Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-19

EDWARD WEBB: As I have said my recollection is that it was an external project and I'm not talking about those.

GEORGE BIZOS: Yes, but you know, Sir, you are under a duty if you are to get amnesty, to make full disclosure, do you think that you are making full disclosure if you are not prepared to speak about acts of the CCB, which will show the nature of that organisation and its activities?

MR H DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, a full disclosure relates to the deeds for which the applicant applies for amnesty, it does not apply generally.  The legislation did not intend absurd results, because if you take for instance, if I may just take an example to illustrate, if there are 10 incidents for which this applicant is asking for amnesty and you hear only about the one incident, you can't afterwards say that he didn't make full disclosure because he didn't testify about the other nine incidents in which he was involved.  Full disclosure relates specifically to the incident or incidents for which he's asking for amnesty.

GEORGE BIZOS: Mr Chairman, the answer is ...(indistinct)

MR LAX: Sorry, your mike please.

GEORGE BIZOS: ... the easy one in law.  There is a difference between a policeman who in the exercise of his police activities as a policeman, committed separate acts, some of which he might decide to ask for amnesty and some of which he may decide not to ask for amnesty, it does not apply where crimes are committed within the ambit of a general conspiracy by the Head of that conspiracy, Mr Chairman.  There is - the offence is, Mr Chairman, being a party to that conspiracy and the way you prove that conspiracy is what he did in pursuance of that conspiracy.
	And this business that you cannot give amnesty, Mr Chairman, to outside countries, is perhaps a practical matter for people who committed crimes within South Africa, who may want to travel.  That is their concern, Mr Chairman.  It is no reason, it is no reason for not asking a witness to say what he has done as the Head of that conspiracy, Mr Chairman, and we persist in asking questions, Mr Chairman.  The Act says, what happened within and without the Republic of South Africa.  The terms of reference of the Harms Commission were different, they said only what happened within South Africa.  There is no distinction.  And I would submit, Mr Chairman, that we are entitled to ask the questions.  The witness can refuse to answer if he so desires, but we are doing it, having given full notice that unless he answers these questions he will not have satisfied the provisions of the Act, Mr Chairman.
	Do you understand the position ...

CHAIRPERSON: I personally, and I might be wrong, don't fully agree with the decision of the Appellate Court in the Veenendal decision, particularly the last part of that decision.  I agree with the reasoning which they relied on and to find that the applications or the incidents to which those people, it was Veenendal and I've forgotten who the other - Stopforth, were applying for, was not part of our struggle, it was part of Untag and the Namibian struggle at that time, but the decision after that, the arbiter dictum to the effect that the legislature could not have contemplated giving this Committee jurisdiction greater than the Courts, I personally don't agree with and I think it is arbiter and I think it's clear from the intention of the Act, that the amnesty process was to look at all sorts of matters that occurred, not only within the country.  But we do know that if amnesty is granted in respect of an event which took place overseas, the granting of amnesty in this country will not in any way hamper the authorities in the country in which the event took place.  So in that sense the granting of amnesty has no effect in such other country.
	I'm prepared to allow the ...(indistinct), but we're also on the other hand, not the question on a matter of relevance, interested in receiving details of incidents that are not the subject matter of the applications here.

GEORGE BIZOS: The reason why we are asking the questions, Mr Chairman, is in order to show the nature and extent of the conspiracy without going into detail.

CHAIRPERSON: Without going into details.

GEORGE BIZOS: And also, we're confining ourselves to matters in respect of which the people before the Committee have given or are able to give evidence, Mr Chairman, so that the matter can be tested.  So that I would submit with respect, that although you may not have the power to compel a witness to answer if he so desires, I think that, with respect, he should be forewarned that by us - you don't have to decide that at this stage, but us, that we are going to argue that the law is that if he does not give evidence of the acts committed in the furtherance of the same conspiracy, he has not made full disclosure.
	We've made out opposition clear, General, do you still persist in not answering the question?

EDWARD WEBB: Yes, Chairperson.

GEORGE BIZOS: Very well.  Now in relation to the project set out in paragraph 417 of Exhibit D, we were told by Mr Basson that that R386 804,37 was spent and that this figure was approved by you, is that correct?  Oh, I beg your pardon, it was by Gen Joubert.  Did it ever come to your notice?  The one on paragraph 418.

EDWARD WEBB: 418?

CHAIRPERSON: 418, if you'll take a look Mr Bizos, 416 is Crawler.

GEORGE BIZOS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: 417 is Project Direksie and 418 is Projects Imperial, Maagd and Maxi.

GEORGE BIZOS: Yes, that is the one that apparently costs almost R5 1/2 -million.
	Are you prepared to answer any questions about these and what you know about it?

MR H DU PLESSIS: Chairperson, may I just ask for a moment's indulgence, my client just wants my advice as to whether he should answer or not?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MACHINE SWITCHED OFF
ON RESUMPTION

EDWARD WEBB: I had heard of these projects.

GEORGE BIZOS: Yes, and what do you say about it?  Did you approve any portion of it, or did you approve a portion of what - even thought it may have been originally authorised by your predecessor, did it carry on under stewardship?

EDWARD WEBB: It did continue, but not under my command, it was taken away and given to somebody else to deal with.

GEORGE BIZOS: Who was it given to?

EDWARD WEBB: Brig Roos.

GEORGE BIZOS: Why?

EDWARD WEBB: He was familiar with the law and he could deal with these negotiations.

GEORGE BIZOS: Was that a, the 418, was that in Zimbabwe?

CHAIRPERSON: There's three in 418, or is that one?  There's Projects Imperial, Maagd and Maxi.

GEORGE BIZOS: I'm sorry, 417.

CHAIRPERSON: Direksie?

GEORGE BIZOS: Project Direksie, yes.  Direksie, was that one in Zimbabwe?

EDWARD WEBB: Yes, these people were detained in Zimbabwe.

GEORGE BIZOS: And was the plan to spring him from the Zimbabwean prison?

EDWARD WEBB: Not as far as I knew.

GEORGE BIZOS: What was it about?

EDWARD WEBB: Not as far as I knew.

GEORGE BIZOS: Well what did you know about it if it isn't what I say?

EDWARD WEBB: That these people were in detention and that attempts had been made by means of negotiations, to obtain their release.  That was what I knew.

GEORGE BIZOS: Well, from a reported decision of the Conjwayo vs Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs reported, Mr Chairman, in 1992 SA56 in the Zimbabwe Supreme Court.

MR LAX: What volume was it, that 1992?