Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-21

MR LAX: Precisely.  Without any actual projects in mind, particularly with regard to Region 6, you allocate however much money for that purpose and then the Auditor-General approves it and then you go ahead and spend it without, as if it had been approved.

EDWARD WEBB: No, there were also other measures in place.

MR LAX: Yes?

EDWARD WEBB: I think once a month there was a financial report given from the CCB financial staff, to the Financial Department of Special Forces, and then in that once a month report, funds were requested by the CCB, from Special Forces.  It wasn't a global amount which was given on a once off basis to the CCB.

MR LAX: Who was responsible for giving those financial reports?

EDWARD WEBB: The financial person involved in the CCB, he had that responsibility.  My Senior Staff Officer at Finance at Special Forces, he also had that responsibility, and in my time, I also appointed a person to also act as an intermediary in a way to just see that the funds were allocated correctly.

MR LAX: Who were these three people?

EDWARD WEBB: The person at CCB, well, I don't know his name, I did meet him.  My own Senior Staff of Finance, I cannot remember his name, and the person that I appointed, was a retired man, a Brig Pheil.

CHAIRPERSON: How would you spell Pheil.

EDWARD WEBB: P-h-e-i-l, sir.

MR LAX: Did you appoint Brig Pheil with specific authority to vet the accounts?

EDWARD WEBB: To do a small audit before it came to my people at Special Forces Headquarters.

MR LAX: So he was the check on the CCB's own finance people?

EDWARD WEBB: He was the intermediary check.

MR LAX: Yes.  And what were his specific instructions?

EDWARD WEBB: He had to see to the fact that the funds flowed properly, as approved.

MR LAX: Now ...

EDWARD WEBB: He also testified before the Harms Commission.

MR LAX: You see, we have heard of moneys being budgeted, take for example the Early Learning Centre, we know that it must have been in excess of R30 000-00 because the R30 000-00 was what was intended to be paid to the operative who placed the bomb.  You have heard that evidence?

EDWARD WEBB: Yes, I have heard that evidence.

MR LAX: And in addition to that, there were transport, accommodation and all sorts of other costs that were incurred?
	Let's just for argument sake say it was R40 000-00, what checks did you have, or would Brig Pheil have had, in terms of knowing that for argument's sake, that Mr Burger didn't pocket R5 000-00 as is alleged in these papers?  I don't know whether that is true or not, obviously, but that is just the allegation.  How would he know that the money was pocketed or not pocketed?

EDWARD WEBB: There was a financial plan in existence, it was laid down in a document, it said how these funds should be spent and how it should be accounted for, there were built in measures.  Although there was a bit of a dip as far as that was concerned vis-a-vis other covert funds.
	What these control measures was, I cannot remember exactly, perhaps an operation was approved and then that would require my signature, Verster's signature and perhaps the Regional Manager's signature.  If something had been approved on Verster's level, it would require his and the Regional Manager's signatures.   If it was something that only Verster could approve, it would require his signature only, but these were the security or control measures which were laid down in the document.

MR LAX: Okay.   So, nobody signed vouchers for what they spent as far as you know?

EDWARD WEBB: I don't know.  The operation itself would have determined that.

MR LAX: You never received any reports, or did you receive any reports that funds were not being allocated correctly, or not being spent correctly or not being accounted for correctly?

EDWARD WEBB: No, I never received such reports.

MR LAX: Would you have expected to receive such a report if that was the case?

EDWARD WEBB: Definitely.

MR LAX: And then just, let me just check here, there was one other aspect.  I am still a little puzzled and you will indulge me if I am covering ground that has already been covered, and forgive me for that, but I am still not entirely clear in my own mind, how you actually weighed up the selection of targets, what were your specific criteria that you used in your own mind to decide "yes, this is a good project", it meets whatever criteria that you had, or "no, this is a bad target", it doesn't meet whatever those criteria are?  Are you able to just briefly give us the three or five or eight or whatever they might have been, kinds of criteria that you could have checked off in the back of your head as you thought about a target?

EDWARD WEBB: As far as internal operations are concerned, we can look at the bomb explosion at Athlone, what was said was that the source didn't want his identity disclosed with the consequence that the South African Police already fell out of the picture, and the fact that these people were planning acts of terrorism, the fact that they had already committed such acts in the past, information which indicated that actions were being launched against the State.
	If it was an overseas target,  then it was the base where it was situated, who was at the base, what was being done, those were the relevant issues.

MR LAX: And did you weigh up the potential benefits or negative consequences of the operation?

EDWARD WEBB: I am sure that went through one's mind, yes.

MR LAX: Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Mr du Plessis, do you have any questions arising out of the questions that have been put by Members of the Panel?

MR H DU PLESSIS: No questions.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wessels?

MR WESSELS: No thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR WESSELS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Martini?

MR MARTINI: Chairperson, if I may, just one question which I think arose through the cross-examination by Mr Bizos.   Thank you Chairperson.  Gen Webb, according to your evidence, you received information from Mr Verster regarding a particular project, is that correct?

EDWARD WEBB: Yes.

MR MARTINI: The way I understand your evidence is that you weren't given any documentation relating to a particular project, or were you?

EDWARD WEBB: Not in this case, no.

MR MARTINI: Well, in the Early Learning Centre project, were you given a copy of the plan, the "pre-study"?

EDWARD WEBB: No.

MR MARTINI: You are aware that in that matter, Mr van Zyl had to do a "pre-study"?

EDWARD WEBB: I am aware of it now.

MR MARTINI: Sorry, correct, at this point in time, are you aware of that, you heard his evidence?

EDWARD WEBB: Yes Chairperson.

MR MARTINI: And you are also aware that an "in-house" would have to take place after that "pre-study", where you wouldn't be present, the "first in-house"?

EDWARD WEBB: Yes.

MR MARTINI: Would you agree with me that Mr van Zyl would have more knowledge of the particular plan than possibly you?

EDWARD WEBB: You mean with the execution of the whole thing?

MR MARTINI: Yes?

EDWARD WEBB: Yes, because he was on the ground.

MR MARTINI: Correct, and he would have more knowledge possibly of what the objectives were with that plan than what you had?

EDWARD WEBB: Why the objectives?

MR MARTINI: Well, he prepared the plan and the way I understand the evidence, they had to have an "in-house" to discuss it and thereafter that proposal would come up to you?

EDWARD WEBB: He would possibly have been able to add something to the plan.

MR MARTINI: Mr Verster would then report to you on that plan, is that correct?

EDWARD WEBB: Yes.

MR MARTINI: Is it possible that Mr Verster might not have given you all the finer details of that plan?

EDWARD WEBB: It is possible, the thing was discussed very, very quickly, we had to make a quick decision.