Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-20

GEORGE BIZOS: You see Mr Verster, before he was cross-examined by our colleague, Mr Williams before the Committee and before he asked the people to stand up and identify themselves and whether they look like gangsters to Mr Verster - oh yes, I'm correct, it was Mr Hockey that actually asked them to stand up - before that graphic demonstration took place, Mr Verster referred to them as a gang here in court, in the first sense of the word as used by the Chairman to you, you're not perhaps changing your evidence as a result of the embarrassment of Mr Verster, that these young people appear to be, from their occupations and their progress that they had made in life, as upstanding citizens and could hardly be described as gangsters?  You didn't change your evidence as a result of that little incident, did you?

EDWARD WEBB: No, Chairperson, we can look at my application, it's spelt out clearly there.

GEORGE BIZOS: A gang?

EDWARD WEBB: A gang committing acts of terrorism.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Bizos, I wonder if you could just help me.  My documents have only got the Tutu in bundle A, where - I've forgotten the reference?  Is it bundle B?

GEORGE BIZOS: It's bundle D19.

CHAIRPERSON: D19, thank you.  Sorry to interrupt.

GEORGE BIZOS: Yes, it's on page 19.
	You didn't consider referring it to the owner of the building, you didn't consider referring it to the Police, you didn't act for the verification of any information, you didn't ask for an explanation as to why they came so late, is that right?

EDWARD WEBB: An explanation as to why they came so late?  What do you mean?

GEORGE BIZOS: That they hadn't given you notice in order for you to check whether this is so.

EDWARD WEBB: I was informed of this on the 30th of August.  I was told what the circumstances were and that the next meeting would be on the 31st of August, it was confirmed, we didn't know when the next meeting was to take place, were we going to act, yes or no.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you specifically requested for a remote control limpet mine or was that your idea, or how did that come about?

EDWARD WEBB: No, it was proposed by Col Verster that there should be no casualties and to avoid that we needed this remote control ignition device.

CHAIRPERSON: Because is it correct that remote controlled limpet mines are not standard stock?

EDWARD WEBB: Correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: They usually use these lead burn through ...(indistinct) type detonation.

EDWARD WEBB: Yes, and they're totally unreliable.

CHAIRPERSON: So as it's been said, to get a remote controlled limpet mine there's got to be some doctoring or some adjustments.

EDWARD WEBB: I organised for the remote control mechanism and something else would have to be added to put into the mine so that it could actually receive the necessary signal.

MR LAX: Can I just ask something quickly while you're busy?
	Mr Bizos just put to you that you didn't consider the Police, but actually you did consider the Police and the reason you didn't use the Police was because this person didn't want their identity revealed.

EDWARD WEBB: Yes, I understood from Mr Bizos that we didn't approach the Police, but I was told that the source did not want his identity revealed and that's whey the Police could not be approached.

MR LAX: But who would you have approached if you had used the Police?

EDWARD WEBB: I didn't have a contact.  Because I was told there would be no casualties, I said go ahead with the operation.  If people had died, then I would have had to launch entirely different operations afterwards.  But I couldn't pick up the phone and phone somebody of equal rank in the South African Police, I didn't have such a contact.

MR LAX: So why was it even a consideration then?

EDWARD WEBB: Because that's how it was told to me.  In other words, I couldn't even consider such a possibility.

MR LAX: You see we were told that that was a possibility, that you could have approached the Police but this person didn't want their identity revealed.  You weren't told that there were letters and all sorts of other evidence?

EDWARD WEBB: No.

MR LAX: You weren't told they'd been working on this thing for over a month already?

EDWARD WEBB: No.

MR LAX: Nothing?

EDWARD WEBB: No.

MR LAX: You didn't get a written presentation?

EDWARD WEBB: No.

MR LAX: With a budget?

EDWARD WEBB: No.

MR LAX: You didn't even approve a budget for this thing?

EDWARD WEBB: The paperwork would have followed later.

MR LAX: What budget did you approve?  Sorry, Mr Bizos.

EDWARD WEBB: I can't remember, I have to rely on what was said here, R30 000 or R15 000, I don't know.

GEORGE BIZOS: R30 000 for whom?

EDWARD WEBB: That I don't know.  If I had approved a budget, it would have been a global amount.

GEORGE BIZOS: Now General, the fact that R30 000 was promised to a gangster for placing a bomb in an empty room in order to frighten people that had left, does that sound reasonable or excessive remuneration?

EDWARD WEBB: It sounds like it was very expensive to me.

GEORGE BIZOS: Now if that fact was disclosed to you, that "We are going to pay a gangster who gave us the information that I'm putting before you, who is merely going to put a bomb in the room", would you have approved the project?

EDWARD WEBB: I'm sure I would have asked more question.

GEORGE BIZOS: Yes.  Would it - once the information came so expensively, would its accuracy have been doubted by you?

EDWARD WEBB: I do not follow your question.

GEORGE BIZOS: If you were told that this gangster was going to be paid R30 000 for giving the information and for placing the bomb in an empty room after everyone had left, would that have made you doubt the accuracy of the information that was given to you?

EDWARD WEBB: In the first place, Chairperson, if I was told that it was a gangster I would have had serious questions, but that's not how it happened, that was not the procedure.  So you know, we can speculate and mention examples, but that's not what actually happened.

GEORGE BIZOS: For the damage of property in which life might have been lost as a result of unforeseen circumstances, would you require to go above yourself for authorisation?

EDWARD WEBB: As long as there was to be no loss of life.

GEORGE BIZOS: If there was a possibility of loss of life?

EDWARD WEBB: Then yes, I would have had to seek higher authorisation.

GEORGE BIZOS: And we know how often bombs placed in various places kill people who were not expected to be there.

EDWARD WEBB: In this case it did not happen, Chairperson.

GEORGE BIZOS: Yes, I know, but it may be a matter of luck.  What I am asking is what you did not know.

EDWARD WEBB: It could also be a matter of skill.

GEORGE BIZOS: A matter of?

EDWARD WEBB: Skill.

GEORGE BIZOS: Skill.  And truthfulness?

EDWARD WEBB: Yes.

GEORGE BIZOS: And responsibility?

EDWARD WEBB: Yes.

GEORGE BIZOS: Because Mr Burger said that if there was going to be any loss of life, it must be members of the Kewtown Committee.  That's what it is said was said to van Zyl.  Now if the supervisor of the district Committee thought that there was a possibility of loss of life but if there was it shouldn't be children or shouldn't be other people, but it would be preferable if they were members of the Kewtown Committee.  Now if he thought of it, why didn't you?  Please turn to page 40 ...(indistinct - no microphone)

MR LAX: Sorry, your mike was off there, just repeat that again please, Mr Bizos.

GEORGE BIZOS: Bundle B, page 49, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just one question, Mr Bizos.  Sorry to keep interrupting.
	You said it was the modus operandi of the CCB not to give names etcetera, why would that be so, seeing that you were the Chairman and the boss?  Why, if you asked "Who supplied this information", why should somebody refuse that information to you?  Was there any reason for that?