Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-20

EDWARD WEBB: That is true. I was under the impression that they were still under the military regime, but my impression was possibly entirely incorrect as a result of the CCB part.  Because there was also for instance, Mr Corrie Meerholtz who was at the CCB, but he went back, now I don't know whether he went through the entire process by resigning his rank etcetera, etcetera, but he was for instance a member of the CCB and then went back to Special Forces.  In the case of Mr Verster, I heard last time we were here that he actually resigned his commissioned rank and in that case he would not have been able to resort under military discipline.  I thought the CCB fell under this military discipline.

CHAIRPERSON: I take it you didn't resign your rank or anything of that nature?

EDWARD WEBB: No, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: You stayed on as General.

MR WESSELS: I have no further questions, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR WESSELS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Williams, can you proceed now or not?

MR WILLIAMS: (cont)
	...(inaudible), Chairperson.
	General Webb, if I understand your testimony correctly, then it's that CCB operatives could engage in acts of murder but before they do that they needed authorisation, not so?

EDWARD WEBB: Yes.

MR WILLIAMS: You yourself could not give authorisation for an act of murder, you had to consult with someone higher up before you could do that?

EDWARD WEBB: Yes.

MR WILLIAMS: And by implication Col Verster could also not give authorisation for a conspiracy to murder or an attempt to murder or something in that regard, not so?

EDWARD WEBB: That's correct.

MR WILLIAMS: Now you've also testified yesterday that before a person burnt out a vehicle, they need your authorisation and you would also consult higher up, not so?

EDWARD WEBB: No, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I don't think so.  My understanding was that the only type of operation that didn't need the authority of the general was monitoring, every other operation involving damage to property or killing etcetera, had to go through Gen Webb, but if it was killing, then he himself had to go higher.  So to damage a vehicle or throw a stone through a window, that sort of thing could stop at the level of Gen Webb.  Is that correct, General?

EDWARD WEBB: Yes, Chairperson.

MR WILLIAMS: Mr Chairperson, I agree with what you've said now but I think the witness had also testified ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Well put it to him.

MR WILLIAMS: At some point you also testified yesterday that before they could burn a vehicle out or something, you would have sought ...(intervention)

UNKNOWN: Chairperson, Mr Williams is a bit confused.  You will recall that, I think it was either before the Harms Commission or the Webster Inquest, the General testified that he couldn't even give authorisation for the burning of a vehicle, but he told you here that that was not correct.  That he had the powers over things like that.  I think that's where Mr Williams got if from, but he's confused.  He said that the evidence given before that body was incorrect.

MR LAX: Sorry.  The only other gloss on your instructions as I understood it, was that if it was a high profile person the monitoring required your approval as well.

EDWARD WEBB: No, Chairperson.

MR LAX: Well you said they came to you about Lubowski because it was a high profile person.

EDWARD WEBB: Yes, but it was in the newspapers, it was something which was generally and commonly known, "Lubowski's coming to South Africa, let's monitor him."  And in that way Joe and I discussed that, but my approval was not needed and each monitoring action wasn't reported to me.  But this was something which was made quite a fuss of in the media.

MR LAX: So the monitoring of other high profile people didn't require your permission?

EDWARD WEBB: No.

MR WILLIAMS: Then your evidence is also to the effect that you've never openly discussed these matters with Mr Verster, you've never told him that, for example in the instance where the plan to murder someone, they need your permission or you need to consult with people higher up than yourself?  You've never had a formal discussion in this regard with Mr ...(indistinct)?  Was that your evidence?

MR LAX: Mr who?

MR WILLIAMS: Verster.

EDWARD WEBB: I don't follow the question.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you ever have a formal ...(intervention)

EDWARD WEBB: No, my evidence was in relation to Gen Joubert, that the two of us never spoke about assassination.  That was what I said, I didn't say anything about Col Verster.

MR WILLIAMS: Ja, but did Col Verster know that he had to consult you or seek your permission before he could, for example, conspire to murder somebody?

EDWARD WEBB: Col Verster was a founder member of the CCB, he knew the procedure better than I did myself.

MR LAX: Can I just ask something?
	Did he know that he had to - did he know that you had to go up to the next level to get permission to kill someone?

EDWARD WEBB: It's possible that he knew that, possibly not.  Look, he was in the CCB for much longer than myself, he knew the procedures very well.

MR LAX: Well you don't know whether he knew it or not?

EDWARD WEBB: No.

MR LAX: You didn't even discuss it with him?

EDWARD WEBB: No, but if such a thing did happen I would have told him "Look I have to seek higher authority", but such a case didn't eventuate.

MR SIBANYONI: Was Gen Joubert also required to go up to seek authority in an event of a mission?

EDWARD WEBB: Gen Joubert?

MR SIBANYONI: Yes.

EDWARD WEBB: I don't know exactly what his instructions were but those were mine.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you.

MR WILLIAMS: Who would you have consulted if someone asked your permission to murder someone?

EDWARD WEBB: Chairperson, I have testified about this ...(intervention)

UNKNOWN: Chairperson, the question has already been asked ad nauseam, Mr Williams must please not repeat those questions, we are under time constraint.

MR WILLIAMS: Okay I'll leave it at that.
	Were you at the time aware that Mr Lubowski was being monitored?

EDWARD WEBB: Yes.

MR WILLIAMS: Were you - at the time when he was monitored, were you aware at that stage?

EDWARD WEBB: Yes.

MR WILLIAMS: Were you consulted prior to the monitoring of Mr Lubowski?

EDWARD WEBB: No, I wasn't consulted prior to the monitoring.

MR WILLIAMS: So at what stage did you become aware that he was being monitored?

EDWARD WEBB: There were newspaper reports which said that Mr Lubowski was coming to visit South Africa and I read it and Mr Verster read it and we then got together and we discussed Mr Lubowski's visit and we then said "Let's monitor him" and I said "Yes, that's fine."

MR WILLIAMS: Now you testified before this Commission that the purpose why he was being monitored was to see what contacts he had inside South Africa.

EDWARD WEBB: Yes.

MR WILLIAMS: Did you follow that up?

EDWARD WEBB: I said that I got feedback afterwards that there was nothing untoward, nothing could be uncovered which hadn't already been known.

MR WILLIAMS: Can you tell the Committee where he came to in South Africa?  Who did he go visit, where did he stay, what did he do?

EDWARD WEBB: I know he came to Cape Town and Johannesburg.

MR WILLIAMS: Who did he go and see there, do you have an idea?

EDWARD WEBB: I don't know, I can't remember.

CHAIRPERSON: We don't need all this detail.

UNKNOWN: Chairperson, what is the relevance of this?

MR WILLIAMS: Mr Chairperson, I ...(indistinct - no microphone)

CHAIRPERSON: Are you disputing that he was monitored?

MR WILLIAMS: No, no, I'm not disputing that Mr Chairperson.  Mr Chairperson, I'm going to ask that we adjourn now and that I be given an opportunity just to reassess my questions, Mr Chairperson.  I promise I won't be long tomorrow morning but I do want an opportunity to at least put some questions to this witness and to make some statements to him.  It was past four Mr Chairperson.