Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-19

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I was just going to say I can understand that in proceedings such as this which involve lots of documents, that documents might come to hand during the course of it, but I understand what you say, Mr du Plessis, and I think it would be fair to have a short adjournment to enable you and the witness, the applicant, to take a look at this document before questions are asked.  We'll take a short adjournment and then if you could let us know as soon as you are ready.

MR H DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.
ALL RISE
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

EDWARD WEBB: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you.  Mr Bizos, before you proceed, could I just ask a couple of questions just to clear up a bit of the jargon that exists in this?

GEORGE BIZOS: ...(inaudible)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
	Mr Webb, BGSM, is that Special Forces?

EDWARD WEBB: Special Forces, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And then if you take a look at paragraph 2, AMI, is that Military Intelligence?

EDWARD WEBB: Department Military Information - Intelligence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

EDWARD WEBB: Department of Military Intelligence.

CHAIRPERSON: And Admiral Putter, what was his connection with Special Forces?

EDWARD WEBB: At that stage, Chairperson, he was the Chief of Staff Intelligence.  He was the Head of Intelligence.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  And then if you turn to paragraph 10.4, "OG Lede", what is that?

EDWARD WEBB: Auditor-General.

CHAIRPERSON: Auditor-General.  And then paragraph 15.5, KAMOPS, what was KAMOPS?

EDWARD WEBB: KOMOPS.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, is it K-O ...

EDWARD WEBB: Communication Operations, psychological warfare.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.  And then finally, C A J Meerholtz, who was he, the person who signed this document?

EDWARD WEBB: He was at that stage a member of the CCB, afterwards he became the Commanding Officer in Phalaborwa.  He was killed in a car accident, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Mr Bizos.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Chairperson, before my learned friend asks questions I just want to place it on record that this document which has now been handed to us, the affidavit to which this is an annexure, is not available to us, so we can't actually see what the content is in which this is being placed before the Committee.  I have asked Mr Bizos, he said he will do his best to get that affidavit for us, but at this stage it's not available.  It also appears from this document that there must have been previous documentation, prior to this.  So one should just bear that in mind.

CHAIRPERSON: And also subsequent documentation.  When one reads this one would sort of get an interest in seeing what happened on the 12th of May.  But Mr Bizos, you may proceed now with questions.

GEORGE BIZOS: Mr Chairman, I may indicate we were not favoured with the May meeting, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR H DU PLESSIS: Chairperson, before Mr Bizos starts, I have organised for Gen Webb ...

GEORGE BIZOS: Sorry, I merely stated that we did not have the Minute so far, of the May meeting that is referred to in here.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Webb, are you having a difficulty with the ...

MR H DU PLESSIS: ...(indistinct - no microphone)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

GEORGE BIZOS: (cont)
	You've had an opportunity of reading this document?

EDWARD WEBB: Yes, I have.

GEORGE BIZOS: And I want you to please assume that it is a genuine document which was produced by Gen Joubert, in the manner in which I have indicated and there is an affidavit by him which we will place before the Committee, which is - if my memory serves me correctly, who was present at this meeting.  Now this is '87, I want you to please read into the record paragraph 9. "Internal Actions.
Chief of the Defence Force confirms that Special Forces have received instructions to double the internal capacity.  The following further points are made by Chief of the South African Defence Force ..."
...(intervention)

GEORGE BIZOS: That's enough.  Now would you please go back to paragraph 7.
GEN WEBB
"Methods to be Utilised.
		Chief of the Defence sees these actions not as "murder" and defines it as follows:
		An attack on individuals (enemy) targets with non-standard issue weapons ..."
I think the translation is not up to standard.
"... in an unconventional way, so as not to affect innocent civilians."

GEORGE BIZOS: Yes.  And this is what the Head of the Army said?

EDWARD WEBB: Yes.

GEORGE BIZOS: You said you're not happy with the translation ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, how would you translate it, General?

EDWARD WEBB: I think it was just written badly.  An attack on a "individue", it should be"
"... an individual hostile or enemy target with non-standard issue weapons, in an unconventional way so as not to involved innocent people."

CHAIRPERSON: Oh so it wasn't so much the translation that's worrying you, but the way it was written here by using the word "individue", the plural for individuals as opposed to the singular.

GEORGE BIZOS: But it's meaning is clear, is it not, that the Head of the Army was busy redefining murder for the purposes of the CCB, for the persons present?

EDWARD WEBB: According to the document, yes.

GEORGE BIZOS: Yes.  And I'm going to suggest to you as a high-ranking soldier, a reason why the Head of the Army found it necessary to redefine murder for the purposes of the persons present, and that is that the Army or the Defence Force has a proud tradition of not indulging in the killing of unarmed people, they are not accustomed to being assassins, they consider war a necessary but honourable profession.  Am I summarising the position correctly?

EDWARD WEBB: Chairperson, I've never seen this document before.  I was not present or represented when these aspects were discussed.  The Chief of the Defence Force never discussed this redefining of murder with me.

GEORGE BIZOS: What I am asking you is that, that for a professional soldier it would an insult would it not, to poison a person who's suffered from a heart attack, in order to kill him by substituting his pills?  No honourable soldier would want to be mixed up with that, would one?

EDWARD WEBB: Chairperson, I think this question should be put to the Chief of the South African Defence Force, so that we can determine what the context was in which this was said.  It's not for me to try and unravel the interpretation given to these words by the Defence Force, that is an answer which only the Chief of the South African Defence Force can give, not by me.

GEORGE BIZOS: Let me change the question.  Would you be a party to substituting the pills of a man who had suffered a heart attack, in order to accelerate his death?  You as a soldier, would you do that?

EDWARD WEBB: It's possible.

GEORGE BIZOS: You would do it.  And would you throw poison over his food, as a General, a soldier and a gentleman?

EDWARD WEBB: It's possible.

GEORGE BIZOS: I don't understand what this "moontlik" means, but anyway we have your answer and we will argue on that basis.  But let me return to my previous question, Sir.  Was it not necessary for the Head of the Army to redefine murder in order to placate some of the senior officers who would not be prepared to poison people, who were not prepared to blow up people, who would not be prepared to indulge in superstitious nonsense against the Archbishop of one of the mainline churches?  He merely wanted to reassure them that provided they killed in the manner in which he suggests, that it wouldn't be murder.  Is that the reason for it?  Let me ask you, were there, as far as you know, people in the Army who were not prepared to descend to the manner as described in another document emanating from your quarters, like alley cats?

EDWARD WEBB: Chairperson, I'm not prepared to comment on the Chief of the Defence Force.  He never gave me this definition, he never discussed it with me, it's the first time that I've seen this definition.