for the record, Mr Bizos is putting to the witness the Section 29 statement and I mentioned yesterday I don't want to keep on objecting to versions that were put because we'll be here for another five weeks and if do remain silent ...  That's not what I recall Mr van Zyl's evidence at these hearings was, what is read from the Section 29 statement.  But that's what I'm trying to avoid because we're going to have to sit here with the record every day if Mr Bizos wants to put versions.  This is the difficulty which we have, 'cause we're not computers and memorising word for word that was said after all these weeks.  So as far as I recollect, and that's the furthest I can take it, it was not Mr van Zyl's evidence.  He did say that - what I recall was that it was foreseen that there could be a possibility of injury or loss of life, but in terms of the words contained in the Section 29 statement.
	The difficulty I'm having, Chairperson, is I don't want to object each time Mr Bizos tries to put a version because we're going to be here for days and I'm sure, Chairperson, you also have a difficulty trying to recollect and say "Well that's not really what the witness said."  That's the difficulty we have.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we can always of course check the record.  Mr Bizos.

GEORGE BIZOS: Not only does it accord with my recollection, Mr Chairman, but I'm assured by Mr Kahanovitz who was actually doing a planned and careful cross-examination as you will remember, with notes in front of him, that he actually asked him: "Is that what Staal Burger said to you?"  And he said "Yes" and I have a very clear recollection I think, of what the reaction of Mr Staal Burger was, sitting behind Mr van Zyl.  So Mr Martini will save time if he makes an objection based on facts.  But I don't want to take it any further.

MR MARTINI: Chairperson, just for the record again, I don't want to continuously object, so I'm not going to and my failure to do so mustn't be regarded that we accept.  The problem which we have is, it's unfair to this witness if Mr Bizos is putting a wrong version.  That's the difficulty.  I don't want to prolong these proceedings but it's creating - I think it creates an unfairness to a particular witness, because at the end of the day we do have the record when we argue.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we do have a record at the end of the day and I can assure you before we make any findings in respect of anything we will carefully go through the record and also the witness was also present the whole time during which Mr van Zyl was testifying, unlike in a court case, where he might not have been present.  So we do have the safety.  If the witness feels that that wasn't the situation or can't recall, then he can mention it himself as well.  If you feel that you ought to object, you can do so, but I can assure you the fact that you don't object to everything, we're not going to place any weight on the fact that you didn't object.

MR MARTINI: What I'm saying is, my silence mustn't mean I accept that's my client's version.

CHAIRPERSON: No, we're with you there.

GEORGE BIZOS: ...(indistinct) silence that will weigh, Mr Chairman, but the contents of the record.  He can be assured of that.
	You see this passage here clearly indicates that it was part of the project, that means that it was authorised.

EDWARD WEBB: The instruction was that there would be no casualties.

GEORGE BIZOS: No, we're talking about what was authorised and was not authorised.

EDWARD WEBB: But I'm telling you, the order was no casualties.

GEORGE BIZOS: Now you see I am going to suggest to you that the probabilities are overwhelming that there was an intention to wipe out the Kewtown Committee, and let me tell you why.  If the information that was given to you was correct, you were dealing with dangerous terrorists, correct?

EDWARD WEBB: No, not dangerous terrorist, terrorists.

GEORGE BIZOS: Well are there - well I'll leave out the dangerous, I suppose all terrorists are dangerous.  Are there any terrorists who are not dangerous?

EDWARD WEBB: Yes.

GEORGE BIZOS: Who?

EDWARD WEBB: Those who did not participate in the struggle.

GEORGE BIZOS: And who are they?  And who are they?  Please make your meaning clear.

EDWARD WEBB: I talk in general, Mr Bizos.

GEORGE BIZOS: What is the "algemeen" mean?

EDWARD WEBB: That the persons who did not participate in the struggle were not dangerous terrorists.

GEORGE BIZOS: Well they're not terrorists.

EDWARD WEBB: You get many people who talk but don't do much.

GEORGE BIZOS: Oh I see.  Well perhaps your meaning is understood by some, but not by me.  But be that as it may, you were dealing with terrorists whom you expected to explode bombs before and during the election, correct?

EDWARD WEBB: Correct.

GEORGE BIZOS: They must therefore have had in their possession, on the probabilities, explosives and bombs ready or almost ready to go off.

EDWARD WEBB: Correct.

GEORGE BIZOS: You expected them to use those bombs before or during that election, which was some six days away?

EDWARD WEBB: Correct.

GEORGE BIZOS: How would giving them a fright after they had left, have prevented them from carrying on with their acts of terrorism?

EDWARD WEBB: Some people have different characters, some people took up the armed struggle, others did not.  It's the same in this case.  When a bomb explodes, when you leave the building some people get the message very clearly and they would not join the organisation and continue with it.  Only the hardened people will say "Yes, let's continue."  But he would lose some of his people and then you disrupt him.

GEORGE BIZOS: Did you think that these terrorists merely because their meeting place had been blown up in their absence, having gone to the danger of getting bombs, having gone to the danger of having exploded some of theme before, would have given up their purpose and not put up the - not make use of the bombs that they had?  Is that the logic in your argument?

EDWARD WEBB: It is not about blowing up the building, it's about the message the person would get after the explosion.