Chemical and Biological Warfare Hearings, Part 5

by Truth and Reconciliation Commission

ADV POTGIETER: No, no, I hear you what you say Doctor Basson. I mention it to you because my recollection is that is what General Knobel had told us. When he was confronted with this unique situation regarding the CD's he said that he had to rely on what you had told him and you couldn't blame him that he had to rely on people who needed to assist him and he still mentioned the examples of the case of Mr PW Botha's report which was not personally read by the Chairperson of the Commission, so that is why I'm asking you. So you say you never told him formally told him: "Look, this was completed successfully"?

MR CILLIERS: Advocate, I don't want to repeat the argument, I don't want to repeat it Chairperson, and members because we handled it this morning to a great extent. If I understand the attitude of Mr Vally correctly, he said that he does not have a problem with the second part of the application which is that the record should not be distributed to other people, other than those who really need it, for yourselves that is.

His objection was against the first part, the in camera bit. That was his objection. So I am not going to waste your time any further unless you really want to hear from me with regards to the aspect of the making available thereof, for example to the office of the Attorney General or the Police who is handling the case or people who's got nothing to do with this case. I will limit myself to the in camera bit of the application, the first bit of the application.

I have already referred to page 33 of the law which gives you the capacity or the ability and you had insight into the statement of Ntsebeza, where he gave support to the counter application which was handed in earlier this week in the High Supreme court and he utters this as one of the things which the law assists the Committee with, to protect the right to silence or the infringement thereof. To make the infringement thereof lighter.

And also say that it is so important for your report that you hear the evidence and that you can deal with this properly and you can still protect his rights for example to have the hearing in camera. My submission is, I was not involved in the application, but my instructions are that it was also the basis of the argument of the Advocate who acted on behalf of the Committee at that aspect, it is with regards to the protection measures which are there and which lightens the infringement of the right to silence.

In the light of the protection of Section 33 and 31, this balance is that the public interest must gain priority, but Mr Vally now informs you that we are now at a situation where all the aspects which you want to know from Dr Basson, and these are the aspects he is specifically going to be charged with.

So that is going to be very prejudicial to him if it is disclosed or if it is going to become to the knowledge of the people who is going to prosecute him. I have already addressed you more properly about your right to silence, and there is a specific law in Section 35 of the constitution, the prejudicial aspect thereof.

I refer you to that. I also refer to Havenga which said that the disadvantage lies in the fact that you cannot force a person to show his hand before the time, and I am not going to waste your time any further. You know everything about those aspects.

But now we are in a situation, and we have now reached the stage where each thing Dr Basson is going to be asked about by Mr Vally, are aspects which are contained in the charge sheet and it is very relevant to the charge sheet and he is going to be prejudiced by giving answers now which is given in public and necessarily it is also going to come to the knowledge of the people who are going to prosecute him.

It is naive to say by Mr Vally, that those people would not irresponsibly handle that. Surely you know that about the prosecution of Mr Nkabinde in Natal where they went so far as to in this time with the constitution in place, that person went and placed microphones or bugs in his cell to listen to the consultations he had with his Attorneys, so to rely on the responsibility of the Police only, is not a sufficient guarantee for the protection of the right to silence of Dr Basson.

Dr Basson is prepared to answer you with regards to all the questions which are put to him legitimately in terms of the court findings. He has not given me any instruction to the extent that he does not want to adhere to that court order, that is why - or answer the questions this morning, but with the greatest respect, the moment when you, or let me rather put it this way, that obligation is only towards you and the responsible people, and that does not extent to the general public where it will be disadvantageous to him.

My respectful submission is here that once again you've got to weigh the important things here. On the one hand you have to consider the right of silence and on the other hand you have to think of the public interest. The importance of the public interest is contained in the documents before the Judge Hlophe.

It was handled on the basis of the public interest and you as the Committee, you expire today so it is very important for you as a Committee to obtain answers to questions with regards to Project Coast and therefore we have to infringe the right to silence and that is why Justice Hlophe gave his judgment.

But with the greatest respect, a case was never put as a basis, neither in these documents nor in the argument of Mr Hlophe. But his rights are of such a nature that the rights of Mr Basson must be destroyed in order to satisfy the public's inquisitiveness, because if that was the basis to intervene into a person's basic rights, then there would not be place in our law for the existence of a right to silence because public curiosity would always be there.

In a lot of cases, its got to gain priority above the person's right to silence and with all respect, there would be no place in our law to the right of silence. Therefore it is my respectful submission that at this stage of this whole affair, you would find a midway by destroying Dr Basson's right to silence, but also to protect him as best as you could.

The law provides for this. That is protection in terms of Section 31 and also in terms of Section 33. I cannot understand the basis of the opposition of my colleagues against such a request if you consider the prejudice.

As far as Mr Vally's attitude is concerned, and specifically with regards to the fact that he does not have a problem that you make an order that the record is not distributed, but he does have a problem with the in camera hearing.

The problem I've got with that is the one is destructive, because if the proceedings do take place in public, what does that help if you then make an order that the minutes are not distributed? All the media, all the people in the public heard what was said, all representatives heard what was said. I do not know if there are people in this audience who belongs to the South African Police, it is quite probable, and maybe officials of the Attorney General, but they will be justified to sit here and have the right to be here, so what does it help if you prohibit the minutes from being spread but the total, all of the public including these certain institutions, have and they will be able to see Dr Basson's hand at this stage, before the prosecution even started.

At this stage it is the application that it would, now it is only concerned with essential elements and you should protect him in the best way as you can, so this infringement to his right, which you are going to make, to give support to that. If you will still be in a position to do your job as you are supposed to do it, therefore my submission is at this stage, in camera please.

CHAIRPERSON: And Mr Cilliers, this is based as I understood, on the potential prejudice of Mr Basson in his criminal prosecution?

MR CILLIERS: I don't want to repeat the arguments of this morning because I am going to waste your time, but that is probably the most important, yes. Even though, I do not want to say that the proliferation area is falling away, but it is not potential disadvantageous, potentially disadvantageous to Mr Basson, it is definitely to his prejudice.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Mr Vally?

MR VALLY: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Chair whatever I say now, like my colleague, has to be heard in the context of the earlier argument this morning.

Firstly, public interest is not merely public curiosity. The whole social contract which is reflected in the working of the Truth Commission in that it is transparent and interacting with the public, in terms of discovering what happened in the past, is much more fundamental and much more important to the creation of a new society based on truth and reconciliation, if the public is taken into the confidence of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in seeing the processes by which we are arriving at the truth, are beyond reproach.

So the process is as important as the end result of the Truth Commission. Secondly, the whole issue of the right to silence in so far as the potential prejudice to Dr Wouter Basson, is an issue which was extensively debated both here within this hearing which the Committee has previously ruled on, and which was extensively debated in court. Our position remains the same, Section 31(3) of our Act and Section 35(5) of the Constitution adequately protects Dr Wouter Basson.

In fact you saw the kind of protection that Mr Sifiso Nkabinde had, regarding those invasions into his rights. Thirdly, there will be regardless of what the final decision of this panel is, whatever the ruling of this panel is, a final report drafted after having complied with Section 30 of our Act, in terms of which on the balance of probabilities, certain findings will have to be made.

Accordingly I repeat the arguments raised earlier today. The cases I refer to are the constitutional cases of (indistinct) v Levin and Nel v Le Roux, and I again request that the remainder of the hearing be accessible to the public and should it be necessary, we can make a specific ruling regarding the record of the proceedings, not being made available to parties such as the South African Police Services as well as anyone from the office of the Attorney General.

Other than that, I will abide by the decision of the panel, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Vally, just the point that Mr Cilliers made in regard to the distribution of the record, should the panel be inclined to refuse the application to hear the rest of the evidence in camera, would it make any sense to grant an order in regard to the distribution of the record?

MR VALLY: Yes Mr Chair, because this is the aspect which is of particular concern to my learned friend.

The point is that the protection that Dr Basson has in terms of Section 33(3) of our Act and Section 35(5) of the Constitution, still remains in tact. I have pointed out that it would be absurd for the Attorney General's office to in any way, have anything to do with this record. It will simply taint their own case.

However, if it is of concern to my learned friend, then there is no problem with such an order being made. Any prejudice, potential prejudice which Dr Basson will suffer, has been taken into account by the relevant Sections of our Act and Constitution and therefore I do not believe that that argument has any basis. Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: What are the practical possibilities of the Attorney General or the South African Police Services being placed in possession of the transcript of these proceedings?

MR VALLY: I believe they are minimal. The arrangement is that we are in control of these proceedings and the transcribing agency, will need our consent before making the documents available to anyone else.

The Act is clear that our consent will be required and we could agree to release it publicly. However, in addition to that in terms of Section 33, you can make a specific order Mr Chairman, regarding the distribution of such record. Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much Mr Vally. Mr Cilliers, do you want to respond?

MR CILLIERS: Very briefly Chairperson. The contra application, I've got that here with me and I will make it available to Mr Vally if he hasn't got one in his own possession, there is not a single reference in that contra application, to the public's right to be present, but the totality of the basis of the application that there would be an infringement of Dr Basson's right to silence, and this was purely the fact that you as a Committee, for your own purposes, you have to write a final report in the nearby future, so you must get the answers from Dr Basson.

But there is not a single reference which I could find, in all those documents which centred around this need of yours, so it is on that basis that Justice Hlophe made that decision, and that it could be in camera and that the infringement would then be lightened. The negative results would then be excluded and with the greatest respect, I find it really strange that now that the order was received from Hlophe and also that Dr Basson is prepared to stay with that and to give you the Committee, the answers because you really need the answers for your report, now there is a further request.

Now the request comes it must take place in public. The totality of the protection which was tendered in the application, you want to make that non worth it, so it is my submission that the judgment of Justice Hlophe, he hasn't given it yet, we can't see, but it can only be that there is an absolute, it is absolutely necessary for you to hear the truth, that is you, the Committee.

It is on that basis that the application was brought in and it is my submission that Justice Hlophe’s judgment would have been different if it was concerned with an open or closed hearing, and it is on that basis that I make the submission that you give complete protection to Dr Basson.

With the greatest respect, if we have a situation here where a person is accused and he must testify in front of you and he must say things with regards to the charges which is brought against him, and that he has a right to silence, if this does not move you to have the proceedings in camera, then I would like to say I would like to see an application which was successful, because here we have an absolute need to protect this person's rights. If this application is not granted, I would like to see the application that was granted.

Maybe I can just formulate this to you properly and if you know about what was going to be asked, firstly we asked that the proceedings happen in camera, and that everybody be excluded - everybody who does not need to know this, should be excluded.

The second application that no information should be made public regarding the evidence of Dr Basson. It should not be made available to any person inasfar as it is necessary for the Committee in its official report, to possibly refer to the evidence.

I am not trying to limit you in your reporting and in the third place, this would include that prohibition on publication that this would include that it should be prohibited that the minutes of these proceedings whether it is a sound recording or a written document, that it should not be made available to any person outside this Committee who needs it for the preparation of their report with a specific reference to the South African Police and the office of the Attorney General. As it pleases you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Cilliers.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION:

CHAIRPERSON: There is an application before us substantially in similar terms to one which was raised earlier today in these proceedings and that concerns the public nature or otherwise of the proceedings which up to now have been conducted in public.

The application is for the remaining testimony of Dr Basson which it appears to be common cause to a greater or lesser extent, would impact on questions that will arise at his criminal trial, his pending criminal trial, that those issues and the remaining testimony be taken in camera with a further ancillary order prohibiting the distribution of a record of the testimony which is to be given.

The arguments have been presented to us at an earlier occasion. Many of the arguments have been raised when there was the initial application not to compel Dr Basson to testify at this stage, but to hold over that testimony until after finalisation of the criminal trial.

The submission in short of Mr Cilliers who again appears on behalf of Dr Basson, is based on what he refers to as the actual prejudice which Dr Basson will suffer in his criminal prosecution, should the remainder of his testimony be taken in public. He submits that the prejudice lies in the fact that the testimony which he will now be giving, will amount to disclosing his hand at this stage, and it could be used for the purposes of the prosecution, to his prejudice.

Mr Vally, who represents the interests of the Commission at these proceedings, has also restated basically his arguments which he had relied upon in opposing the earlier application which I have referred to of Dr Basson, not to be compelled to testify.

He submits that Section 31 of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act which regulates the affairs of the Commission, taken together with Section 35 of the present Constitution, provide adequate protection for Dr Basson in regard to the pending criminal prosecution.

Mr Cilliers has referred in his arguments this morning, and in passing again when this application was made, to the danger of proliferation, but he has indicated that he mainly relies on the question of the prejudice in respect of the criminal trial, the pending criminal trial.

The panel is sitting under extreme time constraints, this is the last day of the work of the Human Rights Violations Committee. From the indications that have been given, there are quite a number of issues which Mr Vally still wishes to canvass with Dr Basson, so we are under the circumstances under pressure to respond immediately to this application.

We will therefore not give full reasons for the ruling which will follow, save to say that having considered the arguments addressed to us and having taken into account the provisions of Section 31 of the TRC Act as well as the provisions of Section 35 of the Constitution, which are issues that have been raised at the recent High Court application which was launched by Dr Basson in order to review the earlier decision of this panel to hear his testimony, in spite of the pending criminal trial, we are of the view that sufficient protection is provided for in the law as it stands, and that there are no reasonable grounds for concluding that by hearing the testimony in public, which concerns issues which have already been largely canvassed through the testimony of other witnesses at these proceedings, in public, that Dr Basson would not suffer the actual prejudice which his counsel has submitted in his arguments to us.

Taking into account the public importance of the subject matter of this particular hearing, the importance of the testimony of Dr Basson in regard to the Chemical and Biological Warfare Programme, we are satisfied that there is no grounds for ruling in terms of Section 33 that these proceedings should be conducted in camera.

As an additional measure, which has been conceded by Mr Vally, we order that the record in the form of tapes, tape recordings or in the form of written notes, is not to be distributed to either the Attorney General who are engaged in the prosecution of Dr Basson, or in fact to any other Attorney General or to any member of the South African Police Services.

And just to amplify the last part of the order, the prohibition also extends to any video recording of the proceedings. That is the ruling of the panel.

MR CILLIERS: As it pleases you. At this stage, can I ask for a short adjournment please?

CHAIRPERSON: You have five minutes Mr Cilliers, we will stand down for five minutes.

MR CILLIERS: We will try to do it within five minutes.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION:

CHAIRPERSON: Are we ready to start Mr Cilliers?

MR CILLIERS: Honourable Chairman, it is my instructions to tell you now that this ruling of the Committee which have just been conveyed to us by Adv Potgieter, namely that this specific ruling should be taken into review, and we are asking you to take this ruling in review.

CHAIRPERSON: What does that mean?

MR CILLIERS: It means we are going to accord to put this ruling aside, or to get a declaration that we should hold this in camera.

CHAIRPERSON: Now if we are talking process, do I understand you to be saying that you are making an application for these proceedings to be suspended, pending an outcome of an urgent application to be made to the High Court?

MR CILLIERS: Yes, that is so, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Vally?

MR VALLY: Mr Chair, there are two issues here which concerns me. One is if this happens, it will effectively ...

CHAIRPERSON: No, those are the merits, do you oppose ...

MR VALLY: Oh, I beg your pardon. I would strenuously oppose this matter standing down, simply because this is our last day. It will effectively put an end to this particular hearing.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cilliers, do you want to say anything in support of your application? I must say without even hearing you, there is an inclination on the part of the panel, to refuse your application, but we may be persuaded by anything you might say.

MR CILLIERS: Honourable Mr Chairman, all I can say is with the greatest of respect, there is serious prejudicing of my client. You have made a ruling and with respect, a person not only in the position of Dr Basson or in any circumstances where a tribunal makes a decision, has a right to take this decision or ruling on review, where he is prejudiced by this specific ruling.

CHAIRPERSON: You see, we have made a ruling and I think what you are saying to us is that we must grant you leave, that is the essence of your application, you want us to grant you leave to take the matter on review?

MR CILLIERS: No, I am not asking for your permission to take it on review, I am telling you I am taking it on review. I want you to stand down these proceedings until I have taken it on review.

CHAIRPERSON: That is the leave you are seeking, you are seeking - I mean you are not in charge of these proceedings. You are asking us to allow you to take the matter on review and that pending that, this proceedings should come to an end. The issue for us to decide is whether we are persuaded by anything you say, that these proceedings must be suspended or stand down pending the outcome of that and that is the issue before us.

I am seeking your assistance as far as that is concerned. Do I understand the process, just the procedure is going to be that you are seeking our indulgence in relation to which we must rule, that pending because these proceedings are in process, we have made a ruling, we are about to take evidence from your client.

Your client is of the view that we have decided wrongly and you are then saying you want to approach Court as a matter of urgency, by all means, you can. But what I am saying to you these proceedings are not going to be stopped whilst you are going to court.

The only thing that can stop these proceedings from going ahead, is a court order which will be placed before me, which suspends this, pending a review.

MR CILLIERS: The problem that I have with that, in order to get that court order, I have to get or to make a statement, to file a statement with Dr Basson's involvement. I don't want to get into an argument regarding that.

In order to obtain that legal assistance, I require Dr Basson's instructions and with the greatest of respect, we can become involved in a verbal battle, but I cannot exercise that right to review, without Dr Basson's instructions.

If you decide that this questioning continues and refuse to give Dr Basson, he is here on order, or to excuse Dr Basson, you de facto deny him the opportunity to obtain that order. And with the greatest of respect, you make negative the effect of the order.

Say for instance it takes half an hour or an hour to obtain such an order, and we obtain such an order, there is a situation that for half an hour, or an hour, the questioning has continued, and the prejudicing has occurred irrevocably.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it is because you know, I think the panel is of the firm view and they are prepared to take the risk of whatever decision may be arrived at, we have a Court's decision, we have a Court order, we may not have the recent judgment, that says all the things that you have said which were forming the basis of your submitting that your client will be prejudiced, if these proceedings go on in public, and we remain unpersuaded that anything you have said, and anything that might be said in support thereof, is likely to upset the decision and the conclusion that we have arrived at, namely that there will be no prejudice and therefore that the proceedings should go ahead.

The only issue that I thought I might be hearing on, is whether or not you have any compelling reasons why we should suspend the proceedings. You have now addressed me on that.

I remain unpersuaded. I don't even consider that any Court acting reasonably in the light of the history of this matter, will be persuaded by anything you say in support of the position that you take.

MR CILLIERS: Honourable Chairman, I have told you what my submissions are, specifically that in fact you destroy the right, should we succeed with an urgent application, even within half an hour, you have totally destroyed the right which should be protected. I can't take that any further.

Must I infer from that that your attitude - if my client wants to answer the questions ...

CHAIRPERSON: He must do so. If it is going to be in camera, that has been refused, we have made a ruling in relation thereto.

MR CILLIERS: My instructions at this stage is that my client will not answer questions before the review procedure.

CHAIRPERSON: That is his choice. We have now made a ruling. If he chooses not to answer questions, that is his choice. Maybe we will go home faster than we thought we would be.

MR CILLIERS: That is his choice.

CHAIRPERSON: That is his choice and Mr Vally will be instructed to go ahead and the record will show every time that he is refusing to answer any questions put to him, that he is refusing to answer questions lawfully put to him. That is the road we shall all go.

MR CILLIERS: That is my client's choice after he received advice in this regard, that is his choice, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Vally, I have ruled in your favour, unless you don't appreciate it?

WOUTER BASSON: (still under oath)

MR VALLY: I beg your pardon, we are just gathering out thoughts as to where to start.

Is there any scientific basis whatsoever, for your belief that dagga, cocaine, mandrax or ecstasy, could be used as incapacitants?

MR CILLIERS: Mr Chairman, as I have already indicated, my instructions are - do you want Dr Basson to repeat it every time, he is not going to answer the questions until we have received this review.

CHAIRPERSON: I understood that the basis of your application in relation to which we made a ruling, was that I was not here, but I understood it from my colleagues that you were objecting to questions that have relevance to criminal proceedings that might be brought against Dr Wouter Basson.

I didn't understand that your application was objecting to any and all evidence that might be obtained from him and I do not know if this question is one that is ...

MR CILLIERS: With respect, that happened during the time that you were not here. Mr Vally indicated at that stage when I launched my application, that he had no other questions than the questions relevant to the charge sheet. We are in the situation where we have tried to assist by saying that the questions which were posed regarding CR Gas, we will answer.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MR CILLIERS: And I want to put it clearly, if Mr Vally has questions not relevant to the charge sheet, we are prepared to answer those questions, but Mr Vally told Mr Potgieter that he had come now to the end of that road.

We have come to the situation you foresaw this morning, when we said we will play it according to the ear. Unless he changes now and says he has questions, we are at that stage where my instructions are that my client will not further answer any questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Can I then ask you as a matter of process, acknowledging that I have heard that that is what you have instructed your client, he is on the stand. We have ruled that he must answer questions.

Now I understand that you have instructed him to say, you have advised him that he must not reply to any questions. I think to the extent that he is on the stand, we require that he should do so.

MR CILLIERS: Mr Chairman, the position is, I have already said my instructions are, my client is willing to answer Mr Vally's questions, all his questions, inasfar as it is not related to his charge sheet.

Mr Vally said that he doesn't have any questions like that, it is only aimed at questions being mentioned in the charge sheet according to which my client can be prosecuted. He has to appear in court on those counts on Monday.

My client is not going to answer those questions, depending on the urgent application.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I understand you very well Mr Cilliers, that is why I therefore say you have given your client that advice. I want him to exercise that advice, he must on the record under oath to say the things that you have advised him, because there are consequences.

MR CILLIERS: My client is not going to put on record which happens in consultations. What he is going to tell you is that at this stage, he is not going to answer questions, pending on the finalisation of the review application.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cilliers, you are a colleague and as such you are an Officer of the Court. I don't want you to be testifying on behalf of your client. We have heard you and we appreciate your assistance.

Now a question has been put to your client, you have done your duty which in terms of the ethics which govern our profession, you are inclined and indeed obligated to give to your client. Let your client exercise the benefit of your advice.

MR BASSON: Mr Chairperson, in answer to Mr Vally's questions, I want to declare that this morning I have indicated clearly that I am willing to cooperate with the Commission.

The last few days I have shown my respect for the Committee and its activities. Within certain limitations regarding legal assistance which was not available, and when I obtained legal assistance, I was willing to cooperate within the imminent peril which I am experiencing, namely the prejudicing or the infringement of my rights.

Should these proceedings continue in a public court, I will be prejudiced. I have seen the documentation provided to the press and this will cause problems overseas, and I can see that in the foreseeable future, they will be in the same circumstances as I am, overseas.

CHAIRPERSON: Dr Basson, please recognise that I am still in charge of these proceedings please.

MR BASSON: I am trying to answer your question Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: When I draw your attention and interrupt you, I don't mean to be rude, I only - I am meaning to do that which I can only do as a Presiding Officer. A simple question has been put to you, if on advice, it is a question you are not prepared to reply to, on advice of your lawyers, say so.

MR BASSON: Mr Chairman, if I don't pay attention to your interruptions, it is not because I have disrespect for you or not accept your guidance, please ascribe it to my anxiousness to answer the question as best as possible.

After careful consideration and legal advice, I am not willing to answer questions which are related to those charges by the Attorney General and I cannot answer such questions. I cannot answer this question.

CHAIRPERSON: Let the record show, that on advice given to him, Dr Wouter Basson refuses to answer the question put to him by Mr Vally. Mr Vally?

MR VALLY: Mr Chairman, just for the record, we have not seen any charge sheet. What we do have is a letter from the office of the Attorney General which has previously been read into the record, dated the 3rd of June 1998, which talks about provisional charges, which are being investigated against Dr Wouter Basson.

CHAIRPERSON: Charges which may or may not be brought? I think that document does say so?

MR VALLY: Well, it says in the last paragraph Mr Chairman, "that it must be emphasised that these are provisional charges which are being investigated.

It is possible that at the conclusion of the investigation, some of these charges may not be preferred against the accused. It is also possible that further charges may emerge." That is from Dr J.A. d’Oliviera, Senior Counsel, Attorney General of the Transvaal.

I did indicate to my learned friend in accordance with our agreement this morning, that if there are areas that he is concerned about which may intrude upon the area of potential charges, we would then address argument to the panel. In that context I have indicated the issues that I wanted to raise.

My learned friend was of the view that these impinged on the charges. I haven't conceded that these were related to the charges. Our investigation is independent thereof, but as I said not having seen the charge sheet, my learned friend may be correct.

However, at this stage Mr Chairman, I can continue asking questions, alternatively I would require a ruling from the Chair, as to whether we should simply proceed to lay criminal charges or to bring an application to get Mr Basson before Court on a charge of contempt of the ruling in the Cape Provincial Division of the High Court. Thank you Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you wanting time to consider your options Mr Vally?

MR CILLIERS: Can I just provide additional information to Mr Vally. I was not involved personally in this discussion ...

CHAIRPERSON: I need to give you time that you can ascertain all of those things. These proceedings are going to adjourn for ten minutes. Mr Cilliers and Mr Vally, confer with each other, find exactly what issues you think can still be canvassed.

Mr Vally consider your position and your options, and you must assemble here not later than twenty five past three.

MR CILLIERS: Thank you Mr Chair.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION:

CHAIRPERSON: Where is Mr Vally? Are we ready to start? Mr Vally?

MR VALLY: Yes Mr Chair. Mr Chairperson, I think we should proceed with asking ...

CHAIRPERSON: If we can close the door to these proceedings please.

MR VALLY: ... questions of Dr Basson in line with the ruling of the Chairperson. I must apologise to my learned friend, I didn't come back to him after we came back in, but there was nothing to add to our informal discussion.

Dr Basson, there was a question I had posed to you, if you had any scientific basis whatsoever for believing that dagga, cocaine, Mandrax or ecstasy could be used as incapacitants?

MR CILLIERS: Honourable Chairman, with respect, I don't want to waste time unnecessarily ...

CHAIRPERSON: That is the prerogative of this Chairperson, whether we waste our time, it is our prerogative. This witness is now testifying, we have heard all your objections Mr Cilliers, we have ruled in the light of all the positions that you took.

The time now has come for Dr Wouter Basson to testify or to exercise his rights in line with your advice to him.

I actually order him to answer the question in any how. It is an order, it is a ruling.

MR CILLIERS: Honourable Chairman, the answer he is going to give is a standard answer.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, you are veering on content. You are veering on content. With great respect, you are an Officer of the Court, we have made a ruling, he is the one who is testifying.

He is the one who is testifying, don't testify on his behalf. We have had a cordial relationship thus far Mr Cilliers, I would like to maintain it that way with respect. I am no trying to curtail your rights as an Officer of the Court, but we have made a ruling, let's go through the motions if this is what you see it as. I am quite content to go through the motions.

Dr Wouter Basson, could you answer the question please?

MR BASSON: Mr Chairman, my answer remains the same as the previous answer, I have nothing to add.

CHAIRPERSON: So, I take it that you refuse to answer the question?

MR BASSON: Mr Chairman, I have said I want to cooperate, but find myself in a position after careful consideration and advice, I cannot answer any further questions, until I have had a chance to review the decision regarding the in camera hearing.

CHAIRPERSON: Let the record show that Dr Wouter Basson refuses on the grounds given, to answer the question put to him by Mr Vally. Mr Vally, do you have any more other questions to put to Dr Wouter Basson?

MR VALLY: I do Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Please put them.

MR VALLY: Dr Basson, you have previously been given a document called TRC52 and you have also been given an affidavit by Dr Immelman.

I put to you that TRC52 read with Dr Immelman's affidavit, clearly indicates that you were involved in attempting to murder people by usage of toxins concealed in every day substances such as beer with thallium as set out in TRC52, whisky in paraquat, acid in whisky and even more ominous, that cholera was cultured on a large scale on your instructions, for usage by agents. That you as number one Project Officer and number two, as the person who directly was responsible for giving instructions to Dr Immelman, are responsible for all these dastardly toxins hidden in everyday substances. What is your response to that?

MR BASSON: Mr Chairman, ...

MR CILLIERS: May I at this instance, I don't want to create the impression that I am prescribing to the witness, but if we are going to do it question by question, I am sure that there will be questions that can be answered.

May I then after each question, indicate to my client when I think this will fall outside the extent of his problem? But according to me, my client can answer this question without the previous problem, but I don't it to appear as if I am giving him the answers.

May I please advise him after every question, whether I think - you don't have to adjourn, five seconds will be enough, and then to advise him. We are in a difficult position, but it seems to me that he can answer this question.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cilliers, I remarked earlier in the day that your client is far more intelligent than you give him credit for. He was beginning to answer this question, because I think he appreciated it is one of those questions that he can answer without prejudice. I take your point however.

MR CILLIERS: I want to make it clear that if I will speak to him, Mr Vally previously commented ...

CHAIRPERSON: As long as you don't testify in his place.

MR CILLIERS: As it pleases you. What I am going to do after each question ...

CHAIRPERSON: No, not after every question. I think there are questions which it will be palpable he can reply to like the questions that he has been replying to all day long, and all you can do, is to say can I object to that question ...

MR CILLIERS: I don't want to object to a question, I just want to advise him that you can answer this question.

CHAIRPERSON: Can we limb on and we will see how it goes?

MR BASSON: Mr Chairman, I categorically deny that I was involved in the execution or planning or preparation of any substances with the wilful purpose to do any harm to any person.

Regarding the cholera Mr Vally mentioned, it is one of the points I want to emphasise, is one of the weak points of the Investigative Unit. Just to allege that I would have used cholera to kill anybody can be verified within five minutes. Mr Vally, can go out of here and contact the Department of Health, every cholera case is written down right through the world, and I want to bring it to your attention that in the last 20 years, not one case of cholera was made known and the last cholera epidemic in South Africa was in 1985/1986.

Since then, there were not 15 cases of cholera in South Africa per year. Mr Vally, he repeatedly mentioned this genocide and I want him to ask him where did that happen? Every case of cholera in South Africa, is recorded by the World Health Organisation and they can identify the origin of every cholera bacteria.

There is a certain Epidemiological handbook, textbook and as from Egypt to Mozambique, they can trace this. So I deny this.

CHAIRPERSON: You see Dr Wouter Basson, that may well be so, that may well be so, that may be the conclusion that you are able to come to.

Our enquiry is not so much whether in fact that did happen, I think our enquiry is whether there was a plan to do that, and you are speaking to the person who unfortunately is a lay person as far as medical things are concerned. You will forgive me if I am one of those who will be gullible when I hear that this was the plan, and I think this is what this entire exercise is intended to do.

You may not realise it, it is intended exactly for you to be able to give those sort of erudite explanations you are giving, for the benefit not only of the public, not to take everything that they have heard in these proceedings, but also for your benefit. You are not only saying look, I didn't do it, you are also saying it was not possible to be done.

When the proposition is being put to you, you must understand it is put to you in context. It is put to you in the context of evidence that has been led by other scientists or medicals like you, but also there is a suggestion that there is documentary evidence that seems to back that up.

I think that is the point of the exercise.

MR BASSON: Mr Chairman, I have the biggest respect for your intelligence. If I thought you did not understand, I would not have said anything.

What is causing a problem is that this Investigative Unit could have easily gathered the information.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, leave them alone. You are now being asked by these gentleman here, and you really can say look, you have been misled Mr Vally.

MR BASSON: Then I am saying at this instance that they have been misled. In the Southern African context, it is impossible to use cholera to kill masses of people, or even just a few. Cholera is not such a kind of illness.

It is very easily traceable and it is very easy even to determine where the cholera bacteria came from. You can even say from which area it came. I have studied through the years, but not with the purpose of using cholera.

In essence the Department of Health is willing to go so far as to say that why there has never been cholera in Namibia and remember the Shonas in South Africa are well suited to cholera, but why there was no cholera is because the South African Defence Force was there, because they saw to it that the local population obtained clean water, they were aware of the dangers of dirty water and where there were people who carried this disease, they had to be treated.

So what we achieved, was absolutely the opposite.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Vally?

MR VALLY: Dr Basson, this is amazing. This evidence you are giving us now. Firstly, factually you are incorrect. There have been recorded instances of outbreaks of cholera throughout the African continent in the last 20 years, as have appeared in Medical Journals.

I will ...

MR BASSON: Mr Chairman ...

MR VALLY: Dr Basson, I am not through. Do you mind? Secondly, we have had evidence at our Medical hearings, to the effect that the South African government has concealed outbreaks of diseases for public relations purposes and thirdly, we have had enough evidence before this Commission, that the government at a very high level, allegedly going up to the President himself, was engaged in activities which were grossly unlawful and involved human rights violations. So to pretend that this government has been pure in its motives, is absurd.

What I am proposing to you number one, is factually it is incorrect to say there have been no cholera outbreaks and secondly, where there have been cholera outbreaks or disease outbreaks in South Africa, the government has hidden it. Will you answer those two questions please?

MR BASSON: Yes, I will. Mr Chairman, Mr Vally should listen to what I am saying. I did not say there were no cholera epidemics in Africa, I said in those areas where the South African Defence Force and the Security Forces had a specific interest, there were and there are no cholera outbreaks.

What I have told him, and he is not listening, is that every one of those epidemics were recorded and in each of them, the origin of the cholera was identified. Three months ago for example, the Department of Health - they have a Epidemiological Report which they bring out every three months, it is very clear that there are no cases in South Africa, no cases in Angola.

In Namibia for example, there were mission hospitals where the staff were antagonistic against the government. The troops could not get near to those hospitals. Those nuns and nurses, they recorded those diseases if there were any cases.

So, during those years, they recorded rabies for example. Mr Vally has his facts wrong, and he must get his Investigative Team to ascertain these facts.

Number two, it would not have been in the ability of the South African government to cause the outbreak of cholera or to hide the outbreak of cholera in any of the regions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Vally?

MR VALLY: I will draw Dr Wouter Basson's attention to the affidavit of Dr Immelman. I want to draw your attention to paragraph 15 of Dr Immelman's affidavit.

He says specifically, paragraph 15 and I loosely translate, at a stage I was worried about the lawfulness of our actions. Dr Basson assured me that the projects were approved by the State Security Council.

He let me understand that I would not be involved if the toxins were inappropriately used, I assume? I will leave out the next sentence because it is not relevant. He goes on, he told us on a number of occasions that it is not the weapons dealer who is responsible if a person who buys a revolver, acts irresponsibly with the revolver.

Dr Immelman's affidavit as a whole clearly indicates that you, personally, instructed him to manufacture a number of these substances set out in TRC52. How do you respond to that?

MR BASSON: I deny without any doubt, that I gave Dr Immelman the instruction to manufacture any substances or to prepare them with the purpose to cause severe bodily harm or death in any individual, organisation or place.

I would like to tell you with regards to Dr Immelman's statement, that I ever mentioned the State Security Council, it is not true.

With regards to the discussion that we had about the inappropriate use of this, the fact was there were poisons available at Roodeplaat like you will find at any laboratory at any university, because these are used chemicals and they are available in laboratories.

If they are used in a wrong sense, that meaning to make someone else ill or to hurt someone else to achieve another goal than the chemical reaction, then I put it very clearly to him, that no one can be held responsible if it is used in the wrong manner. If somebody broke in there and stole those things and did something with it, he cannot be taken as responsible for that, as long as he adhered to the safety measures, security measures.

MR VALLY: How do you explain that the person who in fact prepared the cultures of cholera, in fact went so far as preparing 26 bottles of the cholera culture of 10 ml each and this is Mr Odendal or Dr Odendal and when he was asked the question -

"Were you aware that you were producing a substance which could potentially cause a serious epidemic?"

he answered -

"When I got the request to produce this organisms ..."

...I am sorry, I am reading exactly as it is written, so the grammar may not always be right -

"...you must remember that the idea stuck in my mind, that in the first case it was to be used for testing purpose and in the second one, you know, there were hints that this could be used in the war situation in Angola and it never crossed my mind for one moment, that it could be used internally in our own country, because to use organisms or to spread organisms in your own country, is a very risky thing and it doesn't go along with the Convention of Biological Warfare that you do not produce these things to use on your own territory."

MR BASSON: Chairperson, I do not understand this question. That is what I am saying. I understand Dr Odendal's statement completely and his answer is correct.

It is possible that you can cause epidemics with these things, in very rare circumstances. I would like to tell you to create an epidemic by using something like cholera, is almost impossible.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, except that what that seems to suggest, what he has been reading, he says he has been reading the evidence of somebody who has testified.

MR BASSON: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: What it seems to suggest was that cultures were produced.

MR BASSON: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: But he says he doesn't think that they could have been intended to be used internally?

MR BASSON: Yes, I agree.

CHAIRPERSON: And yes ...

MR BASSON: I agree fully with Dr Odendal's statement, I think it is a sensible statement. I think later on he was by means of Mr Vally's questions, he was led to say that he thought that, he thought whatever he did - I don't know what is going on in Dr Odendal's head - the fact of the matter remains, these cultures were not used to do anyone or any organisation harm. There is no evidence of that, there is no record of that and there weren't any other plans either.

Me and Gen Knobel went to great effort with the Independence of Namibia to go and speak to the Swiss Surgeon General in Windhoek, where he was responsible for the medical support for the Untag Forces who were working there, and we took the responsibility on us to keep them up-to-date of the threats of the people coming back, I would say refugees or people banned from the country, who went to live in other countries.

We advised them about what type of programmes with regard to medical treatment and the prevention of illnesses, they should take in Namibia to ensure that no strange epidemics happen or take place. Some of that information there we gained from doing research at Roodeplaat and other investigations we led, gave us this information.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Vally?

MR VALLY: Dr Basson, I have a document issued by the Department of National Health and Population Development, entitled Epidemiological Comments, are you aware of this document? You are?

MR BASSON: Yes, I am.

MR VALLY: Talking about cholera in South Africa, November 1990.

MR CILLIERS: Chairperson, can I just learn from Mr Vally, is this document in one of the Bundles, because I don't think I have ever seen it?

MR VALLY: I am afraid that this wasn't, we will immediately make it available to my learned friend. I need to pose the question, we don't have questions of it and I will pass it on to him, right now.

MR CILLIERS: I think the answer of my client is that he did not see this specific document, it sounds like it is the same document which is distributed every few weeks, so he knows the type of document, but not that exact document.

I don't want to be obstructive, but it is not fair that my client is being questioned with regards to a document, concerning all the problems that we have had, and he has never seen this document. It is not fair to ask him about that.

Even if he only brings the document so we can look at it for 30 seconds, then maybe we can help him out if he wants to ask questions about it.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Vally please.

MR VALLY: Mr Chairman, I have no problem. Do you just want to see the specific points I am making reference to or the document as such?

MR CILLIERS: I think he should give us the whole document, but he must also point out to us to what he is going to refer to.

MR VALLY: Precisely, what I will do is, I will put the proposition set out in this document to Dr Wouter Basson and then hand it over to him to look, because he made some very strong comments about the outbreak of cholera.

MR CILLIERS: I am happy with that.

CHAIRPERSON: I think of course they will reserve their right to say if it is so, but the proposition does not actually emanate from the document?

MR VALLY: There are too many for me to go through all, but I will go through a few. The document is called Epidemiological Comment published by the Department of National Health and Population Development, for example the November 1990 copy and this is in Afrikaans, it says there were approximately 25 000 confirmed cases of cholera in 1987 in South Africa.

I talk about the same magazine or extract, dated March 1991, a journal, I beg your pardon, the Journal dated March 1991 and it says on the 7th of February 1991, six provinces in Mozambique were declared as infected areas by the World Health Organisation in the weekly Epidemiological Record, and they list a number of deaths as a result of cholera.

They even have a table here. You must warn me when to stop Dr Wouter Basson, when you are convinced that I had ...

MR BASSON: Please go on, I would like to see you hanging yourself, go ahead.

MR VALLY: I beg your pardon.

MR BASSON: Please go on, I would like you to finish what you are saying.

MR VALLY: Fine. There is evidence of cholera outbreaks in Kangwane and there is evidence of cholera outbreaks in Mozambique, and this is in the same Journal, dated January 1992.

The same Journal dated August 1993, outbreak of cholera in the Hlabiza Health Ward, Zululand. We have October 1994, the same Journal, the number of cases reflected here from the page I have seen, is something like 1 968 cases.

Same Journal of October 1993, it says a number of bacteriologically proven cases of cholera reported in the Republic of South Africa on the 1st of August 1982 to 31st of July 1983 by the week, and we've got in Natal alone, 3 767, Eastern Cape, 16, Kangwane 105, Free State 30, Southern Transvaal 159, Northern Transvaal 344, Lebowa 21, KwaZulu Natal, this time it just says KwaZulu, I assume they meant the self-governing territory 3 196, total 7 638.

Are you satisfied yet, do you still want me to continue?

MR BASSON: That depends on how much time you have to waste.

MR VALLY: Dr Basson, you made an assertion that I was factually incorrect. I will supply you with these documents right now.

MR BASSON: I stick to my assertion and I would like to tell the Chairperson that I am finding myself in a position now that if you were a final year medical student who gave me this, I would have failed you.

There is new literature, three weeks ago there was a complete Epidemiological Report on cholera. I am standing on the facts that I am giving you, there was not an outbreak of epidemic proportions after 1986 in South Africa. It is evident that Mozambique has always been a cholera area and if you look at what the literature says, those outbreaks of cholera can be taken back all the way to Northern Africa, back to the bacteria that was responsible, it could be traced back to North Africa and you can also find the way that bacteria has walked all through Africa.

Not one of these outbreaks of cholera is inexplicable. If Mr Vally made the effort and read further, he would also see that the Department of Health in each of those cases in the old times, they could explain where they were coming from, which tribe was involved and how it ran its course. So since 1987, according to the newest information, and that is a month ago, which is handed out by the Department of Health, there has not been more than maybe 16, maybe 20 cases of cholera in South Africa annually.

Mozambique has always been a cholera country after the cholera was brought to Mozambique from North Africa. So if Mr Vally wants to suggest that I took cholera to Northern Africa in 1980, I would say the project hadn't even started then.

The history of cholera in Africa is very well described. This specific cholera cultures to which he is referring, I imagine it must have been 1988, 1989 it can have no relevance to anything which happened in 1983 and even less so, if anything had happened in 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, and once again, I want to conclude by saying that the Department of Health, every case of cholera outbreak was investigated by them to their satisfaction.

There is not one unsolved case.

MR VALLY: I think this argument is absurd by Dr Basson, because he did not expect us to be prepared for him. I want to show all those documents which he has, including this last one, signed by the Director General, Department of Health and Welfare, on the 30th of January 1984, which talks about outbreaks of cholera, cholera 1, 2 133, cholera 2, 3 949, cholera 3, 1 264, cholera 4, 489.

In addition to that, we have got evidence having discussed it with the foremost experts in this country, and I refer to Prof Forder and Prof Margaretha Isaacson, we've got evidence in black and white, issued by the official State agency and for him to now try and contradict that based on his own knowledge, when there are allegations that he was responsible, ultimately for giving instructions for the culture of approximately 260 ml of cholera to be produced, at RRL, which the person who produced it, says could cause a major epidemic, and then to be caught out regarding the outbreaks of cholera as has been shown in these documents, I think he is trying to cover himself Mr Chairman, and I don't have anything further to add on the cholera issue.

Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR BASSON: Mr Chairperson, I make an objection to his statement that I did not think he would be prepared. I have just proved that he is not prepared. There is nothing in these documents which have any connection to the cholera which was cultivated at RRL.

Those cultures were tested, the genetic composition of those cultures are known and not one of these cases, this last epidemic he is talking about, that is in 1987 and I admitted that, I haven't denied that. That was a South African epidemic, yes, but in 1987 and that is not inexplicable epidemic. The studies are clear. I do not know when is the last time he spoke to Dr Isaacson, but I spoke to her two weeks ago and she even then said to me, that she is of the opinion that the reason why there isn't any cholera is because the Defence Force was there to keep the water clean in South West Africa.

She mentioned how surprised she was about the fact that there had never been cholera in Namibia, so what Mr Vally is now accusing me of, I am not sure, I don't understand. Everything I am saying, he is confirming. I told him there was only an epidemic in 1987 and not one after that.

I also said that there were areas in Africa, but I would like to tell you that each of those epidemics was well investigated and researched. The WHO was involved as well, because it was a world problem, it is not only an African problem.

To insinuate in any way that a human hand had anything to do with these outbreaks in Mozambique or wherever, is nothing but scientific absurdity.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Vally?

MR VALLY: Dr Basson, do you know TRC52 at all, have you seen it before?

MR CILLIERS: At this stage, can I just give a short word of advice with regards to the answer to this question.

CHAIRPERSON: Whether he has ever seen TRC52?

MR CILLIERS: No, if he should answer the question or not.

CHAIRPERSON: There is not question that has been - has he seen it? Do you want to advise him as to whether he must admit seeing it?

MR CILLIERS: Don't turn my words around. I want to tell him whether he should answer the question or not.

CHAIRPERSON: The question says, have you seen. I also want to get some clarification, are you asking for me whether you should advise your client to answer or not to answer a question that says have you ever seen?

MR CILLIERS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Go ahead.

MR CILLIERS: Thank you for the opportunity. The advice, I would also ...

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, it is privileged.

MR BASSON: Mr Chairperson, this document was shown to me during the first bail application in January or February 1997. It is the first time that I saw that document.

MR VALLY: TRC26, have you seen that before? Sorry, have you got that before you? The heading is Payments of Coast Projects Fund Flow. It is in Afrikaans and there is a number on there, which says 004732, have you seen that document before?

MR BASSON: I can't, according to my memory, no, I haven't seen this.

MR VALLY: Well, you were the Project Officer of Project Coast, weren't you?

MR BASSON: Chairperson, in this process 100 000 or more documents came, I had to look at all of them, so I cannot say that I have seen this document before.

MR VALLY: Well, you may say you are not sure, are you saying you are not sure or are you saying you did not see it?

MR BASSON: Can I repeat this slowly? I said I cannot say with certainty if I have ever seen this document before.

MR VALLY: I understand. So you can't be certain whether you saw it before or not? Do you want more time to look at it?

MR CILLIERS: Is this the whole document, because our numbers are very clear. If you can just give me an estimation of how many pages it contains?

MR VALLY: There are eight pages. I am only going to ask you about page 4733 and page 4735.

MR BASSON: That is correct yes.

MR VALLY: What is your answer now, now that you have had more time to look at it? Do you know this document?

MR BASSON: I do not recognise this document per se, but I do recognise some of the objectives which during the initial formulating of Project Coast, was put into place.

MR VALLY: Fine, let's talk about that because the second page is dealing with Objective Codes, is that a fair enough translation?

MR BASSON: That is close enough, yes.

MR VALLY: Look at 07, can you explain what it means? It says which I understand to be carrying out of Chemical and Biological Warfare operations, what does it mean?

MR BASSON: At that stage it had the implication that we were approached by several African countries to go and do certain verification operations for them, where there were accusations of the use of Chemical and Biological Warfare against people in Africa, then the international community often asked South Africa to go and do the investigations, because no-one else had the expertise or the capability to do that.

Like you have seen in the classical fiasco which the English caused in Mozambique. The use of chemical operations, is a verification operation.

Now let me explain to you what a verification operation is, if there is an accusation that a chemical attack took place in a specific area, and an amount of bodies were found, then troops must be deployed to secure that area.

After the area has been secured, specially equipped and trained troops who included Doctors must also be deployed in this area. After they have been deployed firstly, the first priority is the treatment of the patients. The second priority is the taking of samples in order to determine the origin or the type of the poison or organism and then also the analysing of certain weapons which might have been used in this way and therefore creating a relationship between the people and the weapon.

After this relationship has been established ...

MR VALLY: I am so sorry Dr Basson, we get the idea.

MR BASSON: I have not finished Mr Chairman, may I continue?

MR VALLY: I appreciate what you are saying, you told me and I will summarise it for you, we are under time pressure, you are called in by other African countries to analyse what toxins were used, whatever, to decontaminate or whatever.

MR BASSON: No, that is not what I am saying.

MR VALLY: Can you please summarise it for us, we don't have all day.

MR BASSON: Chairperson, at this stage I am trying to explain what is meant with this verification operations, and the fact was that they were very complicated chemical operations in order to protect our own troops and to help the neighbouring countries with certain problems.

This demanded a certain amount of training and equipment and capabilities, and as far as I know, ... (tape ends) ... and if you turn to page 475 and if you look under same code 07, and that says "Bedryf van CBO Ops", are these the people who were responsible for management of them or are these the actual projects themselves, what is that being referred to there? Do you see what I am referring to?

MR BASSON: I see what you are referring to.

MR VALLY: It says 7/01 Chancellor, 7/02 Chris, 7/03 Koos, 7/04 Mealies, 7/05 Hekkies, 7/06 Barries, 7/07 Conventional, 7/08 Other. Can you tell us what that is about?

MR BASSON: As far as I can remember, these are the different areas for which we gave code names so that the operational teams can distinguish between the different areas.

MR VALLY: Fine. Well let's go to Dr Immelman's affidavit.

If you look at paragraph 17, he talks about the documents relating to TRC52, he refers to it by the number which is written thereof, B000010 and he goes on to 11 and 12. He says:-

"A sales list with these numbers was shown to me. I recognised the items on the list and my handwriting which is on the side by the dates, thereon.

Also my handwriting on list 11 which I wrote brought back next to the note of Mamba Toxin. The words JK which I wrote next to the dates 19th of March 1989 and 23rd of March 1989, I do not remember. I think it was Johnny Koertzen. The C next to the other dates, referred to Chris. This was my note for the items which I gave to Chris or one of his co-workers.

The K next to the other names, referred to Koos. Some of the items do not have my notes. Koos is a white man whom I met in Dr Basson's office at the Defence Force's health offices, medical offices, SAMS I suppose.

I was introduced to Koos as Willem by Dr Basson. He told me that Koos is a co-worker, he is a colleague. Meetings between myself and Koos were organised through Dr Basson's secretary, Sarie".

In document 26, what is referred to as 7/02 Chris and 7/03 Chris, aren't these the same people that Dr Immelman is referring to?

MR BASSON: Chairperson, I have a problem in the sense that I am being asked to look at an undated document, TRC26 which was probably drawn up in the early 1980's. If I must remind myself of how it happened, because later in time as the programme became more sophisticated, these objectives changed.

Dr Immelman's affidavit with regard to a specific period in time, I think it is 1989, I didn't even read it, but these two connections, I cannot make them, and I must tell you that if there are any resemblances between Koos and Chris, then I want to know where is Mealie, Hekkies, Barries, Conventional and all the others?

I am of the opinion that these two are not related, it is pure coincidence. The dates of these documents are not known to me so I cannot bring them together.

MR VALLY: You are conversant with the document, with the affidavit of Dr Immelman?

MR BASSON: I read through it a while ago.

MR VALLY: Alright. Let's look at the item relating to the Baboon foetus.

Do you see the item on the 27th of July 1989, the bottom of TRC52, the last item?

MR BASSON: I do.

MR VALLY: Do you see paragraph 19 of Dr Immelman's affidavit, he says Dr Basson requested a baboon foetus. He told me that the foetus of a primate was needed to I suppose obtain some kind of culture. According to my note, I gave it to Koos. If I had given it directly to Dr Basson, I would not have marked it with a K as you see is written on that document.

According to my information, where I don't, and this is what I understand from his affidavit, where there is no initial written next to these murder items, then he delivered it directly to you.

Firstly did you ever request him for a baboon foetus at the end of July 1989?

MR BASSON: Mr Chairperson, the extent of this question, he refers to it as murder items, there is no indication at this point that any of these objects or mixtures, were used for murder.

There is also no indication that they would have been potential murder weapons, so I am asking Mr Vally to rephrase his question.

MR VALLY: Mr Chair, and it is really a minor point right now, but we have canvassed this extensively even with Gen Knobel, for someone to put thallium in beer and we've got the quantities here, by the person who in fact produced these items, cyanide in peppermint chocolates as innocent an item as peppermint chocolates which children could possibly get hold of, and then to say these are not murder items.

If Dr Basson is not aware of this list, why is he being so sensitive about me calling these murder items?

MR BASSON: I am as sensitive about it as Mr Vally would be as his private parts would be considered as rape instruments. The fact that you can use this as murder, you can use it for rape, it does not mean it is a rape tool.

MR VALLY: So what would you use cyanide in peppermint chocolate for?

MR BASSON: Chairperson, I want to get back to the first question with regards to the baboon foetus.

MR VALLY: Alright, no, very well.

MR BASSON: Please Mr Vally.

MR VALLY: Dr Basson, hang on.

MR BASSON: You have asked me regarding the baboon foetus.

MR VALLY: We will come back to that. You cannot enter into a dialogue with me, we will come back to that.

You took it to a certain point, and I am asking you this question. What scientific reason would you have cyanide in peppermint chocolate?

MR BASSON: This morning I said that in the early 1980's we found an ANC cache, depot, and we confiscated several chemical substances, very basic chemical substances.

Chemical substances which is very easily available, not from a specialist laboratory. Cyanide, I can go and buy cyanide and I can find it in any laboratory in this country. I could go to the University of Cape Town, and I could have taken it off the shelves, natrium cyanide.

But the important thing is that these things were readily available to the people who were trained by the Russians, where the Russians did not want to make the sophisticated weaponry available, because people did not know how to work it, so in our case the Russians came to us and asked us to destroy the programme.

They did not trust the ANC with this, and in this specific case we used these things to give training. We had to push agents into the field to do infiltration, and to go and perform certain actions and on a practical manner, I had to teach and demonstrate to these agents the techniques which were available to be used against them.

It is very simple, with one or two chocolates, I cannot commit a genocide. I can't kill people or children with one or two chocolates, what I can do with one chocolate is, I can tell an agent listen to me, look what they can do to you, practical training.

You go into a hotel, sleeping in a hotel. What do you not do? Don't eat the chocolate that is on the pillow, because it could be poisoned. It is a very known approach.

If you look at the Security community, you would find that they will tell you, they will tell you this is often done. Who is going to eat the chocolate, it is the guy who is going to rent the room, not the cleaning lady and then in my training courses I explain to them what this chocolate looks like, what they must look for, and if they don't believe me and I will tell them, look does this chocolate look okay ...

MS SOOKA: Sorry Dr Basson, I don't want to fall in on your explanation, but are you really expecting this panel to believe that you manufactured these chocolates with cyanide for educational purposes of educating your troops about what not to do in a hotel room?

MR BASSON: Ms Sooka, yes, I do not expect you to believe it. I expect you to believe the truth and I am telling the truth as I know it.

The fact of the matter is if you look at the amounts which were made available, then we cannot talk about mass murder. We cannot even talk about a single murder.

Those things were used for a lot of things, for research as well as for training. That is the correct and the true version. If you have never been in a situation like that, then you are going to find it hard to believe.

I do not know, I apologise I do not know your background, but I doubt whether you were ever in a situation ...

MS SOOKA: Thank you, I don't need the political explanation, thank you. I asked a very simple question.

MR BASSON: I am busy to answer the question Commissioner.

MS SOOKA: Thank you, I think I am satisfied. Thank you.

MR BASSON: I am busy answering Mr Vally's question. If you get into that position, you must be able to explain these kinds of things to your troops.

I cannot tell you that that chocolate which was there, was used for this because I cannot link myself to this list. I did not draw this list up, I do not know why he wrote the numbers down, or who wrote the numbers down. I must accept, you say this is Dr Immelman's list, then I accept that. I do not know that.

MR VALLY: Well, let's find out. You say you don't know this list, but you confirm that the cyanide in the chocolate was one of your legitimate projects?

MR BASSON: I am not saying the cyanide in that chocolate, I am saying it was practical, it was common use to use some of these toxins in training.

MR VALLY: Are you aware of cyanide being put in peppermint chocolate as a training tool?

MR BASSON: I cannot tell you that cyanide was used, but I can tell you and this is a long time ago, that several toxins were used in training, in simulation situations.

MR VALLY: And why would 260 ml of cholera culture be produced?

MR BASSON: For several research institutions, and for people to use it for their own research, to make genetic determinations and also for several quality control people.

In my own way I also had to make sure that what Roodeplaat was producing and that which they came up with, is correct. So a lot of this was handed over to other people.

MR VALLY: So do you confirm that within your understanding of the projects undertaken at Roodeplaat, that there could have legitimately in terms of your instructions, or their mandate, have produced 200 or cultivated 260 ml of cholera?

MR BASSON: I do not know how much cholera was produced, I cannot remember. I cannot remember, I have no evidence of how much was produced. The fact that some cholera together with other organisms were produced, yes, that is true.

MR VALLY: Well, the person who cultured this, which is Dr Odendal, says he made 260 ml. My question to you is simply you wouldn't see it is being outside the ambit of the project?

MR BASSON: As what being outside the ambit?

MR VALLY: The cultivation and production of 260 ml of cholera?

MR BASSON: I cannot say that 260 ml, but I can tell you that the production of several organisms including cholera was part of the duties.

MR VALLY: But I am talking specifically a large quantity of cholera culture, I am talking 260 ml?

MR BASSON: I repeat myself. I cannot tell you how much cholera was produced.

MR VALLY: No, I am putting to you that the person who cultivated it, said this is the amount he produced. For you as the Project Officer of Project Coast, you wouldn't see that as untoward?

MR BASSON: Once again, one cannot measure 260 ml sample, you cannot regard that as a big or a small sample. It depends on the cholera concentration. If he tells me how many organisms there were per millilitre, then I would be able to tell you, it might just be a little bit.

It might be that he cultured his cholera, but he didn't distil it very well, so maybe there wasn't a very high moisture level with very few organisms.

MR VALLY: Fair enough. Mr Odendal did in fact say that it was enough cholera to cause a major epidemic.

MR BASSON: I don't think with permission, that Dr Odendal had the knowledge, the experience or the insight of cholera epidemics, to know how many organisms are needed to create an epidemic.

MR VALLY: Very well. For what purpose would let's look at Anthrax on cigarettes - do you see it dated 11th of August 1989? Do you see that, on the second page?

MR BASSON: Yes, I do.

MR VALLY: What was the training purpose of putting Anthrax on cigarettes be?

MR BASSON: That would be for research reasons. We obtained information that the Russians shortly after the Shertloff(?) incident, where a great anthrax factory exploded and it contaminated the area, that they had developed a new kind of anthrax and we obtained information that they used these anthrax cigarettes in contaminating their own people.

We led a research programme to see if the different applying methods, if it was viable to do it or was it not viable to do that and for that reason, certain of these things were produced, and I would like to see how much.

MR VALLY: It says five.

MR BASSON: It seems like five cigarettes. I would like to tell you that with five cigarettes, to create world wide chaos with five cigarettes, is a bit difficult unless everybody shared those cigarettes.

What basically happened is that those cigarettes were handed over to our laboratory at Special Forces Headquarters, and they would test it, the life of this anthrax and to see how the anthrax is released through these cigarettes and we determined that it was a very bad method to cause anybody any harm.

I would like to say that it is not possible to contaminate anyone with anthrax in cigarettes.

MR VALLY: So, these five cigarettes, according to you were infected or whichever word you want to use, with anthrax for reasons of testing them, to see if it was a proper delivery mechanism?

MR BASSON: No, not to see if it was a proper delivery mechanism, but to see if the information which we obtained from techniques which were used by the Russians, is correct or not.

MR VALLY: Then why would they take five different packets of cigarettes and put the anthrax spores on the filter of each cigarette?

MR BASSON: Because five packets of cigarettes, I don't know if this is the correct case, I don't remember, but I do remember or if I have to think about it, it would be tested over a period of time. You are going to distribute, the are going to spread the time out, you are going to test each packet over several months and so that experiment would have lasted over months, and that would be the explanation for this.

MR VALLY: I repeat my question, why would it be necessary to put anthrax on the filter of a single cigarette and do it in five different packets, in each of five packets, there is one cigarette who has anthrax spores on it?

MR BASSON: For the simple reason that if you are going to use this in order to try and kill someone, you are surely not going to give one cigarette to the chicken and say, smoke this.

Those cigarettes are going to be put into a packet, it is going to be transported, it is going to be driven round and about, it is going to be lying in the sun, it is going to be in his pocket, so we simulate these situations.

MR VALLY: I see, so you are saying that five individual cigarettes were infected with anthrax and put into five different packets to simulate an exercise?

MR BASSON: Let me correct the facts, I never said five. I said different packets would be infected with this in the experiment. I don't know if it was five, or ten or fifteen, it could have been twenty. I cannot remember.

MR VALLY: But you are aware of it?

MR BASSON: I am aware of this experiment, and I am aware of the threat which was there.

MR VALLY: I need to find out about what else you knew about here.

But now we will come back to the issue of the baboon foetus. Dr Immelman said that you requested a baboon foetus from him. Can you tell us your response to that?

MR BASSON: At various instances during the period of various years, I obtained foetuses from Dr Immelman.

MR VALLY: Are you aware ...

CHAIRPERSON: I think the question is what was maybe for my own curiosity, what was the whole point of ordering baboon foetuses?

MR BASSON: At that stage I was involved in research where we used alpha feto protein in the peptone synthesis. Foetuses are a very important source of alpha feto protein and why I obtained these foetuses was to obtain this specific protein.

And we also had developed certain cultures and I used something of this to develop these specific cultures.

CHAIRPERSON: Just as an aside and whilst Mr Vally prepares the next question, I don't know if you are aware that at one stage at the residence of the Archbishop, Archbishop Tutu a baboon foetus was found hung there, outside his premises. It had nothing to do with Roodeplaat as far as you know? Do you know anything about that?

MR VALLY: Mr Chairman, if I could add to that question, it is the same question Dr Basson.

MR BASSON: Yes, Mr Chairman, I will answer your question.

MR VALLY: I just want to add to that.

CHAIRPERSON: If you could allow Mr Vally.

MR VALLY: It is the same question, this baboon foetus according to this list, was delivered to Koos on the 27th of July 1989 and this baboon foetus which was found in the garden of Bishopscourt here in Cape Town when Archbishop was still Archbishop Tutu, was found in early August, shortly after this.

MR BASSON: Mr Chairman, yes, to answer your question. I am going to answer it in two ways.

One, when I finished with the baboon foetuses, without being insensitive, I threw those in the garbage bin. This happened repeatedly.

I don't know what Mr Vally is insinuating. If he wants to insinuate that this specific foetus came from Roodeplaat with the view of bringing it to Tutu's home, this is an insult to me and Bishop Tutu, to postulate that I could think that something like that would have any influence on Bishop Tutu, except to fill him with contempt and I want to say I deny that I know anything about the baboon foetus in Bishop Tutu's yard. I don't even know where it was found.

What I am trying to say is on a regular basis, I obtained these foetuses and threw them away in the garbage bins at Headquarters.

I want to state clearly that I have no knowledge whatsoever of a foetus whether from an ape or a baboon which would have been provided to use in Tutu's yard. Nobody in the Defence Force which had any insight, would have thought that Bishop Tutu would have been influenced by anything like this, apart from making him more adamant to bring the regime to a fall.

CHAIRPERSON: Dr Randera?

DR ORR: This is perhaps an aside, but as a Doctor I immediately ask myself why the baboon foetuses weren't incinerated if this was a properly controlled laboratory in which foetuses certainly could be potentially infectious material?

MR BASSON: Because the foetus as you know, is a sterile tissue. That is why we use the alpha feto proteins and the tissue from the foetus, because they do not, they are protected unless in the case of very, very remote animal viruses, from human ineffective organisms.

In actual fact this foetus posed no threat, no more threat than the throwing out of a medium rare steak into the garbage bin.

DR ORR: I still find it unusual that this material was not incinerated.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Vally?

MR VALLY: Thank you Mr Chairman. Looking at Dr Immelman's affidavit, can you tell us who the Chris is that he refers to. He says you introduced him to Chris?

MR BASSON: I can't remember that I ever introduced any specific person to Dr Immelman.

MR VALLY: Can you tell us who Koos is?

MR BASSON: The answer to that question is the same. I never introduced these people to him.

MR VALLY: Can you tell us who is Johnny Koertzen?

MR BASSON: Yes, Johnny Koertzen was a member of 7 Medical Battalion.

MR VALLY: The 7th Medical Battalion was a forerunner of ...

MR BASSON: Nothing as far as I know. It is still 7 Battalion.

MR VALLY: I see. And most of the people or a large number of the people involved in the front companies, under Project Coast, were in fact in 7th Medical Battalion before they got involved in Project Coast?

MR BASSON: That is not true.

MR VALLY: Well, let's name them. Dr Mijburgh?

MR BASSON: Dr Mijburgh, as far as I know, was not a member of the 7th Medical Battalion. I think he left before that group was established.

That is as I remember.

MR VALLY: Well, let's talk about the 7th Medical Battalion.

MR CILLIERS: I want to put it on record, as far as Dr Mijburgh's evidence is concerned.

MR VALLY: Well, Special Forces because, let's understand it, there was a Special Forces Unit which had a medical component to it, are you aware of that?

MR BASSON: The Special Forces of the South African Defence Force, had a Medical Unit attached, yes.

MR VALLY: And that Medical Unit became 7th Battalion?

MR BASSON: During the course of time yes, with certain additions, a certain organisation developed, 7th Medical Battalion which took over the medical supporting functions.

MR VALLY: And you were the Commander there?

MR BASSON: Yes, for a period.

MR VALLY: And Dr Mijburgh, he was before 7th Battalion existed, but he was in the Special Forces Unit, the medical component thereof?

MR BASSON: Dr Mijburgh was a member of the Defence Force Headquarters, where he because of his abilities as a Doctor and his operational abilities, provided medical support to various Security Force components.

MR VALLY: If I say a number of medical people who were your front companies, operating under Project Jotta originated or at some stage, were in Special Forces Medical Unit, or in 7th Battalion, would I be wrong?

MR BASSON: How many are there?

MR VALLY: Well, you tell me.

MR BASSON: I think about four.

MR VALLY: At least four? Fine.

MR BASSON: And it should be seen against the background of front organisations where hundreds of people were employed.

MR VALLY: Dr Immelman says that these items on this list, TRC52, were delivered always in a very surreptitious manner to these people, Chris, Koos and Johnny Koertzen, initially instructed by you and thereafter with arrangements made via your secretary. What is your response to that?

MR BASSON: Can Mr Vally just explain to me what he means by surreptitious, I don't know what he is meaning.

MR VALLY: Well, is there anything about Dr Immelman's affidavit which you disagree with?

MR CILLIERS: With respect, that is an unfair question. This is a very long statement and later on you can be criticised because you did not disagree with this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes no, I agree.

MR VALLY: Fine. Let's start with paragraph 13. Have you read paragraph 13?

MR CILLIERS: Mr Chairman, I am sorry, at this stage I hear that the traffic is terrible outside. An explanation is that perhaps it is because of the train strike and consequently the motor traffic is much worse than usual and it is - my position is that I am not available any further, and at this stage, we have come to a point where I have reached that situation.

There is one aspect before I ask you to excuse me. There is one question that Dr Basson did not answer or refused to answer, and that was whether Dr Basson had any scientific founding that certain substances like LSD, mandrax can be used to control crowds. At that stage he had a problem to answer in the light of the situation.

As the questioning developed and that as a single question, I ask you an opportunity to advise ... (tape ends) ... there is not one single aspect which has not been answered regarding the in camera proceedings, and after that, I have to ask you to take my position into consideration.

It is also the position of Mr Du Plessis, Mr Arendse told me he is in an almost similar position, although his flight is ten minutes later, but my position is unfortunately of such a nature, that I can't remain here any longer.

But before that ...

CHAIRPERSON: (No translation)

MR CILLIERS: I beg your pardon?

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't there a strike at the airport?

MR CILLIERS: No, it is only train drivers. It is their turn today. Last week it was people at the airport.

I want to advise Dr Basson and ask him an opportunity to answer that question Mr Vally asked initially.

MR BASSON: Mr Chairperson, the question Mr Vally asked me regarding the scientific founding of the use of these substances as incapacitants, and because you told me you were not technically inclined, I want to tell you want an incapacitator is.

MR VALLY: Mr Chairperson, I see my learned friend is packing up. As long as he is aware that I am going to continue asking questions, within the mandate period as set out in the Act, he is welcome to pack up and leave.

MR CILLIERS: No, I am not packing, I am just putting my things together. I am still listening to what Mr Basson has to say.

MR BASSON: I want to explain to you what an incapacitant is. In a defence or military situation, it is a question of a situation that you have to keep your faculties together, to reach your objective.

It is the same in a civil situation, you have to keep your faculties together to reach your objective. There are a few ways to take your faculties away permanently, take them away, and that is to kill you. You can't defend yourself, you can't think, you can't protect yourself.

And by influencing a person's observational capacity and his perceptions, you can influence a person. You can do that by disturbing the visual picture or also the brain's reaction on that.

To change a person's emotions and you can cause the person not to achieve his objective. That you can do by influencing the brain function so that the person does not recognise the threat or cannot handle this threat, or you can do it by various substances which can cause a lowering of the blood pressure.

The person for example can't stand up straight because his blood pressure has fallen, and if he falls over he can't run away. There are various such ways of incapacitating a person.

The request of the Defence Force regarding incapacitants was to develop these substances which would not leave any permanent damage, and that group of incapacitants which did not cause permanent damage, were those working on the central nervous system and on the brain.

The Defence Force said if we develop incapacitants, we did not have the money to develop a new weapon. I could not develop a new projectile or a new delivery mechanism, we had to use existing delivery mechanisms which the Defence Force had.

One of the existing methods was that certain substances would have to be released. On a Friday evening you can walk around in town, and you would see various people incapacitating themselves by smoking. We have learnt that trick from the local population.

If you want to incapacitate people easily and without any costs, it should be something which would be absorbed through the lungs. Every one of those things which Mr Vally mentioned, were things which could be inhaled through the nose or through the lungs.

That would cause reversible effect on a person. That would be an objective to incapacitate a person just temporarily.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cilliers, I have heard you and you wanted to be excused. The only difficulty is that your client has expressed an apprehension that if he does not have you as a representative, he is in a problem, which is why we postponed the matter till today.

Now, I am not sufficiently informed as to whether you have another professional engagement tonight still, because that should be the consideration that should weigh heavily with us. It is not unknown that proceedings do continue and that we have to sit late if need be and I cannot see a more compelling case than the present one.

MR CILLIERS: I can explain my position. I have explained to you what my problem was in the first place, that initially it was told to me that I should not be available for Friday. This position changed yesterday and with a great demand or with great problems for especially to clients, it is not necessary to mention their names now and because of my non-availability to day, I would have arranged that I would make preparations tonight. I am seeing these clients tomorrow morning to enable us to finalise a submission.

The deadline actually was today. We will file that now on Monday. I have to do the preparation tonight, and tomorrow the consultation and the finalisation. That is my position.

This is applicable to me and my client and my lawyer, Mr Van Zyl also. Last night at half past ten I started consulting with my client and because at that stage, we only arrived in Cape Town we worked to round about two o'clock this morning. Eight o'clock we were here this morning, I had three, four hours of sleep last night, and the same applies to my client. We have been here since eight o'clock this morning. It is already five o'clock, and at this stage I am in a physical situation that I am tired, too tired to go on.

The same applies to my client. My client feels and he maintains that he prefers and that he has received advice that he need not answer questions if I am not available.

That is unfortunately the situation. I am repeating what we have said and as Mr Vally has said, what is still outstanding, it seems to me he has already covered all aspects. I will give an undertaking and you can make such an order, that if any other aspects he requires information about, I will provide it in a written form. I could supply it by next Friday. That is if he provides the questions on Monday, that is to accommodate you.

CHAIRPERSON: Can I just hear you Mr Vally in the light of this?

MR VALLY: Mr Chairman, over the last three days we have had a song and dance regarding legal representation of Dr Wouter Basson.

We made it very clear on the day that we had Dr Wouter Basson here, represented by Mr Van Niekerk, we assumed that Mr Van Niekerk faithfully conveyed to Mr Malan what transpired on Wednesday, that we were opposed to any postponement, but should it be granted, we would need at least two days, and we referred to Thursday and Friday. That was made explicitly clear on Wednesday.

There was no talk that Friday would not be necessary. That is the first issue. We have always made it clear we need at least two days.

The second issue is we were told according to the strange instructions that Mr Van Niekerk received, that they had atte